skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A reader comments:
To channel Whiskey, this whole election is one gigantic "sh*t test" that the GOP is failing. The GOP needs to demonstrate that they have a spine, and they are failing badly.
Talking heads: GOP, here's what you need to do to win our hearts! You need to declare an amnesty. You need to embrace gay marriage. You need to become the party of abortions for all and sundry. But most important of all, you must embrace the idea that you have inherited the original sin of racism due to your white skin, and constantly self-flagellate yourself according to the tenets of PC to achieve true redemption.
Only THEN will we go out with you. Will you do that for us? (Bats doe eyes at GOP.)
GOP: Aww shucks, really? Is that all you want? Ok then!
GOP then goes out and changes whole platform, salivating at the thought that all of these votes could be his!
GOP (to himself): This time, I'll win for sure! I've done everything they asked me to do! I'm looking forward to the American public finally going out with me!
Another four years roll by.
American public: Sorry GOP, I'm sorry we didn't vote for you. It's just that we needed a REAL LEADER, and, look, I know you are a really nice guy and all...
GOP: (tears well in eyes)
American public: Oh, I'm so sorry GOP! We can still be friends though! Give me your number, I'll call you up some day and we can hang out. What's your number?
GOP: um, 555-2382. You mean you'll really call me?
American Public: 555-BETA? Oh, that's so easy to remember, I won't even need to type that into my phone. Don't worry GOP, I surely WILL CALL YOU. Later now!
GOP: Awww, gee, thanks! When will you call me?
American Public: I'll call you REAL SOON NOW, I promise!
Several weeks pass by...
GOP to best friend Rove: Rove, I've got this public I really want to woo, but to be honest I'm not sure if I'm ever going to get anywhere.
Rove: What's the situation?
GOP: Well, she seems really nice, and at least I'm friends with her, she's even told me so! I've done everything she's asked, or at least what her friends the talking heads told me to do. But something seems wrong, it's just this feeling I can't shake.
Rove: Have you got several hundred million dollars? I feel like I could tell you the answer, if only you could pony up that money for me.
GOP: You mean it, honest! Sure thing, what's your bank account number, I'll send it to you right away. You won't change your mind, will you?
Rove: No, I'm always here to take your money, I promise. I'm a good friend like that. Just don't talk to that Sailer, he's mean and nasty and stuff. If you want to be seen to be some sort of big, gigantic a*****e, you would listen to him. You don't want that, do you?
GOP: No, I pride myself on being a nice guy, liked by everyone!
Rove: Just send me the money then.
Posts
80 comments:
Well define exactly what the position of the Republican Party is on various issues of the day.
No triangulation allowed.
-Abortion
-Marijuana Legalization
-Immigration
-Free Trade
-Regulation of Wall Street
-Overseas Military Bases
-Whether we need to outspend our nearest military competitor by an order of magnitude or so
-Boondoggle weapon systems like the F-22 and F-35 that are obsolete in the modern era but can't be killed because some people make a lot of money off of them.
-Social Security
-The Whole Stinking Medical and Insurance System
-Taxes
Are you quite sure that you have your "base" united on questions like this? And that your own particular take on what the Republican Party should stand for isn't a deal breaker for someone else?
Paging Whiskey...
Paging Whiskey...
Paging Whiskey...
Seriously, though, I think that if the GOP is dumb enough to follow through with the "advise" that the MSM is giving them, then it deserves to become irrelevant.
Nice. Honestly, the GOP (grand old pansies?) could learn a thing or two from the game literature on how to reframe, pass shit tests, adopt an air of amused mastery, neutralize interloper alpha males, avoid supplication, isolate the electorate/target, and build comfort.
At this point, it's better than anything the rove-krauthammer-lowry Axis of Feeble has to offer.
Brilliant.
I am currently floating the idea that the GOP needs a coalition partner, not tweaks to capture a few more votes and get to 51%. It is stronger among marrieds, stronger among white people, and stronger among people who act responsibly. (Strongest of all among all three together, of course.) No matter how well they do that, it's not enough bodies. The GOP needs cynical dealmaking with a smallish group or two that are 5% of the electorate: cabinet position and opportunity to introduce treasured legislation. European method of horse-trading, coalition government.
Frankly, I don't know who. Each nominee likely drains off some core voters, so two would be better.
To channel Whiskey ..
Why in God's name would anybody want to do that?
First you go after the heathens or non-believers.
And then you go after the heretics among the believers.
And then you create more rules to ferret out more heretics and go after them.
The constant need for the new threat.
History of Christianity, communism, and pc...
All the same.
most important of all, you must embrace the idea that you have inherited the original sin of racism due to your white skin, and constantly self-flagellate yourself according to the tenets of PC to achieve true redemption
Soft plagiarism - this language and the underlying ideas are almost verbatim from OneSTDV.
I don't think the person did a copy-paste, but the reader definitely got that verbiage from the former blogger.
This is spot on. I think that the way the GOP handled the media fits somewhere in here also.
Candy Crowley should have been slapped down with a clever rejoinder. Instead, Romney stammered in disbelief. That was a tough one, but still how did they concede to those moderators when they set up the debates? Pathetic. How about a single Fox person?
More generally, the GOP must be less apologetic and less P.C. People would react in a positive way.
The amnesty idea only shows how the GOP is controlled by nerds that inhabit the Northeastern corridor. They are clueless.
Third party! Third party! It's the only way to change the GOP.
More alpha on immigration and prosecuting financial crimes.
More beta on fiscal/economic policy.
I would nominate the Asians for the prospective coalition partner. Woo them, celebrate them, and give them a choice cabinet position.
