Another White Knight Gets Himself Hurt

A few months ago, feminists were upset over an ABC News experiment that sought to see whether people would intervene in domestic violence cases, as it was revealed that people were more likely to help non-slutty women. What the feminists overlooked is that there are many good reasons to not intervene in a domestic violence situation. First, women commit domestic violence about as often as men (yes, "ladies," slapping your boyfriend counts as domestic violence), so if someone intervenes and helps the woman, they might actually be helping the abuser. Second, many women return to or otherwise support their abusers, as long as they possess sufficient alphaness, so intervening could be utterly fruitless.

Finally, intervening in a domestic violence incident involving strangers can be physically dangerous. You might be arrested by the police, as Rob Chilson of Trenton, NJ, was when he intervened when a man hit is ex-wife after she slapped him (apparently he wasn't bothered by her slapping her ex-husband). Or you might be beaten by the man you attempt to stop and end up hospitalized, as Matthew Leone was a few days ago. Leone is the bassist in an alternative rock band and had a Wikipedia page even before this incident. I wonder if he'll be able to continue his career missing a third of his skull.

He's a certified white knight, as his brother Nathan told the reporter:

He walked about half way there and witnessed a guy beating on his wife. Where we come from, violence against women is absolutely disgusting,

I don't have much sympathy for Leone. It's clear he was a deluded white knight who thought he was doing his chivalrous duty by saving the fair maiden from the evildoer. Instead, the woman will probably end up standing by her man and all Leone will get out of it is brain surgery.

(H/T: Vox Day)

When Black Knights Attack

By now, the video of the black girl being punched by a Seattle police officer has been commented on by innumerable bloggers, reporters, and writers. What most of them fail to note is that the police officer did not punch the girl for no reason - he did so after she shoved him when he was arresting her friend.

Liberals, libertarians, blacks, and feminists are uproarious, attacking the police officer for his "excessive use of force," "police brutality," "racism," etc.

They really should just admit that they are upset because a man hit a woman. If a man - even a black man - had shoved a police officer and received a punch to the face, there would be no news stories, no YouTube videos, and no blog posts ranting about the police.

Why I Am Not a Conservative

Libertarians in general are often confused with conservatives. With my particularly reactionary views on race and gender, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm mistaken for a conservative by some. I reject that label for several reasons, some of which I have listed below.

***

1. Conservatism is an incoherent ideology.
Like liberalism, conservatism is characterized by cognitive dissonance. Conservatives claim to support limited government, but they also support wars, censorship, the police state, and anything else that increases the scope of the enforcement arm of the government. Also, when was the last time you heard a conservative politician other than Ron Paul seriously advocate abolishing most of the federal government, social services, and income taxes?

Conservatives claim to oppose big government and taxes, but the fact is, due to the giant military budget, it will be impossible to drastically cut the size of the federal government and federal taxes without cutting the military budget and using the military solely for national defense, rather than foreign adventures.

2. Conservatives worship the military.
According to conservatives, there is no institution more worthy of praise than the United States military. Personally, I don't see what's so praiseworthy about invading countries halfway across the world that pose no threat to us and killing thousands of their citizens. If the military was deployed along the Mexican border, I would support it, but the fact is the US military as it currently exists does not defend America, just the interests of certain Americans.

Also, far from being a conservative institution, the United States military is probably the most PC-infested organization in the United States.

3. Conservatives are Christians.
My religious views are somewhat complex and I will probably write a future post describing them in detail, but for now it suffices that I am not a Christian. I believe that Christianity is a detriment to America and all of white European civilization. It is a global religion, not an ethnic religion, and its adherents are generally at the forefront of the liberal agenda, usually unwittingly (i.e. the refugee importation movement).

4. Conservatives are statists.
The current conservative anti-government sentiment is fraudulent. From January 2001 to January 2009, conservatives did all they could to increase the size of the federal government, from No Child Left Behind and faith-based funding to the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act. Lew Rockwell aptly dubbed this "red-state fascism."

Conservatives only whine about big government when they are not controlling the government. If John McCain had been elected and expanded the welfare state, there would be no Tea Party protests.

