Science finds that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology, and even traits like physiology and genetics

Conservatives and liberals are different at the biological level

Don’t get defensive about this. It shows that we right wingers are better at perceiving and heading off threats, while liberals are like bonobos — hedonists just looking for their next orgasm, their next fancy meal. I have noticed that liberals are experts on local restaurants.

Indeed, conservatives tend to have a high degree of happiness and life satisfaction. But Hibbing and colleagues find no contradiction here. Instead, they paraphrase two other scholarly commentators (Matt Motyl of the University of Virginia and Ravi Iyer of the University of Southern California), who note that “successfully monitoring and attending negative features of the environment, as conservatives tend to do, may be just the sort of tractable task…that is more likely to lead to a fulfilling and happy life than is a constant search for new experience after new experience.”

Attending negative features of the environment! Conservatives are problem solvers and threat assessors. Liberals whine, “boo hoo, this totally preventable problem happened to me, now the government’s got to spend a bunch of money to fix my boo boo and make me all better!”

Conservatives try to avoid the problem in the first place. Liberals let the problem happen so they can drop out of working and contributing and collect a check because they are “disabled,” or “a single mom.”

Conservatives see the Third World invasion and see a totally preventable problem. Send ’em back, problem solved.

Liberals see the migger invasion as an opportunity to get MOAR CHEX FROM THE GOVERNMENT! They think that tens of millons of miggers means that Big Government will have to write Big Chex for All Liberals!

They’re fucking delusional. Their Cargo Cult is about to get a reality check rather than a pay check.

Liberals ignore resource economics and debt. They think that Liberals are Entitled to Paychex because they are Morally Superior. These Paychex go to Restaurants and other Bonobo Pleasures, not to anything lasting.

Liberal Paychex are going away. Liberalism will go away with the Paychex. As Putin said, the US runs a 14 trillion dollar deficit, and the world pays for it. But not much longer.

The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a “negativity bias,” meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of “a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it,” as one of their papers put it).

In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.

The authors go on to speculate that this ultimately reflects an evolutionary imperative. “One possibility,” they write, “is that a strong negativity bias was extremely useful in the Pleistocene,” when it would have been super-helpful in preventing you from getting killed. (The Pleistocene epoch lasted from roughly 2.5 million years ago until 12,000 years ago.) We had John Hibbing on the Inquiring Minds podcast earlier this year, and he discussed these ideas in depth; you can listen here:

Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what’s truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, “22 or 23 accept the general idea” of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of “modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work,” and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely.

That’s pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that

There is by now evidence from a variety of laboratories around the world using a variety of methodological techniques leading to the virtually inescapable conclusion that the cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different. This research consistently finds that conservatism is positively associated with heightened epistemic concerns for order, structure, closure, certainty, consistency, simplicity, and familiarity, as well as existential concerns such as perceptions of danger, sensitivity to threat, and death anxiety. [Italics added]

Back in 2003, Jost and his team were blasted by Ann Coulter, George Will, and National Review for saying this; congressional Republicans began probing into their research grants; and they got lots of hate mail. But what’s clear is that today, they’ve more or less triumphed. They won a field of converts to their view and sparked a wave of new research, including the work of Hibbing and his team.

Granted, there are still many issues yet to be worked out in the science of ideology. Most of the commentaries on the new Hibbing paper are focused on important but not-paradigm-shifting side issues, such as the question of how conservatives can have a higher negativity bias, and yet not have neurotic personalities. (Actually, if anything, the research suggests that liberals may be the more neurotic bunch.) Indeed, conservatives tend to have a high degree of happiness and life satisfaction. But Hibbing and colleagues find no contradiction here. Instead, they paraphrase two other scholarly commentators (Matt Motyl of the University of Virginia and Ravi Iyer of the University of Southern California), who note that “successfully monitoring and attending negative features of the environment, as conservatives tend to do, may be just the sort of tractable task…that is more likely to lead to a fulfilling and happy life than is a constant search for new experience after new experience.”

All of this matters, of course, because we still operate in politics and in media as if minds can be changed by the best honed arguments, the most compelling facts. And yet if our political opponents are simply perceiving the world differently, that idea starts to crumble. Out of the rubble just might arise a better way of acting in politics that leads to less dysfunction and less gridlock…thanks to science


About Rob

Come with me if you want to live
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Science finds that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology, and even traits like physiology and genetics

  1. Zan Tarr says:

    Hmm. Seems to me not recognizing 50 million people living in poverty can overrun you and your constitutional rights if you dont incentivize them NOT to is the epitome of fantasy.

    • mindweapon says:

      Zan Tarr,

      Let them try to over run us. Ever see the movie Zulu?

    • fnn says:

      America-like anywhere else-has conservatives, but American conservatism is just a subset of the left. Google “Don Colacho’s Aphorisms” for a reasonably quick understanding of conservatism uninfected by liberalism.

      Robert Lewis Dabney’s assessment of American conservatism is more right today than it was when he wrote it in 1897:

      …This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader.

  2. IMO, DWLs (disingenuous White liberals) are the real White supremacists. They like the idea of having a bunch of coloreds waiting hand and foot on them. They think that Non-Whites are either too stupid to realize that they were allowed in to this country to be scab labor that is paid less and put under more dangerous working conditions than White workers. They also think that Non-Whites will be so grateful for them for encouraging their own exploitation that they will happily wait hand and foot on their lazy behinds just for the dubious privilege of being near them!

    White separatists may not like Non-Whites but at least they see them as real people who want the same things they want. Unfortunately, it’s what they already have, That’s why they don’t condescend to them as inferiors who service them, but respect them as competitors.

    Do you notice that DWLs never ever want to investigate or conduct work shops or consciousness-raising sessions about class privilege? It’s all about “White Privilege” where, even when they are confronted with the fact that there are poor … desperately poor White people out there, it’s still not as bad as NOT being White, no matter HOW rich one is.

    To be a DWL, you HAVE to live in a certain state of paranoia and fear. They remind me very much of Louis “Apres moi, le deluge” Bourbon XV during the worst of the Court of Versailles’ spending. “After me, the end.” Let the good times roll until then. But the problem is that there is only so much money to bankroll their hedonism and it is rapidly running out. Even the dullest knife in that drawer senses this.

    They also sense that the productive Whites whom they have robbed to pad their own stock portfolios loathe them with a purple passion and would love nothing better than to slice their throats just like the fed-up French storming the Bastille did. That’s another reason why they are ramping up the Non-White influx as counter shock troops to stave that off.

    Of course, they think productive Whites would bear the brunt of any rainbow fury when that EBT Card stops working while they safely get the puck out of Dodge. That’s why productive Whites must find ways not to feed the Beast and encourage the Non-Whites to believe that the lower branches of the White money tree have been plucked bare of any fruit and to climb higher; much, much higher, LOL. We want them to know which Whites to go to when Uncle Sugar cuts them off.

    • Trainspotter says:

      Cly: “Of course, they think productive Whites would bear the brunt of any rainbow fury when that EBT Card stops working while they safely get the puck out of Dodge.”

      Yes, and this applies not only to the super wealthy oligarchs, but to the local mini-Hefs.

      • the local mini-Hefs.

        Eh, just jealousy that Hipster Racist gets way more chicks than average. It’s all consensual. You can have them back when I’m done with them.

        Don’t fool yourself. Conservatives love to believe that women are these innocent little creatures that just want to settle down and get married, and the mean guys pump them and dump them and make them cry.


        I know better, which is why I get to be the mini-Hef and you guys don’t.

        The secret to “game?” There is no secret. As the tag line of one of my subscribers says, “seduce my mind and you can have my body.”

      • Trainspotter says:

        Hipster, you misunderstand. Mini-Hef doesn’t normally refer to a younger man today, living in the ruins. It refers to the men of the transitional generation who were given genuine status and authority, only to misuse it and leave following generations to live in a cesspool.

      • Trainspotter says:

        And not to get into a contest of comparing d***k sizes, but I chuckled at this:

        Hipster: “I know better, which is why I get to be the mini-Hef and you guys don’t. The secret to “game?”

        To which I say: As easy as most girls are these days, just how much game does a man need? I mean, Christ, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel out there. It’s not even fair anymore.

      • @Trainspotter

        OK, I see what you mean. Cly coined “mini-Hef” a few years ago during the second great Aryan Skynet Gender Civil War in response to some of my comments. The boys won because I gave all the gals a good hard spanking. 😛

        I’m retired now, though. If there is another Aryan Skynet Gender Civil War, I have a feeling that the boys will lose, and lose hard, because look who is leading up Team Misogyny now – “Pure Evil Cont.,” who simply doesn’t have the finesse that I do. Madame Cly will have him licking her boots in no time, I suspect.


      • VRW says:

        hipster: I hope your taste in women isn’t as mediocre as your taste in music

    • IMO, DWLs (disingenuous White liberals) are the real White supremacists.

      As a guy who has spent my entire adult life among urban, educated, liberal whites, and am, in fact, one myself, I concur with this 100%. We’re all hipster racists. All of the “anti-racist” stuff is sheer play-acting, showing off how “tolerant” we are, and a status competition among ourselves. The only kind of “diversity” we are really into is diversity of ethnic restaurants.

