Friday, November 19, 2010

When Did Old White Guys Become Jokes?

White professional women like Julie Klausner (and her audience) are not the only ones with a disdain for beta male White guys. Other beta male White guys have internalized the idea that being White (and also, old) is to be laughed at. An object for derision. Fresh off his observation of Hillary's balls (yes, really), James Carville and Stuart Greenberg muse that Mitt Romney is a joke, because he's an old White guy (like McCain) and therefore an object of derision?

Now, recall that Democratic Senatorial Candidate in South Carolina, one Alvin Greene, was not laughed at in the media for being a stupid Black guy. No, that was never in the cards. James Carville never laughed at Alvin Greene. But Mitt Romney, ex-Bain Capital, one very rich, powerful, and smart White guy, is an object of derision. For being an Old White guy. Look at the video. Other old White guys themselves laugh at him.

Old White guys who would by that standard be no longer part of any credible attempt to be President would include George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Andrew Jackson, John Adams, and Ronald Reagan. Some of the most important, and for Democrats like Carville, idolized Presidents.

The entire press briefing was filled with middle aged and older White guys. No people of color, or hip young women present. Yet is remarkable that all those White guys laughed at the idea, the very thought, that a White guy older than they were could be President again. That Barack Obama broke the chain of history and now ushered in a new hip, young, and non-White requirement for future Presidents.

They cannot be old. And they cannot be White Men.

Again, I want to point out how remarkable this new standard is. How different it is from American history, and how it plays out against a White majority, even in Democratic politics. All the men laughing were White. Most of them middle aged or older.

The number of hip young non-White men and women, who have a brain in their head and the character to lead (without punishing reflexively ordinary Whites to retain approval from their communities) can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. While it is wise to nominate in lesser races, whoever is the most youthful and handsome MEN, because the feminized media and key, White female voters are influenced by youth, vigor, and looks in male candidates, and no one hates conservative women quite like … female White professional women voters, this hits a snag when considering the Presidential races.

Yes, perhaps Republicans would be wise to nominate Bobby Jindal or better yet Marco Rubio, and be done with it. Barack Obama, unless facing a very handsome and youthful, and vigorous man such as Rubio, or Scott Brown, will win because he will take a great deal of the White female vote and almost all of the non-White vote. Like it or not, this is how White women vote. And with Whites only 65% of the population, achieving White bloc voting (as the way Blacks and Mexicans vote) is key to booting out Obama.

But winning the nomination requires construction of a powerful political machine. It requires raising money (or your own fortune), ground operatives in key states, ability to get endorsements through horse-trading, and powerful allies or key voting blocs in the early primaries. For Obama that was Blacks, and SWPL caucus voters. For McCain, that was military voters, and social conservatives wary of Huckabee and Romney. Even able politicians like Mayor Guiliani and Fred Thompson were no match. Not even wealthy Romney could buy victory, or Hillary for that matter, or even Edwards, himself a wealthy man.

In this case, because America cannot afford Barack Obama as President for another four years, Republican voters must educate themselves on Demographic Reality and how White women vote. Which is basically a variation of the old Saturday Night Live Skit: "Who Es More Muy Macho?" It is sad but true.

But this brings up the other question. When did White and Old become an insult? An identity prone to derision, in the media and political world?

In my view, this is a function of a feminized West. One shaped by the need to appeal to female consumers and voters, as the key or swing voters who give victory to candidates or domination for consumer products sold in the marketplace. White women don't like old White guys very much (nor younger beta ones either). They view indeed Whiteness itself as a mortal sin, one that should be punished (they themselves are of course, honorary non-White by virtue of being female). It is not uncommon for liberal White women to prefer say, Mexican or Black candidates be hired as teachers over their own sons, on the basis that those communities deserve to be hired more than their own flesh and blood, aspiring teachers. I know of at least one such case personally. You can see this attitude all the time in the columns of Maureen Dowd, herself White and from a large Irish-American family. I can recall riding in one elevator, on the Westside of LA, with a Black woman dressed fairly ridiculously, in some faux-leopard print African dress and headrap (for Kwanzaa). Akin to myself wearing a kilt on St. Patrick's Day. A White woman in her fifties got on the elevator and gushed over how awesome the woman's idiot outfit was, in a way that made me embarrassed for her. It was indeed pathetic.

