A new take on the sexes, part II

Continued from the series on getting rid of toxic beta behavior in men and boys, and How To Be the Kind of Man that Will Attract the Kind of Woman You Actually Want.

This second half is about emotional and mental fitness, and as with the first one, is about how to replace toxic beta behavior with healthy behavior.  Not necessarily super-duper Alpha behavior, but at least behavior that isn't toxic, that isn't going to actively repel women (and men, for that matter).  The remainder of this post is quoted in full, with only very light editing by me (mostly to remove jargon and replace it with words that are in more common usage, or the removal of the occasional rude word.)  Because of that, I'm not marking them in italics or blockquotes for the remainder of this post; it's just all quoted.

The toxic beta lives on an emotional roller coaster which goes from anxious repression to emotional outbursts which can accumulate into rage and then despair. A toxic beta is effectively out of balance emotionally and which is why they are so obnoxious to people around them and especially to women.

I have a couple of ideas of why this is so, and my guess is that a toxic beta was a boy who was just a little more emotionally sensitive and a bit smarter than the average boy, then experienced some combination of the following factors: an equally toxic beta father or father figure, raised by women alone, bullied rather heavily, socially awkward and had trouble knowing how to act, overweight or possessed some other physical trait that made him overly self-conscious. I don't think it is any one thing, but rather a combination of several influences and events beyond which slowly turns a boy who might have some tendencies towards being toxic into a full-blown worst kind of beta in adulthood. If you suspect you are a toxic beta you'll probably find this list or events like this to be still painful in your memory. Take that same boy and surround him with strong, but patient men, and have him enter into a masculine profession or the military, and he'd probably turn out ... well, at least a mostly nice-guy beta, which is orders of magnitude better than the toxic kind.

After a lifetime of toxic reinforcement how does a man turn things around? I suggest for one month swinging the pendulum far in the opposite direction. Almost like an emotional detox, the beta needs to completely turn around for a time and get off the emotional roller coaster. I suggest one month of practicing the ancient philosophy of Stoicism. The first step is to get yourself a copy of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations.  This is the place to start because it isn’t a philosophical abstract but instead a portrait of an Emperor and how he lives out the philosophy in his daily life. It’s also a good read.

As for a definition of Stoicism I’m going straight to the dictionary:  the endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings and without complaint.

From dictionary.com: a philosophy that flourished in ancient Greece and Rome. Stoics believed that people should strictly restrain their emotions in order to attain happiness and wisdom; hence, they refused to demonstrate either joy or sorrow.

What are the practical applications of this for today's world?

• Drop all snarky, flippant, and silly comments and voices about people and things. Its fine to tell an actually joke, but stop trying to be cute and funny all of the darn time. Witty remarks are useful, but you need to take a break for a bit.
• This month drop all online forum debates, especially when you are really emotionally invested. Go silent in your profiles unless it’s reassuring a community you are OK, ONLY if they ask.
• Stay away from social media unless you have to get on it for a specific reason. Social media is a hotbed of emotional flame wars.
• When in groups of friends and families and a hot-button topic comes up in which you'd typically dive into (and of course wow the ladies with your stellar command of minutia!) keep your mouth shut and simply watch and listen to the participants instead.
• Stop watching any and all reality TV shows in which there's a lot of screaming and emotional manipulation going on to get a rise out of the audience.
• Stay away from news stories which you know act as a trigger for you to instantly get upset about.
• Try to schedule some time, even if it's just most of a single day to go somewhere solitary and quiet in the outdoors. When there make an effort to quiet your mind, drop the internal debates about politics, religion, etc., going on in there and instead focus on good things in life that you’ve been blessed with. This can be done multiple times if needed.
• If you have a wife or girlfriend don't be baited by the typical arguments you two have this month, and be aware of what you say before you say it if things get heated. Instead show them love as it covers a multitude of sins, and patience as you realize you have probably been just as guilty as them in emotional manipulation.
• Kindly tell your female friends (especially that one you really want to date) to unburden their emotions on someone else. Don't be rude, but be firm.
• If someone emotionally vomits all over you, tries to get an emotional rise out of you, engage you in a rhetorical argument, or tells stupid and silly jokes, simply grunt in reply. I'm serious here, grunt. Don't get baited in; don't tell them all about how you are now a quiet Stoic. The responses you get from this will be eye opening to say the least, and are sometimes quite funny. Just be sure to keep a straight face. Please practice your grunt now.

Hopefully after one month you will have a substantial increase in clarity of thought, emotional balance and most importantly become more aware of your emotional triggers. You should be able to start controlling your actions when you become emotional. You cannot control the fact that you have emotions, but you can limit exposure to situations in which you know you will become extremely emotional, and you can work on always controlling your actions regardless of how you feel at the moment.

If after one month you feel you need to continue in stoicism and introspection then go ahead and do it for up to six months. Sometimes you need a reset to get yourself out of a behavioral pattern. I stopped trying to date, and concentrated on working out and just thinking about life for several months before I got back into it and found success. Sometimes a man just has to step back for a while and re-evaluate his life in order to improve his actions. It can take time.

On the other hand, if after a time of introspection you find that you are becoming more upset, emotional, depressed, or even suicidal, then please seek professional help. Sometimes the shock of leaving trying to leave this toxic behavior behind, especially if there has been childhood abuse, can be overwhelming for a man, and in that case he will need more that just a good friend and introspection. It's not a statistical quirk that causes suicide rates for men to be higher than for women and you need to take care of yourself.

I think Stoicism is one of the greatest philosophies of Man, and it can be especially helpful for men when they get out of balance, but the point to this post isn't to create philosophers or hermits. And I don't think that repressing joy in vain hopes of philosophical happiness is a good idea. A man should be able to have a good belly laugh with his friends, be of cheerful spirit, and show deep love and affection for his children and wife. Don't think at a funeral of a friend or family member you can't cry, even Jesus wept at the grave of his friend. Stoicism is a tool, not a straightjacket to use to turn you into Spock. After practicing it this month, take the positive elements from it and work them into your life. Wouldn't you like to be known as the guy who is cool under pressure? The man in the extended family who can be relied upon to be sober-minded and reliable when there's an emergency? An employee or businessman known to be fair and evenhanded even when chaos swirls around him?

The anti-beta conclusion on Emotional aspect of life: You can't stop yourself from having emotions, but you can control your actions in response to them.

There is no man on the planet more intellectually dishonest than a toxic beta, as even an Omega has enough self-awareness to avoid being a buffoon at social event and will instead stay at home and play computer games. Everything from a toxic beta is a con or a presented image because behind that shell is a scared, miserable boy who uses whatever tools are at his disposal to build the Beta Delusion Bubble. The Gamma Delusion Bubble shields the Gamma from somehow and some way ever being wrong about anything, as there is no being wrong about "something", there is only being a wrong "person". His identity is so tied up in his opinions about everything, including himself, that any slip-up is a catastrophe which must be avoided at all costs.

The second-most terrifying statement for a toxic beta is to admit that he doesn’t know something. He constantly speaks of having knowledge in areas he most certainly does not. Being ignorant for a beta is being discredited as a person, so they will do what is in their power to bluff, obfuscate, and redirect people so others don't see their ignorance. If you wish to escape the life of a toxic beta you must learn the statement, "I don;'t know" and use it when it is appropriate.

I must unfortunately take a moment to explain to the binary-thinking betas that no, you do not go from being a know-it-all to blurting out "I don't know" at the start of nearly every conversation, feel the need to explain all of the time now about how you don't know something, and talk about how proud you are about not to knowing things. You may laugh at this, but I know this behavior pattern well, and there are some out there who will do this exact thing thinking they are improving their situation, until it obviously doesn't work and they blame this post for their failures.

