Shared posts

22 Mar 13:24

Swole Acceptance

by Frost

April 4th, 2003 was the last day of my youth.

I was 17. The school day had ended. The courtyard was full of cheery students rushing off to catch their buses or dash home for an evening of Street Fighter Alpha, Lik-a-Stik candies and ring pops. It was a simple time.

Birds chirped. Squirrels played their little games, the rules of which mankind can ne’er dream to discern. The crisp spring air intertwined with the setting sun, launching the evening’s aura into paroxysms of verisimilitude. The world was a happy place. Or so we had been taught. Our teachers, our parents, the posters in our classrooms all agreed: All people should be treated equally. Diversity is to be celebrated. We’re all OK just the way we are. Ah, those days! Such joy! Would that I could plug back in, and return to the simple pleasure of believing in those empty slogans.

Alas I cannot, because on April 4th, 2003, for the first in my life, I stared deep into the eyes of swole hate. Today, I share my story.

I was making my way to the rugby pitch, when I was accosted by a “friend” of mine from class. Her name was Jennifer. She asked me where I was going. “Practice,” I said, sensing something amiss. Jennifer positioned herself in front of my path, forcing me to stop.

“How late does practice go?” She asked, smiling. “Do you want to hang out after?”

“I’m going to the gym after practice to lift weights,” I replied, avoiding her invasive eye contact. I felt uneasy, like an (incredibly swole for his age) antelope in a cage with a lion.

The next words dripped from her mouth like venom: “Ah, working on these I presume?” Her hand darted out like a scorpion’s tail, and she began massaging my upper arm. Rubbing, squeezing. Not stopping.

“Yes,” I said, tears streaming from my eyes on the inside. “I have to go. Coach makes us run hills when we’re late.”

“Okaaay,” she replied with a pouty face, her hand still resting on my arm. “Wouldn’t want the big strong rugby team captain to be late.”

I jogged past her and towards the pitch, away, away, far away from her caliper-like fingers. My calves burned with pain, because yesterday was a leg day. My heart burned as well, but yesterday wasn’t a heart day.

When I arrived at practice, coach pulled me aside.

“Elihu,” he said, “come here for a second. I’m moving you to the back of the line-out. You had the perfect build for a jumper last year – 6’3 and 165lbs – but you’ve swoled up to almost two hundo since then. The other guys aren’t swole enough to lift you.”

My heart sank. Even coach, a man I’d always trusted to see me as a human being, considered me swole first, Elihu second. After practice, I went to the gym with my swole bros. We lifted in the name of the Father, The Son, and The Swoley Spirit. We lifted, and we saw that we had lifted, and it was good. But the words of coach and the unsolicited touches of Jennifer stayed with me. In their own separate, and possibly even well-meaning ways, they had taught me something: I was The Other.


On that day, my eyes were opened. I saw through the veil of systemic weak privilege and institutional anti-swolism in our society.

But I ignored it. I battled anti-swole prejudice for half of a decade after that day. The looks. The unwanted touching. The soft bigotry of high expectations. The never-ending cries of “show us your ___!”

I tried not to let it get to me. I laughed along with friends when they joked about my swoleness. I accepted the aggressive advances of women, because I was swole, and ‘you know how girls are!’ I paid extra to substitute salad for french fries so many times, I wasn’t even sure I was human anymore.

Worst of all, I thought I was the only one. All day, every day, I bore my cross-shaped torso swolone. My undergrad gym was not a swole safe space, and every day I lived in fear of accidentally grunting or clanging a plate, thus earning the glares of the weak privileged among me.

I pushed through the pain period for a long time. But one day, I couldn’t bear it any longer. I had tolerated swole hatred past my failure point, and my soul was doing forced negatives.

In October 2011, I committed Swolicide.

Fed up with my swolitude, I chose to end it all.

I stopped lifting, moved to Thailand, and spent three months training Muay Thai, partying, and traveling around Southeast Asia. Day by day, the grace of the swole left me.

After that, I moved to an Ashram in India and spent two months eating a strictly vegetarian diet, practicing yoga and meditating. I felt the spirit of the Swole leaving me every day.