All those commercials on TV, featuring Black actors and actresses, in nuclear families doing middle class things, are not designed to reach middle class Black families. Blacks are under current estimations, 12.9% of the population. Middle class Blacks are 40% of that number, or approximately 5.12% of America. Lowe's, Home Depot, Hometown Buffet, Toyota, and the rest are not trying to reach that 5.12% of America. They are instead reaching for White women, who mostly hold that non-Whites are "authentic" and more "real" and have more value than Whites. Indeed when most White women contemplate White guys, they get as depressed as Julie Klausner.

White guys in the workplace are mostly denatured, demasculinized jokes. At best they are "Jim" from the Office, not the arrogant, obnoxious jerks most women crave. To get ahead in the real workplace, White guys cannot act the way women like them acting. They cannot be arrogant, rude, obnoxious, and dominating, except for a few at the very top, or those who rose to power from entrepreneurship, such as Larry Ellison of Oracle or Steve Jobs of Apple. This is particularly true since American culture had a decades long effort to "PC the racism out of White guys" which punished quickly from childhood onward any display of masculine aggressiveness by Whites and ignored it completely from non-Whites.

The White guys who fought in WWII, Korea, and even Vietnam, in very miserable conditions, enduring what could not but must be endured, in an environment that would have broken most other men, did not suddenly have genetic defects to create effeminate emo kids. It was instead, widespread social conditioning looking to eradicate racism (and seeing it only among ordinary White guys) by eliminating all masculine behavior. Thus over time, as White guys in each succeeding generation became more demasculinized, from the Boomers to Gen X to Gen Y to Millenials, their peer White women found them … effeminate. And "Whiteness" became an insult or a punch line.

Old is no longer a repository of wisdom and strength, of experience. No, it is now a joke about lack of sexual vigor and dominance. So FDR, Reagan, Churchill, and the like are out, and Justin Bieber, effeminate but young, is in. White guy is now an insult as well, with the assumption that only a non-White guy can be truly masculine. [Witness Michael Moore regretting that Flight 93 was not filled with Black guys, who would have by their masculine dominance deterred the jihadis.] Only a non-White guy can understand the world. White guys are idiots, while Black guys are smooth computer geniuses (Terminator 2 comes to mind) or at least middle class and authoritative.

Or, White guys are fat and feminized idiots dominated by their hot, hip and happening wives:

Bear in mind, these commercials are carefully constructed to appeal to White women, and upscale ones too. Hence the positioning on social value, denigration of nerdy White guys, as idiot doofuses, and the "colorful" White female character of "Flo." Instead of a straight out push "we are cheaper than anyone else" which is only part of the message. Instead it is "we are so hip you won't care we are cheap."

Compare Geico's masculine approach (target: White guys):

Here the old White guy is not the joke. He's the guy the target audience (White guys) is supposed to laugh with, not at.

Culture is determined, bit by bit, by what is allowed and not allowed. Much of it is created by TV, and particularly, commercials, whose logic most people absorb without thinking too much about it.

I would argue that Carville laughing at Romney for being an old White guy, and thus, "loser" came about in the early 1990's when commercials first started showing the idiot White guy and his long-suffering wife and/or Black guy co-worker. In other words, when commercials like this began appearing:

Now bear in mind, the commercial is designed to appeal to … yes, women. Who make up most of the TV audience. But these attitudes also shape that of White guys who are professional, work in the media, itself aimed at women, and shape political coverage.

This is why I write about TV so much. Obama is President, and probably odds on favorite to be re-elected, because a great many older White guys in media, and their female audience, believes that Old White Guy, or even just White Guy, is a joke. A dancing idiot with numbers, a guy who cannot order Dell ink, a fat guy carrying a man purse. And can you blame them? This is what our culture has become, a few White guy winners allowed to be masculine (Charlie Sheen, George Clooney, Gavin Newsome, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton) in the worst not best way, the rest effectively neutered lest they become drooling, cross burning "racists." All pandering to the worst instincts of White women (hypergamy) not their best.

This is a disaster that must be fought, inch by inch. Not the least of which is that the quality and ability of political leadership will be mighty thin if Whites are essentially excluded from the Presidency.


Sgt. Joe Friday said...

"Yes, perhaps Republicans would be wise to nominate Bobby Jindal or better yet Marco Rubio, and be done with it."

