Erstmap

I came across this most excellent book called The Predatory Female. It is online for anyone who wants to read it. I almost feel that it’s wrong to write a review of it since that will make you less likely to read it. If game is the 9mm, this is the automatic shotgun. You might think you are a player, but please don’t take an air rifle to a gun battle.

 

Let’s start with one little quote:

A picture of James Bond trying to placate a shrieking wife while she threatens to have his wages garnished doesn’t fit the hero image. A married man is a cornered man. He is a man who has lost something and this makes it hard for him to be the classic, free thinking and independent hero.

As one reviewer on Yahoo so aptly puts it :

“Lawrence Shannon comes out with guns blazing in this relentless blitzkrieg attack on the female of the species. He is cynical beyond belief and shows no mercy towards them. While not vitriolic in tone, he matter-of-factly explains to his male readers why you should never marry a woman (a.k.a. the predatory female). You can laugh at this book, but I think the author is being deathly serious.”

I can’t seem to find much information about the author online; he claims to be a Reverend although he must belong to one of those Mayan churches that likes to practice mass human sacrifice, because surely no orthodox religion would tolerate such an affront to the social norms.

The book is written in a rather quirky question and answer format, that alerts the uneducated reader in an excellent way.

What about Love ?

Q. You haven’t mentioned love as an interest of the predatory female. Why ?

A. The predatory female never loves a man, she only loves the love. This is a basic rule.

We’ve all had those clinging girl friends determined to make us swear undying love to them, and as the matrix glitched around us, something was not right but we couldn’t quite put our finger on it. Well much like Neo, Rev. Shannon not only puts his finger on it, but dismantles the entire mainframe. Women want to know if you love them so they can better manipulate you. They are never interested in loving you, only in using you for their ends. It is you that must love them.

In times gone by they promised to honor and obey, which was a good trade off. These days those promises mean nothing once the divorce attorney files motions against you. It’s a shame more husbands don’t trot along to court with copies of their marriage vows. That is a verbal contract. Think into it logically: women say they are ‘in love’ but that does not imply they have love to give. A fish is ‘in water’ a bird is ‘in the sky’ but neither have anything to do with the object they are ‘in’. It’s a man that provides the love women feel they are ‘in’.

A woman will do anything to snare a man

Lawrence goes on to explain how the predatory female on the hunt will lose weight, dress up, wear make-up (which he describes as part of the lie), and once she has snared her man, she then adopts the strategies of the chameleon to fit into his world most perfectly. Although this is uncomfortable for her and she is occasionally prone to slip into her default state, she will maintain the charade for as long as it takes to completely get a man.

As the relationship progresses (and goes down hill) the man starts to believe catch phrases like; “we’ve grown apart”, when in reality he was never together with the girl he believed he was. She had made every effort to adapt herself to his world, like one of those science fiction aliens adopting human form, even becoming president, but behind closed doors, slipping back into its natural grotesque lizard creature appearance.

He also likens married women to the deadly wasps that use their sting to paralyze the tarantula. She then uses the poor living spider, a once ferocious and powerful hunter, as a host for her nest. As the venom wears off the poor creature is (denied sex and pussy whipped) stung again and again, but of course never manages to escape and finally dies as (a withered pensioner, whose kids hate him) the baby wasps hatch out on his back. Nasty! How many married men with children do we see in this decrepit state?

We’ve always had a matriarchy

Lawrence takes a hatchet to the patriarchy and declares it never truly existed in the first place, that women always ruled the roost.  While he is absolutely brutal, you will find yourself laughing at his words -  there is really nothing more you can do when the full light is shone on the ants nest of feminine humanity. Everything you ever thought, felt and summarized about women is laid bare in his book. No stone is left unturned and many innocent female behaviors we brush over, he turns his guns on and as men we can only agree. What’s more he’s used a slightly old fashioned writing style and language, that gives it the air of authority and seriousness you find in many Victorian era authors from the late 1800s. I tried to find something in his work to argue against, but I have to say he presents the most convincing points.

Roosh outlines in his blog recently how he let a number of “the ones” slip away and just couldn’t quite muster the will to commit to them. Rev. Shannon pats him on the back and explains that moment was most likely the zenith of their relationship. He confirms what Roosh only touched on, that it was going into decline from there. As someone whose been down the rabbit hole of the LTR several times, I can say I concur and congratulate Roosh on his will power and self restraint. Lawrence explains the indulgence of continuing into an LTR and marriage as nothing more than that, and goes on to expose the folly and outright life threatening danger of marriage to any man.

He brings to light the example from the garden of Eden where the devil most easily tricks and persuades Eve the female to bite the apple, but Adam fearing being alone in paradise bites the apple of his own free will. This is exactly what has drawn me into long term relationships. I didn’t want to be alone. I wanted my companion and sex buddy at my side. Yet looking back on more than 20 years of adulthood I see the years that I abstained from relationships were the happiest and most relaxing by far.

A woman can not increase a man’s happiness

If a women doesn’t drain you financially she will most certainly drain your sanctity and peace of mind, which of course reduces your productivity and soon leaves you financially drained just the same. What’s more I see my father whose been divorced since he was 50, now at the age of 71 with his new girlfriend picking him up at the airport at 1am,  after a flight came in late. He’s never looked to remarry, just bounced from one woman to the next. Muscled through the lonely times and avoided ‘the one’. Admittedly he is a man that likes his peace and being on his own, but don’t we all ? If you haven’t mastered the art of your own company you are most surely not close to any kind of alpha male.

Shannon goes on to explain that women never really commit to relationships they just use the man for the time he is useful. A classic example he gives is that of the invisible man.

The Invisible Man

Q. Who is the invisible man?

A. Any man the predatory female has deemed to be of no further use. Although she’ll go to extremes pleasing and cultivating a man when she’s in the acquisitive mode, she views him as untouchable once his purpose is served. He totally ceases to exist in every way. He becomes a nonperson and is fair game for the carrion birds of society.

Q. How can the male fall so low in her esteem?

A. He never achieved any other status. He is commonly misled though his failure to grasp the predatory nature of the female. He may have been a victim of the chameleon syndrome. Indeed, one of the biggest stumbling blocks for men, especially those reared by women, is the understanding that no women will ever love them, particularly in the manner they desire.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. A woman’s love is like a hand powered grinding wheel. If you pump furiously and wind it up, she will do the job, make noise, even throw off sparks. She will respond, but only respond. The minute you release the handle . . . she begins winding down. She can only respond in a temporary manner. That’s why an adult female will rarely call you or initiate anything. They are only constructed to respond.

Q. And the invisible man?

A. He is not allowed to crank the handle. Once the charade is over, and that day comes for every man, the female has no feeling, no remorse, no conscience, and no empathy for the discarded male. He becomes the invisible man.

This of course also explains the sexless marriages. She doesn’t feel like sex, but he’s useful in many other ways; so long as he hangs around begging for pussy she has no need to drop her draws. However should she get horny or be turned on by a passing alpha of course she will gladly use him as her dildo regardless of the poor husband desperate for even the lowliest hand job. Should the lover be foolish enough to fall into her trap, soon he will be wheeled in to take the place of the almost invisible husband that is shown the door forthwith.

We all have zero status with women and are ultimately invisible

Rev. Shannon agrees with my own finding that as tacky as it might seem, one of the most honest relationships you can have with a woman is simply paying for sex and taking it for what it is. His book is certainly an eye opener and whilst the truth can often be bitter and cause offense, you cannot help but agree with just about every line he writes.

I think the most important thing we can learn from this book is that it doesn’t matter if we are young 18 year olds in our first year of college, or guys in our 40s and 50s that have been married and divorced a couple of times—we are all aboard Morpheus’s hoover craft The Nebuchadnezzar. The question is not how long or why we were tricked. We must cast off our shame and anger, forgive our mistakes and move on the task at hand of pulling down the matrix. Since this is not a movie, most likely there is no ‘one savior’. Rather the combined ‘one’ of everyone who sees the truth in the sea of lies we swim in. It’s our job as brothers in arms to start covering each others backs, not just bitching on forums like feminists, or gaming each others girls because we can.

When you look at a woman who’s with her boyfriend or husband, you start to see not a lovely couple with the man at the helm but an entitled female plotting and manipulating the poor sucker at every turn. It might not start out like that but it sure as hell ends like that. Visit your grandparents and see how your grandmother treats and talks to your grandfather. See girls out with their boyfriends, read their minds and body language and observe what is really going on.

Understand the social dynamics that are taking place in every male-female interaction. It’s nothing close to what an ‘innocent’ man believes. In every relationship I’ve ended I felt like the girl stole my innocence, chipped away at a piece of my soul. Instead I see now that what I was experiencing was the bitter truth, nothing more and nothing less.

Men built this planet. We tilled the soils, mined its resources, developed the technologies, fought wars against oppressors, died for our loved ones who in times gone by honored, respected and obeyed us.  Are we just soldier ants or is it time we took back what is rightfully ours. Today it seems the animals control the zoo and the patients are running the mental hospital.

Read Next: Modern Marriage Is Rent Seeking Hell

All t-shirts for only $7, with an extra discount for ROK readers. Visit or December sponsor, 7 Buck Tees.

Permit me to be bold.

Well, I'm not actually being bold, I'm just telling the truth. It's just I have the audacity to speak it, which comes off as being bold and arrogant, but still, it is the truth when I say:

Not one,

NOT

ONE

boss I've ever had

was smarter or better than me at either his/her job or mine.

And this is an important point to make, because as many of you youth are finding out, you are being challenged ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE NEAR your full capacity in your careers.  You are working jobs that are way beneath your skills, education, and training.  And if you don't find out why this is, it WILL lead to decades of confusion, angst, depression, frustration, and anger.

Thus, in order to have this mental peace and sanity you need to understand what is going on in a macro-economic sense to understand the environment you're in, why you are in a job that seems to be going nowhere, and dealing with bosses that are seemingly illogical, constantly lecturing you, and are never happy.  And to do this we need to compare two very different economic environments - WWII and today's economy.

To this day I am still amazed at just how much responsibility young men (and women) were giving during WWII.  Fighter pilots at the age of 17 (because they lied on their applications), 22 year old captains in command of men.  Majors who haven't even made it to their 3rd decade of life.  And let's not forget what governments on both sides were doing with their youngest, best, and brightest.

The Manhattan Project had tons of 20 something men.
Hitler's rocket program was headed up by a then 28 year old Verner Von Braun.
And I don't think anybody back at home on either fronts were required to have a bachelor's degree with "master's preferred" in order to work in the factories and help in the war effort.

But that was the thing.  There was a war going on.  All countries on all sides NEEDED everybody to produce at their absolute potential, at their absolute best.  Because if they didn't, then it would spell the end of that country.  To that end, all the hurdles, hoops, and other bullshit was eliminated.

Don't care if you're not related to the boss, you are the best welder.  WE NEED YOU!
Don't care if you aren't sleeping with the owner, you are the best secretary.  WE NEED YOU!
Don't care if you are only 18 years old, you scored well in flight. Here's your P51.  WE NEED YOU!

It was the closest we've ever came to a meritocracy.

Now, contrast back then to today's economy.

The economy is growing 40% slower than it was back then.  There is no war that threatens the country to galvanize the people.  Thus with neither growth nor compunction to use and employ everybody, including our youth, now people are employed based on an increasingly petty amount of irrelevant traits.

It's not merely if you're the best.  You need to network and have an in.
It's not merely if you're the brightest.  You need to "have adequate people skills."
It's not merely if you are the best man for the job and can replace your boss at a fraction of the price. You have to pay your dues.
And it's not merely if you're more than capable. You need to answer the idiotic questions of a math-impaired 25 year old HR ditz.

Ergo, our economy is not a meritocracy like it was in WWII as much as it has become a bureaucracy.  And advancement and success is no longer dependent upon skills, excellence, ability, and potential, it is based on the (veritably) psychotic and sociopathic laws and rules the current managerial class sadistically applies.

This is why you go to college, become amazingly skilled, but are then hired to do a job you could have done when you were 13.

This is why you ram heads with management because all you want to do is work hard and get promoted, but your boss constantly and miserably fails to provide clear and concise leadership, and blames their failures on you.

This is why no matter how many jobs you get, you aren't "having bad luck."  It's just that employers are that lousy.

And to top it all off they drown you in a sea of propaganda telling you:

"you just aren't cutting it"
"you just don't get it"
"you just don't take your job seriously"

confusing you to think you are the one with the problem.

The question is, is it worth it?

Is it worth wasting your entire youth going to school, and then further busting your ass off for another 6-8 years getting advacned degrees and certifications, so that by the time you're NEARLY 30 and have easily spent 25 YEARS IN SCHOOLING AND EDUCATION and THEN and ONLY THEN does society allow you to start working?  Only then are you deemed "worthy" to file and fax?

It's the biggest lie (bar social security, medicare, Obamacare, and socialism) told to the younger generations.

Here's the truth kids.

The modern day "employment system" is so dysfunctional, so bureaucratic, so corrupted, and so nepotistic, it's no longer worth participating in.

I don't care what they tell you about working hard and "putting in your dues" and a "steep learning curve," the pay is plain just not worth it.  You will NEVER get promoted.  You will NEVER be challenged. And you will NEVER make the money that will make your quarter century of education-slavery worth it.  It is a scam, it is a lie, and you will easily waste 50 years trying to pursue it only to get laid off and die poor.

However, the true testament as to just how impossible modern day employment is, is not the bum deal you get.  It's the fact that SELF-EMPLOYMENT is not only much easier, but statistically more likely to bring you financial success.