Then I moved to Basque country, to surf and party for two months in Hossegor and San Sebastien. By that point, the glares had stopped. The groping had stopped. I experienced the joy of knowing that the girls I met liked me for me, not because I looked like a swole Robert Redford. My heart and swoul were barely clinging to life.

Finally, I hammered the final nail into the coffin of my formerly swole self. I hiked across Spain in the August heat. By the time I finished, I was no longer swole in the slightest degree. I was a regular guy. I had my first taste of weak privilege, and it was sweeter than any aspartame and whey protein shake I’d ever had. I flew back to Canada in an airplane seat that fit me. I ate the meal they served me, rather than bringing my own steamed broccoli, chicken breast and almonds. The cute flight attendant served me like I was any other passenger, instead of leering at me with hungry, objectifying eyes.


When I got home, I thought I had it all. I thought I had cured myself of my self-hatred. I thought I could settle down into a normal life, finally.

But then I discovered the Swole Acceptance Community. At first I thought it was funny. But the more I read, the more I realized that as nice as it is to be a beneficiary of Weak Privilege, nothing on Earth is worth sacrificing your swoul for. And so, I made a decision.

I am undergoing Swole Reassignment Surgery. I am Swole. I was born this way. I’ll die this way. And then I’ll be buried in a coffin that has to be let out in the shoulders.

I’m also calling on swole brothers like FlyFreshandYoung, Virgle Kent, Roosh, Victor Pride, and Danger and Play, to stop hiding.

Because we’re not going away.

Because we’re not going to cave to Weak Privilege.

Because we don’t care how much hate we endure from the Weakcriarchy. With Brodin as our witness: We’re here, and we’re Swole, so get used to it.

Further reading for Swolebros and the Swolecurious:

Swole At Every Height: The premier Swole Acceptance Blog in the ‘sphere

Swole Acceptance FAQ: Everything you want to know about Swole Acceptance but are afraid to ask, brought to you by the Swole Acceptance Subreddit.


Stay strong, brothers. Stay Swole.

24 Feb 07:16

Your self esteem angers God [Deut 9: John 2]

by pukeko
One of the difficulties with dealing with the lectionary and blogging on it is that you get the parts of scripture that no one teaches and no one likes. So, as a way of introduction, a story. The Son was talking about the prosecutors in the US indicting various politicians. I commented that in the … Continue reading Your self esteem angers God [Deut 9: John 2]
20 Feb 23:00

The Neanderthal theory of intelligence

by (Vox)
It's going to become very, very hard to dismiss the genetic basis for intelligence, or its implications for racial policies, if it is eventually determined that average intelligence is essentially a proxy for a population group's greater or lesser amount of Neanderthal DNA:
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.

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.
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.

For all we know, there were once Neanderthals who claimed any Neanderthal who thought those nice Homo Sapiens who moved into the cave next door would be a problem were sub-speciesist, and besides, weren't their spiced triceratops eggs ever so tasty?

Posted by Vox Day.
17 Feb 09:43

Graduating Gamma 2

by (Vox)
Step Two: Spiritual

For many in the modern times the Spiritual is something to be cast off, as it only interferes with desires or perhaps even knowledge. I believe this is a mistake, especially for the Gamma who needs a firm foundation to escape his prison of dishonesty. For the secularists who are about to stop reading don’t, this isn’t a polemic against atheism or a Christian apologetic work but rather an exhortation to find one’s roots and deals with personal ethics.

I’ll lay my cards on the table and explain my position which is a very standard, Protestant, Evangelical, and orthodox one. I’m Protestant by agreeing with the Solas from the Reformation and orthodox by accepting the ancient Christian creeds, Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian.

Know what you believe and why you believe it.

The most common error I see Gammas make in regards to spiritual and ethical matters is treating it like a game of witty comments, snark, and playing at the edges of important matters without skin in the game. The second mistake is thinking width of knowledge of spiritual matters is more important than depth. This flows directly from the Gamma’s ever-present and crippling fear of being wrong somewhere and somehow. The Gamma does not understand the deep matters behind what is going on in his own beliefs, which is ironic since most Gammas vastly overestimate their knowledge and ability in most everything.

