Jim's Blog

The first time Elliot Rodger hit on a girl, she gave him a mighty harsh shit test, and he completely fell apart.

From the fact that that his first shit test was the only one he complained about, I deduce he never exposed himself to the danger of a second one, that he was scarred for life, and never again made any real attempt to hit on a girl, and was forever puzzled that he could go around driving a nice car and being creepy and upset from a safe distance, and yet girls would not hit on him.

When a girl gives you a shit test, it is often mighty harsh, because natural selection intends it to separate the men from the boys, so of course it is tough.  If she does not give you a shit test, not really interested.

It is horrible that girls give out shit tests, but they cannot help shit testing males, any more than males can help looking at girl’s boobs.

It seems that Rodger’s dad was too busy to do much fathering, but if he had done some fathering, here is what he should have told his son:

Petruchio:

Why came I hither but to that intent?
Think you a little din can daunt mine ears?
Have I not in my time heard lions roar?
Have I not heard the sea, puff’d up with winds,
Rage like an angry boar chafed with sweat?
Have I not heard great ordnance in the field,
And heaven’s artillery thunder in the skies?
Have I not in a pitched battle heard
Loud ‘larums, neighing steeds, and trumpets’ clang?
And do you tell me of a woman’s tongue,
That gives not half so great a blow to hear
As will a chestnut in a farmer’s fire?
Tush! tush! fear boys with bugs.

Grumio:

For he fears none.

Don’t worry.  This is not going to turn into a My Little Pony blog.

A long time back I heard Disney people worrying aloud that they were having trouble making “the Snow Queen” acceptable to modern audiences.  So naturally I assumed they were making it revoltingly feminist and politically correct.  And in due course it came out, the feminists loved it, pronouncing it the first feminist Disney movie.  Also, people complained “Frozen” did not much resemble “the Snow Queen”.  So naturally I assumed Disney had murdered a perfectly good fairy tale to make it PC.

So I watched it so I could tell you how evil Disney was.

Nope.  It was the original fairy tale that was feminist in mythic proportion, and Disney had to murder it to avoid scandalizing their audience.

In  “the Snow Queen”, the original fairy tale, the heroine’s first love interest turns evil, and is abducted by the Snow Queen.  The heroine then goes forth to rescue the first love interest from the Snow Queen, and his own evil.

In “Frozen”, the Disney movie, the snow queen is the beloved sister of the heroine.  The Snow Queen flees her kingdom, her sister, and herself, turning evil, and casting a spell of eternal winter on her kingdom.   The heroine then goes forth to rescue her sister, the Snow Queen, from herself, to cure her, and thereby save her beloved sister, and save the kingdom from eternal winter.  Subsequently her first love interest turns evil.

In  “the Snow Queen”, the heroine, in the course of pursuing McGuffin boy, her first love interest, is abducted by the second love interest, little Robber Girl, who holds a knife to the heroine’s throat.  Second love interest then takes the heroine to bed, and they sleep wrapped around each other, beside Robber Girl’s talking reindeer.

Robber girl is incredibly alpha, narcissistic, psychopathic, violent, carries a sharp knife, her behavior is completely inappropriate at all times and is all round completely counter stereotypical for a female.  And did I mention she is a robber.

In the morning she and the talking reindeer assist the heroine to find the Snow Queen and love interest number one.

It seems that Disney found narcissistic knife wielding psychopathic Robber Girl a bit much, so made love interest number two male instead of female, beta instead of alpha, peaceable and wishy washy instead of violent.  And he does not court ladies by holding a sharp knife to their throats.

So, in “Frozen”, the Disney movie, the heroine, in the course of pursing McGuffin girl, her beloved sister, meets the the second love interest, Mr wishy washy beta nice guy.  He attempts to rob the shopkeeper, but is just too nice and insufficiently violent.  He and the heroine then wander in the snowstorm created by the Snow Queen.  They find shelter together, and sleep in the same place, the heroine an arms length from the second love interest, and the talking reindeer an arms length from him on the other side.

