Shared posts

23 Oct 20:00

Nothing but a lie

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
The co-founder of the Weather Channel declares the obvious: there is no anthropogenic global climate change:
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.

In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid." He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.

"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years."
 Always keep AGW/CC in mind whenever you see someone appealing to "scientific consensus". Scientific consensus is democracy. It is politics. It is collective opinion and it should not be confused with the actual scientific process (scientody) any more than the contents of the sewage system at a convention of scientists are.

Posted by Vox Day.
23 Oct 23:45

This far you may come and no farther.

by Dalrock

With Gamergate, we may finally have found the line in the sand when it comes to how far men will allow feminists to go in eradicating male spaces.  As Social Justice Warrior (SJW) Brianna Wu explains at The Washington Post (H/T Vox):

Gamergate is ostensibly about journalistic ethics. Supporters say they want to address conflicts of interest between the people that make games and the people that support them. In reality, Gamergate is a group of gamers that are willing to destroy the women who have invaded their clubhouse.

SJW hyperbole aside, there is some truth to what she is saying.  At its core Gamergate is about gamers rejecting feminists and other SJWs who are trying to feminize their games.  The move to mark video games as feminine comes after a long series of capitulations.  In the eyes of feminists everything must be marked as feminine, from our nuclear submarines and special forces to the NFL.  And everywhere feminists have marched, men have capitulated.  That is everywhere but video games, as Wu explains:

For 30 years, video games have been designed by men, marketed to men and sold to men. It’s obvious to anyone outside the industry that video games have serious issues with the portrayal of women…

The consequence of this culture is male gamers have been trained to feel video games are their turf. In stopping Gamergate, the men who dominate it – not just women — must address the culture that created Gamergate.

Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives are quick to deride men who play video games as “Peter Pan manboys”.  However, gamers as a group have found the courage to stand up to feminism, and this kind of courage is something which so far Christians have been unable to muster.  Some things are too important to give up without a fight.  Perhaps if the gamers ultimately prevail, Christians will be inspired and decide that Christianity is also worth defending from the feminist onslaught.


10 Oct 17:00

Islamophobia at the UN

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
I take personal offense at this reprehensibly Islamophobic comment by a UN official, who implies that devoted members of the religion of peace would allow anyone to come to harm after taking control of a Syrian city:
Thousands of people "will most likely be massacred" if Kobani falls to Islamic State fighters, a U.N. envoy said on Friday, as militants fought deeper into the besieged Syrian Kurdish town in full view of Turkish tanks that have done nothing to intervene.
I'm sure the Turks are amused by the passive-aggressive criticism of their failure to defend the very Kurds who have been violently rebelling against their rule for decades, if not centuries. It's one thing to wipe out your enemies. But one can hardly criticize a people who, upon seeing someone else doing it for them, shrug, look on, and say, "you know, defending those people is really neither our problem nor our interest."

Anti-gun liberals would do well to keep this in mind come the day of the zombies. When they're screaming "somebody, please do something!" I suspect there will be more than a few well-armed conservatives and libertarians who will look on with a faint smile and say, "now, weren't you the very sort of idiot who a) brought the zombies to town, and b) tried to take my guns away?"

After all, did not the Bible say that the hearts of men would grow cold?

Posted by Vox Day.
08 Oct 07:58

Tolkien on intersexual relations

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
JRR Tolkien explores the mistaken avenue of chivalry and the backwards nature of pedestalization.
There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God's way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly 'theocentric'. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man's eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a 'love' that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit.
Alpha Game 2011
06 Oct 09:49

The cost of N=1

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
As if the marriage failure rate for women with moderate sexual experience weren't bad enough, now genetic science has revived the possibility that merely being a non-virgin may be sufficient to taint a woman's subsequent genetic line with her first lover's DNA:
Telegony is the belief that the sire first mated to a female will have an influence upon some of that female's later offspring by another male. Although the reality of telegony was acknowledged by such authorities as Darwin, Spencer, Romanes and many experienced breeders, it has been met with scepticism because of Weismann's unfavourable comments and negative results obtained in several test experiments. In this article, alleged cases of telegony are provided. A search of the literature of cell biology and biochemistry reveals several plausible mechanisms that may form the basis for telegony. These involve the penetration of spermatozoa into the somatic tissues of the female genital tract, the incorporation of the DNA released by spermatozoa into maternal somatic cells, the presence of foetal DNA in maternal blood, as well as sperm RNA-mediated non-Mendelian inheritance of epigenetic changes.
This could have severe societal repercussions if telegony turns out to have a solid basis in genetic science. It should be fairly easy to confirm too, by comparing the DNA of a woman's children to that of the man to whom she lost her virginity but was not the father of her children. It would certainly renew the value of a woman's virginity.

I suspect there will be tremendous pressure to not explore these hypotheses due to those potential repercussions, but the concept is too fundamentally interesting and important to remain unexplored for long.
Alpha Game 2011
23 Sep 17:15

The new fifty.

by Dalrock

Drudge via Time has picked up Jenny Bahn’s piece at XO Jane 30 Is the New 50: “Old Age” is Killing My Dating Life.  What is fascinating is that while Bahn has stumbled on the painful truth, she still can’t fully connect the dots regarding her own choices.  She can’t see that the young women she is unable to compete against are the younger version of herself.  They don’t want to settle down now, but give them a decade and they will be singing the same song Bahn is singing now, complaining that men don’t want to commit.  What is wrong with men?

It’s this logic that has most of my 30-something guy friends dating girls fresh out of college. Girls who, in my experience, are less impressive, less striving, less volatile, less successful, less intimidating, less questioning, less pressing, less complex, less damaged, less opinionated, less powerful, less womanly. They are less, and, to a guy not ready for anything — like most of the guys I have dated in New York — less is more.

A 30-year-old woman is an undertaking…

Now that she has more baggage and is more difficult, she expects more from men than she expected when she was younger and prettier.  Is that too much to ask?

See Also:  Women’s morphing need for male investment.


22 Sep 16:00

Mutiny And The Ordeal Of Captain Bligh

by Quintus Curtius

Fortune both grants favor and revokes it. Plutarch, wise in the ways of such things, puts this prescient little speech into the mouth of Aemilius Paullus, who was addressing a group of intemperate young men:

Is it fitting for a mortal man to become bold when he enjoys success, or proud because he has conquered a nation or a city or a kingdom?  Or should he instead contemplate this reversal of fortune, which provides for any man who wages war an instructive example of our common vulnerability and teaches us that nothing is stable and secure? What sort of moment is it for mortals to be confident, when their victory over other men obliges them to be most afraid of fortune, and when a happy man can be reduced to dejection by his knowledge that destiny follows a circular course, coming to different men at different times?…Can you then believe that our own affairs enjoy any lasting protection from the vicissitudes of fortune? Young men, will you not then abandon your hollow insolence and let go of your pride…and instead look towards the future with humility, always watchful of the moment when the divine will at last exacts from each of you retribution for your present prosperity?[1]

Falls from Fortune’s grace can come with distressing speed. Captain William Bligh, a respected officer of the British Navy and merchant service, discovered for himself just how cruel such reversals can be. Awarded the captaincy of H.M.S. Bounty in 1787, he and his crew sailed for Tahiti on a mission to collect breadfruit trees for agricultural use in the Caribbean. After ten months at sea on a voyage that exceeded 27,000 miles, the Bounty finally reached the South Seas. Much has been written on the character of Bligh and his style of command; while not the tyrannical monster he has been made out to be, he certainly was a product of the British maritime service’s severe disciplinary culture.

bligh1

William Bligh:  a complex and controversial figure

A competent and meticulous mariner, he nevertheless lacked a measure of joviality that might have softened his harsher edges. Deaf to the music of mildness, his coldness and detachment prevented him from extending to his crew those incidental touches of magnanimity that might have done much to relieve the tedium of a long sea voyage. Tensions multiplied, and Bligh’s appointment with the laughing mistress Fortune was not long in coming. He later related how he was seized by the mutineers:

Just before sun-rising, while I was yet asleep, Mr. [Fletcher] Christian…came into my cabin, and seizing me, tied my hands with a cord behind my back, threatening me with instant death if I spoke…I was hauled out of bed, and forced on deck in my shirt, suffering great pain from the tightness with which they had tied my hands.[2]

For Bligh and the crew members loyal to him, things were about to become much worse. He and eighteen other men were cast adrift in a leaky open boat only twenty-three feet in length, and which was so overloaded that it was in constant danger of being swamped. One errant wave of sufficient size might have spelled the end for them. For provisions, they were permitted only the barest of essentials: some salt pork, bread, wine, rum, water, and a few cutlasses.

Most significantly, they were given no charts or navigational equipment; the mutineers permitted them only a compass and an old quadrant. In the enormity of the Pacific Ocean, to try to navigate by such primitive reckonings was a colossal handicap, something within the capabilities of only the most talented navigator. But Bligh, who had served under Captain Cook, one of Britain’s ablest explorers, was up to the task.

bligh4

The plan was to head for the closest known friendly location: the island of Timor, which was a daunting 3,600 miles distant. Bligh’s crew, exposed to the torments of wave, sun, and starvation, had hardly one chance in a hundred. Trying to locate an island three thousand miles away by dead reckoning on the open sea was like trying to find a needle in a haystack. To this difficulty was added the fact that the men could not make landfall for rest or provisions during the journey; the islands were populated by fierce cannibals, hostile to all outsiders, even other Polynesians. One of Bligh’s crew was killed by natives as they tried to land on the island of Tofua.

bligh2

It is unlikely that Bligh, even had he possessed the philosophic temperament to reflect on the rapidity of his fall from power, would have had much opportunity to brood over the desperation of his situation. The day-to-day struggle for survival supplanted all other considerations. It is ironic—how strange and variable is Fate!—that the personal qualities that so disadvantaged him as captain of the Bounty now proved to be invaluable in preserving his and his men’s lives. Survival in the boat now called for parsimony, iron discipline, seamanship, and the ability to block out the true desperation of the situation; these were qualities that Bligh possessed in abundance. So men’s faults in one setting may be virtues in another.

He instituted a strict rationing policy from which he never deviated; he occupied his men’s minds so as to prevent despair from taking hold of them; and he developed a creative method of ensuring fairness in the allotment of rations. In his published account of the ordeal, Bligh emerges as something of a mother hen to his men, apportioning out teaspoons of rum, bread, and raw bird flesh with soothing regularity. Under his tutelage, his men remained British seamen, rather than a starving collection of skeletons. Baked by the unrelenting sun, buffeted by waves and storms, and denied food and water, they maintained their cohesion and discipline in the face of the most miserable conditions imaginable.

“The sea flew over us with great force, and kept us bailing with horror and anxiety,” he later wrote. Incredibly, Bligh even managed to record topographic data along the way regarding the islands, currents, depths, and wind conditions he encountered en route. And he lost not one single man. It was a feat of incredible resourcefulness and willpower, never equaled in the turbulent annals of maritime history. He and his men reached Timor, in a state of near collapse. Bligh comments on the event in his usual deadpan manner:

Thus, through the assistance of Divine Providence, we surmounted the difficulties and distresses of a most perilous voyage, and arrived safe in a hospitable port, where every necessary and comfort were administered to us with a most liberal hand.[3]

One day, we may be a captain, controlling our destiny. The next day, we may find ourselves adrift on the open sea with scarcely a prayer. Plutarch reminds us of this truth:

Perhaps…there exists a divinity whose role it is to diminish our prosperity, whenever it  becomes exceedingly great, and add complexity to a mortal’s life, so that it is not unmixed with evils or left altogether free from misfortune, so that instead, as Homer says, they seem to fare best whose fortunes tip the scales now in one direction, now in the other.[4]

I have come to accept the truth of this view. It is well for us to remain suspicious of Fortune and her wily ways. She never really bestows her blessings on us without some condition of future repayment in kind. The wise and prudent man will accept the blessings of life without undue exuberance or frivolity; for he remains keenly aware that what is certain today may dissolve into the swirling fog of memory tomorrow. He will, like Bligh, learn to bear these calamities with a grim determination that never permits the indulgence of self-pity. All that remain for us are the virtues that contribute to our endurance of these cruel vagaries.