They most share the GOP values.
Let's cut to the chase here. As stupid, incompetent, and dishonest as Rove and Krauthammer are, Whiskey is more so. As stubbornly resistant as they are to hearing facts which contradict what they want to believe, Whiskey is more so.
I would nominate the Asians for the prospective coalition partner. Woo them, celebrate them, and give them a choice cabinet position.
Total beta behaviour.
I think most feminism is a "shit test."
Agree with Heartiste: the GOP could adopt some of the principles of game to better counter BS in the media.
The GOP also needs to get a clue that preaching economic freedom and low taxes will not win over the working class whites that rejected them.
Many working people just want good job opportunities. They don't want to conquer Wall Street or even own their own business. A living wage is all they want. Nothing illegal about that.
Protect U.S. jobs even if it lowers the bottom line for the globalist corporations. Other countries do it for their working class. We are the only one that doesn't.
Steve, you are spot on with this. Good job. But the GOP is doomed demographically no matter what. Best to liauidate the gop immediately so the dems can split in to two parties
GOP,
Sorry I can't date you. You're too old for me.
Sincerely,
American Public
P.S. Get over yourself.
"Soft plagiarism - this language and the underlying ideas are almost verbatim from OneSTDV."
I've never read that blog. It wouldn't be the first time that an idea and implementation has been thought of independently. All the elements are there:
-"Game" philosophy, that everyone here is now familiar with via Whiskey
-the advocacy for supplication by media talking heads that has been aired on iSteve for a week now
-the utter uselessness of supplicating. At least if you fight, you still have your self-respect. If you supplicate, you aren't going to win anyway. Why not at least salvage some self-respect?
-the likelihood that the GOP is going to cave in, like a good beta.
All the elements were just sitting there, waiting to be parodied. If I'm the only one to have seen this I would be surprised.
BTW, the whole PC as religion idea - it ain't new. I first came across it probably 6 years ago. I'm guessing it wasn't exactly new then, either. Unless you think it was an accident that Frankfurt School PC just happened to co-opt most of the ways in which Christianity works, without any understanding of how religions propagate their ideas.
Steve, arent the ranks of married whites bitterly divided by income and immigration?
Think about austin, texas. Think about two white married 40 year old couples. The high iq couple makes enough to hire young men to mow their lawn. The high iq married family thus wants massive immigration
The low iq 40 year old white couple has sons that need those lawn mowing jobs desperately. So they want no immigration
So i fail to see how these two married couples in austin can wind up voting for the same political party
I mean, most high paid high iq whites think they personally benefit from immigration
"Well define exactly what the position of the Republican Party is on various issues of the day." - The people don't give a rats ass about that, or they wouldn't have voted for Obama. Giving the girl too much information is supposedly bad apparently.
Idiotic. The people running the GOP aren't like that at all. They protect their private portfolios. To the extent they lift a finger to run against Democrats, they make trivial concessions to "conservatism" or "old-fashioned American spirit" or whatever, temporary red-meat "controversial" press releases from which they won't personally feel the pain anyway. This reductio ad Roissy stuff is fine for the cheap semi-clever breast-beating world of blogs, but don't fool yourself that the guys in charge of the generic right-wing party are tremulous and wracked by doubt for the future. Plus, they've a better shot at banging plastic surgical wonders than the blog betas around here. The real suckers are to be found among people who don't live in D.C. or work in professional politics but go on naively supporting such an organization as the Republican Party, these Hannity superfans and CPAC merit-badge chumps. Some day consider again whether that's undermined the Clinton/Cuomo/O'Malley transfer state even slightly. Get ready for Cory Booker to run in '16 & then win with the same soft-Maoist strategy that works pretty much everywhere in the world.
most high paid high iq whites think they personally benefit from immigration
That just shows the limitations of "high iq". In the not very distant future Texas will become a reliably Democratic state, with deleterious consequences for that "high iq" white couple. And they'll have done it to themselves, though they're not smart enough to understand that.
It's a textbook example of "the commons problem". But then, I suppose not many "high iq" people have the foggiest idea what that is.
"Soft plagiarism - this language and the underlying ideas are almost verbatim from OneSTDV."
I've never read that blog. It wouldn't be the first time that an idea and implementation has been thought of independently.
Sure the ideas may be similar, but it's the exact language used that gives away the soft plagiarism. The wordage is almost verbatim from OneSTDV's numerous posts on white racial original sin.
While all this GOP-bashing is fun, conservatives need to look in the mirror. GOP doesn't exist in a vacuum but in the real world, and it can only draw funds and support from real people, real power, real forces. GOP is what it is because so many conservatives have failed in the game of power.
Nixon won twice, Reagan won twice, and Bush I once once, and Bush II won twice. But through all these yrs, liberals kept gaining power. Liberals gain influence/power regardless of who's in power, and conservatives lose influence/power regardless of who's in office. Presidents serve at most 8 yrs. Real power exists outside elections in business, institutions, bureaucracies, law firms, media, academia, arts and culture, high tech, think tanks, entertainment, and etc.
Which side has been gaining in all those areas? Libs may wish for Democrats to win, but even with guys like Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II in office, liberals gain and gain while cons lose and lose.
GOP is in this position because of the failure of conservatives to secure more power, more influence, more clout, more respect OUTSIDE politics. Christian Right is filled with dummies, we know. People like Joe the Plumber may be decent guys but nothing special. Libertarians see the world in terms of numbers, stats, and market forces. They lack souls and warmth; they digitalize humanity. Gun folks love guns, but pen is mightier than the sword or gun. And the list goes on.