      I remember having a conversation with some guy at work who told me he lived in Newark. I asked him, how does a guy like you live in Newark? He says, oh there’s Newark, and then there’s Newark. He then explained to me the racial and class make up of the various neighborhoods in Newark – without overtly mentioning race a single time. He didn’t need to, we both knew exactly what we were talking about. I even bemoaned the fact there were these neighborhoods with these great old houses built back in the 40s or whatever that were now essentially the ghetto, and he commiserated.

      I knew this woman that volunteered for the “Big Sister” thing and “adopted” some underprivileged mestizo girl. She would take her to the park or out to eat or to a museum, then brag to all her friends about how wonderful she was for doing this.

      “Disingenuous” is exactly right; it’s simply a status competition, perfectly hypocritical and everyone is perfectly aware of it. The fact that we are sophisticated enough to talk about and engage race with such subtlety is part of the game.

      I also remember reading an article in Time Out about how the Asians and others would immigrate to NYC, go to the real estate agents and openly say “we want something far away from the black neighborhoods” which is, of course, illegal for real estate agents to talk about openly. So, the article gave a sort of “primer” on how to avoid black neighborhoods with actually saying it openly.

      It’s just a code, it’s a protocol. Everyone is perfectly aware of it. A guy like Tim Wise is just an expert at playing the game, this exaggerated pretense of being “not racist” while of course living a completely white life.

      It just shows that we are smarter and classier than the lower orders of whites.

      • mindweapon says:

        check this out, hipster:

        Their Ranks Include: Neo Nazis; white supremacists; absurd cartoon character groups like the Westboro Baptist Church

        Defining Attributes: The exact tattoos you’d think they’d have

        Typical Behavior: Plotting assassinations; yelling mean things loudly; angrily spelling things wrong in capital letters in YouTube comments

        These people are blazingly angry about all sorts of things, and they’re having temper tantrums at rallies and all over the internet, but they’re so far out on the fringe that almost no one can hear them. It’s this shitty fact in their life that they live in 2014, not 1954 or 1936 or 1857.

        In lieu of relevance, they settle for clawing for attention by being scary and upsetting, committing heinous hate crimes, picketing soldiers’ funerals, and other things they’ve decided to spend their one life on this Earth doing.

        I’ll finish by mentioning that it’s a weird life experience to draw Neo-Nazi stick figures.

        Their Ranks Include: Extreme right politicians and commentators; not you, normal reasonable Republican reader, so just settle down

        Defining Attributes: Well-groomed; passionate about white America; scared of all other colors and places

        Typical Behavior: Saying the things they think out loud

        There’s a sizable chunk of Far Right America that thinks that white supremacists are over-the-top, but not…necessarily…all that wrong…ya know? Cause like, all white supremacists are really saying is that a true American is white, Christian, and straight, which like, yeah, duh.

        And this would be fine, if far right politicians and talking heads were irrelevant like the first three groups on this list.

        But since they’re not, we should probably get guys like Pat Buchanan to stop complaining on national TV about gays and lesbians “having the same rights under law” as other Americans and Ann Coulter to stop saying that in her ideal world, “everyone would be Christian.” It just seems like we’re a little too far in the future here for a relevant person to be saying those things in earshot of humans.

        And if they’re gonna let a guy like Rick Perry say words out of his mouth that are recorded by a camera, the words probably shouldn’t be, “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.”

        5) The “Unbigoted As Long As It’s Not In My Family” Liberal Mother Bigot

        liberal woman

        Their Ranks Include: Your mother; probably, right?; okay, or not! calm down; I’m never writing about such a sensitive topic again, this is terrifying

        Defining Attributes: Philanthropic; open-minded when it comes to everyone else’s family; vocal Obama supporter

        Typical Behavior: Saying all the right, unbigoted things; pretending, in general, to not be a massive bigot

        The Baby Boomer generation includes a large number of these women (and men), and they’re a bizarre breed. They were genuinely thrilled when Obama became the first black president, and they’d also be secretly devastated if their daughter married a black guy. They detest conservatives who say that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and they might also cry in bed for a hundred nights if their son turned out to be gay.

        These women are super unbigoted in theory, it’s just that they’re basically Pat Buchanan when the people they actually care about are involved. Great work.

        6) The Overcompensating Bigot


        Their Ranks Include: A vast number of Americans under 35 who grew up in liberal environments

        Defining Attributes: White guilt

        Typical Behavior: Being condescending to black people by showering them with effusive praise or deference out of nowhere

        This is one of the defining idiocies of young liberal America. This group is so incredibly concerned with not being racist that they treat black people totally differently than they treat everyone else—which is, well, racist. They believe in strictly different rules for different races—show them the blog Stuff White People Like and they’ll cackle reading it; show them a blog called Stuff Black People Like, they’ll throw a tantrum in the comments.

        In their overcompensating craze, they end up both insulting black people with transparent excessive praise and creeping them out with their for-no-reason smiles. And dealing with these people can be maddening—I once was ganged up on by people berating me for claiming that Anna Kournikova was obviously hotter than Venus Williams.

        These are the people who claim most fiercely that race doesn’t matter, and yet no one is more hyper aware of the color of a person’s skin than they are. In all fairness, they were probably raised by insane secretly-very-bigoted Baby Boomer anti-bigots, so they were likely to turn out a little weird.

        If you want to really excite The Overcompensating Bigot, just shoot some vicious racism in their direction—their general response to having their race verbally abused by a black comedian is, “Yes! Harder!” because they’re incredibly grateful to anyone who can relieve them of a few pounds of the mountain of white guilt they’re suffocating under.

        7) The “I’m Not Bigoted At All in 2014!” Bigot

        Their Ranks Include: You, ideally

        Typical Behavior: Judging people by the content of their character

        Back in 1983, Eddie Murphy came out with his hugely popular comedy special, Delirious. I finally got around to seeing it recently, and was shocked at the ease and frequency with which he threw out the word faggot.

        The thing is, it’s not that Eddie Murphy in 1983 was more bigoted than comedians in 2014—it’s that in the last 30 years, society has moved ‘open homophobia’ from the “Not Good But Kind of Fine” Pile to the “Absolutely Not Okay” Pile. So I, living in 2014, winced every time the word came out of his mouth—but the audience back then just laughed.

        So for those who have gotten this far and are still feeling pretty good about themselves as a non-bigot—you’re still not fully off the hook. What are you doing or saying today that would make people in 2044 wince with disgust? What’s in the “Not Good But Kind of Fine” Pile today that will be in the “Absolutely Not Okay” Pile in 30 years?

        Do you make any sweeping generalizations or do any mocking imitations that just might be totally appalling in 2044? Do you treat any group a certain backward way without realizing, like perhaps discussing obesity in a tone similar to how people in the 1950s talked about kids with learning disabilities? Are there things you say to your close circle today that would make anyone in 2044 lose respect for you, no matter how close they were to you?

        * * *

        No matter what your level of bigotry, if you want to feel as genuinely unbigoted as possible, here are two good ways to do it:

        1) Think small. Think about the little details of a person’s life you’re feeling disdain for because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or appearance—think about the calls they get from their mother, think about the presents they buy for their son, and think about the list they have at home with plans for the future. Remind yourself that that person is trying to live up to someone else’s expectations, battling their own demons, and ultimately just trying to be happy. It only takes a little of this for empathy to replace disdain.

        2) Think big. Go read about the universe. Nothing makes bigotry seem more ridiculous than internalizing for a minute how vast time and space are—doing so makes you want to turn to anyone who will listen and hug them and say, “We both exist! On the same tiny planet at the same exact time! Hi!”

    • Sputtering @ Hipster Racist:

      OK, I see what you mean. Cly coined “mini-Hef” a few years ago during the second great Aryan Skynet Gender Civil War in response to some of my comments. The boys won because I gave all the gals a good hard spanking.

      W-what?! There is Cly Spanking Fiction out there?! Is it at that cesspool you call a blog and is it racy enough for me to want to wade in and check it out? Hopefully, none of that Shades of Grey dreck? Descriptive and colorful?! I’s dotted? T’s crossed? Grammar rules …. obeyed?!

      This warms the cockles of my cold, cold heart. Here, I thought only Denise was your cyber-crush. I’m touched, truly I am.

      Ahh, men. I don’t know why men are so into paddling women’s behinds, when it is you guys who have the great tushies. Even the guy who is so chubby he can wear a Santa Suit tends to have those tight, rough little apple bottoms.

      You’re a bad boy, HR. Very naughty. Now drop down and give me twenty!

      • Cly, you’re the only one I didn’t write a story about. I’ve thought about it many times, but you’re just too even tempered and have enough of a sense of humor I didn’t think it would work. Denise flipped the hell out, AryanGoddess just ignored hers, and Harley was so outraged she become my number one commenter and we’ve been trolling each other via email for a month now. I’m kind of getting a crush on her.

        Instead, I’ve been thinking about writing “Madame Cly Pegs the Manboobz” about Mistress Cly dominating David Futrelle, that ugly fat fucker that writes and wrote a nasty article about me. I guess it would start something like this:

        David Futrelle was sitting as his computer, his obese stomach rolls resting against his knees, when all of a sudden her heard the front door open.

        “Dave! Get your ass down here!” he heard her scream.

        He gulped. Oh shit, she had come home early and she sounded like she was in a foul mood. “I’m coming, ma’am,” he replied weakly, struggling to get himself off of his chair. She barely let him make it half way down the stairs went she started in on him. “You idiot, I told you to get the car washed! Now you’re going to get it!”