In the morning he and the talking reindeer assist the heroine to find the Snow Queen.

In  “the Snow Queen” she confronts the Snow Queen.  In addition to the fact that love interest number one has turned evil, his heart has been frozen by the snow queen.  The Heroine’s love, however, cures everything.  The Snow Queen yields.  The end.

In “Frozen” she and nice guy love interest confront the Snow Queen, who freezes the heroine’s heart.  Nice guy love interest number two sends her back to love interest number one, who turns evil.  The Snow Queen, horrified by what she has done to her sister, shows up.  Evil love interest number one attempts to kill the Snow Queen and the heroine to make himself king and end the eternal winter, but the heroine cures her sister of evil, and cures her own frozen heart, by her sisterly love.  The Snow Queen, cured of evil, now finds that she can unfreeze what she has frozen, so her powers no longer terrify her subjects.  Nice guy beta male love interest number two politely asks permission to kiss the heroine,  Heroine grants permission, then sucker punches first love interest turned evil, causing him to fall into the sea.  The people, relieved that their queen is no longer casting eternal winter, cheer their queen.  The end.

After having read the original fairy tale, the only revoltingly feminist part of the Disney movie was that sucker punch.  A girl cannot punch a man hard enough to make him fall into the sea like that.  Since love interest number one is Machiavellian, narcissistic, and psychopathic, realistically he would punch her back without worrying about hitting a girl.

So all up the major change that Disney made to the fairy tale is that it now teaches little princesses to choose the nice guy.  Not that they will.  And it no longer teaches them that they can cure bad boys of badness.  Not that they will stop trying.  The only bad things about the movie is that it teaches boys that nice boys can get the girl.  They can’t.  And it teaches girls that they can punch boys.  They can only punch nice boys.  Punching bad boys is seriously inadvisable.

Not sure what makes the movie feminist.  I suppose that the Snow Queen has really cool supervillain magic powers, that the heroine saves the day, rather than love interest one or love interest two, and that the kingdom has a queen, not a king.  Which is, as feminism, goes, fairly harmless.

The Snow Queen shows every fault stereotypical of women in power. She is fearful, emotional, irrational, unreasonable, changeable, unpredictable, flighty, and bitchy.  At the end the people love her, but this appears to be because she stops freezing them.  In the final scene, where people are cheering her return as queen, and she is entertaining them with her display of (quite dangerous) magic powers, she is still wearing her sexy super villain costume, rather than her crown and scepter.

Still, a queen in sexy supervillain costume with supervillain powers is a lot more appropriate than little robber girl with her sharp knife.

If you wanted to convey a fully realistic message, you could make a porn of the original fairy tale, in which the heroine successfully thaws love interest number one’s frozen heart, but totally fails to cure love interest number one of evil.  In the grand finale, evil love interest number one does the heroine and the snow queen, while knife wielding love interest number two and evil love interest number one do the heroine.  Evil love interest number one then ignores the heroine to (cautiously) hit on knife wielding love interest number two.

But, on the whole, congrats to Disney for fooling the feminists into cheering.

I regard all religions as at best useful pretenses that provide divine authority for ancient truths, sensible collective behavior, and sensible individual behavior, at worst as memetic diseases, and am apt to give advice to the religious on the basis of what would make a useful pretense.  Such advice is not always enthusiastically received.

I have long argued that Jews should actually do what everyone accuses them of doing:  Have an ethnic national religion and and ethnic nation in which that religion is the ruling religion.

