How Jews Beat Us

[Alex Linder]

[Read this and think about it. What does it tell us about Whites, how they are held in bondage, and how they might be sprung? Let's see if any of you amateur rodeo clowns can puzzle it out.]

One Part Creativity: Zero Parts Recipe

Can just using ratios really teach me to be a better cook?

By Jennifer Reese

Posted Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at 6:59 AM ET

"There are hundreds of thousands of recipes out there, but few of them help you to be a better cook in any substantial way," Michael Ruhlman writes in the preface to his fascinating and pompous new book, Ratio. "In fact, they may hurt you as a cook by keeping you chained to recipes." Ruhlman calls Ratio an "anti recipe book, a book that teaches you and frees you from the need to follow." He argues that once you've memorized certain "bedrock" culinary ratios, you can cook virtually anything without resorting to a cookbook.

I read Ratio cover to cover one afternoon, and I rolled my eyes. Like many of us who lack an Italian grandmother or a culinary school education, I taught myself to cook with recipes. Ruhlman is dead wrong about one thing: Recipes can help you become a better cook in a very substantial way. From following instructions, you learn technique. From watching how ingredients are paired, you develop an intuitive sense of what flavors work together.

Moreover, the underlying message irritated me. It's no longer good enough to make a pecan pie from the Joy of Cooking? We have to be artists now? I'm an experienced cook who improvises plenty and is fairly good at it, but I view recipes like I do Mapquest directions: They're a useful tool that generally take me where I want to go. Why would I want to "unchain" myself?

Nonetheless, there's something extremely beguiling about Ruhlman's idea that all you need in order to cook magnificently are a handful of simple, elegant formulas. I began to wonder if his ratios might liberate my inner Ferran Adrià—if I even have one. Is there really, as Ruhlman argues, "no end" to what you can cook when you know a ratio? I decided to take his premise for a test-drive.

The first thing you'll notice if you start trying to cook with ratios is that they are not as marvelously simple as Ruhlman implies. Ratios, Ruhlman writes "allow you to close the book and cook as you wish." But while his seductively spare table of 33 culinary ratios fits neatly on two introductory pages, it is followed by some 200 pages of caveats, fine print, and explications of technique. You need a book to learn to cook without a book? No thanks. If the goal was to "close the book," I was closing the book. I copied out the ratios and put Ratio away.

I decided to start with cookies (1 part sugar: 2 parts fat: 3 parts flour). Ruhlman advises beginning with an utterly plain sugar-butter-flour cookie, an exercise that will "instruct the thoughtful cook about … the nature of a cookie." So-called essence of cookie took approximately 1 minute to mix, 20 minutes to bake, and tasted like the most boring shortbread you've ever eaten, which is to say, not too damned bad. Those were my thoughts about "the nature of a cookie." Apparently, I'm not a very thoughtful cook.

To the next batch of dough I added vanilla and substituted palm sugar for white. Palm sugar: a misguided purchase that sat in my cupboard for months attracting ants. Not anymore! Palm sugar is the slightly funky-tasting granulated sap of the coconut palm, and it yielded swarthy, earthy, terrific shortbread. I was delighted. In the space of the next few manic hours I baked crispy Brazil nut shortbread (great), rye shortbread studded with candied ginger (not great), and brown sugar shortbread packed with dates (almost great). The defeats were as interesting as the failures, and my mind was whirring. Why weren't those ginger cookies tastier? (Too much ginger.) How could I have made them better? (Less ginger; try brown sugar.) I found myself lying in bed that night mulling new cookie flavors. It was like playing with paper dolls, creating crazy new outfits for my naked cookie ratio.

Unfortunately, it's hard to advance beyond shortbread with the 1-2-3 ratio, and I eventually grew restless. You can make only so many butter-rich, not-too-sweet cookies before you want to move on to something altogether different. But you can't easily extrapolate snickerdoodles, brownies, or tuiles, because once you start adding leaveners and eggs, you need a more detailed ratio. Or a recipe. These, Ruhlman obligingly supplies in the text of the book, but to look them up seemed like cheating.