The first step is to go deep in your current beliefs, back to the foundational documents to study and know them very well. Find the founding documents of your closest beliefs and read through them carefully. For the religious this is of course their holy book, but do you not identify in some way with a denomination, or at least a philosophy of your religion? Don’t concentrate on just the latest popular Christian book if you are Christian or Dawkins latest book if you are an atheist, go to the catechism if you are Roman Catholic, the Confessions if your denomination if you are Protestant, church history if you home church, and ancient atheist philosophy if you are completely secular just to start. People lived and died by these beliefs, find out why.

If you ascribe to their beliefs you honor the ones who came before you if you read their works carefully. Don’t skim, but rather drink in with full appreciation of their insights and the flaws. Almost certainly you are going to be surprised by some of the things you find. During this process take stock of your family’s beliefs; the faith of your parents particularly if you currently reject it. Give their beliefs a fair chance, read through those documents and not how badly your parents lived up to those ideals. This discovery can be challenging as the language can be archaic, but it’s well worth the effort.

It’s important to read the original documents and not the most recent interpretation of those documents even if they are by a favorite author. I’ve found that writers I respect a great deal can be sloppy at times or interject their own pet theories into a system, and then claim that’s what the system is all about. If you claim to believe in something, or follow an idea, you need to read the original for yourself.

If you are religious pray a great deal about what you find in humility and ask for forgiveness in being arrogant and obnoxious about your beliefs. Pray for wisdom and insight. Pray for a peaceful soul when finding troubling new truths. If you are secular dwell and contemplate what you have read. Realize you are probably not nearly as smart as you’d like to think and you need to change when the truth leads you to an inevitable conclusion.

You do this because you need depth on your beliefs, not width. You don’t need to know everything about everyone else’s beliefs; you need to know yours very well and how to defend them.


The first undertaking is to be honest with yourself about your beliefs and why you hold them. The second is to live up to the beliefs consistently as possible.
For the secularist I recommend writing down the virtues you admire and would like to see in yourself and your children. Then keep track for a week or two how well you actually keep to your own beliefs. I think it’s safe to say that unless you admire almost no virtues you’ll not do very well at this exercise. Keep this in mind the next time you just can’t wait to pounce on someone for not upholding their own professed beliefs.

For the religious keep in mind that your dishonesty can offend those around you and yourself, but ultimately the sin is against God. If you live dishonestly, and support dishonesty in yourself and others aren’t fooling the One who really counts.

Iron Sharpens Iron

Unlike Step One: Physical in which you need to keep your mouth shut until you put up, in these matters it is helpful and even expected to go to mentors, clergy, and the learned to help you understand things. After you read through the foundational documents of your beliefs you can do the following.

I first suggest you meeting with your pastor or priest with questions.  (If secular perhaps a good mentor or old, secular friend.) Maybe they are simple and can even be handled by email. These are all non-confrontational meetings in which you are humbly trying to understand and clarify something. This is not under any circumstances an opportunity for you to take on your pastor in a dialectic (or even worse some rhetoric) with some new insight.

The second place is to enter into discussions is in online forums which encourage lively philosophical and theological debates. Two rules here:

1. Approach the matter humbly as a student, no arrogance, and seek to find answers, not score points or pontificate. Don’t make your question a sermon.
2. Never, ever be passive-aggressive in a spiritual question. You should never be passive-aggressive, but the offense here is exponential and you look like an ass.


Right: I struggle with how God can allow children to suffer. I find this is one of the barriers to me believing he exists or at least cares at all. How do Christians answer this?
Wrong: How come the invisible sky-daddy doesn’t save all the children from harm or regrow their arms when they lose one? Answer me that, God-botherers!
Wrong (Passive aggressive): I don’t understand why God allows children to suffer. Certainly if he exists he’ll keep the good and nice Christian children from harm right? I mean you pray to him and he said he’d give you anything you ask, correct?

Right: I’ve wondered how a secularist comes to moral conclusions about weighty issues. What do you personally find works for you?
Wrong: An atheist can never know right from wrong so how do you tell me what to do or believe? Do you even know yourself what’s right?