Jindal won't cut it. He hasn't got the magnetism that a credible presidential candidate needs. Rubio is already all-but-being-annointed as the 2012 GOP VP nominee, and this is before he's served even a day in the Senate. On top of that, Rubio, whatever his bona fides on fiscal issues, has made some troubling comments on immigration (not that I'm surprised, he's Cuban). But he's telegenic and undoubtedly makes women's panties moist, which is apparently the most important quality a male politician can have these days. Even Scott Brown is approaching the end of his "shelf life" - he's 50 or 51, which means he's got at most 5 years before he's seen as "an old white guy."

A country run by women and NAMs for women and NAMs is likely to be a pretty dysfunctional place. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime we see a sort of reverse Jim Crow scenario pop up, i.e. a combination of laws and informal customs designed to keep a troublesome minority in its place except this time that troublesome minority will be English speaking white males.

knightblaster said...

I agree that Jindal doesn't have the gravitas. Rubio certainly has a bright future, the question is whether '12 is too soon. Too many Republicans are assuming Obama is on the ropes for '12 already, which is dumb. Obama is a very good campaigner and the Republicans will have to run someone attractive opposite him in order to win. It's very unclear who that would be, really. Romney is too slick and considered to be a flip-flopper and untrustowrthy. Huckabee is too Theocratic. Christie is too fat. Brown is probably too old, and really too much of a lightweight for national office. There are a few darkhorses, too, like Pawlenty or Thune or someone like that, really, who could get the nod on a ticket with the heartthrob, Rubio. Keep in mind that Palin will make the GOP race messy (yep, she'll be running in the primaries).

The other wildcard is what the Dems do. A lot of leftie dems are calling for a nomination fight in '12 akin to what happened in '80. They aren't very happy with O, to say the very least. And many of the loudest voices are the women over 40 who were Hillary supporters. If the dems have a nomination fight, that could seriously undermine the older female support for him -- not that these women would vote GOP, but they'd be less likely to vote at all than they were in '08, where the grit their teeth in anger but voted for Obama anyway. Less likely that this happens in '12 due to how effectively Obama and his team have pissed off their own left wing.

Clearly, the Republicans need to groom more very good looking male candidates in order to win elections. But the same applies to the democrats, really. When they nominate white liberal older men from the North, they tend to get hammered, too (see: Kerry). The difference is that the democrats have the option of running liberal women (gets much of the women's vote at the expense of losing quite a few male votes if the woman is too "shrill"), whereas conservative women are, in national races at least, going to have a very hard time because women really dislike them.

Paul said...

I'm an old White guy and I say a pox on our detractors !! Old White guys have done a l whole lot for our country and our world. We've done some bad things too I admit, but I think that the good predominates.

Silver Surfer said...

Whiskey, off topic but:

What do you predict will happen when the industries that provide financial independence for East and West Coast urban women, fields such as publishing, pr, media, fashion etc., inevitably collapse?

Will Mandy and Jessica turn to Beta Providers, or will they join some huge financial service's cubicle farm, deciding that being a corporate wage slave doesn't contradict their SWPL lifestyle after all?

SATC has a lot to answer for.

Zeta said...

What do you guys think of Whiskey's date of the early 90s being a turning point in the all-out cultural assault on (white) masculinity? To be honest, I was too young to notice it then and so cannot judge. However, from my own research and observations in the present, I thought to myself "anything before 1985 or so would not be a plausible answer" (1985 being, among other things, about a full generation after the mainstreaming of feminism). So Whiskey saying early 90s doesn't strike me as wide of the mark. It has really gone into overdrive in the last ten years or so; what's the last show that had Married with Children levels of political incorrectness? Even modern "masculine" shows like Burn Notice are now required to have a female love interest, edgy urban characters, and so on. There are simply no more "buddy shows", like A-Team, and that's hardly the least of it.

Something I wonder about... although it's an effective tactic, and the stated reasons for doing so are on target, isn't selecting a Marco Rubio just strengthening the anti-white guy meme? In other words, we're essentially caving in to a world that despises white guys, even if it's an effective method to electoral success. Isn't there another way, one that has electoral success and maintains the dignity of white guys? Nominating the Rubios of the world is essentially a reactive step, and that has really been the problem with modern conservatism; it is always fighting the left on its terms, dealing with the chaos it has wrought in the culture, instead of forging its own path.

Nine-of-Diamonds said...

"What do you predict will happen when the industries that provide financial independence for East and West Coast urban women, fields such as publishing, pr, media, fashion etc., inevitably collapse?"