Look, if a 17 year old kid who lies about his age can pilot P-51 fighter planes, then you can start a business.

If a 28 year old can build the first successful ICBM, then you can become self-employed.

And if men in their 30's and build an atomic bomb, then you can come up with a better mousetrap.

But you can't do that with $70,000 in student loans, blathering idiotic professors stealing 4 years of your lives in pre-requisite classes, bloviating Pointy Haired Bosses keeping you in the mail room until you're 27, and more idiotic professor holding you hostage in an MBA program until you're 33.

The key is to play a split strategy.  Yes, keep one toe in the "traditional route," get some schooling, do what you need to do.  But at the same time it is VITAL you immediately start pursuing a business venture of your own, starting as early as the age of 18.  100% of your efforts will go to benefit you, as opposed to the .2% of your efforts that a corporation allows you to have.  And while there is no guarantee you'll be successful, and it is likely you'll have to try multiple businesses before one sticks, in the end it is a much wiser and better strategy than putting 100% of your faith in the "corporation" and being a good, reliable "corporate man."

It appears that for whatever reason the manosphere topic du jour of last week has turned some fresh light on the debate regarding the validity of the concept of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. In between reposting HuffPo articles and any pop-psychology pablum that agrees with her ego-investments, Aunt Giggles seems to have decided to reject reality and replace it with her own (you expected something else?), more comforting, fantasies she finds catharsis in. If readers want to sift through the pop-up ads and fem.mgid links to get the gist of her ‘reasons’ why she believes AFBB is some viral manosphere myth, feel free to head over to her Hooking Up Betas echo chamber and brush up on it.

If you want the short version it’s basically this; in her 5 years of blogging all of the 7 or 8 unmoderated commenters she consistently allows to reinforce her own perspectives have told her that Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks is bunk. So there you have it, myth busted! This is kind of surprising since the concept of Hypergamy she so reluctantly conceded to essentially  contradicts this, but as with all things Giggles, she was against it before she was for it before she was against it again….or, whatever the sponsors want her to be for.

All digs aside the epic comment thread from last week’s post went in all manner of direction, but it was fairly enlightening with regard to the level of vitriol women have for Alphas. You see when it comes down to it, Alpha Men are the ones women love to hate. Poor Betas only deserve a passing mention; just enough “we love ya nice guys” so as not to raise suspicions that they might be getting a raw deal for their provisioning and good behavior right at the last moment when women need it the most.

It’s the Alpha that the widows pine for. It’s the Alpha who’s the culprit for all the feminine imperative’s woes. It’s that damn Alpha who gives her the tingles, but so frustratingly won’t submit commit to her imperatives – why can’t they just play nice, like a good Beta will? It’s the Alpha that women write songs for.

The Process

During last week’s comment thread Dr. J reminded me of the process of breaking down a behavioral dynamic. The distilled version of that process is as follows:

Biological —> Psychological —> Sociological.

This is a valuable progression to remember when it comes to understanding whys  of red pill dynamics. When there’s a breakdown in understanding a particular dynamic, or even a willful refusal to understand it, at some stage there is a failure to make the connection between these realms.

Just for sake of a neutral illustration here lets take the dynamic of hunger. Biologically we get hungry, our bodies need nurishment, and thanks to our evolved genetics, and the scarcity of food in our evolutionary past, we tend to prefer certain types of energy rich food over others. Psychologically we might develop the conviction to train ourselves to eat right and exercise, or we might develop various personal rationalizations for why we’re OK with being fat . Sociologically this dynamic extends into the obesity epidemic society is now facing, and depending upon the predominance of a particular individualized psychology the social manifestation may be a Fat Acceptance movement or a cultural obsession with physical fitness.

Granted, this is a simplistic illustration which becomes more complex as more dynamics are layered upon others – For instance both Fat Acceptance and physical fitness psychology are also rooted in the capacity to optimize hypergamy for women (a biological imperative) as well as having implications and purposes for other social conventions.

If there is a problem in really understanding a red pill truth, if there is a resistance (willful or otherwise) to that understanding, or even if there is a some doubt about a social dynamic that needs testing to explain, there is usually either a denial of, or a lack of connection to, a realm in this progression. With regard to blue pill critics and those with ego-investments in their mindset, denying or downplaying the importance of certain aspects of these realms is necessary to protect those mindsets. Sometimes one realm may be discounted altogether in order to maintain an ego-investment.

So it’s with this progression in mind that we have to really deconstruct the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic, as well as it’s male-specific counterpart the Madonna / Whore dynamic.

Alpha Fucks & Beta Bucks

From a biologically imperative starting point the AFBB dynamic is easily provable in women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. If Aunt Giggles or any other doubter needs evidence of the biological motivators of AFBB, look no further than the provable behavioral prompts of women’s menstrual cycle. I covered the more Game-tactical aspects of this in Your Friend Menstruation, but study after study prove that women’s behaviors, sexual appetites and mate preference selections coincide with the particular ovulatory phase a woman happens to be in and how best to satisfy it at that stage.

As a feminine social directive, Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks, is the social extension of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. This strategy is literally encoded into women’s neurological firmware and endocrine systems. This ovulatory influence in mate preference that describes this pluralism is well documented, as are other manifestations such as:

Changes in women’s feelings about their romantic relationships across the ovulatory cycle

Body odor attractiveness as a cue of impending ovulation in women

Ovulatory Shifts in Women’s Attractions to Primary Partners and Other Men

Females Avoiding Fathers When Fertile

Menstrual Cycle Shifts in Women’s Preferences for Masculinity

Vocal cues of ovulation signaling

Changes in Women’s Choice of Dress Across the Ovulatory Cycle

Ovulatory shifts in ornamentation

In a biological realm, there is little doubt that a directive towards a sexually pluralistic sexual strategy would be the most pragmatic reason for these behavioral manifestations. The female biological condition prompts sexual pluralism, which further prompts the social condition of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks (essentially cuckoldry) as the most practical solution to the problem that optimized Hypergamy presents in finding a male who best embodies the ideal of both. Women’s ovulatory cycle motivates for the sexual optimization of the Alpha, as well as the provisioning security / parental investment optimization that (usually, not exclusively) the Beta represents.

Madonnas and Whores

There is a counterpart to this dynamic in Men – the Madonna / Whore dynamic. You might know this dynamic as the Madonna/Whore “Complex” since feminine-primary society likes to repeat the term in an effort to pathologize the male analogy of optimizing his own sexual strategy. This marginalization is of course to be expected if women’s sexual strategy and hypergamic selectivity is to be socially ensured.

Again, Dr. J offers us a good breakdown of the comparison of sexual strategies:

Here is how I conceptualize it… On one hand, there are equivalences:

1) Men prefer “madonnas” for long-term commitments, and “whores” for short-term mating.

2) Women prefer “beta-dads” for long-term commitments, and “alpha-cads” for short-term mating.

3) Both, ideally “want it all” in one person. The male ideal is the “virgin wife who is a slut only for them” – madonna and whore. The female ideal is the alpha stud who settles down and becomes a provider for her – fux and bux.

4) If “both in one” is not an option, then women may get short-term fux from an alpha cad, and long-term commitment bux from a beta dad – alpha fux and beta bux (AFBB). Similarly, men may have a primary, virginal wife to assure paternity, then a “slut on the side” for kicks – virgin validation and slut excitation (VVSE).

Thus, on this level of analysis madonna = beta (long-term commitment) and whore = alpha (short-term mating).

Because the sexes also complement each other, there is also some mirroring. They are not mutually exclusive.

Thus:

A) Male’s are primarily rated for their provisioning value, women for their sexual value, in long-term commitment.

B) Either are perceived to be low-worth when they give away that primary value too quickly.

C) Thus, “virgins” and “alphas” are often perceived as high value, while “sluts” and “betas” are often perceived as low value.

This creates a conflict with the four points above when:

I) High value virgins and alphas match up together by similar value, only to find that their mating goals may not line up. Sometimes they commit and have sex, which means they both “get it all”. Other times, they just have sex – which is an unfair trade for the virgin. If she is “smart” she requires commitment for sex – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes her away from that.

II) Low value whores and betas match up based on value too, only to find their mating goals in conflict as well. Sometimes they also commit and have sex, which means they both “get the best they can”. Other times, they just commit – which is an unfair trade for the beta. If he is “smart” he requires sex for commitment – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes him away from that.

In my post The Threat I wrote:

Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism. Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence.

As with AFFB you have to begin in the biological realm to understand men’s sexual strategy and move through the psychological to get to the social. The Madonna / Whore dynamic isn’t too hard to understand when you consider men’s sexual imperative stimulated by the realities of 12.5 times the amount of testosterone women experience. A while back on Sunshine Mary’s blog the topic was an effort in trying to understand (more like verify the fact) that men sexually evaluate a woman within the first glance of a woman. From an intersocial standpoint this fact (dubiously) offends women in that it smacks of some learned (psychological/sociological) tendency to objectify women. However the biological fact is that all men objectify women because it is how our neural firmware evolved. The parts of men’s brains involved with problem solving and tool use are stimulated when we see sexually available women.

Male Hypergamy

I’m often asked if I think there is a male parallel to feminine Hypergamy. If there is it’s the want to optimize a balance in the ideal monogamous wife, supportive mother for his children, and a woman he (mistakenly) believes has the capacity to love him as he believes a woman could, and the dirty, porn star who represents unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Lets be clear this want for masculine hypergamy doesn’t have anything near the biological impetus that women’s physicality prompts them to – we simply don’t have the same plumbing or firmware – and rather his hypergamy is rooted in a rational frustration of trying to balance sexual availability with his potential for investing himself emotionally in a woman.

It’s maybe not so ironic that the same fem-centric critics who so adamantly want to avoid the inconvenient aspects of the biological realm by focusing exclusively on the psychological or social in order to discredit the feminine AFBB / Sexual Pluralism, are the same critics who’ll gleefully endorse the Madonna / Whore “complex” in men because it agrees with their ego-investments and further reinforces the Feminine Imperative as the socially dominant one.

Before I finish up here I wanted to add my take on the husband of the Whore/Prude wife from last week’s post. A lot of guys (and one convenient feminist) said he should’ve seen it coming, or he never should’ve signed on for marrying a woman who didn’t have a genuine desire to fuck him like the secret porn star she used to be. In a perfect world where we have absolute clarity and foresight is 20/20 that maybe, but if I had to speculate, my guess is that he was trying to do what he thought and had been conditioned to think was right. He married a Madonna, and very likely an attractive one he thought he could do no better by, in the hopes she would “come around” and be at least a satisfactory whore for him alone.

How many guys would you advise marry even a borderline slut in the hopes that she’d “come around” to being a great wife and mother? The majority of men are varying degrees of Betas,pre-whipped by the feminine imperative for half a lifetime to eventually be the de facto cuckold for women’s sexual priorities at just the right time. From a red pill perspective we can say he should’ve seen the signs, but we’re dealing with a blue pill man plugged into the Matrix trying to balance the Madonna / Whore dynamic with blinders on.

Late Edit: For further analysis, linked here is the most recent followup reddit post of the (very real) husband of porn tape wife from last week’s post.

Filed under: Biomechanics, Hypergamy, Idealizations, Psychology, Social Conventions, The Feminine Imperative, Unplugging

Horror is a woman’s secret id revealed. Unenlightened men recoil, and even the women who allow the full expression of their deepest feelings are revolted by the specter of their own fallen desire.

I am severely chafed by my gentle, compassionate boyfriend.

I feel sick just writing this, and I don’t want to lose something good, so here goes:

I’m a 34-year-old single mother of a beautiful, sweet, and healthy three-year-old boy. I never imagined having kids, but accidentally became pregnant three months into a destructive relationship. I kept the child and eventually got rid of the man (with the help of a domestic violence counselor and a restraining order), which was a healthy decision.

You see, healthy decisions are not my forte. With a few exceptions, I usually date the damaged bad boy, the alcoholic who needs rescuing, or the tortured artist. I scrapped all that when I had my son, and haven’t dated since removing baby daddy from my life 2 years ago. Until recently.

Five months ago, I met a man at my sister’s wedding (one of the groomsmen), and we connected. Talked all night, laughing like crazy, connected. We hugged briefly at the end of the evening and we both felt it was worth pursuing. He lives 1400 miles away from me, and we began an email correspondence, sharing our relationship history, likes and dislikes, and getting to know each other. We have a lot in common. We fell in love. We made plans for him to relocate to my city and move in together. We decided all this before spending a great deal of physical time with each other. He’s visited once a month for the past five months, and the trips have gone from elated, nervous excitedness to awkward arguing and annoyance. He is sensitive, kind, attentive, and doting. He is so very patient and loving with my child. Because of these traits, I find myself feeling less attracted to him physically. He seems meek. It is truly something sick. I have a hard time looking at him on occasion, because every little quiver, every timid step, every noise he makes while eating makes my skin crawl. He follows me around and paws at me. He is far less experienced than I am in the bedroom, and yet I do not know how to let him know what I like, because he is not keeping up with me in that department.

I don’t have a lot going on, aside from an unsatisfying job, my son, and my love of animals. I don’t have the financial resources to pursue hobbies or interests, and this man offers stability. I love him, but I’m not sure why I’m so uncontrollably moody around him, and why he has turned me off. He is so gentle—the gentle man I always thought I wanted, because underneath it all I’m gentle, too—but I’m pushing away and I don’t know if I love myself enough to make this work. I have tried talking to him about this and he just apologizes and says he feels out of his element. He picks up on my annoyance which makes him feel uncomfortable, which triggers a neediness, which I find unattractive. I don’t want my son to have a bad boy for a father figure, but I don’t want to resent my lover over petty things. Are these petty things? Is love about being able to be annoyed by someone, and loving them anyway? I tell myself that I have a good man—and I don’t want to lose him—but how can I really snap out of this? I feel terrible, ungrateful, and confused.

