Researchers also have found a peculiar pattern in non-Africans: People in China, Japan and other East Asian countries have about 20 percent more Neanderthal DNA than do Europeans.We shouldn't get too carried away with a scientific hypothesis that merely happens to be in line with some computer modeling; if I was inclined to that sort of thing I'd be deeply concerned about global warming. But it is a little ominous; those who think that the third world invasion of the West is harmless should keep in mind the lesson of the Neanderthals. They may have been smarter, but they're not around anymore and Homo sapiens sapiens is.
Last year, Sriram Sankararaman, a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School, and his colleagues proposed that natural selection was responsible for the difference. Most Neanderthal genes probably had modestly bad effects on the health of our ancestors, Dr. Sankararaman and other researchers have found. People who inherited a Neanderthal version of any given gene would have had fewer children on average than people with the human version.
As a result, Neanderthal DNA became progressively rarer in living humans. Dr. Sankararaman and his colleagues proposed that it disappeared faster in Europeans than in Asians. The early Asian population was small, the researchers suggested, and natural selection eliminates harmful genes more slowly in small groups than in large populations. Today, smaller ethnic groups, like Ashkenazi Jews and the Amish, can have unusually high rates of certain genetic disorders.
Joshua M. Akey, a geneticist at the University of Washington, and the graduate student Benjamin Vernot recently set out to test this hypothesis. They took advantage of the fact that only some parts of our genome have a strong influence on health. Other parts — so-called neutral regions — are less important.
A mutation in a neutral region won’t affect our odds of having children and therefore won't be eliminated by natural selection. If Dr. Sankararaman’s hypothesis were correct, you would expect Europeans to have lost more harmful Neanderthal DNA than neutral DNA. In fact, the scientists did not find this difference in the DNA of living Europeans.
Dr. Akey and Mr. Vernot then tested out other possible explanations for the comparative abundance of Neanderthal DNA in Asians. The theory that made the most sense was that Asians inherited additional Neanderthal DNA at a later time.
In this scenario, the ancestors of Asians and Europeans split, the early Asians migrated east, and there they had a second encounter with Neanderthals. Dr. Akey and Mr. Vernot reported their findings in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
In 1948, the Boer government of South Africa enacted a policy called Apartheid. The main purpose of this policy was to segregate the population of South Africa along racial lines—keeping the blacks, coloureds, Indians, and whites separated from one another. As with any racially influenced debate, opinions on the merit and successes of Apartheid (which ended under intense global pressure in 1994) are sharply divided.
One side of the debate typically argues that the segregation of blacks by the white Boer was a crime against the very decency of humanity, and that the treatment of black people by the Apartheid regime were unforgivable acts of bigotry for which white South Africans should be held accountable for. They view the Apartheid regime as one of censorship, forced relocation, and clandestine murders, all of which are wholly unjustified, and that South Africa was an immoral state for half of the twentieth-century.
The other side counters that, while there were crimes committed by the Apartheid government against the black South Africans, the actions of black South Africans post-Apartheid show that the Boer policy was correct and justified. Crime rates, especially those of rape, have sky rocketed since the end of Apartheid.
Although crimes by the black population against the whites are so pervasive and persistent as to put white South Africans on genocide watch, the exorbitant crime rate affects all peoples—last year, the black captain of the national soccer team was killed in a home invasion. Inequality between the rich and poor has widened, and AIDS and HIV infections have become rampant. To top it all off, members of the (currently) ruling ANC party have sung songs containing lyrics which call for the murder of whites, including leftist cultural hero Nelson Mandela.
It’s obvious to see what side of the debate I’m on.
Unfortunately for myself (and quite fortunately for humanity, probably) my opinion on Apartheid is moot. I was one year old when Apartheid was repealed, and I am not even a citizen of South Africa. My writing only reaches a small segment of the population, and most of those readers are quite likely already on the second side of the Apartheid debate.
So let me bash someone who was a South African citizen, who was anti-Apartheid and who was most definitely influential about the debate; John Maxwell Coetzee: authour, smarmy douchebag, and winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Literature.
Commonly referred to as J.M. Coetzee (and who will be referred to solely as Coetzee for the rest of the article because I’m lazy and you’re already bored), John Maxwell Coetzee was born in South Africa in 1940 to a Afrikaner family with roots in South Africa dating back to the 17th century.
Unlike many white children in South Africa today, Coetzee grew up under the safety of the Apartheid government. His childhood was one of bored safety and prosperity; his memoir of that time is a fictionalized autobiography, which means he basically makes up strife about his privileged childhood to make himself look more disadvantaged then he actually was.
While many modern Afrikaner children have to deal with all manner of harm being inflicted upon them by a desegregated multicultural society, Coetzee had a relatively sheltered upbringing and came of age during the radical 60’s. Coetzee spent most of his 20’s attending universities, first moving to the United Kingdom in 1962 and then to the United States in 1965.
He gathered degree after degree (and likely indulged in the sexual revolution with a bevy of co-eds) and participated in anti-Vietnam protests (which cost him a chance at American citizenship…there once was a time the US didn’t take too kindly to rich foreigners spitting on their veterans). Interestingly, while Coetzee was living a life of plenty and privilege in the US (and protesting the service of the young men of his host country while sleeping with their women), many of his Afrikaner peers were being conscripted to fight in a border war with Angola.
In 1968, at the ripe old age of 28, Coetzee got a cushy job teaching at the State University of New York at Buffalo and shortly thereafter wrote his first book in 1971. Coetzee’s writing, as with most people with too much intelligence and privilege and too little wisdom and experience in the real world, was written from a leftist bent, criticizing what he sees as oppressive systems (the [exaggerated] evils of colonization and closed nations which protect their own people are a recurring theme in his book).
Coetzee claims to be neither leftist nor right, portraying himself as being above both, though as mentioned before Coetzee is a) white; b) privileged; and c) spent most of the 1960’s in universities. I’ll let you judge for yourself if Coetzee comes across as the most intolerable kind of leftist; here is the plot summary from another of his autobiographical books [words bolded by Billy]:
Youth (or Youth: Scenes from Provincial Life II) (2002) is a semi-fictionalised autobiographical novel by J. M. Coetzee, recounting his struggles in 1960s London after fleeing the political unrest of Cape Town.