In simple practice you say this when needed and you honestly don't know about the topic at hand. While at first glance it seems easy enough if you are a beta, it is difficult in reality. It's challenging because typically you've already hung yourself on your own ignorance in a conversation by saying way more than you should have, and by the time you are challenged on a point, having to say you don't know part of it means your entire argument might collapse. Think about this for a moment. If you are saying so much that if someone challenges a point, and by admitting that you don't know about something in which you are pontificating about, it destroys what you are saying, where was your first error? It was BSing in the first place. Stop making definitive statements about things if you can't back them up with logic or evidence, unless it is clearly a subjective opinion of little matter.

Examples of subjective opinions of little matter: favorite color, sports teams, movies you like, the hottest actress. You don't have to know why you have a favorite sports team or why you like green over blue, it doesn't matter. On the other hand if you think we should use gold as a currency rather than fiat, you'd better know all about the subject before trying to tell people how the monetary system should be run. Gammas do not want to admit ignorance, they want to appear intelligent, so they overreach their arguments and then feel they can't backtrack an inch.

The most terrifying statement for a toxic beta is admitting he is wrong about something. You must start to take responsibility for your words and actions if you want to stop being beta. Once again, this is exceedingly difficult if you are not used to doing it. Do you realize the power there is in the words: "I am wrong"? These aren’t words of weakness but of power, first, because you speak the truth, and second, because this truth allows you room for correction. In other words, if you never admit you are wrong, you can never correct your thinking.

Instead of trying to bluff when asked if you know something about what you've stated, say this instead: "You make a good point, I don't know." They may leave it at that and let it go, which means you just got off easy. If they push the point and destroy your shoddy argument, you now have to take the beating like a man. Don't whine, don't ask for mercy, do'’t lie, don't get snarky, and don't disappear, TAKE IT. Then, when they are finished demolishing your ill-conceived statements, you should reply: "I was wrong. I didn't think that through very well and it turns out you were right." Sucks doesn't it? Think of it this way, you picked a fight with someone tougher than you and you got a bloody nose. Now, are you going to go run home to mommy crying or are you going to train harder for the next fight? If you want to know what separates a toxic beta from a healthy regular guy in the mental aspect of life it is this response right here. A normal knows when he is beaten and will submit, but a beta knows he is beaten and then lies incessantly to himself and others about the loss because he cannot admit defeat.

This is why toxic betas hate and fear Alphas so much, as an Alpha will not relent and will keep beating someone (in a physical fight, rhetoric, or dialectic) until the other submits or it is clear to everyone that he has defeated the opponent. Everyone else in the hierarchy will submit or be destroyed, but the toxic beta will never admit defeat and so the Alpha will keep throwing punches until onlookers literally start to beg the poor beta to stop making a fool of himself.  His appeals will get more hysterical, more emotional and the Alpha will take the hysteria, form it into a club, and splatter the beta's proverbial brains all over the pavement to the eventual horror (or in some cases, snickers), of the crowd.

In an online environment, he can act like a buffoon forever until he disappears or is banned from a site for his actions; in real life eventually the he is socked in the nose or worse when he plays this sort of game with an Alpha one too many times. I think all boys have witnessed this at least once: some little twerp mouths off to the leader of the group of boys (not a bully, but the de facto leader), and the next thing the twerp knows is he has a black eye and is running to women for protection from the "bully". Don't mistake this for defending bullies, I hate bullies, this is a kid being a smart-aleck towards another boy in an attempt to undermine his status, who pays for it, but then won't accept his status after being put in his place. Since most adults never get into any physical confrontation the most common scenario you'll see is the toxic beta mouth off to a man of higher status, the higher-status man turns around, looks them in the eye, and challenges them. The beta will generally turn pale and try to leave the situation, or he will lie about the challenge in the first place.

Let me clarify the challenge in the male hierarchy. It goes on all the time and is a natural part of life as a man. In fact, it’s healthy, as men are much more efficient as a group when the order is more or less defined. If a regular Joe challenges the Alpha, he gets smacked around a little, then gets back in line. The toxic beta challenges the Alpha and doesn't get back in line, instead he lies about the challenge, insults the Alpha's character, tries to humor his way out of it, whines when he gets smacked, swears hatred towards the Alpha, and derides anyone who makes him feel bad or sides with the Alpha. He does anything and everything to lie about not being beaten. This is why in Bizarro Beta World they will sometimes claim to be Alphas, because in their minds they are never beaten when everyone else sees a sorry sack of a man who is thoroughly and completed beaten, but won't admit defeat. This isn't a Rocky Balboa-type desire to never quit, which would be admirable, but rather, it would be like Rocky, after being beaten senseless by Clubber Lang then running around the ring talking about his gloves not being on right, he didn't hear the bell, Lang being a hateful and racist fighter, then pretending the fight never happened while cracking lame jokes about boxing being a stupid sport. That Rocky would be loathsome and worthy of no respect.

This is it, this is the pivot point in which you can go from the toxic mentality to the healthy mentality and perhaps even eventually beyond, which is admitting you are wrong and that you don't know things. Once again, don't just breeze through this point, but live it. Accept it. It is much more difficult than the average beta can even imagine and it will be terribly painful adjustment. It is shedding the skin of protective dishonesty, without which you will be more vulnerable to start with, but eventually much stronger. Some of you reading this post won't be able to make this journey with us. I can hear the wheels spinning now:  "I’m not really like that… he's full of crap and wishes he was an Alpha… I don't agree with something he wrote so it's all invalid… this is just out-of-control masculinity… he's not being Christ like in his attitude…", and so on. To you I offer no consolation, only this advice: Enjoy your life as a beta. I don't mean this as an insult, but rather don't obsess over your inability to go beyond what you are, and let it ruin you completely. Don't let "what could have been" be a cloud over your existence, but rather take what you've been given and make the most of it.

I have sympathy here for the beta attempting to cross this chasm on what looks like a frayed rope bridge, but it must be done, and it will be painful at times. Be prepared for the other betas you meet online and in person to pounce on your admittance to not knowing something, or to being wrong. Some of them will try to shout it like headline news. They will seize upon it, they will remember it, and they will try to use it against you, possibly forever. They are contemptible and you will find, as you leave being toxic, that you will have to leave your toxic friends and acquaintances behind. A very righteous anger will grow in you against men who cannot forgive, cannot forget, and lie all of the time about themselves while always being ready to point out the slightest flaws in others. The fists that ball up in your hands at this behavior are normal, and good. Men should be outraged at this conduct; you should be furious that a liar uses good (admittance of wrong) to do evil in order to make themselves look better.

The good news is that everyone but other toxic betas understands this and will respect you more for taking this step. Women will admire you much more, and even a low status everyman will silently nod his head, be your friend, and have respect for you when you own up to your intellectual shortcomings. This is normal behavior for men who are not toxic betas. Don't expect a parade for this behavior, though, or even a pat on the back very often, just don't be surprised when someone appreciates your candor and gives you respect for it. What you are doing is moving from a world of darkness and lies into the light of truth. Believe me, it is a much better world. It is so much better that you cannot imagine it while you are still a beta.

If you are ready to make this leap, then don't just think about it, act upon it. Look for the next legitimate opportunity to admit you don't know something when asked, admit that you are truly ignorant about the subject, and admit that you are wrong (using those very words!) when shown to be so. It probably won't take very long to find the opportunity.

A new take on the sexes, part I

I've talked quite a bit about what I think is wrong with girls in America today.  For a change of pace, I thought I'd give some guidance for the boys.  The text is largely adapted from Alpha Game's "Graduating Gamma" series and is therefore focused on getting rid of toxic beta behavior.  I'd have simply linked to it, but it's not told from an LDS perspective, and for my purposes, it needs to be.  Also, it's probably a bit on the long side, so I've edited it down.

How to be the kind of guy who will attract the kind of girls you want to attract

Dimension #1: Physical

(The order in which they appear is not to indicate any relative importance.  They had to come in some order is all.)

Guys tend to misunderstand and believe that girls are as drawn by physical attractiveness as guys are.  They're not.  The parameters for attraction are not generally the same between the two sexes.  That said, being as physically attractive as you can be certainly doesn't hurt.  By this I don't mean obsessing with your hair, or anything else vain or OCD, but rather, being in good shape and taking care of yourself.