[1] Scott-Kilvert, Ian et al., The Rise of Rome: Twelve Lives by Plutarch, London:  The Penguin Group (2013), p. 571.

[2] Bligh, William, The Mutiny On Board H.M.S. Bounty, New York:  Airmont Publishing Co. (1965), p. 117.

[3] Id., p. 172.

[4] Scott-Kilvert, supra, p. 578.

Read More: Every Man Has A Breaking Point

19 Sep 22:19

No hiatus for solipsism during World War II.

by Dalrock

640px-American_military_cemetery_2003

In my last post I quoted from a radio program delivered by Margaret Sanger discussing the hardships women face in marriage and the importance of marriage counseling.  Sanger described a young mother she met the day before on the train:

…she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and she what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”

I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t. You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.

The date of the program was July 19, 1944.  This was just a little over a month after D Day and before the Normandy breakout.  World War II was very much still raging in Europe, and American men were still fighting and dying there.  Yet at this very time we had (if we believe the story), a woman complaining to strangers on a train about the exciting adventures her husband was enjoying in the European theater (most likely as a result of being drafted).  Moreover, this was a story Sanger felt perfectly comfortable sharing on the radio at home to the wives and mothers of US servicemen, as those men continued to fight and die overseas.

American Cemetery at Normandy photo released as public domain by Bjarki Sigursveinsson.


17 Sep 09:03

Why women shouldn't vote: Scottish edition

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
It was entirely predictable that Scottish women would vote against freedom and independence:
Among women, however, an increasing number are coming down in favour of voting No. The results show that the No campaign now has a 16 point lead among women who have decided which way to vote - up from 14 points on Sunday. Some 58 per cent of women say they will vote No on Thursday, with 42 per cent planning to vote Yes, among those who have reached a decision.

Men are more evenly split but more than half – 53 per cent – now back independence.
Women voting. A free and independent society. Choose one. The choice between the two is rarely so obvious as this, though.
Alpha Game 2011
16 Sep 12:50

Ted Cruz and the Atrocious Anti-Semitism of Persecuted Christians

by Aaron Jacob

Since the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and beyond, thousands of Middle Eastern Christians—as well as other religious minorities, such as Yazidis—have been raped, killed, or driven from their homes. These minorities have been safest under secular governments such as that of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, because the only other option within the Middle East is Islamic theocracy—which is, again, presently in the process of eliminating them. Israel, with its Law of Return, is no option for them at all, as its only Christian permanent residents are descendents of those who lived in Palestine before the State of Israel was founded in 1948, many of whose fellows were expelled during the Arab-Israeli conflicts of the mid-20th century. Christians who were not so fortunate as to have been born in Israel are not allowed to reside in Israel permanently. And even those Christians, according to Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Vatican’s Custodian of the Holy Land, have had their churches defaced, and have been literally spat upon, by Jews.

It is no surprise, then, that so many Palestinian and Arab Christians have allied with Assad—who is himself a member of a religious minority, an Alawite, and thus has an interest in protecting religious freedom in his country—or with other secular or pan-Arab governments, or have simply emigrated (often to the United States). It is also, accordingly, no surprise that the destabilization of the region by Washington military campaigns, which has favored the rise of the Islamic State, has been so devastating for these Christian communities.

None of this stopped Senator Ted Cruz from telling a group of these Christians, in no equivocal terms, that his support for their struggle is contingent upon their support for a State which has no interest in taking them in.

Sen. Ted Cruz was booed offstage at a conference for Middle Eastern Christians Wednesday night after saying that “Christians have no greater ally than Israel.”

Cruz, the keynote speaker at the sold-out D.C. dinner gala for the recently-founded non-profit In Defense of Christians, began by saying that “tonight, we are all united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are all united in defense of Jews. Tonight, we are all united in defense of people of good faith, who are standing together against those who would persecute and murder those who dare disagree with their religious teachings.”

A State which denies citizenship to gentiles is the greatest ally of Christians! One wonders, then, when Israeli commandos will begin taking on the Islamic State on behalf of the persecuted.

Cruz went further, however: his final statement at the gala, before leaving the stage, was that “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you.” Cruz’s attitude appears to be shared by many other conservative American Protestants, who seem entirely willing to condemn fellow Christians, who live with the daily threat of rape and murder, for the sake of Israel. According to commenters on Mollie Hemingway’s recent piece at the Federalist, Maronite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are getting what they deserve for not liking Jews enough:

Israel is not Middle Eastern Christian sects’ enemy.

Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination. If they harbor resentments, now is the time they dropped them.

Or they’ll deserve the consequences.

Well, dhimmis, you spent the last 1400 years building this trap for yourselves. Learn to accept the Jews or die ‘the vilest of animals’ as the Koran calls all Kuffar, Christian or Jew.

ME Christians just gave you a window to the virulent strain of Christianity that most Americans had long had bred out of them.

Let’s face [it], even as th[e]y are being slaughtered, ME Christians would sooner die than relinquish they [sic] antisemitism. It’s their choice.

These ‘Christians’ have two choices: life alongside Israel and the Jews or slaughter at the hands of Muslims.

You are way off base here. Their persecution by fanatical Muslims does not justify their antisemitism.

The moral case for Christians in the Middle East is undermined — perhaps undermined to the point of being not deserving of support — because of their not-so thinly-veiled Jew-hatred.

That is the *exact* point that Cruz was making.

Don’t like the Islamic State? You’d better be friendlier with Jews, then! It’s so simple—all these Christians have to do is call out the name of Benjamin Netanyahu three times under the sign of the Star of David, and Israel, in its unending beneficence, will transport them instantly to safety! Expressing support for Israel would normally get these people killed, but Israel and Uncle Sam are ready to repel the forces of the Islamic State immediately and forever—all they have to do is to say the magic words. And it’s not as though Washington brought the Islamic State into existence through its involvement in the Middle East on behalf of its Israeli and Saudi friends; to say so, in fact, would be grievously and atrociously anti-Semitic, wouldn’t it? And according to Ted Cruz and these other conservative commenters, anti-Semitism is a crime far worse than anything the Islamic State is doing.

15 Sep 13:00

Into the blast furnace

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
The UK's demographics are illustrating the truth of GK Chesterton's observations concerning the human disinclination to believe in nothing:
In England’s second city of Birmingham, of 278,623 youngsters, 97,099 were registered as Muslim compared with 93,828 as Christian. The rest were of other faiths such as Hindu or Jewish, or none.

A similar trend has emerged in the cities of Bradford and Leicester, the towns of Luton, in Bedfordshire, and Slough in Berkshire, as well as the London boroughs Newham, Redbridge and Tower Hamlets, where nearly two-thirds of children are Islamic.

Last night experts said more must be done to ensure that society does not become polarised along religious lines.
I think it is fairly obvious that when people are being beheaded, it is a little late for that. To quote Jerry Pournell's apt observation, there will be war.
Professor Ted Cantle, of the ICoCo Foundation, which promotes community cohesion, said: ‘What we are seeing are several trends running together. There is a long-term decline in support for the established religions, notably Christianity; continuing immigration from the Asian sub-continent; and higher fertility among the Muslim population, which has a considerably lower age profile.

‘There is also deepening segregation exacerbated by the loss of white population from cities and more intensive concentration of black and minority ethnic groups as a result of replacement.

‘This is the real problem, as residential segregation is generally compounded by school and social segregation.
If he thinks segregation is a problem, just try desegregating those communities. Because communities that can't peacefully segregate will always eventually find another, less palatable means of doing so.

Well done, secular Britain. Out of its desire to weaken Christianity's societal dominance, it imported Islam. That's like leaping out of the frying pan and into the blast furnace.

Posted by Vox Day.
15 Sep 17:22

Alpha Agents of Righteous Karma

by Rollo Tomassi

Karma

Reader Keyser Soze had an interesting comment last week that I thought would be a good jump off point for today’s topic:

@Siirtyrion: You said, “Many scientists still go by this notion because it explains the frequent tradeoffs in mating and gives us a more complete picture for sexual selection as a whole. I understand that I uphold physicality as king, but understand that hypergamy isn’t completely about a short-term mating strategy, regardless of what some people may think. Women may be able to fund their our lives currently but rest assure, they still seek out Beta Bucks in other forms aside from monetary or material gain (i.e they still seek out physiological and emotional comfort from less than ideal males).”

Question for all:

Reading this, I had a thought. We often talk about women hitting the wall at 35ish and their sudden willingness to be me more reasonable with their expectations in a mate as they realize their SMV has decreased. I wonder if the above quote also plays into this. By the time women hit 35ish, historically (without modern methods of assisted conception) they are past their childbearing years. I wonder if their mating strategy changes at this age not only because of diminished SMV, but also because they are no longer looking for prime genetic material for reproduction as much as they are looking for “physiological and emotional comfort”. Perhaps this was implied all along, but I never thought about it this way before.

I hate to think this is going to come off as sympathy for the aging spinsters who had their cake in their youth and now, late in life, are looking to make honest amends for their past decisions, but it probably will.

A few months ago I broke-down Robin Korth’s aging sexual denial and in response we got a glimpse into the rationalization engine (a.k.a. the Hamster) at work in feminine solipsism:

My life is the result of what I think of myself. #robinism

— Robin Korth (@RobinKorth) July 8, 2014

My intent here isn’t to pick on Korth personally or really any woman in the post-Wall demographic in particular, but this self-insight is an excellent illustration of the feminine solipsism I often refer to on this blog. Furthermore, this sense of ego-blamelessness is then combined with the easy rationales and social conventions ready-made by the Feminine Imperative to affirm her self-importance.

Deti comments:

Robin Korth should be reposing in the love of her husband of the past 35 years, give or take. She should be doting on children and grandchildren as the esteemed matriarch of her family.

Instead, Ms. Korth is still out there acting as if she’s 25 years old. She’s still trying to navigate the sexual and dating minefields. In the end she’s trying to show everyone (but really herself) that she’s still “got it”; that she can still arouse a man sexually. It is all really about self aggrandizement. It is all about self- validation and affirmation. In the end, it’s all about Robin Korth. It’s pathetic and sad, really.

And no, Ms. Korth, your life is not the result of what you think about yourself. You are what you do. You are NOT what you think, read, or write. You are not what you were or what you’d like to be.

You are what you do. Period. Full stop.

And from The Difficulty of Gaming Women by Age Brackets by (the old) Roissy:

36 to 38 year olds

She is at peace with her spinsterhood and her failure in the dating market. She will acquiesce easily and gratefully to sex with very little game, as long as you don’t look like a grandpa. Her expectations are so low, it will be a challenge to disappoint her.

If you are prone to guilt, you might feel it when you inevitably dump a woman in this age range. Don’t. Remind yourself that her past is littered with her insouciant dumping of many beta men before you. You are merely an alpha agent of righteous karma.

Granted, Robin is well past the 38 year old mark by over 20 years, however even at 59 the description is still remarkably apt in light of Deti’s overview, however, the real lesson here is for men.

There comes (or should come) a certain empowerment for men after a point of maturation in life where he grows into an understanding of how the Game is played by women. As I’ve noted in the past month, this game, the former secret of women’s dualistic sexual strategy, is becoming more and more of an open secret amongst a feminine-primary culture becoming increasingly more assured of its primacy. If anything this plan for women’s optimizing hypergamy is just this side of proudly flaunting it to men.