I mean what is the GOP supposed to do with such talent pool or lack thereof? How come conservatism cannot come up with a newspaper like New York Times, which for all its PC lies and distortions, is still many times more professional than New York Post and the Moonie Washington Times?
Due to PC, liberalism should be on the ropes. Conservatism could be the champion of freedom and liberty and use freedom and liberty to put forth better ideas, but there aint much from the Right. It's not enough to be FOR freedom. Freedom has to be used to put forth something of worth. Ron Paul-ites are to be lauded for their love of freedom, but they don't do anything with freedom except buy more guns(and more grass). Liberals use freedom to write books, make music, make movies, write computer programs, innovate technology, and etc. Conservatives demand freedom but do nothing with it.
If the GOP is to change, conservatives must accomplish things and pressure the party to change in the right direction. The Democratic Party changed because the newly affluent boomer liberals of the 80s and 90s pushed for a new liberalism, and Clinton was part of that wave.
Compare liberal boomers with conservative boomers. Clinton may be a sack of shit, but he's a smart guy. Conservative boomers on the other hand?: Bush II, Quayle, Rove, Palin, etc.
More boomer liberal talent pool: Lucas, Spielberg, Jobs, Gates, Geffen, and etc. And among the Generation X, the talent gap is even wider. How many conservative counterparts of Sergei Brin and Mark Zuckerberg are there?
Rove Strategy and Sailer Strategy focus on quantity of white voters. But head controls the body.
Even if conservative voters go to the polls every 4 yrs and vote for Republican candidates, the real power in elite institutions that decide the flow and content of information and values will be liberal.
Think about two white married 40 year old couples. The high iq couple makes enough to hire young men to mow their lawn. The high iq married family thus wants massive immigration
In fact, the high iq couple probably does not give a damn about immigration. It is the lawn mowing companies which desire massive immigration, because it allows them to set the cost of their service at a point which many people will find desirable. Absent massive immigration people would either (a) mow their own lawns, (b) make their own kids mow the lawn, or (c) pay the neighborhood kids to mow their lawn.
The massive influx of Mexican lawn care professionals has had zero direct economic impact* on the lives of most American home-owners. It's been a gold-mine for a small minority of business-owners though.
*Of course it has had a small but real negative indirect economic impact on most people, reflected in the school, hospital and other infrastructure costs which the illegals incur and which the taxpayers in general have to pay.
Republicans are indeed pushovers on who/whom issues, but undergo a Hulk-like transformation whenever they need to look out for the wealthy and the Fortune 500.
The F-22 was already cancelled.
This is nicely done. One thing he forgot: when the more exciting party that she's been banging gives her herpes and steals her wallet, so she comes running to her BFF the GOP for some old-fashioned comfort and to get some help paying the bills. She might even screw him on the rebound, but before long she gets bored and goes back to the party that turns her on again.
" To channel Whiskey..."
You've been doing that a concerning bit lately, Steve. I feel the start of an epic bromance here.
I can just see the two of you going to a bachelor party in Mexicalli together, and ending up in the penthouse suite together with 16 hookers, the Palermo crime family, 3 midgets, a black chick with DDDD tits, a gang of lesbian bikers, and a gaggle of Serengeti antelope...
To class this up, have Rove quote Iago from Othello:
"I say, put money in thy purse. It cannot be long that Desdemona should continue her love of the Moor..."
And then to the audience:
"Thus do I ever make my fool my purse."
It fits surprisingly well.
"The Game take on what the GOP is doing wrong"
Oh come on Steve. not again.
The last thing the Republicans need is a bunch of socially awkward sex-nerds telling them how to relate to women or voters in general.
These sexually inadequate weirdos will NEVER understand woman and will naturally give advice that is 180 degrees from the best stategy.
This election was basically about one thing more than anything else and that word is -
BURDEN.
Are you going to lessen the burdens in my life or not? What are you offering me?
The Democrats said we will take away the burden of an unwanted pregnancy and maybe even pay for that abortion with federal money. Or at least we'll pay for your birth control.
The Republicans said we would like to burden you with an unwanted pregnancy and ban abortion and get rid of Planned Parenthood.
The Democrats said we want to remove the burden of unemployment by bailing out the auto industry and unions in the upper Midwest.
The Republicans wanted to burden those people with loss of auto industry jobs and loss of employer health care.
The Democrats wanted to remove the health care burden on lower income people and increase the tax burden on the rich.
The Republicans wanted to leave the health care burden on lower income people and remove the tax burden on the rich.
Is there ANY mystery why single women, Hispanics, blacks, union members et al voted Democrat over Republican?
And now the goofy White sex-nerds have joined in with their patented fecally obsessed, homo-erotic fantasies about the Alpha male hero!!!
50+% of the voters rejected what they thought was the White Alpha male Gordon Gecko rich guy in favor of the black Robin Hood, black TV doctor/Hurricane victim rescuer and Beta male in chief.
They voter FOR the Beta male-government provider guy NOT the "I like to fire people", aloof "Mad Men" corporate Alpha.
How do people not get that?
Because sex-nerds are psychologically invested in NEVER getting it.
In more ways than one.
I think the Anon @ 4:38 has a good point. Giving specifics just gives your enemies something to attack. Obama never spelled out what he was going to do, he covered what he was really up to do with slogans about Hopey Change and Forwardy thinkin'.