Get the facts.  Do you know your weight?  Your BMI?  Your blood pressure and cholesterol?  Most people, if they're out of shape, probably know it, but be armed with the facts, not suppositions, not guesses, and certainly not wishful thinking that you're telling yourself.  If you haven't recently done so, get a physical.  At the very least, go to a pharmacy and take your blood pressure, step on a scale, and look up your BMI.  And make a plan to get into better shape if you're not.  Given the epidemic of overweightness and even obesity in today's society, I'll presume that you probably need to lose some.  If not now, as you get older you will.

I don't care what diet you are on to lose weight and nobody else does either. Let me repeat that: I don't care what diet you are on and nobody else does either. Nobody cares about your diet.  Your mother probably doesn't even care what your diet is.  And the last thing the world needs is some overweight guy running around blabbing to everyone about his holy grail diet that he just discovered a few days ago, or even months ago, for that matter.  One of the most irritating beta habits out there is constantly lecturing everyone in an attempt to make yourself look or feel intelligent.  You're not the food police, and even if you've read a book or two or an article online here and there, you're not a dietitian either.  Nobody really wants your opinion on what they should be eating; the only one who cares about your opinion of what you should eat is you.  The only time it is acceptable to talk about your diet is when 1) You can say that you've been on X diet for Y amount of time and have lost Z lbs, and 2) someone specifically asks you about it.

Just do it, don't talk about it.  Don't make excuses to not do it.  This is the killer for most people (including me).  Taken from the article, here are some common ones.  Don't say these things.

• BMI is stupid! – Yeah, it probably is.  But it's a good guideline for more or less where you should be, and let's face it—you're not the exception that you're talking about.  That's being hopelessly obtuse and binary in your thinking, and has nothing to do with the fact that you're out of shape.  
• I don't have the time to go to the gym – Nobody has time to go to the gym.  But for people who make it a priority, they do it anyway.  In any case, if you really don't have time to go to the gym, do you have a floor you can do push-ups and sit-ups on?  Do you have a neighborhood you can walk or run in?  Do something rather than saying that the ideal thing that you'd like to do is too time-consuming for you to do.
• I don't have the money for the gym – Fair enough.  But walking, push-ups, sit-ups, crunches, squats, stairs, and more are all still free.
• If I worked out I'd be in great shape if I wanted to – I bet you would, but you aren't.
• American, Western diet is terrible, man. Like GMOs, carbs, caveman, gluten, sugar, fat, protein and stuff, man. There's no way I can do it. –  Yeah, yeah.  We all know.  And yet, not everyone is in terrible shape, and they don't spend an arm and a leg on food and hours at the gym daily to get there either.

That was kinda negative, but sometimes beta behaviors need to be faced head-on.  Here's some more positive traits to take on instead.  These I quoted directly from the article referred to above:

• Practice stoicism with your diet. This is a quiet, calm acceptance of what the diet brings, including the successes and failures.
• If anyone ever asks you about what you'd like to eat when you are a guest never tell them to modify what they are making to accommodate your diet. You have to be the one which practices self-control and deals with what is on your plate. In other words you don't want to be known as the weirdo who nobody wants to invite over because your diet. (None of this applies to legitimate food allergies or celiac disease, etc.)
• If you make a meal for others, be sure there's food for all tastes; don't force people into your diet.
• If you start to make healthier choices, women notice and they will follow. Want a practical experiment? If you have a girlfriend, wife, or just eat around some women, regularly start picking the healthier options and you will see just like magic the women will too. Occasionally they will get upset instead, but they notice. My wife still remembers to this day that on our very first date I skipped the chips and ate the fruit. I never mentioned a thing about being on a diet, though I was at the time.
• The same stoicism applies to your workout too. I don't care if you like free weights vs. machines, crossfit, running, or whatever. Keep your mouth shut and just go about your business.
• Whenever you feel like talking about your success in whatever you are doing in that first year, channel that energy into doing it even better rather than talking about it. Lead by example.
• If you are under 30 try picking up a highly physical competitive sport when you can handle it like a basketball, or soccer league or martial arts. Competition shakes out the beta tendencies and is great exercise.

Never give up.  Nobody's ever at their perfect physical condition until the resurrection.  Get back on the wagon if you fall off and keep trying.  Making progress is the goal.  If you're making progress, you're doing it right, even if you still have more progress that needs to be made.  The post I'm referring to also gives some examples of how to handle some of this stuff from a social angle, which I think is pretty clever and which I like much more than I expected to.  I'll reproduce this in full too.

Person: ”You don’t want any more of this? You on a diet or something?”
You: “I’m full, thanks.” 

Person: ”What do you think about the diet-du jour I’m all into?!?!”
You: “I don’t know… I just try to watch what I eat. 

Girl: “I love chocolate cake, you? I mean I could eat this whole thing if I didn’t stop!”
You: “Yeah, I know what you mean. I love desserts too.” *You eat one small piece in front of her* 

Girlfriend/wife: “I want to lose weight, honey. I’m going to try the XYZ diet I heard about. What do you think?” **DING! DING! This is good news she’s changing for you.**
You: “Sounds like a good idea; I’ll watch what I eat too. I know I need to watch it sometimes.” *Then you stick to your diet and just help when she asks for it. Ultimately her food choices are NOT your responsibility* 

Person at gym: “I’m doing this exercise thing I’m so excited about let me tell you all about why it is better than what everyone else does…”
You-interrupting: “Hey man, that’s cool and I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m here to get a workout in, so can I get back to my thing?” *walk away if you need to* 

Person: “We are having a BBQ this weekend, is there anything you can’t eat? I’ve noticed you’ve lost some weight, are you on some diet? I don’t want to mess you up or anything…”
You: “Oh no, whatever you make is just fine. I’ve lost a little weight lately, thanks for noticing.”
Person: “No really, you’ve lost some serious weight these last six months, what have you been doing? Atkins? I know a girl who…”
You: *after waiting for them to catch their breath so you aren’t rude* “I’ve just been watching it some, nothing special. Thanks for the invite, I’ll see you there.”

 Dimension #2: Spiritual

In the modern world, spirituality is often spurned, especially if it's Christian spirituality (ironically, all kinds of other bizarre cultic beliefs are often celebrated.)  The scriptures prophesied that in the last days, the truly righteous will be very few.  You need to be one of them.  This doesn't just mean not doing overtly bad things, there's a lot more that needs to be done.  Much of what we talk about in Church is geared towards increasing our spirituality, and I don't want to miss something important just because I'm writing a much smaller summary of how to be spiritual than you'll get in General Conference.  Rather, I'm going to focus on a few things that I think maybe aren't covered as much, or as succinctly as I'd sometimes like to see them, with a focus on removing toxic beta behavior with regards to your spirituality.  This is probably the article that I'm summarizing that requires the most work, both because it was written as a catch-all for any belief system, and because the author is a Christian, but not of our faith, so he's missing stuff that we know.

Know what you believe and why you believe it.  We've all been there —testimony meetings where people get up and use it as a thank you, or I love all of you, or I need group therapy and this is all I can afford, or whatever.  Gospel doctrine classes where comments are a field day of false doctrines and bizarre ideas.  Utah culture conflicting with Church doctrine.  Pushy people at Church who want to proselytize their pet ideas as more correct than what the Brethren have taught (I had to hear that with regards to fouling in Church ball recently.)  Quoting the article briefly:

The most common error I see betas make in regards to spiritual and ethical matters is treating it like a game of witty comments, snark, and playing at the edges of important matters without skin in the game. The second mistake is thinking width of knowledge of spiritual matters is more important than depth. This flows directly from the beta's ever-present and crippling fear of being wrong somewhere and somehow. The beta does not understand the deep matters behind what is going on in his own beliefs, which is ironic since most betas vastly overestimate their knowledge and ability in most everything. 