        I dunno, something like that.

      • Trainspotter says:

        Cly: “This warms the cockles of my cold, cold heart. Here, I thought only Denise was your cyber-crush. I’m touched, truly I am.”

        LOL! Hipster, you accuse people of white knighting, but nothing could be further from the truth. These girls are sharp writers with wicked senses of humor. Know how to turn a phrase, how to catch a certain spirit.

        I love good writing in the rare instances in which I find it. The internet has really shown us something: for the first time in all of human history, billions of people can now put their drivel on digital ink, but only a tiny few have that special “it.” Linder has it. Roissy has it, as do Cly and Denise. There are others, of course, but the list isn’t long. The fact that some on the roster are women surprises me, quite frankly, almost as much as when I find a woman comedian to be actually funny. Rare, but it happens.

        That ain’t white knighting, it’s just the damn truth. And though I doubt the ladies will like it, and I haven’t read them, I’ll have to admit that I find it hilarious you actually wrote stories with them as central characters! LOL! They’re larger than life, now! Immortals!

    • Trainspotter & Hipster Racist:

      HR, you demean yourself when you call yourself a Mini-Hef. Yes, if you are anything like your cyber persona, you are a smooth talker with great humor and good game. But you have an innate code of honor that would prevent you from robbing another man to pay for a date with some woman.

      If there was a mantra for the Mini-Hefs, in a nutshell, it would be, “I got mine, now I want yours.”

      Prior to the affluence of the 50’s through the 80’s, men were more inclined to age “gracefully,” because they accepted their mortality. Thanks to the hardship of the times, most knew that few would live past their forties. Many were religious, but on a practical note, they knew they could only live on in their sons, grandsons, etc. Hence, the ancient standard greeting, of “I am This Guy, Son of That Guy.”

      In any case up to the Playboy Phenomenon, men who reached a certain age were all about mentoring and preparing their sons to take over once they themselves were too old and feeble to run things OR died earlier than they would like. Prior to this period, it was common to see businesses titled “Smith and Son” Plumbing, etc.

      The idea was that Grandpa would found the business, Dad would build it to a small company, Grandson would incorporate it, and Great-Grandson would take it national. There was no talk of Grandson riding around in a car with a bumper sticker saying, “I’m spending my children’s inheritance.” So what happened?


      The underlying theme of the whole Playboy Phenomenon embodied in Hugh Hefner and his bunnies is that the Mini-Hefs would be able to cast aside the aging women of their own generation and have easy access to nubile young women their sons were dating. Of course that changed the status of sons from legacies to competitors.

      These horny old goats still had the aging process to deal with and the only way they could compete for these young women against the hard bodies of their sons was having something more padded than Johnny Wadd Holmes; a huge stock portfolio.

      As these men knew, when it comes to sex, women tend to be practical souls and some are high-maintenance practical souls who like to live in the lap of luxury. An American economy with plenty of jobs would present too many opportunities to give an energetic, intelligent, hard-bodied young man greater access to these woman than the Mini-Hefs.

      So, of course it would make sense that these same men would co-sign on having our factories and industry shipped off to China to maximize those stock profits and lobby our Congress to let cheap, brown labor in. It was another way of cutting the throats of their competition; their own sons.

      That is why I rarely go to MGTOW blogs. Not because of any misogyny or any resentment against feminism; I think the pendulum has swung too hard in the opposite direction of the days when the term Displaced Homemaker was so ubiquitous and I totally understand their resentment over having to literally pay for the sins of their fathers.

      But when I read these admiring accounts about the antics of “Alphas,” I want to vomit. It’s like some weird male version of Stockholm Syndrome. I see it with my own brothers. They are victims of a great betrayal and because it was perpetrated on them by their own kindred, this denial of theirs forces them to cling to that which not only effectively disowned them but continues robbing them to this day. It’s heartbreaking.

      • Trainspotter says:

        It is heartbreaking.

        How is this for an aha moment? Years ago, I was talking to a black friend of mine. Very bright, knows my racial views, and believe it or not, has a greater breadth and depth of knowledge concerning Western civilization than most whites. Even, somewhat surprisingly, has a pretty fair knowledge and understanding of National Socialism (I’m not a National Socialist, but I’ve met so few people that have a fair take on it that I thought it noteworthy).

        In any event, I was relating to him a story of a well to do family, and the shocking treatment of a wealthy father (pretty much the archetype of the mini-Hef) toward a dutiful son. Behavior that was utterly dishonorable and shortsighted, at a minimum. Behavior that severely limited this young man’s career prospects to the point where the son would have literally been better off had be been born into a poor family.

        My friend simply said, “Just think, you people used to think in terms of centuries.”

        Yes, we did. Until the arrival of the mini-Hef faggot.

        Another observation, now that I think about it. Most every mini-Hef I’ve known claims that he made it on his own. The truth is, this is true of virtually none of them. Most of them were given far more family help than they were willing to extend to their own children.

        These self-centered faggots cannot possibly lead our people, and our cause cannot possibly be about defending the mini-Hef. They must be mocked, not appealed to. Our cause is so much better than anything they have on offer.

      • mindweapon says:


        My friend Hipster defends the mini-Hefs as merely “good with women,” but the definition of a mini-Heff is someone who neglects his children and/or causes great distress to his wife that affects the kids. It’s about the kids as much as the wife. hurting the wife affects the kids, so it is about the wife too.

      • Craig says:

        My old man was a mini heff, I forgive him though as I know why he had his urges as you don’t realise what it’s all really about till you get there yourself. The old bear got herpes too, sucker, so that is punishment in itself, and he gave it to his new wife…
        Incidentally the homo industry is trying hard to normalise Aids, great… The silent killer at the moment though is orally contagious warts(Virus/fungal) which causes mouth and throat cancers… All these things will effect that rather orally promiscuous community in the future. You can’t get something for nothing. The grass is not greener on the other side…

        I use social preening game often, dread/de-esculation can be apart of that(didn’t even know what they were till I started reading CH a few years ago, even though I naturally employ these strategies), all it really is, is proving your SMV and MMV to your wife and obviously others. It works rather well in community sociable events, and shouldn’t hurt anyone, if anything it should add to your reputation and charismatic pull, I did it yesterday at the kids soccer games, it’s weird to watch the dynamics and be apart of it.

        Dread/de-escalation game doesn’t have to be nuclear explosive or mean either, it can be honest, without getting out of hand, if done right it should bring a cheeky smile to your wife’s face. If your wife is being a bitch, which can happen over a relationship span that’s over a 10 or 20 plus year period, it particularly seems to happen after the first and second child, then semi explosive dread game is always good to put the relationship back on track… I also have a hypothesis that dread game on a few levels can increase the birth rate of white women. My wife only wanted one after our big headed son, he takes after me. Now we’re shooting for 5….

        @ Denise, that fat white slob probably wouldn’t be any good for a honey pot if he’s a swinger, his old lady would be fully aware, if any thing, it may cause arguments between them, if they both love money more it won’t work. Best bet would be to get a mini heff, CH or someone like that to seduce his missus with love, thoughts of more money, better sex and the swinger wife will divorce the fat man slob for cash and prizes. That would at least weaken that community financially and politically. It’s a nasty game though, that even leads to murder.

        I had a similar situation from neighbours(Thankfully they live 5 km away), the husband is an ex-con he was sweetening me up to ask for a $16G loan as he was counter suing someone, no he got nothing out of me. His missus tried to seduce me, thinking to blackmail me. I played along to the point where I said to his missus “I’d have to tell my wife, and your husband would have to be dead or gone from the house forever.”, oh the disappointment in her face. Funny thing is she had her excon hubby on domestic assault charges within 3 months, they had 4 kids to, and even though they are asshole ex-cons, the kids were better off financially with them together. Excon wife dropped the charges after I asked if her dead beat hubby really did beat her…Which he didn’t. 5 years later they still live in the same house but in different rooms, it’s only greed, hate of each other, and anyone they can blame for what ever, that keeps them together. Their relationship makes me cringe too, pretty painful for the kids, they hate their old man/hubby collectively. His missus did manage to seduce a bank manager to take a personal loan out in his own name for them….crazy hey.

        The woman that tried to seduce me is an aware racist though… 🙂 I was tempted to knock her up, as I know that is what she wanted, beautiful white baby, with single mothers pension, cash and prizes plus bonus no asshole excon hubby. She even propositioned me to “look after her, once or twice a month”… that’s when I changed the subject to, did your excon hubby beat you… Some people deserve each other as they certainly do…

        See I didn’t even have to have sex to make that crazy shit happen. Though I could’ve. The disgust feelings are natural…hard to hide but good to help you avert those situations to your advantage.

      • Denise says:

        Cly – brilliant analysis as always!

        Craig – thanks for that marvelous post! Zowie. Loads to ponder….hhhmmm….

        Trainspotter – YOU are my online crush! XXXOOOXXX

      • Trainspotter says:


  3. Trainspotter says:

    Cly: “White separatists may not like Non-Whites but at least they see them as real people who want the same things they want. Unfortunately, it’s what they already have, That’s why they don’t condescend to them as inferiors who service them, but respect them as competitors.”

    Nicely put.