Since there was dinner to think about, I moved on to pâte à choux (2 parts water: 1 part butter: 1 part flour: 2 parts egg) in order to make gougeres, airy cheese puffs that Ruhlman recommends you flavor with Gruyère or Parmesan. I went with aged Gouda and threw in some smoked paprika just to see what happened. (Work with ratios for even a day and you start resenting advice.) The tarted-up gougeres were a huge hit, as was the fettuccine (3 parts flour: 2 parts egg), which included both white and rye flours. I expected the experimental pasta to end up chewy and coarse, but it came out like pale gray silk. To finish the meal, I made crème anglaise (4 parts dairy: 1 part yolk: 1 part sugar) using goat's milk and honey and froze it in the ice cream maker. Goat-honey ice cream needs a new name, but it was otherwise practically perfect.

Does this seem like an insane amount of cooking for one weekend? It was, and it was a blast. Ordinarily I find cooking enjoyable and restful; this was exhilarating and slightly exhausting. With mad-scientist fervor, I baked a few cakes (1 part egg: 1 part sugar: 1 part flour: 1 part butter), including what I would consider my crowning achievement, a green tea sponge cake. Flavored with Japanese matcha powder, this was a confection of fluffy, buttery beauty, the color of honeydew, tasting distinctly of tea. Having never before in my life "invented" a cake, I was ridiculously pleased. Yes, I know someone else has probably already invented a green tea sponge cake, but don't rain on my parade. I'd had a breakthrough: After decades of following other people's recipes, the anti-recipe book helped me to invent a few of my own.

It's too soon to know how this thrilling fling with ratios will change the way I cook over the long term. I haven't gone back to them in the three weeks since, but I now find myself studying recipes to see if I can identify their underlying ratios. What is a recipe, after all, but an elaborate ratio someone thought delicious enough to write down? And I've begun to think that Ruhlman's narrow set of ratios might make a less useful starting point for improvisation than a traditional recipe. As I discovered with the cookies, getting fancy requires spending some quality time with the user's manual. If you're going to play around with variations on gingerbread, why not start with a gingerbread recipe?

All that said, green tea sponge cake? I didn't know I had it in me.

http://www.slate.com/id/2219243/pagenum/all

[sambodelicious]

Tried and true? Things that work like they spose to? Bullocks to that! Foundations that our collective palates been built on for centuries? Piss on that small town notion. The recipe destroyers! Hey hey, add some Mexican spice-o-dis to some Mom's apple pie-o-dat...funkadillios! So much more fun and exciting than that crazy boring ass establishment cruds. Next stop, hey honey, your new b-friend, what's his name? Blackzilla? He so nice! Have him swoop in for some vanilla chitlins and baby-back pussy!* Hmm, what ratio to use this time? One part Nebraska vagina, three parts nigboon semen squirts!**

Or five parts white fat-based lazy good for nuthin' sugary batter, stir until too stupid to talk back, add three parts shitskin refugee jumping beans and two parts stenchy rabbit turds, mix, mix, mix...Christ Jesus the taste!

One part bagel, one part lox, fifty parts crazy bullshit. Do not stir, do not touch. Using tongs, place in oven preheated to 1000 F. Cook for twelve hours.

*Results may vary.
**Image pictured does not reflect standard creature.

[Anne]

Have certain principles/rules/logic, but be flexible and willing to substitute ingredients when necessary?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Anne

Have certain principles/rules/logic, but be flexible and willing to substitute ingredients when necessary?

Yes, that's one valid conclusion. What about the woman's mentality, though? What does this article reveal about the way this woman thinks, in relation to her main interest, cooking, and what does that suggest about women and whites in general?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by sambodelicious

Tried and true? Things that work like they spose to? Bullocks to that! Foundations that our collective palates been built on for centuries? Piss on that small town notion. The recipe destroyers! Hey hey, add some Mexican spice-o-dis to some Mom's apple pie-o-dat...funkadillios! So much more fun and exciting than that crazy boring ass establishment cruds. Next stop, hey honey, your new b-friend, what's his name? Blackzilla? He so nice! Have him swoop in for some vanilla chitlins and baby-back pussy!* Hmm, what ratio to use this time? One part Nebraska vagina, three parts nigboon semen squirts!**

A lot of times you'd be right but not here. In cooking after all, you can't escape and have no reason to deny the shitty taste the wrong mix of ingredients produces. The cook/eater can be honest about it. So you have the feedback loop uncut, which is what you need when you're using your imagination and experimenting. In cooking, "the proof is in the pudding." That means, the test of your concoction is how it tastes, whether or not it goes down gullets with appreciation, or whether it's sour and spittable. As opposed to "I followed the directions exactly." In cooking an acceptable rebuttal is, yeah, well, it tastes like shit.