Right: Can a Roman Catholic here please help me better understand pedobaptism? I don’t find it in the New Testament, so is there another reason for it?
Wrong: How does throwing water on your baby magically give them faith Mary worshiper?


One of the most difficult things for Gammas to do is to forgive. They are so afraid of being seen as wrong or disliked they almost never forgive a slight and think that others never forgive either. They hold grudges, they are passive-aggressive towards people who have embarrassed them, or ignore them (block them on Twitter in today’s world), and they don’t even forgive themselves for wrongs. Gammas don’t forgive themselves, instead they lie to themselves and claim that they have done no wrong.  If they do happen to admit to themselves they did something wrong, they typically obsess about it to the point of exhaustion, but never deal with it. It’s big reason why their relationships are perpetually troubled, they come across as disingenuous to most people because they genuinely are, and they obsess about minor offenses because they aren’t honest and they don’t know how to forgive.

Forgiveness is a big part of a spiritual life, and life in general. Don’t be obtuse about this either, that I’m talking about a wishy-washy faux forgiveness in which one claims there’s nothing to forgive. You are not obligated to forgive someone who is not sorry and unrepentant for their actions against you, though in charity you might eventually decide to forget them. When you forgive someone whom you believe is legitimately repentant for their action, that’s the end of it. Repentance isn’t just being sorry, it means changing one’s behavior, which is a big difference. You don’t lord their past actions over them, demand penance, or other such nonsense. You move on. You should also seek reconciliation against those you have legitimately wronged. However, don’t let your attempt at reconciliation turn into an attempt at revenge against you. Forgiving someone doesn’t mean you have to date them, marry them, or even associate with them anymore beyond being civil if you are in the room with them. Forgiveness is not affection.

Being a man means being honest with yourself about your actions, taking responsibility for them, seeking reconciliation when you’ve done wrong, and forgiving those who have wronged you when they are repentant.


Don’t give out your word easily or say you will do something you think you cannot do or will not realistically do. This isn’t a technique to dodge responsibility, but rather a way to focus your abilities into the things you can actually accomplish and do well. A Gamma will act like he can do things he can’t and has a profound inability to take responsibility for his actions and typically resorts to running, lying, and deflecting as to avoid consequences. Once you start taking responsibility for things you will find it starts to become natural though not always easy. If someone gives you a task to do and you aren’t sure you can do it, there’s nothing wrong with letting them know you may not succeed but then assure them you will give it your full effort. If you fail, take full responsibility for your actions even if someone else put you in a tough spot, but be honest about how you ended up there if people inquire.

Leading the Way

Women despise men who have no firm foundations of beliefs. They may not notice for a while if you are careful, but eventually they spot your inconsistent behavior and lose respect for you. A firm foundation and wellspring from which you draw your beliefs about the universe acts like a rock of stability which women respect even if they don’t believe the same. You’ll find the same is true with men as well. Christians routinely say, and mean it when they’d rather deal with an honest atheist than a dishonest Christian.

This is pure Game here, which is standing out in the crowd. In today’s word will not an honest and honorable man not stand out in the crowd? I hear the cynic now talking about how an honest man is naïve, and people spit on honor. Honesty is not naïve it means dealing with how things really are, and who cares if the degenerates of the world scoff at virtue? They have always scoffed and they’ll scoff to their grave and perhaps beyond.

Eternal Matters

The reason that depth is more important than width here is the gravity of the subject at hand. Even if you think oblivion awaits everyone, it’s still an eternal oblivion. If you have children then what you pass on to them can carry on for generations.

For the Gamma this lack of personal, spiritual, honesty is the underpinning of all of their problems. If you start to become honest with yourself, learn about why you believe certain things at a deep level, are ready to forgive and also repent when you do wrong, you’ll find the other steps: Physical, Mental, and Emotional become easier to correct.

The anti-Gamma conclusion on Spiritual aspect of life: The world needs more honest men and honorable men. Be one of them.