5. Conservatives are corporate sycophants.
This applies to many libertarians, too. While liberal attacks on the free market should be opposed, supporting corporations does not defend the free market. Corporations are a product of the state and many of them, such as the military-industrial complex, subsist entirely on taxpayer dollars, while others are privileged by the state, such as media industries with their Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

6. Cultural and social conservatism are abject failures.
The 2000s were a decade dominated by conservatives. And what happened? Our society moved closer to Idiocracy, our culture became trashier, rap music became accepted by whites, women became sluttier, and our values further declined. The Clintonian 90s were more socially and culturally conservative than the Bush 2000s were.

7. Conservatives are blind on racial issues.
Mainstream conservatives are as liberal on race as any Democrat. They may oppose affirmative action, although many don't, but none will defend freedom of association, nor will any acknowledge human biodiversity and racial differences in IQ.

8. Conservatives worship democracy.
Democracy will probably end up destroying conservatism; as the percentage of nonwhites increases in the United States, the likelihood of the Republicans winning the presidency will decrease (John McCain would have won if 2008 America's demographics were the same as those of 1976 America). Yet, conservatives are so fond of this ideology that will destroy them that they seek to export it.

9. Conservatives don't have better moral values than liberals.
Conservatives, particularly those of the religious variety, fashion themselves as having better moral values than liberals. Indeed, this was one of the main themes of the 2004 election. The fact is, outside of the Left Coast, liberals and conservatives have about the same moral values.

Neocons, in my opinion, have worse moral values than liberals. At least liberals acknowledge that lying to start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people is wrong.

10. Conservative women are no less slutty than liberal women.
This seems like a minor issue, but I've long been irked by the fact that conservatives blame women's sluttiness on liberalism. The fact is, conservative women are no less slutty than liberal ones, especially young conservative women. Plenty of conservative girls go off to college to become binge-drinking dorm rats and if you take a look at pictures from CPAC, College Republican events, conservative internships, etc., you'll find that just like liberal and apolitical women, young conservative women are incapable of dressing professionally.

Sarah Palin's family is a good example. They are often described as a conservative family, yet her daughter spawned a bastard child. Sarah doesn't exactly dress very conservatively either - last year, as the Huffington Post reported, she wore a short skirt, bare legged, with sandals to a Memorial Day commemoration.

11. Conservative men are usually white knights.
While conservatives acknowledge the damage that feminism has wrought on American society, whenever they discuss one of the consequences of feminism, they inevitably find some way to blame it on men. Just like feminists, they believe that women hold no responsibility for their actions, but that men are to blame for every problem women self-inflict. Many also believe that women are naturally morally superior to men.

For example, when they write about campus hook-up culture, instead of blaming it on college girls being sluts, conservatives blame it on predatory men and claim that it harms young women ("women need relationships," etc.). Same with abortion. Instead of blaming women who have abortions, they blame the abortionists - men like George Tiller.

Conservatives also decry the fact that men have responded to female empowerment by becoming decidedly less chivalrous and often question the manhood of men who are reluctant to risk their lives for ungrateful, empowered women. Christian conservatives especially are critical of the lack of gallantry found in the modern American man (there's even an organization of suicidal men and brainwashed boys dedicated to restoring this - the Christian Boys' & Men's Titanic Society). I remember back in 2007, Christian conservatives were astounded that the men at Virginia Tech on April 16 did not throw themselves at Cho Seung Hui to protect the women in their classes.

***

Note that most of the items on this list do not apply to paleoconservatives, but paleocons have been excommunicated from the official conservative movement. When the word "conservative" is used, people don't think of Pat Buchanan, Alternative Right, and The Political Cesspool, they think of Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, and talk radio.

Are Nerds Really Manginas?

Over at The Spearhead, Ferdinand Bardamu (of In Mala Fide) recently wrote an article about nerds and gamers as manginas who worship women. He cites a new online service called PlayDates where men pay $8.25 to play a ten minute game on X-Box Live or a six minute casual Flash game with a female gamer. The whole business concept is pretty pathetic and Bardamu sums it up nicely:

“PlayDates” is quite appropriate, since the dorks who sign up for GameCrush are basically paying women like prostitutes, but without the sex. It’s like phone sex but just as pricey and only half as retarded.

The sad thing is, there are plenty of losers out there who are stupid enough to partake in this service. I agree with his criticism of PlayDates itself and the loser gamers/nerds who will undoubtedly frequent it.

However, he also makes the statement:

It’s not a stretch to say that most hardcore gamers are nerds, and while not all manginas are nerds, almost all nerds are manginas.

