Washington DC pick-up artist and human nature realist Roissy takes a look at why the reactions to Sarah Palin are so extreme.

Sarah Palin has been in the news lately so I’ve decided to give it the Roissy treatment — one long kiss on the neck and an ass cheek squeeze.

She’s a palinpsest — people see reflected in her their particular American narrative. Why has she commanded so much attention? Because in her life, her mannerisms, her morals, and her views she is the embodiment of everything evil or everything good. Her existence alone reignites the culture wars.

For this reason she'd be the best part of a McCain presidency. If she can keep liberal whites livid then she'll earn her pay and then some.

Effeminate males stand in contrast to Sarah Palin.

In general, liberal white men are more effete than conservative white men. This has been my observation. I can tell with 80% accuracy whether a male caller to a radio talk show is liberal or conservative just based on the tone of his voice. Liberal — mellifluous, sing-songy, whiny, high-pitched. Conservative — baritone, even, throaty, resonant. Sarah Palin drives the point home even further. Her ability to field dress a moose in waist-deep snow strikes at the sissified soul of the simpering suckass conformist and makes him lash out like a stuck piglet.

Beta males are not Palin's biggest opponents. Urban women who're losing their shot at reproduction do not like the reminder that she provides.

But Sarah Palin’s worst enemy is not the mincing liberal betaboy, oh no. It’s the childless, career-tracked, urban slut machine, government-as-daddy-and-husband-substitute, spinsterette. Palin shits grizzly-sized dung all over that lifestyle with her outdoorsiness, large brood, and prole tastes. The thing about her they really can’t swallow are her FIVE kids. There’s no better way to remind a hip clubgoing single chick in the city who loves to travel and sip pinot noir of her impending infertility and genetic obsolescence than with the image of a woman who’s chosen not to ignore her biological imperative in favor of playing the field indefinitely.

I think Roissy might be rifting off of a recent Steve Sailer post where Steve says the hostile reaction to Sarah on the Left is all about white conservatives outbreeding white liberals.

Now, the Breeding Wars have moved into the political arena. Barack Obama launched his Presidential run at the 2004 Democratic convention by devoting the first 380 words of his speech to describing in great detail the two stocks from which he was crossbred. His message is that by uniting in his DNA the two races, he will end the racial conflict that has long plagued this land. (Noah should take a look at Henry VII’s speech ending Shakespeare's “Richard III” for the classic expression of the logic of dynastic merger, in this case between the Lancasters and the Yorks.) Obama left out the part about his mom being 17 when she got pregnant and his father already being married with a kid and another on the way.

Palin has horned in on all that subliminal symbolism with her own. She’s had five kids while shooting caribou (a picture of her and a daughter standing over a huge beast she shot is the LA Times most emailed article of the day even though it's not an article, just a picture) and throwing the crooks out, and now she has a 17-year-old daughter who is pregnant and will marry a handsome hockey player.

The Blue Whites are alarmed and outraged to be reminded that the Red Whites can afford to outbreed them and are outbreeding them. Modern people tell themselves they don't care about stuff like that, but they do, oh, they do.

Since conservative whites are making more babies than liberal whites the genetic factors that contribute to political orientation are going to shift the white vote rightward. Only immigration is preventing a full shift rightward in the nation as a whole.

Roissy's previously argued that the crowds will turn against alpha males if they mistreat women who come across as more feminine and maternal.

People will only turn against an alpha male when he attacks a weak woman.

Roissy thinks Sarah's strong maternal image makes her immune from serious criticism. So does Sarah the mom have more immunity from criticism than Barack the black?

This is Sarah Palin’s anti-missile defense shield. She isn’t weak, but she will be perceived as worthier of protection than her alpha male opponents. Her attractiveness, earthiness, motherhood, and gender means she will be almost impenetrable (heh) to frontal attacks, while affording her the latitude to fire at will.

Roissy points to Megan McArdle's evident discomfort with instinctual reactions to Sarah Palin.

As a person I like her. Politically, I dislike what she represents: populism, culture warmongering, and especially, the notion that if a woman is to hold power, she has to make herself non-threatening by emphasizing her domesticity and fertility. I don’t blame her for doing these things, since they seem to work. But I don’t like living in a society where this works.

So then Megan dislikes the results of evolution by natural selection. Roissy has realistic advice for Megan:

Megan, I’ve got news for you. There is no society where this doesn’t work. Check your libertarian fantasies at the door because the frontline of human nature - and innate sex differences - is everywhere.

My problem with libertarianism is that its believers build their political philosophy around an unrealistic model of human nature. When libertarian principles are applied to all policy questions the result is damaging because humans do not react to libertarian policies in ways that further the cause of liberty. For example, open borders where all are allowed to immigrate will make the original citizens of a prosperous society less free. By seeking the impossible libertarians contribute to a loss of freedom, not a gain.

Megan's unhappiness with war mongering and popular reactions to a fertile woman ought to serve as reminder to her that when forming political views she needs to look at biological humans as they really are rather than ideological humans as she wishes them to be. The genetic factors at work which cause her fellow Americans to react to her evident satisfaction are not going away. No amount of rational argument is going to convert people into libertarians when they have strong instincts calling them to think and act otherwise.