Graduating Gamma
Step One: Physical
Alpha Game 2011
28 Jan 00:04

J.M. Coetzee: Yet Another Nobel Prize Winning Hypocrite

by Billy Chubbs

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.

Who Is J.M. Coetzee?


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.

Portrait of a spoiled leftist

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.

raj puh

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.

Coetzee returns to South Africa to guilt his fellow whites

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.

edit south african farmer

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.

Coetzee does what he does best

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.


A hypocrite as old as time

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.

Read More: Nobel Peace Prize Recipiant Malala Yousafzai Is A Coward And A Hypocrite

25 Jan 08:20

The faux sociopaths

by (Vox)
John C. Wright explains that the Left is evil, not stupid:
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.

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.
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.

It is only when attention is drawn to their own particular sin, to OUR own sin, that the human mind goes haywire, because it is hard to look at yourself in the mirror and say: "I am a sinner. I am corrupt. I am fallen short of the glory of God."

And yet, whether we admit it or not, we have.

We sinners of the Right are no better than the sinners of the Left. We are only more sane because we do not run from our sins, we do not hide from them, and we know better than to try to justify them. But we commit them, all the same. Don't pretend otherwise, for doing so is the first step on the path to becoming differently and incompletely sane.

Posted by Vox Day.
21 Jan 02:13

Mailvox: of rabbits and communism

by (Vox)
AD sees the connection:
I read these quotes and can't help comparing to your Rabbitology posts.

"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."
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.

Posted by Vox Day.
13 Jan 22:34

The Great Men On Ugly Feminists

by CH

This post is part of a series quoting history’s great men on various topics of interest to Chateau readers. (See previous entries here and here.)

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.

Bonus Mencken:

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.

Filed under: Feminist Idiocy, Girls, Ugly Truths
11 Jan 23:10

Multiculturalism's last gasp

by (Vox)
The march in Paris today is a pathetic and pointless globalist fart in the wind of the resurgent nationalism that will scour Europe in the next decade:
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....

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 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.

The multiculturalist position consists of lies stacked upon more lies. When Angela Merkel claims there is no place for anti-Muslim intolerance, she is attacking more than TWO-THIRDS of the German electorate that is not Muslim. In a November poll by the Bertelsmann Foundation, 61 percent of the German people said: "Islam has no place in the West".

61 percent is not an outlier. That is the mainstream position. That is the will of the people. That was before PEGIDA, before the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and before the Jewish deli murders. It is probably over 70 percent by now. What there is no place for is traitorous, anti-democratic "leaders" like Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, and the other anti-nationalists who are marching in Paris today.

Islam is not compatible with the West. Islam is literally at war with the West, which is part of the Dar al-Harb, "the House of War". As Mizanur Rahman has declared, Britain is the enemy of Islam. So is France. So is Germany. So is Italy. So is the United States of America. Samuel Huntington warned of this coming great clash of civilizations back in 1993. Enoch Powell warned of the rivers of blood that would flow if mass immigration from non-European countries was permitted back in 1968.

That long-predicted day has finally arrived. If the situation is not adequately addressed in the next decade, then the Rotherhams and Parises will eventually become Peshawars and Bagas. Now the victims of Islam in the West are numbered in double-digits, eventually they will be numbered in the hundreds and the thousands, if the Reconquista 2.0 does not begin sooner rather than later.

Sooner or later, it will begin. All of this could have been easily prevented, but the Left preached its lies of open borders and immigration and tolerance and diversity, and the people of the West stupidly believed them. Some fools still believe them, although most who claim to do so primarily cling to them out of fear and desperate hope against hope. But prevention is no longer an option. The choice is now between Charlie Hebdo and Charlie Martel.

As for those who claim that we cannot hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of their military wing, I will remind them that the free people of the West had absolutely no problem holding all Germans responsible for the actions of a few National Socialists. I note that the French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, has already declared that France is at war with "radical Islam", even though the vast majority of radical Muslims did not kill anyone in Paris this week.

The fact is that Islam is already at war with the West, regardless of what its "moderate" Fifth Columnists falsely claim. It has always been at war with the West, it simply hasn't always had the ability to effectively wage that war. But the West gave it that ability and now the people of the West are paying the price through fear, crime, taxes, the loss of liberty, and blood.
“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.”