As I pick my way through exactly this ‘plan’ in writing the next book, I’ve actually become less surprised by so many examples I find of this willingness with which women will overtly share their strategy for assuring short-term Alpha sexual desires during their SMV peak, and then consolidation on the security a Beta provider represents as their SMV decays beginning at around 30 years of age.

My purpose in writing this next volume of The Rational Male is to make men aware of just this life-schedule and sexual strategy, but even with my own efforts and the glaring willingness with which women will now confirm it, a larger whole of men simply don’t mature into this overall understanding.

For all the education the Red Pill represents for men, the larger blue pill whole simply don’t want to accept the ugly reality of women’s sexual strategy even when women openly confirm this for them – or when they do it’s too late for anything but pensive self-reproach and then signing the alimony/child support check anyway.

As this understanding becomes more widespread some social change will have to follow. Men will either become so pathetic as to ‘normalize’ it for themselves, and personally identify with what amounts to their open (proactive or reactive) cuckolding under women’s grossly overt championing of their Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy – or Men will come to the realization (hopefully sooner than later) that the fantasy of monogamous bliss based on a notion of intergender compromise and the ‘give & take’ (but mostly give) they were sold on was never in the best interests of feminine-primacy.

The Feminine Imperative was (and is) only ever concerned with men’s imperatives or male-specific priorities insofar as they align with the superseding, primary imperatives of women. Thus, as open hypergamy becomes more common and the truth of this duplicity and imbalance (really disinterest) of mutual sexual imperatives becomes more evident, men will again (as with Game) evolve methods and mentalities to consolidate on their own imperatives or simply live in denial of it all.

The Long Game

For almost 6 months I’ve had this post from Cail Corishev bookmarked. It’s an excellent driver for exactly this point: prior to the digital age men tended not to play a long game when it came to socio-sexual strategies. The short game is all that matters in the moment, and all that stimulates, but until the advent of digital forums where men could figuratively compare notes, most men were simply unable, and perhaps too distracted to ask the obvious questions about women’s hypergamy and how it plays out over the course of 10-30 years and the roles women expect men to play during those stages of their lives in order to accommodate their strategy.

In Cail’s piece he describes a woman he knew at age 30 and how attractive she was, and his consideration of starting a relationship with her. After a failing interest and 10 years of no contact, she reinitiated with Cail:

But while we were chatting, I saw some of her recent pictures, and whoa!  She’s gone from a 7-8 to maybe a 5, and that would be adjusted for age.  She hasn’t gotten fat, but that’s about the only positive note.  She looks so rough that I found myself wondering what I was thinking ten years ago, but I looked back at some old pictures, and she really was pretty at 30 — not a model or anything, but enough to turn heads.  Now she looks like she’s lived 20 hard years in 10.  She works nights at a pretty demanding job and has had some serious health problems, so I guess it’s no surprise, but it was really striking: ten years ago I ached for this girl, and now I wouldn’t look twice at her if I passed her in the grocery store.

That got me thinking about Rollo’s chart.  My own SMV, as far as I can tell, hasn’t changed much from mid-30s to mid-40s, just as his chart would predict.  I’m about the same weight, same build, maybe a little less hair, but I’d lost quite a bit of it already back then.  I’m not much better-off financially, but at least not worse, and I have more of a sense of direction in my life.  I’m certainly more confident, especially with women, and more established in my communities.  So some pluses and some minuses, holding steady at about the same level.  The amount of interest I get from women seems to support that.

She, on the other hand, going from 30 to 40, has gone from fertile to not likely.  She’s also a grandmother now, so instead of looking to start a new family, she’s focused (and rightly so) on helping her kids with theirs.  (If single moms don’t have much spare attention to give a husband, imagine the single mom of a single mom.)  An additional ten years of dating and relationships under her belt certainly doesn’t add to her appeal.  On top of those reasons, add the drastic decline in her looks, and now I not only don’t want to marry her, but as we chat I’m mostly thinking, “How soon can I politely say goodnight so I can get to sleep already?”  Harsh, but true.  Just as Rollo’s chart predicts, her SMV has been on a steady decline since we met — maybe more of a free-fall in her case — and now mine is well above hers.

I had a similar post to this I published back in December of 2011 – Protracted SMV:

It’s a simple matter to tell a guy he’s dodged a bullet in the cosmic scheme of things, but it’s altogether different to provably show him how he’s dodging it. For all the evils of facebook at least it gives him [men] an ability to see the forest for the trees, but the feminine can’t even afford him that. You must stay dumb, you must stay plugged-in for the feminine to maintain primacy. For all the benefits of a globally connected world, the feminine imperative expects you to accept a feminine-centric normalization of it.

What the Feminine Imperative fears is men becoming what Roissy terms Alpha Agents of Righteous Karma. Due to a lifetime of feminine conditioning, men tend to underestimate the leverage their SMV has in the context of women’s biological imperatives.

Pity for Reneé

I have a similar story to Cail’s. When I was a senior in high school I had a ‘friend‘ named Reneé, she was a gorgeous auburn-red head with a fantastic 17-18 year old body. We were good ‘friends‘ in the sense that it was clear I wasn’t ever going to see her naked and she had all of the personality trappings of a girl who knew she was attractive (she did modeling after high school), but also had the beginnings of a very self-important ego-invested feminist mind set.

I never really stayed in touch with her after graduation since by then I had moved on to women who enthusiastically reciprocated my interests and I moved along in life. It wasn’t until 2009 that I got on FaceBook and began having old friends look me up – Reneé was among the first. Very similar to the woman in Cail’s story we started to catch up with what the other had been doing through their 20s, 30s and now 40s.

As it turned out she was still fairly attractive for having had one daughter and never marrying the father, or any other guy for that matter. Most of the predictable single mommy issues and false-empowerment memes were bandied about by her, but the short version is here she was at 41 and her daughter was a year away from leaving for college. She was between jobs, but the one she had and the one she hoped to get were mediocre low to mid-management type, subsistence level employment.

She was and still is single 5 years later. The predictable questions about what my wife was like and how long we’ve been married came up, how we met, and where I’ve travelled in my work, etc. and I can honestly say I felt bad for her just recalling all of the life I’ve lived in the interim and basically forgot about her since high school.

She’s 46 now, and loves FaceBook as much as any aging spinster, but I really don’t want to call her that. In between the many pictures of her 4 cats (no lie) she occasionally posts some lament about how lonely she is now that her daughter has gone away to school and she comes home to an empty apartment these days. She makes not-so-subtle pleas to her FB community friends to set her up with ‘a great guy’ and all the dutiful Betas come out of the woodwork to tell her how pretty she (still) is and to keep her chin up and the right guy will “come along” – not so unlike the advice she gave me and at least half a dozen other guys I knew back in the day.

Reneé still clings to all of the feminist memes and mantras (reposts all the most popular), and complains of not being able to find a “great guy” anymore. This is of course infantile men’s faults for not manning up to her fem-correct standards, or else it’s a complaint about the ‘creepy’ men who really just want to bang her when she out with friends.

Unhappy Feminists

I hadn’t really ever considered using Reneé as a blog post subject until I read this article in Psychology Today:

According to a new survey released this month, your odds of winning the cash would increase if you skipped any 40-something, single female professionals and focused on the middle-aged male managers with one child at home and a wife who works part-time. In its Office Pulse survey, Captivate Network, a media solutions company, says its uncovered “profiles of the happiest and unhappiest workers.” And here it is:

  • Male
  • 39 years old
  • Married
  • Household income between $150,000 and $200,000
  • In a senior management position
  • 1 young child at home
  • A wife who works part-time

And the unhappiest profile?:

  • Female
  • 42 years old
  • Unmarried (and no children)
  • Household income under $100,000
  • In a professional position (doctor, lawyer, etc.)

Minus the professional status, essentially Reneé fits the profile for the most unhappy person in the western world today. Now, return back to Robin Korth’s comment, her life is the result of what she thinks of herself. What does this say about the decision making both she and Reneé have made in their lives?

I can’t say I have any sympathy for the likes of Korth, but for Reneé I do feel a pang of pity (in spite of Roissy’s advice for women of this age). For all of the accusations of red pill “misogyny” I genuinely do like women, and I’m not rooting for them to smash into the Wall. However I can see why my observations make this seem so – hard truths are often warnings that we don’t like to heed.

I often wonder if women of this profile aren’t as much victims of an ideological conditioning as Betatized men are over the course of their lives. Much of what’s resulted in Reneé’s life are the consequences of having (and still subscribing to) a mindset that’s based on equalist individualism, and she’s now beginning to reap what she’s sown – knowingly or not.

I don’t know the father of her daughter, but my red pill instincts (and knowing how hot she used to be) tell me the guy was likely a pump and dump Alpha bad boy. Reneé never struck me as the type to ‘settle’ on a Beta provider because she was too headstrong and independent® for that – she was certainly hot enough to attract the Alphas and independent enough to never consider a Beta for a relationship.

Observations

So my observation is this; while granting that women’s decisions are their own, and they should in all ways be accountable for the consequences that follow from them, how much of those decisions are based on a conditioning that promotes an idealized ideology of feminine, equalist independence?

For the same reason I can’t entirely fault a man with an internalized blue pill mindset over his conditioning, shouldn’t we also consider that women are likewise mislead by a similar influence? Are we (again) giving women too much credit for being rational independent agents under different circumstance?

For men’s part, it’s hardly avoidable that we become Alpha Agents of Righteous Karma by default for women in this cohort. Perhaps not as Alpha as we’re perceived, but as our SMV ascends in our 30s and (sometimes) through our 40s, it’s almost unavoidable that, even with a baseline of ambition, we’re seen as more desirable long term prospects.

In all honesty, were I to find myself single tomorrow, Reneé or women like her would never make my ‘to date’ list. Women love to complain that mature men really aren’t, and all they want is a young girl to fuck and coo for them. I would argue that men in my demo (at least should) have the depth of experience to know what the Feminine Imperative (and its social arm feminism) has bred and conditioned into women, and we honestly don’t want the hassle of dealing with it.

There is precious little reward for a man, and no appreciation, for having a big enough heart to save a woman from the consequences of her past decisions. That’s not meant as a callous punishment, just simple pragmatism.

As I stated in The Threat,

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

When you’ve spent your whole life attempting to ‘have it all’ on your own, perhaps men can’t help but be an agent of Karma when that ‘all’ includes a man’s participation.


Filed under: Case Studies, Foundations, Idealizations, Operative Social Conventions, Sexual Market Value, The Feminine Imperative
11 Sep 13:00

Asset Prices Outstripping Economic Growth

by Captain Capitalism
Two of my favorite charts (and I'm sure they're yours) is the S&P 500 PE ratio and dividend yield.  It is the basic comparison of what you're paying for a stock relative to what it pays you.

But every once in a while I like to go really macro and compare the country's economic growth to its asset prices.  In theory (bar international investments and trade) asset prices should not be increasing faster than economic growth in that all profits must come from economic growth.  Therefore, both asset prices and economic growth should grow at the same rate, otherwise we know there's either a bubble or a (well...it's been so long...what was it again we call stock markets that are cheap....um....oh!  That's right!) steal. 

So I took it upon my beleaguered economist ass to go and pull the data comparing the annual returns of the S&P 500 and subtracting out from it nominal economic growth which should in theory always be 0.

Heh, yeah right.


Naturally there's going to be oscillations and bubbles and troughs in any economy.  But given what we know about the PE ratio now being 70% higher than it should be, I just wanted another data set to view this from a different angle.  And this one didn't disappoint.