  4. Cj aka Elderofzyklons Blog says:

    Reblogged this on ElderofZyklon's Blog!.

  5. Actually, bonobo-ism makes for a good ‘right-wing’ argument.

    Though Portland is very Liberal, why is it such a nice livable peaceable orderly place? It has lots of whites and few blacks. So, for whites to feel safe and well(and paradoxically enjoy being ‘nice liberals’) , they must live apart from lots of blacks.

    So, bonobos are Portland apes who can afford to be mild and nice(or nicer) because they live apart from Detroit apes, the chimps and gorillas. If bonobos had to live in competition with chimps, they would either get slaughtered or would have to turn mean and nasty themselves in order to survive.

    Since bonobo-niceness depends on their geographic separation from chimpanzees, it’s actually a ‘xenophobic’ and ‘isolationist’ argument that is usually associated with the ‘right’.

    Also, the argument that bonobos are nicer than chimps for genetic reasons means that biology does matter, which is a ‘racist’ argument, and that is also associated with the ‘right’.

    The Bonobo Paradox states that in order for a community to enjoy their ‘liberalism’, they must be protected by a ‘conservative’ force that mans the borders and secures the peace.

    So, ‘liberalism’ is the product of ‘conservatism’.

  6. scott says:

    Ron Unz links to your blog post about Zizek’s plagiarizing. 3rd paragraph

    • Trainspotter says:

      Ha! I’m guessing MW will get a kick out of that! I know I did.

    • mindweapon says:

      Graet find, Scott! Thanks! I posted that conspiracy theory actually as bait hoping someone higher on the blog food chain would link to it and comment. Someone took the bait! Yay!

      I wouldn’t be surprised if this tidal wave of media discussion provided more public visibility in just a few days to MacDonald, Taylor, and Steve himself than any of them had received over the last several years combined, and perhaps this might even have been true of Zizek as well, since his world-famous name had previously been completely unfamiliar to me. Indeed, when I recently googled “Slavoj Sailer” the top result after the Newsweek article was a very amusing piece on an obscure ultra-right blog, (Mindweapons — Ed.) conspiratorially suggesting that Zizek was actually a secret fan of MacDonald and Taylor and had deliberately plagiarized their White Nationalist writings in order to provoke a media firestorm and thereby better publicize their highly controversial ideas. If so, then the poor Marxist scholar must have grown very annoyed that it had taken almost a full decade for anyone in our feckless media and academic circles to blow the whistle on his utterly blatant theft.

  7. White-Musa says:

    Unz is a Jew
    I realized that political views are genetic after the TWINS STUDIES of a decade or so ago. Twins raised apart in different areas of country not knowing each other, were raised in liberal homes and neutral homes and conservative homes. Now if it is environment then they should have had differing political ideologies. Well they had IDENTICAL political views. So there is NO ARGUING, no CONVINCING, a leftist, a genetic leftist which is about 99% of them. So either the Whites have to go or the liberals have to go. PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION.
    The YKW understands well that genetics is EVERYTHING. Which is why they’ve devoted their time on this planet to ERADICATING God’s CHOSEN people, the Aryan,

    • Occigent says:

      I wonder how genetic it is given that very few educated white people seem to escape indoctrination. And even if they break through progressivism they still can’t break through the Jewish question. Which is why the ancients had it right. You center culture around the fundamental issue of the greatest danger to your people: Jew v. Gentile. Everything else is cake after that.

    • Sam says:

      “…the Jewish question…”
      It’s very simple. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all but a very large number compared to other races. If you apply this fact to present and past history you will never be surprised. You will understand how Jews were “slaves” but ran off with all the gold and silver of Egypt. How the Jews could betray he Spanish who lost their country for centuries. How the Jews killed every living thing in Palestine, ancient times, with no bad feelings about it. How they took over Russia and murdered millions. How they took over Germany and why the Germans wanted them out. How they are able to be so persuasive. They can perfectly lie which can be very convincing. How they attacked the US on 9-11. etc…

      This one thought,the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths, perfectly encapsulates their behavior and their religion as told in the Talmud.

  8. Reblogged this on Rise of The West and commented:

  9. TabuLa Raza says:

    The twins studies show a correlation coefficient of 0.62 for politics [when tested as adults].
    That number is over twelve years old- newer information may be available.

    btw the highest correlation in identical twins is- political views.

  10. April says:

    I’m also convinced that the brains of atheists and believers work differently too.

    • Mr. Rational says:

      It wouldn’t surprise me.  The number of people who cling to received dogma as if their lives depended on it—even when given solid information that said dogma is dead wrong—never ceases to amaze me.  Religious belief seems to be wired into the bulk of humanity.  This is a huge problem if a significant fraction attach to destructive beliefs.

      I’m one of the ones it’s not wired into.  They tried with me, but it didn’t take.

      • Occigent says:

        When your primary enemy believes they are chosen by God, it is a move worthy of Sun Tzu to say God’s Son says otherwise.

        Before computers, only a deeply evolved sense of recognition of spiritual discord in the force could ferret out a Terminator.

        The proof is in the pudding: It worked. Those who believed, survived.

  11. TabuLa Raza says:

    Here is the war:

    The right is the masculine and is centered on making distinctions- discrimination. It is based on active consciousness and favors philosophy over religion, and freedom over statism. It is anti-monopoly and pro-reason. Currently illegal.

    The left is the female [may include jewish males]. It is centered on denial of distinctions- anti-discrimination and egalitarianism. It is based on passive consciousness and close to zero visio-spatial [mechanical] skills. Religion, including secular emotion based versions, is favored over philosophy. Statism- plain ole bureaucracy is favored over freedom. It is anti-reason and loves monopoly.

    Both sides accuse the other of evil. The left gazes across the divide and screams at the right for daring to make distinctions. The right gazes across the same divide and screams at the left for avoiding obvious distinctions.

    The war is making distinctions versus denial of distinctions.

    >>>The lack of mechanical aptitude of the left [female] [and jews] is striking. I think the brain must be in balance to see reality clearly, and the lack of visio-spatial abilities means a skewed way of seeing things. So skewed that it may be compared to psychosis.

    People who can’t make stuff ARE insane.

    This lack of aptitude probably involves a humongous blind spot. . .

  12. I’m not “defending” the mini-Hefs, because I don’t believe they exist as such. It’s an absurd rationalization to blame men for what is actually the fault of women. It’s a way of defending feminism and how many women were suckered into it. The second wavers are looking around at the carnage they caused and are furiously spinning, trying to blame anything and everything but the people actual responsible: themselves.

    Everyone knows that I love Cly, she’s one of our smartest – and funniest – posters. But she’s just wrong here, and all the facts and evidence show it.

    Of course, there have always been men who cheat, but for every cheating bastard there’s a home-wrecking bitch. Rich and powerful men have always been polygamous, Playboy hardly started it. In fact, the word “playboy” already had that connotation before the magazine came out. This idea that Playboy caused a bunch of men to abandon their aging wives and dump their children off at the orphanage is nonsense. What really happened?

    Feminism. The Feminine Mystique, Sex and the Single Girl, the pill and Roe vs. Wade. The Feminine Mystique was a grand piece of Sub-Shaming, intended to make wives unhappy and resentful and shaming them for being satisfied with domestic life. It was feminism that caused the breakdown of the family, although I should point out that Hugh Hefner called himself a feminist and funded feminist causes. Interesting that, huh?

    I’m sorry, there’s just too much actual evidence of what really happened. The Ford Foundation and the like promoted feminism specifically to undercut wages, and the fact that the second wave was essentially led by you know whos just confirms it.

    Since this all happened long before I was born, I have no emotional attachment to it, it’s a historical event to me. For this “mini-Hef” theory to fly, you’d have to show that there was an increase in men cheating and divorcing to take up with younger women after Playboy started. The reality is that feminism happened, and that’s all she wrote.

    The reality is very, very simple. Women initiate divorce because it’s in their nature, women are no more monogamous by nature than men are. Women have a four year cycle. Bond with a man for four years, long enough to conceive, bear a child, nurse it and wean it. Then, it’s time to find new seed. If the husband is the best available, she’ll have another baby with him. If another guy who is more “alpha” is around, she’ll switch to him. It’s hypergamy, it’s natural, and in fact it’s eugenic. But you need patriarchy to have a civilization.

    So young guys are looking around at this toxic hookup culture and trying to figure out what happened. As soon as they realize women’s complicity in this, the women start screaming, “no it was Playboy, it was porn, it was you guys!” Just like divorce is always the man’s fault. If he didn’t actually cheat, well, he did flirt with a waitress and watched a porno, so close enough. Drag him through the court for your cash and prizes. It was his fault for not keeping her happy.

    You know, the old wife complains “how come you never want sex anymore?” The old husband says, “because you’ve turned me down for ten years so I stopped trying.” To which the old wife replies, “yeah but I still like being asked!”

    Come on.

    I’m an outlier: a highly promiscuous drunk but good looking enough to get away with it. So I’m not against feminism for personal reasons, I adapted to the hookup culture just fine. But it’s harmful to young women, and men, and it’s not good for the white race as a whole. That’s why I’m against it.

    Here guys, proof that they are full of it. Ask them if they would support a law, no sex before marriage, no divorce, no abortion. Put it to a vote. Women will vote it down. *They like it this way* – because they would rather have sex with a sleazy hipster than lie back and think of England with a beta schlub.