Simple. More government employment, like in France and the UK. Corporatism & fascism; huge bureaucratic empires with Leftist women and non-Asian minorities doing makework jobs. No government cookies for White Male Construction Workers (thanks Robert Reich[smarschall]!) The state as a surrogate husband and father. A small elite of "paper alphas" (politicians, industrialists) and thugs sharing de facto "harems" as it becomes virtually impossible for the average man to form a nuclear family & stay financially afloat. For a while female unemployment will stay low; if it increases, they will leech off of the paper alphas as mistresses/girlfriends.

Illegal immigration WILL continue unabated; the next Republican administration will do nothing to stop it. After being granted amnesty, this demographic will join forces with White females against more conservative demographics. More "fairness" initiatives and affirmative action programs will put even greater stress on the economy, as it becomes impossible to fire minorities and women. The solution to the problem, of course, will be more statism - never mind that Socialist policies only work [temporarily] in racially homogenous nations. After the collapse comes, it's anyone's guess. Perhaps a resurgence of truly oppressive patriarchy due to the influence of alien cultures. See, for instance, Mexico, which is anti-"gringo" and violently misogynist at the same time. Tomas and Ricardo have no problem killing females of their own race wholesale - witness the hundreds of female murders in and around Ciudad Juarez. If they'll treat females of "la raza" this way, what makes you think they'll respect Mandy and Jessica once they cross the border?

And before anyone dismisses this - no, I do not think that all of this will necessarily occur, and of course current trends may not proceed in linear fashion. However, the general idea (greater stress on the nuclear family and more government dependence) is quite likely to hold true.

Nine-of-Diamonds said...

"I would not be surprised if within my lifetime we see a sort of reverse Jim Crow scenario pop up, i.e. a combination of laws and informal customs designed to keep a troublesome minority in its place except this time that troublesome minority will be English speaking white males."

This already exists. You should take a look at the recent study of Ivy League college admissions; it was found that not only were white [males] who participated in certain activities (ROTC, 4H, Scouting) less likely to gain admission - the admissions committees ACTIVELY DISCRIMINATED against them. In other words, whiteness and participation in politically incorrect extracurriculars was inversely correlated with admissions - all else being equal. Based on your handle, you are precisely the type of person who needs to be kept out of the ivies. Of course, nary a peep from the Feds, who continue to provide these institutions with taxpayer funds.

Also note that your Attorney General has declared that hate crimes laws WILL NOT apply to all Americans. Forget about the New Black Panther Party case and the ambiguities surrounding it - this is a clear cut, unambiguous gov't declaration that equal protection does not exist:

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

N-O-D: You are correct to a point about my observation, but we're not all in, i.e. as far as I know there are no statutes anywhere that give overt sanction to discrimination against white males. These things usually are couched in terms of inclusion, e.g. "minorities and women encouraged to apply" and that sort of thing. Everyone over a certain age knows that means "white males need not apply."

I can very easily picture a world not that many years from now in my own state (California) where white males could be legally kept out of certain professions (e.g. teaching) through a combination of job requirements meant to advantage women and minorities, union chicanery, hiring quotas, and perhaps even a cap on the number of white males that would be allowed on any given campus.

BTW, the tipping point as far as old white guys being the butt of the jokes may not have been reached until the 1990s, but the cracks in the wall started to appear much sooner than that. Ralph Cramden comes to mind, as well as his cartoon counterpart Fred Flintstone. Don Knotts was a bumbling beta almost 50 years ago. Archie Bunker? Clearly an object of derision and ridicule.

Whiskey said...

My guess is Urban White women will join the cubicle farms as SWPL. Be Pam in the Office I guess.

I am more pessimistic than Nine of Diamonds on expansion of the State. There just isn't any more money. The total State bailout costs (unfunded liabilities including pension payments mandated by contract, etc.) amounts to something like $500 billion. Add counties and cities and it is about another $500 billion -- this year.

California could not float its $20 billion of "revenue anticipation bonds" that are short-term and hence less risky -- investor appetite was too tepid at the price/yield point California offered so it had to be pulled. Meanwhile the state has a two year budget deficit of $26 billion. And all this is without ObamaCare which will pour on about another $15 billion per year in costs for California alone.

There just isn't any money any more.

Whiskey said...

As for the cultural tipping point, I do agree that buffoonish guys were around for a long time, including the 80's with Cosby. Archie Bunker was supposed to be the joke but to Norman Lear and Carroll O'Connor's horror, audiences embraced him against "Meathead" Rob Reiner. And you still had shows like the A-Team and Miami Vice in the 1980's. Along with Married With Children where the kids and wife were the joke, not the father/husband.