We see, during the economic crash, stock prices crashing even more sending the net difference between asset prices and economic growth into negative territory.  This meant asset prices were growing slower (crashing faster, actually) than economic growth was.  However, this only lasted one year (2008) and in 2009 where the economy contracted on a yearly basis by 2.9% the stock market punished this performance by awarding this slowing economy with a 25% increase in valuation.

This is like your kid coming home with straight F's and you increase their allowance by a a full fourth.

Since then the disconnect between economic growth and asset prices has continued as asset prices have averaged annual gains of 15% while the economy has managed just under 3%.

I'm going to say it again for the cheap seats and hope to god some future historian looks this up and sees it, but this is just another bit of proof that Americans are more interested in baloney asset bubbles than they are actual economic growth.  It is the modern day epitome of American psychology where we want all of the rewards, but without having to expend any of the work.

Does it matter that stock prices are being driven by retirement dollars and not profits?
Does it matter that equities are being driven by QE and low interest rate monetary policies which prompt corporate buy backs?
Does it matter economic potential in this country is so low corporations would rather buy back shares than invest and create jobs?

No, because prices are up and that's our super happy fun juice!

I know the federal reserve is powerful and that the world economy is already structured around a US dollar reserve currency.  But neither are more powerful than the forces of math and reality.  I just hope to see that reality manifested before I die.  In the meantime, Enjoy that Decline!
HHR4HM7ZPMV3
11 Sep 16:00

Why I Quit Going To Your Church

by Blair Naso

Every branch of American Christianity has a disproportionate percentage of women. This was an open secret when I used to go, and they tried everything to remedy it with men’s prayer breakfasts, war-themed posters, and screamo music. Of course, I use the word “everything” loosely. Try as they might, there’s something fundamental about 21st century American Christianity that is repelling men, and this is a big problem if you want your virgins to marry “a good Christian guy.”

Caveat: The only exception to this sex disproportion is Eastern Orthodoxy, which is a collection of immigrant communities and socially malcontent converts. If you’ve ever met an Orthodox, especially a convert, you’ll find they often have the same contempt for protestantism and Catholicism as the most virulent homoeroticist. So for the purposes of this article, I’m not considering them American Christians.

Here are my reasons why I quit going to your church:

1. Your music is saccharine

Christians assume that a distorted guitar is the definition of rock music. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Rock music is as much a philosophy as it is a sound. I heard time again growing up, “The only problem with secular music is the lyrics.” This is nonsense because in every genre, music and lyrics are innately connected. Imagine “Something in the way” by Nirvana with Jesus lyrics. It just doesn’t work.

But of course churches soften the “guitar and drums” element, and you’ll never hear a guitar solo that has any integrity. Perhaps there was some merit to early Christian rock (perhaps), but songwriters now simplify the chords so that churches can play it. So you’ll never find an A7 #9 in a church with “contemporary rock”. Because, you know, those extra two notes in the chord are just too hard to pull off. You might even have to have an extra volunteer guitar player, and the mild dissonance could make people uncomfortable with their edgy new form of worship.

“But worship is about lyrics, not music!” cries the Christian who glossed over everything I just said. Your lyrics are also sacharine. If you look at Bob Dylan’s “Slow Train Coming” (1979), you’ll find that at least there were a variety of topics on display. Not every song was a praise song. Some were simply doctrinal teaching songs, like the old hymns. Today, your lyrics are so hollow that many musicians are rewriting (and ruining) old hymns on their Christian rock praise albums.

If nobody is capable of writing anything with substance, then maybe the secularists are right that all Christians are stupid. And no, the exception of David Crowder doesn’t negate the broad-sweeping reality.

I don’t want to go to church to be entertained, because I can experience that at home. The world can entertain me far better than your ragtag band of volunteers and non-profit workers. If I want to experience religion, I want something otherworldly. I want an escape. Religion is supposed to be an opiate after all, but playing shitty soft rock is a reminder that I’m stuck on earth instead of in the next life.

But music isn’t the only source of entertainment…

2. Your sermons sound like a high school assembly

It seemed like every sermon was either about getting through hard times or being obedient to God. Most pastors I ran into knew fuck-all about the Bible and basic doctrine, which I guess is a product of giving a seminary degree to anyone with “a call from God.”

And what’s with the props? My childhood pastor brought a fishing boat on stage to illustrate being fishers of men or something. How insulting is that? I’m a grown adult, and I don’t need constant visual stimulation to pay attention to a lecture that I’m already interested in. I woke up early, dressed nice, and drove here to listen to you prattle. You’ve already got my attention.

One year for Easter, we took the song “Celebrate Good Times” and gave it Jesus lyrics. We also had cheerleaders with streamers. It felt very reverent for the most sacred day on the calendar. But the pastors weren’t aiming for reverence. They wanted people to think church was fun, and to their credit, they probably succeeded.

If you’re a pastor reading this and you learn nothing else from this article, take note of this axiom: What you hook them with is what you’ll have to keep them with. If you try to “get people saved” with funny stories and clever alliteration, then that’s all they’ll ever expect from you, and the actual teaching parts of your sermon will feel intrusive and unwanted.

3. Your buildings are ugly

I was in Charlotte, North Carolina. There is this massive evangelical church called Calvary. I mean, this is the kind of thing you see on TV, and not at 3am either. I went in one day to look around. They had this beautiful old organ several stories high, and they tacked two ugly screens on it so the people could read the lyrics. It completely upset the whole aesthetic of the room, but it was necessary since Jesus condemns the use of hymnals. After all, you wouldn’t want to miss out on the latest, most innovative praise chorus, would you?

The Catholic Church is actually having a substantial number of converts from protestantism. The Eastern Orthodox are being jump-started back to life with converts, and the break-off Anglo-protestant groups are finding evangelical converts demanding Anglo-Catholic worship. Why is this? There are a variety of reasons, but part of it is because people enjoy looking at pretty things and listening to pretty music. Even the Catholic Church is finding its own people are tired of bluegrass masses and dadaist architecture. For all its lies and manipulation, consumerism is right that what you are surrounded by affects the way you feel about that place and about yourself.

If the people are the bride of God, and if the church building is the house of God, then why must God have an ugly house? What wife doesn’t want to create a beautiful home for her family? And what husband would allow his wife to neglect their home? They call it the sanctuary, but it just looks like an auditorium.

4. Your Jesus is a pussy

The typical protestant Jesus is always calm and gentle and never emotional or assertive. Jesus has long, flowing hair that shimmers in the sun. He always has a neatly trimmed full beard. He wears brightly colored robes instead of pants. When he is hanging on the cross, his body is perfectly hairless. In short, the protestant Jesus is a woman.

The Catholic Jesus looks the same, except he’s holding his heart in his hands to give children nightmares. Funny how that statue is always placed at the back of the church. The historical Jesus was a sexless vagrant, not a bureaucrat with an MBA. Is it possible that a functionally homeless Middle Easterner wasn’t concerned about his body hair? You make Jesus look like a JC Penney model, and then you wonder why men hate going to church.

5. Everything is marketed towards women

I remember looking in the bulletin of a church I went to for a year. Every week, there were at least half a dozen activities for women advertised. At most, there would be two events for men in the distant future, and neither of them looked interesting. The only constant one was a prayer breakfast once a month at seven in the morning.

Look in a Christian bookstore. There are lovely pictures of flowers everywhere. Jesus on the cross is never very bloody (the exception being Mel Gibson’s snuff film, which was literally God-awful). You’ll never find an ugly person on the cover of a Christian book or CD. Lots of novels are written about 19th century debutantes. Even the music is acoustic rock that better appeals to women’s softness.

American Christianity is a service industry for women. The men are just there orbiting because they don’t know how else to get sex from their wives. Dalrock best explains how feminism has saturated Christianity, but he is fighting a losing battle. The reality is that pastors will always be afraid to speak on what the Bible says about women because they will lose their biggest clients. Pastors have to eat too, you know, and if public speaking is their own marketable skill, then they’ll do whatever it takes to survive.

1 Peter 3 makes it clear that women are to handle marital difficulties by being quiet and submissive, and St. Peter even calls women “the weaker sex.” Titus 2 says they are to be “home-workers” in the Greek. Beta Christians (i.e. almost all Christians) love to champion the Proverbs 31 woman who sells her surplus weaving, but they don’t realize that’s an occupation from the context of the home. It’s a surplus of what she was already doing. And if you’re open to the Apocrypha, Sirach 25 says that it is shameful for a woman to financially maintain her husband.

So I don’t go to your church anymore because they have nothing to offer me as a man. Give me one practical benefit from going to your church beyond career networking. I can read an inspiring sermon at home, and I can even choose one instead of taking a crap shoot at your lecture hall. The same is true with worship. You may argue that fellowship is necessary, but precious few of your people are worth imitating.

A person is colored by the people he is surrounded by, and I don’t want to be colored by the kind of people who go to church. The kind of people with an obsessive fear of Coors Lite or the word “damn.” The kind of people who think Fireproof and Mel Gibson’s Passion are high works of art defying the ethics and conventions of modern cinema. The kind of people who think women are the centerpiece of the household. The kind of who believe Chris Tomlin is as good a musician as Brian Wilson. You know, the kind of people who are American Christians.

Read More: Why Tolstoy Rejected The Church

05 Sep 11:18

Another Leftist Lie About the 1950's

by Captain Capitalism
As you all know the 1950's by every technology and inflation adjusted measure was not only better for everybody, but was hands down the pinnacle of US achievement and capitalism.

Because of this the left does its best to rewrite history, besmirch it, criminalize it, villainize it, and (as if it's not the most tiresome and broken record in their playbook) is remind us just how sexist and racist it was.  The 1940's and 1950's just simply cannot exist accurately in the history books for it is everything that the left hates and the most compelling and damning empirical data that proves socialism wrong.

Because of this I like to bring up the 50's occasionally, citing data and statistics and presenting logical, unemotional arguments as to why it was indeed the best decade in US history.  And today's leftist argument we're going to debunk is;

"Oh yeah!??  Well...umm....you know what...the WORLD WAS DESTROYED after WWII and the US was the ONLY country left to build stuff for them.  That's the only reason the 50's had such great economic growth.  It wasn't capitalism!  It was because the world was our bitch!  So..umm...yeah, so there!"

So young lieutenants, economists, Cappy Cappites, and book babes, let us do what the left refuses to and look at the actual data.

To see whether or not the true cause of the booming economic growth in the 50's was due to the rest of the world being destroyed, I decided to look at exports as a percentage of GDP.  To be honest, I truthfully thought there was "some" credibility to the left's claim, and so I was more than willing to adjust US economic growth to account for exports.  However, after pulling the data, I realized I didn't have to bother:

Exports as a percentage of GDP have actually GONE UP SINCE WWII.






















Yes, during 1947 exports were at a relative high, but after a 2 decade decline and stagnation, exports have consistently been going up since the 1970's.  Keep in mind a lot of this has to do with services (which were not as prominent in international trade as today), but the argument that the whole world was "just destroyed" and was helplessly dependent upon US exports which explained the booming economic growth we enjoyed in the 50's is just a lie.  And if we consider exports are nearly TWICE the percent they were back in the 50's, it's actually a damning testimony against the creeping socialism we've had since the 1960's (as well as American spending habits that we IMPORT even MORE resulting in a trade deficit).

The primary lesson to take from this though, ladies and gentlemen, is that you can almost always assume the left has never bothered to look up the "facts" they spew.  You, sadly, just have to assume whatever they say is either intentionally or unknowningly false and be willing to spend the 5 minutes to look up the actual data. 
HHR4HM7ZPMV3
27 Aug 13:00

Hope for Norway

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
A proud Norwegian sent me this. I cannot vouch for it, but it is funny. And perhaps even encouraging:
In the U.S. Marines, doing a mock war in the Norwegian city of Trondheim with the Dutch, Germans and other allies, training in urban combat. My infantry unit was positioned in a large soccer field next to an elementary school. Keep in mind there was no actual combat, even simulated; it was mostly just practicing maneuvers and tactics. But we still looked out of place with weapons and gear, etc. It's February. In Norway. Cold as hell. Snow up to our knees. Norway obviously has no snow days, so the kids were all in school.