    One of the reasons I’m so open about my own absurd levels of promiscuity is to avoid the obnoxious allegation that women always, always throw out whenever these issues are discussed. “Oh you just can’t get laid” etc. It’s silly. As Trainspotter correctly noted above, gals are so easy these days it’s hardly an accomplishment.

    There was no wave of regular middle class men turning into mini-Hefs. The reality is there was a wave of regular, middle class women turning into militant feminists, anti-family, anti-men, and in some ways anti-children. Just read what the feminists actually wrote. They are just trying to rewrite history.

    It’s the apex fallacy at work, yet again. Rich wealthy stud was a mini-Hef, therefore “men” are mini-Hefs.

    P.S. I have to stop blogging for a while.

    • So part of the feminist retrenchment is admitting “oh things have gone too far, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.” Why are they saying this? Because men wised up, aren’t marrying, aren’t settling down, aren’t investing in women anymore, don’t buy flowers and aren’t paying for dinner. Feminists wanted their cake and to eat it to, but men decided to stop playing. So, you know, this admission that maybe some men might have a point, sort of. is just such a perfect illustration. So you have happy Power Couple, but the wife starts making way more money than her husband. She freely admits she lost her attraction to him when she started making more money, so she divorced him and took the kids. Old fashioned marriage doesn’t work anymore. Life long marriage is just too long, people change, etc.

      So what does she propose? A 10 year marriage contract.

      Here’s Hipster’s counter-proposal. A 1 year marriage contract. No, better, a one month marriage contract. Or, just forget the whole thing. Why bother committing at all?

      Women are not monogamous. Mini-Hefs? Nonsense. Try Mini-Bunnies.

      I know many women, some working class, some quite wealthy, that have kids by different men. Women are perfectly happy with this arrangement. It’s their Sexual Utopia in Power. Is it good in the long run? No. But good luck putting the genie back in the bottle. Women don’t want to, they are just upset that men are no longer playing according to their script. You know, alpha fux, beta bucks. The “nice guys” should just wait until the gal gets all of that need for alpha out of her system, then at 29, he better be waiting with a ring. Two kids, then time to divorce. It’s absurd.

      The beta bucks are drying up. Where have all the good men gone, etc? Why aren’t men gentlemen anymore? Why do these young white nationalist types and these manosphere guys say these awful things about women? Why don’t they offer to walk us home from the nightclub, etc?

      They will never, ever admit they were wrong. Women can be so stubborn sometimes!

      • mindweapon says:


        I’m a big red piller myself, but I think you are throwing out a red herring here. What you describe is real, but it doesn’t mean that mini-Heffing didn’t happen. We saw it happen. It’s not about men fucking lots of women, it’s about abandoning your kids. There was a lot of that. We grew up seeing it.

        I think it’s great that men are catching on to the alpha fux beta bux strategy. there’s a lot of that going around.

        I have met women who aren’t like that. Few and far between, espeically in the degenerate states of amerikwa. I know, NAWALT, but hey, I have. They are usually intelligent, composed, well brought up and bred young ladies. I don’t want to violate the privacy of one in particular, I wish I could post a picture of her but it would give away her name. Anyway, real smart girl, 4.0 student, medical field. Very attractive, like a 9 or a 10 not in a fashion model way, but a girl next door way, but she didn’t use it as a weapon. Her personality and bearing made her a 10 in my eyes. I was actually friends with her, and she didn’t act like I was hitting on her. A few guys tried to date her, and she just immediately shut them down. She had one boyfriend since high school whom she ended up marrying. This guy was nothing special to look at — physically soft and probably not able to protect her, but a good provider, a stable guy. Who knows what he had going on, but he got this girl forever. Bless their hearts, and I hope their marriage will be fruitful with children and long lives.

        So it happens. But I haven’t trusted American women since I was a teenager and took up Russian language. I’m totally down with red pill thinking. But the world is complex, it’s not so absolute. There is a such thing as mini-heffing. Granted, the mini-hef guys did get the hot girl because he was a mini-hef. She chose him! No question. She jumped over dozens of beta boyz with flowers to get that mini-hef. But it still sucks when men abandon their children and don’t care about the next generation.

      • mindweapon says: is just such a perfect illustration. So you have happy Power Couple, but the wife starts making way more money than her husband. She freely admits she lost her attraction to him when she started making more money, so she divorced him and took the kids. Old fashioned marriage doesn’t work anymore. Life long marriage is just too long, people change, etc.

        I looked at her bio, that’s not what she said. She said her husband had a brain injury and recovered and then left her. Did she write what your wrote above in some blog post?


        She linked to my blog once.

        What happens when when a woman earns more than a man?

        I’ll tell you what: She resents his effeminate ass, he resents being emasculated, and they split.

        BTW, I am not any sort of hard core “red piller” that thinks “all women are like that” or that all women are conniving bitches. Not at all. I’m a sexist, but not a misogynist. I don’t have any problem with women, at all. It’s the ideology of feminism that I oppose. Hypergamy is a feature, not a bug. We want women breeding with superior men. The bottom 20%, they can have porn or whatever. Evolution is a harsh mistress. Life ain’t fair. There’s nothing wrong with women, they are fine just the way they are. Feminism was a society-wide shit test that white men failed.

        It’s just that women are people, they respond to incentives, and feminism changed the incentive structure. It’s that no one – no one – defends a dishonorable man that abandons his wife and family just because his wife got a little older and he wanted to “trade up” for a younger piece of ass. Sure, that happens – but no one, no one, defends it. And there was no wave of this happening because of Playboy.

        But when women do it? There’s a chorus of women – and men (the ‘white knights’) that defend her.

        We can agree to disagree, but I just do not buy Cly’s Playboy “mini-Hef” explanation, and I think the evidence is on my side.

        It’s all water under the bridge now, but if we want a solution, I think the courtship pledge guy is the best shot we have:

        I know that happy marriages exist, because my dad is still chasing my mom around the old folk’s home. But then again, my mom is pretty much the opposite of a feminist, so there’s that.

      • Trainspotter says:

        Hipster, I actually agree with much of your analysis. But the mini-Hef thing did in fact happen, it was very real. MW has said that he saw it. Cly saw it. I saw it. Other posters here are of an age that they saw it, too.

        I realize this is anecdotal, and I can’t “prove” it to you. I also understand that, since you are apparently a bit younger than those of us making the claim, you grew up in a different world, where female misbehavior was already the norm. But I’m Gen X, and for those of us of that age or older, we caught the tail end of a different world. You grew up in the ruins, and we did too…but we also caught a first hand view of the collapse itself, or at least the tail end of the transition. You didn’t. We were there, you weren’t.

        I’m not saying it was “all” men’s fault. After all, who were these mini-Hef’s running around on their wives with? Other white women, for the most part. Back then the term was home wrecker.

        Instead, the claim that is being made is simply that the men of that generation grew up in a society where heads of families were still afforded a great deal of status and respect. Those old shows like Leave it to Beaver and such weren’t meant to be ironic, they were reflections of how society saw itself at that time. It was a man’s world, at least in a sense, and a shocking proportion of those men chose to betray their families and children. Not all, or even most, did. But enough to make a massive contribution toward the breakdown of cultural cohesion and societal trust, just as most white women don’t sleep with blacks and browns, but enough have that it sullies the reputation of the whole.

        The reality on the ground was a lot more complicated than “feminism happened.” Yes, feminism did happen, as did a lot of other things. One of those was the mini-Hef.

        If you don’t believe us, that’s fine. But the simple reality is that men played a role in destroying a functioning civilization. There was in fact a proliferation of the Playboy philosophy (would something like Playboy Magazine, or some clown like Hefner, have even been mainstream for prior generations of men? a fair question), and an emphasis on “me, me, me.” A lot of successful men decided that their family obligations were boring, and they resented it. They resented their own wives, and they resented their own children.

        Understanding how we got into this mess may help us in figuring a way out. We understand the Jewish role. We understand that one of the things that Jews pushed – feminism – was incredibly destructive. But we really haven’t faced up to the role of prosperous white men who put their narrow personal interests above that of their families, their civilization, and their race. Not the mega rich oligarchs, but the local guy who broke down white cohesion, and the ability of whites to resist what was happening to them.

        The mini-Hef. Or, as I prefer, because I know it really rubs that sort the wrong way, the mini-Hef faggot.

        Previous generations of prosperous white men upheld their obligations. They weren’t perfect, but whatever their flaws and errors, they got the job done and passed an intact race and culture on to the next generation. In stark contrast, the mini-Hef failed to do this. He was born into a healthy culture, he benefited from a healthy culture in acquiring his wealth, but he failed to pass it on intact. His only legacy is a broken culture, shredded trust, and a race threatened with extinction. But hey, he got his, so what does he care? He had a good time! That’s the mentality at work, in a nutshell.

        The clowns that helped usher us into this mess aren’t going to get us out of it. Put not ye trust in mini-Hef faggots, verily I say unto you.

      • mindweapon says:

        Good reply to our friend Hipster, Trainspotter. You are an excellent writer.

    • Harley says:


  13. Here is a French Male Leftist’s perspective on Feminism that resonates with me, partly because he presents an angle that I had overlooked:

    I’m glad I saw this before I posted my rebuttal to Hipster Racist (you know I wasn’t going to let you get the last word, didn’tcha HR, baby?!) because his insights somewhat evolved my own reactionary thinking on the subject.