Part of it was smug yuppie-dom, ala Seinfeld and particularly, Friends. But it was around that time that commercials seemed to get really, really overt.

Agreed with Rubio conceding the issue. But Obama is so bad, it is probably worth that concession for now. Obviously the culture must be taken back, but that is a slow, grinding process of attrition.

Anonymous said...

White men are joke because they are not masculine.

1. Every school shooting or terroist attack consists of mostly white victims because white men are wimpy and cannot protect themselves like black men can.

2. Black men are overrepresnted in the military. White men are underrepresnted.

3. Black men dominate sports.

4. Black men have larger genitals.

5. Black men have better bodies and are more muscular.

6. Black men perpetrate badass crimes (murder, theft, rape) White men commit pussy crimes (molestation, fraud)

Nine-of-Diamonds said...

Total nonsense, just like Michael Moore's fantasies about what black men would have done on Flight 93.

-Blacks are UNDERREPRESENTED in military units that engage in combat, and overrepresented in safe support roles. They are almost nonexistent in elite units, such as Rangers and the Seals - to the point where the Seals are now about to initiate their own "Affirmative Action" recruitment drive. God help us.

-Blacks are still overrepresented amongst the ranks of serial killers (about 22% of serial killers despite being far less than 20% of the population), even though our racist media over emphasizes white serial killers.

-Blacks are also more likely than whites to commit white collar crime (embezzlement, fraud, &c).

And that's just what I could come up with off the top of my head. To people who have open minds, I strongly recommend "The Color of Crime" for eye-opening info. Tons of scary "hate facts" to get progressive knickers in a twist.

Anonymous said...

"I would not be surprised if within my lifetime we see a sort of reverse Jim Crow scenario pop up, i.e. a combination of laws and informal customs designed to keep a troublesome minority in its place except this time that troublesome minority will be English speaking white males."

As was already pointed out above, THE FUTURE IS NOW!

Anyway came here to show you this commercial, which fits in perfectly with the post:

Anonymous said...

"4. Black men have larger genitals."

Patently false.

The latest scientific data shows that size of genitalia by race is this, 1 representing largest,2 less large, and so forth:

1.Non-Caucasian Hispanics
2.Non-hispanic Caucasians

Those are the three top contenders.

Whites have larger genitalia than blacks. The reason why people think it's the reverse is probably because of porn. Due to the nature of the porn that blacks are most often featured in "Jungle Love","Cuck Porn",etc., ONLY the blacks with the LARGEST genitalia are selected.

"5. Black men have better bodies and are more muscular."

Depends on how you define "better".

Blacks are certainly taller, on average, but not necessarily "more muscular", by any stretch of the imagination.

If you're a female, and I suspect you may be, you probably put a high premium on tallness, causing you to subjectively rate black men's bodies as "better".

However, for what they are designed to do, white men's bodies are "better" than those of blacks. Whites are designed to function well in areas with little sunlight, and we do this infinitely better than most blacks.

You will notice a serious scarcity of non-asians and non-caucasians in arctic or sub-arctic areas. The reason for this is that blacks' bodies are not designed for it. Their tall bodies diffuse heat more quickly,making them subject to frostbite and their skin cannot absorb the vitamin d from the sunlight like we can,because the melanin in their skin blocks it out.

Whites have evolved over a long period to do one thing, survive in harsh frozen climates,and we do it well,surpassed only by the aboriginal Tlingit,or "Eskimo" people.

"6. Black men perpetrate badass crimes (murder, theft, rape) White men commit pussy crimes (molestation, fraud)"

Again, not true. As Chris Rock,et al, have pointed out.

Did you know that a certain segment of white people are immune to a disease, called "Kuru" by Africans, that can only be acquired by eating another human being's brains?

Scientists believe this is due to a lot of white cannibalism over a long period.

If you can find a crime MORE badass than cannibalism,I will laud you copiously.

Nine-of-Diamonds said...