Anyway, so Norway has this most delicious and amazing delicacy, I have no idea what it's called, but it's basically a bacon-wrapped hot dog; we just assumed it was called Candy of the Lord. As Americans we were naturally and instantly addicted. You find them at gas stations, and there just happened to be one on the other side of the school where we were camped. A few of my fellow Marines and I requested permission to go to the gas station and we set out on our way.

We made it to right about where the main entrance of the school was, and the doors opened; school was out. There were only a few kids, probably 6 or 7 years old. Lots of talking and laughing. Gawking at us as we walked by, with our guns and huge ridiculous snow suits. One precocious little guy made shooting noises at us. We made shooting noises back.

And then someone in my group. I don't know who. God help me I don't know who...

Someone threw a snowball and hit a little girl in the leg.

And those little Norwegian children unleashed hell.

There was a shrill cry in unintelligible gibberish and the doors to the school burst open. School children flooded out like a never-ending flood of something that never ends. Screeching, smiling, sprinting - how the hell were they sprinting?? - little bastards were slinging snowballs faster than the laws of physics should allow. It was like that movie Elf. If you can imagine riding in a fast car in a snowstorm and sticking your head out the window. Now imagine the snowflakes that are hitting your face are the size of snowballs. We couldn't see a damn thing. We couldn't run. We could barely breathe. Holy hell....

We tried to return fire and threw one, maybe two half-packed, crappy snowballs that fell apart in the air, arms flailing like limp-wristed fairies. I am from Texas. We were a unit stationed in North Carolina. We were so outmatched and out of our element, it only made them laugh harder. We were cut off from our main forces. We tried to perform a flanking maneuver but they were too fast. I think some of them were throwing rocks!

As for my comrades. I could see them speed waddling in their huge suits back to camp like a messed up pair of white Teletubbies, under withering fire. Screw tactics, screw me, screw the Candy of the Lord, this was survival! I was the slow one in the group. My snow boots were too big but they were the smallest size they had at Issue goddammit!! My Marines had left me behind.

I tried pulling my hood over my head and keeping my head down. No longer content to pelt my defenseless body with ballistic snow, the enemy swarmed me and dragged me down, cackling like a pack of hyenas descending on a wildebeest. I tried to sling them off by spinning. I came out of one of my boots and fell. I began to scream and plead for them to stop but they neither understood nor gave a single Nordic damn. They literally pinned me down with about five kids on each limb. It was then that I actually thought - oh sh*t. I'm really in trouble. My snow-mittens were ripped off and flung into trees. They started shoving snow down my suit. Have you ever had anyone drop an ice cube down your shirt?

Well now imagine someone shoveling handfuls of ice cubes down your shirt. It literally shocked the breath out of my body.

They left me laying like a Family Guy accident victim. Moaning and screaming in the cold. Rifle packed with snow and dirt. Boot buried somewhere. They ran away laughing, jabbering in their crazy language. I lay there trying to figure out just what in the great American hell had happened."

Never underestimate the power of swarming kids.
The sons and daughters of Norway didn't fear to take on the Nazis and the U.S. Marines. I doubt they will lay prostrate before the invaders from the Umma for much longer. The multicultural wall is beginning to crack:
Norway has become the latest country to consider stripping citizenship from extremists who travel abroad to fight jihad. The government said it was important to send 'a strong signal' to people thinking about leaving the country to join terror groups.
Jihad-tourists won't be the only non-Norwegians stripped of their Norwegian citizenship. That's all that the government is willing to say yet. The important thing is that people are finally understanding that nations are fundamentally based in the genes, not the paperwork or the geographical location. This isn't to say that some form of integration isn't possible, but it is impossible so long as any previous connections are maintained and it is a process that takes generations, not years.

Posted by Vox Day.
27 Aug 18:43

My Ex Found a New Home

by Captain Capitalism
The purchaser of "My Ex GF's Tits" has found her artwork a new home.  Specifically a frat house in front of a beer-pong table.


I cannot think of a better home.
HHR4HM7ZPMV3
25 Aug 08:48

Vaccine fraud at the CDC?

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
Despite the vaccine makers thinking they had put the Wakefield controversy safely behind them, another researcher has uncovered an apparent link between the MMR vaccine and autism, and from the CDC's own data:
Background
A significant number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder suffer a loss of previously-acquired skills, suggesting neurodegeneration or a type of progressive encephalopathy with an etiological basis occurring after birth. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectof the age at which children got their first Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine on autism incidence. This is a reanalysis of the data set, obtained from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC), used for the Destefano et al. 2004 publication on the timing of the first MMR vaccine and autism diagnoses.

Methods
The author embarked on the present study to evaluate whether a relationship exists between child age when the first MMR vaccine was administered among cases diagnosed with autism and controls born between 1986 through 1993 among school children in metropolitan Atlanta. The Pearson’s chi-squared method was used to assess relative risks of receiving an autism diagnosis within the total cohort as well as among different race and gender categories.

Results
When comparing cases and controls receiving their first MMR vaccine before and after 36 months of age, there was a statistically significant increase in autism cases specifically among African American males who received the first MMR prior to 36 months of age. Relative risks for males in general and African American males were 1.69 (p=0.0138) and 3.36 (p=0.0019), respectively. Additionally, African American males showed an odds ratio of 1.73 (p=0.0200) for autism cases in children receiving their first MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age versus 24 months of age and thereafter.
The troubling thing here is that the author of the paper, "Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young african american boys: a reanalysis of CDC data" reached his conclusions by examining CDC data that reached the opposite conclusion and served as the basis for a CDC doctor's testimony before Congress. Bill Sardi writes on Lew Rockwell:
There is evidence of an intentional cover-up as it is alleged that data from children who did not have birth certificates (not a pertinent factor) was removed from the study to reduce the statistical power of the study and claim there was no significant association between autism and the MMR vaccine.... Dr. Hooker notes that the CDC used children under the age of 3 for a comparison (control) group, which is an intentional way of skewing results of its studies involving any alleged link between vaccines and autism.  Symptoms of autism generally don’t emanate among children till after age 3 and the control group was too young to have received a diagnosis of autism, he notes.
Not only does this "reanalysis of CDC data" reopen the possible MMR-autism link, but it calls into question the integrity of the entire field of vaccine research. If Hooker is correct and CDC doctors such as Dr. Colleen Boyle have engaged in vaccine fraud, it will entirely explode the basic assumption that vaccines are safe because it will render all of the CDC's data and assurances suspect.

Posted by Vox Day.
21 Aug 00:39

Russo-German Rapprochement Amid Anglo-German Tension

by Aaron Jacob

Foreign policy and money have long been linked. The colonial view of mercantilism is centuries old. Some historians argue Rome was a conquest and plunder economy that started to collapse when they ran out of areas to conquer with reasonable effort. Money is the weak link of the US system. The Russians have been open with noticing this. It is not just the US world order system but the USG domestic situation. A big piece of this system are our vassals—er, friends in Europe. Europe is not the center of the dollar system, but much closer than US allies on the periphery in Asia and below the equator who have had crises in the last thirty years. I wrote months ago about Anglo-German tensions. It appears the tension is real—the Germans are cuddling up to the Russians and the Americans are spooked.

Anglo-German tensions have risen with open moves like gold repatriation, protests against the US Federal Reserve in Germany, and explicit anger over NSA spying. as well as spy ejections. The current geopolitical chessboard features the little Ukrainian piece that the US was eager to topple but Germany wasn’t, inspiring Victoria Nuland to say “fuck the EU”. Fast forward months later, and with a real civil war going on, it has been leaked that the Germans were close to a land-for-gas deal to end sanctions, bring a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine crisis, and keep the gas flowing. Russia is Germany’s 11th biggest trade partner. Germany is a bit more reliant than France or the UK on Russian gas, and right now Germany is the only piece of the EU able to fund all the bailout mechanisms and keep growing. Each time a nation needs some form of bailout in the EU, their share of the bailout responsibility has to be picked up by solvent nations. This gets ugly quick. Germany cannot absorb losses or hits, whether directly to them or to the EU. This is why it makes sense for them to reach out directly, as reported, to solve the USG-manufactured Ukrainian crisis.

Read the UK Independent’s leaked Germany-Russia deal article. Angela Merkel is involved, and the leak specifically cites her dealing with Putin. Contrast this with President Obama’s interactions with Putin.

Such strong trade ties between the two countries have also served to strengthen Ms Merkel’s hand and the Russian speaker has emerged as the leading advocate of closer relations between the EU and Russia. “This is Merkel’s deal. She has been dealing direct with President Putin on this. She needs to solve the dispute because it’s in no one’s interest to have tension in Ukraine or to have Russia out in the cold. No one wants another Cold War,” said one insider close to the negotiations.

It states basic diplomatic measures to get the gas flowing again, recognizes Crimea as Russian, sets up a looser Ukraine, and stops Ukrainian entry into NATO. Peace for Europe, but the USG does not get its way.

This also explains the MH17 crash being something to use on Germany and not Russia. This becomes a quick wedge. Read the land-for-gas link. Germany was ready to wrap up the Ukraine solution until MH17 happened. The initial accusation of Russian involvement paused the negotiations, and now everyone knows, which means the US can apply pressure openly on Germany. The indirect pressure has been out for a while. The US Federal Reserve warned Deutsche Bank for its derivatives portfolio and is throwing up regulatory obstacles to DB’s move into the US. Maybe Deutsche Bank will be the next AIG; Wall Street could use a new fall guy. MH17 is going to be investigated in the Netherlands with German technical help. It would be incredibly evil to set up a plane crash, but no need for much speculation considering no one has an answer for the first Malaysian Airlines crash. Timing is too odd, and so is the American rush to implicate Russia, and now its backing off as evidence seems to be sparse and not pointing to Russia.

The USG, mad drunk leviathan that it is, will not let a peaceful resolution happen quickly. It also must work to keep its clients in line. Germany is making long term moves and must see the future for the USG, which is a destiny the USG mandarins will not accept. German media is noticing that the USG is acting so wild that it would be an easy sell that it was the work of KGB moles to make the US look bad.  It is a bit of a mad world we live in where the Western media demonize Putin, who whether working for Russian interests or just his own, is setting up with the Chinese a monetary bloc to counter and slow down the USG, offered up a solution in Syria that stopped US warplanes, and was just trying to end a Ukrainian Civil War. The US media cannot admit we are at fault because the US media’s chosen good guys are at the helm of the ship. The USG can pull stunts like this now, but eventually the threats will get emptier or a big enough client will force action on a threat, and things will get ugly. Dollars hold it all together, and dollars will bring it down. Germany knows this. If Germany can set up shop in Europe as the regional hegemon, it might as well make buddies with the nuclear-armed eastern neighbor.

18 Jul 14:43

Argentina in Whiteface

by Colin Liddell

Whenever a major sporting event comes along, the progressive media always has a desired narrative. So it was with the recent World Cup, where it was widely hoped that a racially mixed team would win, proving once again the all-conquering power of ‘diversity’. Alas, when Brazil crashed to its 1-7 defeat against Germany in the semi-final, the desired narrative took a severe beating and started coughing up blood.