Posted by Vox Day.
10 Jan 04:44

The woman cries when she breaks your heart

by (Vox)
Don't you see that when she breaks up with you, she's the one who's really suffering?
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....

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.
This is an Sigma blueprint for how to Next a woman.

I hate this situation and I hate myself. I wish more than anything I could trade places with you. Sure, it looks easier to be on my side of things, and to be having sex with a woman who is younger, hotter, and less sexually uptight than you. But I really, actually wish I could be the one whose heart is getting broken.

Don't you see that it actually hurts me more than it hurts you to hurt you? What sort of unfeeling monster are you, that you can't see how I'm the one truly suffering here?

I just hope you to know that I was trying to do my best. I'm just following my instincts and I'm afraid that one day you'll forget all about me. But I know I did the right thing, even though it was so hard. Don't, no, don't touch me now. It's too difficult. Just go... go!
Alpha Game 2011
02 Jan 04:03

The 2014 Illustration Of The Year

by CH

The Attention Whore Gangbang:

The money shot that never ends, and never needs a refractory period.

Filed under: Culture, Girls, Goodbye America
01 Jan 01:53

SJW England

by (Vox)
Notice anything missing from this BBC Radio lineup?
Notice that they are celebrating the fact that there are no white people. None. That is the SJW vision for England and for the West, the complete elimination of the European race in addition to the complete elimination of Christianity. Even ISIS is more moderate.

There can be no compromise with the SJWs. To tolerate them is to tolerate the intentional destruction of you, your children, and your grandchildren. The fact that you don't wish to play a zero-sum game doesn't mean that they aren't. The cultural war is real.

Anti-racism is intrinsically anti-white. It is intrinsically anti-European. And before you claim their objective is impossible, or that I am exaggerating, or even just engaging in rhetorical hyperbole, do recall that I am a Native American, a person of a certain color whose people have been driven to the brink of near extinction.

In 2014, more people began to wake up and choose their side. It's not too late, not at all. Demographics are destiny, but demographic trends are far from immutable and contra the doomsayers, there are more Europeans on the planet than ever before in history. War and ethnic clashes are coming, to be sure, but the situation is considerably less desperate than it was in the days of Tvrđava Klis, Salamis, Tours, and Vienna.

In 2015, choose your side and stand up for it. Because, as this writer has discovered, whether you are Christian or atheist or agnostic, whether you are white or red or brown or yellow or black, you are not going to be permitted to sit safely on the fence, pretending to be above it all, because the totalitarian Left is not going to allow it.
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.

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.
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.

Posted by Vox Day.
28 Dec 22:21

How To Free Yourself From The Need For Women

by Jefe

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:

While we all WANT women, we do not NEED them

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:

When you recognize this, you can live the rest of your life without thinking about women

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.

You WANT women, sex, and awesome relationships but you do not NEED them

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

Read More: How To Speak Deeply With Confidence And Authority

25 Dec 22:58

Honor the martyrs

by (Vox)
Christianity is being eradicated in the Middle East by the religion of the sword:
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.

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.'
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."

Eventually, there will be those who can do more than cry. I suspect it will not be more than 20 years before the new Martel appears and the Reconquista 2.0 begins. The Tenth Crusade will be fought in the West, in both Europe and America, and it will last decades.

The Norwegians are already taking action. The Swedes are waking up. The French are actively voting. And the Germans are rising. Slowly but surely, they are waking up. "The latest PEGIDA march on Monday drew up to 10,000 people."  PEGIDA stands for Patriotische Europäer Gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes. Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamicization of the West.

And soon the Saxon will begin to hate. That is when the anti-Western politicians will be removed from power. That is when the Western nations will rise. And that is when Enoch Powell's long-predicted Rivers of Blood will begin to flow.
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.

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.
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.

Posted by Vox Day.
25 Dec 22:47

Merry Christmas

by (Vox)
In the Year of Our Lord 2014, Christianity is under attack all over the globe. Tens of thousands of Christians have been murdered for their faith in the East and Middle East. In the West, what was once Christendom is under assault from a godless elite who fear and resent the threat that Christianity has always posed to secular authority. In the South, Christianity is growing, but it is as devoid of understanding as it is full of enthusiasm.