The first step is to really be familiar with the scriptures.  Read the Book of Mormon every day.  When you're done, turn to the beginning and start over.  Do your Come Follow Me religiously (no pun intended.)  Go to seminary or institute if it's age appropriate for you.  If not, you can still get most institute manuals online anyway—go through them.  Read the Conference reports backwards and forwards in the months between sessions.  The best antidote to falling prey to false doctrine is to understand true doctrine.  Seek the spirit and have it with you as you study.  It will bear witness of the truth of what you read, and will warn you of false interpretations.

While I'm not very familiar with this market, I know it's out there for people who grow up in the Deseret area—Utah, northern Arizona, parts of California, Wyoming, and most of Idaho.  Be wary of non-Church approved sources of doctrine and interpretation.  Popular books, podcasts, memes, or whatever may all be well and good, but they may also be from people who have grasped on to Gospel hobbies, or who otherwise will lead you stray, or even if not astray, they will keep you from seeing what you really should be doing (remember Elder Oaks talk "Good, Better Best" from a few years ago?)

You should even be wary of reading some random guy's blog about this kind of stuff.

Some quotes from the article: "[P]ray a great deal about what you find in humility and ask for forgiveness in being arrogant and obnoxious about your beliefs. Pray for wisdom and insight. Pray for a peaceful soul when finding troubling new truths.[...] Realize you are probably not nearly as smart as you'd like to think and you need to change when the truth leads you to an inevitable conclusion.  You do this because you need depth on your beliefs, not width. You don't need to know everything about everyone else's beliefs; you need to know yours very well. [...] [B]e honest with yourself about your beliefs and why you hold them. Live up to the beliefs consistently as possible."

Seek guidance from wise people placed in your path.  You have a called Bishop or Branch President. You have ministering brothers.  You have a family.  You have Sunday School and Priesthood classes.  Enter these opportunities with humility, not trying to show off your knowledge or play gotcha games with tough questions, but to honestly improve your knowledge of and faith in the Gospel and the Atonement of Jesus Christ. And then I'll also add another quote about forgiveness from the article, because it applies especially to a lot of toxic beta behavior that is sadly too common in our society.  I'm quoting below with only one minor modification for correct doctrine.

One of the most difficult things for betas to do is to forgive. They are so afraid of being seen as wrong or disliked they almost never forgive a slight and think that others never forgive either. They hold grudges, they are passive-aggressive towards people who have embarrassed them, or ignore them (block them on Twitter in today's world), and they don't even forgive themselves for wrongs. Betas don't forgive themselves, instead they lie to themselves and claim that they have done no wrong.  If they do happen to admit to themselves they did something wrong, they typically obsess about it to the point of exhaustion, but never deal with it. It's big reason why their relationships are perpetually troubled, they come across as disingenuous to most people because they genuinely are, and they obsess about minor offenses because they aren't honest and they don't know how to forgive. 

Forgiveness is a big part of a spiritual life, and life in general. Don't be obtuse about this either, that I’m talking about a wishy-washy faux forgiveness in which one claims there’s nothing to forgive. You are not required to forget actions taken against you, or make yourself vulnerable to further exploitation, but of us it is required to forgive all men. When you forgive someone, that’s the end of it. Repentance isn't just being sorry, it means changing one's behavior, which is a big difference. You don't lord their past actions over them, demand penance, or other such nonsense. You move on. You should also seek reconciliation against those you have legitimately wronged. However, don't let your attempt at reconciliation open you to an attempt at revenge against you. Forgiving someone doesn't mean you have to date them, marry them, or even associate with them anymore beyond being civil if you are in the room with them. Forgiveness is not affection.  

Being a man means being honest with yourself about your actions, taking responsibility for them, seeking reconciliation when you’ve done wrong, and forgiving those who have wronged.

More quoting without needing much editing by me.  The remainder of this post is quoted with only a light touch of editing by me:

Don't give out your word easily or say you will do something you think you cannot do or will not realistically do. This isn't a technique to dodge responsibility, but rather a way to focus your abilities into the things you can actually accomplish and do well. A beta will act like he can do things he can't and has a profound inability to take responsibility for his actions and typically resorts to running, lying, and deflecting as to avoid consequences. Once you start taking responsibility for things you will find it starts to become natural though not always easy. If someone gives you a task to do and you aren't sure you can do it, there’s nothing wrong with letting them know you may not succeed but then assure them you will give it your full effort. If you fail, take full responsibility for your actions even if someone else put you in a tough spot, but be honest about how you ended up there if people inquire.  

Women generally despise men who have no firm foundations of beliefs. They may not notice for a while if you are careful, but eventually they spot your inconsistent behavior and lose respect for you. A firm foundation and wellspring from which you draw your beliefs about the universe acts like a rock of stability which women respect even if they don't believe the same. You’ll find the same is true with men as well. Christians routinely say, and mean it when they'd rather deal with an honest atheist than a dishonest Christian. 

This is pure Game here, which is standing out in the crowd. In today's world will not an honest and honorable man not stand out in the crowd? I hear the cynic now talking about how an honest man is naïve, and people spit on honor. Honesty is not naïve it means dealing with how things really are, and who cares if the degenerates of the world scoff at virtue? They have always scoffed and they'll scoff to their grave and perhaps beyond.  

The reason that depth is more important than width here is the gravity of the subject at hand. The consequences are eternal, and they're not limited to just you. If you have children then what you pass on to them can carry on for generations.  

For the beta this lack of personal, spiritual, honesty is the underpinning of all of their problems. If you start to become honest with yourself, learn about why you believe certain things at a deep level, are ready to forgive and also repent when you do wrong, you'll find the other steps: Physical, Mental, and Emotional become easier to correct.
The anti-beta conclusion on Spiritual aspect of life: The world needs more honest men and honorable men. Be one of them.

What is a Judeo-Christian value?

https://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/yoris-news-clips/theres-no-such-thing-as-judeo-christian-values/2013/12/26/

This article should be required reading for all Christians.  Yeah, yeah—"not all Jews are like that!"  I'm sure that's true.  I have an ancestor, somewhat distant, but still, who we believe was Jewish, from Prussia.  He came to America in the late 1600s, married a local Christian girl, abandoned his Jewish identity and became American (I personally think it likely that this process started a few generations earlier, and may well have been part of the reason for the move to America in the first place, but his grandfather had already left Prussia to move to Switzerland.  It seems likely that that's because they'd already abandoned their Jewish identity and married local Christian girls, although I admit that that's speculation on my part.) Personally, I believe that's the only way any fake American becomes American, and actually, even then he doesn't—his descendants a few generations later have become American.  But given that my ancestor gave up his Jewish identity for a Christian, American one, I'm not sure he counts as a good example anyway.

One of my sons was declared to belong to the tribe of Judah in his patriarchal blessing (probably this Jewish ancestor plays some role in that), so I've given maybe a little more thought than most (certainly more than I had prior to that) to what it means to be Jewish.  And what the world means and what God means are not the same thing—obviously my son does not practice the Talmudic Jewish religion.

The article really drips with the hatred, derision and contempt that many Jews feel for America and Western Civilization overall.  You can see that there is a large group of Jews, including most of those who chart their public course, who truly do hate Western Civilization, especially Christianity, and are as fully and fundamentally opposed to it as their Pharisee ancestors were at the time of Christ.  Once you can get your head around that idea in the first place, then suddenly your eyes are opened, quite literally.  All kinds of behavior of Jews in politics, in Hollywood, in academia, in the press, and elsewhere, actually starts to make sense for the first time ever—it's because they never assimilated, never became Americans, and in fact, feel nothing but contempt and scorn for America, for Christianity, and our European nations (and by this I mean that America is a nation descended from Europeans, bearing European culture and genetics, not that we're located in Europe, obviously.)