In its own way, the German team was also quite diverse, but not in the same flashy, frizzy manner as Brazil. Among its blond Aryan ranks it also boasted a Turk (Ozil), a half-Tunisian (Khedira), and even a Black player – well, half-black (Boateng). But overall the team looked White, and, worse than that, they played with Teutonic precision rather than the carefree carnival spirit expected from a truly ‘diverse’ team; in short, unsuitable poster boys for the progressive fantasy.

After this setback, the desired narrative’s next best hope was the Dutch team, which had a few Black players – there seemed to be about 2 or 3 – although this team too was less than ideal. When they were knocked out by Argentina in the other semi-final, the diversity narrative was pretty much nailed in its coffin. Argentina, despite some players having a little Indian and possibly Black ancestry, was again a depressingly White-looking and White-playing team as far as progressives were concerned. Whoever won the final was going to be a poor substitute for the multiracial French team that famously won the World Cup in 1998, or the default diversity of the Brazilian team.

With the narrative of diversity leading to success well and truly buried, all that remained was either to walk away or else find a negative narrative that bemoaned the lack of sufficient diversity at the top levels of international soccer.

With the World Cup continuing to generate the all-important hits, the Huffington Post decided to stay in the game with the negative story, “Why Are There No Black Men on Argentina’s Roster?” by Rachel Décoste, a Black female software engineer, who is also listed as a “motivational speaker.” The article seems to have been largely lifted from this Wikipedia page, so it’s good to see that Décoste isn’t entirely an affirmative action plant in the male-White-and-Asian-dominated tech sector. She at least knows how to surf the internet and copy and paste. One suspects that her motivational talks share a similar degree of originality.

In the article, she drew attention to the fact that back in the 18th and early 19th centuries some parts of Argentina had a much higher percentage of Black people than they do now:

“In colonial times, the proportion of Africans hovered around 50 per cent in half of Argentina’s provinces. General José de San Martín, the revolutionary who lead the charge to gain independence from Spanish rule, estimated that there were 400,000 Afro-Argentines who could be recruited to his armies. Black men made up 65 per cent of his troops. The 2010 census puts the Afro-Argentine population at 150,000, or less than half of one per cent.”

Décoste wants us to believe that this drop from 50% to 0.5% was due to genocide:

“Over the years, overt and covert government sanctions promoted ethnic cleansing and, some say, genocide.”

Given the fact that Argentina’s colonial population was around a fortieth of what it is now and that much of its increase was due to mass immigration from Europe, and that much of the Afro-Argentine population mixed in,  a figure of 150,000 Blacks in Argentina does not seem an unreasonable number for the country’s present-day Black population. The Wikipedia entry says that “over 5% of Argentines state they have at least one black ancestor, and a further 20% state they do not know whether or not they have any black ancestors.”

Rather than being “genocided,” all that can be said with any degree of accuracy is that Afro-Argentines, as a separate people, did not flourish to any great extent, and this fact on its own is taken to denote genocide. By the same metric the medieval population of Iceland, which declined from 84,000 in 1300 to 47,000 by 1800, must have been subjected to genocide (although that must have been rather difficult as the Icelanders were isolated from the rest of the world!).

Those Icelandic population figures are from Gregory Clark’s economic history, A Farewell to Alms. In that book he makes the highly significant point that most of the differences in wealth between the rich countries and poor stem from the much higher productivity of workers in those countries, a point that was also noticed by none other than Karl Marx, as Clark points out:

“When Britain was at its economic apogee in the middle and late nineteenth century, a number of writers argued that its ability to pay high wages and still prosper in international competition derived mainly from the much greater intensity of labour in Britain compared to the its low-wage competitors. These writers maintained that British workers were able to operate more machinery per worker, mitigating or even eliminating the wage cost advantage of the low-wage countries.

Karl Marx himself endorsed this view. The first volume of Capital, published in 1867, contains a short chapter, ‘National Differences in Wages,’ which attributes high output per worker in British textile mills to high labour intensity.” A Farewell to Alms, p.353

At this point in his book, Clark is comparing British labour to Indian labour, but elsewhere he refers to the even lower productivity of African workers. The extremely low productivity of African workers not only explains why Africa remains poor to this day, but historically it also explains why, when Blacks were inducted into the global economy, it had to be done through slavery (forced labour) rather than the wage incentives used with more productive workers.

Among all else, slavery was also a means of artificially improving the productivity of African workers, and by the same logic, its abolition, which happened in 1853 in Argentina, lessened that productivity and by doing so weakened their ability to compete demographically with Whites.

In an economy where two races with markedly different rates of productivity coexisted without any compensatory mechanisms such as welfare, and where the resultant differences in income expressed themselves in higher fertility and survival rates, we would expect the population with the more productive workers to expand more rapidly. This is exactly what happened in Argentina, assisted by largely White immigration.

In her article Décoste contrasts Argentina with Brazil, but that, alas, is an unfortunate comparison, because, while Brazil still has a considerable Black and mulatto population, it actually followed an identical trajectory to Argentina. It moved from a population that was majority Black in the colonial period to one where Whites predominate, and no one is accusing the Brazilians of committing genocide against Blacks.

The main differences between Brazil and Argentina were that Brazil had a higher initial Black population, abolished slavery later (1888), attracted less capital, and saw less economic development. These factors were of course all related and together explain why Argentina moved further down the road of ‘Whitification’ than Brazil did, although both were moving in the same direction until comparatively recently.

Progressives should be warned that comparing Argentina with Brazil is sure to raise some interesting questions and point towards some awkward conclusions that challenge their simplistic historical model of evil Whites committing genocide whenever they got the chance.

28 Jul 18:55

Women Prefer Jerks And Men Prefer Nicegirls

by CH

Chicks dig aloof and indifferent jerks. It’s a stereotype for a reason. Our ancestors who had experience with women beyond typing furious white knight screeds on feminist blogs and collecting cheetos dust in their manboob cleavage have witnessed this adage in action so often that it’s long been accepted wisdom, passed down from grandfather to father to son. (Until the chain of realtalk was broken with the advent of equalism.)

This facet of female sexual nature is so plain as day that even indignant feminists and ignoramus tradcons have conceded some ground on the issue. As they have retreated in shame ahead of the advancing armies of the Chateau id-palers, they’ve been reduced to arguing “yeah, well, ok but so do men!” and babbling incoherent nonsense about men preferring “bitches”.

CH corrected their misunderstanding in as gentle a manner as befits this noble house, noting that, absent a few rare self-gelding exceptions to the rule, the desire to love and be loved by a jerk is a far stronger and frequently expressed impulse in women than the desire to love a bitch is in those few men who like to be pegged.

Or: If the “bitch” is hot, men will still want to fuck her, albeit with reservations concerning any long-term commitment potential. If the “bitch” is not hot, they won’t.

Women, as is their sex’s formerly inscrutable wont, are markedly different from men in this regard. The jerkboy attitude ITSELF is inherently attractive to women, and women even prefer to harness the commitment of jerks to the detriment of beta male supplicants.

But, why bother retelling the wisdom of the ancients and of the clear-eyed moderns to low born plebes when one can summon a mighty Shiv forged of Heartistian steel instead? A twist of the hilt and equalist ego guts spill out in technicolor anguish.

Men are sexually attracted to women who show an interest in them or who are responsive during a date, the study found. On the flip side, women are not sexually interested in the responsive men they meet for the first time, the research also discovered.

“We wanted to understand the reasons for these gender differences,” said the study’s lead researcher, Gurit Birnbaum, an associate professor of psychology at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya in Israel. “What makes a responsive woman sexually attractive, and what makes a responsive man less sexually attractive?” [...]

Men who perceive women to be interested in them rated the women as more feminine and sexually attractive. They also showed more interest in having long-term relationships with the responsive women than with the nonresponsive women.

Men dig non-bitchy, feminine women. Commence with the flabbergasting!

At the end of each experiment, the students rated their partners on scales such as responsiveness, attractiveness and masculinity or femininity.

Gender-based stereotypes may play a role in the men’s preference for responsive women, Birnbaum said. During a first date, people tend to rely on gender stereotypes for how they think a person should act. Men may find women more attractive if they fit the female stereotype of showing care and concern, she added.

Nope.

Or, men may think that responsive women are sexually interested in them. This may explain why men rate these “nice” women as more attractive and feminine, Birnbaum said.

Bingo. Also, I’d add that a nice, feminine woman signals to a man that she’ll be a faithful wife and nurturing mother to his children.

“I didn’t know until this [journal] article that men perceive responsive women not only as feminine, but also as sexually arousing,” Finkel told Live Science in an email. “I could have imagined a different set of results in which men found such women feminine, but then viewed them as dainty or less sexually desirable. Birnbaum and colleagues showed that the opposite is true.”

Yes, nicegirls aren’t just admirable or coveted for nonsexual reasons; they are also very arousing to men.

In contrast to the men, the women in the study did not rate the responsive men as more attractive or masculine than the nonresponsive men — a finding that surprised experts.

“Nonresponsive” = “jerk”.

The study did not reveal why women are not sexually interested in responsive men on the first date, but Birnbaum offered several ideas.

Women are typically more cautious daters than men are, and may be skeptical of a responsive man, Birnbaum said. Or, she added, women may think the men are trying too hard to win their affection and get them into bed.

Or, women may see responsive men as eager to please, or even desperate, Birnbaum said. Perhaps, the researchers noted, women may view a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.

Bingos all around!

“Regardless of the reasons, perhaps men should slow down, if their goal is to instill sexual desire,” Birnbaum said.

Or, be a challenge.

For Hivemind takes on the studies, see “Study finds that men like nice women, but not the other way around” and “Why playing hard to get only works for men.”

Mmmm. The Scalzied tears of a feminist clown.

So here we come to the close of yet another series of studies which vindicate CH teachings and game. I’d say my turgid vanity couldn’t handle any more old fashioneds, but no, my appetite for strokings is inexhaustible.

Lesson for women: The way to a man’s heart is straight and true.

Lesson for men: The way to a woman’s heart is oblique and discreet.


Filed under: Biomechanics is God, Science Validates Game, Ugly Truths
28 Jul 17:17

The bad science of food

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
You can't trust scientistry. You simply can't. Think about how many times, over the last few DECADES, you were told that eating fat and butter and cream and cheese was bad for you. Remember how fettucini alfredo was once called "a heart attack on a plate?" Then read this belated mea culpa from a doctor who admits that he has been giving out worse than useless advice to his patients for years.
Milk, cheese, butter, cream - in fact all saturated fats - are bad for you. Or so I believed ever since my days as a medical student nearly 30 years ago. During that time I assured friends and family that saturated fat would clog their arteries as surely as lard down a drain. So, too, would it make them pile on the pounds. Recently, however, I have been forced to do a U-turn. It is time to apologise for all that useless advice I've been dishing out about fat.

The roots of our current confusion lie in a paper by an American scientist called Ancel Keys in 1953. It covered the increasingly common problem of clogged arteries. Keys included a simple graph comparing fat consumption and deaths from heart disease in men from six different countries. Americans, who ate a lot of fat, were far more likely to have a heart attack than the Japanese, who ate little fat. Case solved. Or was it?

Other scientists began wondering why Keys chose to focus on just six countries when he had access to data for 22. If places like France and Germany were included the link between heart disease and fat consumption became much weaker. These were, after all, countries with high fat consumption, but relatively modest rates of heart disease. In fact, as a renowned British scientist called John Yudkin pointed out, there was actually a much stronger link between sugar consumption and heart disease.

But Yudkin's warnings about sugar were denounced by a fellow scientist as 'nothing more than scientific fraud'. He was, as one of his colleagues colourfully put it, 'thrown under a bus'.

Meanwhile, the war on fat gradually gained momentum, to the extent that by the time I reached medical school in the Eighties, there was no mention of Yudkin's findings. People were cutting down on dairy products and switching to sugary carbohydrates and vegetable oils. This, it turns out, was a mistake. To turn vegetable oil into margarine, manufacturers used a process called hydrogenation (gas pumped through oil at high temperature), which produces trans fats. These are the Darth Vader of the fat world: good fats turned bad.