The GOP should just focus on adopting a pose, a bad ass pose modelled off country music videos, Clint Eastwood, and Sons of Anarchy episodes that motivates white guys and gets white women a little juicy. Intellectual appeals on policy direction don't seem to matter anymore. Conservatives have a treasure trove of cultural iconography that could kick some serious ass. Go ahead, make my Hopey Changey day!
I think the GOP needs a new intellectual foundation. Too much of the country sees Republican policies as based on religious belief. I on the other hand came to conservatism via Darwin. For example, I think it is almost certainly false the homosexuality is biologically normal. Homosexuality is so disastrous from a Darwinian perspective that something must have gone in the mechanisms by which the object of sexual attraction is determined. But liberals preach against "heteronormativity." Insane. I think marriage has a function just as the the police, hospitals and schools do. Just as the function of police is to enforce the laws, the function of schools is to educate children, the function of hospitals to heal the sick, the function of marriage is to prevent the problems that occur from the workings of child production via sex. But we did away with the obligations of marriage designed to prevent the problems that result from the production of children and lo and behold, we are swamped with fatherless children and the resulting social problems. This is the path the GOP should take.
Haha, I thought of the same metaphor independently but I guess the guy who writes it down gets credit.
That weirded me out reading this post, though, I thought I'd clicked on "Heartiste" rather than "iSteve" by accident.
Wait! So Rove is a master PUA? Now I get the Biden biker pics- he has a '4' on his arm to look like a playa to pick up all the '5' and '6'housewives for votes.
" heartiste said...
Nice. Honestly, the GOP (grand old pansies?) could learn a thing or two from the game literature on how to reframe, pass shit tests, adopt an air of amused mastery, neutralize interloper alpha males, avoid supplication, isolate the electorate/target, and build comfort."
True- this stuff actually does help in other areas of life. Though the reverse is true also- alot of would be PUAs focus on it to the exclusion of everything else and drop out of college, lose jobs, etc- one needs to also keep up a real life with some real world value to do a good job long term in that realm.
the GOP is not doing anything wrong -- they damn near won the election and they even control the House even though their predatory, anti-worker, anti-citizen policies damn near wrecked this nation, what's left of it.
If it were not for the fact that the plutocrats used their wealth to create a fakeLeft that is deliberately antagonistic to the white majority, the GOP would hardly have a political base.
The fact is that the white lower middle class have nowhere else to go: the fakeLeft and its anti-white base will ensure that the lower middle class whites have nowhere else to turn.
The GOP really just has to wait until enough whites forget the rapacious policies of the GOP and then they will win again.
2012 was won by the Dems because, despite the Dem's anti-white base, there were too many whites who remembered the GOP policies that wrecked the economy. Those whites, like me, held their noses and voted Dem. When the economy gets better and enough whites are no longer scared of the bad economy, the anti-white Dem base will push them away and back into the arms of the GOP.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled pseudo-political discussion.
"I would nominate the Asians for the prospective coalition partner. Woo them, celebrate them, and give them a choice cabinet position."
Nah, she's just usin' 'em for the green card. But its a wild ride while it lasts...
Yep, that's right "Desert Lady" its all part of the GOP 'super-secret plan'. The GOP has it all wired, time is on their side, the policy of letting in millions of Democrat votes WILL WORK in TIME. Just give it 30 or 40 years and we'll see the genius of Rove.
Just like the super-secret GOP plan to get rid of Abortion or their super-secret plan to balance the budget.
The last thing the Republicans need is a bunch of socially awkward sex-nerds telling them how to relate to women or voters in general.
I've never understood why men would take advice on women from a bunch of guys who view women as strange, exotic, mysterious, unknown, unknowable creatures.
The game boy take on women reminds me of the liberal take on conservatives, so expertly parodied here by Iowahawk.
"Agree with Heartiste: the GOP could adopt some of the principles of game to better counter BS in the media."
True, and it's worth a try. But in their defense, the MSM is one hell of a cockblocker.
Can we exchange the guy channeling Whiskey for the actual Whiskey?
"Truth said...
" To channel Whiskey..."
You've been doing that a concerning bit lately, Steve. I feel the start of an epic bromance here.
I can just see the two of you going to a bachelor party in Mexicalli together, and ending up in the penthouse suite together with 16 hookers, the Palermo crime family, 3 midgets, a black chick with DDDD tits, a gang of lesbian bikers, and a gaggle of Serengeti antelope..."
Nah, only if Obama comes along and puts a roofie in everyone's Jager...
"I've never understood why men would take advice on women from a bunch of guys who view women as strange, exotic, mysterious, unknown, unknowable creatures."
You've obviously never read any reputable game blogs. This is almost the exact opposite of what most PUAs actually believe.
Meanwhile over at the Mother Jones site, the Sailer-certified "reasonable lib" has decreed DC golden girl Susan Rice above reproach--any who would outrageously question her competence are disgraces to their races, a moral blight upon the land. And supposedly the partisans of a functional, solvent, affirmative-realism government just have a "messaging problem?" Acting more like swaggering a-holes of primetime TV will turn this around? Yeah, let's divert resources to wooing Whiskey's Carly Rae Jepsen demographic, that's the ticket
Anonymous said...
Yep, that's right "Desert Lady" its all part of the GOP 'super-secret plan'.
==============
no, pumpkin, it's not a plan--it's a ecosystem. And in any ecosystem, the dominant organisms will shape other organisms in the ecosystem. The plutocrats are the dominant organisms, and they have molded the other organisms (e.g., Dems, GOP, voters) to best suit their interests, just as homo sapiens molded domestic animals. The GOP is like a a sheep and the Dems are like cows, and you, sweetie, you are just a blade of grass upon which other organism sup....
All set now, pumpkin?