Judeo-Christian doesn't mean anything.  It's a rhetorical sleight of hand, meant to make it easier for us to be exploited to further Jewish interests.  Which is why we've spent decades burning through American money and lives fighting wars in the Middle East that nobody who's not Jewish can think of a reason for exactly.  Which is why it's been Jewish politicians and academics that have fed a steady diet of socialism and tyranny to Americans for decades (as they did to the Russians and other Europeans before that).  It's why Hollywood, the media and academia have waged such a brutal political war to purge Christianity from the public sphere, enabled by subverting Jewish judges on the bench, who had no interest or respect for the white Anglo-Saxon Christian traditions which made Christianity such an integral part of American cultural fabric until fairly recently.  It's even why the accused in the #MeToo movement were over 75% Jewish or part Jewish; a semi-controlled burn where a few were sacrificed to maintain the much greater massive system that exploits American women and children for Jewish sexual exploitation even today.  Heck, Jewish lawyer Alan Dershowitz recently made a motion with Jewish 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals judge Robert Katzmann to keep the legal implications of unsealing documents related to Jewish convicted pedophile pimp Jeffrey Epstein from being made public.  What's already been made public in stuff like Judy Garland or Shirley Temple's biographies, or in articles like the one I linked above, should be sufficient to make any American wary at best, and willing to entertain ideas about the behavior of Jews that he otherwise would never have considered—because an awful lot of them have proven that they have no qualms, reservations or willingness to condemn that behavior, as long as it comes from a Jew.

Now, of course, while I rather flippantly used the expression "Not all Jews are like that!" of course, that's true too.  Just because you should be wary because you're aware of behavior patterns doesn't mean that you should automatically assume that behavior patterns are too strongly correlated.  Most people are incapable of nuanced thinking, and I'm hardly recommending that being wary of the influence of Jews in both your public and private life means that you should shun and condemn all Jews either.  That would be absurd.  People, yes even Jewish people, need to be treated like individuals, and your dealings with them based on your experience with them.

But that said, be wary of people who have divided or hidden loyalties, and may not be pursuing the best interests of you, your family, your nation and your traditions at all.  And the same applies to more than just the Jews, of course.  And how do you know to be wary?  Because a reasoned and calm discussion like I'm trying to have here would be met with shrieks and screams of "anti-Semite!" and demands for my apology, my firing, my complete and total unpersoning in American society.  Or they would, rather, if I were important enough to get anyone's attention.

PS: Check out this transcript of a podcast review or Horazny's The Virtue of Nationalism: https://adversariapodcast.com/2019/02/26/transcript-for-yoram-hazony-the-virtue-of-nationalism/

Conservative Democracy

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/01/conservative-democracy

This is a really good article.  I thought about trying to quote portions of it, or summarize it, but I think I'll revert to just linking to it and recommending to all that they read the thing in full.

There is one major thing that he misses completely and another that he skirts around without really saying quite enough about it.  The former is that there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian.  The Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition, especially the Anglo-American Protestant tradition, has remarkably little in common with Judaism.  Well, I suppose it's not really remarkable; Christ himself said as much repeatedly during the course of his earthly Ministry, as we're learning this year in Come Follow Me.  Considering that since that time, Judaism was essentially completely hijacked by Phariseeism and in fact the trends of Phariseeism were amplified by the Diaspora experience in Babylon where the Talmud was written means that Christianity and Judaism should be seen as completely different traditions, and the attempt to lump them together is either ignorant or dishonest.  Surely it's (in part) driven by the fact that while the author is Israeli, he's looking out for his Jewish brethren in America and Britain.  I notice, however, that Israel has very strict laws about Christianity, and Christianized Jews are not permitted by law to make aliyah and emigrate to Israel.  Why not?  Because the Jews recognize that Christianity would fundamentally remake their society, just as Jewish influence has fundamentally remade ours from our Christian heritage, and not to the benefit of Americans.

The second thing is that while he recognizes that large numbers of immigrants can't be permitted unless there are societal structures in place that cause them to assimilate rather than remain apart from the host population, his historical empiricism would suggest that this isn't actually possible, and that therefore large numbers of immigrants is not doable if one wants to maintain the host culture; they have to come in small enough numbers that there is no chance for them to practice competing culture in the same place as the host culture.  What is a small enough number?  I dunno, but if you think about the fact that Jews make up 2% of the population of America, yet have had a tremendous effect on changing our legal traditions, our entertainment industry, our education industry, and our financial industry—historical empiricism suggests that the number must be very small, and they must assimilate, not maintain themselves as a undilutable block within the host population.  Read this snippet from the history of Rome:

The Crisis of the Third Century was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of barbarian invasions and migrations into Roman territory, civil wars, peasant rebellions, political instability with multiple usurpers competing for power, growing influence and Roman reliance on barbarian mercenaries, and commanders nominally working for Rome, but increasingly independent, plague, debasement of currency, and economic depression. The crisis began with the assassination of Emperor Severus Alexander by his own troops in 235, initiating a 50-year period during which there were at least 26 claimants to the title of emperor, mostly prominent Roman army generals, who assumed imperial power over all or part of the Empire. The same number of men became accepted by the Roman Senate as emperor during this period and so became legitimate emperors. 

By 268, the empire had split into three competing states. Later, Aurelian reunited the empire; the crisis ended with the ascension and reforms of Diocletian in 284. The crisis resulted in such profound changes in the empire's institutions, society, economic life and, eventually, religion, that it is increasingly seen by most historians as defining the transition between the historical periods of classical antiquity and late antiquity.

What are some other conclusions to be drawn from these points?  The first one means that I suspect that even rather slight confessional differences can bring about tension that will be difficult to overcome.  There have been centuries of warfare between Papists and Protestants in Europe, and our own LDS history suggests that we only had peace when we were either a very small scattering mixed in with the Protestant majority, or when we had our own religiously homogeneous territory in what was then called either Deseret or Utah Territory, and which makes up almost all of Utah, northern Arizona, southern Wyoming, western Colorado and Idaho.

This is something that many members of the Church would rather not face, but again—if historical empiricism is a feature of conservative democracy, then one needs to suggest that historical empiricism should lend a great deal of scepticism to the success of the religiously and culturally heterogeneous state unless that heterogeneousness is in small enough numbers to not threaten the dominance of the homogeneous majority.

What is a "hate fact?"

Quoting from a review of Dutton, Edward and Michael A. Woodley of Menie. At Our Wits' End. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2018. ISBN 978-1-84540-985-2.  Emphasis mine.

During the Great Depression, the Empire State Building was built, from the beginning of foundation excavation to official opening, in 410 days (less than 14 months). After the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, design and construction of its replacement, the new One World Trade Center was completed on November 3, 2014, 4801 days (160 months) later. 

In the 1960s, from U.S. president Kennedy's proposal of a manned lunar mission to the landing of Apollo 11 on the Moon, 2978 days (almost 100 months) elapsed. In January, 2004, U.S. president Bush announced the "Vision for Space Exploration", aimed at a human return to the lunar surface by 2020. After a comical series of studies, revisions, cancellations, de-scopings, redesigns, schedule slips, and cost overruns, its successor now plans to launch a lunar flyby mission (not even a lunar orbit like Apollo 8) in June 2022, 224 months later. A lunar landing is planned for no sooner than 2028, almost 300 months after the "vision", and almost nobody believes that date (the landing craft design has not yet begun, and there is no funding for it in the budget). 

Wherever you look: junk science, universities corrupted with bogus "studies" departments, politicians peddling discredited nostrums a moment's critical thinking reveals to be folly, an economy built upon an ever-increasing tower of debt that nobody really believes is ever going to be paid off, and the dearth of major, genuine innovations (as opposed to incremental refinement of existing technologies, as has driven the computing, communications, and information technology industries) in every field: science, technology, public policy, and the arts, it often seems like the world is getting dumber. What if it really is? 