A woman is as viscerally repulsed by a sensitive niceguy as a man is by a fat woman. If you want to know what a woman feels when a niceguy dotes on her in needy supplication, just remember how you feel when you see a land whale bend over in short shorts to pick up a donut crumb. The stimuli are different, but the disgust reflex is the same. And the reflex serves the same underlying reproductive purpose in both sexes: to avoid contamination of the egg with inferior sperm, and to avoid fertilizing and investing resources in inferior eggs.

Most women aren’t capable of this sort of self-reflection, and with good reason; if women had to grapple with their malignant sexual natures on a regular basis, they might very well go crazy. Or crazier than they already are. From an evolutionary perspective, mental stopgaps (aka the hamster) that block access to understanding of primal limbic impulses is a useful adaptation for ensuring women capitalize when the superior seed of self-driven, aloof, challenging, emotionally distant and often unkind men is available to them.

If you are a gentle, compassionate niceguy… a man of God…, a woman will become, inexplicably to you, cranky and moody if she’s in a relationship with you. You will be confused and wonder why she won’t listen to reason about all the good you do for her, and then you will blame her for your pain, unless you are an emasculated quasi-man, in which case you’ll direct the blame upon yourself. And through all the emotional ups and downs, the turmoil that is out of your control to manage, the cold sexlessness that feeds your spiraling resentment and unfocused rage, the microinsults that pile higher atop your wounded dignity with every increasingly despairing day together, the misplaced guilt that poisons your soul… through all that punishment, punishment that on some days will seem less bearable than the acute pain of physical torture, one demonic truth pulsates at the center of the chaos:

She has as little power over her feelings as you do.

But there is redemption, persecuted niceguy. You just have to know where to look.

Filed under: Girls, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths

No doubt Sam Harris will be arguing that the atheist Kim's rational, but lethal form of governance doesn't count as a strike against atheism because it isn't committed "in the name of atheism":

The first thing to appreciate about Kim is that he is not mad. He is undoubtedly what psychologists call a ‘rational actor’ — literally meaning that his actions are not irrational at all.

In fact, he is behaving in a way that many people would if they were born into a family that is the subject of an extreme personality cult: his father and grandfather were both long-time leaders of North Korea before him.

Like any Mafia boss or medieval warlord presiding over a crumbling territory, Kim’s first priority is simply to stay in power. And to do that, like any sane man, he is creating the spectres of enemies within — such as his uncle — and enemies without, such as the United States, which he has threatened in recent months with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, a piece of absurd muscle-flexing purely designed to raise his prestige at home....

The number of mass public executions have soared — with estimates of between 40 to 80 so far this year in towns across the country, when last year the total was under 20.... Judges have pronounced sentence for crimes as trivial as owning a Bible, communicating with South Koreans or Christian missionaries, or simply complaining about the hardship of life in a state where millions spend their lives close to starvation.

The prisoners — a rock stuffed in their mouths to prevent them shouting out and ‘defiling the great leader’ — are tied to a post and shot, one by one, by a three-man firing squad. Armed with rifles or machine guns, their killers shoot them so many times their faces are usually unrecognisable. The bodies are thrown into bags and dumped. As with any ‘offences against the people’, not only are the perpetrators punished but also three generations of their families — with grandparents and children alike ‘disappearing’ into horrifyingly brutal prison camps.

Of course, it is a little hard to deny that executing people for owning Bibles and talking with Christian missionaries is at least partially motivated by atheism. Atheist and pagan rulers alike have always feared Christians because Christians are intransigent about their stubborn belief in a higher power than the State, which thereby makes them dangerous to those who rule it. Not that this historical observation will stop the brilliant logicians from the School of Harris, who will no doubt proceed to argue next that it isn't actually colder this winter because the sun has not reduced its activity "in the name of global cooling".

Note that Kim's actions show how my observations concerning historical atheist rulers in TIA has proved to be a successful predictive model of his current behavior. The point isn't that atheism makes anyone do anything. It doesn't. The point, and the problem, is that it removes moral barriers from those who have evil desires.

I always feel a bit on the back foot when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. A lot of Australians have been persuaded already that gay marriage is a matter of conferring a right on a group of people and that there will be no negative consequences.

If you're one of those Australians I would ask you to read on with an open mind. Tiberge at Gallia Watch has translated part of a debate in the French senate on the family. France recently legalised same sex marriage, despite very considerable public opposition. Now a further new law is being considered, one that will promote a "diversity" of family types.

The debate begins with a comment from the ruling Socialist Party Minister for the Family, Dominique Bertinotti:

I am convinced that the Senate's efforts will be towards the consolidation of this advancement for equality. This law is part of a silent revolution.

She states openly in the French senate that what is happening in France is a "silent revolution." She is not arguing that nothing significant will change; rather it is a revolution from above - from socialists like herself.

Alain Gournac, from the more conservative UMP, then reminds her of the mass, popular demonstrations in defence of the traditional family that have taken place in France:

The silence of a million people in the street!

But the socialist lawmaker is undeterred:

Sexuality is henceforth disassociated from conjugal life and from procreation.

She is saying that marriage and having children is no longer based on the heterosexual couple of husband and wife.

Another female Socialist Party senator, Michelle Meunier, then chimes in:

This bill is part of the slogan of our Republic. It allows homosexuals to have a family. Let's admit it. It leads the family out of the fantasy of "one mother, one father and one child"...

She labels the traditional family a "fantasy." The debate has reached a point at which the traditional family is denigrated in the French senate.

Charles Revet, again from the UMP, then calls out to object:

It's not a fantasy! What are you saying!

But the Socialist Party senator continues:

...because that family has never been universal. In all periods, parents have brought into the world children that they couldn't or wouldn't accept responsibility for. In all periods, children have been raised by persons other than the father and mother. What causes the problem is this idealized "hetero-patriarchal-white" family, that is further and further removed from reality. The law must adapt. (...)

Again, she reveals her hostility to the traditional family: she labels it the "hetero-patriarchal-white" family and states that it is increasingly removed from reality.

The more right-wing senators reacted with indignation to her comments, but yet another left-wing female senator, Esther Benbassa, a Green, continued along the same theme:

Protect the child? Everybody is for it! The child needs a father and a mother? Pure ideology, just like the concept of a traditional family, the pattern of "daddy-mommy-child" is a broken model which recomposed and single-parent families long ago abandoned.

She states that it is "pure ideology" that a child needs a father and a mother. This is, in effect, dissolving of family relationships. If a man, for instance, believes that his presence within a family is a necessary one, and that by abandoning his wife and children he will do harm, then he is much more likely to stay and to invest a lot of himself in his roles of husband and father. At the same time, if his wife believes his role to be a necessary one, both for her sake and that of the children, she is likely to act to keep him involved within the family.

But let's say a man really believed what Esther Benbassa claimed in the French senate, that a child doesn't need a father. If that is true, then why would a man put much effort into fatherhood? His children don't need him to do this, at least according to the women socialists. So why, then, make such sacrifices for the sake of the family?

The logic of the new family is male disinvestment in family life. It's possible that the female socialists do intuitively grasp this and welcome it as part of their attempts to dissolve the "hetero-patriarchal-white" family. It's possible that there are ordinary French people who grasp the same thing, hence the mass demonstrations against the socialist laws and the abysmal approval ratings for the French President, Francois Hollande.

It seems to me that the only way things might work out in France is if there is a disconnect between what is officially approved and what ordinary men really think and believe. If the state takes as a principle the idea that families don't need a father, but ordinary men hold to the opposite view that their role is a significant and necessary one, then society might be able to hold together.

But isn't there a risk that men will be influenced over time by what is held at an official level to be true? Isn't there a risk that men will be drawn into a state sponsored culture in which the presence of a father within a family is thought to be unnecessary?

From Explorable:

Statistical correlation is measured by what is called coefficient of correlation (r). Its numerical value ranges from +1.0 to -1.0. It gives us an indication of the strength of relationship.

In general, r > 0 indicates positive relationship, r < 0 indicates negative relationship while r = 0 indicates no relationship (or that the variables are independent and not related). Here r = +1.0 describes a perfect positive correlation and r = -1.0 describes a perfect negative correlation.
Closer the coefficients are to +1.0 and -1.0, greater is the strength of the relationship between the variables.

As a rule of thumb, the following guidelines on strength of relationship are often useful (though many experts would somewhat disagree on the choice of boundaries).

Value of r	Strength of relationship
-1.0 to -0.5 or 1.0 to 0.5	Strong
-0.5 to -0.3 or 0.3 to 0.5	Moderate
-0.3 to -0.1 or 0.1 to 0.3	Weak
-0.1 to 0.1	None or very weak

From Ron Unz:

[O]ver the last twenty-five years the weighted correlations for each of the crime categories against the percentages of whites, Hispanics, and “immigrants” (i.e. Hispanics-plus-Asians) have fluctuated in the general range of -0.20 to -0.60. Interestingly enough, for most of the last decade the presence of Hispanics and immigrants has become noticeably less associated with crime than the presence of whites, although that latter category obviously exhibits large regional heterogeneity. Meanwhile, in the case of blacks, the weighted crime correlations have steadily risen from 0.60 to around 0.80 or above, almost always now falling within between 0.75 and 0.85.

That's not the interesting part, however. At this point, only a complete idiot or the willfully blind will deny the relative African predilection for crime. What is interesting is his conclusions regarding how the supposedly anti-racist liberals are addressing this very strong correlation and how immigration factors into it:

America’s ruling financial, media, and political elites are largely concentrated in three major urban centers—New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.—and all three have contained large black populations, including a violent underclass. During the early 1990s, many observers feared New York City was headed for urban collapse due to its enormously high crime rates, Los Angeles experienced the massive and deadly Rodney King Riots, and Washington often vied for the title of American homicide capital. In each city, the violence and crime were overwhelmingly committed by black males, and although white elites were rarely the victims, their fears were quite palpable.

One obvious reaction to these concerns was strong political support for a massive national crackdown on crime, and the prison incarceration of black men increased by almost 500% during the two decades after 1980. But even after such enormous rates of imprisonment, official FBI statistics indicate that blacks today are still over 600% as likely to commit homicide than non-blacks and their robbery rate is over 700% larger; these disparities seem just as high with respect to Hispanic or Asian immigrants as they are for whites. Thus, replacing a city’s blacks with immigrants would tend to lower local crime rates by as much as 90%, and during the 1990s American elites may have become increasingly aware of this important fact, together with the obvious implications for their quality of urban life and housing values.

According to Census data, between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians increased by one-third in Los Angeles, by nearly 50% in New York City, and by over 70% in Washington, D.C. The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which declined, often substantially, in each location. And all three cities experienced enormous drops in local crime, with homicide rates falling by 73%, 79%, and 72% respectively, perhaps partly as a result of these underlying demographic changes. Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices. It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an important but unspoken factor in shaping their views.

As an anecdotal example, consider the case of Matthew Yglesias, a prominent young liberal blogger living in Washington, DC. A couple of years ago he recounted on his blogsite how he was suddenly attacked from behind and seriously beaten by two young men while walking home one evening from a dinner party. At first he was quite cagey about identifying his attackers, but he eventually admitted they were blacks, possibly engaged in the growing racial practice of urban “polar bear hunting” so widely publicized by the Drudge Report and other rightwing websites.

Few matters are more likely to trouble the minds of our Harvard-educated intellectual elite than fear of suffering random violent assaults while they walk the streets of their own city. Yet no respectable progressive would possibly focus on the racial character of such an attack, let alone advocate the removal of local blacks as a precautionary measure. Instead Yglesias suggested that housing-density issues might have been responsible and that better urban planning would reduce crime.

But consider that support for very high levels of foreign immigration is an impeccably liberal cause, and such policies inevitably displace and remove huge numbers of urban blacks; it is easy to imagine that Yglesias quietly redoubled his pro-immigration zeal in the wake of the incident. Multiply this personal example a thousand-fold, and perhaps an important strand of the tremendous pro-immigration ideological framework of American elites becomes apparent. The more conspiratorially-minded racialists, bitterly hostile to immigration, sometimes speculate that there is a diabolical plot by our ruling power structure to “race-replace” America’s traditional white population. Perhaps a hidden motive along these lines does indeed help explain some support for heavy immigration, but I suspect that the race being targeted for replacement is not the white one.

Indeed. One might reach the same conclusion when looking closely at the consequences of liberal policies on welfare and abortion. Never look at the selling points, look at the consequences. If the course is not subsequently changed in light of a divergence between the two, it is safe to assume that the consequences were planned from the start.

Remember, extrapolating current trends to predict the future is reliably a failure. In 1900, it was widely believed that the black race was inevitably headed for extinction. 100 years later, it looks like the whites are on the way out. But it's not hard to imagine ethnic cleansing in Europe combined with ethnic strife in the Americas and ruthless Chinese colonization in Africa leading to the revival of concerns for the black race in 2100.

Jenny Erikson, a conservative Christian mommy blogger, recently attracted the attention of the manosphere when she posted posted an attack on her pastor for “spoiling the surprise” of her divorce by telling her husband before she could.

When Jenny talked to a friend about leaving her marriage, the news made its way to Jenny’s pastor, who contacted her husband, Leif, to let him know what was coming. Her husband went home, and the following conversation transpired:

“I want to know what My Pastor told you,” I [Jenny] repeated.