After graduating in mathematics and English, he moves in the hope of finding inspiration of becoming a poet and finding the woman of his dreams. However he finds none of this and instead, takes up a tedious job as a computer programmer. He feels alienated from the natives and never settles down, always aware of the scorn they see him with. He engages in a series of affairs, none of them fulfilling to him in the slightest. He scorns people’s inabilities to see through his dull exterior into the ‘flame’ inside him; none of the women he meets evokes in him the passion that, according to him, would allow his artistry to flourish and thus produce great poetry.
Here are two quotes from the book itself:
At the Everyman Cinema there is a season of Satyajit Ray. He watches the Apu trilogy on successive nights in a state of rapt absorption. In Apu’s bitter, trapped mother, his engaging, feckless father he recognizes, with a pang of guilt, his own parents. But it is the music above all that grips him, dizzyingly complex interplays between drums and stringed instruments, long arias on the flute whose scale or mode — he does not know enough about music theory to be sure which — catches at his heart, sending him into a mood of sensual melancholy that last long after the film has ended.
You can instantly tell a person’s political affiliation by asking them which of these two movies they would rather watch,
Here is a man who: flees political action in his own country, only to protest safely in another country which cannot charge him with any serious crime for political action or conscript him; who aspires to be a poet; who gets angry at people for not seeing how great he is; who watches “worldly” films from non-white countries; and who hates his parents, who treated him so badly that Coetzee is able to literally travel around the world and waste his youth banging out the burgeoning horde of Anglo sluts.
Oh – and he also is “alienated” from his fellow whites in the white countries he goes to, even though he has no trouble bedding the women of those countries. Coetzee is spoiled, hates his parents, hates his skin colour (though not the women who share his skin colour), is completely self assured of his own genius—though he blames others for not becoming the world’s greatest poet that he knows he is. Remind you of any members of the modern ultra left?
Seriously though; in the last golden age of Hollywood movies, Coetzee finds the Apu Trilogy to be his closest to his soul? Jesus Christ.
In the early 70’s, when the political turmoil had abated somewhat and too old and prestigious to be conscripted into the military to fight he ongoing bush war, Coetzee returned to South Africa and continued his writing career with furor. Coetzee’s anti-white, anti-nationalist, anti-western book themes found a very receptive audience amongst the boomer liberals and Marxists who had taken over the intellectual establishments during the 60’s and 70’s.
During speeches at award ceremonies (the ones he could be bothered going to: Coetzee is infamous for not even bothering to show to collect his awards—unless, of course, they’re top-tier honours), Coetzee would rile on about the social inequalities about the Apartheid regime, especially in relation to its art.
South African literature is a literature in bondage. It is a less than fully human literature. It is exactly the kind of literature you would expect people to write from prison.
Coetzee publicly called for an end to Apartheid. Remember: this is a man who grew up in a safe, nearly all white community, which was provided by the policy of Apartheid. This is a man who fled South Africa’s political turmoil when it might have affected him. Living a life of luxury, living in a community protected by people whom he implied were less than human, Coetzee pushed hard to end Apartheid.
Though not the sole proponent of anti-Apartheid, and certainly not the most important member of the movement, Coetzee’s wish finally came true in 1994. Apartheid, under intense international and local pressure, was ended.
And the crime wave began.
South Africans of all ethnicities came under attack as the stern fist of Apartheid was swept from the land. A terrorist who had signed off on bombings which had killed dozens of people was put in charge, and his thuggish party, openly espousing murderous racial hate, brought in a corrupt regime which to this day continues to expand the gulf between the rich and the poor of all ethnicities in South Africa. Black, Indian, white—for all these people, violence is a very real possibility.
So, Coetzee had finally gotten his wish, and the bondage in South Africa had been lifted. Now it was time for Coetzee to enjoy the fruits of his labours, right? After all, this was exactly what he wanted. He was a moral crusader—nay! He was a liberator! A paragon of human rights! This was a victory for not only him, nor just for South Africa, but for the world!
Yet it turns out that the newly unleashed violent elements of South Africa didn’t quite agree with Coetzee’s ego. They liberally targeted all peoples, the blacks, the whites—even the good whites, like Coetzee and his friends. Coetzee’s final book as a citizen of South Africa was Disgrace (1999), which features an assault on a white man and a white woman being raped pregnant by some black men. Though very popular with the moralist crowd, several black South African politicians were angered and publicly denounced Coetzee.
They needn’t have worried though; Coetzee is a man lacking all moral and ethical fibre. Shortly after Apartheid ended, and his fellow citizens were being subjected to cruelties beyond imagining, Coetzee went house shopping. And by house shopping, I mean he went looking for another country. In 2002, a short 8 years after Apartheid had ended, Coetzee fled to Australia, abandoning post-Apartheid South Africa to its fate. Coetzee gave an incredibly pathetic excuse for doing so:
I did not so much leave South Africa, a country with which I retain strong emotional ties, but come to Australia. I came because from the time of my first visit in 1991, I was attracted by the free and generous spirit of the people, by the beauty of the land itself and – when I first saw Adelaide – by the grace of the city that I now have the honour of calling my home.
Yes, Coetzee didn’t “abandon” South Africa. He just…came, to somewhere else; even though he initially admitted he fled because of the waxing crime rate. It’s amazing that so many people can say with a straight face that Coetzee is one of the premier authors writing today.
Of course the truth of the matter was that Coetzee fled South Africa because of the crime. He wanted to tear down a system which—while admittedly oppressive toward one specific group—kept a semblance of peace amongst all the races in South Africa. Once it was torn down and it was time to rebuild, and it was time for Coetzee’s to put his money where his mouth was and actually do something besides criticize, guilt, and moralize, when he finally got to live in the exact type of society he so virulently professed to wanting to live in, he fled like the coward he is to another country…one which just so happened to be predominantly white. I thought Coetzee was alienated by whites? He professed to feeling a spiritual connection to some Indians. Why not move to India?
No, it was to the white country of Australia that this holier-than-thou man fled, and the next year to award Coetzee for all his moral crusading they gave him the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize in Literature (citing his place of residence as South Africa instead of Australia where it actually was). Since it was so prestigious, Coetzee actually showed up in Stockholm to collect his prize. Instead of a speech he read from Robinson Crusoe.
So now, while many South Africans live in constant fear, facing perpetual violence, J.M. Coetzee is sunning himself in the vastly more peaceful continent of Australia. He’s still writing.
It’s funny how consistent these types are with their hypocrisy. People like Coetzee, and modern leftists and social justice warriors and anti-racists and all these other so called humanists and moral crusaders endlessly spew about the injustices of the world, and how we need to tear down the barriers and throw away the system and start afresh…yet they’re almost always amongst the first ones to flee once those very barriers are taken down and it’s time to get dirty and start the rebuilding.
