Shared posts

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.
16 May 15:45

Comment or No Comment from Obama?

by Aaron Jacob

One upside to the Obama presidency is that it hopefully has dashed the ideas Millenials and liberal voter blocs had about the power of the Presidency. At this point, even Blacks have to be feeling let down that he never “Blacks up” on anything. Extremely low-information voters may not get it, but how much is it them not getting it or them getting it but choosing not to care? Denial is powerful. A pattern with the bully pulpit under President Obama is the diminishing size of targets. Obama’s general commentary resembles a gelded, browbeaten husband, where he decides to comment on the dumbest or least important thing and remains mute on stuff that matters. Maybe the best comparison is the dad who does not notice his oldest son being an oxy pill-popper or his daughter’s meth mouth, but he will sure as hell go nuts over the weeds in his neighbor’s lawn. Obama’s selective commentary creates the opportunity for a fun game.

Russia discusses plans for an actual execution of moving away from trade in dollars. While they have been kicked out of the G8, that does not diminish Russia’s standing in the international economic order. Anything that reduces the use and flow of dollars is a major deal in our financial situation. The possibility that G8 nations and other middle-to-large-sized economies are taking steps to drop the dollar is important. Do we get a comment from Obama? No.

NFL spends the 249th draft pick in the NFL draft on an openly gay man. Sports fans roll their eyes at the focus on Michael Sam. Do we get a comment from Obama? Yes!

The President congratulates Michael Sam, the Rams and the NFL for taking an important step forward in our Nation’s journey. From the playing field to the corporate boardroom, LGBT Americans prove everyday that you should be judged by what you do and not who you are.

Let us stop one moment to laugh at the irony in this comment from Obama. A President that no one would know if he were not half-Black is congratulating a 7th-round draft pick that casual fans would not know of or have seen cry on the strategically placed television cameras that “you should be judged by what you do and not who you are”. No one would know either of them if they were not who they are.

China has been pretty busy. China calls Iran a strategic partner, placed an oil rig in what was seen as Vietnamese waters and is holding military exercises with Russia. China is really flexing their muscles, and whatever happened with that Iran sanctions thing? Has that backfired completely? Iran takes the window of sanction relief to sign giant economic and military deals with Russia and China, and Israel and the Saudis are flaming mad. Who exactly is the US picking up as a new ally or partner? John Kerry calls the oil rig actions provocative, but what does Obama have to say? Nothing.

Elderly owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, Donald Sterling, asked his mistress on a taped phone call to not take pictures with some Blacks. This mushroomed into a giant fiasco for the NBA. The media ran with this as the most racist thing in the world—this month. Did Obama have a comment about this? Yesmany. In his words, Sterling made “incredibly offensive racist statements”. I hope he is not listening to Jay-Z’s albums, then, when he visits the White House.

In Syria, a nation where the Saudis and Qataris funded different rebels, and the US sent weapons for fighting as well as material, Syrian Christians are being killed daily. Some of the church’s oldest communities and individual churches are being destroyed. This kind of death and destruction solely on the basis of religion, and with USG being slightly culpable, would it, could it, elicit some words from President Obama? No.

After years of back-and-forth religious conflict that will likely escalate to a civil war, a terrorist organization of Muslims kidnapped just under 300 girls in Nigeria. Would President Obama comment on the bigger picture problem in Nigeria? Would he mention the steady flow of religious attacks by both sides, and maybe even the aftereffects of Muslims from Qadaffi’s regime (that he had hired as mercenaries) making their way back to Nigeria to do some damage? No, but President Obama did comment that the kidnapping itself was “heartbreaking” and “outrageous”. He speaks so well!

Just look at the desperation in this woman’s eyes

14 May 18:24

Amish Facebook

by CH

Commenter “The Burninator” muses about what an Amish Facebook page would look like.

I can’t imagine an Amish girl’s FB page.

Her:

“Today I churned butter with mama.”

Like 1

Amish father:

“Get back to work, girl!”

Like 124

:lol:

You have to hand it to the Amish. They have the preternatural ability to avoid corruption by the pozzed American dysculture while living in the belly of the beast. Part of the reason is the “boiling off” selection effect that results from their rite of passage known as Rumspringa, which assures that the Amish left in the community evolve the personality traits to successfully deter outside influence.

Another reason has to be hard work. Toiling in the fields or the farmhouse tires a body and mind so thoroughly that social media distractions become less tempting. The Amish are preoccupied with survival and community. The non-Amish are preoccupied with white privilege and gay weddings.


Filed under: Culture, Funny/Lolblogs
20 Apr 08:36

Truth and the Resurrection

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
There are those who say that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is merely a story. They will claim, falsely, that the Risen Lord is derived from an agricultural myth. They will assert, wrongly, that "Easter is originally the celebration of Ishtar, the Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility and sex." They will declare, contra the historical evidence, that Jesus Christ never lived or was crucified on a cross by the Roman authorities.

It is strange, is it not, that they should tell so many palpable lies in the service of that which they say to be truth?

The Apostle Paul once said that if the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is not true, then we Christians are the saddest and most pathetic of all men. Everything we do, everything we believe, everything for which we hope and strive, is a lie.

It is strange, is it not, that so many observable and long-lived truths should stand so firmly on such a flimsy foundation of falsehood?

From Plato to Zelazny, men of letters have written of the purer things, that in their perfection spawn lesser shadows and imitations that reflect but an aspect of the true essence. From where does truth come, if not the Truth? And did Jesus not say that he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

Those who are Aristotelian devotees of reality stand by the Lesser Truth that A is A, and that A is never Not-A. But the Lesser Truth descends from, and depends upon, the Greater Truth, which is this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Yesterday the light shone in the darkness. Today the light shines in the darkness. Tomorrow the light will shine in the darkness. And the darkness will never, ever, overcome it.

It is not a story, it is The Story, it is the oldest story, it is the true story from which all other stories flow. Light versus dark. And despite the darkness that surrounds us, that pervades us, that haunts us, the light of all mankind is winning.

That is why, all around the world this morning, there are millions of men and women who will greet each other with three simple words of hope and truth and triumph.

Christ is risen!

Posted by Vox Day.
17 Apr 19:32

Jesus Had Game

by CH

Jesus wept? Oh no, my friends. Jesus charmed!

Jesus, like so many leading protagonists in the great books for men, had game, and used it to mesmerize the fuck outta his audiences of admirers. There’s a direct line throughout history leading from the thorny crown to the furry hat. Jesus was mystery, and Jesus was the first Mystery.

Proof of Jesus’ mad skills with the coy doubters comes to us via this nifty list of his best follower pickups.

One of the best-described of all charismatic leaders is Jesus. About 90 face-to-face encounters with Jesus are described in the four gospels of the New Testament.

Notice what happens:

The Son of God is about to raise your buying temperature.

Jesus is sitting on the ground, teaching to a crowd in the outer courtyard of the temple at Jerusalem. The Pharisees, righteous upholders of traditional ritual and law, haul before him a woman taken in adultery. They make her stand in front of the crowd and say to Jesus: “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law commands us to stone her to death. What do you say?”

The text goes on that Jesus does not look up at them, but continues to write in the dirt with his finger. This would not be unusual; Archimedes wrote geometric figures in the dust, and in the absence of ready writing materials the ground would serve as a chalkboard. The point is that Jesus does not reply right away; he lets them stew in their uneasiness.

Jesus used tension to build attraction.

Minutes go by. One by one, the crowd starts to slip away, the older ones first– the young hotheads being the ones who do the stoning, as in the most primitive parts of the Middle East today.

Finally Jesus is left with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightens up and asks her: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  She answers: “No one.” “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus says. “Go now and sin no more.” (John 8: 1-11)

Jesus is a master of timing. He does not allow people to force him into their rhythm, their definition of the situation. He perceives what they are attempting to do, the intention beyond the words. And he makes them shift their ground.