Unlike saturated fats, there is clear evidence that trans fats damage your heart. They were found in most shop-bought biscuits and cakes until they were removed in 2007.
Think about how many people have suffered ill effects from eating a bad, science-recommended diet. The amazing thing is that this doctor clung to what he "knew" even though "I put on over two stone, despite regular exercise. My cholesterol soared past the healthy range and two years ago I discovered I was borderline diabetic."

Observation is an important part of the scientific process. Not publishing. Not peer review. And it is eminently clear that too few people in the scientific and medical communities are observing anything.

Posted by Vox Day.
24 Jul 17:29

Alpha Mail: a similar problem

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
From the inbox:
I have been married for [a few] years. I have [multiple] children with my wife who it is relevant to mention is [Asian]. We live in [the Asian country].

As far as my rank on the Game scale goes, I'd say I have a lot of gamma tendencies which were probably at their worst during high school and my early years of university. All the sort of behavior that I later learned women find unattractive was exactly the way I would act. I changed as I grew up and I lost weight, was introduced to Game, got a bit more confident and things improved. I think it is important I mention this past though because I probably display these tendencies more since marriage.

After I'd begun dating my wife one of the first things she mentioned was how I had ignored her the first time we met - something I noted as a sign of improved Game. We were fine when we dating and had a good sex life and both of us would initiate intimacy and we both usually reciprocated. This was healthy but our first year was turbulent for other reasons largely related to money. Since our first child, my wife has generally not initiated intimacy and when she didn't refuse, she became a lot more mechanical and treated it like an inconvenience. It continued on well after the birth and after our child became easier to manage.

She made the same sort of excuses mentioned by the spreadsheet man. She was tired, didn't feel like it, was sick and often stomach pains were the excuse. When I get angry or frustrated she will actually tell me I should just masturbate. She once suggested I'm treating her like a prostitute and she has also broken down with water-works when pushed. This is now just as bad after our second child was born. I should add that even her desire for a second child wasn't matched by much sexual desire towards me.

When she does reluctantly become intimate she avoids kissing me, letting me touch her breasts and sometimes keeps herself partially clothed. She more importantly doesn't seem to enjoy it and I''m not selfish or quick with her or. This has frustrated me because it is sometimes weeks or months between encounters and even when she does reluctantly do it, she is as described. Recently she's also been going to sleep early on days where we planned (around children) to be intimate.

Now since we've been married I have generally maintained a good weight, I don't drunkenly try to mount her or force her in any way. I have been given signals and even hit on by other women when at other social events, whether with friends or work related. I have always refused these advances without a thought or avoided flirting back. I naturally want the marriage to work especially with children and not a chance in hell of keeping them under the [Asian country's] legal system.

I have gone about things a few ways, I have told her explicitly that I can get what I want somewhere else if she won't. She was previously jealous of other female co-workers and friends - especially before marriage. She has responded to such suggestions by telling me I would "lose everything" if I ever did while maintaining a cold shoulder towards me.

The above was a bluff of course. I don't want to cheat on her and I would be wrong if I did but I have recently been very tempted. She still maintains the same cold attitude and I have recently been hit on by someone I am attracted to. Nonetheless I've resisted these advances but I would be lying if I didn't admit to being tempted. And this is what really worries me because I am tempted by female advances where I wasn't before. I could live with my lackluster sex life before by telling myself that the children should come first and adultery is adultery however I try to rationalize it. But as you can imagine, I am at the very least reluctant to stay married to her once my children reach maturity no matter how much it ends up costing me to leave.

The only things I can think to add are that she also belittles me, telling me I'm lazy even though I work full-time and recently got promoted. She constantly holds the children up as threats and associates not obeying her wishes as somehow not caring about the children. She plays my older child against me sometimes telling me I scare him when I am angry to her. She also uses them as excuses for not feeling like sex. A lot of our marital problems can be blamed on the lack of money flow but I don't much feel like getting more liquidity for someone that treats me like she does. Living where we live and her reluctance to move also make this a bigger problem. And despite this, we are actually quite comfortable and not lacking for anything generally speaking.
This debacle illustrates the central problem with marriage 2.0. The man simply lacks any material leverage, while the woman has the entire power of the state at her back. And unfortunately, while most women prefer to be at least a little circumspect about resorting to the leverage this gives them, the wife openly revels in her dominant position in the marriage. My strong suspicion is that she married him to avoid being married to a dominant man of her own culture and since the novelty and imagined status of the Westerner has worn off, she really doesn't want to be married to him anymore.

There are two things to keep in mind here. First, not all marital problems can be solved. Second, all strategies for addressing and attempting to solve marital problems have to be viewed in terms of estimated probabilities. It's not about knowing the magic word or striking the magic pose, but rather giving oneself the best chance of success. And sometimes that best chance is still a long shot, which appears to be the case here.

This man will have to decide what level of personal degradation he is willing to accept for the sake of being near his children. My belief, however, is that children are always secondary to the marriage. They are the fruit of the marriage, but both the husband and the wife who insist on always putting the children ahead of their marital partner are making a fatal mistake that will ultimately harm the children.

After some reflection, I think the emailer should simply return to his homeland by himself for two weeks to get his head clear. Being in foreign land is intrinsically unsettling in multiple ways. He should just go, without asking permission, without making a big deal of it, and without staying in close contact while he is gone. If she asks why he is going, he should tell her, honestly, that he is thinking of returning home and he wants to see what his employment prospects are there. No mention should be made of divorce or ending the marriage, no threats or ultimatums should be given, just a simple statement of intent.

She will probably react with dire theats. These must be met calmly and with civil resignation. "I understand, all the same, this is what I'm going to do." There is no point in explanations. She already knows perfectly well why he is considering a permanent return. And once there, he needs to seriously think upon whether he wants to continue to live his life that way or not, and if he wants his children to witness the ongoing humiliation of their father or not. There is no correct answer here, it is an intrinsically subjective call.

These ugly situations are much harder where children are involved, but to paraphrase the Biblical wisdom, he who seeks to gain his children will lose them. The only way to prevent a woman from using your children against you is to make it clear that doing so will accomplish nothing whatsoever, and since he's already made a very bad mistake of trying to bluff her, and having his bluff called, she's not going to believe any posturing on his part short of actually packing up and leaving for a time. The only way to nullify open threats such as these is to materially demonstrate their impotence.

It must be admitted that there is a chance that the woman will file for divorce during those two weeks. All he may accomplish here is to speed up the inevitable. But even that can be seen as a positive step of sorts. To be honest, this doesn't sound like a marriage so much as a wintry battleground.
Alpha Game 2011
22 Jul 07:15

Female advice and the Sex-22

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
It's always amusing to hear female opinions on how to solve a crisis caused by female behavior. Mostly because their first instinctive response is to deny it is a crisis:
“I think the fact that the guy communicates via a spreadsheet is the reason why he’s not getting sex,” is the verdict from relationship counsellor Francine Kaye. “If a man wants to be desired, he has to speak to a woman’s feminity. He has to stop complaining and start thinking 'What do I have to do in order for her to want to have sex?’ ”

A good start is the kind of wooing behaviour most husbands assumed they had left behind as soon as the ring was on the bridal finger. Erroneously, they think that compliments and flowers, hand-holding and general attentiveness are not just unnecessary but cheesy once they are married. Cheesy they may be, but necessary – as attested by the short shrift given to Mr Spreadsheet.
Did I not call that yesterday? What is relationship counsellor Kaye's statement, if not a retroactive justification of a woman's action. Translation: start paying attention to other women. Then she'll magically find her missing motivation. There are three things that speak to a woman's femininity.
  1. Be attractive
  2. Don't be unattractive
  3. Competition aka (1) and (2) seen through the mechanism of other women
Choreplay doesn't work. Romance doesn't work. Vacations don't work. Talk doesn't work. Men have tried those things many, many, many times. Here is why it will never work to do what a woman says you need to do in order to make her want to have sex: the moment you do what she tells you is necessary, that "creates pressure" on her to fulfill her end of the implicit bargain. And women under pressure to have sex don't want to have sex, because women don't want to have sex under pressure, ergo doing what she tells you necessarily ENSURES that she will not want to have sex.

Did you follow that? It's a Catch-22, or in this case, a Sex-22.
  1. She says she'll want to have sex if you take her to Mazatlan.
  2. You take her to Mazatlan.
  3. She is now under pressure to want to have sex.
  4. Feeling under pressure prevents her from wanting to have sex.
  5. Rinse and repeat.
So, don't bother taking her to Mazatlan. Don't waste your time on whatever women advise no matter how many women blithely recite the usual mantras. Go back to the basics. Go to the gym, improve your style, focus on your career and making more money, and either a) she'll be more attracted to you or b) someone else will.

You can't fix someone else. You can't change someone else. You can only control your own actions. If she wants spend her life as a sexless slug parked in front of a television, that's her choice and its on her. No one else.
Alpha Game 2011
30 Jun 20:46

Approach Week: Why Chivalry Is Dead

by CH

Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

Patrick insightfully comments over at Liger of the Blogosphere, using the Elliot Rodger shooting spree as a backdrop to explain why chivalry no longer applies in the context of a modern, industrialized, female-empowered society where the state has a monopoly on punitive force.

Elliot [Rodger] feared, and eventually, hated women because he simply could not understand them. His ineptitude in this regard was almost cartoonish, e.g. sitting on a park bench waiting for a cute single girl to approach him.

“Nice guys finish last,” is a cliche because it’s a truism most people don’t want to believe.

Elliot, having never harmed anyone in his life, was a gallant gentleman in his own eyes. What he doesn’t understand is that the high-minded concept of chivalry originated in a time when the abject brutalization of women was commonplace and expected. It was a sort of counterculture set against the time-honored beat’em & rape’em de rigueur of the day. And it only mattered because those practicing it — knights — were those most capable of brutalizing women. An intimidating, armored and mounted professional killer acting in a genteel manner towards a maiden he could otherwise violently defile is the stuff of romantic legend, and it set them apart as a class above the brutish peasant infantrymen.

Because the context of constant fear of sexual subjugation no longer applies, “chivalry” is an anachronistic concept, and being a gentleman is in more looking the part and behaving otherwise, like the well-dressed and stately character of Christian Grey who enjoys whipping and inserting butt-plugs into women. [CH] would say this misdirection and unexpectedness is like crack to women. And it is.

None of this knowledge ever permeated Rodgers’ brain, because he refused to believe it.

As CH has said before, chivalry (or gentlemanliness) only works when it is accompanied by a cultural expectation of female deference to men. Since we are far FAR from the social conditions in the West where women are deferential to men (the opposite is more true), chivalry as a concept and a practice becomes a joke, akin to asking men to anoint the feet of haughty, entitled women in exchange for the masochistic delight of cultural contempt.

The point of mercy — which is what chivalry is, stripped to its core — is that it only means anything when there’s a credible threat serving as its justification. A mercy “granted” from a position of weakness is a fiction; an expedient that permits the continued operation of the fundamental premise without questioning. What the vast hordes of beta males fail to grasp is that their niceguy poses are only effective as a mate acquisition strategy when a jerk assumes them. Niceguys playing niceguys is a plushboy recursion matrix that repels tingles. If anything, niceguys should do the opposite and be *less* chivalrous, as a means of persuading women that they aren’t supplicating pushovers.

Men who think chivalry toward the modern woman will help their romantic prospects are worse than poetically deluded; they’re self-sabotaging.