You see it amongst the democrats in the United States, who vote in slick politicians parroting their democratic ideals—then they flee the state when those ideals are enacted, only to repeat their same idiotic choices while looking down on the less enlightened. White people spouting anti-racist sentiments then moving out of their neighborhood the moment the first non-whites begin showing up is so common it’s a cliché.
I myself am a former Neo-Nazi, and yet I have more brown, black, Asian and [insert race here] friends than the most fervent anti-racist I know, who is a suburban white girl who hasn’t even so much as taken a poking from a penis that wasn’t snow white yet once railed for damn near two hours about the lack of diversity in our university dorm. She’s currently engaged to a white guy and lives in a lily white town of about 3,000 people in rural Canada.
We need to stop tolerating people like Coetzee and all these other goddamn moralizers, because it’s going to be the common people that pay for their self righteousness. When the going gets tough, rich, privileged scum-bags like Coetzee have no problem financially or ethnically about fleeing to greener pastures, and leaving behind their poorer and nobler peers to clean up after them.
It’s time to stop caring about what Coetzee and all the people like him have to say. Because I can guarantee you, at the end of the day, whatever your race, they sure as hell do not care about you. They see all of us as nothing more than pawns to feed their egos. Let them starve.
Leftists are people who have a conscience but act like sociopaths. If the Leftist were really a sociopath, he would not need excuses, justifications, and rationalizations to fill his yammering mouth and empty his wrathful brain.We are all potential Leftists. We are all capable of rationalizing away our own particular sins. How good I am, because I am not a glutton, says the slender whore. How good I am, because I am not a slut, says the obese woman as she stuffs her face. How good I am, because I am not a murderer, says the homosexual. How good I am, because I am not a thief, says the killer.
Please note also that this behavior only surfaces on matters where the Leftist has turned Left and turned off his brain in a vain attempt to turn off his conscience, which he wrongly believes to be lodged in the brain. A Leftist can be a good coworker, even a good friend, if you stick to topics where the Leftist brain-parasite called guilt does not take root and bloom like ghastly fungi expanding from his hypothalamus and medulla oblongata to suck up all his gray matter and ooze sinuously out of eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears.
I have talked with social Leftists about economic issues, for example, without triggering their brain-fungi response. The Leftist will mouth the normal sounding American ideals about Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness provided you do not crowd him too closely to ask him what those things mean, or why their heroes Che and Mao and crystal meth dealer Matthew Shepard slain by his gay lover and fellow drug dealer Aaron McKinney fit into the idea of the American Way, then and only then will the brain fungi erupt, and the human-shaped skull be cracked and flung aside, revealing the fleshy lobes and convolutions of the nonhuman being beneath.
Leftists are reasonable and decent people except in their particular areas of sensitivity, by which I mean, of course, where they are hiding their smothering guilt, and — this point bears emphasizing — not all of them are sensitive about the same thing, because not all of them sold the same section of their brains to the Fungi from Yuggoth for the same reason.
No one has sold all his brain, and no one is an entirely self consistent Leftist, so what triggers one Leftist into frothing inanity is not what triggers another. But the behavior once triggered is the same. That behavior is flight from reason.
As stated above, Leftism is what you get when you stop reasoning.
Their reasoning is marred and crippled because they mar and cripple reason so that reason will not operate properly. They want reason not to operate properly because reason shows them a truth that they cannot abide. They cannot abide the truth because the truth condemns them. Truth condemns them because they do evil.
I read these quotes and can't help comparing to your Rabbitology posts.It is hard for rabbits to break out of the warren, and even harder for them to become a not-rabbit. Don't expect much in the way of reason from the pinkshirts, for as it is said, it is difficult to reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into. This is why they switch fluidly between contradictory positions as easily as a school of fish changes direction; they're not paying any attention to the direction of the school, they're completely focused on the actions of the rabbits around them.
"What I had failed to understand was that the security I felt in the Party was that of a group and that affection in that strange communist world is never a personal emotion. You were loved or hated on the basis of group acceptance, and emotions were stirred or dulled by propaganda. That propaganda was made by the powerful people at the top. That is why ordinary Communists get along well with their groups: they think and feel together and work toward a common goal."
- School of Darkness, Chapter 16 (1954), Dr. Bella Dodd, head of the New York State Teachers Union , member of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) in the 1930s and 1940s, later a vocal anti-communist
"The process of completely freeing oneself emotionally from being a Communist is a thing no outsider can understand. The group thinking and group planning and the group life of the Party had been a part of me for so long that it was desperately difficult for me to be a person again. ... But I had begun the process of “unbecoming” a Communist. It was a long and painful process, much like that of a polio victim who has to learn to walk all over again. I had to learn to think. I had to learn to love. I had to drain the hate and frenzy from my system. I had to dislodge the self and the pride that had made me arrogant, made me feel that I knew all the answers. I had to learn that I knew nothing. There were many stumbling blocks in this process."
Today’s Great Man quote comes from H. L. Mencken, demonstrating amazing prescience for the evolution of society into a wasteland of ugly feminists yammering incessantly about rape-culture culture.
The woman who is not pursued sets up the doctrine that pursuit is offensive to her sex, and wants to make it a felony. No genuinely attractive woman has any such desire. ― H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women
Burn status: crisp! “The woman who is not pursued” = ugly feminist. This is what it comes down to: Ugly women loathing male desire, resenting their exclusion from the sexual market (and that exclusion is much more painful for women, because in the whole women have an easier time getting laid than do men), and making absurd demands to rearrange society so that their romantic rejection is less obvious to others. Misery loves company.
A Man forbids his wife to drink too much because, deep in his secret archives, he has records of the behavior of other women who drank too much, and is eager to safeguard his wife’s self-respect, and his own dignity, against what he knows to be certain invasion. In brief, it is a commonplace of observation, familiar to all males beyond the age of twenty-one, that once a woman is drunk the rest is a mere matter of time and place: the girl is already there. ― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices
Women who don’t want to be pumped and dumped have a responsibility to stay off the hooch. If they won’t accept that responsibility, then men will have to make their decisions for them. Unrock the vote!
Of course, despite the deluge of feminist idiocy (and the warnings from the Great Men), feminists continue to win social and political battles. UVA, doubtlessly run and operated by a small army of man-haters, responded to the rape hoax on its campus by… punishing the lying women? Defunding feminist circle diddles? No, by instituting new rules and restrictions for the fraternities that were unfairly accused of fueling a crazy woman’s fantasies.