Elections are won or lost due to the vagaries of the stock market. It doesn't really matter what the GOP does or doesn't do.
Game haves:
Sexual variety
Freedom from responsibility
Crabs
Game have nots:
Wife
Children
Attendance at your funeral
Amusing movie, empty life.
Boondoggle weapon systems like the F-22 and F-35 that are obsolete in the modern era but can't be killed because some people make a lot of money off of them.
Please explain why the F-22 and F-35 are obsolete in the modern era. Note that the Air Force stopped F-22 production at 187 of the item, far short of the 400+ F-22's for which the USAF orginally requested.
I take it that you as well as iSteve approve of the Air Force's request for funds to develop a UCAV capable of air to air combat.
Steve, have you ever noticed the parallel's between George Romney's run for the presidency in 1968, and the fate of his son Mitt?
From Wikipedia:
...The wide margin of victory in Romney's November 1966 gubernatorial re-election in Michigan cast him to the forefront of national Republicans.[9] In addition to his political record, the tall, handsome, graying Romney looked like a president.[10][11][12]
...However before his campaign had officially began, Governor Romney made a statement that practically ruined his chances of getting the nomination. In a taped interview with Lou Gordon of WKBD-TV in Detroit on August 31 1967, Romney stated, "When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." He then shifted to opposing the war: "I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in Southeast Asia," he declared. Decrying the "tragic" conflict, he urged "a sound peace in South Vietnam at an early time." Thus Romney disavowed the war and reversed himself from his earlier stated belief that the war was "morally right and necessary.
...Both father and son flip-floppers, weak and wishy-washy
The "brainwashing" reference had been an offhand, unplanned remark that came at the end of a long, behind-schedule day of campaigning.[32] By September 7 it had found its way into prominence at The New York Times.[3] Eight other governors who had been on the same 1965 trip as Romney said no such activity had taken place, with one of them, Philip H. Hoff of Vermont, saying Romney's remarks were "outrageous, kind of stinking ... Either he's a most naïve man or he lacks judgment."[33] The connotations of brainwashing, following the experiences of American prisoners of war (highlighted by the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate), made Romney's comments devastating,[13] especially as it reinforced the negative image of Romney's abilities that had already developed.[20] The topic of brainwashing quickly became newspaper editorial and television talk show fodder, with Romney bearing the brunt of the topical humor.[13] Senator Eugene McCarthy, running against Johnson for the Democratic nomination, said that in Romney's case, "a light rinse would have been sufficient."[3] ... After the remark was aired, Romney's poll ratings quickly nosedived, going from 11 percent behind Nixon to 26 percent behind.[3]
Father's "brainwashing" = son's "47 per cent" remark
Romney nonetheless persevered, staging a three-week, 17-city tour of the nation's ghettos in the early autumn that sought to engage militants and others in dialogue.[30][34] This trip also produced an odd encounter with hippies and The Diggers in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury.[30][34]
The good old days, when America was America.
...Seeing his cause was hopeless, Romney announced his withdrawal as a presidential candidate on February 28, 1968.[37] ... While it was often assumed that Romney would endorse Rockefeller for the nomination, he did not support anyone.[41] Romney wrote to his son Mitt, away in France on missionary work ( And dodging the draft ) : "Your mother and I are not personally distressed. As a matter of fact, we are relieved. We went into this not because we aspired to the office, but simply because we felt that under the circumstances we would not feel right if we did not offer our service. As I have said on many occasions, I aspired, and though I achieved not, I am satisfied."[42]
Notice the contradiction between "Not because we aspired," and "I aspired."
Expect Mitt to put out his own "Though I achieved not, I am satisfied" horsepoop sometime, perhaps also claiming that his campaign consultants brainwashed respectable, decent, gentlemanly Mitt.
Being black, the media has handed Game to Obama. He doesn't even have to do anything for even academic feminists to fawn over him like an Adonis..
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333361/florida-am-professor-apostle-barack-sent-create-heaven-earth-charles-c-w-cooke
So uhhhhh haven't discovered Game is complete crap yet?
Well, actually the Republicians are right, states like North Dakota and Texas with less taxes and regulation and energy work are beating up the Dem states. North Dakota a lower unemployment rate than Vermont. Calif, New York and New Jersey high unemployments. New York went up to 8.9 percent and New Jeresy over 9 per cent and Calif at 10.2 percent. There are a few states like Nevada with lower regulation and taxes that are doin poorly but the Republicians are right about some ot hem. High tax states and regulation tend to grow slow or are stangant. As illegal immirgation Texas is sligthly better than Calif and New York not as good on the issue as Arozona. Both parties had there hand in the housing bubble snd both wanted minority ownership.
I really don't know how to write this comment without sounding like a complete ass that even I would hate.
But for the purposes of evaluating "game" (insofar as I understand it from reading posts here) I wil add my experiences.
So here goes...
I was born very good looking and eventually became very tall, dark (have a southern European background), and handsome.
It's a crazy situation growing up because, in a certain way, you are completely out of touch with what other guys go through to attract a lady.
As an example, my first week in high school, after I had started to fill out, I opened my locker one day and found no fewer than 10 love letters from different girls telling me they were in love with me (and a couple even suggested they might commit suicide if I didn't recipricate). Most of these girls I didn't even know... though a couple were on the cheer leading squad and I did know them.
Several of the better looking young female high school teachers came on to me (Jesus I was only fifteen when all this started to happen).
The rest of my life has been pretty much like this ... slept with tons of beautiful high fashion models, actresses, pop stars, etc.. many who have been on the cover of major fashion or other magazines, etc...