And another thing - it's pretty amazing that blacks still manage to be overrepresented as serial killers, all things considered. Several HBD commenters have theorized that the disparity between percentage of blacks as violent offenders (around 50%) and %age of blacks as serial killers (low 20's) is due to their lower median IQ. Time after time you see them do some pretty senseless things (rape people in front of security cameras, use murder victims' credit cards, brag to friends about killings). As a general rule, white offenders seem to be more careful. Gary Leon Ridgeway, despite being described as sub-100 IQ, was smart enough to contaminate the graves he dug with other people's garbage. It would be interesting to know what median IQ for black violent offenders is - especially since that for criminals of all races must be well below 100.

Anonymous said...

The latest scientific data shows that size of genitalia by race is this, 1 representing largest,2 less large, and so forth:

1.Non-Caucasian Hispanics

Nice try, Luis, but I fear Hispanics come in a bit below Whites and Blacks on a proper list. Good effort otherwise. Just a couple thinks...

Blacks are certainly taller, on average,\

Than Hispanics sure, not than Whites.

If you're a female, and I suspect you may be,

Latent male homosexual IMO.

Xamuel said...

With the terrible treatment old white guys get in most commercials you linked, one nice counterexample is the Six Flags mascot. Somehow Six Flags took the oldest, whitest stereotype they could find and turned him into a successful mascot for an amusement park full of roller coasters. Interesting, Six Flags is a company which actually produces very real value, adding real fun to peoples' lives, whereas (say) Progressive Auto Insurance is a usurous middleman leech sucking the life from society.

Anonymous said...

Black is beautiful
And tan is grand,
But White's still the color of the big boss man.

Anonymous said...

Capri Anderson Describes Infamous Night With Charlie Sheen |

Adult film star Capri Anderson was with Charlie Sheen the night of his breakdown in a New York City hotel room, and now she's telling her story.

In an interview with both 'Good Morning America' and ABC's 'Nightline,' Anderson recalls what happened. "He was, from the beginning of the night, very loud and he had no hesitations when it came to using derogatory language or cuss words," she said of Charlie.

"Towards the latter half of the night, it got really bad. He started yelling racial slurs," she continued. "But it wasn't until he put his hands around my neck that I really thought to myself, you have gotten yourself in a bad, bad situation."

"I'm not going to stand down and be completely walked over, mistreated. My whole life has been changed," she adds of the incident.

She condemns Sheen for his alleged actions. "I think that this story and this treatment sends a message in itself and this is clearly something that's not right. It's not right to hurt people. It's not right to scare people. It's not right to carry on with such disregard for the people around you."


*Wow, psychopath Sheen even yelled 'racial' slurs at the slut!

Anonymous said...

The Big List: Female teachers with students
-Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus

Anonymous said...

White men are joke because they are not masculine.

Looks like "Andrei" - aka "Andrea Freiboden', 'JawboneCritic', 'Andrea Nyx Hemera', 'Andrea Ostrov Letania', 'Andrea Freeland', 'Middletown Girl', 'Theya' and 'asfsdsdas" (and a host of other bogus monikers) is back, now posting as 'anonymous' after getting banned over at ALtRight.

This obsessed gay troll simply cannot stop attacking White men and homo-lusting after black ones.

Zeta said...

I'm not sure about the allegations against Sheen (in the literal sense: haven't investigated them). There's even reason to believe the infamous "put some ice on it" statement from Clinton may be fabricated. However, what is ultimately important is that these allegations are believed by women - and these men are still lusted after, even with these allegations being treated as fact. They remain employed, well-paid and generally, respected. Meanwhile, beta guys are chided by the likes of the Klausers of the world for their "misogyny" (read: "you're icky and I'm going to engage in some psychological projection") and subject to summary firing, "sexual harassment" charges, and other persecution for being too low on the totem pole.

Ah, women...

Whiskey said...

Zeta, in confirmation of your thesis, Two and Half Men has garnered the highest ratings in years (its audience is almost exclusively female) and Sheen gets paid 2.2 million per episode. That is 48.4 million per season.

The show itself revolves around women laughing that the loser beta male brother and lusting to "change" the Alpha.

As for the feeling of Britons being a minority in their own country, this is largely a female driven attitude. Most White women find most White men icky and "beta." This is a recent development spun by a multicultural and sexually integrated workplace where only White male masculine behavior is punished (with exceptions for a few big shot Alphas).

One of the features of the Dot-Com boom was how many were suckered into the dream. I.E. not working in a corporate cubicle with the restrictions on male expression and PC police. It was not always about the money as much as freedom (which of course money gives).