He paused. Dried his hands. Took a deep breath. Sighed. “That you were planning on filing for divorce on Friday,” he finally admitted.

So there you go. My Pastor had actually told my husband, based on a fourth-hand rumor, without talking to me first, that I was planning on leaving him. That. Just. Happened.

“I filed for divorce last week,” I told him flatly. “I was planning on telling you this Friday.”

Jenny accuses her pastor of repeating a “rumor” that he heard “fourth-hand” while freely admitting she had already filed for the divorce a week ago. She wants to blame him for something, but was just mad she got caught.

My husband defended him as doing his pastoral duty. I looked him straight in the eyeballs and said, “The fact that you are defending this man’s actions yesterday is one of a thousand reasons I cannot stay married to you.”

The Bible’s position on divorce is pretty clear: don’t. Jenny shouldn’t be shocked that her pastor would warn a member of his congregation his wife is about to destroy his family, and give him a chance to confront her and repair the marriage.

Who is Jenny Erikson?

The tagline of Jenny’s blog is “God, Family, Politics, Wine (in that order).” Her profile picture is a cell phone image of her with a fruity alcoholic drink captioned “conservative blogger” when you hover your mouse over it. She has supported the Tea Party, been to CPAC three years in a row, and submitted a video question to the GOP presidential debates.

She and her pastor had clashed before over an article she wrote entitled Victoria’s Secret’s New Teen Lingerie Is Something All Moms Should be Happy About. She also wrote a piece against ‘Fitness Mom’ Maria Kang, who posted a picture of her toned body and three children with the caption, “What’s your excuse?” and a piece against Tuthmosis’s ROK article 5 Reasons to Date a Girl with an Eating Disorder, meaning she is familiar with this site.

Jenny writes that she was “contemplating drinking before 9am” the day after announcing her divorce, revealing a lot about her relationship to alcohol and true feelings about the divorce. Shortly after her husband left, she got a Bible verse tattooed on her wrist, in an attempt to be as “hip” as other women. While Jenny is comfortable criticizing the government, she believes women are beyond reproach, even if they are drunk, fat, dressing their daughters in sexy lingerie, marking their bodies, suffering from eating disorders, or claiming God told them to break up their family.

Jenny is excommunicated, responds with snark

After divorcing her husband, her pastor rightfully excommunicated her. For those not familiar with the customs of the church, excommunication is a fancy word for kicking someone out. Usually, excommunication occurs when someone breaks a major rule and is unrepentant — unrepentant being the key word, because if Jenny was to say, “I’m sorry, I was wrong,” most churches would let her back in.

Instead, Jenny posted the letter her church sent her and peppered it with snarky comments:

Form for Excommunication:

As you know we have announced to you the great sin committed and the grievous offense given by our fellow-member, Jennifer Erikson, to the end that, by your Christian admonitions and prayers, she might come to her senses, turn to God, and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will (2 Tim. 2:26).

[Another side note. Snare of the Devil. I’m sorry, but I just snorted. Y’all should’ve heard it. It was totally sexy. Snare. Of. The. Devil.]

…So yeah that happened.

You’ll notice most of her posts end with some version of “that happened” or “That. Just. Happened” as if she is deeply surprised that her actions have consequences and there are other people in the world who don’t share her narcissistic fantasy, in which God thinks exactly like her and agrees with every decision she makes. Her substitution of indignant phrases for counter argument shows an inability to imagine or empathize with a perspective other than her own.

What life is like for Jenny after divorce

At least Jenny seems to be adjusting adjusting to single life well:

I’ve been living without a man around the house for just over a month now, and there are definitely some things I’ve had to get over. Spiders, for instance. I’ve had to kill numerous spiders all by myself. I tried to make the girls do it, but they were too busy screaming bloody murder at the eight-legged freaks to obey me. We’re going to have to work on that. Or something…

I’ve had to do all my own dishes. Leif used to do that…

Money. Is. Tight.

So far, a toilet hasn’t clogged yet, but I know it will eventually (hello, I have kids!), and then it will be my responsibility to fix it.

The fact this man used to do the dishes for her tells you everything you need to know. Her husband Leif shared in the housework, provided for his family, was present as a father, and active in his church. He seems by all accounts to be a good man.

What can we learn from this?

Jenny’s actions have been slammed by Christian manosophere bloggers such as Dalrock and Sunshinemary. The fact that a significant number of bloggers identify as “Christian manosophere bloggers” shows that even conservative Christian men in monogamous marriages need game nowadays.

Jenny Erikson’s husband did exactly what he was told he was supposed to do. He had the full support of his community and pastor and it still wasn’t enough to preserve his relationship. The sad truth is that by supporting his wife, Leif was supplicating rather than leading, even going so far as to buy her presents after she divorced him. Jenny describes him before marriage as “my shoulder to cry on when I went on bad dates” and “just friends.”

His wife placed a greater value on the tingles between her legs than her church, family, or God. If Leif had studied game, he might still have his marriage. Or have picked a better wife. We’ll never know.

Most churches wouldn’t even excommunicate a woman for divorce, instead placing blame on the man for failing to please his wife. There are pastors who regularly praise the heroic struggle of single moms. Feminism has infiltrated the church to such a degree that it’s dogma has become a part of church dogma.

Women like Jenny don’t just subscribe to the feminist dogma that we should support any choice a woman makes – they spiritualize it - saying that we should support any choice a woman makes because God wants us to. Even the Bible is just food pellets for her rationalization hamster.

Jenny Erikson is now a single mother with little money, two daughters to take care of, and the fading looks of body worn down by years of drinking and stress. Because she publicized her actions online, the stigma of abandoning her family will follow her as a warning to any man who’d consider dating her, and any Christian who thinks religion alone will spare him from the problems of modern women.

Read More: Why Christian Men Don’t Deserve Virgins

All t-shirts for only $7, with an extra discount for ROK readers. Visit or December sponsor, 7 Buck Tees.

As the rape of science fiction was apparently not enough for the pinkshirts, some of them are now attempting to destroy programming in the name of sex equity as well:

One of the node.js core contributors, Ben Noordhuis, rejected a pull request that eliminated the use of a gendered pronoun in libuv. Now, this was quickly reversed by node.js project lead Isaac Schlueter (that is, Isaac accepted the patch eliminating the gendered pronoun), but because this is a Joyent-sponsored project, many made the reasonable inference that Ben is a Joyent employee—and have called Joyent to task for tolerating such poor behavior. (Especially when that poor behavior transcended into the gobsmackingly inappropriate as Ben tried to revert Isaac's commit.)

But while Isaac is a Joyent employee, Ben is not—and if he had been, he wouldn't be as of this morning: to reject a pull request that eliminates a gendered pronoun on the principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered would constitute a fireable offense for me and for Joyent. On the one hand, it seems ridiculous (absurd, perhaps) to fire someone over a pronoun -- but to characterize it that way would be a gross oversimplification: it's not the use of the gendered pronoun that's at issue (that's just sloppy), but rather the insistence that pronouns should in fact be gendered. To me, that insistence can only come from one place: that gender—specifically, masculinity—is inextricably linked to software, and that's not an attitude that Joyent tolerates. This isn't merely a legalistic concern (though that too, certainly), but also a technical one: we believe that empathy is a core engineering value—and that an engineer that has so little empathy as to not understand why the use of gendered pronouns is a concern almost certainly makes poor technical decisions as well....

But just so you heard it from us: if this were the act of a Joyent employee, we would—to deliberately use a gender-neutral pronoun—fire them.

I would avoid using any of Joyent's products, given that it is clear that as a company, they are far more concerned about ideological correctness than with working code or the abilities of their programmers. They are actually insisting upon the use of grammatically incorrect language and threatening to fire those who are unwilling to use the improper form. It would be fascinating to investigate their employment practices and determine if they have 50 percent female programmers, and if not, to learn why they are operating in such an overtly sexist manner.

As a game developer, I am a potential customer of "high-performance cloud infrastructure and big data analytics company". And I certainly will not be using, or recommending, Joyent.

It's also informative to learn it has now been established that the deliberate choice of pronouns is a fireable offense. This means those of us who speak proper English and understand, as Churchill used to say, that the masculine embraces the feminine in English grammar, are now free to fire anyone who deliberately uses a gender-neutral pronoun such as "he or she" or "them".

This gender-policing of the language is such a stupid, left-wing, and above all, parochial attitude. It should be amusing to see them clumsily attempt to covert all gendered articles to "das" in German and to attempt to impose gender neutrality upon la lingua bella and le français.

It was my first year of undergrad. I hooked up with a girl and laughed in her face when she suggested we hang out again. Predictably, she got upset.

She went to visit her don (floor captain/residence adviser), and poured her heart out. In a sane world, they would have shared some tears, some hugs, and some sisterly advice to watch out for smooth-talking boys with a copy of Roosh’s Bang in their back pocket.

But this particular don was a gender studies major with a persecution complex and a close resemblance to late-career Roseanne Barr. She let out a deep Social Justice Warrior battle cry, and spent the semester trying to bully my consensual conquest into accusing me of rape. Fortunately for me, the girl was a decent human being with a strong enough personality to resist the allure of petty revenge. I am a free man.

This was almost a decade ago. If that girl had been weaker, dumber, or more vindictive, my life may have turned out very different. I once thought that my story was unique, but I’ve since learned that it’s much more common than you might think.

American men have started to realize that falsified rape claims are a serious threat to us, even though the issue is completely ignored by mainstream media sources.

Here are three reasons why you should be aware of the danger of false rape accusations:

1. False rape accusations are very common

Statistics on politicized issues like this are often untrustworthy. Many police departments resolve even the most obvious cases of false rape accusation by sending both parties home, recording no crime, and making the girl pinky swear never to do it again. But to my surprise, several decent studies have been done on the frequency of false rape accusations.

A meta-analysis by Rumney (2006) suggests that between 10-50% of rape allegations are false. Kanin (1994) arrived at an estimate of 40%, using methodology that strikes me as more trustworthy than a simple count of police-recorded ‘malicious accusations’, since many false rape claims are ignored. Kanin’s unique process was as follows:

Kanin investigated the incidences of false rape allegations made to the police in one small urban community between 1978 and 1987. He states that unlike those in many larger jurisdictions, this police department had the resources to “seriously record and pursue to closure all rape complaints, regardless of their merits.” He further states each investigation “always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects” and “the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false.”

The number of false rape allegations in the studied period was 45; this was 41% of the 109 total complaints filed in this period. The researchers verified, whenever possible, for all of the complainants who recanted their allegations, that their new account of the events matched the accused’s version of events.

Other studies have arrived at figures as high as 90%, such as Stewart (1981), who considered one case disproved because: “It was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will.” I wonder if she lives near Nigel?

Most convincing to me, and more trustworthy than anything put out by any modern academic, is the claim by Danger and Play that more than 50% of ‘date rape’ accusations are false. I’ll take the word of one man I trust over a dozen corrupt and career-climbing academics, but in this case the academics seem to agree with the anecdotes: False rape claims are extremely common.

2. There are no penalties for women who bring false rape charges

A false rape accusation is not merely an attack on a man’s character. It is an attempt to kidnap, imprison, torture, and perhaps murder an innocent man. It is a profoundly evil act, and yet there are often no consequences for women who make false rape accusations. Consider the case of Leanne Black, who accused five different men of rape before she was sentenced to two years in prison. Or Ashleigh Loder, who spent just six months in jail for a false rape accusation.

Hilariously, the tagline in that second article is: “Mother-of-two wasted 100 hours of police time by inventing the assaults.” As if the wasted police resources, and not the act of trying to imprison an innocent man for the rest of his life, is her most newsworthy crime.

There is no real penalty for women who make false rape accusations, despite the fact that it is at least as severe of a crime as rape itself. Personally, I would much rather be raped than spend a decade or more in prison, especially since there is a good chance that an American man charged with rape will wind up being raped quite a bit. I suspect very few people, male or female, would choose to spend decades in prison, over a single incidence of rape. And yet, false accusations are treated like parking fines – accumulate enough, and you might get a slap on the wrist.

3. The Definition of Rape Is Subjective

What is rape, anyways? Once upon a time it was when a man had sex with a woman even while she was saying ‘No.’

Today, articles like this argue that a “weak yes” can also be considered  a “No”. Feminists are actively working to re-define the definition of consent to make it as subjective and open to manipulation as possible. The days of “No Means No” are long gone, replaced by a new paradigm of “If I Wake Up and Feel Uncomfortable With What Happened, Well I Guess I Must Have Been Feeling No.”

Historically,  if a girl is passed-out drunk and a guy has sex with her while she’s unconscious – that’s rape.

But what if a girl is just pretty drunk? What if the man has also been drinking? Are both guilty of rape? In a sane world, drunk people would be held responsible for whatever decisions they made while intoxicated. Drunk people still have agency, otherwise “I was drunk” would be always be a valid defense for drunk driving. The idea that a girl can wake up the morning after a night of enthusiastic sex and claim that she was too drunk to consent, is absolutely ridiculous.

College-aged men are put in an especially precarious position by the murkiness of rape laws, and the lack of consequences for women who make false accusations. It’s easy enough for me, as a twenty-eight year old man with a lot of dating experience, to avoid unstable drunk girls. But consider a young man on the college hook-up scene, in which the majority of girls he meets are impulsive, immature, and a heavy drinkers. Such a man should immediately learn How To Avoid A False Rape Accusation and start taking the precautions in that article.