Jesus forced others into his frame.

He does not allow the encounter to focus on himself against the Pharisees. He knows they are testing him, trying to make him say something in violation of the law; or else back down in front of his followers. Instead Jesus throws it back on their own consciences, their inner reflections about the woman they are going to kill. He individualizes the crowd, making them drift off one by one, breaking up the mob mentality.

Jesus passed shit tests.

Jesus is a charismatic leader, indeed the archetype of charisma. Although sociologists tend to treat charisma as an abstraction, it is observable in everyday life. We are viewing the elements of it, in the encounters of Jesus with the people around him.

Game is applied charisma. I wonder if Jesus was a Dark Triad? Or should I say, Dark Trinity?

(1) Jesus always wins an encounter [...]

Jesus never lets anyone determine the conversational sequence. He answers questions with questions, putting the interlocutor on the defensive. An example, from early in his career of preaching around Galilee:

Jesus has been invited to dinner at the house of a Pharisee. A prostitute comes in and falls at his feet, wets his feet with her tears, kisses them and pours perfume on them. The Pharisee said to himself, “If this man is a prophet, he would know what kind of woman is touching him– that she is a sinner.”

Jesus, reading his thoughts, said to him: “I have something to tell you.” “Tell me,” he said. Jesus proceeded to tell a story about two men who owed money, neither of whom could repay the moneylender. He forgives them both, the one who owes 500 and the one who owes 50. Jesus asked: “Which of the two will love him more?” “The one who had the bigger debt forgiven,” the Pharisee replied. “You are correct,” Jesus said. “Do you see this woman? You did not give me water for my feet, but this woman wet them with her tears and dried them with her hair… Therefore her many sins have been forgiven– as her great love has shown.”

Jesus doesn’t follow conversational threads like an attention starved beta; he breaks them and makes his own. He answers ambiguously. He puts people in the defensive crouch, where tingles are born. Jesus follows the statement-statement-question format of effective discourse control.

The priests send spies, hoping to catch Jesus in saying something so that they might hand him over to the Roman governor. So they asked: “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

Jesus knowing their evil intent, said to them, “Show me the coin used to pay taxes.” When they brought it, he said, “Whose image is on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”  And they were astonished by his answer, and were silent.

Jesus the charismatic alpha male was unpredictable. You expect him to say one thing; he says another. AMOGs show deference and vaginas weep on cue.

(2)  Jesus is quick and absolutely decisive

As his mission is taking off in Galilee, followers flock to hear him. Some he invites to come with him. It is a life-changing decision.

A man said to him: “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus replied: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.”

It is a shocking demand. In a ritually pious society, there is nothing more important that burying your father. Jesus demands a complete break with existing social forms; those who follow them, he implies, are dead in spirit.

Chicks hate mincing betaboys. Jesus was not a mincing betaboy. Chicks dig rule breakers. Jesus was definitely a rule breaker.

The Pharisees complained, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus perceives who will make a good recruit, and who will not.

Jesus was practiced in the art of target selection.

(3) Jesus always does something unexpected [...]

Some of the disciples said indignantly to each other, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus said. “She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.  But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare me for my funeral.” (Mark 14: 1-10; Matthew 26: 6-13)

A double jolt. His disciples by now have understood the message about the selfishness of the rich and charity to the poor. But there are circumstances and momentous occasions that transcend even the great doctrine of love thy neighbour. Jesus is zen-like in his unexpectedness. There is a second jolt, and his disciples do not quite get it. Jesus knows he is going to be crucified. He has the political sense to see where the confrontation is headed; in this he is ahead of his followers, who only see his power.

When was the last time you saw an alpha male do the dull, boring thing? Never.

(4) Jesus knows what the other is intending

Jesus is an intelligent observer of the people around him.

Jesus was situationally aware.

He is highly focused on everyone’s moral and social stance, and sees it in the immediate moment. Charismatic people are generally like that; Jesus does it to a superlative degree.

Jesus lived in the moment. Jesus did not suffer “paralysis by analysis”.

Jesus’ perceptiveness helps explain why he dominates his encounters. He surprises interlocutors by unexpectedly jumping from their words, not to what conventionally follows verbally, but instead speaking to what they are really about, skipping the intermediate stages.

Jesus knew how to “elicit values”, and build deep connections with people.

(5) Jesus is master of the crowd [...]

Crowds are a major source of Jesus’ power. There is a constant refrain: “The crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” His enemies the high priests are afraid of what his crowd of followers will do if they attack Jesus.

Jesus was socially proofed.

[His disciples] are the privileged in-group, and they know it. Jesus admonishes them from time to time about their pride; but he needs them, too. It is another reason why living with Jesus is bracing. There is an additional circuit of charismatic energy in the inner circle.

Push-pull game.

Jesus can still arouse this crowd, but he cannot silence it. He does not back off, but becomes increasingly explicit. The metaphors he does use are not effective. His sheep that he refers to means his own crowd of loyal followers, and Jesus declares he has given them eternal life– but not to this hostile crowd of unbelievers. Words no longer convince; the sides declaim stridently against each other. The eloquent phrases of earlier preaching have fallen into cacophony. Nevertheless Jesus still escapes violence. The crowd is never strong enough to dominate him. Only the organized authorities can take him, and that he does not evade.

Alpha males can be taken down by a state-sanctioned beta male show of force.

(6) Jesus’ down moments

Even an alpha male occasionally gets cockblocked.

Leaving aside the miracle itself and its symbolism, one thing we see in this episode is Jesus conflicted between his mission– to demonstrate the power of resurrection– and his personal feelings for Lazarus and his sisters. Jesus let Lazarus die, by staying away during his sickness, in order to make this demonstration, but in doing so he caused grief to those he loved. The moment when he confronts their pain (amplified by the weeping of the crowd), Jesus himself weeps. It is the only time in the texts when he weeps. It is a glimpse of himself as a human being, as well as a man on a mission.

Vulnerability game.

Finally Jesus is taken before Pilate, the Roman governor. Jesus gives his usual sharp replies, and indeed wins him over. “Are you the King of the Jews?” Pilate asks.

King of the Poon, amirite?

“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asks in return, “or did others talk to you about me?”

“Am I a player? Only if you want me to be.”

In the crises, Jesus’ interactional style remains much the same as always; but the speaking in parables and figurative language has given way to blunt explanations. Parables are for audiences who want to understand. Facing open adversaries, Jesus turns to plain arguments.

Sometimes it’s necessary to drop the flirty banter and aloofness and draw a line in the sand that you don’t want a woman to cross.

Jesus the alpha male. Jesus the PUA (of disciples). Jesus the master of the crimson arts. Men followed him. Powerful men feared him. Prostitutes paid *him*.

Jesus is risen, indeed!


Filed under: Alpha, Game, Love
16 Apr 13:00

An appeal to reinstall Firefox

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
I was asked to reconsider my position on uninstalling Mozilla products and refusing to use them in the future:
You are probably here because you have been advised to consider reinstalling Firefox. You may, in fact, have uninstalled Firefox as a result of a recent campaign protesting either Brendan Eich’s being appointed CEO of Mozilla, or his supposedly being fired or forced by Mozilla to resign from that position as a result of a donation he made in favor of proposition 8. Brendan Eich did, in fact, resign; however, he did was not fired or forced to resign by Mozilla. Mozilla does not discriminate based on an individual’s personal political or religious beliefs. If you have been told otherwise, I encourage you to evaluate the evidence for yourself. First of all, I would like to point you to Mozilla’s official FAQ on Brendan’s resignation. I realize that some people will insist that this is just a cover story and that he was really forced to resign, in spite of whatever Mozilla may say to the contrary. So I would like to share some additional corroborating evidence. There are many inside sources who corroborate this, but the one I find particularly credible and compelling is Gervase Markham. He is in a unique position as an outspoken Christian and supporter of traditional marriage who works at Mozilla. Gerv has stated that he has it from sources he trusts that Brendan did step down of his own accord and was not forced out. You can read his full statement on his blog. Finally, I want to remind you of what Mozilla, and Firefox, truly stands for.