That is the thesis explored by this insightful book, which is packed with enough "hate facts" to detonate the head of any bien pensant academic or politician. I define a "hate fact" as something which is indisputably true, well-documented by evidence in the literature, which has not been contradicted, but the citation of which is considered "hateful" and can unleash outrage mobs upon anyone so foolish as to utter the fact in public and be a career-limiting move for those employed in Social Justice Warrior-converged organisations. (An example of a hate fact, unrelated to the topic of this book, is the FBI violent crime statistics broken down by the race of the criminal and victim. Nobody disputes the accuracy of this information or the methodology by which it is collected, but woe betide anyone so foolish as to cite the data or draw the obvious conclusions from it.)

This is the essence of the so-called red-pill.  What is an SJW-converged organization?  Almost all of Western Civilization these days.  It's almost impossible to find an organization that doesn't believe in the wishful thinking, magical logical that informs social justice.  But if you believe in things that are demonstrably and undeniably true, but against the current culture of "it's not polite to point that out, or even acknowledge that you see that—in fact, it's required that you vigorously deny it and virtue signal to everyone around you that you don't believe in what is true if it ever comes up" then you are red-pilled.  And your acceptance of these socially unacceptable truths mark you as someone who believes in "hate facts."  You'll be lied about and slandered by people who are either too dishonest to acknowledge the truth, or too stupid to recognize the truth.

As the review points out, there's literally nobody who doesn't acknowledge that different dog breeds have different capabilities, traits and characteristics—while still acknowledging that they are equally dogs.  But suggest that different human populations also have different capabilities, traits and characteristics, and that's a hate fact.  You'll probably be told something about equality—which is not a Christian teaching (parable of the talents) an guilt-tripped and shamed into pretending that you don't notice these differences.  And yet they exist nonetheless.  It doesn't have any impact on God's love for all of this children, nor should it on yours.  But it does have a tremendous impact, if you think through the implications of it, for your expectation that different population groups are likely to live together in harmony in the same geographic space, rather than needing to be kept separate for the benefit of both.  Again, nobody suggests that some other family in our ward should be free to move into my house just because if I don't give them free rein, then I'm a "familyist."

Another major one is fundamental differences between men and women.  Lots of people, including people in the Church, have been agitating to pretend that there is no fundamental difference and that women should be free to act like fake Men as much as they want to (curiously, this always seems to be a one-way street, based on the observably false idea of "male privilege")

Anyway, as I've said before, although Nephi says the wicked take the truth to be hard, in my experience everyone takes the truth to be hard, especially if they've been indoctrinated in the idea that it's simply not acceptable to acknowledge certain truths.  It becomes even worse if you build up some aspect of your identity or your conception of the world and how it is supposed to work based on something that is provably false, because then it becomes emotionally very difficult to step away from the falsehood and acknowledge the truth.

But shouldn't it be our role and expectation that we seek truth about everything and from anywhere?  We're not limited to only doctrinal truths, nor are we only to accept that truth is available in the scriptures and General Conference.  We can learn much that is true about the world and our place in it from other sources, and the Lord has always told us to seek truth from the best books and from wise people in the world, utilizing the Spirit to discern truth from error.

And that's the real crux of "hate facts"—not whether or not they are true, because the would be "hate gossip" if they were not.  But how to interpret those facts, and what does knowing them do to your behavior?  And that's also where we need the guidance of the Spirit the most, because there is lots of opportunity to slip into error in interpretation of "hate facts" into our daily life.

Smollett

The Smollett Hate Hoax is an interesting one.  It's prompted a lot of columns and stuff; but I think the most pertinent are here.  First, a selection from Jonah Goldberg.  His entire column isn't good; he can't stop with his pro-Jewish and anti-American identity politics because he's not very honest with himself sometimes, but this point, at least, is 100% true:

Here’s something you might not know: In Nazi Germany, very few Jews staged bogus hate crimes against themselves. 

Here’s some more trivia: Very few blacks in the Jim Crow South went to great lengths to pretend that they were harassed or attacked by racists. 

You know why? Because that would be incredibly stupid. What, exactly, would the German Jew who staged an assault on himself gain from it? Where would he or she go to ask for sympathy or recompense? Conjure any horror story you like, the Nazi official you brought it to would say, “Yeah, and . . . ?” The black sharecropper who took the time to make his own cross and burn it on his own property would benefit . . . how? 

Why am I bringing this up? Well, for a bunch of reasons. I have more points to make than can be found at an English Setter competition. 

First, people who live under real oppression have no need to fabulate oppression. To paraphrase Madge from the old Palmolive ads: They’re already soaking in it. 

Second, when you live in an oppressive country, there’s no one you can take your grievances to because that is what it means to live in an oppressive country! For God’s sake, people, you’re making me use exclamation points and italics here. If you’re an inmate in the Shawshank prison, you can’t go to the guards to complain. When you live in North Korea, you can’t go to the local police and gripe about your working conditions or the sawdust in your bread.

Then, from the Z Man:

Because I am not insane, I assumed the Jusse Smollett caper was a hoax as soon as it made the news. It ticked all the boxes of a hoax. The alleged victim was a black Jewish homosexual, who makes a living as a drama queen. The alleged incident happened in Chicago, where the last racist redneck was last seen in the 19th century. The incident happened in a part of town that caters to deviants like Smollett, not MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. Again, only a nut would accept the story at face value. 

Similarly, once the hoax was made plain, I knew the believers on the Left, by which I mean everyone on the Left, would go through the usual phases that they always pass through when confronting disconfirmation. Initially they would lash out at doubters, calling them blasphemers. As the truth was slowly revealed, they would search for explanations to excuse Smollett. Finally, once it was confirmed to be a hoax, they would enter the phase where they admit it was a hoax, but claim these crimes are common. 

[...] The general explanation [for this behavior] is that these people need to be reinforced in their beliefs and they need to reinforce one another in their beliefs. Progressivism is a social system, as well as a set of beliefs. The believer is not just defined by his beliefs, but by his association with others. Much of the signaling we see from them is not intended for us. Like fireflies blinking in the dusk, they are signaling to one another. These hoaxes provide the opportunity for it. 

The people [from the cast of The Big Bang], for example, don’t care about the details of the case or whether it is even true. They play make believe for a living, so facts grounded in observable reality are not important to them. This Smollett thing was like a stage that suddenly popped up in the public square, allowing them to climb aboard and perform. What they will remember and what their coreligionists will remember, is that they were on board early and stood strong for a victim of those terrible white people on the other side of the wall. 

It’s why these people not only fall for these hoaxes, but amplify them. You can be sure that many of the people [above] have fallen for many of these hoaxes. The little Jewish guy, front row, third from the right, is a barking at the moon anti-white. He really believes Hitler is about to pop out from the bushes and carry him off to a camp. The next time whites are libeled in some way, he will be right there showing his support for the anti-white, regardless of how silly the claim. He is consumed with a hatred of white people. 

That’s the thing though. Not only do these people keep falling for these hoaxes, these hoaxes are becoming more common and more outlandish. This one is so absurd, it would not pass muster with Hollywood script writers. The University of Virginia rape hoax was also laughably absurd. In other words, instead of these hoaxes leading to greater skepticism, these hoaxes result in greater credulity on the Left. It’s as if each one is an appetizer, wetting the appetite of the believers, who are desperate for the real thing. 

The other side of this dynamic is the civic nationalists are close to a frenzy, trying to prove the next hoax false, confident that this time will do the trick. The Left, confronted with the reality of these hoaxes, will throw down their weapons and finally admit, that yeah, these things are fake. The fear of the secret invisible Hitler people is all nonsense. During every one of these, the CivNats start blinking to one another, working the details of the puzzle, confident that their “eureka!” moment is at hand. 

It is a good example of the central challenge of this age. Guys like Steve Sailer truly believe they can turn the tide with facts and reason. He probably has 25 posts on this Smollett thing. He has been working the hate-hoax angle for close to two decades now, yet here we are anyway. He is no closer to unriddling the hate hoax puzzle than he was twenty years ago. If anything, the hoaxes have become more outlandish. Even so, he will keep trying to use facts and reason to address a matter of belief. 