Conclusion

These are the reasons why smart young men are aware of the growing threat of false rape accusations. It’s why men with options don’t date feminists. It’s why smart men send an ‘I didn’t rape you’ text. And it’s why men are disregarding the bullshit mainstream news sources that completely ignore issues like this, and reading sites like Thumotic and Return of Kings instead.

We’re coming out with two more articles on False Rape Accusations this week. Tomorrow we’ll look at How False Rape Accusations Force Men To Be Nice Guys. Make sure to follow us on Twitter so you don’t miss out.

Read Next: Game Can Protect You From False Rape Accusations

All t-shirts for only $7, with an extra discount for ROK readers. Visit or December sponsor, 7 Buck Tees.

An English UKIP politician is attacked for saying what most English people now fervently believe:

A high-profile UKIP politician is facing a racism storm after being caught on camera saying all immigrants to Britain should be sent back home. Victoria Ayling, who made headlines when she defected from the Tories in March, made the inflammatory comments in a 20-minute video seen by The Mail on Sunday. On the subject of immigration she talks about restricting the numbers of foreigners entering the UK, but then adds: ‘I just want to send the lot back, but I can’t say that.’

Of course, she and UKIP are making a huge mistake by backing down and trying to hide behind the "illegal immigrant" fig leaf.  But the problem with mass immigration is not whether the immigrants are legal or not, it is that there are simply far too many of them.

No nation can survive an immigrant population, including second and third generations, of more than five percent without seeing its legal and cultural traditions significantly transformed.  That transformation is precisely why anti-American forces have been pushing mass immigration since 1965. And it is why the EU elite has been forcing it on the European nations as well. But the tide is rapidly turning, as the Labour party leaders have learned:

Mr Morris, a former No 10 adviser to Tony Blair at the time of the ‘open-door’ policy, used the social-networking website Twitter to announce on Monday evening: ‘Recipe for a miserable evening:  off to do focus groups on immigration.’

And afterwards, he wrote, in a line dripping with sarcasm: ‘Tonight’s focus groups as progressive as  I hoped,’ adding: ‘Their plan: end migration and fill jobs with Brits who have to take job.’ He declared that it had left him ‘depressed, as you might imagine’. The liberal views on immigration of many of Labour’s frontbenchers are not shared by most voters.

In a recent opinion poll, 72 per cent of respondents favoured slamming the door on unskilled immigrants, while 59 per cent thought we should allow fewer relatives of people already living in Britain into the country to join them.

Multiculturalism and mass immigration are already mortally wounded, even as the Obama administration tries to figure out how to ram immigration amnesty through Congress. Legal immigrants are now being openly attacked across continental Europe, from Hungary to Greece. Saudi Arabia has announced plans to deport 2 million immigrants, which represents nearly 7 percent of its total population, and has already deported over 100,000.

And on the Daily Mail site, a considerable portion of the 2300+ comments are strongly in favor of Ms Ayling's opinion. The top-rated comment on the article, with 11,105 upvotes to 3,751 downvotes, was this: "How 95% of the UK feels but are for some Reason shouldn't say!"

The age of mass immigration is obviously over. Multiculturalism is a failed and societally destructive concept and it is now eminently clear that large-scale immigration devastates advanced economies. Civilized repatriations must begin and they must begin within the next ten years. If they do not, history strongly suggests that the world will enter into another era of vicious ethnic cleansing and mass killings.

Here is the vital point I hope you will at least try to understand: it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't even matter what Barack Obama or David Cameron think. It doesn't matter what any of us prefer or believe to be ethically or morally right. The great historical patterns always overwhelm national politics and specific ideologies in the course of time. Just as the various mono-ethnic nations came into being in the first place, they will recreate themselves over and over again, and there is no government or ideology that is capable of standing in the way of the basic human instinct to be surrounded by one's own kind in periods of uncertainty, economic contraction and international chaos.

An extraordinary demonstration has taken place in San Juan, a provincial city in Argentina.

In brief, a gathering of 7000 feminists attempted to attack a cathedral, which was defended by 1500 men. The men did not attempt to physically attack the women, but linked arms and formed a barrier.

And the feminist women? They spat on the men, sprayed them with aerosol spray paint, performed lewd acts in front of them, draped their underwear over them and generally behaved as if they had been seized by some primitive or savage spirit. I'm not going to directly paste the YouTube video (it is not suitable for work) but you can watch it here.

If you do choose to watch the video, note the contrast between the bearing of the men and the cruelly mocking and destructive behaviour of the feminist women.

Research on female sexuality is so anxiety-provoking for feminists; they need to spin everything to look like it supports the sex-positive feminist ideology of empowerment through sluttery and the shucking off of monogamous marriage, but reality is just so darn misogynistic that it keeps coming back to bite them in the bohunkus, requiring faster spinning by the feminist rationalization hamsters.  Let us consider two recent studies which would support a return to biblical sexual morality but which feminists have desperately tried to spin as meaning the opposite.

First, we have a recent study out of UCLA and the University of Texas which found that college-aged women are more likely to regret a one-time sexual encounter, whereas men are more likely to regret not taking a sexual opportunity. Women’s biggest sexual regrets were: losing their virginity to the wrong partner, cheating, or moving too fast sexually, while men regretted not making a move on a potential partner and a lack of sexual adventurousness…

Gosh, whatever could be causing women to feel so regretful after casual sex?  I would say it is conviction by the Holy Spirit, but secular researchers have another take on it:

One thing that is fascinating about these emotional reactions in the present is that they might be far removed from the reproductive consequences of the ancestral past. For example, we have reliable methods of contraception. But that doesn’t seem to have erased the sex differences in women’s and men’s responses, which might have a deep evolutionary history.

This makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection.  Slutty women would have had a hard time securing provisioning and protection from a man because paternity of the children would have been uncertain, and men generally don’t want to invest in other men’s children; men who expend energy to provide for the continuation of another man’s genetic line would be weeded out of the gene pool.  Whether you are a Christian or a secular atheist, the conclusion is the same: women do regret slutty behavior and with good reason.

Oh, but that conclusion doesn’t fit with sex-positive feminism.  Enter the rationalization hamster of feminist Jill Filipovic; in The only shameful thing about sex is justifying outdated views with ‘science’, she explains why this study got it all wrong:

While evolutionary biology traffics in real, science-backed facts, evolutionary psychology is largely a project of backward-looking guesswork, and often an attempt to chalk up complex social phenomenon to evolution…people love having their biases confirmed, and because alleged scientific confirmation of an “evolutionary” reason for social inequity handily gives us an out for having to deal with injustice. If women have actually emotionally evolved to feel sexual shame absent social context, then what’s the point of pushing back on a social context that sexually shames women?

…even as we study our own motivations and feelings, we are operating within a set of cultural assumptions and values that – being thickly swaddled in them – we cannot fully see. Which helps psychologists who fancy themselves evolution experts to conclude that their own personal preferences, or the current norms of their culture, are universal and explicable by evolution alone.

Her argument seems to be: researchers at UT and UCLA only fancy themselves to be knowledgeable about their subject matter, and furthermore, they probably secretly want to influence social norms to make them more judgy of slutty women; personally, it has not been my experience with professors in liberal college towns that they are secretly trying to dupe women into loving the Patriarchy™.   Ms. Filipovic goes on to assure women that feeling miserable after casual sex isn’t due to the fact that we are biologically different from men; rather, it’s just that we’ve been socialized to feel shame:

…the disconnect between a cultural ideal – that sex is best within the confines of marriage – and the biological and social reality – that human beings physically desire sex and that we have had sex outside of the confines of marriage for all of human history – is perhaps a better explanation of any attendant negative emotions attached to premarital sex than an evolutionary guessing game.

Not only that, but if women are feeling ashamed, then what we need is more money for feminist anti-slut-shaming “education”:

That so many women are making sexual choices shrouded in shame and regret is a public health problem that policy-makers have an obligation to take on…

Ms. Filipovic ends by reassuring all the single ladies that they absolutely should continue getting their freak on with random men:

Sexual regret isn’t about sex itself. It’s about all the ideas we attach to sex, and particularly to sexual women. We’d be much better off squaring our sexual ideals with reality rather than pushing a set of social mores that not only put our physical and mental health at risk, but mean too many of us are having bad sex and regretting what should be one of the most fundamentally pleasurable activities.

So, ladies, if you are feeling miserable and ashamed after your latest casual hookup - as research study after research study finds that you will –  don’t take that to mean you should stop hooking up.  You just need to free your mind from all that bad patriarchal social conditioning!  Yes, I am sure that will work.  Or not.

Science has established that women feel awful after casual sex, and feminists have explained that this has nothing whatsoever to do with women being different than men; it’s all society’s fault!  Except, apparently, when it isn’t: did you know that being miserable sluts is actually in our genes?  That’s right, evolutionary scientists say so, and suddenly feminists love them some evolutionary psychology.

In an article recently published in Evolutionary Anthropology,  Choosy But Not Chaste: Multiple Mating in Human Females, behavioral ecologist Brooke Scelza explains how women engage in multiple mating and actively seek out multiple partners as an “evolutionary strategy.”  Naturally this caused the feminists at Jezebel to gasp:

 According to science, we’re all sluts. Who wants to heave the first “told ya so”?…we fuck who we want and we have our reasons.

But before we get too excited, ladies, and run out to jump the UPS man, let’s look at what this article actually says.  First, it goes through some studies on non-human primates in which the females are sexually aggressive and solicit multiple male partners – langurs, lemurs, capuchin monkeys – and let us not forget that

bonobo females will have sex with everybody at pretty much any time they feel like it.

I know you guys hate her.  So out of sheer spite for my readership I shall post the latest pic.



































Coincidentally you may purchase my books here, and for any of the lovely ladies that want to send in tastefully risque pics, I will send you all my books for free.  All of the lieutenants, economists, and agents in the field appreciate the WWII pin up girl.

Isn't it amazing how other countries routinely appear to be able to do what we are informed is not only impossible, but outright unthinkable?

Teodros Adhanom, the Ethiopian foreign minister, has turned to Twitter almost every night for the last three weeks to tersely report the number of his countrymen expelled from Saudi Arabia.“Last night arrivals from Saudi reached 100,620,” he wrote on Friday, describing a fraction of one of the largest deportations in recent Middle East history. Riyadh has said it wants to forcibly expel as many as 2m of the foreign workers, including hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians, Somalis, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who make up around a third of the country’s 30m population.

At home, the exodus of illegal workers is being seen as the kingdom’s most radical labour market experiment yet. With one in four young Saudi males out of work, analysts applaud Riyadh’s determination to tackle the problem, but doubt the crackdown will achieve its objective, as Saudi nationals are unlikely to apply for menial jobs.

What a fascinating way to solve the unemployment problem! Get rid of the excess labor supply. Why, the next thing you know, someone will discover that the Law of Supply and Demand applies to the labor market! And if a country with a 30m population can expel 2m illegal workers in a civilized manner, then surely a country with 300m population is capable of expelling 20m of them.  Minnesota could be Somali-free within 15 days if they contracted the job out to the Saudis.

It's not a coincidence that after importing tens of millions of immigrants, the USA has gone into economic and demographic decline. The same is true of the UK and Western Europe. The facts are in. Mass immigration does not boost mature economies. It only speeds up their decline by reducing wages and forcing native workers to go into debt in order to try to maintain their standard of living until the debt limits are reached.

As for the unwillingness of Saudi nationals to apply for menial jobs, the Saudis might consider raising the wages and eliminating the subsidized unemployment.

It would appear that the theory of the 21st Century belonging to China is rapidly going the way that the Japan that could say no did or there is war on the horizon:

It's one of the largest and most rapid wealth migrations of our time: hundreds of billions of dollars, and waves of millionaires flowing out of China to overseas destinations. According to WealthInsight, the Chinese wealthy now have about $658 billion stashed in offshore assets. Boston Consulting Group puts the number lower, at around $450 billion, but says offshore investments are expected to double in the next three years. A study from Bain Consulting found that half of China's ultrawealthy—those with $16 million or more in wealth—now have investments overseas.

And it's not just the money that's exiting the country. The wealthy are increasingly following their money overseas. A study by Hurun and Bank of China found that more than half of China's millionaires are considering emigrating or have already taken steps to move overseas.

One wonders why? Mere internal unrest of the sort that has riddled Chinese history or it is something more serious? The sabres are already rattling over the Philippines and Abe is in the process of removing the peace planks from the Japanese constitution.

Things also look problematic for the USA, but there probably isn't too much to worry about until the Wall Street bankers begin emigrating. If you want to know what is likely to happen in the near future, watch the rich.

Men and women can identify smart men on sight. Smart women? Not so much:

We used static facial photographs of 40 men and 40 women to test the relationship between measured IQ, perceived intelligence, and facial shape. Both men and women were able to accurately evaluate the intelligence of men by viewing facial photographs. In addition to general intelligence, figural and fluid intelligence showed a significant relationship with perceived intelligence, but again, only in men. No relationship between perceived intelligence and IQ was found for women.

We used geometric morphometrics to determine which facial traits are associated with the perception of intelligence, as well as with intelligence as measured by IQ testing. Faces that are perceived as highly intelligent are rather prolonged with a broader distance between the eyes, a larger nose, a slight upturn to the corners of the mouth, and a sharper, pointing, less rounded chin. By contrast, the perception of lower intelligence is associated with broader, more rounded faces with eyes closer to each other, a shorter nose, declining corners of the mouth, and a rounded and massive chin.

I've long has the impression that you can discern high and low intelligence by the eyes. Intelligent people usually have eyes that either sparkle or burn. I seem to have the latter; it's not uncommon for people to step backward in alarm when I forget to do what I think of as turning down my eyes. Stupid people, on the other hand, tend to have eyes that are dull and unfocused.