If you are still not convinced, I’d like you to consider one more thing. Consider for a moment, the possibility that Brendan really did step down of his own accord and is not interested in coming back. What more can Mozilla possibly do that would persuade you? Is there any further evidence that would change your mind? It makes sense to treat them with a good faith presumption of truthfulness unless and until there is evidence to the contrary. Why? Because if your mind can not be changed by anything, then they may as well ignore you anyway. There are always people who cannot be swayed by reason or any amount of evidence. Since their minds can’t be changed anyway, we all might as well ignore them and focus on those who can be persuaded by reason. If you are not open to any reasonable evidence, then you make yourself irrelevant to the debate. Don’t be do that. Evaluate the evidence fairly, and when in doubt, treat others with a good faith presumption of truthfulness. Then if evidence persuades you to change your position, it will mean something.
I read this. I read Markham's piece. I have evaluated the evidence and I am fully informed concerning the relevant facts. And my answer is a staunch and resounding no. I reject Mozilla. I reject what it now stands for.

I am aware Eich stepped down of his own accord. I am aware he was not fired, that his resignation was not demanded by the Mozilla Board, and that fewer than 10 Mozilla employees publicly demanded his resignation.

I am also aware that Mozilla's executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued this official statement on April 3rd: "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better."

For what is she apologizing, precisely? To whom is she apologizing?

I am aware that Mozilla claims to "support equality for all." This is a blatant lie on multiple levels. Mozilla might as reasonably proclaim that it supports unicorns for all or a chicken in every pot. Mozilla clearly does not support the Constitutional right of free association or the right of free speech on the part of those harboring views it considers incompatible with its mission statement.

I am aware that "Mozilla Supports LGBT Equality". I don't and I will not support any organization that claims to do so.

I am aware that Mozilla has ignored tens of thousands of negative comments from current and former Firefox users and has refused to provide any statement in response to them. I am also aware that it responded quickly and publicly to a much smaller amount of criticism that threatened much less damage to the corporation.

A supporter of the move to ostracize and oust Brandon Eich declared: "I do think that any individual is free to choose to resign their own job or otherwise not conduct business with someone whom they know has taken an action that they consider unjust." I agree. That is precisely why I no longer want anything to do with Mozilla and I continue to recommend that everyone #uninstallfirefox.

Prior to the #uninstallfirefox campaign began, Mozilla Firefox represented 34 percent of the total pageviews here. That percentage is currently down to 20 percent, so based on last year's traffic, Mozilla can expect to lose at least 1,835,637 pageviews from the readers here on this site alone, in addition to the pageviews those readers generate on all other sites and whatever pageviews my household machines generate on an annual basis.

Posted by Vox Day.
16 Apr 20:00

Broken and lesser beings

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
You may think that we exaggerate the craven wretchedness of our enemies. You may think that my boundless contempt for the r/selected, Larry's muscular backhands for his craven adversaries, and John C. Wright's withering scorn for the wormtongues is fueled by either a) a sense of offense at being opposed or b) an oversensitivity to criticism.

It is not. It is fueled by our clear-eyed view of what these creatures are. It is our awareness that they are, like the soul-destroyed abhumans roaming the Night Lands, broken and lesser beings who seek to pull others down into the mire that torments them.

By way of evidence, consider their own words about themselves. Here, for example, is Damien Walter:
I was 30 and, by any measure, deeply unhappy. I’d been pushing down a lot of horrible emotions from a damaging childhood, grief from many losses, and had trapped myself in a life I didn’t fit in to from a desperate need to fit somewhere, anywhere. I had no kind of spiritual practice at all. I was a standard issue atheist, and any encounter I had with religion was edged with inherited and unexamined scorn. Consequentially, I really had no tools to process the pain I was feeling. Today, my argument with the radical atheist rhetoric of people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett – both of whom I had read heavily at university – is that it leaves the bulk of its believers utterly amputated from their own emotional reality. It certainly had me. I was miserable, and in trying to escape from the causes of the misery I’d driven myself, repeatedly, to the borders of emotional collapse where I had, at long last, collapsed.
This is why they preach equality. This is why they preach tolerance. This is why they seek to disqualify and destroy those who stand above them, immune to the manifold terrors that haunt their empty chests. They are damaged people, broken individuals, fallen souls.

They live lives of lies and self-deceit. They lie about others; they lie about themselves:
I am by nature a non-political person. I tend to see both sides of most arguments, and there are merits and faults with any position in any political debate. Extremism is always wrong. Beyond that, who is right is mostly a matter of your tribal, partisan allegiances.
No doubt that is why he didn't link to Larry's piece he was criticizing and why David Barnett intentionally and admittedly evaded The Guardian guidelines in his hit piece aimed at me, lest I defend my position in a convincing manner.

But no matter what lies Damien and his broken kind tell, they will find no comfort whatsoever in confronting the likes of Mr. Corriea and Mr. Wright. They will find no peace through confronting me. They will find nothing but emotional collapse in this lifetime and damnation in the next as a result of their rejection of the Way, the Truth, and the Life that we do our feeble best to serve.

At least Damien has taken one step forward in abandoning the intellectually bankrupt world of the radical atheist. He knows there is something else out there. But he is still caught in the soul-sucking mire, he is still lost in lies and desperately lashing out at the likes of Larry and me in a vain attempt to find fulfillment in the approval of those he foolishly seeks to emulate.

But he will not, because there is no fulfillment to be found there. There is none to be found in telling lies, in making-believe, because even if he manages to convince others of his falsehoods, he will never be able to convince himself that they are true.

What Damien does not realize is that our strength, our being whole, does not come from within, but from without. The Earth-Current flows through us; we are empowered by the Master of the Master-Word. It is not enough for a man to reject the nonsensical teachings of the self-proclaimed wise, it is necessary to repent and to humble himself before God, after which he can stand again, washed in the sacred blood of His Son, unafraid, unbowed, and unbroken.

Posted by Vox Day.
07 Apr 12:00

Why Do Women Suddenly Want To Become Video Gamers?

by 2Wycked

“Your a fukking pussy, u probbly couldn’t beat my retarded bro wit both of his hands tyed behind his back.”

I was 13 going on 14, rummaging around in an online gaming community then known as “The Zone.” The game of choice was Age of Empires.

“Oh yeah, you wanna know why I got such a nice tan?”

“Cuz you a fag?”

“No, because I drug the bed outside last afternoon and pork-roasted your whore mother on it.”

“Fuck u, u jar of dog piss. 1v1 in Room 19.”

“It’s on, shitheap.”

Ah, the joys of newly minted adolescent boys trading cheap insults about slutty mothers and dog piss. We did, indeed, do battle and my reputation was well earned. My Spaniards ran rough-shod over his woefully unprepared Persians. He called me a “dick-sucking cocksucker” before whisking off into another game room, obviously licking his wounds after being castrated by a gay jar of canine urine.

Any place where men come to gather and congregate—especially during the tumultuous teenage years—isn’t what anybody would call a “safe space.” We form bonds—often life-long—with other males and we battle back and forth in groups. At the global level, it can take the real, important ways of war, politics, and general power conflicts. Human history has been overwhelmingly influenced by males simply because, as I shall sketch out, that women are not interested in agency or seizing power simply to exercise agency or have real power.