Anti-White sentiment is really anti-ordinary White guy sentiment. No women wants to get rid of Robert Pattinson or Tom Brady, getting rid of Joe in the cube next to her well maybe. And its recent, IMHO driven by broad social trends particularly consumerism and the ability in an anonymous urban environment to have an Alpha male. Most ordinary women are convinced that if they just get rid of (by ethnic cleansing) ordinary beta White guys they have a chance at the Alpha.

You can see variations of this in Iran, Algeria, Tunisia, and Singapore, very non-Western and non-feminist nations but subject to the same social pulls of anonymous urban living.

no mo uro said...

"It was instead, widespread social conditioning looking to eradicate racism (and seeing it only among ordinary White guys) by eliminating all masculine behavior."

I'm pleased that after a lot of years of denial, you at least give a hat tip to the role of the Gramscian termite in all our woes, Whiskey. Better late than never.

Terrific post, Whiskey. For years I've been trying to tell conservatives that winning the war ideas and having superior memes is not enough. In this early part of the human species learning to deal with strongly compelling visual media (really only five generations so far) you MUST have candidates with charisma and tremendous communication skills. Perhaps in anouther twenty or fifty generations this will not be necessary, and people will have evolved neural pathways that do not allow being duped by movies or television or the 'net. But that is likely centuries off.

Matra said...

This one's for you Whiskey:

IMF plan to cut women's income tax rate by five percentage points could raise Ireland's GDP as well as tackle inequality

PA said...

Some thoughts:

- various commenters, please stop writing "white males." It's white MEN.

- Don't buy the hype. Old white men rock. Look up some Waylon Jennings videos. Or this vid.

- Here is another old white man.

- here's one in the very twilight of his life.

- "Two and a Half Men" was very good, until feminist writers turned Charlie into a loser n the later seasons. His relationship with ballbuster cougar Chelsea was the shark jumper.

- Early 90s is when anti-alpha coup happened. The Tailhook incident, and forcing The Citadel to admit a female cadet were the watershed moments.

- Cristie being fat is not as much a liability as you may think. I know very little about him, but he seems the most credible and dynamic contender so far.

- I agree with the commenter who wrote that non-white conservatives are a loser's game. Two words: Michael Steele. Two more: Colin Powell.

Philip said...

- I agree with the commenter who wrote that non-white conservatives are a loser's game. Two words: Michael Steele. Two more: Colin Powell.


Yes, it certainly is, at least if it is the faux-neo-CONservative variety.

Here is an article from American Renaissance explaining exactly why -

Anonymous said...

Some mis-guided person wrote
"Black men dominate sports.

Black men have better bodies and are more muscular."

If you look at “Strong man” competitions, the winners are typically white men of mostly Northern European (includes Eastern Europeans) ancestry.'s_Strongest_Man

The top weight lifters, wrestlers, fencers, race car drivers and fighter pilots are mostly white. White people are the most generalised specialised human population. East Asians and blacks are super specialised in only some physical traits. East Asians have the fastest reaction time due to which they dominate sports like table tennis and badminton. The reaction time is slowest in blacks. Thus, in sports such as table tennis, blacks do not stand a chance to compete with East Asians. The only people who come close to challenging East Asians are Whites. Similarly West African descendant people are fast and dominate sports like sprinting, but are pathetic in endurance events which is dominated by Horn Africans and Eastern Africans. But East Africans and Horn Africans are pathetic in sports like sprint needing extreme speeds for short durations. But of all the races it is whites are second to only West African descended blacks in sprinting, second to only East Africans/ Horn Africans when it comes to endurance events. East Asians do not stand a chance to compete with Africans in both sprinting like sports or endurance like sports. Swimming for example is dominated by Whites and the only population with a realistic chance of challenging Whites are East Asians not blacks. Whites are also taking over all the major boxing titles from blacks, a fact the media tried to hide under the carpet.
Extremely mixed or generalised races (in a belt from the middle East via South Asia to South East Asia for example) are pathetic in Olympics like sports. India with a billion plus population hardly wins more than two medals in an Olympics.
In the 2004 Summer Olympic, of the 929 medals awarded, approximately 70 percent, or 650, were won by White athletes. East Asian athletes won 154 medals, or 16.6 percent, while blacks athletes won 89 medals, or just 9.6 percent of the total. The rest were won by athletes from other groups.
In the 2006 Winter Olympics, of the 252 medals awarded, 228, or almost 91 percent, were won by White athletes. East Asian athletes won just over 9 percent of the medals, with 23 total, and only one medal was won by a black. Of course one could ignore the Winter Olympics as blacks are not built for the cold climate. But if you believe that blacks or people from the tropics hardly win medals in winter sports because they do not participate, you are wrong. Check out the participating nations in the recent Winter Olympics held in Canada where nations such as Ghana, Jamaica and India have participated.
There are many sports that require no special equipment or expenses, but blacks just don’t have the build to emerge as top champions in these sports, e.g., cycling, bench pressing, karate, etc. The denser bones of blacks means that they cannot dominate swimming. The shorter, less powerful trunks of blacks means that they cannot dominate wrestling or bench pressing. The strength-agility-reaction time combination in blacks is such that they cannot dominate martial arts. The leg proportions of blacks, with relatively longer lower legs, means that they will not be dominating cycling. And so on; no amount of training, nutrition or good facilities is going to change this.
Blacks dominate only a few sports, and it is clear that Whites are overall the best athletes. The media also spreads misinformation about North East Asians being physically inferior. But they dominate all other Asians in sports with ease.