It is interesting, though, because the study matches my own experience. I have, on occasion, been taken completely by surprise with the unexpected intelligence of a woman, whereas that very seldom seems to happen with men.

I've been in Arizona for about 4 days.  In those four days not once have I had to worry about frostbite, hypothermia, or even had the subconscious, darwinistic worry that causes a stir in my stomach by reminding me I might die when I go out in the frigid cold.  It has made me conclude that without a doubt, I will be moving to the south.  Maybe not Arizona, but certainly Texas or Florida.  Life is just too short to live in Minnesota.

However, what's funny is the arrogance most Minnesotan (and Michiganian and Wisconsinite) leftist politicians have about their "beloved" states.

Mark Dayton for example thinks community centers, "Minnesota Nice," and our publicly funded sports arenas are enough to convince people to live in -30 degrees.  Why, having to shovel 3 feet of snow, move cars during parking emergencies only to be ticketed anyway, and pay $300 a month in winter heat bills is more than compensated by the fact we have nice bike paths that can be used 2 months out of the year.  And don't forget our "hip cool hipster" areas like Uptown and Lowertown!  Those inferior artists who populate the place can't work up a damn lick of decent art to the point we've gone so far to redefine art as the minimalist, talentless shit that currently populates the Walker Art Center.  But hey, they wear converse shoes, skinny jeans, and they drink their coffee with their pinkies extended!  And finally, the taxes.  We should be proud of our socialist Norwegian heritage!  And that is enough right there to be proud of.  We care!  So shut the fuck up, pay more in taxes, and appreciate that what you get in return is the fact you were forced to be charitable!

Sarcasm aside, in the end, Minnesota (and her upper midwest socialist sisters) need to realize something:

They're like fat women.

What socialist, liberal, and leftist politicians of the Arctic States of America have to realize is that they already have an uphill battle to keep productive people in their states.  Their weather sucks, snow sucks, and 8 hours a day of sunlight during winter also sucks.  So what do they do to sweeten the pot?

Foist some of the highest taxes on its population.

This is like a fat wife having the audacity to be overbearing and nagging on top of physically repugnant.  Not only is the place unattractive, but it's abusive and intolerable as well.

Now some states get it. They realize they're fat and thus, they are nice.  North Dakota and South Dakota know they are the obese ugly sisters of the United States, but compensate by offering no income taxes, favorable business environments, and in general have a pleasant demeanor.  Other states, on the opposite spectrum also get it.  California for example knows it can abuse its popuilation because it's the "hot girl" of the United States.  Great weather, great climate, awesome scenery.  Why the IT nerds in silicon valley will line up to get financially ass-raped by the state just as readily as they will to get ass-raped by gold digging divorce-prone liberal arts majors from LA.  But at least California offers something.

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Connecticut, and all the other snowbound shit holes offer NOTHING.  Ergo they are the worst - a fat chick WHO HAS ATTITUDE.

Thus, there should be no surprise Minnesotans and the like are moving to Florida or Texas.

You see, Florida and Texas are like the nice farm girls who are hot, but don't have the attitude of California or the delusions de grandiuer of Minnesota.  They still appreciate productive citizens, they like stable, non-criminal populations, but are also physically pleasing.  Nice weather.  Warm climate.  And no shoveling snow whatsoever (I might also point out their women are indeed hotter).  But ALSO low taxes, freedoms, pro gun, and a general pro-business environment.  So the question to Minnesota liberals is simply this:

What, precisely, do you bring to the table for your economically productive suitors?

And the answer is nothing.

You're loud, you're entitled, your obnoxious, you're fat, you're ugly, your abusive, and you're gross.  No self-respecting citizen would ever marry you let alone fuck you for one night.  And when people threaten to leave, you merely threaten to punish them for leaving instead of looking at yourself in the mirror to maybe consider that maybe you are the one with the problem.

So continue on Mark Dayton.  Continue on Phyllis Kahn.  Continue on Chris Coleman.  You keep snapping your fingers in a "you go girl talk to the hand" type manner.  In the end you're nothing but the fat, ghetto trash, trailer trash girl that offers nothing but pain and life-sucking misery to anybody with skill, talent, and  future.  And until you check your attitude (or somehow magically change the climate) you will forever be the ugly, bitchy fat girl of these United States of America.

Armarium Magnum explains why so many atheists are historically illiterate:

After 30+ years of observing and taking part in debates about history with many of my fellow atheists I can safely claim that most atheists are historically illiterate.  This is not particular to atheists:  they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people, since historical illiteracy is pretty much the norm.   But it does mean that when most (not all) atheists comment about history or, worse, try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level.

This is hardly surprising, given that most people don't study history past high school.  But it means their understanding of any given historical person, subject or event is (like that of most people), based on half-remembered school lessons, perhaps a TV documentary or two and popular culture: mainly novels and movies.  Which is why most atheists (like most people) have a grasp of history which is, to be brutally frank, largely crap.

Worse, this also means that most atheists (again, like most people) have a grasp of how history is studied and the techniques of historical analysis and synthesis which is also stunted at high school level - i.e. virtually non-existent.  With a few laudable exceptions, high school history teachers still tend to reduce history to facts and dates organised into themes or broad topics.  How we can know what happened in the past, with what degree of certitude we can know it and the techniques used to arrive at these conclusions are rarely more than touched on at this level.  This means that when the average atheist (yet again, like the average person generally) grasps that our knowledge of the past is not as cut and dried and clear as Mr Wilkins the history teacher gave us to understand, they tend to reject the whole thing as highly uncertain at best or subjective waffle at worst.  Or, as Grundy put it, as "crap".

All this leads some atheists, who have fallen in to the fallacy of scientism and reject anything that can't be definitively "proven", to reject the idea of any degree of certainty about the past.  This is an extreme position and it's rarely a consistent one.  As I've noted to some who have claimed this level of historical scepticism, I find it hard to believe they maintain this position when they read the newspaper, even though they should be just as sceptical about being able to know about a car accident yesterday as they are about knowing about a revolution 400 years ago.

This is something I, too, have noticed with regards to many atheists, beginning with Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. It is obvious they don't know any more about history than they do about theology; no one who knows anything about history believes religion causes war, thinks that the Spanish Inquisition was one of the most lethal institutions in human history, or finds the assumption that Jesus was not a legitimate historical figure to be a reasonable one.

However, I do have to take exception to this statement: "This rejection can be more pronounced in atheists, because many (not all) come to their atheism via a study of science." This observably isn't true. Armarium Magnum has the order reversed. The vast majority of atheists become atheists as teenagers, before they have embarked upon any course of study, and they become atheists for reasons that are entirely emotional by their own account. They then turn to science for the explanations that they can no longer seek in religion, and are understandably disappointed and embittered when they cannot find them there either.

The reason the rejection is often more pronounced in atheists is because they are observably less rational than most people who are interested in history. No one who does not believe in the existence of gods through a rational process can legitimately call himself an atheist, for the obvious reason that it is impossible to rationally prove the non-existence of gods. An agnostic's lack of god belief may have a rational basis, an atheist's non-belief never can. Their irrationality not only makes them unusually susceptible to swallowing falsehoods that thirty seconds on Wikipedia would render obvious, but makes it hard for them to give up their ahistorical dogma.

What’s worse is that I’ve also experienced atheists who have been shown extensive, clear evidence that the medieval Church taught the earth was round and that the myth of medieval Flat Earth belief was invented by the novelist Washington Irving in 1828, and they have simply refused to believe that the myth could be wrong.

Neat historical fables such as the ones about Christians burning down the Great Library of Alexandria (they didn’t) or murdering Hypatia because of their hatred of her learning and science (ditto) are appealing parables.  Which means some atheists fight tooth and nail to preserve them even when confronted with clear evidence that they are pseudo historical fairy tales.  

And before anyone angrily denounces Armarium Magnum as another theistic polemicist cut out of the same godbothering cloth as me, perhaps it should be noted that the gentleman is himself an atheist. It's a good piece and I even learned something. It's more than a little amusing to be informed that belief in the medieval belief in a flat earth is intellectually akin to belief in the Headless Horseman. And that will certainly make for a useful rhetorical device.

  PHILIPPA CROSS, a South African expatriate who lives in Australia, describes the anger she feels whenever she is asked for money to aid African charities. She writes: The beautiful children of Africa are used as props the world over to pull at the heartstrings of potential givers: when you’re in Australia, by almost every […]

Do you know whom you may wish to leave off your guest list for your upcoming holiday gathering?  Feminists, that’s who.

But if blood be thicker than water, and I believe it is, you will possibly have to invite a few of your maladjusted killjoy feminist relatives over for eggnog in the coming month.  What should I expect from my maladjusted killjoy feminist relatives, Sunshine Mary, you may be wondering.  Nothing good, I’m afraid, dear reader.

As our primary source for our view into the inner workings of the feminist mind during the holidays, we shall be using The Feministing Guide to Surviving the Holidays, written by Feministing editor Alexandra Brodsky.

Your maladjusted feminist killjoy relative is probably:

1. Depressed:

The holidays are a glorious time of shiny baubles and delicious food and sepia memories — unless, of course, your life is even a tiny bit complicated, in which case there’s a 97% chance that the mere idea of the next month of celebrations makes you want never, ever to get out of bed…

(Note: Internet advice is great, but sometimes it isn’t enough. If you need immediate help, I urge you to call into a hotline rather than turn to my WordPress-constructed guide.)

My goodness, when I give out holiday advice, it usually has to do with pie crust recipes; when feminists do it, it involves suicide hotline numbers.  What can we conclude from this, boys and girls?

2. Lonely and socially-rejected:

If you don’t have a place to go for the holidays…but are up for throwing yourself a party, here are some fun, cheap(er) recipes and a list of immediately available holiday movies.

No one invites feminists over.  I wonder why?  Oh well, in lieu of an invitation, perhaps send your maladjusted killjoy feminist relative a fruit basket and a case of catfood.

3. Worse than your cousin with Asperger’s Syndrome at determining what would be an appropriate topic of conversation:

If you’ve got plans and are worried about dinner table political debates…

…and you couldn’t be paid to utter the words “health care” around your family, Jill Filipovic has some suggestions for dodging heated conversations.

…and you want to finally convince your bigoted cousin that he’s wrong, then may the force be with you! Sometimes you’ve got to stand up for your beliefs and embrace the awkwardness. If the conflict falls along traditional party lines, check out the Dem’s guide to arguing with your Republican uncle. RH Reality Check published a great Planned Parenthood break-down of how to talk about repro justice over turkey (or tofurkey), including some sample answers to common questions.

You can also use your family’s own traditions against them by pointing out the feminist messages within their cherished holiday stories.

For a family insensitive — or downright hostile — to indigenous rights and history, bring along one of these children’s books. Pass it off to a relative to read to a little niece or nephew and educate two generations at once. You can also use a video to start a conversation, on your own terms, about the bloody history of colonialism and genocide erased by the cheery Thanksgiving story.

Mmm.  Awkward conversations about abortion, sorry, I mean repro justice?  Creepy books aimed at indoctrinating children into liberal ideology?  Feminist messages in the Christmas story about the birth of Our Lord?  Were blood not thicker than water, would anyone ever invite a feminist over for the holidays again?  I think not!

4. Likely to complain about being asked to help with the dishes:

If your family’s gendered expectations of kitchen duties make your blood boil…

…stand up for yourself. Help out preparing the meal or cleaning up because it’s the nice thing for anyone of any gender to do, but, as this feminist Thanksgiving guide insists, tell your uncle to get off his butt and help, too.

Nevermind that the menfolk probably earned the majority of the money that paid for the celebration; get those man-bitches into the kitchen, pronto!  The Revolution depends upon it, saith the maladjusted feminist killjoy relative with the boiling blood.

5. On the verge of having a nervous breakdown:

If you’re anxious about travel…

… you have options. Check out this guide if you’re traveling while trans. If you need special accommodations, check out these tips on air travel and other forms of transportation. xoJane has a good list of coping mechanisms for travel anxiety, and you can of course always call into a hotline to talk you through your anxiety. Me? I like to make lists of what I’m worried about, think over each item, and then cross them out.

Feminists do seem to need their hotlines at the holidays, don’t they?  It’s almost like there is something inherent in being a feminist that makes one mentally and emotionally unstable.

6. An anorexic, bulimic, or compulsive over-eater:

If you’re struggling with or recovering from an eating disorder…

She blah blah blahs about that a bit, but I say that your anorexic maladjusted killjoy feminist relative might just be the one you really want to invite, since apparently men are lining up to date such chicks, and she might be made into a well-adjusted, joyful, traditional wife someday after all.

7. Possibly homeless:

If you’re looking for food or shelter this season…services are available. Options vary by location, but religious centers are always a good place to check and the National Coalition for the Homeless can point you toward local resources.

If she’s not one of those UMC (upper middle class) white feminists, she’s likely to be poor and possibly dragging some “choice children” with her (thanks, feminism, for making poor women’s lives worse by destroying marriage among the lower classes!).  Be prepared, maybe with some McDonald’s gift certificates or leftover cardboard boxes or something.

 8. Likely to turn down your invitation anyway:

If you don’t feel safe at the celebration…you don’t have to go… Lori’s colleagues passed around a guide to the holidays that encouraged everyone to make the decision to spend holidays with their family of choice, rather than going home, if they know it won’t be good for them.

Yes, perhaps it would be best for all parties concerned if feminists just spent the holidays together and left us normal folks in peace.