There are a lot of gamers and nerds out there who basically worship women and feminists, as manginas tend to do. However, I disagree with his assertion that most nerds and gamers are manginas.

About once a month on most gaming forums, a topic pops up regarding the presence of female enemies in a specific game or games in general. Female enemies are pretty common nowadays. Sometimes they will be bosses or elite enemies (like in Wolfenstein), but in many games they make up a good portion of the common mooks (i.e. Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Bethesda's games). Predictably, whenever these board topics about female enemies pop up, a few male gamers will write about how horrible it is to have female enemies in games and that they feel guilty about having to kill female enemies (somehow I doubt female gamers feel guilty about killing male enemies while playing as Joanna Dark or Lara Croft).

That's right, there are gamers out there who get sad when they have to "kill" women who exist only as a sequence of 0s and 1s in RAM. But these gamers are the minority. Whenever some manginas whine about "violence against women" in games, they get smacked down by the non-mangina nerds that greatly outnumber them. Also, the fact that most games nowadays have female enemies shows that nerds are not manginas in general. If nerds were manginas, there probably would be no female enemies in video games and female villains would be treated sympathy in order to avoid offending the supposed mangina audience. Additionally, the people who make video games are nerds (see this picture of Bethesda's Fallout 3 development team, for example) and if most of them were manginas, then they would go out of their way to exclude or demonize "violence against women" (a term that manginas love to use) instead of including it in their games.

Mangina nerds are pretty easy to distinguish from other nerds. They worship "ass-kicking women" and think women who can beat them up are awesome. They are the kind of nerds who get upset when his opponent in a game of Magic: the Gathering refers to a creature card depicting a woman as a "bitch," not due to the unsportsmanlike comment but due to its "sexism." He's the kind of guy who complains about how a new video game "glorifies violence against women" because it has female enemies, a female villain, and allows you to hit a woman in a scene played for comedy. Yet he not only has no problem with video games depicting women beating up and killing men, but likes such women because of how "empowered" they are. This is the kind of man who writes a feminist review of Portal.

I've met these kind of mangina nerds before. I've noticed that they tend to be on the less intelligent than the average nerd and perhaps as a result they try to act more "normal" than other nerds. That's the key. The nerds who are normal and the nerds who are not normal but know it are not manginas. It's usually the less-intelligent nerds who try to fit in with normal people who end up as manginas.

I call this the "uncanny mountain of nerdom." The name derives from the uncanny valley theory in robotics that basically states that as an object similar to a human becomes close to looking and behaving like a human, its familiarity suddenly and sharply plumets, then rises again.

In the graph of the "uncanny mountain of nerdom," as a nerd's normalness increases, there is a significant increase in his level of mangina-ness, prior to falling. This uncanny mountain is caused by beta male nerds who try to act cool like everyone else, but have difficulties inherent to their nerdom. And while they are still reasonably smart, they lack other nerd's high intelligence and its accompanying benefits. In order to attempt to attract women and fit in with our emasculated culture, they act like manginas both in person and on the internet.



While there are a lot of gamers who are manginas, I wouldn't say that a majority of gamers are manginas. I think such statements are as inaccurate as saying most nerds are omega males. True, there are some gamers and nerds who exude manginaness, but female-worshipping beta males, gamma males (per Vox Day's hierarchy), white knights, nice guys, and manginas - or whatever else you want to call them - exist in large numbers everywhere.

I think the reason why a lot of people hold such stereotypes about nerds and gamers is that the media portrays them as such. If they are not fat, friendless, omega losers, they are decent-looking but socially awkward betas/gammas who worship the ground that women tread on. The reason for this is probably due to the fact that the media is dominated by feminists and liberal men who act like manginas to appease the feminists. So when they portray nerds, they will either portray loser nerds for women (and non-nerd alpha males) to laugh at or mangina nerds so women can feel smug and self-important.

Unfortunately, these mangina, female-worshipping males tend to be the more publicly visible nerds, especially in the film industry. It probably has to do with the fact that they have slightly better social skills and far less misanthropy than the average nerd so they are better suited for the public eye. Video game industry leaders are closer to the average nerd, which is probably why the mainstream media, politicians, middle-class suburban mothers, and activist groups hate video games: they're not used to dealing with nerds - and men in general - who aren't politically correct manginas.

Note: I wrote about why not all nerds are omegas here.