This dynamic is fully on display in the video game community, as men have built, nurtured and maintained the community for years. Even when called nerds, treated like losers by women, men who loved video games still played them. It can be a brutal place from a shit-talking standpoint, either you can develop a thick skin, or you find out you aren’t cut from the right cloth to handle the banter. Competition can be fierce and reputations are difficult to make and easy to destroy. It is a mirror to real life, as people will shit-talk you, talk behind your back and often times don’t act in accordance with your wishes and best interest.

girl-gamer2

However, a curious and recent development has occurred, with women demanding access to this largely male-exclusive enclave. As usual, the typical female narrative emerges: those sexist brogamers have prevented women from engaging in gaming for so long, it’s time to change! They have swept into the video game community, set up shop and are making demands. As we see elsewhere in society, men are not men until they have a woman in his life, most likely “reforming” him so he fits her image of how men should behave.

Why did women wait until now to be gamers? And, no, I don’t mean some person who plays solitaire on his laptop or “Words With Friends” on her bejeweled iPhone. The primary reason is simply that the star— the power— of the industry has passed. No, I’m not saying video games are dead or anything of that sort, what I’m saying is that women don’t want actual power but the appearance of it. They don’t want challenges, they want simple solutions fed to them by media, “9 Ways to Feel Better Right Now,” “10 Reasons It Isn’t Your Fault You Married A Cheater,” and so on. They want empowerment, which by the nature of the word, means they want power handed to them, not taken.

The power that has been drained from video games is their ability to challenge the gamer. Video games are soft these days. I remember playing the original Super Mario for NES. There were no save games. Either you got it all right in one try, or it was start over from the beginning. Nowadays? Assassin’s Creed doesn’t even have a save function, as the game only proceeds if you don’t make a mistake. At worst, you are set back at most a few minutes, not an entire two hours. Early video games had shit for graphics, now some games have no substance and all flash. Guess when women wanted to be a part of the community?

A lack of real difficulty is the primary reason that women are now increasingly becoming gamers. The power of video games has been drained; there are no more frustrated afternoons where you try to find a way to kill a Red Dragon in Baldur’s Gate or deal with a horde of zombies in Resident Evil. Now, walk-through’s are nary a second away on Google with no worries about screwing up a game in epic fashion that results in a waste of 20 hours. Modern gamers are coddled.

It must be noted that the rise in online gaming, particularly for console games, has also been instrumental in drawing women to gaming. One of the primary reasons that Tomb Raider bombed with women—aside from the intimidating cleavage of Lara Croft—is that it involved a solitary female, isolated from society, fighting beasts and monsters. No group collaboration, no mindless affirmations —-just a woman and her guns fighting murderous creatures. Women—surprise!—need story lines and relatable characters in order to enjoy video games. Simple conflict doesn’t code for women, it has to have an emotional context to be understood. The desire for power, for wealth and fame apparently doesn’t work for women, it has to have a context. Once again, why are men so “over-represented” in positions of power?

Video games are not purely about entertainment through challenging the gamer to step up his game to meet the increasing difficulty of a game as it progresses anymore. Apparently, the most recent Mass Effect had significant homosexual themes. Insertions of homosexual characters into a story is a political act meant to challenge the ”tolerance” of the gamer. By dumbing down games, it allowed not only women to find a home, but to increase video games popularity. Just like how liberals destroyed the educational system in order to “have access for all!,” video games have been reduced to a vessel for political correctness, illusions of personal accomplishment and personal fantasy – which is my final point.

the_last_of_us__left_behind-2441589-610x400

Take this article about a woman who revels in her rank narcissism and celebrates a female character who is a “complete human.” Apparently, she sprouted a ladyboner over the game Left Behind. In it, a limitless girl is girly but also methodically murders “a bunch of motherfuckers.” The author seems upset that “nobody wants to be a woman.” Well, yeah, no shit Sherlock. What man wants to be a passive-aggressive, back-stabbing person who thinks that power is gifted, not taken? Men, generally, don’t want to be women because we want to take power, not have it handed to us. However, she betrays what often hurts women when it comes to gaming and why they are flocking to it now: she wants what she perceives as powerful entities affirming her life as a woman and girl. You know, the resultant behavior of women after the death of God in a society where paternalism has shifted to the government and corporations.

She is moved to tears when Left Behind ends. Why, you might ask? Because it has affirmed her as a person, a woman who is both girly and can brutally murder people. She blurs the lines between her life and the video game in a way that betrays her damning and self-defeating narcissism: it isn’t good enough for her to kill people as a girl in a video game, but that that female character has to reflect her own life experiences. This isn’t some Xena fantasy, it has to be Xena plus taking selfies with your bestie after a falling out. I bet Andrea Dworkin is turning over in her shallow grave. She reinforces the idea that she only plays video games to act out the girl and woman she wanted to be in real life. Since she was never that woman, she has turned to video games which don’t challenge her at all, but give her an interactive movie that reinforces her fantasies:

That’s part of what makes Left Behind so special: Here, Ellie is the sun, the lightbulb that the rest of the universe rotates around. And she shines.

She never got to be the “It” girl, so she turns to a video game that neither challenges her abilities, but gives her an outlet to slake her desire for historical revisionism and naked self-possession. This is another reason that women have gotten into gaming. Playing Tomb Raider does nothing for women because a solitary female killing off wolves with a shotgun isn’t aspirational nor self-reflective. Emotional context is necessary and, as the preceding female highlights, that context is often centered out of self-delusion. The woman is moved to tears because she finally has found a game that reflects her desire to act on those who upset her (the killing aspect; she doesn’t confront people in real life) and her desire for a media outlet to value her relationships with other women (the Randi Zuckerberg problem).

1388259508_Carrie-Bradshaw

This is the psychological progression: going from emulating Carrie from Sex and the City in real life to demanding an interactive video game so she can pretend to be Carrie on her Xbox. For this to happen, however, the challenging nature of male-centered video games has to be neutered. The banter I cited above? It has to go, because questioning people’s personal identities is challenging for women, so men can kiss busting each other’s ball goodbye. Mainstream games that approach the difficulty of Paper Boy for SNES? Sorry, but that doesn’t affirm anybody’s identities nor advance diversity or equality. It must be pretty triggering for a gamer girl to not measure up in the fantasy world of video games. Who can she blame if she can’t beat a video game? White males?

What these female gamers are demanding is a “safe space” where their egos go unchallenged, undisturbed. The disruptive nature of male behavior—equally disruptive of male and female egos—leads to upset female gamers who simply want a space to be, where they get to act out what they either can’t or, most likely, don’t have the girl balls to do in real life. They demand games that are simply interactive movies, revolving around emotional relationships (what they call “complex” and “real” human relations) between people with, apparently, fantasies of killing people and blowing shit up… after taking selfies!

The roaring cacophony of political correctness that dominates modern dialogues betrays the utter emptiness of modern society. These female gamers are not happy women in any sense of the word. Their lives are so despondent and lacking in true substance that they turn to video games, not to pass the time or indulge in destroying the Packers as the Bears in Madden, but as an outlet for the lives they don’t live in real life. When men question whether a woman is a true gamer, men are hacking away at a part of their beating heart. They start with themselves then see men as not-female and he must be doing X, Y or Z because she is a woman as men are not women. They port out the typical female-as-a-victim-of-men rhetoric that reveals their true unhappiness—the inability to find love and contentment with a man.

They are not simply looking for happy relationships with women. These women are seeking approximations of happy, loving relations with men. If that is the cloying worship of a gang of online gamer betas, so be it. If that is the fantasy of an alpha male romancing a female lead in a video game then game on! Inextricably bound up in the issues of seeking the trappings of power and fantasy is the fantasy of men loving them for who they see themselves as, not who they really are. The fantasies of power easily gifted to them is part of the fantasy, but it isn’t complete without the concurrent bestowing of sexy men upon these fantasy women. Male worship is expected and positive attention from sexually attractive men is fetishized.