I never undertood "game" because just being my normal gentlemanly self got me inundated with ladies wanting to take their clothes off and get busy (I guess my life growing up was kinda like the character Kelso on that seventies show ... women just fell in my lap everywhere all the time).
I certainly don't consider myself an "alpha" as I undertand it defined by the game guys (though I have a couple of advanced degrees and did alright in my chosen profession).
My luck with women basically comes down to "lookism" by the fairer sex... who are extreemly attracted to handome men (as much or more than men to good looking women they just hide it better).
Isn't game an attempt to give some guys a competitve advantage who are not blessed with looks or high income or status? It's hard for me to understand how "neging" a woman can work though. How does insulting a woman score points with her? And who would want to sleep with a woman so insecure as to fall for it?
It hasn't been all roses believe me ... in fact it has had a terrible down side.
All the tears and suicide attempts when I broke it off with ladies took a toll on me (thankfully none of the girls who attempted suicide suceeded).
Broken friendhips too when the wives of good friends told their husbands they were in love with me.
I have had tons of marriage proposals and took a few ladies up on them... but how can a marriage last when drop dead women are tripping over themselves to sleep with you (yes I am partly to blame too for being weak and succumbing to relentless temptation I guess)?
I finally settled down with a pretty lady many years my junior (about half my age) and have a job which keeps me away from women for the most part...(God Bless)...
Given my experience with women I have a slightly jaded view of them and understand that they are slaves to their own biology much more than most men could ever dream. Hypergamy is a reality I guess..
Still I am not sure how game can create a lasting relationship and in my older years that is what it is all about I think.
My two cents anyways...
Think about austin, texas. Think about two white married 40 year old couples. The high iq couple makes enough to hire young men to mow their lawn. The high iq married family thus wants massive immigration.
You've got to be kidding. People hire Mexicans because they're already here, and they're cheap, and the central government has plainly indicated that it will not tolerate any efforts to send them home. But no one is going to support mass immigration just to save $20 per week on yard work. In fact, a couple like that wouldn't save any money at all after the increase in property taxes is factored in.
"It's hard for me to understand how "neging" a woman can work though. How does insulting a woman score points with her?"
It's a backhanded compliment, it's the Tyranny of Ambiguity(as Jerry Seinfeld tells his date that one of them knows whether they will be sleeping together that night or not), and in woman's case, love of ambiguity.
Insult can work, like being a brunette in a club full of blondes. Variety.
"Broken friendhips"
uh huh
"Idiotic. The people running the GOP aren't like that at all."
Probably not. But the simpering path of the GOP to bow again and again to amnesty for absolutely no gain whatsoever and without learning from its mistakes - it deserves ridicule.
The Democrats have morphed into the anti-white party. This is shown by the racial bloc voting, the policies, and the racial animus expressed after the win. The Republicans are stuck in the 1970s, pretending that the dividing line between the two parties comes down to anything but race. Romney's recent post-loss meltdown about "gifts" amply demonstrates this ignorance.
The effect on their policies is like so:
Democrats
Non-whites: Racial spoils coming up!
Whites: Nothing for you unless you want to marry Uncle Sugar. For white married couples, we're going to shaft you good but it doesn't matter because you're not voting for us.
Republicans
Non-whites: We're Democrat-lite, so you will still have most of your racial spoils.
Whites: We're not going to roll back AA. We're not going to stop immigration. We won't stop outsourcing. If you're rich, we'll push for tax cuts. That's about it. We're Democrat lite though, the marginally lesser evil.
The end result is that non-whites (and the sort of white people contributing to white demographic ruin and further Democratic voting) have a huge incentive to vote for Democrats, amplifying their turnout. In their case it is not a "lesser evil" they are voting for, they are getting a "greater good" served up on a silver platter.
The end result for white people is that the reasons given for voting for the Republican lesser evil, are at best anemic. The Republican motto may as well be: "We'll shaft you less!"
Looking at this situation objectively, the Republicans are not doing the right thing strategically. They need to realize that their base is married white people, and to a lesser extent single white people. They need to motivate the turn out of this base by showing up to fight for them, and tenaciously fighting the demographic shift. If they can motivate their base to the extent that the Democrat base is motivated, they will not only win but win in a landslide.
The media are going to call them racist no matter what they do, simply by being the de facto white party. And yes, I do realize that politicians in the running for president have been selected from the very beginning of their political career to be pro-Israel, and probably PC as well. They probably realize that this move has the potential to cost them their career, which is why they have fought it for so long. But fight it they must, otherwise they will have to wait for the Democrats to vote in a disaster president, a GWB of their own.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-bernardino-bankrupt-idUSBRE8AC0HP20121113
The problems of Mexicans is not only that they are more corrupt in government and business but that they are more tolerant of corruption among non-Mexicans in government and business. If German-Americans might blow the whistle on local government corruption, Mexican-Americans will just tolerate corruption--even among gringos--as business as usual. No wonder some whites like Mexicans. Mexicans are very tolerant about greed and corruption. So, greedy whites can get away with more bs with Mexicans than with nosy German-Americans or such.
No wonder so many Texas Anglos value Mexicans. Mexicans may vote democratic but they don't cry foul on white abuses and greed. They just say 'gimme jobez'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9459747/Foreign-students-countries-sending-the-most-students-to-the-UK.html?frame=2302827
uh oh
Why would the GOP listen to the MSM, they want them to lose anyway...
Just stop fellating businessmen who send jobs overseas and people from other countries here. Is that so hard to understand? Oh yeah, you need the money. Right.