Conservative Female Supremacists

There have been a couple of columns by white conservative men recently that have essentially said "women are better than men." Roissy took Paul Greenberg on, as did The Spearhead and Dr. Helen. They do not seem to have noticed Jonah Goldberg's similar column from around the same time, so I'll be addressing his column here.

Female worship is popular among conservatives (when I use conservatives in this post - indeed, most of my posts - I'm referring to the mainstream conservatives, neocons, and religions right, not paleocons, libertarians, HBDers, and Patriots). Liberal men might believe that all of women's problems are caused by evil white male patriarchy, but conservatives view women as children and thus not responsible for their actions - there's always a man ultimately behind them. Abortion is a good example of this. Pro-lifers spend their time shutting down abortionists and passing laws that try to restrict them, but they don't go after women who have abortions with that much furor. Instead, they view them as victims (of men, of course) and try to help them - but probably wouldn't do the same for a mafia don who hired a hitman to kill someone for him. The women in combat issue is a another example. While there are reasons to oppose women in combat arms, such as physical standards, conservative opposition essentially boils down to "those poor little women might be killed and if they are captured they will be raped." No mention of the fact that male military deaths in Iraq outnumber female deaths by about 50 to 1. No mention of the fact that women are voluntarily enlisting to fight in the military - once again they are viewed as children irresponsible for their actions. (Also, if they care about women being raped, conservatives ought to focus on the epidemic of black-on-white rape, but that's a little off-topic.)

One of the errors that these conservatives make is assuming that women are responsible for civilization and that without women's guidance, men would be club-dragging barbarians. "Women civilize men," Jonah Goldberg concludes in his column. It would be far more accurate to state "men civilized women." It was men, not women, who established civilization and its laws. If women civilized men, then the ancient civilizations would have been matriarchal, but instead they were highly patriarchal. The ancient Greeks, in particular, had a dim view of matriarchal societies. Today's popular culture views the Amazons as "good guys," but they were villains in Greek myth, representing the uncivilized barbarians of the east and opposing the patriarchal, civilized, enlightened Greek men. Since conservatives like Goldberg are always criticizing liberals for undermining western civilization, I wonder what they would say if they knew that the fathers of western civilization viewed men as the civilizing force?

Goldberg makes more ridiculous statements. For example, in the lead he talks about mothers ironing their daughters' breasts in Cameroon to make them more attractive to boys. Let me repeat that: he thinks women civilize men, yet he opens his column by describing WOMEN WHO IRON THEIR DAUGHTERS' BREASTS! I know neocons aren't supposed to make sense, but really... He of course blames the horrific things that Cameroonian women do to their daughters on men. And this type of conservatism is different from feminism in what way? Sure, he might oppose abortion, but his worldview is eerily similar to feminists'.

Female equality seems to be a pretty reliable treatment for many of the world’s worst pathologies. Population growth in the Third World tends to go down as female literacy goes up. Indeed, female empowerment might be the single best weapon in the “root causes” arsenal in the war on terror.

He does have a point about female literacy being beneficial. Educated people are less likely to do stupid things and are more productive, thus educated societies are better - but how this involves women civilizing men he never explains. As for the War on Terror, the root cause of anti-American terrorism is American support for Israel, which has nothing to do with female empowerment. Plus there's the fact that women are increasingly joining terrorist, insurgent, and guerrilla organizations. Women made up a large percentage of the LTTE including many (most?) of their suicide bombers. Even Islamic militants, including Chechens, Palestinians, Iraqis, and even Pakistani fundamentalists use female fighters. They make up around a third of the PKK, FARC, and the Communist Party of Nepal, which are among the more well-known guerilla/terrorist groups. And what do the LTTE, PKK, FARC, and CPN-M have in common? They all promote female empowerment. This video about PKK women shows it pretty clearly with the interviews of angry young women with assault rifles, especially at the end when they show the feminist indoctrination. Female empowerment does not lead to peace, it leads to twice as many people being capable of waging war.

Looking at their pictures, it's pretty easy to see why Greenberg and Goldberg hold these views. Greenberg is an older man and grew up before the chivalry of the 1800s to 1960s died away and is struggling to deal with the conflicting ideas of chivalry and female equality. Goldberg strikes me as an overgrown frat boy. Maybe he got drunk a lot and did stupid things in college, but stopped when he got married so he thinks his wife civilized him.