Oh well, the Chateau will remain a respite from the apocalyptic insanity.
One million people were today preparing to march through the streets of Paris in tribute to the 17 victims of massacre in the city. British Prime Minister David Cameron was one of approximately 40 world leaders scheduled to take part in the solidarity march in the French capital. In a show of support for the French people, Mr Cameron was to stand alongside French President Francois Hollande in sympathy for the victims executed by terrorists....This is nothing more than a futile demonstration meant to prop up the failing status quo, which is so fragile that a single jihadist could render it all moot in seconds today. None of this will end until the genie is again returned to the bottle, which is to say, until Islam has been forcibly expelled from the continent for the third time.
Security services across the world have reportedly received intelligence that more terror attacks are ‘highly likely’, as a ring of steel was placed around the French capital for today’s march. There are fears that Al Qaeda and Islamic State-linked terror cells will be activated as the city prepares to host the rally this afternoon.
By mid-morning, approximately 2,000 police officers and 1,400 soldiers were deployed across Paris in an atmosphere described by one officer on the scene as ‘extremely tense’. French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said ‘exceptional measures’ were being taken to try and prevent further attacks, including deploying snipers on roofs.
“This bloodbath proves that those who laughed at or ignored the fears of so many people about a looming danger of Islamism were wrong,” said Alexander Gauland, a regional leader of AfD, which has its roots in the euro crisis and is currently riding at 25% in nationwide polls, on the day of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. “This gives new weight to Pegida demands.”
In France the leader of the far-right Front National, Marine Le Pen, went further. “We must be in a position to respond to the war that has been declared by Islamist fundamentalism,” she said after a meeting on Friday of party leaders called at the Élysée Palace by the president, François Hollande.
“I regret that word has not been uttered by [Hollande] nor other politicians. The first thing when one is fighting a war is to be able to know what we’re fighting. We’re fighting an ideology, Islamist fundamentalism. Not to say it is a proof of weakness.”
She doesn’t want anything to do with this. She hates the situation and she hates herself in this moment. She wishes more than anything that she could trade places with you. Yes, it seems like it’s a lot easier to be on her side of things. But really, she wants nothing to do with this side. She really, actually wishes she could be the one whose heart is getting broken, instead of the one who has to do the hurting....This is an Sigma blueprint for how to Next a woman.
She reminds herself that you can easily find love again, and maybe someday, you might just forget nearly everything about her. All she hopes is that you know she was trying to do her best. She was walking around blindly, completely terrified and hopeless and uncertain. But she was trying. She wanted to follow her instincts and do what she thinks was the right thing.
For most of my career as a writer, I have been reluctant to join in the “culture wars,” mostly because I don’t fit into either of the two opposing camps. As an atheist, I’m not longing for a return to traditional religious morality, but as an individualist, I’ve never supported the weird victim-group crusades of the left.Being moderate and tolerant and neutral and uninterested didn't save the Jews in Germany. It didn't save the peasants in China or the farmers in the Soviet Union. And it won't save you in the 21st century West. When the SJWs say there is "no place" for various forms of thought, belief, and expression, they mean there is no place for you.
I have mostly dedicated myself to making the case for smaller government, pointing out the failure of the welfare state, and keeping the environmentalists from shutting down industrial civilization—little things like that. Oh, and also war—not the “culture war,” but war war, the kind where people are actually trying to kill us.
So for the most part, my position on an issue like gay marriage could be summed up as: “Can we please talk about something else now?”
Partly, this comes from my small-government outlook, which holds that some things—indeed, most things, and virtually all of the really important things—should be outside the realm of politics. That definitely includes other people’s sex lives, about which I would like to know a good deal less than is fashionable at the moment.
But this year, I discovered that while I might not be interested in the culture war, the culture war is interested in me. It’s interested in all of us. This is the year when we were served noticed that we won’t be allowed to stand on the sidelines, because we will not be allowed to think differently from the left.
You depend on women for validation. So do I. We all do. Possibly the hardest part of the red pill to swallow is accepting that we all desperately long for the attention and affection of females.
We’re biologically programmed to want to have sex with them, and we’re socially conditioned to seek their approval. There’s no way around this. It feels good to be inside of a woman. And it feels good to hold one in your embrace, or have one by your side.
However it’s part of our masculine pride to deny this reality. We are too proud to admit this fact, and we often live under its shadow as a result. But the thing is: you must come to terms with this simple truth in order to be able to free yourself from its chains. And the only way to do this is is internalize the following critical distinction:
Depending on where you are in your life you’re either longing for a hookup buddy, a harem of such buddies, a girlfriend, or a wife. Or you have it. Regardless of which category you fall under, this concept is equally important to adopt and believe.
For example, if you’re single and looking for women to hook up with, but not wife up, this is important because it will remove the outcome dependence that corrupts your game by communicating your thirstiness and NEED to bed her. Or maybe you’re in a relationship. In this case realizing that you don’t NEED the relationship to work out, no matter how badly you WANT it to, will keep you from acting like a needy bitch, communicate yourself honestly without worrying about rocking the boat, and allow you free your emotions from the current state of the relationship (e.g. you can’t sleep because your girl is mad at you).
These are the two most common scenarios to which applying this principle applies. However it’s main benefit is something far more important:
Don’t lie: how often do you think, worry, or otherwise cause yourself anxiety because of women?
I know that when I’m single I tend to stress about whether or not I’m going to get laid this week, whether or not that new lead will text back, or if my night out will be successful.
On the other hand, when you’re in a relationship, it’s common and normal to worry about your partner. Is she upset with you? Why is she acting weird? Who’s that guy she’s texting?
The thing is: all of these anxious thoughts are caused by your attachment to the outcome of the relationship, the night, the date, or the new prospect. By reminding yourself that you don’t NEED whichever of the above you’re stressing about to work out, that you only WANT it to, you can put it off your mind and focus on the task at hand whether that’s hanging out with your buddies, working out, or working on your business.
While female connection and sex are great things that we all want, we simply do not need them to in order to be happy and enjoy all the other areas of our lives. You can still crush your career without sex or a partner. You can still go on adventures without women. You can still bond with male friends.
By constantly reminding yourself of this simple truth, you will slowly reframe how you view women in your mind. You will begin to stop seeing them as objects that you MUST deal with and conquer and start seeing them as awesome opportunities that can only add value to your life. The ironic thing is: your game and your relationships will actually improve as a result.