Anonymous said...

As far as blacks being better soldiers, the incidents below will show why blacks over all make pathetic soldiers.
Remember the 24th Infantry Regiment made up of blacks during the Korean Conflict. When the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army attacked their position, most members of this ‘courageous’ Black regiment either hid or dropped their weapons and ran screaming from the battle field. Although, to be fair, a few of them stood their ground - and were killed. Reports of this incident spread through the entire military, all the way to Washington, and gave rise to the opinion that “Blacks won’t or can’t fight.” A poem throughout the U.S. Army stated: "When them Chinese mortars begins to thud, the Old Deuce-Four begin to bug."
In the panicky first days of the Korean War, when US and South Korean forces were driven back to the Pusan Perimeter, entire platoons and companies of the 24th evaporated from their foxholes and had to be rounded up at Regimental or Division Headquarters. The Army's official history of the Korean War, published in 1961, describes the 24th's soldiers as often "frightened and demoralized" and says they had a tendency to panic and needed two officers per platoon where other units needed only one: "One must command and the other must drive." Conventional wisdom said black soldiers were lazy, afraid of the dark, couldn't take care of their weapons, wouldn't dig foxholes, didn't trust each other and thus would not stand and fight. The 24th Regiment finally was disbanded on Oct. 1, 1951. The 8th Army high command and the Pentagon had come to agree with the commander of the 25th Division, Maj. Gen. William B. Kean, who said that in just 90 days in Korea the 24th had proved it was unreliable in combat and a hindrance to the division. (One says: That display of cowardice by Black troops in Korea pointed out above by one of our readers… I knew a man who was there… and heard his stories about that incident. How officers actually pulled their side-arms trying to stop the Black deserters!)

Anonymous said...

And also this incident below

Mythological claims about the accomplishments of the all black Tuskegee Airmen were recently exposed all fabrications when historians actually researched the claims for a high profile award ceremony last year.
The re-writing of history to suit race hustlers.
by Kyle Rogers
The push is on to create fictional black WWII heroes. “Spike” Lee, a race hustling movie director who’s fame is based mainly on the fact that he is black, attacked Clint Eastwood for not putting fictitious black heroes in his WWII movies.
However, Lee’s true motive is to promote his own Afro-Mythology film on WWII. Spike Lee has directed a movie titled, “Miracle at St Anna” which portrays fictional accomplishments of the all black 92nd Buffalo Division in Italy. Spike Lee is playing the race card to shamelessly promote his new movie. reported in the past about how mythological accomplishments of the all-black Tuskegee Airmen were exposed as total fabrications.
Cultural Marxists and race hustlers are now claiming that the all black Units of the 92nd Buffalo Division saved the day in Italy during WWII.
In reality, the all black units were only sent into combat late in the war to fight the severely diminished German Army in Northern Italy. They were only used to attack enemy positions after white soldiers had battered the Germans down for months. They were not even deployed overseas until the end of September in 1944, three and a half months after D-Day. They primarily served by participating in patrols along with segregated units from British and French colonies in Africa.
The Division was used twice against the last line of German defenses in Northern Italy late in the war. The so-called Gothic Line. The use of the black troops was supposed to have been a propaganda move to make the black soldiers look good. By this time the Germans were down to poorly outfitted draftees, and their defenses were wearing down fast. Both times the black units fled in disarray and suffered huge disproportionate casualties by the rag-tag remnant of the German army.