David Davenport said:
"Boondoggle weapon systems like the F-22 and F-35 that are obsolete in the modern era but can't be killed because some people make a lot of money off of them.
Please explain why the F-22 and F-35 are obsolete in the modern era. Note that the Air Force stopped F-22 production at 187 of the item, far short of the 400+ F-22's for which the USAF orginally requested."
I take it that you as well as iSteve approve of the Air Force's request for funds to develop a UCAV capable of air to air combat."
This explains it all. I can't think of a single thing to add to it.
http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/cheap-drones
As far as the F-22 goes, there are many criticisms, but the biggest is that manned planes are obsolete now.
You can also do a google search for "War Nerd This is how the carrier die" for an essay that describes exactly what I think about carriers as well.
Excerpts from an article about the F-35 program versus unmanned combat air vehicles:
... As it stands, unmanned aircraft have flown only in uncontested airspace. As U.S. military focus shifts to the Pacific, the Air Force could be confronted by enemy fighters in unfriendly skies, a mission UAVs aren’t yet designed to handle.
...
“You don’t let go of the plane you’re holding onto (JSF) until you’ve got something else to hold onto,” he said. “JSF is a necessary program. I wish it were under cost and ahead of schedule, but it’s not. It may still be a necessary stepping-stone. Rarely, even with a disruptive technology, do you totally let go of the old one even though you’ve got the new one.”
...
The progression toward a robust unmanned-vehicle fleet reached an inflection point this year. For the first time in its history, the Air Force trained more UAV pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined.
...
Air Force F-35s, Drones May Square Off in Budget Battle
February 2012
Personality, another amnesty will not work since Fair and numbers usa will get thousands of people to flood both dems and republicians. Also, Obama will take his time and the earliest date will be feb for a legalization process. Not only Reagan but Clinton did about 4 mini-amensty like hurricane Mitt but since illegal immirgants were mainly in the larger states prior to 2000 hardy anyone paid attention. Most that don't have kids will leave the us in 5 years since the job market goes up and down for them not like the 90's or 2000's.
People who say 'Mexers are naturally conservative' mean 'conservatives are naturally mediocre, clueless, sheep-like, herd-like, gullible, tribal, etc.' Mexicans are indeed all those things... and so are many conservatives, many of whom work with their hands than with their heads.
So, smart groups are naturally democrats while mediocre groups are naturally republicans. It's kind of an veiled insult.
There is some truth in Mexicans being naturally 'conservative'. Just like white conservatives are for white interests, Mexers are for Mexican interests. Conservatism is less about universal moral values than tribal unity. So if Mexers are indeed 'conservative', they would be looking out for their own interests and that means getting more favors from the Dems.
Paradoxically, Mexicans are natural democrats because they are natural republicans.
If conservatism or republicanism means petty, small-minded, tribal self-interest, then Mexicans are certain that, i.e. 'naturally republican'. And to serve their small-minded tribal interests, they will go with the party that offers more to their tribe. And that is the Democratic Party.
The problems of Mexicans is not only that they are more corrupt in government and business but that they are more tolerant of corruption among non-Mexicans in government and business.
The downside of tolerance?
So goes California, so go the Democrats(to the grave). When the biggest richest state goes under thanks to Democratic policies, it's gonna send shockwaves throughout the nation. Since there is no hope of winning CA, we should hasten its demise by encouraging its big government and 'diversity' politics.
Maybe California bluer and bluer(and bluer in the face until it drops dead).
Or GOP losses might mean relatively high-density-area voters prefer a secular and social-democratic outlook to Bible-beating and unrestrained private tyranny. Good luck getting Democrats to understand that, though.
>No wonder so many Texas Anglos value Mexicans. Mexicans [...] don't cry foul on white abuses and greed. They just say 'gimme jobez'.<
Don't tell Karl Rove.
To be fair, that's not me. That's Roissy/Heartiste. He said it first, best, better.
Game is defined by Heartiste as "learned charisma" nothing more or less, so yes that makes a difference because most White women vote on charisma, dominance, etc. not anything else. Obama's record in the economy was miserable, will get worse not better, and still most White women voted for him. Because most White women are not married, and Obama took enough of White married women (think Paula Broadwell, who is common enough among Married White Women) and most of single White women.
That being said, Game has limitations.
Obama won not because of Game but because he stole the election, and because sexual and market dynamics "Game Plus" means the media tilts ultra-female or hard, hard, hard left. Towards a few Alpha dominant oligarchs, their defacto harems, and White guy being an insult.
Obama clearly stole the election -- Rich Lowry (I know but clock, broken, right twice a day) noted Obama won Ohio by 100K votes. Which depended on ... 200K MORE Black votes than 2008 (when he got overall 10 million FEWER than 2008) ... and 200K LESS White votes (which given the size of Romney rallies, etc. and polling of the base is ludicrous). Obama stuffed ballots and tossed White votes. Clearly.
So don't think like a nice, upstanding, law abiding Middle Class White guy. Think like a thug.
What Game can and cannot do is win on the margins, and tranform the environment fundamentally, respectively.
Heartiste, those of us who admire him and other PUA doing what amounts to field research in human gender/sexual relations (i.e. empirical testing, science without the degrees and pc junk), would argue that Game has power but limits, and certainly a healthy society creating wealth and stability and having a design margin would not have Game be so essential. Learned Charisma would not be everything in such a place.
If Obama stole the election (and its entirely consistent with his background, JFK doing it, and the insistence on no voter ID, motor voter laws, and ACORN) then the response is to steal it right back.