For 24 other quick ways to boost your confidence, check out my new book Confidence Hacks.
Four young Christians were brutally beheaded by ISIS in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam, according to a British reverend forced to flee the country. Canon Andrew White, known as the Vicar of Baghdad, told the horrifying story how of the youths, all under 15, were murdered for standing up to the jihadists.Honor the faith of the four young martyrs by reaffirming your own. And note this: "Iraq had 1.5 million Christians before the US-led invasion in 2003, but now all that are left are 250,000 who have been displaced from their homes in the north of the country by the advance of ISIS."
The vicar of the city’s St George's Church, the only Anglican church in the whole of Iraq, has had to leave the country for Israel amid constant threats on his life by Islamic State. In a harrowing interview with the Orthodox Christian Network, he said ISIS had killed ‘huge numbers’ of believers in Jesus.
‘Islamic State turned up and said to the children, “you say the words that you will follow Mohammad”’, he said, his voice cracking with emotion.
‘The children, all under 15, four of them, said “no, we love Yesua; we have always loved Yesua; we have always followed Yesua; Yesua has always been with us”.
‘They [ISIS] said, “Say the words.” They [the children] said, “No, we can't”.
‘They chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry. They are my children. That is what we have been going through and that is what we are going through.'
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.Now it has come. The statesmen of the West have failed. The preventable evils were not prevented. Now they must play out, as history shows that they have always played out.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles.... As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood." That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come.
The most recent mtDNA study we stumbled across, is from our perspective the final nail in the coffin of the Out-of-Africa theory. Once, twice and a third time over, separate genetic studies of Homo sapien sapiens, dingoes and now song birds, stand united in ascribing the same place of origin: Australia.
The genetic facts in these equations are incontestable, the distinctive and unique nature of the mitochondrial DNA of both the dingo and Mungo Man (WLH 3) cannot be matched to any like species on this planet.
The insurmountable problem these genetic studies creates is obvious, if both Australian dingo and human are unique, the question that demands to be answered relates to how can it be that there is common belief that Original Australians came from Africa and the ancestor of the dingo lived in Southern India? What is puzzling is that despite the imposing evidence to the contrary, every text, university and lecturer will earnestly claim that the Out-of-Africa theory is an unquestionable fact. Equally, from the same department their books assure us that all dogs, canines and wolves share the same ancestry, but that is not true in the dingoes' case. All of this smells like bad science and lazy thinking, but it gets worse, there are birds in the air to reconsider and reposition.
We reported in April on an ‘Equity Action Summit‘ that identified White racism as the source for all major dysfunctions in majority-Black Detroit. It should come as no surprise, then, that another group has taken up that summit’s narrative. According to the Associated Press, Wayne State University has tasked itself with an investigation into why the Detroit of 2014 more closely resembles a third-world country than the powerhouse of innovation and prosperity that the Motor City was only fifty years ago:
About two dozen leaders will gather for the first meeting of an effort to study structural racism in Detroit and make recommendations for change…Structural racism can refer to ways that minorities may be treated differently by government and other institutions.
One suspects that “structural racism” was added in this time as a tacit admission of the demographic realities of Detroit. (Whites currently make up a mere 7.8% of Detroit’s population, so it’s hard to imagine, even factoring in the magical powers of privilege, how they could be oppressing Blacks directly.) But one still has to wonder just who is being racist towards whom. This is Detroit’s current City Council:
The council is made up of Brenda Jones, George Cushingberry Jr, Saunteel Jenkins, James Tate, Scott Benson, Andre L. Spivey, Mary Sheffield, Raquel Castaneda-Lopez and Gabe Leland. Now, if Detroit still had an odd outlier situation, where an 80+ percent Black city is represented by a bunch of rich White people, one could make, prima facie at least, an argument that White racism (and the structural racism that the presence of Whites in positions of authority is supposed to inhere) is to blame for Detroit’s free-fall over the past several decades. As you can see, though, the elected representatives of Detroit are also racially representative of the city’s demographics.
Another popular place at which progressive Brahmins direct the critique of “structural racism” is local police departments. Regardless of the unpleasant facts of crime statistics and the politically incorrect conclusions toward which they point, our current elites always fall back on law enforcement as being an effective executor of the agenda of White racism in regards to Blacks. So perhaps the Wayne State group is looking to sniff out some bigotry in the Detroit Police Department. Once again, though, the observable reality of the situation undermines any such claims:
There are six more members of the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners. And the pattern holds.
The Wayne State group is another instance of a larger trend that has been drawing attention on this site, as well as elsewhere. While the world continues to present new and unexpected challenges, both here and abroad, our Brahmin elites are essentially stuck in an endless fallback position. Proposals to stop flights from Ebola-afflicted countries? Racism. Concerns about unchecked immigration, a supersaturated labor market, the displacement of American citizens? Racism. Any given organization, activity, or field that under-represents Blacks? Undoubtedly racism.
And here is Detroit, a city that has been Black for at least four decades, a modern metropolis that has undergone probably the most tragic and complete collapse of any of its kind… and the answer they once again come up with?
You know the answer.
So why does our Brahmin class insist on blaming White racism, especially in a place like Detroit where the narrative borders on the absurd? Our initial report provides a clue in one, simple sentence:
The lab is funded by a $1.3 million grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Commenter PA aptly compares the mind control psy ops of the American Hivemind to invidious methods employed by 20th century Communists.
The purpose of agitprop (agitation and propaganda) was to motivate the Bolsheviks and demoralize the rest. A constant stream of such images and headlines flashing before us is designed to do just that. And demoralize it does, those who are still ‘blue pill.’ Demoralization takes various forms, from despair, to confusion, to Stockholm syndrome, to a sense of unpersonhood.
The last one is what those under the effects of PCP describe as a sense of lacking a physical body — and what Lawrence Auster (the late, great analyst of the metaphysics of leftism) described as Whites being framed as bodiless beings who lack a concrete physical identity and culture, and are only capable of good or evil as measured by their attitude toward non-whites.
Naturally, comments under that [anti-white] article are turned off. The article can be picked apart in moments by anyone here, or just search the net for “black privilege”.
America is a communist country; does anyone here have any lingering doubts? Look at a defense industry web page. Conservative stuff, eh?
A hostile elite can’t demographically displace the majority until it has first displaced the majority’s sense of identity. Sixty years on, the latter goal has been realized in the USSA. Now achievement of the original mission — race replacement of whites by non-whites without violent backlash — is just a formality.