This movement exposes more than a few things about women. It exposes how often they see themselves as powerful and capable in their own minds, but fail to display that in real life, so they turn to media to smooth the ruffled feathers of their egos. They don’t like challenges of any sort, especially to their self-identity. They crave male approval and will go to any length to secure it, even if to devalue it once it becomes rote and expected. Women want to be gamers now simply because it is easy—easy to fantasize about their idealized self, easy to secure male approval and worship, and easy to rock the boat and demand the world revolve around them.

Read Next: 3 Ways Women Have Ruined Video Games 

07 Apr 22:39

La dolce vita

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
So I was traveling through France on the train today and saw that the forty-something woman pushing the food-and-drinks trolley was tall, slender, and looked vaguely Italian. I didn't think anything of it, but her appearance prompted the man sitting across the aisle to start asking her where she was from in French.

She must have noticed something in his accent that I didn't, because she answered in Italian. I didn't recognize the name of the town, but he obviously did. It turned out that he and the two women sitting near me were originally from the next town over in Piemonte. They discussed a few landmarks and families and so on while I sat there quietly minding my own business and editing John Wright's latest masterpiece on my tablet. They got a little exuberant at one point, prompting the woman nearest me to lean over and apologize in French, explaining that they were all essentially neighbors. From Italia.

"Si, lo so, anch'io parlo italiano," I said, which sparked considerable hilarity. The next thing I knew, I was getting quizzed about my last trip to Piemonte, the man bought a bottle of wine from the trolley lady, and was distributing plastic cups to everyone, including me. It's rather amusing. Even when you take the Italians out of Italy, the party travels with them.

Posted by Vox Day.
05 Apr 19:30

This Accidental Experiment Shows The Superiority Of Patriarchy

by Dr_Caveman

Patriarchy has been extremely successful, despite its recent vilification. Most cultures worldwide are patriarchal – to find examples of successful matriarchal societies you either have to turn to ancient history, remote outskirts of the world or feminist fiction. However, this hasn’t stopped the feminist collective from queefing out books and even a hashtag hailing the end of patriarchy in a textbook example of incestuous amplification.

What patriarchy, after its apparent downfall, will be replaced with remains to be seen. Hamsterizations aside, there is surprisingly little data available about what life would be like in a society made up of only men or only women. An enterprising social scientist might want to perform an experiment where groups of men and groups of women are left to their own devices, having to work together to survive against the elements and build a civilization from scratch. However, this scientist would have a very hard time convincing ethical review boards that the inevitable suffering of his participants would weight up against the value of the data.

Luckily, reality television is not bound by ethical constraints and once in a while, in its never ending quest for viewer ratings, reality TV accidentally performs a very interesting experiment that social scientists would never be allowed to do.

Quite a few years ago, I had the pleasure of watching the Dutch version of Survivor (Expeditie Robinson) with my feminist roommate. That particular season would have two islands, one populated by men and one populated by women. My roommate had been promoting that particular series to me and the other students in the house for weeks because it would show us, according to her, what a society run by women – free from the evils of patriarchy – would be like.

And it did. Oh it did.

Here is what happened: initially both groups were dropped on their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.

huts

The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.

Eventually, the people running the program decided something had to change. In order to help the women out, three men would be selected to go to their island. In return, three women would take their place at the men’s island. The look on my feminist roommates face during this episode was priceless.

supplies

Initially, the three men selected for the women’s island were ecstatic, for obvious reason. But then they arrived at the island and were greeted by the women.

‘Where is your hut?’, they asked.

‘We have no hut’

‘Where are your supplies?’ they asked, dismayed

‘We ate all the rice’

labor

And so on. The three men ended up working like dogs, using all the skills developed by trial and error in their first few weeks – building a hut, fish, trying to get the women to forage. The women continued to bitch and sunbathe. The three women who were sent to the men’s island were delighted – food, shelter and plenty of male attention was freely available. They too continued to sunbathe.

And that my friends, is what patriarchy is. My former roommate, unsurprisingly, is no longer a feminist.

Now this might all be a fluke, a white raven, an exceptional case not representative of society as whole. But that particular season of Dutch Survivor is not unique. CBS broadcast several Survivor seasons in the US, where men and women started off in separate groups. In most cases (the Amazon and One World), the result was the same. The men quickly got their act together, getting access to food, fire and shelter while the women spent a lot of time and energy on petty little squabbles, eating their meager supplies, getting drenched in storms and generally being pathetic. The opposite situation, where men didn’t get their act together while women quickly built a functional micro society, has not yet been observed outside of feminist fiction, and it probably never will.

Read More: Why Patriarchy Is The Greatest Social System Ever Created

04 Apr 11:48

Delta face

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
No one who saw this picture and understands Game was even remotely surprised by the way the Mozilla debacle played out over the last week. Human socio-sexuality is visible to the naked eye; just look at the soft features, the large, teddy-bearish frame, and most important, the uncertain, ready-to-please smile.

This is the very image of a white knight, of a pedestalizer, of a man who would rather surrender than fight. It is the very image of the Delta Male

This is not to say that Brandon Eich is a bad man, an idiot, a failure, or a man to be despised. Quite to the contrary, he is a good man, a highly intelligent man, a massive success, and a man to be admired for his many good qualities. Which, therefore, make him an object lesson in how socio-sexuality is orthogonal to many of those qualities.

Eich responded to his critics in a classic Delta manner. He attempted to assuage and to reason with them. And that is why he failed. He did not snipe back passive-aggressively and appeal to the crowd like a Gamma, he did not enlist superior allies like a Beta, and he did not wreak vengeance upon his challengers like an Alpha. Given his position as Mozilla CEO, the Alpha response was the correct one, indeed, it was the only one that would have ensured his status.

But, here we see how a man's contextual socio-sexual status always gives way to the man's true rank. Given sufficient time, Eich's rank might have eventually grown to reach his contextual status, but he met with the challenge much too soon into his new position, responded inappropriately, and unsurprisingly, met with complete failure.
Alpha Game 2011
02 Apr 17:00

Italy arrests Venetian secessionists

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
ROMA - Blitz dei carabinieri del Ros contro un gruppo secessionista accusato di aver messo in atto "varie iniziative, anche violente", per ottenere l'indipendenza del Veneto, e non solo. L'accusa mossa dalla Procura di Brescia è quella di terrorismo (270 bis c.p.): 24 i provvedimenti restrittivi, 51 indagati in totale e 33 le perquisizioni ordinate dalla procura della Repubblica di Brescia e che hanno interessato il Veneto. Tra gli indagati nell'operazione anche un leader del movimento dei Forconi e un ex deputato, Franco Rocchetta, già sottosegretario di Stato agli Affari esteri tra il 1994 e il 1995.

ROME - A raid by the military police was conducted against a group of secessionists accused of having put into action "various initiatives, some of them violent" to obtain the independence the region of the Veneto. And in addition, the accusation of terrorism was made by the District Attorney of Brescia: of 51 that were investigated in total, 24 were taken into custody of and 33 were ordered to be searched.... Among those arrested in the operation included a leader of the  Sicilian-based "Pitchfork Movement" and a former member of the Chamber of Deputies, (the Italian House of Representatives), Franco Rocchetta, former undersecretary of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs from 1994 to 1995.
I realize that many Americans will find it difficult to credit, but secessionist movements are literally sweeping the entire range of Europe, from the Crimea in the east to Scotland in the West. It is only a matter of time before the economic contraction and increasing social turmoil lead to similar political developments in the USA, especially as the Obama administration and the Congress exhibit increasing political tone-deafness.