NOT with the GOP who are spineless Beta Male White guys clinging to a system of high-trust, low friction, high racial/cultural unity (the Sailer Characteristics I'd argue) that went away by 1975. No. With outside groups pushing their own conservative agenda and using the same methods as Obama. Just don't get caught. Which means suborning the same FBI, Judicial, and other officials Obama did. Since he's cheap, that's likely doable.
But where Game fails is the fundamental revolution in Western Society post WWII. Mass consumerism, the pill, the condom, the Welfare State, rising female incomes, status, jobs, and a whole DOMINANT ecosystem of power, prestige, and control going to a few coastal urban centers over-run with Sex and the City women and occupations (infotainment, NGOs, "corrupt idealism" of crony philanthropy aimed at raising status and raking in bucks in corrupt deals at the same time?)
THAT is the function of technology, demographic shifts (fewer and fewer Whites due to birth control and improved conditions for women) and innate sexual preference: women demand men HIGHER than themselves in status, power, dominance, control, etc.
Raise women up to be the equal of their male counterparts, and they will automatically despise them. Its hard-wired. Primate DNA. Can't be modified.
The solution?
James Burke in his "Connections" series makes the point that the humans are "caught" in the technology trap. There is no possibility -- though women, gays, non-Whites in particular want this desperately, see NBC's Revolution and the Hunger Games -- that we will abandon technology.
Staten Island, the Far Rockaways, Long Island, show what no technology means to the West: horror.
The solution is to press even HARDER with technology that flips the balance towards White guys, who do nerdy balanced with independence and aggression better than anyone else (culturally Asians tend to need a Big Emperor or something to corral them, likely a function of selection in high-density populations over the past 3,000 years or so whereas Europeans were mostly low-density and thus selected for independent thought/action.)
This means pressing ever greater technology that REQUIRES intelligence and adaptation by the user, a "smart user" and the complete opposite of the Apple approach.
Apple (and Jobs) was famous for the tagline "Easy is hard." And the idea that huge amounts of effort needed to be done to simplify and strip down the device and interface so even ... well Blacks in the Ghetto can use an Iphone to Twitter their meet-up for a flash-mob looting party. Or your average teen girl can post endless attention whoring photos of herself to feed her ego.
Thus a conservative approach must bring the future (and destroy its enemies power to kill the future) as quickly as possible.
A hypothetical -- think of a smart-phone, that can do things like predict the future in some ways (not just weather but traffic patterns, stock market moves, and other pseudo random events). But one that requires large (but not unobtainable) amounts of math and science understanding to use, properly. And gives the successful user a massive advantage in everyday life.
That right there lifts most average White guys much higher than their female peers, making them desirable and "Alpha" (dare I say it) and thus worthy of protection and ... VOTES.
If you made, magically, most White guys say, 20% more powerful, richer, higher status, looked up to, and dominant than their female peers? Romney would be President with 80% of the White Vote. It would not have been close enough to cheat. Black guys with a thug advantage in times of plenty, would be viewed culturally as dead-weight, guys who were "guidos" and chumps like the Situation by most outside his social group.
If you want things to change, you have to push technology to the point where power and dominance flow to average White guys, who are the natural users and creators of it. And you have to make technology so HARD and complex, not easy and stripped down, that ONLY they can use it.
California is far from the richest state. Average income is barely 60,000 and many places even including the city of La its 46,000 you dems need to study average income on the us census. GNp is a bad way of determining a state's wealth since overpopulated States like California and Texas are going to have high GNP.
"Thus a conservative approach must bring the future (and destroy its enemies power to kill the future) as quickly as possible."
The Taliban's paradigm for maintaining the viability of conservatism seems more practical and realistic.
I think the Left are brilliant at 'framing the debate' - http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717 - creating a frame that makes their enemies look bad. Neocons do it too, but lack the same mastery of the technique.
IME Right-Liberals are particularly vulnerable to this tactic, because they persist in believing that the other side are operating in good faith and that politics is about good-faith debate and the search for objective truth. So they accept their enemies' frame, and get massacred.
Whiskey:
"If you made, magically, most White guys say, 20% more powerful, richer, higher status, looked up to, and dominant than their female peers? Romney would be President with 80% of the White Vote."
Eventually a societal collapse will create evolutionary conditions favouring White Guys again, as it did after the fall of the Western Empire. The question is whether there will be any White Guys left - possibly not, in the pure-descent sense, but there will be people with more White Guy ancestry than others, who will be selected for. Until they re-estabish civilisation and then screw it up again...
Whiskey:
If you want things to change, you have to push technology to the point where power and dominance flow to average White guys, who are the natural users and creators of it.
Do you mean the Singularity?
And you have to make technology so HARD and complex, not easy and stripped down, that ONLY they can use it.
Making technology harder will only make it more accessible to geeky Asians, Jews, and Whites. It will leave most normal whites in the same place as blacks. Look at the state of personal computers in the 1970s. Do you want to return to that? Will it be the answer you were hoping for?
"If you made, magically, most White guys say, 20% more powerful, richer, higher status, looked up to, and dominant than their female peers? "
end feminism you mean?
The difference between GOP strategists Democratic strategists? Science versus alchemy. The Dems are using science to win elections and to shift the long-term demographics of the country in their favor.
The GOP, instead, has these alchemists who are just certain they alone are clever enough to turn lead into gold.
They can't, they won't, and they never will.
If you guys spent half as much time productively combating liberals as you spend kicking around poor Whiskey, you could have the economy back in shape, the borders closed, illegals deported, and the national debt cut in half in 3 weeks.
Post a Comment