I believe this is PA’s second COTW award. I wonder who holds the record? GBFM?
Speaking of the devilzzllzol, GBFM takes home this edition of the COTW runner-up award:
the peer review system
Socrates and Jesus
Sometimes direct observation is better than waiting for peer review to guide your decisions.
COTW consolation prize goes to everybodyhatesscott, for his reminder that God Himself was not averse to knocking up teen girls.
The virgin Mary was mid to early teens. If it’s good enough for God.
God didn’t search out a women’s studies grad student for supreme alpha fertilization, either.
Brosephus Aurelius @BrobuntuThe object, obviously, is to create a rift between us that he can exploit; the rabbit is dangling the opportunity for me to win his approval by denouncing Roosh, which he will then immediately turn into a weapon to use against Roosh. This is the "Divide and Denounce" tactic. My favorite part is where he attempts to deny that he's trying to disqualify Roosh and claims he's merely "checking if you knew his past public exposure before linking". As you do, I suppose. But his language gives him away even in the denial; he says "I'm not disqualifying" rather than "I'm not trying to disqualify", which tells us that he assumes that his opinion is sufficient to disqualify someone. This is a key SJW trait.
but what the fuck is a pink shirt
A subset of SJWs. (link to Roosh's article)
wait isnt Roosh that PUA sex tourist guide guy that offended a good chunk of europe with his books?
Straight to DISQUALIFY. Textbook SJW. Well done.
I'm not disqualifying his opinion, just checking if you knew his past public exposure before linking. I'm still reading the link
Roosh has not offended most of us who live here in Europe. I know exactly who he is. And I don't subscribe to the Genetic Fallacy.
hey there's not a single mention of pink anything in that link, so I'm confused as to how it ties into my question
Perhaps this will help you: (link to my response to Roosh's article.)
wait so you personally made up this word and it's definition, then expect everyone to keep up with it by default?
I don't have any expectation of you at all. I don't care what you do, say, or think. Accept or reject, as you see fit.
well this is a pretty vast conspiracy put forth, I'm going to need somewhat of a more rigorous source than a few people's blog posts
especially when you're making an implicit appeal to ethos without any visible standing in that regard, as you're anonymous
My "visible standing" is 1.5 million monthly pageviews. Accept or reject, as you see fit. Not my concern.
James Mathurin @jameswisesonThis is another point to notice. SJWs are shameless hypocrites. They will completely ignore the very same charges that they hurl - in this case, a knowingly false charge against Roosh for "violating" a U.S. state's age of consent law in a country with a lower age of consent - against their targets if those charges are directed at them or someone they consider to be on their side. While you can easily expose their hypocrisy in the eyes of others, being exposed won't even slow them down, so don't hang your hat on it.
@Brobuntu @voxday Don't forget he's also an admitted rapist.
No, that's John "I'm a rapist" @scalzi. You can even hear him admit it here: (link to MP3)
Nah, it's Roosh.
That's a direct quote from 25 October 2012. You literally can't get any more "self-admitted rapist" than that.
At some point, will you explain why you think I care? I was talking about Roosh V being an admitted rapist.
You've provided no evidence at all. I've provided conclusive proof that John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist.
So, you are actually saying that you don't care that John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist. Wow just wow.
11/10 wizard tier trolling
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.Always keep AGW/CC in mind whenever you see someone appealing to "scientific consensus". Scientific consensus is democracy. It is politics. It is collective opinion and it should not be confused with the actual scientific process (scientody) any more than the contents of the sewage system at a convention of scientists are.
Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.
In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).
"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid." He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.
"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years."
With Gamergate, we may finally have found the line in the sand when it comes to how far men will allow feminists to go in eradicating male spaces. As Social Justice Warrior (SJW) Brianna Wu explains at The Washington Post (H/T Vox):
Gamergate is ostensibly about journalistic ethics. Supporters say they want to address conflicts of interest between the people that make games and the people that support them. In reality, Gamergate is a group of gamers that are willing to destroy the women who have invaded their clubhouse.
SJW hyperbole aside, there is some truth to what she is saying. At its core Gamergate is about gamers rejecting feminists and other SJWs who are trying to feminize their games. The move to mark video games as feminine comes after a long series of capitulations. In the eyes of feminists everything must be marked as feminine, from our nuclear submarines and special forces to the NFL. And everywhere feminists have marched, men have capitulated. That is everywhere but video games, as Wu explains:
For 30 years, video games have been designed by men, marketed to men and sold to men. It’s obvious to anyone outside the industry that video games have serious issues with the portrayal of women…
The consequence of this culture is male gamers have been trained to feel video games are their turf. In stopping Gamergate, the men who dominate it – not just women — must address the culture that created Gamergate.
Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives are quick to deride men who play video games as “Peter Pan manboys”. However, gamers as a group have found the courage to stand up to feminism, and this kind of courage is something which so far Christians have been unable to muster. Some things are too important to give up without a fight. Perhaps if the gamers ultimately prevail, Christians will be inspired and decide that Christianity is also worth defending from the feminist onslaught.
Thousands of people "will most likely be massacred" if Kobani falls to Islamic State fighters, a U.N. envoy said on Friday, as militants fought deeper into the besieged Syrian Kurdish town in full view of Turkish tanks that have done nothing to intervene.I'm sure the Turks are amused by the passive-aggressive criticism of their failure to defend the very Kurds who have been violently rebelling against their rule for decades, if not centuries. It's one thing to wipe out your enemies. But one can hardly criticize a people who, upon seeing someone else doing it for them, shrug, look on, and say, "you know, defending those people is really neither our problem nor our interest."
There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God's way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly 'theocentric'. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man's eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a 'love' that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).
Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit.
Telegony is the belief that the sire first mated to a female will have an influence upon some of that female's later offspring by another male. Although the reality of telegony was acknowledged by such authorities as Darwin, Spencer, Romanes and many experienced breeders, it has been met with scepticism because of Weismann's unfavourable comments and negative results obtained in several test experiments. In this article, alleged cases of telegony are provided. A search of the literature of cell biology and biochemistry reveals several plausible mechanisms that may form the basis for telegony. These involve the penetration of spermatozoa into the somatic tissues of the female genital tract, the incorporation of the DNA released by spermatozoa into maternal somatic cells, the presence of foetal DNA in maternal blood, as well as sperm RNA-mediated non-Mendelian inheritance of epigenetic changes.This could have severe societal repercussions if telegony turns out to have a solid basis in genetic science. It should be fairly easy to confirm too, by comparing the DNA of a woman's children to that of the man to whom she lost her virginity but was not the father of her children. It would certainly renew the value of a woman's virginity.