[Mike in Denver]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Yes, that's one valid conclusion. What about the woman's mentality, though? What does this article reveal about the way this woman thinks, in relation to her main interest, cooking, and what does that suggest about women and whites in general?

OK, I'll try. It shows the the need of many whites for structure and authority, and damn anyone who just sets out on his own. It's kind of an analog to the argument you and WANEKA had on how white civilization should be done.

I've noticed that about one person (and when I write person, I mean white person) in eight will go screaming-shit-through-the-roof if you remove the recipe (rules) or act without them. Of the remaining seven, six will go along with whoever screams the loudest.

Mike

[M. Delataire]

That Whites need rules and will follow them regardless of who writes them. I see this with the people I work with everyday. "The radio said, the television said, so and so said..." all the while ignoring their own perceptions and not having the will to think for themselves.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by M. Delataire

That Whites need rules and will follow them regardless of who writes them. I see this with the people I work with everyday. "The radio said, the television said, so and so said..." all the while ignoring their own perceptions and not having the will to think for themselves.

Yes. The remarkable thing here is seeing the phenomenon in a different setting - a sort of control setting, as there is no penalty for not being PC, because PC doesn't apply. Very much like other examples I've used in the past, taken from Dennis Prager and Dr. Atkins.

Atkins said that no matter how obvious the visual and scale evidence his patients were losing weight on his diet, patients refused to accept evidence of their eyes because it went against authority (being anti-carb rather than the PC anti-fat). Jew Prager said that media reporting a snowstorm that never came left the N.Y.-Penn. freeway utterly open to his Friday-afternoon-departing jewself, even though not a drop of snow ever fell. People believe the media (i.e. Authority) over their own eyes, evidence, good sense. People fear to think for themselves, are too lazy too, or it simply doesn't occur to them that it's a valid option.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by M. Delataire

That Whites need rules and will follow them regardless of who writes them. I see this with the people I work with everyday. "The radio said, the television said, so and so said..." all the while ignoring their own perceptions and not having the will to think for themselves.

Is it will? I think in women it's more lack of imagination than anything. I have had a woman say to me "I didn't know you could do that" - that being disagree with authority. That's why I say, a lot of this is not just cowardice or lemminghood, it's lack of imagination.

Once the woman in this example realizes that you don't have to rotely follow directions, even the tiny pathetic little authority represented by a recipe, she's almost giddy about it, and soon develops a cool new thing. In all her years of cooking, it never occurred to her that: a) taste is all that matters in the end; b) it would be fun to play around with ingredients and invent some things. It takes a book to stimulate her into what ought to be but is not obvious - that you can actually use your brain to some effect. This is another veiled reason christianity, and even Burke himself, in a rare misstep, are wrong: they deliberately encourage men NOT to rely on their own thinking. The Bible says lean not on thine own understanding. Burke says he is very unwilling to see people (non-Burke people, as he relies completely on his own thinking) rely on their own private stock of wisdom. But if men won't use their brain to think, they're not men. Not to think to differ and depart, but thinking for everything. Most of the time thinking will confirm the accepted way is the right way, but even going through the process is valuable. It's a solid, truly White approach to life. To think, to question, to quest, to dare - not in a snotty, asshole, look-at-me way - this is what it means to be White. This is what we have evolved, an ability to puzzle things out. Our authority is reality - that's where Burke and the Christians are wrong. The only thing your ideas should submit to is reality. If your ideas fail the reality test, junk them before they damage you and others.

So all of a sudden this woman has a taste of the pleasures of imagination and experiment and there's no stopping her. It just took a little rubbing for the motor to click on. And within a day of the motor clicking on, the woman invented a tasty new dish. White people are like that. They've had their Whiteness browbeaten out of them, but verily I say unto you, VNN will souffle them back to Whitehood, with our gentle coaxings and thumpy tappings.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Mike in Denver

OK, I'll try. It shows the the need of many whites for structure and authority, and damn anyone who just sets out on his own.

Or, it shows their unthinking reliance on authority. The minute they're rasped with the delicious idea that the thing on their shoulders is there for more than providing the maquillage-ists and income, they fairly leap and and thrill to the prospect of...thinking...inventing...creating. You can feel the rush in her words. It took a book to get this woman to perceive that you DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RECIPE EXACTLY. If people are that blind on such trivial things, how much greater their fear of departure on big things with penalties for non-comformance?