No doubt, some civic nationalist types would argue that their project is not about convincing the Left. It is about demonstrating to normal people that these people are dishonest, crazy or even dangerous. In other words, using facts and reason is not about countering belief, but about convincing the rational. The trouble is the Left is undefeated against this strategy and it permits them to own the moral high ground. In this case, they were the ones defending the victim against those evil whites. 

Culture wars are moral wars. It is about imposing your morality on the other side, no matter what it takes. It’s why radicals have had no qualms about using violence against their perceived enemies. It’s why Antifa exists. They’re not trying to prove their case or win arguments. They are about clubbing the doubters into submission. From the perspective of the Left, this Smollett affair was a big win. They reinforced an important point They control the morality and they will impose it on society.

And from Roissy.  I've edited it for language.

The best thing about the Smollett Libel is that it also smears the media, because the gears of the Anti-White Hate Hoax Machine are as much lubed by the Narrative agitprop of credulous journalists as they are by attention whore gay Jewish black actors. You can tell this shames the media as much as it does Smollett by how sheepishly the usual suspects are reporting the story. 

The Mainstream Media, as is their nature, are treating the Smollett Libel as a one-off. But it’s not. Anti-White hate hoaxes are the norm rather than the exception in Clown America. 

Neither was it a ruse by Smollett to coax his Empire producers for a salary raise. That's just his lawyers' squid ink to distract from the real, underlying motive. Smollett may have thought the insta-fame from being a hate crime victim would shine his Hollywood star ("see, randos on the street know who I am!"), but the compulsion came from a deeper place, where raw tribal instincts boil in a hindbrain stew. 

Let's be clear about this, Smollett’s Blood Libel carried with it some very serious consequences, if he had pulled it off. The sociopath narcissist was ready to condemn two innocent White men to prison to preserve the believability of his faked anti-black and anti-gay hate crime. Had the security camera been pointing in the right direction, he may have succeeded. Realize what this means. A pumped and primed media running a 24/7 weeks-long propaganda blitz featuring a grainy video of the two masked Nigerians wearing MAGA hats in a choreographed beating and noosing of Smollett would have set Chicago ablaze in race riots. There would have been multiple deaths, billions in property damage, and even greater State hounding of dissident White men. 

We dodged a huge bullet thanks to Smollett’s idiocy and the media’s eager overreach. People lament it's as if the media learned nothing from the anti-White UVA and Covington Boys hate hoaxes, but that misses the point. The media ARE NOT INTERESTED in learning any lessons; the media WANT to push these blood libels against White Christian men. Do you think leftoid media apparatchiks don't already know most of these "hate crimes" are hoaxes? They know, and they don't care. They abide one journalist ethic: GET WHITEY. 

The blood libeler exploitation was a mutually reinforcing feedback loop. Smollett exploited a credulous media that so badly WANTED TO BELIEVE IN AND PROSELYTIZE the myth of structural White racism, while the media exploited a narcissistic racist Smollett who so badly WANTED TO MAKE EVERYONE BELIEVE IN the myth of structural White racism. 

The media is disproportionately, veering toward predominately, staffed, operated, and owned by (((special people))), who harbor a visceral hatred and spiteful envy of White male Christians. It is what it is, I don't write the cosmic laws. As long as the media is in the grips of this small but powerful minority, the GET WHITEY prime directive will remain in place. The only solution is mass firings from media outlets and substitution with Heritage Americans. I'm looking at you, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, BEZOSPOST, CARLOSSLIMTIMES, AP, REUTERS, YAHOO, AXIOS, HUFFPO, BUZZFEED, and EVERYONE AT FOX EXCEPT TUCKER CARLSON. 

Smollett let down the media because he was such a dummy that he exposed the Anti-White Hate Hoax Industry and the media's role in it to Nice White Americans who would normally give these "victims" the benefit of the doubt. No more. A killing blow has been delivered to the Hate Hoax Machine. The media will try to move on from Smollett as if nothing much has changed, but they will find their hope outraces their accelerating disgrace when, in future hate crime cases, regular White Americans shrug and ask for hard evidence first before giving their credulity. 

Smollett screwed up this cushy gig the media (and their Uniparty allies) had going, and for that we should thank him. Ironically, Smollett has done a world of good for MAGA.
Smollett revealed two simultaneous, interdependent operative cultures: The Lie Culture and the Anti-White Blood Libel Culture. These are real cultures, as opposed to Fake Cultures like Patriarchy or Rape Culture or White Privilege which White liberals cling to for ego gratification and guilt amelioration. 

The hot take from National Review is instructive. Smollett is the consequence of a "victim culture" in which social status is gained through victim "faming". While not entirely meritless, this typically cuck-preferred argument is misleading. If a victim culture were the primary motivating force behind all these hate hoaxes, why is it primarily White Christian men targeted by the victim mongers? A true victim culture would feature a more random assortment of perpetrators to boost the opportunities available to the victim whore. 

The truth is that the fundamental motivation of these hate hoaxes, and the nature of the culture which exalts the hate hoax mentality, is HATRED OF WHITE PEOPLE, and specifically hatred of White Christian men. 

This is the alpha and the omega of modern day America. NO COUNTRY FOR GOY WHITE MEN. 

Until and if "mainstream" conservatives acknowledge this reality, we will continue losing the war, and our nation, to the degenerate Left.

Where's Captain Moroni and the Title of Liberty when you need them?

It requires some courage, is where it is.  Here, from Audacious Epigone, a statistician who has a column at the Unz Review, with some comments on his article.  (His article is firstly, mostly a repost of someone else's comments to begin with.)

First Comment (from username Screwtape—nice literary reference)

George Washington lost at least three major battles before he was able to secure a victory. 

I’m trying to grasp for a silver lining in the dark clouds over Trump, but yes, he looks to be maneuvering toward the status quo. 

The thing is, he is surrounded by enemies. He has no true side from which he can direct his forces. 

Did he underestimate the landscape? Probably. Did his base? Probably. 

He got his mandate at the ballot box and has done some good things, some mediocre things, and some bad things along the way. 

But what did all of those voters do after they pulled the lever? 

How many scattered back into the shadows because "p**** grabber"? 

How many were unwilling to risk a hit to their social status as granted by the Prog death cult, so they held their tongues and let the darkness creep? 

How many are willing to step into the parent teacher conference, the church, the little league game, the boy scout troop and speak the truth? To step into the Overton [Window] themselves, to drain the swamps in their own back yards? 

How many are looking for a proxy to joust for their honor in the DC swamp while they let their wives emasculate them in their own kitchens? 

The war is not just decided by a man in the DC swamp. 

We are in a culture war, one we have been losing – nay, may have already lost. 

No one general is going to take down a hundred years of rot without pitchforks and torches in every town square. 

What I hoped for was an awakening in the everyman. That Trump would embolden men to take up arms in their own homes and communities; a bottom up groundswell. 

Eh. A man can dream. 

Some think the ‘next Trump’ will actually be a literally Hitler. I doubt it. 

The entropy of the left is accelerating, however, and this is a good thing i think. But I don’t see us being able to choose our next general.

Second Comment (from AE himself)

No one is going to stand up for Middle America. Either Middle America stands up for itself, or it’s finished. Voting once every four years isn’t going to cut it. We have to stand up for ourselves where we are in whatever capacity we are able to. The costs will be to varying degrees social, economic, even physical. But we are descended from people who have done much more with much less. We do well to remember that.

Third Comment

Right now, the costs are mostly just social and occasionally economic. People had better just quit being worried about being called names and un-LIKED, before they have a lot more to lose. 

I wrote this under one of the Sailer threads on the Covington kids, but I think all it will take is one particular incident in which no-one on our side backs down, and we have enough brave-enough souls to support a cause in reasonably big numbers, to embolden a whole lot more people. There’s a whole lot of tactics that patriotic Americans could learn from the 1960’s, and I don’t mean old chants and not bathing for weeks. 