Drudge via Time has picked up Jenny Bahn’s piece at XO Jane 30 Is the New 50: “Old Age” is Killing My Dating Life. What is fascinating is that while Bahn has stumbled on the painful truth, she still can’t fully connect the dots regarding her own choices. She can’t see that the young women she is unable to compete against are the younger version of herself. They don’t want to settle down now, but give them a decade and they will be singing the same song Bahn is singing now, complaining that men don’t want to commit. What is wrong with men?
It’s this logic that has most of my 30-something guy friends dating girls fresh out of college. Girls who, in my experience, are less impressive, less striving, less volatile, less successful, less intimidating, less questioning, less pressing, less complex, less damaged, less opinionated, less powerful, less womanly. They are less, and, to a guy not ready for anything — like most of the guys I have dated in New York — less is more.
A 30-year-old woman is an undertaking…
Now that she has more baggage and is more difficult, she expects more from men than she expected when she was younger and prettier. Is that too much to ask?
Fortune both grants favor and revokes it. Plutarch, wise in the ways of such things, puts this prescient little speech into the mouth of Aemilius Paullus, who was addressing a group of intemperate young men:
Is it fitting for a mortal man to become bold when he enjoys success, or proud because he has conquered a nation or a city or a kingdom? Or should he instead contemplate this reversal of fortune, which provides for any man who wages war an instructive example of our common vulnerability and teaches us that nothing is stable and secure? What sort of moment is it for mortals to be confident, when their victory over other men obliges them to be most afraid of fortune, and when a happy man can be reduced to dejection by his knowledge that destiny follows a circular course, coming to different men at different times?…Can you then believe that our own affairs enjoy any lasting protection from the vicissitudes of fortune? Young men, will you not then abandon your hollow insolence and let go of your pride…and instead look towards the future with humility, always watchful of the moment when the divine will at last exacts from each of you retribution for your present prosperity?
Falls from Fortune’s grace can come with distressing speed. Captain William Bligh, a respected officer of the British Navy and merchant service, discovered for himself just how cruel such reversals can be. Awarded the captaincy of H.M.S. Bounty in 1787, he and his crew sailed for Tahiti on a mission to collect breadfruit trees for agricultural use in the Caribbean. After ten months at sea on a voyage that exceeded 27,000 miles, the Bounty finally reached the South Seas. Much has been written on the character of Bligh and his style of command; while not the tyrannical monster he has been made out to be, he certainly was a product of the British maritime service’s severe disciplinary culture.
William Bligh: a complex and controversial figure
A competent and meticulous mariner, he nevertheless lacked a measure of joviality that might have softened his harsher edges. Deaf to the music of mildness, his coldness and detachment prevented him from extending to his crew those incidental touches of magnanimity that might have done much to relieve the tedium of a long sea voyage. Tensions multiplied, and Bligh’s appointment with the laughing mistress Fortune was not long in coming. He later related how he was seized by the mutineers:
Just before sun-rising, while I was yet asleep, Mr. [Fletcher] Christian…came into my cabin, and seizing me, tied my hands with a cord behind my back, threatening me with instant death if I spoke…I was hauled out of bed, and forced on deck in my shirt, suffering great pain from the tightness with which they had tied my hands.
For Bligh and the crew members loyal to him, things were about to become much worse. He and eighteen other men were cast adrift in a leaky open boat only twenty-three feet in length, and which was so overloaded that it was in constant danger of being swamped. One errant wave of sufficient size might have spelled the end for them. For provisions, they were permitted only the barest of essentials: some salt pork, bread, wine, rum, water, and a few cutlasses.
Most significantly, they were given no charts or navigational equipment; the mutineers permitted them only a compass and an old quadrant. In the enormity of the Pacific Ocean, to try to navigate by such primitive reckonings was a colossal handicap, something within the capabilities of only the most talented navigator. But Bligh, who had served under Captain Cook, one of Britain’s ablest explorers, was up to the task.
The plan was to head for the closest known friendly location: the island of Timor, which was a daunting 3,600 miles distant. Bligh’s crew, exposed to the torments of wave, sun, and starvation, had hardly one chance in a hundred. Trying to locate an island three thousand miles away by dead reckoning on the open sea was like trying to find a needle in a haystack. To this difficulty was added the fact that the men could not make landfall for rest or provisions during the journey; the islands were populated by fierce cannibals, hostile to all outsiders, even other Polynesians. One of Bligh’s crew was killed by natives as they tried to land on the island of Tofua.
It is unlikely that Bligh, even had he possessed the philosophic temperament to reflect on the rapidity of his fall from power, would have had much opportunity to brood over the desperation of his situation. The day-to-day struggle for survival supplanted all other considerations. It is ironic—how strange and variable is Fate!—that the personal qualities that so disadvantaged him as captain of the Bounty now proved to be invaluable in preserving his and his men’s lives. Survival in the boat now called for parsimony, iron discipline, seamanship, and the ability to block out the true desperation of the situation; these were qualities that Bligh possessed in abundance. So men’s faults in one setting may be virtues in another.
He instituted a strict rationing policy from which he never deviated; he occupied his men’s minds so as to prevent despair from taking hold of them; and he developed a creative method of ensuring fairness in the allotment of rations. In his published account of the ordeal, Bligh emerges as something of a mother hen to his men, apportioning out teaspoons of rum, bread, and raw bird flesh with soothing regularity. Under his tutelage, his men remained British seamen, rather than a starving collection of skeletons. Baked by the unrelenting sun, buffeted by waves and storms, and denied food and water, they maintained their cohesion and discipline in the face of the most miserable conditions imaginable.
“The sea flew over us with great force, and kept us bailing with horror and anxiety,” he later wrote. Incredibly, Bligh even managed to record topographic data along the way regarding the islands, currents, depths, and wind conditions he encountered en route. And he lost not one single man. It was a feat of incredible resourcefulness and willpower, never equaled in the turbulent annals of maritime history. He and his men reached Timor, in a state of near collapse. Bligh comments on the event in his usual deadpan manner:
Thus, through the assistance of Divine Providence, we surmounted the difficulties and distresses of a most perilous voyage, and arrived safe in a hospitable port, where every necessary and comfort were administered to us with a most liberal hand.