    Mini-Hefism is the husband of Feminism and the proud father of two Children of Perdition; the Mudshark and the Lost Boy.

    The vast majority of unwed mothers come from single-parent homes, headed by the mother alone. That makes any girls in that home vulnerable to predatory males. If the mother is forced to live in a diverse area to make ends meet, the likelihood of that girl being impregnated by an African-American or Mestizo is all that higher.

    Here are the highlights of a documentary about young adolescent White Mormon males who were expelled from their FLDS by their elders for the most trivial of reasons. They were literally abandoned like stray dogs on the highways of Utah and Arizona.

    This is the result of polygamy. This is also the result of serial monogamy. But most importantly, this is exactly what happens when men want to compete for the same pool of women as their sons.

    • Harley says:

      Soral (sp?) is right except every single thing he said can be reversed. Working class men wanted their wage-earning wives to be better treated – and paid, as a way of lobbying power against the ‘patriarchal’ men who glommed all the wealth and against their wives who also parasited off the working people. It all goes both ways. To try to make such a complete fetishistic rewriting of ‘feminism’ (I’m thinking more of the suffragist and labor movements which were integral to one another than of the second wave) is simply distortionist wishful thinking.

      This french male is not only…french, meaning gallic and mediterranean, he is aligned with the muslims. That should tell anyone all they need to know about him, particularly because his alliance does not appear to be motivated by sheer pragmatism.

      If pro-whites ever lost their delusions that Leave it to Beaver or Little House on the Prairie ever really represented most of white America they’d stop languishing on the internet and become an actual movement.

      Women worked outside the home because industrialism forced the vast majority to. Even in the 50’s this was so. ‘Feminism’ in its first wave and it’s less jewish-dominated second wave (particularly in England) strains was never an expression of just some women’s crusade, it was class warfare, plain and simple. Trying to deny that just makes pro-whites irrelevant to most middle class white people.

  14. OK, my last post, then I will drop it I promise.

    You know, I cringe when young guys like “Pure Evil Cont.” use language like “moistening clams.” It’s not classy, it’s embarrassing. But then I read some of the things women say.

    They resented their own wives

    “After I had my last baby, I just lost all interest in him. I cringed when he touched me. Then I caught him looking at a porno and flirting with a waitress. Who does he think he is, Hugh Hefner? So I divorced his ass!”

    Yeah, I’d be pretty resentful too. Then again, these men were just “horny old goats.” Don’t you know any man older than, say, 50, should just be fine without sex? I mean after all, plenty of 50 year old women apparently lose a lost of interest.

    What sort of society has such contempt for older men that they would refer to them as “horny old goats?” Yeah, no thanks, I’ll take an appreciative young hottie over some aging bitch who will cut me off.

    Let’s explore the attitudes of some of these older so-called “traditional” women. Apparently one was a party girl who finally married some beta bucks at 40, now poses as some great paragon of moral virtue, judging and shaming others. Lulz.

    Another poses as a “traditional Christian” while she shacks up with her boyfriend after a divorce. Then, she likes to tell me I’m not a “real white man” because I hooked up a lot.

    Don’t even get me started on the sub-shaming. Christian marriage is just “s/m with Jezuz trappings.” The other one, divorced, complains about the “silly women” with Mr. Grey fantasies. Don’t you want a strong assertive bitch instead? She’s “feisty!” Look, if you want a dominant woman, fine by me. Live and let live I say. But why should I have to deal with aging dominatrixes with a chip on their shoulders about their fathers and ex-boyfriends?

    “And even feminist icons such as Mrs. Halimi, she wrote a book long ago where she basically admits that she did it all to annoy her father and that it’s basically a bourgeois oedipal affair, and often feminism is just an oedipal and bourgeois settling of scores.”

    Hmm, that sounds awfully familiar too.

    Sorry, I just feel no need to white knight on this issue to get the presumably female posters to tell me how wonderful I am. I get plenty of attention from women in real life so no need to have them fawn over me online. I feel no need to throw young white men under the bus to cater to these elderly WN internet posters. Call me a prick, whatever.

    Again, if you want to look around and find these “mini-Hefs” you will surely find them. There’s no doubt plenty of men cheat on their wives. There is no doubt that powerful successful men tend to polygamy.

    But there *was no wave of “mini-Heffing” due to Playboy.* The data simply doesn’t pan out that way. It’s an excuse.

    And I do remember third wave feminism of the 90s and 2000s quite well. Insane women hopped up on SSRIs and hormonal birth control, “liberated” strippers, sticking things in their vaginas and calling it “art” and of course “rape rape rape!”

    Yes, at the end of the day, it’s men’s fault. We lead, they follow. But our current plight was *not* caused by older men getting some company from some young things. It was caused by coddling women. Women just had the one job to do, be a wife and mother, and apparently they weren’t up to it.

    So I’ll stick to the Slut Club, thank you very much. It’s a hell of a lot more fun.

    Oh, and as far as first wave feminism, I got one name for you folks. Lucy Stone. She struck the first blow against The Patriarchy by refusing to take her husband’s last name, a symbolic, but important public acknowledgement of paternity. She was also essentially a cross-dresser, trying to dress up as close to a man as possible.

    I don’t need feminism because I’m neither a beta bitch nor an insane fruit loop of a woman.

    • Denise says:

      Wah! Are you sure you are not a Yid. You whine and self justify like one.

      Run along. Your sluts are slavering for you….don’t keep them waiting

    • Trainspotter says:

      Hipster: “OK, my last post, then I will drop it I promise.”

      My Magic 8-Ball says Very Doubtful.

      Hipster: “Sorry, I just feel no need to white knight on this issue to get the presumably female posters to tell me how wonderful I am.”

      LOL! You’ve cut me to the quick!

      Hipster: “But there *was no wave of “mini-Heffing” due to Playboy.* The data simply doesn’t pan out that way.”

      You keep saying this, and it’s misleading. The data doesn’t prove your position any more than it does mine, or any less. It clearly show a massive trend toward family dissolution in the late 60’s and 70’s. That’s what I refer to as the transitional period, where the old ways bit the dust and what we are living in now really got underway. By the 80’s, this was the new normal.

      Nobody is claiming that the mini-Hef phenomenon was the sole cause behind this, only that it was part of what was going on. It’s an add-on, not a replacement for causes such as feminism or Jewish propaganda. Also, the mini-Hef was as much symptom as cause.

      However, it’s highly significant from our point of view because prosperous white men constitute natural leaders of the white community. Unlike his ancestors, the mini-Hef utterly failed to protect the white community, in large part because he was more interested in having a good time than in meeting his traditional obligations. He might have grumbled a bit, but on the whole, liberalism largely suited him. Liberalism freed him from his obligations and justified his looking out for number one. Get rid of honor, and men with money are the last men left standing. Not so bad if you’re a mini-Hef.

      The fact that he considered himself a conservative and voted Republican does not alter this. That just meant he didn’t want to pay higher taxes, and while we can hardly blame him for that, it was still part and parcel of his prime directive: me, me, me. “Our people” didn’t figure into it. He wasn’t on our side, he was on his side.

      If an ignorant, lower class shop girl is unduly self-centered, that’s one thing. It’s not good, and she can cause a bit of havoc, but she has little power and influence. But when a people’s natural leaders are unduly self-centered, that’s another thing entirely. When they behave dishonorably in their personal lives, they destroy trust and cultural cohesion. That’s why it’s important to understand the mini-Hef.

      The mini-Hefs misused their status and authority, and had no sense of honor whatsoever. Power and prestige divorced from honor is a dangerous and ugly thing, which is my main point. Those of us in subsequent generations get to live in the ruins as our reward.

      Hipster: “But our current plight was *not* caused by older men getting some company from some young things.”

      The title of mini-Hef faggot is not earned by an older man getting “…some company from some young things.” That sort of thing has always gone on to a certain extent, but the mini-Hef was different from his ancestors. He had status and authority, but no honor. Liberalism freed him from that. He embraced the Playboy philosophy at the expense of his wife, children, and race. Think about it: could our people have fallen so hard and so fast if the natural leaders of the time hadn’t utterly failed to resist? You can thank the mini-Hef faggot for that, not that he cares about your thanks. He had a good time.

      • Fine, since you offered a rebuttal with substance, I’ll make an exception. Please note that both you and Cly are conceding some of my points, who knows maybe we can even find a consensus.

        The “mini-Hef” theory was first proposed by Cly maybe two years ago, specifically in response to complaints from myself and other men about no-fault divorce. The original formulation was that no-fault was a reaction to a massive wave of men leaving their wives and abandoning their children to take up with their secretaries because they had been sold the Playboy lifestyle. While this clearly did happen in many cases, I dispute that that was a major trend. Mad Men is fiction, after all.

        First, there was no “golden age” of faithful white men. Remember the Prohibition movement? One of the first mass political movements of women and one of the reasons they opposed the saloons is because that’s where the hookers were. Factory men would go and spend their paycheck on booze and floozies in the saloons and women organized to stop it. Second, the elite white men have never been particularly loyal to the race. It was elite white men that brought black slaves to the Americas, it was elite white Northerners who enforced Reconstruction, it was elite white men who brought in the Chinese coolies to build the railroad, and it was white men who conquered Central and South America, went native, and created the modern mestizo. As Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, there was a trend of elite whites promoting race realism and immigration restriction during 1900-1940, but that was also done in their own self-interest, as they believed a non-white America would not maintain their economic efficiency, thus profits.