No ruler who is not himself a Christian will ever be entirely comfortable with subjects who do not view him as the highest and most legitimate authority. Most will be varying degrees of hostile, as we see across a broad spectrum from totalitarian dictators to democratically elected politicians. Augustus Caesar was the first, but was by no means the last, to insist that Christians accept his word as divine fiat, and future efforts in similar veins will be equally unsuccessful.

Predictions of Christianity's eventual demise tend to strike me as little more than either fearful or wishful thinking; as the Church's most serious enemies know, even the merest glow of an ember of faith is sufficient for the Lord God Almighty to turn it into a wildfire that scours the world. And one never knows when the winds of revival will again begin to blow.

A Time of Testing is upon us. Jesus said the world would hate us, as it hated him, but too many Christians, comfortable in the ruins of Christendom, still believe that it is possible to befriend the world, to be of it in good standing as well as in it. Soon enough, they will discover that just as tolerance of evil is not a virtue in God's eyes, even a nominal Christian identity will be sufficient to damn them in the world's eyes.

So choose this day, of all days, whom you will serve. If it seem to you that the world is good, a place of certain progress towards eventual human perfection, then serve those who are of the synagogue of Satan, the government, the elites, the world. Build your great global temple to Man, consecrate yourself as a human brick in the Pyramid of Progress.

But if instead you see the world as a place of evil, of corrupt men and fallen women, of darkness growing darker, of nihilism, of human liberty constrained where it is not twisted into libertinism, then the symbol of the child born in the manger will serve as a light against the darkness, a beacon of God's Love and Man's Hope.

Once, there was only darkness. But ever since the Star of Bethlehem shone in the night sky, the Light has been winning. That is what we celebrate today.

Merry Christmas.

Posted by Vox Day.
06 Dec 11:23

Look! I Made a Meme!

by Captain Capitalism
Yes, yes, 4 years of college is all it took.

02 Dec 00:21

What Every Husband and Boyfriend Wants for Christmas

by Captain Capitalism
And it's FREE!  Just trying to help you ladies out:
18 Nov 12:32

The Sound Of Settled Science

by Kate

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.

An interesting read.

04 Nov 01:56

At It Again: White Racism Blamed for Detroit Dysfunction

by Greg Allmain

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:

Detroit Police Commissioner Willie Bell

Detroit Police Commissioner Willie Bell

Detroit Police Commissioner Lisa Carter

Detroit Police Commissioner Lisa Carter

Detroit Police Commissioner Richard Shelby

Detroit Police Commissioner Richard Shelby


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.

Well, then.

01 Nov 22:25

Comment Of The Week: USSA

by CH

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
put both
Socrates and Jesus
to death


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.

Filed under: Comment Winners, Goodbye America, Psy Ops
01 Nov 09:05

Probing for weakness

by (Vox)
Here is a good example of an SJW sally on Twitter. Notice that it is absolutely rife with dishonesty, false pretenses, and attempts to DISQUALIFY from start to finish:
Brosephus Aurelius @Brobuntu
but what the fuck is a pink shirt

Vox Day
A subset of SJWs. (link to Roosh's article)

Brosephus Aurelius
wait isnt Roosh that PUA sex tourist guide guy that offended a good chunk of europe with his books?

Vox Day
Straight to DISQUALIFY. Textbook SJW. Well done.

Brosephus Aurelius
I'm not disqualifying his opinion, just checking if you knew his past public exposure before linking. I'm still reading the link

Vox Day
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.

Brosephus Aurelius
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

Vox Day
Perhaps this will help you: (link to my response to Roosh's article.)

Brosephus Aurelius
wait so you personally made up this word and it's definition, then expect everyone to keep up with it by default?

Vox Day
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.

Brosephus Aurelius
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

Brosephus Aurelius
especially when you're making an implicit appeal to ethos without any visible standing in that regard, as you're anonymous

Vox Day
My "visible standing" is 1.5 million monthly pageviews. Accept or reject, as you see fit. Not my concern.
The 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.