One day, we may be a captain, controlling our destiny. The next day, we may find ourselves adrift on the open sea with scarcely a prayer. Plutarch reminds us of this truth:
Perhaps…there exists a divinity whose role it is to diminish our prosperity, whenever it becomes exceedingly great, and add complexity to a mortal’s life, so that it is not unmixed with evils or left altogether free from misfortune, so that instead, as Homer says, they seem to fare best whose fortunes tip the scales now in one direction, now in the other.
I have come to accept the truth of this view. It is well for us to remain suspicious of Fortune and her wily ways. She never really bestows her blessings on us without some condition of future repayment in kind. The wise and prudent man will accept the blessings of life without undue exuberance or frivolity; for he remains keenly aware that what is certain today may dissolve into the swirling fog of memory tomorrow. He will, like Bligh, learn to bear these calamities with a grim determination that never permits the indulgence of self-pity. All that remain for us are the virtues that contribute to our endurance of these cruel vagaries.
 Scott-Kilvert, Ian et al., The Rise of Rome: Twelve Lives by Plutarch, London: The Penguin Group (2013), p. 571.
 Bligh, William, The Mutiny On Board H.M.S. Bounty, New York: Airmont Publishing Co. (1965), p. 117.
 Id., p. 172.
In my last post I quoted from a radio program delivered by Margaret Sanger discussing the hardships women face in marriage and the importance of marriage counseling. Sanger described a young mother she met the day before on the train:
…she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and she what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”
I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t. You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.
The date of the program was July 19, 1944. This was just a little over a month after D Day and before the Normandy breakout. World War II was very much still raging in Europe, and American men were still fighting and dying there. Yet at this very time we had (if we believe the story), a woman complaining to strangers on a train about the exciting adventures her husband was enjoying in the European theater (most likely as a result of being drafted). Moreover, this was a story Sanger felt perfectly comfortable sharing on the radio at home to the wives and mothers of US servicemen, as those men continued to fight and die overseas.
American Cemetery at Normandy photo released as public domain by Bjarki Sigursveinsson.
Among women, however, an increasing number are coming down in favour of voting No. The results show that the No campaign now has a 16 point lead among women who have decided which way to vote - up from 14 points on Sunday. Some 58 per cent of women say they will vote No on Thursday, with 42 per cent planning to vote Yes, among those who have reached a decision.Women voting. A free and independent society. Choose one. The choice between the two is rarely so obvious as this, though.
Men are more evenly split but more than half – 53 per cent – now back independence.
Since the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and beyond, thousands of Middle Eastern Christians—as well as other religious minorities, such as Yazidis—have been raped, killed, or driven from their homes. These minorities have been safest under secular governments such as that of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, because the only other option within the Middle East is Islamic theocracy—which is, again, presently in the process of eliminating them. Israel, with its Law of Return, is no option for them at all, as its only Christian permanent residents are descendents of those who lived in Palestine before the State of Israel was founded in 1948, many of whose fellows were expelled during the Arab-Israeli conflicts of the mid-20th century. Christians who were not so fortunate as to have been born in Israel are not allowed to reside in Israel permanently. And even those Christians, according to Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Vatican’s Custodian of the Holy Land, have had their churches defaced, and have been literally spat upon, by Jews.
It is no surprise, then, that so many Palestinian and Arab Christians have allied with Assad—who is himself a member of a religious minority, an Alawite, and thus has an interest in protecting religious freedom in his country—or with other secular or pan-Arab governments, or have simply emigrated (often to the United States). It is also, accordingly, no surprise that the destabilization of the region by Washington military campaigns, which has favored the rise of the Islamic State, has been so devastating for these Christian communities.
None of this stopped Senator Ted Cruz from telling a group of these Christians, in no equivocal terms, that his support for their struggle is contingent upon their support for a State which has no interest in taking them in.
Sen. Ted Cruz was booed offstage at a conference for Middle Eastern Christians Wednesday night after saying that “Christians have no greater ally than Israel.”
Cruz, the keynote speaker at the sold-out D.C. dinner gala for the recently-founded non-profit In Defense of Christians, began by saying that “tonight, we are all united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are all united in defense of Jews. Tonight, we are all united in defense of people of good faith, who are standing together against those who would persecute and murder those who dare disagree with their religious teachings.”
A State which denies citizenship to gentiles is the greatest ally of Christians! One wonders, then, when Israeli commandos will begin taking on the Islamic State on behalf of the persecuted.
Cruz went further, however: his final statement at the gala, before leaving the stage, was that “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you.” Cruz’s attitude appears to be shared by many other conservative American Protestants, who seem entirely willing to condemn fellow Christians, who live with the daily threat of rape and murder, for the sake of Israel. According to commenters on Mollie Hemingway’s recent piece at the Federalist, Maronite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are getting what they deserve for not liking Jews enough:
Israel is not Middle Eastern Christian sects’ enemy.
Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination. If they harbor resentments, now is the time they dropped them.
Or they’ll deserve the consequences.
Well, dhimmis, you spent the last 1400 years building this trap for yourselves. Learn to accept the Jews or die ‘the vilest of animals’ as the Koran calls all Kuffar, Christian or Jew.
ME Christians just gave you a window to the virulent strain of Christianity that most Americans had long had bred out of them.
Let’s face [it], even as th[e]y are being slaughtered, ME Christians would sooner die than relinquish they [sic] antisemitism. It’s their choice.
These ‘Christians’ have two choices: life alongside Israel and the Jews or slaughter at the hands of Muslims.
You are way off base here. Their persecution by fanatical Muslims does not justify their antisemitism.
The moral case for Christians in the Middle East is undermined — perhaps undermined to the point of being not deserving of support — because of their not-so thinly-veiled Jew-hatred.
That is the *exact* point that Cruz was making.
Don’t like the Islamic State? You’d better be friendlier with Jews, then! It’s so simple—all these Christians have to do is call out the name of Benjamin Netanyahu three times under the sign of the Star of David, and Israel, in its unending beneficence, will transport them instantly to safety! Expressing support for Israel would normally get these people killed, but Israel and Uncle Sam are ready to repel the forces of the Islamic State immediately and forever—all they have to do is to say the magic words. And it’s not as though Washington brought the Islamic State into existence through its involvement in the Middle East on behalf of its Israeli and Saudi friends; to say so, in fact, would be grievously and atrociously anti-Semitic, wouldn’t it? And according to Ted Cruz and these other conservative commenters, anti-Semitism is a crime far worse than anything the Islamic State is doing.