Trouble is that, during their long exile, Judaism has changed, becoming a religion of exile, has adapted rather too well to exile.  For the most part, Judaism is still in psychological exile, hence the reluctance to recognize Israel as Israel, and the reluctance to reach out and take the temple mount back.  Judaism is not only inherently subversive of its Christian host states.  It is inherently subversive of Israel.  It needs to come home.  Judaism is subversive because it authorizes all the bad things that Jews need to do to survive as exiles, but no longer authorizes all the bad things Jews need to do to survive as a nation in Israel.   Jews feel really bad about doing bad things to Muslims who are trying to kill them.  Armenians don’t feel bad at all.  Americans whacked Fallujah a lot harder than Jews whacked Jenin, with not nearly as good an excuse, and feel fine about doing so.   Every time Jews defend themselves against people trying to kill them, other Jews, notoriously Jews in the US state department, tell them they should just roll over and die, and they are apt to do so.

B, however, argues that his variant of Judaism is fine, is psychologically healthy, and will, in due course, become the dominant strand of Judaism.  I am inclined to doubt this,

The Cathedral interpret B’s variant of Judaism as waiting for the Messiah to do the heavy lifting, to make his religion the state religion, and to make the necessary amendments to B’s religion so that it will work as a state religion. If you are waiting for the Messiah to bring the Kingdom of Heaven, no threat to them, even if you were to get the temple mount back, since they don’t expect divine intervention – and neither do I.

The worst the Cathedral think about B’s variant of Judaism is that B’s faction are spoiling for a war with Islam in the hope that this will force the Messiah to miraculously intervene to save Israel.

If you are going to restore the Kingdom of Israel by non miraculous means, restore the Kingdom of Israel rather than the Kingdom of Heaven, have to propose an undemocratic one state solution, in which a distinctly Jewish Israel rules over non Jews within the land of Israel, and expels or eradicates any non Jews that get difficult about that arrangement. Now maybe they suspect B of secretly harboring that plan, but if so, B has been keeping it so secret that they neglect to accuse his sect of it.

Since I regard religions as at best useful pretenses, what I would favor for Israel is an official religion that does not have the secret police spying on people’s washers and does not send people who get wool lint mixed with linen lint to the gulag, but rather restricts participation in the state apparatus and the most prestigious universities to those that plausibly claim to have the correct washers. Those who attempt to subvert or overthrow this restriction get sent to the gulag, as do those who attempt to tighten up on this restriction so that only those as holy as their extremely holy selves get to exercise power.  You are going to need soldiers on top of priests, and from time to time, soldiers are going to going to need to smack down turbulent priests hard, even if they are genuinely holy.  Indeed especially if they are genuinely holy.

If relying on overtly miraculous divine intervention, I don’t think Jews of B’s type are any great threat to the Cathedral, and even less is the Cathedral likely to think they are a great threat to the Cathedral.

To get to a one state solution you need to tell people that Israel needs a one state solution, and tell them that a one state solution is incompatible with democracy and equality, and propose dismantling democracy and equality without waiting for supernatural rule by the messiah. If B is telling people that, the Cathedral has not noticed, for if it had noticed, would rocket through the roof like an exploding hot water system.

Some boring people are attacking Sunshine Mary in particular and the entire Manosphere in general.

According to Matt Forney, Sunshine Mary said various things about her own life and activities, and the truth is various other things. I am a big fan of Sunshine Mary and yet don’t remember her saying most of those things, and if she did say those things, to find out the truth on those matters would require some seriously obsessive stalking, indeed merely paying attention to her saying those things, supposing she did say them, is stalkerish.

According to Matt Forney, she is not in fact submissive to her husband. Did he camp out in her bedroom and check out their relationship? If he says one thing he cannot know, it is a lie. If one lie, all lies.

But suppose that the things he claims, and could perhaps know, are true, for example he claims she was a slut in college. Supposing all that stuff is true, suppose everything he says is true. If it is true, then he is a stalker. If a stalker, the person stalked is interesting, and the stalker is insane.

Supposing that everything Matt Forney tells us about Sunshine Mary is completely true, what does this tell us about Matt Forney?

It tells us he responds to opinions to which he disagrees by investigating where the children of the person he disagrees with go to school.