        White men have never been altruistic nor selfless stewards of the race, as much as we might wish they had been.

        Now, elite men have always been polygamous – Henry VIII and his many wives, for instance. But there are other very possible explanations for why a man might abandon kids. Thanks to genetic testing, we find that cuckolding men is far, far more common than previously thought. How many of those abandoned children were in fact, someone else’s kids? As much as we might wish to flatter ourselves, the vast majority of older men, with their paunches, bald spots, and modest paychecks, could never live the Playboy lifestyle and build a harem of hot young playthings. I talk to older divorced women all the time, and if I had a dime for every woman who said she lost all sexual interest in her husband, and in fact, would be fine with him having an affair or going to a prostitute, as long as he kept it discreet, I’d be a wealthy man. In Europe, this is not called “cheating” it’s called an “arrangement.” Men and women are different and you can hardly overestimate how different. It’s not women that have a big problem with polygamy, it’s the men at the bottom. Women would generally rather share an “alpha” than have a “beta” exclusively to herself.

        So these mini-Hefs – and I’m not questioning that they existed – were men at the top, not average middle class men. Playboy could simply never start a massive trend of middle and working class mini-Hefs, even if the men wanted it (and by nature, they would.)

        But what did cause a change in the family was feminism: the pill, abortion, and the Feminine Mystique – which is widely credited as starting second-wave feminism. The Feminine Mystique was *not* a complaint about the Playboy lifestyle, it posited that the role of wife and mother was unfulfilling and women should pursue careers. Add abortion, the pill, and Sex and the Single Girl (maybe the female version of Playboy so to speak) and you have the beginnings of the change of the traditional nuclear family. You simply could not destroy the typical family on a massive scale without the buy-in of women.

        I would guess though that the loosening of restrictions on overt sexuality in public media had an effect on the relations between men and women. I have no doubt there were lots of wives steaming as they watched their husbands ogling women in billboards, movies, and ads. Second wave feminism did *not* start out with complaints about the “objectification of women” and the like, that developed towards the end, the 70s and 80s.

        Men and women have, in a sense, opposing sexual strategies; men tend towards polygamy while women tend towards serial monogamy. There’s always a cat and mouse game, where one advances and another retreats, then it reverses. The mini-Hefs and the home-wreckers have always been with us.

        But really it was birth control more than anything that changed the game. It was birth control that enabled promiscuity, and by the late 70s quite a few men and women were slutting it up. This trend slowed considerably during the AIDS scare of the 80s, but by the time the 90s came around the Slut Club was firmly established. And I will agree with you (and Cly’s evolving reaction she mentions above) that Playboy was as much a symptom of these changes as a cause. Hefner was a feminist, self-admitted and proud. The birth control movement preceded Playboy by nearly half a decade.

        But there is no point white knighting on this issue, no one is denying men’s culpability – but there are women and men denying women’s culpability. It’s just benevolent sexism – the so-called “Women are Wonderful Effect.” But I would point out that that little thrill you get when you flatter a woman poster and get all those smiley faces – it goes away once they decide they don’t like you anymore because you pissed them off for some reason. I’d rather go toe-to-toe with a woman of substance than engage in mutual flattery with some of the lesser lights.

        Let’s try to stick to the truth, as unpleasant as it is sometimes. No one’s hands are clean here. In some ways, I’m being harder on the men than you are, because I don’t think the men were *ever* anything more than wanna-be mini-Hefs. It’s our nature.

      • mindweapon says:


        You keep ignoring the whole issue of children. You don’t mention children at all in any of your comments. You are an expert on male-female relations, but you can’t ignore the kids! You should have kids and be a high investment dad. You’ll love it!

        If you get a daughter, do the foreign language thing, knitting, sewing, ballet, gymnastics.

        If you get a boy, start him with aikido, judo and muy thai boxing and gymnastics as well as the foreign languages, a musical instrument if he takes to it, and building things. Make friends with someone who owns a farm and arrange to have your kids work on it regularly and find a carpentry workshop for your kid to build stuff if you don’t have one.

        Time to take your life ot the next level, Hipster. You don’t want to be a horny teenager forever.

      • @MW

        If you have any ideas on how I can get the mother of my child to acknowledge it’s mine, let me know. The law is not on my side. As far as I know, the little tyke is being raised by a decent, family oriented white man who loves the mother and can provide the sort of high investment parenting children need. Me? I’m not so sure.

        I also had a long term relationship with a woman and we did plan to have kids, but she backed out at the last minute. When it comes to reproduction, women are in the driver’s seat. However my ladyfriend and I are looking into our options.

        I dispute there was a wave of men abandoning their children due to Playboy. I’ve never seen any evidence this was the case. Instead, I know dozens of guys who are engaged in brutal custody battles with women who are clearly using their children as bargaining chips. Whatever happened back in the 60s, right now women have all the power when it comes to the kids, I don’t think anyone can dispute that.

        Also, I’d like to point out that I have (only semi-tongue in cheek) offered to donate my sperm to any white woman who wants it.

        Men are expendable. It’s no great loss if I never have (acknowledged) kids, and I have many, many nieces and nephews and even grand-nieces and grand-nephews. My family has been quite fecund already (all 100% white, by the way.)

        Speaking of sperm donation, if I found some super-bright, attractive redheaded woman that wanted a donor, even if she was a militant feminist … Harley, sweetheart, send me an email. 🙂

      • Trainspotter says:

        Hipster: “Please note that both you and Cly are conceding some of my points, who knows maybe we can even find a consensus.”

        Actually, I’m conceding nothing, because I don’t disagree with much of your analysis. I never have. I just think it has some blind spots, and the mini-Hef is one of them.

        Hipster: “While this clearly did happen in many cases, I dispute that that was a major trend.”

        Family dissolution was a major trend in the late 60’s and 70’s. Men were a big part of that. Based on what I saw (anecdotal, I know) men were the bigger culprits at the time. Let’s put it this way: if someone tells me a marriage falls apart today, my default assumption is that it’s more likely the woman’s fault. If somebody tells me that a marriage fell apart in 1975, I’m betting the other way. There has been a change.

        Hipster: “First, there was no “golden age” of faithful white men.”

        Nobody is claiming otherwise. The claim is that the mini-Hef had no concept of honor, behaved shamelessly in his personal life, and did not meet his traditional obligations. He inherited an intact culture, benefited from that intact culture, but failed to pass it on. And he couldn’t care less, because he had a good time. Let others live in the ruins. That’s how the mini-Hef thinks. That’s not how preceding generations thought.

        Hipster: “Second, the elite white men have never been particularly loyal to the race.”

        There is some truth in this, but it’s not so cut and dry. Yes, blacks were imported, and that was disastrous. But by the same token, segregation was maintained, which is why there is a white population in the South today at all, and why we’re not already like Brazil here. The segregationists were pretty much the last group of whites to uphold broad white interests, including that of poor whites. They could have just thrown the poor white kids to the wolves (which is what eventually happened), but they attempted to protect the broader tribe. The mini-Hef, on the other hand, couldn’t care less either way. He’s got his. Earlier generations of elite white men were loyal enough that we’re still here. But going forward? Since the arrival of the mini-Hef, all trends point toward our demographic destruction.

        In any event, the point is not that earlier generations of white men were perfect. It’s simply to say that, whatever their errors and flaws, and they were legion, they passed on an intact culture and race to the next generation. They left the country in pretty much as good or better shape than they found it. That is, until the arrival of the mini-Hef. It’s with the mini-Hef that we experience a discontinuous break, a distinct separation from the old ways to what we have today.

        Hipster: “So these mini-Hefs – and I’m not questioning that they existed – were men at the top, not average middle class men.”

        I would take a broader view of the phenomenon than that. The mini-Hefs that I know best tended to be upper middle class or a bit above that, but the mindset can exist at pretty much any economic level. We’re basically talking about husbands and fathers who preferred to play and pursue their narrow interests rather than meeting their traditional obligations. But I’m MORE interested in the prosperous mini-Hefs, because they are natural leaders in the community, and they are the ones who failed most spectacularly. They were best positioned to organize white resistance, but were too busy looking out for number one and having a good time. Juvenile clowns who were unworthy of their position. When we finally get a sovereign homeland, we need to learn how to develop a better elite.

        Also, you’re taking mini-Hef as too much of a compliment, as if we’re saying that they had harems of beautiful women. I’m sure few did. That’s not the point. The point is that unlike previous generations of philanderers, the mini-Hef generation resented and de facto rejected his traditional obligations. What would have been a point of honor to earlier generations was just an annoying inconvenience to the mini-Hef faggot. Therefore, he did his part in assisting, rather than resisting, cultural destruction. The result being the ruins that we live in today.

        Hipster: “You simply could not destroy the typical family on a massive scale without the buy-in of women.”

        This is true. We’re simply pointing out that it also couldn’t have happened without the buy-in of men, i.e. the mini-Hef.

        Hipster: “Hefner was a feminist, self-admitted and proud.”