Do you see the opportunity cost of allowing jews to control our nation? The more government we have, even without jews, the more comformity, the less genius and innovation. The less government we have, the more people rely on themselves. Big Government is INHERENTLY ANTI-WHITE, no matter who is running it. The LESS authority there is, the more White genius dares to creep out of the hole.

It's kind of an analog to the argument you and WANEKA had on how white civilization should be done.

Well, what I have said is if you take the babies of 100 whites at random, throw them in the woods, you will have a civilization in pretty short order. Whiteness and civilization have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity claims White achievement for itself, but it has nothing to do with it, and in fact has retarded it by telling people that thinking is immoral. Relying on one's own authority is audacious and immoral. Listen to Padre McFeely, he knows best. No, he doesn't.

I've noticed that about one person (and when I write person, I mean white person) in eight will go screaming-shit-through-the-roof if you remove the recipe (rules) or act without them. Of the remaining seven, six will go along with whoever screams the loudest.

Yes. People are animals. We came from the sea, and the fact is, as I have long noted, altho scientists refuse to prove my claim out of their inherent dunderheadedness, we still possess the fish's midline, the organ that causes the noble pez to turn in unison. If you inspect your side, around where the Special K pinch is performed, you can draw the midline out of your midsection like the strip out of the twenty-dollar bill. Then you will be free.

[Dylan Jones]

What is a recipe, after all, but an elaborate ratio someone thought delicious enough to write down? And I've begun to think that Ruhlman's narrow set of ratios might make a less useful starting point for improvisation than a traditional recipe.

The key is returning to tradition. Men being the Cary Grant sartorialist model with proper etiquette instead of the modern-day jean wearing, uncouth, vicarious jewling.

[Julian Lüchow]

I have had a woman say to me "I didn't know you could do that" - that being disagree with authority. That's why I say, a lot of this is not just cowardice or lemminghood, it's lack of imagination.

Or, it shows their unthinking reliance on authority. The minute they're rasped with the delicious idea that the thing on their shoulders is there for more than providing the maquillage-ists and income, they fairly leap and and thrill to the prospect of...thinking...inventing...creating. You can feel the rush in her words. It took a book to get this woman to perceive that you DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RECIPE EXACTLY. If people are that blind on such trivial things, how much greater their fear of departure on big things with penalties for non-comformance?

This is true for most people. I don't ascribe my own non-conformism of thought to greater intellect, however, but to my North Euro/Protestant genetics. We're natural anti-authoritarians.

Jews have been ceded the Euros lands also because many Euros especially in the US-Anglo-Gallosphere became too decadent and irresponsible to hold on to what they had. They cared more about the quick money in the jewish way than preserving their societies for their posterity.

Lack of imagination and conformity is also aided by jews cultivating a lack of culture and intellect in our societies. At least in the ages past it was cool to be smart.

[Steve B]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Is it will? I think in women it's more lack of imagination than anything. I have had a woman say to me "I didn't know you could do that" - that being disagree with authority. That's why I say, a lot of this is not just cowardice or lemminghood, it's lack of imagination.

Which is another way of saying women aren't as creative as men. All the best chefs are men. All the best artists are men. All the best writers and inventors are men. The female author of this story isn't so much a product of "unthinking reliance on authority" via jew indoctrination, but a product of biology. In other words she has to follow a recipe because she can't create or doesn't think she can create a "tasty new dish" on her own. It probably never occurred to her. In fact it took a book written by a man to jump start the clueless little harpy's creative juices.(If you can call green tea sponge cake creative)

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Steve B

Which is another way of saying women aren't as creative as men. All the best chefs are men. All the best artists are men. All the best writers and inventors are men. The female author of this story isn't so much a product of "unthinking reliance on authority" via jew indoctrination, but a product of biology. In other words she has to follow a recipe because she can't create or doesn't think she can create a "tasty new dish" on her own. It probably never occurred to her. In fact it took a book written by a man to jump start the clueless little harpy's creative juices.(If you can call green tea sponge cake creative)

Yes. They are pattern followers, and it is biological. The examples I cite are not dumb or average women, even, but much higher than average IQ types. Even smart women are basically parrots. You see this in school. Smart girls are never original, they're just quicker to pick up what the teacher wants to hear and repeat it back to him. Very, very few women can discern a distinction between a high grade and true education. Most men are more or less this way, too. I always would sit there in honors AP stuff and just watch, and listen, observe my students. You see how few have any inborn ability to take things with a gimlet eye or grain of salt. Really...? You think this guy's is the ONLY way to answer that question? In a lot of ways, people never escape that baby stage, with that beautiful open smile, totally accepting and trusting.