Posted by Vox Day.
29 Mar 08:12

A failure of leadership

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
This is what happens when you buy into the tolerance trap and permit the lavender mafia entrance into your organization:
Employees and volunteers at Mozilla - the organisation which promotes open source software such as its Firefox browser - have called for new chief executive Brendan Eich to stand down because of his donations to political campaigns to ban gay marriage.

This week Mozilla named Brendan Eich as its new chief executive, following the resignation of Gary Kovacs which was announced in April last year. Eich was previously Mozilla's chief technology officer and has a long history with the group dating back to before its formation from Netscape, having worked on the Navigator browser in the 90s and creating JavaScript in a marathon, ten-day programming session in 1995.

The controversy stems from a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 to support California's Proposition 8, which opposed gay marriage. The donation was listed in a public database with Mozilla appearing next to Eich's name as his employer. It caused controversy in the technology industry when it was uncovered in 2012.

Eich posted on his own blog to "express my sorrow at having caused pain" and promised an "active commitment to equality" at Mozilla. "I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion," he wrote.

But employees were unconvinced. Chris McAvoy, who leads Mozilla's Open Badges project, took to Twitter last night to call for the new chief executive to stand down and said that he had been "disapointed" by his promotion. 
Eich is in over his head and clearly has no idea what he is dealing with here. He committed a major blunder with that statement; it's rather like watching a gamma male shot down by a woman respond by supplicating even harder.

What he should have done is fired everyone who called upon him to resign and announced that anyone who would permit their political ideology to interfere with their work at Mozilla or Mozilla's internal affairs would be fired. That would have brought the matter to a speedy close and prevented similar outbreaks of political insubordination. Instead, he poured gasoline on the fire by showing that he is vulnerable to ideological pressure.

When confronted by a pressure group, one should never apologize and never back down. Confront every challenger outside the organization and crush every challenger inside it. People respect strength and confidence in a leader, even when they disagree with him, because at least he shows that he is decisive and is capable of providing direction. Ironically, in his inept response to the attacks on him, Eich has shown that he is unfit for leadership because he is fundamentally a follower.

What he should have said is: "Like everyone else at Mozilla, I am free to donate to any political organization or cause I choose. It is no one's business here to tell me to whom I can and cannot donate my money, in the past or in the future. I have donated another $10,000 to [some anti-homogamy outfit], fired Mr. McAvoy for cause, and I will fire any other Mozilla employee or volunteer who publicly demands that this organization to cater to his personal political or ideological beliefs instead of pursuing our corporate objectives."

Posted by Vox Day.
25 Mar 17:12

We Don't Need No Stinking Giant Fans

by Kate

Wind farms vs wildlife;

I'm a lecturer in biological and human sciences at Oxford university. I trained as a zoologist, I've worked as an environmental consultant -- conducting impact assessments on projects like the Folkestone-to-London rail link -- and I now teach ecology and conservation. Though I started out neutral on renewable energy, I've since seen the havoc wreaked on wildlife by wind power, hydro power, biofuels and tidal barrages. The environmentalists who support such projects do so for ideological reasons. What few of them have in their heads, though, is the consolation of science.

My speciality is species extinction. When I was a child, my father used to tell me about all the animals he'd seen growing up in Kent -- the grass snakes, the lime hawk moths -- and what shocked me when we went looking for them was how few there were left. Species extinction is a serious issue: around the world we're losing up to 40 a day. Yet environmentalists are urging us to adopt technologies that are hastening this process. Among the most destructive of these is wind power.

h/t Ken (Kulak)

24 Mar 11:17

College Diversity: Poor Whites Need Not Apply

by Wesley Morganston

We hear a lot about ‘diversity’ these days—especially with regard to colleges. The Center for American Progress, so influential in the Obama presidency that Time wrote after the 2008 election that “President-elect Obama has effectively contracted out the management of his own government’s formation” to its founder, has a post titled “10 Reasons We Need Diversity On College Campuses”, and the influential US News and World Report ranks colleges on diversity, implying, as always, that more is better. The Harvard Gazette trumpets the “gains from diversity”, Yale holds annual conferences on diversity, and just about every college has at least one diversity office—and sometimes more.

But what sort of diversity is this? What do they mean by it?

Thomas Espenshade, a Princeton sociologist, and Alexandria Radford decided to investigate this: they gathered data from the National Study of College Experience, a survey of over 245,000 applicants to eight highly competitive colleges. Their findings began by confirming what was already known:

To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550.

But it gets worse. Other studies found that class doesn’t matter at all:

Other studies, including a 2005 analysis of nineteen highly selective public and private universities by William Bowen, Martin Kurzweil, and Eugene Tobin, in their 2003 book, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education, found very little if any advantage in the admissions process accorded to whites from economically or educationally disadvantaged families compared to whites from wealthier or better educated homes. Espenshade and Radford cite this study and summarize it as follows: “These researchers find that, for non-minority [i.e., white] applicants with the same SAT scores, there is no perceptible difference in admission chances between applicants from families in the bottom income quartile, applicants who would be the first in their families to attend college, and all other (non-minority) applicants from families at higher levels of socioeconomic status. When controls are added for other student and institutional characteristics, these authors find that “on an other-things-equal basis, [white] applicants from low-SES backgrounds, whether defined by family income or parental education, get essentially no break in the admissions process; they fare neither better nor worse than other [white] applicants.”

But the Espenshade-Radford study finds that lower-class Whites are actually worse off:

At the private institutions in their study whites from lower-class backgrounds incurred a huge admissions disadvantage not only in comparison to lower-class minority students, but compared to whites from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds as well. The lower-class whites proved to be all-around losers. When equally matched for background factors (including SAT scores and high school GPAs), the better-off whites were more than three times as likely to be accepted as the poorest whites (.28 vs. .08 admissions probability). Having money in the family greatly improved a white applicant’s admissions chances, lack of money greatly reduced it. The opposite class trend was seen among non-whites, where the poorer the applicant the greater the probability of acceptance when all other factors are taken into account. Class-based affirmative action does exist within the three non-white ethno-racial groupings, but among the whites the groups advanced are those with money.

The key finding, though, is something that no reader of Theden should be surprised by: Whites from certain cultures are flat-out unwanted at these elite colleges.

Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. “Being an officer or winning awards” for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, “has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions.” Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”

It is already clear that there are several distinct cultures in America: Boston diversicrats just don’t talk, act, or think the same way as plumbers from Georgia or farmers from Idaho. The many White cultures in the States generally line up along the partisan divide: there are Brahmins, who vote Democrat, think it’s perfectly respectable to go to graduate school in sociology or do porn to pay for college, and generally don’t know many veterans, farmers, small-businessmen, or non-Brahmins at all, despite thinking their business—and the business of the rest of the world—is best managed by Brahmins; and then there are Vaisyas, who vote Republican, respect stable family men who go to church on Sundays a whole lot more than they do unmarried, latte-sipping activists, and tend not to like it when Brahmins barge in and start telling them how things are going to be done.

Once we have the terms to talk about these things clearly, the message of these colleges becomes clear: no Red Stater—no Vaisya—need apply. Elite colleges are sources of power and status, and the Brahmins want to keep all that to themselves.

23 Mar 21:38

Trashing: the destructive behavior of women in groups.

by sunshinemary

I read a fascinating article recently entitled Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood, which was published in Ms. Magazine in April, 1976.  The piece was written by a woman named Jo Freeman under the pseudonym “Joreen”, who was active and influential in the second wave of feminism occurring at that time.