People will learn that at a certain numerical level of like-minded people that they can’t arrest all of us, they can’t fire all of us, and all their nasty tweets in the world don’t mean a damn thing. The patriots have a very distinct advantage in being the people that make the world go ’round.

Fourth Comment

Yes, many who are focused on how Trump is letting them down fit the profile of “I went to the polls and pulled the lever, so I did my part” America. Maybe they even went to a Trump rally or two, but they don’t get the broad irony: Even conservatives are influenced by the profound cultural impact of leftist orthodoxy in our society, the one that loudly proclaims, "Everyone else is to blame!" 

Most Americans view politics and politicians as just another product or purchase decision in their lives. If a refrigerator, car or surgery goes bad, they want their money back. They seem to think something similar should happen with politicians. It would be interesting to know how many people on this site (and many other alternative conservative sites) actually email, call or talk to their senators or representatives (federal and state) on a regular basis. I’m sure many do, but I’ve been going to (and testifying at) our state’s legislature for hearings regarding illegal immigration or voter verification measures for years, and I generally see about a dozen people on our side vs. a hundred(s) for the left. Where is everyone?? They’re mostly at home looking at the computer and getting mad, it seems. 

Yes, Trump is letting us down, but when a ship is sinking, how do you spend your energy and direct your efforts? Insulting the captain? A wall may or may not be built, but at least you can do something to promote voter ID in your state. Or promote legislation that inhibits sanctuary cities. I think there’s still a chance for a wall, regardless of what (the temporarily and understandably) demoralized Ann Coulter says. 

One of the failings of the otherwise impressive Steve Sailer is that he almost never explicitly encourages political activism on the part of his readers. I guess he sees his job as literary and little else, but throwing stones only goes so far in taking care of the problem. Look at one of the Democracy Now! podcasts (found on this site) and you may start to understand why the left is so successful. I’m trying to visualize the impact that some of the impressive eloquence found on this site could have at state legislative hearings. With that in mind, I think this comment from Screwtape is outstanding. 

Fifth Comment

I suppose I could stand up like the article says; it’s well written and I agree with its theme, but reality has a way of rearing its ugly head. If I stand up, I will be out of a job, lose my house, and be unable to support my family. My former co-workers and most of my family will shun me because they will think I’m insane, as they make up what is the majority of middle America that has absolutely no idea what’s coming. Now I’m unemployed and alone. Can I move in with Screwtape at that point? 

The change (read: violence) will begin when either the welfare entitlements and government pensions start to dry up and those folks begin to loot and burn in the urban areas, or when economic collapse drives the working class out of their jobs and puts them into a position of nothing left to lose. 

If the kind of populist driven reversal of course is going to happen absent those two things, it will have to be started by a group of individuals who have the resources to sustain it through the beginning stages (the Founding Farthers were not middle class, they were the rich guys.) 

I’m also more genuinely concerned about the idea of firearm confiscation becoming a real possibility than ever. Here in Shillinois, Pritzger seems pretty intent an making a legit attempt at doing so (btw his brother is a former army colonel who served for 26 years, retired, and has since become a transsexual who splits his time between Chicago and Israel.) So then if it happens, who are all of these so-called red pilled police going to side with at that moment of truth? The people and the 2nd Amendment? Or their own pensions? To ask is to answer it. The police in metro areas, as we have seen in all of these LARPing dust ups the last few years, either take the antifa side or remain out of sight. Any attempt for a dissident group to organize would be shut down by the SWAT teams made up of "conservative" cops. 

The larger point is the police are not on our side, and won’t be if there is violence. They will serve their masters in the state on the promise of comfortable salaries, OT, healthcare, and pensions . They will shoot us down in a heartbeat if we organize or refuse to give up our guns. If you want an example as to why I believe this, visit the Second City Cop website and see how these two "conservative”"cops feel about pensions. They feel as emphatically entitled to them as any garden variety negro does about his LINK card. Has anyone here actually known of a commenter to identify as a police officer at UR? I’ve been reading here for over 2 years and haven’t run across a single cop (that I can remember.) They probably are here but keep it to themselves. That speaks for itself. Cops are paid legionaries; their loyalty is to the man who gives them coin.

Sixth Comment

Ironically, the Second Amendment has given conservative White Americans an "illusion of power" which has lulled them into complacency about the Left's scorched earth policy towards American institutions.

Seventh Comment

I agree wholeheartedly with AE’s post. There definitely needs to be more standing tall out there. Coulter has said the same thing. The only show of public support and respect Trump gets is when he’s in Israel. We shouldn’t be surprised if his actions reflect that.
In December, I was visiting my hometown of Norfolk, Nebraska and was drinking some home distilled "shine" with four or five local guys–fathers and grandfathers–farmers–in the machine shed one of them has rigged with a wood burning stove, refrigerators, still, and home-made compressed-air automatic beer can crusher. 

All were very strong supporters of Trump. So I showed them a banner I had made and intended to display at the busiest intersection in Norfolk the next day, which was Saturday, wearing a yellow vest. 

My spray painted canvas banner was much cruder but it was something like 3′ x 12′ and said "DON’T F*** WITH TRUMP" with a menacing Stuey from Family Guy brandishing a hand gun. They liked the slogan, helped me mount the canvas, but none would join me the next day for my stab at displaying support for Trump. 

I don’t blame them, really. It’s scary for us to do something like that. There were a couple of comments about not wanting to go to jail. 

The next day, I drove to 1st St and Norfolk Ave and began putting up the banner by pounding pointed stakes into the ground. Before I was finished pounding the stakes into the ground, three cop cars arrive and park and two approached me–a young white cop and an older white cop. 

Young cop as he’s walking up: Hi, what’s going on? 

Me: Putting up a banner. 

Young cop: You got any ID? 

Me: Yep. 

Young cop (after standing with his hand out): You wanna show me that ID? 

Me: Why? 

Young cop: We just like to know who we’re talking to. 

Me: You’re going to have to arrest me in order to see my ID. 

Older cop (breaking in): OK, no, you don’t want to go there. What are you doing with this sign here?
[meanwhile, more and more cars are pulling over to stop and watch] 

Me: I showing my support for our president. 

Older cop: OK, well of course you have the right to free speech. But you have to hold any signs like. You can’t pound them into the ground. 

Me: I can’t hold it by myself. I don’t have anyone to help me, even though everyone around here supports Trump. 

Older cop: Well, you have to take it down. 

Me (growing angry): You know why I don’t have anyone to help me hold it? Because of you. They were afraid they would go to jail. You are the problem. 

Older cop: No one is going to jail for holding a banner. 

Me: Well that’s what they said, so YOU guys ARE the problem. Trump’s fighting all the power in DC. He’s got George Soros with his billions doing everything he can to destroy him, and here I am, one lonely, puny guy out here with my homemade banner, and you are shutting me down. You are out here helping George Soros, for the love of God. 

The older cop just stood there for a minute. Then he turned and walked back to his car without a word. The young cop followed him, and all three drove away. 

Now some of the cars that had pulled over to watch this highly unusual spectacle for the Midwest honked and gave me thumbs up and yelled they liked the sign, and one lady ran over and asked if I would take her picture with the sign. 

It was the most exhilarating thing I’d done in a very long time. 

Here’s me just after the cops left:

At this point there's a picture of the guy in a yellow vest standing near a street intersection with his banner.

This is all kind of a long read, but very pertinent.  Captain Moroni tore his cloak, created the Title of Liberty, prayed for the freedom of his people, then marched through the land gathering people to his side, who tore their own cloaks, clashed their swords and shields, and swore an oath to defend their freedom to the death. Which many of them then did; Moroni marched at least four times if I remember correctly, against traitors and backstabbers among his own people to say nothing of the many years of warfare against the invading Lamanites.

What are you doing to defend your freedom?  Your religion?  Your family? American legal, cultural traditions and community morality?  If you're like most "conservatives" you're virtue signaling about how it's not such a bad thing that they're all being destroyed right in front of your eyes.