Filed under: Culture, Goodbye America, Rules of Manhood, Ugly Truths
16 Jun 00:37

Off-Script Democracy: Eric Cantor’s ‘Anti-Semitic’ Loss

by Wesley Morganston

“[My opponent] is running on Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable principles.”

“All of the investment banks, up in New York and D.C., they should have gone to jail.”

Thus spoke the surprise winner of an obscure primary that was expected to be won easily by the incumbent, a widely-hated figure who spent several hundred thousand dollars of his campaign budget on entertainment and needlessly expensive travel, and whose wife once worked for Goldman Sachs.

But the media doesn’t like this very much.

The reason is simple: Eric Cantor, the House Majority Whip, was a major figure in not only Wall Street’s Rolodex, but also the push for increased mass immigration—and Dave Brat, the economics professor who defeated Cantor, made mass immigration a central issue of his campaign. Laura Ingraham, a talk radio host who backed Brat, tweeted her motivation for doing so:

Rich Lowry NAILS it. Those arguing that immig didn't drive the Cantor defeat is "whistling past the graveyard." http://t.co/YNKgUMNDqL

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) June 12, 2014

It’s not news that progressivism has come to be on the same side as capital on many issues, of which immigration is one—the Kochs, who have become a metonym to progressives for well-funded ultraconservatism, back open-borders initiatives. So it’s not surprising that Dave Brat’s opposition to “Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundable principles” didn’t save him from the round of media denunciation that comes to anyone who opposes mass immigration.

What may be more surprising is the other media response.

Eric Cantor, you see, is Jewish—and Dave Brat is a Christian with a theology degree. Naturally, this means that Virginia’s 7th District, which not only elected Cantor, but reëlected him six times, is a raging hotbed of anti-Semitism. The New York Daily News floated this explanation, writing that Cantor “was highly visible as the only Jewish Republican in the House, in a district with a strong evangelical presence”, but the Times of Israel went all-out with it, headlining their story covering the election, “Could Cantor have lost because he’s a Jew?”

The New York Times also ran with it:

David Wasserman, a House political analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said another, more local factor has to be acknowledged: Mr. Cantor, who dreamed of becoming the first Jewish speaker of the House, was culturally out of step with a redrawn district that was more rural, more gun-oriented and more conservative.

“Part of this plays into his religion,” Mr. Wasserman said. “You can’t ignore the elephant in the room.”

Never mind that Cantor won the rural northern counties of the district, and that Brat’s largest margin of victory came in Hanover County, a suburb of Richmond, where two thirds of the votes went to Brat—never mind that Cantor was reëlected six times—no, those damn ruralites, clinging to their guns and religion, must all be raging anti-Semites.

Then there’s this Politico article, where things get really weird:

Matt Brooks, the RJC president, called Cantor’s primary “one of those incredible, evil twists of fate that just changed the potential course of history.”

“There are other leaders who will emerge, but Eric was unique and it will take time and there’s nobody quite like Eric in the House to immediately fill those shoes,” Brooks said. “I was certainly hoping that Eric was going to be our first Jewish speaker.”

Across the aisle, the reactions to Cantor’s defeat ranged from shock and distress to barely-restrained glee. For partisan Jewish Democrats, Cantor has long been a supremely annoying figure, perceived as a front man for a conservative party that’s hostile to the values a strong majority of Jews share on issues from economic inequality to gay marriage to immigration, the central animating issue of Cantor challenger Dave Brat’s campaign.

As Democrats seek to cement a public perception of the GOP as an intolerant and homogenous party, the defeat of the nation’s leading Jewish Republican over his support for more relaxed immigration laws can only help.

Incredible! Evil! Changed the potential course of history! …What?

One must wonder if the charge of anti-Semitism serves to mask certain other concerns, the airing of which would further undermine progressives’ already comedically absurd attempts to market themselves as tolerant. There are so many other lines of attack (some, like the belief that citing Max Weber is fascist, even more absurd than the belief that it’s anti-Semitic to win an election against a Jew) that it’s hard to believe that so many people could come to the same conclusion for so many different reasons—it’s far more likely that there are only a few underlying concerns, but that no one will admit them.

One of those is probably Cantor’s establishment role, his “Chamber of Commerce principles”, support for mass immigration, and ability to make himself palatable to a press that habitually speaks power to truth. Another is that, by electing Brat, the voters went off-script: Cantor was an establishment man in what was thought to be a safe district. Brat’s election is the exception that proves the rule: the voters’ normal role is to sit downstream of the media, think how they’re told to, and vote (and act) accordingly. But there’s still a third.

As The Federalist has pointed out, many reporters (and many Brahmins) see Christianity as something backwards, alien, and vaguely threatening—in a country where the vast majority of the population is Christian, no less. Religion just isn’t high-status among Brahmins: it imposes constraints against the often-destructive hedonistic excesses that the Brahmin intelligentsia prefer to promote, it demands community that isn’t based solely around status-seeking, and besides, those icky, backwards people in the South do it, so it can’t be considered cool the way Westernized Buddhism or Islam are.

Eric Cantor is Jewish—but Dave Brat is a Christian with a theology degree, and he beat a pro-amnesty candidate in a supposedly safe seat. That’s where the real objections come from.

12 Jun 08:19

Fathers are the civilizing force

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
If you read through the lessons these successful men say they learned from their fathers, a few common themes rapidly become apparent:
  1. Caring and protection
  2. Personal accountability and hard work
  3. Courage and a willingness to fight
  4. Commitment and self-control
Mothers are necessary for the continued existence of society. Marriage, families, and fathers are necessary for transforming a human society into a civilized human society. And anything that weakens the institutions of marriage, family, and fatherhood is an intrinsically anti-civilizational force.
Alpha Game 2011
03 Jun 09:45

The inevitable decline of atheism

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
Another reminder that the future belongs to those who show up for it:
The world could see a resurgence of Christianity driven by population decline in sceptical countries, the geneticist Steve Jones has claimed. Professor Jones said history had proven that religion grows rapidly during large population booms, particularly in poorer countries. He argued that rapid growth in Africa could spark a new resurgence of major religions like Christianity. However in increasingly atheist countries in Europe people are no longer reproducing in sufficient numbers to avoid population decline, he told the Hay Literary Festival.

"We atheists sometimes congratulate ourselves that the incidence of religious belief is going down. But religious people have more children. Where are people having the most children? It’s in the tropics and in Africa. It’s clearly the case that the future will involve an increase in religious populations and a decrease in scepticism."
It's not only that. There is also the fact that most of the children raised in an atheist home eventually become religious; the only reason that the rate of growth of atheism briefly, (in historical terms), was fast enough to surmount that inhibiting factor is because the atheist population was so small. Atheists are at the literal bottom of the retention rate in comparison with every religious group from Hindus to Jehovah's Witnesses. Even the mealy-mouthed Anglicans fare better.

A more important factor is that times of wealth and peace have always been a counter-indicator of religious belief. The rich and fat seldom believe they have any need for God, and they deeply resent any divinely inspired restrictions on their descent into decadence. At the end of the longest period of peace and economic expansion in the history of the West, it should be no surprise at all that we have an obese, decadent, depraved, diseased population that fears no God.

They will learn better soon enough. Both history and the Bible are very clear concerning the eventual fate of such societies.

Posted by Vox Day.
27 May 18:50

Alpha Male Game In The Wild

by CH

Reader IHTG forwarded this funny gif of a dude teasing a girl right up to the line of sexual harassment, holding his frame, and then defusing the tension with yet more teasing. Any formal context is missing (which is obviously true for short gifs), but you can figure it out by everyone’s facial expression.

This is a nice little demonstration of the cocky/funny alpha male attitude.

The (one-sided) courtship opens with the male’s exaggerated pose of neediness requesting acknowledgement from the female.

The female responds with a “who, me?” gesture, as most women would to a man brazenly beckoning for them. The rarity of such a thing among the males of the genus westernius Manboobii is what provokes the submissive female auto-response.

The courtship enters the “shock and awe” stage, when the alpha male “air swats” the female’s buttocks.

Now that the pair are fully engaged with one another, the female expresses anger and indignation toward the alpha male for his surprise advance on her posterior. In lioness terms, she evades the male lion’s mounting and wheels around to make a threat display. But we all know how this ends.

The alpha male does not appease the female nor attempt a reconciliation. Instead, he grins sociably, points at the female as if to declare her facial expression the height of comedy, and faces the crowd of onlookers to enlist their support and preempt any move by the female to ostracize him.

Turning back to the female (her hands perched on her hips waiting for his apologia), he extends a handshake of friendship to defuse the escalating sexual tension, only to once again befuddle and arouse the female by pulling his hand away from her just at the moment she prepares to accept his peace offering.

Finally, the courtship reaches the apogee of its first phase, when the alpha male’s cocky antics elicit a smile and a flurry of lighthearted punches from the female, who has been awakened to a state of sexual receptivity and has begun the second phase of the courtship where she “presents” to the alpha male for a continuation of their mating ritual.

In related news, Elliot Rodger never faked out a girl with a phony handshake.

 


Filed under: Alpha, Funny/Lolblogs, Game, Videos
22 May 17:00

Europe and the black-white game

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
An African-American discovers to her surprise that, unlike Americans, Europeans aren't afraid of blacks:
I was going to the movies with a friend of mine from Yale who is black also. And there was a long line. And we were like, let's jump the line. These white people, they're going to be scared of us. We'll just go and jump the line. We'll get to the front of the line. So, of course, you know, we walked up to the front of the line, like, yeah, you want to try me? I'm black. That usually works in New York.

These people were ready to rip our hair out. And they were white. I couldn't believe it. And they were like, in French, what are you doing? The line starts back there. You can't just walk to the front of the line. They were, like, ready to kick our butts. I was shocked. I'm like, these are white people, and they're not scared of us?

That's when I realized I wasn't in Kansas anymore. And I liked it. I mean, of course, it was kind of humiliating, because you know, we're supposed to be the intimidating, scary ones. And then all these French bitches in high heels were threatening us. And they were in our faces. And it made me realize that the whole black-white game just doesn't work outside of the United States.

Because white people aren't afraid of you here. And at the same time, they don't hate you, because that sort of goes together. So I'll take it. I'll wait on line. Now I don't dare jump lines. So that opened my eyes.
It's true, Europeans, especially Continentals, are much less inclined to kowtow to Africans than Americans are. This may be helpful in understanding an aspect of the divergence of my position from that of the white progressive non-athletes. It's not that I hate blacks, it's more that I'm not afraid of them and therefore don't treat them like ticking time bombs. It's not just that I'm a continental European myself these days either, because I've been burning black guy's asses, talking smack with them, and forcing them back down since I was an 11th grade 100-meter sprinter competing in the city district against sprinters from Minneapolis North, Minneapolis South, Washburn, Edison, and Southwest.

If you know anything about men's athletics, you'll know that sprinters are the arrogant prima donnas of the sports world. Once you've faced down a big old branded Omega or a strutting member of the Disciples who is trying to intimidate everybody during warmups, calling out an overweight, overrated black woman with a big mouth is not exactly a challenge. The greater part of the black intimidation routine is nothing more than a front to mask deep insecurity. The whole performance, the eye-rolling, the neck-bobbing, the implied threats of violence, and the posturing, tends to fall completely apart when met with a sneer and a sarcastic word.

At one meet my senior year, there was a particularly unpleasant fellow who was getting in my face in the area behind the blocks while we were waiting for the race because I was the only non-black sprinter in the finals. He was going on about "white boy" this and "faggot" that and so forth. I didn't say anything, I just reached into my bag and handed him a banana. (We always kept a few around to fight leg cramps). He looked at me in total disbelief, at which point I said: "You've been pounding your chest so much, I figured you'd probably want one of these."

The other six guys just about sprained something laughing.

Posted by Vox Day.