In her essay, which I recommend reading in its entirety, she talks about her experiences in the feminist movement, with its supposedly-supportive sisterhood; women can be extremely aggressive in their power plays but they do so covertly through “trashing”.  What she writes about describes why any movement or group led by and comprised primarily of women — or men who behave like women rather than men of strength, good character and virtue who address disagreements directly rather than through covert trashing — regardless of whether its aims are good and right or bad and evil, is doomed to failure.  She writes:

It’s been a long time since I was trashed. I was one of the first in the country, perhaps the first in Chicago, to have my character, my commitment, and my very self attacked in such a way by Movement women that it left me torn in little pieces and unable to function. It took me years to recover, and even today the wounds have not entirely healed. Thus I hang around the fringes of the Movement, feeding off it because I need it, but too fearful to plunge once more into its midst. I don’t even know what I am afraid of. I keep telling myself there’s no reason why it should happen again — if I am cautious — yet in the back of my head there is a pervasive, irrational certainty that says if I stick my neck out, it will once again be a lightning rod for hostility. 

…I have been watching for years with increasing dismay as the Movement consciously destroys anyone within it who stands out in any way. I had long hoped that this self-destructive tendency would wither away with time and experience. Thus I sympathized with, supported, but did not speak out about, the many women whose talents have been lost to the Movement because their attempts to use them had been met with hostility…

What is “trashing,” this colloquial term that expresses so much, yet explains so little? It is not disagreement; it is not conflict; it is not opposition. These are perfectly ordinary phenomena which, when engaged in mutually, honestly, and not excessively, are necessary to keep an organism or organization healthy and active. Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not done to expose disagreements or resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy. 

The means vary. Trashing can be done privately or in a group situation; to one’s face or behind one’s back; through ostracism or open denunciation. The trasher may give you false reports of what (horrible things) others think of you; tell your friends false stories of what you think of them; interpret whatever you say or do in the most negative light; project unrealistic expectations on you so that when you fail to meet them, you become a “legitimate” target for anger; deny your perceptions of reality; or pretend you don’t exist at all. Trashing may even be thinly veiled by the newest group techniques of criticism/self-criticism, mediation, and therapy. Whatever methods are used, trashing involves a violation of one’s integrity, a declaration of one’s worthlessness, and an impugning of one’s motives. In effect, what is attacked is not one’s actions, or one’s ideas, but one’s self.

…These feelings are reinforced when you are isolated from your friends as they become convinced that their association with-you is similarly inimical to the Movement and to themselves. Any support of you will taint them. Eventually all your colleagues join in a chorus of condemnation which cannot be silenced, and you are reduced to a mere parody of your previous self.

…Over the years I have talked with many women who have been trashed. Like a cancer, the attacks spread from those who had reputations to those who were merely strong; from those who were active to those who merely had ideas; from those who stood out as individuals to those who failed to conform rapidly enough to the twists and turns of the changing line. With each new story, my conviction grew that trashing was not an individual problem brought on by individual actions; nor was it a result of political conflicts between those of differing ideas. It was a social disease.

Trashing is not only destructive to the individuals involved, but serves as a very powerful tool of social control. The qualities and styles which are attacked become examples other women learn not to follow — lest the same fate befall them. This is not a characteristic peculiar to the Women’s Movement, or even to women. The use of social pressures to induce conformity and intolerance for individuality is endemic to American society [...]

Although only a few women actually engage in trashing, the blame for allowing it to continue rests with us all. Once under attack, there is little a woman can do to defend herself because she is by definition always wrong. But there is a great deal that those who are watching can do to prevent her from being isolated and ultimately destroyed. Trashing only works well when its victims are alone, because the essence of trashing is to isolate a person and attribute a group’s problems to her. Support from others cracks this facade and deprives the trashers of their audience. It turns a rout into a struggle. Many attacks have been forestalled by the refusal of associates to let themselves be intimidated into silence out of fear that they would be next. Other attackers have been forced to clarify their complaints to the point where they can be rationally dealt with.

There is, of course, a fine line between trashing and political struggle, between character assassination and legitimate objections to undesirable behavior. Discerning the difference takes effort. Here are some pointers to follow. Trashing involves heavy use of the verb “to be” and only a light use of the verb “to do.” It is what one is and not what one does that is objected to, and these objections cannot be easily phrased in terms of specific undesirable behaviors. Trashers also tend to use nouns and adjectives of a vague and general sort to express their objections to a particular person. These terms carry a negative connotation, but don’t really tell you what’s wrong. That is left to your imagination. Those being trashed can do nothing right. Because they are bad, their motives are bad, and hence their actions are always bad. There is no making up for past mistakes, because these are perceived as symptoms and not mistakes.

The acid test, however, comes when one tries to defend a person under attack, especially when she’s not there, If such a defense is taken seriously, and some concern expressed for hearing all sides and gathering all evidence, trashing is probably not occurring. But if your defense is dismissed with an oft-hand “How can you defend her?”; if you become tainted with suspicion by attempting such a defense; if she is in fact indefensible, you should take a closer look at those making the accusations. There is more going on than simple disagreement [...]

The Movement’s emphasis on “the personal is political” has made it easier for trashing to flourish. We began by deriving some of our political ideas from our analysis of our personal lives. This legitimated for many the idea that the Movement could tell us what kind of people we ought to be, and by extension what kind of personalities we ought to have. As no boundaries were drawn to define the limits of such demands, it was difficult to preclude abuses. Many groups have sought to remold the lives and minds of their members, and some have trashed those who resisted. Trashing is also a way of acting out the competitiveness that pervades our society, but in a manner that reflects the feelings of incompetence that trashers exhibit. Instead of trying to prove one is better than anyone else, one proves someone else is worse. This can provide the same sense of superiority that traditional competition does, but without the risks involved. At best the object of one’s ire is put to public shame, at worst one’s own position is safe within the shrouds of righteous indignation, Frankly, if we are going to have competition in the Movement, I prefer the old-fashioned kind. Such competitiveness has its costs, but there are also some collective benefits from the achievements the competitors make while trying to outdo each other. With trashing there are no beneficiaries. Ultimately everyone loses.

To support women charged with subverting the Movement or undermining their group takes courage, as it requires us to stick our necks out. But the collective cost of allowing trashing to go on as long and as extensively as we have is enormous. We have already lost some of the most creative minds and dedicated activists in the Movement. More importantly, we have discouraged many feminists from stepping out, out of fear that they, too, would be trashed. We have not provided a supportive environment for everyone to develop their individual potential, or in which to gather strength for the battles with the sexist institutions we must meet each day. A Movement that once burst with energy, enthusiasm, and creativity has become bogged down in basic survival — survival from each other. Isn’t it time we stopped looking for enemies within and began to attack the real enemy without? 

What she describes is not unusual behavior within groups of women.  Men generally do not behave this way in groups, except when the group is led by cowardly, unusually self-centered, or feminine men; cowardly men will engage in trashing behavior because they lack the masculine virtue of direct confrontation and will instead engage in innuendo, rumor-spreading, and misrepresentation to discredit those who disagree with them.  Women, however, nearly always exhibit these group dynamics when left to their own devices.  It takes guidance and good leadership from men to keep groups of women from engaging in this sort of trashing behavior; when women eschew men’s leadership and refuse to submit to their guidance, their natural destructive tendencies rise to the surface very quickly.

20 Mar 19:39

Progressive Discourse: A Sports Analogy

by Brooks Bayne

That contemporary progressive discourse exists to pathologize normalcy is a major premise for me. This is an accurate description of the purpose of contemporary progressive discourse because its terms and concepts were developed as part of a sustained critique of Western civilization as embodied by 20th century Europe and America—which were bourgeois, Christian, and—let’s be honest—pretty normal. They were basically vanilla. You could even say they were whitebread. Capable of producing citizens who maintained presentable front lawns and dispensed of trash in the appropriate receptacles, who distrusted drugs and drinking to excess, who preferred one single heterosexual marriage per lifetime, who paid taxes and raised well-socialized children and committed all sorts of similar crimes of intolerable blandness. Someone had to stop them. From the Authoritarian Personality on down, therefore, the cultural Left began to elaborate increasingly subtle and sophisticated vocabularies for taking these perfectly sane and sanguine attitudes and rendering them isms or phobias.