Maybe dog, or Herb, the master ironist legally responsible for the universe (Herb is pronounced 'Breh' kind of between eh and ay with rough-cut clip end like bro or brah), inflicted jews on us to make us cynicaler than we are naturally - i.e., to improve us, as a race.

[Alex Linder]

It may be taken as a general rule, admitting of very few exceptions, that genuine creativity, true originality, in a woman, is a product of her womb, not her head.

[Anne]

Women don't have to be creative. In raising kids, a woman simply has to be able to communicate effectively in order to teach the child the "mother tongue," and a basic education. There is a lot of truth in the saying: All I ever needed to know, I learned in kindergarten.

Also, while it is very true that most, if not all, of my ideas and information come from men, at least I figured out which ideas are the right ones!

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Anne

Women don't have to be creative. In raising kids, a woman simply has to be able to communicate effectively in order to teach the child the "mother tongue," and a basic education. There is a lot of truth in the saying: All I ever needed to know, I learned in kindergarten.

Also, while it is very true that most, if not all, of my ideas and information come from men, at least I figured out which ideas are the right ones!

You're obviously more intelligent than the average woman, or man.

The woman who gets it is the one who uses her powers to the fullest, but puts them into the proper form. She complements and aids the man, like a man learning to master a horse, something bigger and more powerful than he is. You can't try to overwhelm it, that will anger it and make it want to stomp you, or at least disobey you. That's why god gave you pussies and fingers and soft voices and the ability to scan emotions. Use those in conjunction with your tiny brain to perceive the situation, figure out where you fit in, and how you can smoothly improve it. Complement the man, don't try to master or overwhelm him. Subtly, calmly, quietly prevail upon him. If you don't threaten his ridiculous male ego, which all men have, then he won't be threatened and his ears will stay open, and your sweet, sensible soothings will creep over the wax, somersault off the membrane and trampoline into his brain, where he will put them to work effecting the outcome you seek and he needs, whether he knows it or not. That's how to be a woman. Don't try to be a badass with us. We're stronger than you mentally and physically, and even if you, using jewlaw and jewmores, succeed in cowing us, your victory is pyrric, for we will merely hate you. Seduce us. Wrap your sense in your sex. We can't resist. We're made not to resist. The funniest thing of all about femists is they throw away their god-given atom bombs and call themselves empowered.

[Anne]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Subtly, calmly, quietly prevail upon him.

Easier said than done, I'm afraid. Our emotions often get the better of us, making us act like asses out of frustration! I'm sure many women don't really want to act tough, we just think (actually, the problem is we don't think, we just imitate and respond based on feeling) that being aggressive works for men, so maybe it'll work for us.

BTW, I think you should write an anti-feminist, pro-woman manifesto!

[Wakena]

That white men have the brains and the ability to grasp genius, spiritual, creative is worthless unless they have a community in which to express their individuality. Without that they are unrecognized, perhaps the greatest tragedy of out multi-cult age. How many worthy men are out there? No, everyone is to fucking busy trying to uplift the niggers instead of the real Men of beauty who are able to inspire us. Study the life of Bach. Here we find a family, or tribe, of musicians and it took many generations to create one Bach, and he was the last breath of an age. It cannot be stressed enough how truly fragile the White genius is, and what he requires in a community.

A woman who can grasp and understand the natural hierarchy of Man, and follow only the greatest and be inspired as well, is not a feminine woman, but a masculine one. How can she be soft, or something she just is not?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Anne

Easier said than done, I'm afraid. Our emotions often get the better of us, making us act like asses out of frustration! I'm sure many women don't really want to act tough, we just think (actually, the problem is we don't think, we just imitate and respond based on feeling) that being aggressive works for men, so maybe it'll work for us.

BTW, I think you should write an anti-feminist, pro-woman manifesto!

I don't think women are interesting enough to merit a book. They're more of a pamphlet sex.

In my view, and I suspect many men feel the same, one of the worst things a woman can do is terrorize a man with her voice. It completely unsexes a woman. Above nearly all else, a woman should never shriek or nag. Either do it yourself, or improve your persuasive/seductive skills. Raising your voice = cutting your own throat. On the flip side, even a fat ugly woman who manages her voice will find mate.