9. But if your maladjusted feminist killjoy relative does come, remember that it’s got to be all about her:

…but you’ve decided to anyway, make sure to practice self-care. The holidays are hard, really, for more reasons than we could possibly address. Our library is far from comprehensive, but here are some of our favorite resources (and please suggest more in the comments):

She goes on to list a bunch of feminist resources on how to be awkward, inappropriate and self-centered, making sure to ruin the event for everyone in an attempt to ensure that everyone else is just as miserable as feminists are.

I find in reading her resources, dear readers, that I cannot escape the conclusion that feminism makes women mentally and emotionally unstable and that feminists feel compelled to spread their misery to everyone around them like a virulent ‘flu virus.  Since you must invite such unhappy creatures into your home at the holidays, at least do those poor, lost, maladjusted, joyless souls a favor by pointing them toward my blog (or one of the other anti-feminist sites in my blogroll); you may just bring a feminist around to her senses.  And if that isn’t a thought worthy of joyful celebration, I don’t know what is.

Feminists: always trying to make the holidays miserable for everyone.

 

As we’ve stumbled our way to the post marriage family one of the conversations we’ve never seriously engaged at a cultural level is the evil of child support and alimony.  That these things are evil should be manifest in the fact that they are the answer to the question:

How shall we organize the family without marriage? 

In fairness those who detest marriage would argue that replacing marriage is a fundamentally good thing, and that therefore anything which destroys marriage is not only not evil, but good.  However, even the most marriage hating radical feminist would still have to recognize that child support and alimony are the answer to the question of how to replace marriage.  

For those who believe in marriage the only legitimate question is not whether child support and alimony are evil, but whether (and how often) they might at times be a necessary evil.  In the not too distant past the consensus in the Christian west was that only in very rare and extreme circumstances were child support and alimony necessary evils.  Husbands who abandoned their families or who were seriously abusive or serial adulterers were the kinds of extreme corner cases where the necessary evil of replacing marriage outweighed the evil of replacing marriage.

But either way, make no mistake;  destroying families is evil, and replacing marriage is evil.  Marriage is sacred, and anyone who is not a foe of marriage should approach its destruction/replacement with great trepidation.  This is a grave matter, and should be treated as such.  Even in the cases where the husband is acting terribly we should be extremely hesitant to step in and destroy a family, or to do anything to facilitate the destruction of that family.   There is no neat and clean way to break up a family.  Breaking up families isn’t like neatly amputating an offending limb;  it is more like remodeling with dynamite.  Honoring marriage vows can at times be very difficult, and having a rescue crew waiting in the wings to declare the marriage “over” and offer an alternative creates huge temptation for sin and the great harm to children which follows the destruction of the family.

Until around the mid 60s we treated alimony and child support as necessary evils.  Women who had children out of wedlock were strongly encouraged to marry (and remain married to) the father of their child because the bastardy laws carried a strong stigma.  Men or women who married and then decided honoring their marriage vows was too hard had to prove in divorce court that their case was one of the rare exceptions where destroying the family was a necessary evil.  This kept divorce rare and made it clear that if such extreme measures were justified either the husband or the wife must have acted so terribly that destroying the family was the only viable option.

From necessary evil to moral imperative.

But then starting in the late sixties we reorganized our legal and social structure with the (unquestioned) assumption that replacing marriage wasn’t a necessary evil, but a moral imperative.  We replaced a patchwork of bastardy laws with a declaration that legitimacy doesn’t matter.  Around the same time, we ushered in no fault divorce with very strong bias towards mother custody, while leaving in place the punitive practices of child support and alimony.  Suddenly child support and alimony went from necessary evil to an open bribe available to any woman who was willing to betray her husband and children.

Now we not only promise a woman cash and prizes if she will agree to betray her family, but we have created a presumption of guilt on the part of the very husband she sells out.  As Lydia McGrew explains here it is misogyny to not assume that our pandemic of wife initiated divorce is proof that the men must have had it coming.

This assumption that the sin of divorce must be justified is combining with the lure of the financial reward to sin and snaring very large numbers of women.  Where Christians should be defending marriage and discouraging sin, most are enthusiastic supporters of child support and stand forever ready to offer justifications for women to divorce their husbands, however flimsy.   However, remaining silent about the evil of child support and alimony and encouraging frivolous divorce is not kind to women and children;  it is cruelty.  Yet where are the Christian leaders warning against the great temptation that child support and alimony present to women?

In our current rush to find some fault, any fault, by the husband to justify the divorcing wife we aren’t being honest that the standing offer of a cash reward for ending her marriage can’t help but cloud her judgment.  Any Christian treatment of the subject should start by pointing out that in either every case or nearly every case a wife divorcing her husband is sinning gravely.  Even in the case where the husband is divorcing the wife, the fact that she knows she will get a cash reward if he decides to divorce her is a huge temptation for her not to honor the Bible’s instruction to wives.  From this perspective her husband’s bad behavior and the lure of financial reward are the sources of temptations to grave sin, not moral justifications to sin.  In a more clear headed time this is what Christians would warn women who were considering destroying their families or even rejecting their obligations as wives.  However, we don’t live in clear headed times, and even the supposed champions of the family Focus on the Family are now so vulgar as to openly teach women how to collect their 30 pieces of silver.

Even the mainstream journals are being forced to tacitly admit that science skeptics are justified in their skepticism about modern professional science:

Retractions of scientific papers have increased about tenfold during the past decade, with many studies crumbling in cases of high-profile research misconduct that ranges from plagiarism to image manipulation to outright data fabrication. When worries about somebody's work reach a critical point, it falls to a peer, supervisor, junior partner or uninvolved bystander to decide whether to keep mum or step up and blow the whistle. Doing the latter comes at significant risk, and the path is rarely simple. Some make their case and move on; others never give up. And in what seems to be a growing trend, anonymous watchdogs are airing their concerns through e-mail and public forums.

The reason that the watchdogs have to be anonymous is because scientists are far less amenable to having their mistakes exposed than most people are capable of imagining and the secular priesthood reliably retaliates against those who pull back the curtain on the myth.

I agree with Tony Jones. It is absolutely time for a schism in the Church over the role of women:

I don’t take this lightly. I very much take Jesus’ prayer for unity in the Fourth Gospel seriously. Our eschatological hope is that the church will be one, and that we will all be united in belief, practice, and love.

But sometimes we need to separate. We need to say hard words to those who are not living the way that Jesus laid out for us. We need to divorce.

The time has come for a schism regarding the issue of women in the church. Those of us who know that women should be accorded full participation in every aspect of church life need to visibly and forcefully separate ourselves from those who do not. Their subjugation of women is anti-Christian, and it should be tolerated no longer.

That means:

•     If you attend a church that does not let women preach or hold positions of ecclesial authority, you need to leave that church.
•     If you work for a ministry that does not affirm women in ecclesial leadership, you need to leave that ministry.
•     If you write for a publishing house that also prints books by “complementarians,” you need to take your books to another publishing house.
•     If you speak at conferences, you need to withdraw from all events that do not affirm women as speakers, teachers, and leaders.

That is, we who believe in the full equality of women need to break fellowship with those who do not. The time for dialogue and debate has passed. The Spirit has spoken, and we have listened. It’s time to move forward with full force.

The schism has been declared. Very well. And likewise, Christians who actually follow the Word of God need to do the same. 

•     If you have members that insist women preach or hold positions of ecclesial authority, you need to expel them from that church.
•     If you run a ministry that does not affirm women in ecclesiastical leadership and you have employees or volunteers who do, you need to expel them from that ministry.
•     If you run a publishing house that prints books by “non-complementarians,” you need to drop those authors.
•     If you speak at conferences, you need to speak against the affirmation of women as speakers, teachers, and leaders.

As for me, I stopped attending all churches that feature female preachers or teachers or pastors or priests years ago. Based on the declining numbers of equalitarian church congregations around the world, I'm far from the only one.

The Spirit to which Tony Jones is listening to is not the Holy Spirit. It is the sweetly whispering voice of the Prince of This World.

THERE IS NO EQUALITY. EQUALITY DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY REAL, MATERIAL, LEGAL, OR SPIRITUAL SENSE.

So, remember the third, terrible Pirates of the Caribbean movie? The big villain is Lord Cutler Beckett, a bigwig at the fictional East India Trading Company (any similarity to the East India Company purely coincidental).

His catch phrase, which he says whenever he is screwing someone over or doing something unethical, is "It's just good business." - J. Wilkins

I finally got around to reading a book I've always intended to for years,  The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. What I find most interesting was reading his critiques of the British Empire's Mercantilist system and extrapolating it to our current global economic paradigm.

Let's entitle this exercise in abstraction:

 The Wealth of Corporations at the Expense of the Health of Nations: A Treatise on the Extrapolation of 16th century Mercantilism to 21st century Globalization.

Of course, with the current state of Idiocracy amongst the general populace in today's Brave New World Order, that title may be a bit too comprehensively challenging to the average bleating sheeple, so we can just simplify the concept here: The More Things Change, The More They Stay They Same

Consider Smith's conclusions regarding the Mercantilist system:

Though the encouragement of exportation and the discouragement of importation are the two great engines by which the mercantile system proposes to enrich every country, yet with regard to some particular commodities it seems to follow an opposite plan: to discourage exportation and to encourage importation. Its ultimate object, however, it pretends, is always the same, to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade.

There currently exists only one real advantageous balance of trade in the 21st century, and it serves to enrich the international Banking establishment. This is done with the collusion of multi-national corporate cartels to provide goods and services procured from the corporation's sweat shops production facilities and natural resource mining operations in third world nations, and then sold to various first world nation-states.

In nearly all cases, these purchases are made on a macro level through debt-financing of the Government spending by the globalized central banking system. On the micro level, the same is accomplished via credit cards, signature and equity loans and other means of debt financing available to the individual consumer at the company store.

In both the macro and micro perspectives, the same end goals are achieved: enslavement of the global populace via the tyranny of usury.


The following indictment by Smith of Mercantilism also applies to our current paradigm of corporate collusion to benefit the cartel's profit margins at the expense of consumer health and well being:

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

In the 21st century version of Mercantilism - Globalized Corporate Collusion -  this particular facet of Mercantilism has been taken to a whole new level. Big Government, Big Science, and Big Media promulgate lies and propaganda to brainwash the masses to the effect of making the average person believe that up is down, right is left, evil is good and good is evil. 

The mis-informed and dis-informed consumers then engages in commerce (People spending money they don't have on things they don't need, ) that essentially is harmful to their own health and well being, while the producers -- our multi-national corporate overlords and the financing Banksters 2Big2Fail -- continue to rake in the profits.

Another interesting aspect of Smith's critique of Mercantilism has been inverted to benefit the now Globally-based "producers."

In the restraints upon the importation of all foreign commodities which can come into competition with those of our own growth or manufacture, the interest of the home-consumer is evidently sacrificed to that of the producer. It is altogether for the benefit of the latter that the former is obliged to pay that enhancement of price which this monopoly almost always occasions.

Protectionism for home-grown products and services was the antiquated practice tied to patriotic notions of loyalty to your nation-state. But the multi-national corporations have no loyalty to any nation-state, only the state of their bottom line; their stock valuations and profit margins.

Now most everything consumers buy is foreign produced and the consumers of the first world nations pay a different price that is not measured in mere currency valuation....instead, the price we now pay is one of dependency and loss of self-sufficiency.

People used to know how to produce and manufacture a wide variety of goods, as well as repair and extend the useful life of various products. It was more economical to do so. People used to be able to sew, mend, and repair clothing and other textile products. Now, it's simply much easier and more economical to throw it away and go buy a new product manufactured cheaply in China or Mexico, available at your nearest Big Box Corporate Retailer.

Same goes for big ticket items like appliances and modern automotive vehicles. In many cases, parts break, and the replacement part and labor service fees may cost half or more of the price of a new product.

And even if you can't afford to just buy a new item to replace your old, broken and/or worn out product, why you can just go and get a loan from your local branch of the Usury Cartel and "buy" a new one.

As time progresses, knowledge to manufacture, maintain, repair and reuse many items of commerce becomes lost amongst the masses, increasing dependency on the Global Corporate Cartels and antiquating any formerly held notions of self-sufficiency and thrift. This is the very essence of our waste-driven, consumerist culture of materialistic consumption.

And that's exactly how our Corporate Overlords want it. In pursuit of improving their bottom line and overarching goals of global economic and political domination, it's just good business.

Note: This will be the start of an ongoing series for women on learning domesticity in the post-feminist world.  Older women are encouraged to share their expertise; younger women are encouraged to ask questions.  Men are encouraged to provide feedback on where modern women are lacking and need to improve.  Everyone is welcome to suggest topics.  Each post in this series will conclude with a practical tip.

Growing up as young children in the 1970s, both my husband and I were raised in intact homes where our parents fulfilled traditional sex roles.  Not only were our mothers mostly housewives, but the division of labor in the home tended to follow the typical socially-prescribed roles for men and women: fathers who went to work, mowed the lawns, and did household repairs, and mothers who cooked, cleaned, gardened, and raised the children.  Both parents cherished a warm home life; family and an attention to domesticity were important to both our mothers.

I learned traditionally-feminine skills such as cooking, baking, gardening, canning and making preserves, mending, how to properly clean a house, and how to raise children simply by participating in daily life along side my parents and siblings.  It hadn’t occurred to me until several years ago that many young women today have never experienced this kind of domesticity in the post-feminist world.  Many have grown up in homes where the mothers were gone at work all day and had no time for the art of domesticity.  Many also grew up in homes without their fathers and have never seen complementary sex roles in action.  They have poor home management skills, don’t know how to cook, have never grown herbs or vegetables or picked fruit, and just generally don’t know how to make a house a home.