        True. It should also be pointed out that Hefner was, pretty much, mainstream. Almost respectable. There has always been porn, and there has always been philandering, but the Hefner phenomenon was something different, courtesy of the mini-Hef faggot.

        Hipster: “But I would point out that that little thrill you get when you flatter a woman poster and get all those smiley faces – it goes away once they decide they don’t like you anymore because you pissed them off for some reason.”

        I have a long posting history, hipster. Seriously, if you imagine I do it for the smiley faces, you’re deluded. Not that a smiley isn’t nice, every now and again. Argumentative scribblers need love too!

        And I’ll say another thing, while I’m at it, and believe it or not, I mean it as constructive criticism. In general, I enjoy your posts, and I think you have something to offer. I’ve also seen your wit, and sometimes it’s top shelf. But the, dare I say it, girlish mode of attack that you occasionally fall into, claiming that those who disagree with you just can’t get laid, or are doing it for the smileys, I mean, come on. It’s weak tea, dude. It weakens what at times can be excellent writing. If you’re going to insult a man, do it right! Make it sing. But really, we should save that sort of thing for our enemies, not one another.

        Hipster: “Let’s try to stick to the truth, as unpleasant as it is sometimes. No one’s hands are clean here.”

        Then we have consensus, at least of a sort.

        Hipster: “I don’t think the men were *ever* anything more than wanna-be mini-Hefs. It’s our nature.”

        Or maybe not. It’s true that men have an impulse toward sexual variety, but it’s also true that the men of the West created deeply nuanced, honor based societies that existed over thousands of years. So that’s part of our nature, too. The crime of the mini-Hef is that he broke that chain, and failed to pass the torch to the next generation. That makes him different from his ancestors, and far lower. This is not saying that his ancestors were perfect, but rather that the mini-Hef faggot was particularly despicable.

      • Trainspotter says:

        Hipster: “I dispute there was a wave of men abandoning their children due to Playboy.”

        Playboy is just a symbol, as are Woodstock or Altamont. Nobody is seriously claiming that the seismic shifts that occurred in the 60’s and 70’s were the direct and sole result of Playboy Magazine, just that it symbolized a growing mindset. The term mini-Hef is a brilliant coinage by Cly. When I first heard it, I knew EXACTLY what she meant. It really was an aha moment.

        The reason that it’s of such interest is that it appealed to the very class of white that had historically defended the family and the community. This has been devastating. Every radical movement has to figure out who its target market is. For the longest time, what passes for the right has pandered to the mini-Hef faggot, and of course never gets anywhere. It’s important to realize that the mini-Hef is part of the problem, not the solution.

        I’ve long understood the Jewish role in our misfortunes, but it has always baffled me just how quickly white civilization fell under the Jewish assault. Let’s face it, we folded like a cheap suit. Lots of grumbling, but almost zero effective resistance. An entire civilization upended, an entire people on the road to oblivion. I think the reasons for that are quite complex, but the mini-Hef is a part of that puzzle.

      • claiming that those who disagree with you just can’t get laid

        What? If we’re talking about the original response, about how “I get to be the mini-Hef and you guys don’t” – dude, that was clearly meant as humor. I mean come on, I posted the video for “Just a Gigolo.” How seriously did you take that?

        But you are white-knighting, using the classic definition of the term.

        Family dissolution was a major trend in the late 60′s and 70′s. Men were a big part of that. Based on what I saw (anecdotal, I know) men were the bigger culprits at the time. Let’s put it this way: if someone tells me a marriage falls apart today, my default assumption is that it’s more likely the woman’s fault. If somebody tells me that a marriage fell apart in 1975, I’m betting the other way. There has been a change.

        If we’re swapping anecdotes, a friend of mine told me that his mother was the first woman in her neighborhood to get a divorce, and this was back in the late 60s. He said she just “wasn’t happy” and there was no abuse or cheating or anything like that. I think it’s just the opposite.

        We can agree to disagree, you’ve made many good points. But at this point, your “mini-Hef faggot” is far from Cly’s original definition and it is coming across to me as a strawman, some highly specific boogey man that I just don’t see any evidence of existing in massive numbers. The elites have never been “faithful” to the working classes. There never was an “intact culture,” there never was a Golden Age. In some ways, we are worse off than we were 100 years ago, in some ways we’re better.

        men of the West created deeply nuanced, honor based societies that existed over thousands of years.

        Eh, that’s a highly idealized version of the past. Men in the past were no more “honorable” than they are today. Men are no more selfish today than they were 200 years ago. You may as well be a Catholic bemoaning the Protestants not passing on the culture. These things go in cycles.

        Whites – both women and men – have it way, way better today than at any point in history. If I had a time machine, I wouldn’t go back to the “honor based” cultures of, say, England 500 years ago. You are way, way over-idealizing the past here. Come on, how “honorable” is it to execute your wife so you could remarry? This is a Ren Fair version of the past. This is just conservatism, “oh, modern morals, the young don’t respect the gods and the elders” etc. You can find this sentiment in the writings of the ancient Greeks.

        we folded like a cheap suit.

        I blame mass media (radio, TV) more than anything else, and it affected both men and women. Also, industrialization. This is hardly the first culture to have fallen.

        I’m sure MW is getting sick of this, so I’m giving you the last word, for real this time.

      • mindweapon says:

        I am getting sick of this debate, Hipster. Let’s revisit this issue when you are raising kids, bro.

      • Trainspotter says:

        Hipster: “I’m sure MW is getting sick of this, so I’m giving you the last word, for real this time.”

        I guess I’ll take it, but just to make a basic point or two. Again, I agree with much of your earlier analysis.

        Firstly, I really am not white knighting. I’m just calling it as I see it. In my posting here, I have indeed complimented (and criticized) the writing of some of the women posters. I’ve also complimented (and criticized) yours, and that of other men. Good writing is good writing, and good points are good points. So when I say that I’m not white knighting, I would think you could take me at my word on that, but enough said on the subject.

        Secondly, one thing that we really do disagree on, and this became apparent in your last post, is that I think things have changed a lot more than you do. Frankly, and I’m not that old, things have changed quite a bit just in my lifetime, never mind over centuries. I caught the tail end of the old way, and it was definitely different than what we have now. It was real, and it was very, very distinct.

        Anecdote time, and all of these relate, in some manner or fashion, to honor.

        I was in high school in the 80’s, and there wasn’t nearly the level of contempt between the sexes that you see now. We liked girls, and they seemed to like us. We didn’t think of them as sluts and whores (unless the girl really, really deserved it), or try to gangbang them (wouldn’t have occurred to us). Contrast this to what I saw amongst the same age group in the nineties, just a decade later. Big, big changes. Huge changes. Night and day.

        Another change from my time in high school: there was effectively zero interracial dating in the 80’s. It was perfectly legal, but virtually nobody did it. There were plenty of black guys around, but white girls simply would not go with them. A decade later: massive change.

        Another change: fighting. When I was in high school, of course we occasionally had our, shall we say, differences. Fights were almost invariably by appointment (obviously we didn’t call it that) – the two guys showed up at an agreed upon place at an agreed upon time. The fight was kept fair, nobody ganged up on anybody else. And not always, but many times the guys shook hands afterwards, or at least a few days later. Your humble narrator was in a number of fights, and saw many more. I never saw one that wasn’t handled fairly. To me, that’s honor.

        By the nineties it was bum rushing – basically, negrification. A guy gets knocked down and then everybody around, often including girls, would move in to kick him while he’s helpless on the ground. A group jumping a single guy had become perfectly acceptable, even to “normal” kids. It was funny to them. Amusing. Also, fights sprang up out of nowhere, vicious and out of the blue. Obviously, the idea was to catch the other guy off guard. Sneaky, vicious, and unfair were the orders of the day.

        I could go on and on, Hipster, but my point is this: things do in fact change. They change a lot. So maybe there was a Golden Age, maybe not. But at a minimum there was a Better Age, at least where morals and honor are concerned. I think the evidence supports my claim that the mini-Hef was/is substantively, meaningfully different from those who came before him. But we can agree to disagree, and overall it was a useful exchange. Hopefully some lurkers will get some benefit out of it.

  15. Denise says:

    Men and women have both done horrid things all throughout time. Women and men can be rotten scoundrels. But the Mini Heff Tragedy is a Modern Male Sin. It really is all about a betrayal of the children. Not the wife – the children.

    Women bear children, and raising a human child to self reliance is a huge time investment. Men have always kept harems, and women agreed to the arrangements because the Warlord types could generally be relied upon to keep the kiddies fed. The fact remains than White Men Ruled the World. When White men began to grow more fascinated with the dazzling technological toys they created, and the promise of a new Slut every single night, and that all of that was far more important than their own children – that’s when it all fell to apart.

    I am White woman I used to live in Washington DC about a million years ago. White women are used to having all kinds of males approach them, when nubile and reasonably attractive. I met all kinds of people from al over the world, when I was in DC. I had Arab and African men approach me. When they learned that I was not slut, any “easy American” – they took me seriously. I received proposals – and every one stressed the desire for CHILDREN. Right up front.

  16. Craig says:

    Harley is a red head that deserves a smile. 😆 My son’s a red head. No shit my town has one of the largest red head, strawberry red, populations I’ve seen.

    Mini Heff-Faggot makes sense to me as in all the bi sexual males, they seem to be the horny bastards that push the slut lifestyle the hardest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s