But my point here isn’t diagnosis; here I just want to draw upon my own deep reserves of male privilege and make a sports analogy that illustrates the abovementioned major premise. I want to show how the term ‘privilege’ doesn’t do much other than vilify people for maintaining standards and recruiting accordingly. And judging by the touchy-feely, Oprah 2.0 shitshow that ESPN has devolved into, sports are the new social justice frontier anyway. So let’s damn the trigger warnings and talk about American football.

Privilege, broadly speaking, is the advantages one enjoys in life based on ‘accidents of birth’, i.e. qualities that you’re either born with or without. The quintessential privilege is ‘White privilege’ (see above etiology of contemporary progressivism), which points out that White people are more likely than their Black, Mexican, etc. counterparts to run lucrative companies, to hold political offices, to achieve all sorts of public triumphs. The argument goes that they experience these outcomes because the system is set up in their favor and thus the fair thing to do would be to dismantle that system in order to let Blacks and browns participate in greater numbers. There are other sorts of privileges, too: male privilege, thin privilege, tall, neurotypical, hetero privilege, cis privilege. You name it. The Tumblr clique isn’t about to give up on a victimhood generation formula just because it’s passing the point of ‘gently used’ these days. No way! Keep em’ coming.

My point is that professional football is a hotbed of able-bodied privilege, aka ability privilege. Our society holds pro football players in extremely high regard. We lavish millions upon them, public acclaim, beautiful women (Michael Sam will coyly refuse his), advertising contracts, the works. These are significant advantages that athletes enjoy, but they’re certainly not available for everyone. And yes of course professional athletes work extremely hard (so do a lot of White, male politicians), but you’d have to be crazy to insist that the sheer capacity to grow to be six foot five inches and two hundred sixty pounds of lean muscle mass doesn’t have a genetic component. These guys won the natal lottery. They have the opportunity to compete at the highest level simply because they were born with massive physical potential. Pure unearned privilege. You’re not going to see time on the gridiron if you’re born blind, or without a limb, or with a serious musculoskeletal condition, or just plain old topping out at five feet even. Sorry, buddy. Better luck next reincarnation.

The NFL privileges able-bodied athletes just as much as the political scene privileges White dudes. Probably even more so, considering it’s not unheard of for a woman or a minority to hold office, whereas there’s nary a gimp or a little fella to found on the Astroturf. So while we’re disabling exclusionary and hegemonic systems, let’s start instituting some controls on our sports hierarchies as well. I for one dream of the day that our society will be forward-thinking enough to stand up and cheer for as a wheelchair-bound running back breaks the tackle of a Down’s-Syndrome lineman and a quadriplegic free safety for Super Bowl glory.

Now your response, of course, is that we maintain certain recruitment standards in the NFL because we want to see high quality, spectacular football—not the Special Olympics. And you’d be right. We want our professional athletes to play their game at a high level. But my response is that this defense is adequate for basically all of the situations in which the ‘check their privilege’ card is played. This perfectly normal preference for people who seem inherently suited for a position is the very normalcy that anti-’privilege’ leftists want to pathologize.

There’s a reason why Western nations have until very recently favored the employment of White males in their positions of public authority: it’s smart recruitment. We want intelligent, cooperative public servants who are capable of both identifying with the people they govern and making the tough decisions nevertheless. The boring old White male, that Gentile schmuck, with his unsophisticated old notions of honor and patriotism and objectivity and personal responsibility, is a safer bet here than his feminine counterpart or his swarthier-hued cousins. And that’s why the ‘system’ privileges them. Because the folks doing the ‘hiring’ there are doing the same sorts of scouting and recruitment calculations that happen countrywide at high-school and college football games. We’re doing our best to make smart decisions in an information-limited world. And this is where the “privilege! privilege! privilege!” accusation starts to ring hollow. This is a normal practice. Why are you so worked up about it? We need a certain type of guy in our uniform here.

Now of course this analysis is a bit of a simplification. In reality you get into spoils systems and backroom dealings and dirty politics and nepotism and all that. Granted. But the point is that in principle, from a basic Bayesian standpoint even, it makes perfect sense to prioritize the involvement of White males. And our tendency to do just that was an adaptive response that occurred during our culture’s upwards trajectory, not some heinous conspiracy initiated after the fact in order to keep the ‘Other’ excluded.

The mistake comes when you begin to conceive of politics as some inert, static quantity of ‘power and influence’ that ought to be redistributed, rather than as something much more akin to a football team, a coalition of people gathered together to win a game. Only in this case, the game is maintaining the rule of law within the state, protecting it from threats internal and external, making and executing long-term geopolitical strategies. It’s a difficult game, of course, and one that everyone loses on a long enough timeline. But it’s silly to think that you shouldn’t put your best folks on the field, whether they won the ‘genetic lottery’ of athletic ability or of tendencies towards bland, vanilla, whitebread, Saltine modes of social organization like cooperation and honesty and of thedish identification with the people they serve.

There’s no mystery here. There’s no mystery to ‘racism’; people want to see their own thrive. There’s no mystery to ‘sexism’; men and women are different. And there’s no mystery behind ‘White male privilege’ either (or any of its other variants); we prioritize the recruitment of people who are likely to excel at that activity we’re recruiting them for. You only need to start worrying when wide-eyed fanatics within your particular polity start imagining this recruitment strategy to be some sort of Satanic conspiracy against the ‘historically marginalized’ among you and attempt to reinvent the political wheel in order to rectify it.

19 Mar 11:12

The high cost of female coders

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
Read between the lines here, and then consider the consequences that hiring just one female engineer has had for a well-funded startup:
The exit of engineer Julie Ann Horvath from programming network GitHub has sparked yet another conversation concerning women in technology and startups. Her claims that she faced a sexist internal culture at GitHub came as a surprise to some, given her former defense of the startup and her internal work at the company to promote women in technology.

In her initial tweets on her departure, Horvath did not provide extensive clarity on why she left the highly valued startup, or who created the conditions that led to her leaving and publicly repudiating the company.

Horvath has given TechCrunch her version of the events, a story that contains serious allegations towards GitHub, its internal policies, and its culture. The situation has greater import than a single person’s struggle: Horvath’s story is a tale of what many underrepresented groups feel and experience in the tech sector....

In short, Horvath said that she felt she was being treated differently internally simply due to her gender and not the quality of her work. She calls her colleagues’ response to her own work and the work of other female GitHub employees a “serious problem.” Despite GitHub hiring more female developers, Horvath said she struggled to feel welcome.
In other words, her colleagues didn't think well of her work, she was having an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with at least one male colleague,  her presence caused the performance of another male colleague to go downhill, (possibly through no fault of her own), she pissed off the founder's wife, spent considerable time on a project of no possible use to the company's bottom line, spend much of her time at the office in the bathroom crying, the founder has now been "put on leave", as has one of the engineers, and the company has inadvertently become the focus of considerable media attention.

How good does a female coder have to be to make her employment worthwhile if all that is the potential cost? Do you think the founder is likely to hire more members of that "underepresented group" the next time he starts a company? Do you seriously believe that every male coder who saw what happened won't remember it in the event he goes off to start his own company? Are other women, like the founder's wives, going to be supportive of their husbands hiring women in the future?

It's fine and dandy to proclaim that men and women should be robots, but it is also a fundamental denial of observable reality. Women are, and always will be, an intrinsically disruptive force so long as men are sexually interested in them. That doesn't mean that the cost of the potential disruption may not be worth it in some cases, but it is simply dishonest to pretend that it isn't a very real and important factor that needs to be considered by every employer. And the more the employment sex police attempt to impose their equalitarian "solutions" to the "problem" on companies, the harder it will be for women to find work in technology.
Alpha Game 2011