So, I was quite interested in the most recent post from Ian Ironwood of the Red Pill Room in which he encourages young men to vet a future wife for her domestic abilities.  In The Wife Test: Domesticity, Mr. Ironwood writes:

One of the key components of being a wife is being a homemaker.  That isn’t to say that housework therefore is her responsibility, only that one of the things a man seeks and finds value in when he is looking for his wife is someone with whom he can make a home.  Even in our post-industrial take-out culture a man wants to feel that he’s coming home to his wife, not going to the apartment where he sleeps with his roommate.

Many women these days, thanks to feminism’s dark shadow, have equated domesticity with slavery, for some reason.  They look with disdain on their grandmothers and great-grandmothers who saw value in building a home fit to raise children in.  As women have entered and come to dominate the workforce, they proudly eschew the domestic skills that are their maternal legacy in favor of corporate achievement and “personal fulfillment”.

But a man who is serious about taking a wife wants a wife worth taking.  And a woman who cannot manifest her domesticity is a poor bet for the position, regardless of how hot she is or how impressive her resume is.

What is domesticity?  Simply put, it’s the discipline and art of building and developing a comfortable and attractive home for your family.  It is a task shared between husband and wife, ideally speaking, but just as a husband’s primary duty is to secure the home, the wife’s primary duty is to make it worth securing.

Mr. Ironwood is no traditionalist Christian, which just lends all the more support to the idea that almost all men everywhere from all points on the ideological spectrum prefer to marry women who are actually interested in being traditional wives, not competitors, and who value serving their husbands by creating a comfortable home, even if she is also working outside it.

But what is a young woman raised in this post-feminist world to do?  She quite likely didn’t grow up learning the domestic skills needed to create a home.  To those girls, I would offer the following advice as they cast off their feminist shackles of domestic incompetence: push yourselves to learn new, traditionally-feminine domestic skills regularly; they are traditionally-feminine for a reason, and that reason is that these are things that men like having done but often find rather boring to do themselves.  And why should men do tasks they find boring when they have more important things to do and most women feel quite satisfied by managing home and hearth?  Consider Cail Corishev’s words:

I certainly can clean my house as well as any woman.  I can wash dishes, mop floors, and sweep cobwebs as well as anyone; those tasks aren’t exactly complicated.  I can even take a certain amount of pride in it.  But I can’t enjoy it.  And that’s what I think women have that we men are missing — the ability to be content with such work.  The women I know who have embraced their femininity and the traditional role of wife, mother, and homemaker, really do seem to enjoy it.  That’s not to say washing dishes excites them, or that they never look at a pile of laundry and want to cuss.  But I see them put on an apron and tackle homemaking jobs with a smile — sometimes even a song — that men can’t duplicate.  Not this man, anyway.

That’s why those roles are so important, and why egalitarianism sucks so hard.  If women go off to be half our CEOs, lawyers, and soldiers, lowering productivity and causing havoc in those areas, maybe men can make up the difference by doing a better job than those women would have done in the home.  I doubt that, but even if it were true, it still wouldn’t be acceptable, because neither would be content.  Both would be working against their own natures, making themselves discontented without even knowing why.

Part of my role as an anti-feminist is to encourage other women to do those things that men value in women.  As anti-feminists, serving and pleasing God first and the men in our lives a close second should be our priority.  Our jobs, if we work outside the home, come a distant third.  Therefore, the first practical tip for learning domesticity in the post-feminist world is:

Change your perspective to see the home you share with your husband (or hope to share with your future husband) as your most important sphere and make domesticity your priority.

This is a fascinating example of the potential consequences of American bank depositors failing to understand what their bank deposits are:

Leading US banks have warned that they could start charging companies and consumers for deposits if the US Federal Reserve cuts the interest it pays on bank reserves. Depositors already have to cope with near-zero interest rates, but paying just to leave money in the bank would be highly unusual and unwelcome for companies and households.

This is akin to the credit card company paying you for the privilege of borrowing their money. It should also eliminate any last vestige of belief in the idea that the Federal Reserve, the Congress, or the banks have any capacity for putting either the economy or the American people before their own short-term pecuniary interests.

Just to make it clear, your bank deposit is a loan you make to the bank. It is an unsecured loan that the bank can utilize in any way it pleases, and since it is unsecured, if the bank happens to lose the money by making bad investments or spending it on cocaine and expensive hookers, you have no legal recourse. This is why John Corzine is not only not in jail, but hasn't even been charged with a crime; he didn't commit one.

It's not stealing if you're dumb enough to give them the money in return for an unsecured promise to pay it back so long as you ask for it before they don't have it on hand.

And note that this is bank industry opposition to a rate cut, not the much-feared rate increase.

CM asks what is a more reasonable vaccine schedule than the current US one:

I have followed your blog for quite some time now and have come to really value your opinion on a wide variety of topics. I recently had my first child and my wife and I have already resolved to home school (largely because we looked into a lot of the information that you discussed on your blog). I want to know what in your opinion would be the ideal alternative vaccine schedule.

The first thing is to understand that many European and Asian doctors think the US schedule is insane. Don't be moved by the rhetorical appeals to the US medical industry; remember the same people are also telling you to fill up on carbohydrates and fructose to lose weight. The second thing is to realize that your primary responsibility is to your children, not to the collective. If something is better for your child than for the community, then you put your child first.

That's called being a good parent.

Of course, if you are genuinely more concerned about the community, then go ahead and get yourself sterilized. Because global warming or whatever.

Anyhow, in my opinion, no vaccinations need be given until the child is walking. Then the tetanus vaccine is a good idea since tetanus can't be treated. Polio is probably the next concern, given its seriousness, and should be addressed some time before the child is likely to come into regular contact with large quantities of people.  If you're homeschooling, this probably means sometime between the ages of three and five.

Due to the potential risk of blindness and the way immigrants and travelers have been spreading it around so freely, measles is probably a good idea around the age of school, so sometime between five and seven. I would recommend a measles-specific vaccine and not MMR; mumps and rubella are much less serious diseases and the rubella vaccine is, as far as I can tell, completely worthless.

Not only is the disease less serious, but I know of several women who have been repeatedly vaccinated for it and still show no evidence of antibodies, hence the repeated vaccinations. If you don't have pregnant women or infants around, whooping cough is probably not an issue, although it is a real bitch if your children get it. But if you can't keep your kids home for two to three weeks straight without a problem, then you should probably seriously consider the vaccination around the age of seven.

Vaccines for chicken pox and other non-fatal diseases are a joke. Forget potential reactions, merely driving to the doctor's office puts your children more at risk than the disease does.  The point is not to avoid all vaccinations entirely, but rather, avoid overloading the very young child's system. I know vets who refuse to give dogs more than one vaccine at a time due to the negative effects they have observed over the years, so the idea that the current US vaccine schedule can't possibly be harming children is ludicrous on its face.

As for the inevitable appeals to science, I will merely point out that no science - ZERO - has been done concerning the safety of the current US vaccine schedule. If anyone wishes to dispute that, I invite them to provide everyone here with a link to the published paper. And as for the appeals to the greater good of the collective, I first note that I've never been much moved by Leninist arguments, and second, observe that one could just as easily justify murderously culling the immigrant population on that basis.

Alyssa is being a good airman and reading all my books like every good girl (and boy) should.




































On a related note I have concluded, with my SAEG (TM), that pretty girls spruce up the ole blog and my readers are not necessarily against that.  Ergo, the ole Captain will mail any pretty girl copies of his books if they are so kind to pose with them (in reasonably and tastefully risque attire) and allow him to post the pictures here on Cappy Cap.

Within the darkened confines of a Sheeple FEED Production Facility

There's a reason why the CAFO system warehouses chickens and pigs in an environment of complete darkness and feed them genetically modified grain feed that fattens them quickly for harvesting and processing. That reason is profiting from nutritional deficiencies.

Take the following excerpts from a transcript of the documentary Food Inc., the seminal expose of the Corporate Feed Production Industry:

The chicken industry has really set a model for the integration of production, processing and marketing of the products that other industries are now following because they see that we have achieved tremendous economies. In a way, we're not producing chickens; we're producing food.

Not quite...you're producing feed.

It's all highly mechanized. So all the birds coming off those farms have to be almost exactly the same size. What the system of intensive production accomplishes is to produce a lot of food on a small amount of land at a very affordable price. Now somebody explain to me what's wrong with that.

Because you're not producing food that nourishes and strengthens the human body. Your producing sheeple feed that leads to malnourishment and diseases that provide a continual source of revenues for the Healthcare-Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex.

But is it really worth it for the average, modern day chicken farmer to invest themselves in this occupation? Does manufacturing sheeple feed pay well enough to fund the American Dream of life, liberty the pursuit of happiness?

Here's what one chicken farmer told the documentary film maker:

The chicken industry came in here and it's helped this whole community out. Here's my chicken houses here. I have about 300,000 chickens. 

We have a contract with Tyson. They've been growing chickens for many many years. It's all a science. They got it figured out. If you can grow a chicken in 49 days, why would you want one you gotta grow in three months? More money in your pocket.

Sounds like a good deal for the chicken farmers, right? Except the chicken farmer also realizes something is intrinsically wrong with the science of producing chicken FEED in 49 days.
 

Farmer: "These chickens never see sunlight. They're pretty much in the dark all the time."

Interviewer: "So you think they just want to keep us out?"

Farmer: "I don't know. If I knew, I'd tell you. It would be nice if y'all could see what we really do, but as far as y'all going in, we can't let you do that. I understand why farmers don't want to talk -- because the company can do what it wants to do as far as pay goes since they control everything."

The interviewer and the farmer can only speculate as to why the Feed Production Corporation insists they have to have their chickens housed in total darkness. They even proffer a lame justification for it later on in the film:

Farmer: "When it's dark inside the houses, the chickens lay down. It's less resistance when they're being caught."

So that's why? But what about this?

It is nasty in here. There's dust flying everywhere. There's feces everywhere. This isn't farming. This is just mass production, like an assembly line in a factory. When they grow from a chick and in seven weeks you've got a five-and-a-half- pound chicken, their bones and their internal organs can't keep up with the rapid growth. A lot of these chickens here, they can take a few steps and then they plop down. It's because they can't keep up all the weight that they're carrying.

Oh, so they need to be raised in total darkness around the clock so as to make them easier for the undocumented migrant workers to capture them when it's harvest time...but these chickens can't even take a few steps because they've been genetically altered and bred to grow so quickly that their bones and organs can't even keep up? That doesn't add up.

I'll tell you what does, though.

You know the old saying, "you are what you eat?" Well, if the predominant source of animal based saturated fats you eat are the lean boneless/skinless chicken meat of factory farmed chickens who are raised for their entire lives in complete darkness, you're eating meat that almost completely void of vital fat soluble vitamins - most importantly, vitamin D.

Most animals, like humans, require sunlight exposure to manufacture Vitamin D, the keystone vitamin for nearly all life on the planet, and chickens are certainly no exception. The promotion of fear of red meat and saturated fat for decades by our corporate mass media and academic institutions, combined with the fear of sun exposure all play a role in the operation of promoting Vitamin D deficiency for profit.

Many of the chicken farmers know that animals raised in fresh air, sunshine, and uncrowded conditions  makes for nutritious, healthy food, fit for human consumption.

But they can't do anything about it, because they are indentured into their servitude by debt financing:

The companies keep the farmers under their thumb because of the debt that the farmers have. To build one poultry house is anywhere from $280,000 to $300,000 per house. And once you make your initial investment, the companies constantly come back with demands of upgrades for new equipment, and the grower has no choice. They have to do it or you're threatened with loss of a contract. This is how they keep the farmers under control. It's how they keep them spending money, going to the bank and borrowing more money. The debt just keeps building. To have no say in your business, it's degrading. It's like being a slave to the company.

What we see here is the intersection of corporate entities across various industries and how they work to provide continuous revenue streams -- renewable resources -- for each other. It is the vertical integration of markets to enable Corporate Oligopolies to harvest and consume the very life essence - our very health and vitality - of we the sheeple.

It's the inhumane, systemic exploitation of life to feed the profits and stock value for the inhuman, corporate entity, and it works something like this:

Big Oil corporations provides the technology and energy capital that enables Big Agriculture to produce Federally Subsidized grain surplus, that is used by Big Food processing corporations  to create food products and for the production of grain feed for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, which in turn manufacture nutritionally deficient and environmentally destructive meat products for human consumption.

Big Government regulatory agencies enforce stringent regulations on smaller businesses and competitors, ensuring almost complete market control by the Big Feed producers. These corporate Oligopolies also fund studies done by Big Science entities who publish studies based on deliberate lies, distortions, data manipulations and outright falsehoods for Big Media broadcast propaganda that brainwashes the masses into making consumer choices that support the consuming of FEED produced by this infernal conglomerate of incorporated fiends.

Over a life time of eating processed grain products and nutritionally deficient meats from processed grocery, convenience and fast food industries (who are also in part, owned by Big Insurance), the average sheeple becomes critically malnourished and sick, so they go to their Big Healthcare provider to get their maintenance medications from Big Pharmaceutical corporations.

Oh, and let's not forget that it's Big Banking - TOO BIG TO FAIL - that debt finances the production, distribution and marketing of every aspect of this corporate leviathan that manages the concentrated sheeple feeding operations here in good 'ole USA Inc. But I digress...

What it really all comes down to, is this - the corporate leviathan that rules our Brave New World Order has a simple paradigm they follow to maintain their power:

If you control the feed, you control the sheeple.