The correct response to "Divide and Denounce" is to refuse to denounce or otherwise separate yourself from the target they are attempting to isolate, no matter who the target is or what they are supposed to have done. (#GamerGate, in general, has done a stellar job of this, it is one of the things that makes it antifragile.) So, it's no surprise that when I refuse to rise to the bait, he then proceeds to attempt to disqualify BOTH Roosh and me, because he's going to need "somewhat of a more rigorous source" than our blog posts. Quelle surprise! This is the "Pose as a Moderate Who Finds the Evidence Unconvincing" tactic, which is, of course, simply a variant of their primary tactic, DISQUALIFY.  We see it utilized every election season with all those fake "Republicans who have always voted for Republicans in the past, but this year, Romney/McCain/Bush/Dole is simply too extreme".

And notice how when I simply kept answering him in a straightforward manner that clearly indicated I did not care what he did, thought, or said, he dropped the moderate pose and retreated to snarking about Roosh's article. (It's remarkable how SJWs are always "laughing". They must be very jolly people indeed.) If, on the other hand, I had showed any weakness, taken the bait to separate myself from Roosh, or accepted him as a legitimate judge as to my standing as a source, he would have immediately pressed that point.

One reason for SJW success is that they operate on a mixed 2GW/3GW model, 2GW firepower/attrition on the larger scale combined with 3GW maneuver by their fanatics. But, as we know, 4GW trumps both. In any event, the mention of Roosh led another SJW to leap in and attempt to DISQUALIFY him, at which point a modest degree of hilarity ensued.
James Mathurin @jameswiseson
@Brobuntu @voxday Don't forget he's also an admitted rapist.

Vox Day
No, that's John "I'm a rapist" @scalzi. You can even hear him admit it here: (link to MP3)

James Mathurin
Nah, it's Roosh.

Vox Day
That's a direct quote from 25 October 2012. You literally can't get any more "self-admitted rapist" than that.

James Mathurin
At some point, will you explain why you think I care? I was talking about Roosh V being an admitted rapist.

Vox Day
You've provided no evidence at all. I've provided conclusive proof that John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist.

Vox Day
So, you are actually saying that you don't care that John Scalzi is a self-admitted rapist. Wow just wow.

Brosephus Aurelius
11/10 wizard tier trolling
This 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.

Notice that I am expected to care about his undocumented claim that someone he is attacking is "an admitted rapist", but he is not expected to care about my documented proof that someone else is a "self-admitted rapist", which is exactly what Roosh describes in the article the SJWs are trying to DISQUALIFY: "SJW’s do not believe in objectivity. Instead, speech and ideas must be viewed relatively depending on the source and its intended audience.... SJW’s have started labeling men as rapists based on anonymous internet allegations, even when the supposed victims never reported the crime to police." 

You have to admit, he certainly called that one correctly.

Posted by Vox Day.
23 Oct 23:52

Nothing but a lie

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Vox Day.
23 Oct 23:51

This far you may come and no farther.

by Dalrock

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Oct 23:45

Islamophobia at the UN

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

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

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

Posted by Vox Day.
08 Oct 23:37

Tolkien on intersexual relations

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

Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit.
Alpha Game 2011
07 Oct 00:10

The cost of N=1

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

I suspect there will be tremendous pressure to not explore these hypotheses due to those potential repercussions, but the concept is too fundamentally interesting and important to remain unexplored for long.
Alpha Game 2011
24 Sep 03:19

The new fifty.

by Dalrock

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

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

A 30-year-old woman is an undertaking…

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

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

23 Sep 00:22

Mutiny And The Ordeal Of Captain Bligh

by Quintus Curtius

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

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

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


William Bligh:  a complex and controversial figure

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

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

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

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


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.[3]

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

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

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

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

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

[3] Id., p. 172.

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

Read More: Every Man Has A Breaking Point

20 Sep 05:40

No hiatus for solipsism during World War II.

by Dalrock


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

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

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

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

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

17 Sep 11:50

Why women shouldn't vote: Scottish edition

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

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