Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Fixing (or replacing) Christianity

Tuesday, April 24th, 2018

High IQ species with lengthy childhood find it hard to reproduce without cooperation between males and females.

Productivity is not an issue.  In a wealthy society, a man could easily buy enough food and shelter for taking care of umpteen children, but he cannot actually take care of umpteen children. Observing variations in total fertility rate over different regions and different times, we see that even in very poor societies, boom or bust, war or peace, wealth or poverty, make very little difference to the total fertility rate. The only thing that matters is female emancipation.

Support in the sense of feeding and sheltering children is not an issue in the west, indeed it is not the major issue even in very poor countries. The problem is not feeding children, but looking after children, which requires two people. A single person household can barely look after one person, except by paying for services that are not easily obtained on the market place.  A single person household tends to eat out a lot, has difficulty with house maintenance.  A single person household tends to have no garden, because unable to manage a garden.  If you rent to a single person, chances are you will see a lot of repair and maintenance costs.

If you rent to a single person, you have to be really fascist about the condition of the house, because a single person gets overwhelmed.

So, reproduction requires two, and a two person household requires one man in charge, and the wife to honor and obey.

And the connection compelling the wife to submit to the husband has to be durable – has to last long enough to raise children.

If you have moment to moment consent, you cannot have durable marriage.  Indeed, any kind of female consent makes reproduction hard, because all women would prefer to have sex with Jeremy Meeks, and are apt to hold off on marriage till their eggs start drying up in hope of getting a booty call from Jeremy Meeks. We really should have romantic consensual marriage normal and normative only for women that can reasonably be presumed chaste. The rest should be pressured or coerced into patriarchal marriage, or a similar, but lower status and less secure, arrangement.

One helpful workaround in a society hostile to fathers, husbands, and marriage is that God backs the authority of the husband and the father, and the husband and the father backs the authority of God.

This works well for me as an individual. It would work a whole lot better if backed by a tribe / church / religion / social support group representing the authority of God on Earth.

Unfortunately all actually existent religious groups, with the notable exception of Mormons and some weird and unpleasant Jewish sects tend to be aggressively hostile to the authority of the husband and father. Latin Mass Catholics seem to be non hostile, but are not all that supportive.

Christian theology is that the fatherhood of God makes the fellow members of your congregation adoptive kin. (This is the Christian replacement for the Jewish Abraham). Thus “Christian” hostility to God the Father kills the Christian Church dead. A religion is a tribe, and actually existent Christianity is hostile to its own tribe, much as the US government is hostile to legacy Americans.

Anti patriarchal Christianity is a self contradiction – but it is all we have got.

Poolside is defect/defect equilibrium, the battle of the sexes.  Difficult to reproduce poolside, difficult to have a family, difficult to have an old age surrounded by children and grandchildren.  The only way to end the war is male victory, followed by some alarmingly drastic coercion.  I base this on what happened on the shore of Port Jackson, when they were working with female material far more favorable than that which we have, and were initially paralyzed because reluctant to do what proved necessary, which is presumably what fathers had been doing behind the scenes.

Obviously anyone who tries what was tried on the shores of Port Jackson is not going to be left alone by progressives.

For successful reproduction and child raising, women must be compelled to obey the father of their children, compelled to submit sexually to him, and forbidden to submit sexually to anyone else. Moment to moment consent frustrates both men and women, since it makes it difficult for them to reproduce. We need outside coercion to get to cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Moment to moment consent results in defect defect equilibrium, where no one gets what they really want. To reproduce successfully, men, women, and their children need durable and patriarchal marriage, and durable and patriarchal marriage needs coercion.

When Black Mohammedans in the middle of Africa try overtly coercive methods similar to those used on the shores of Port Jackson, the Cathedral drones them.

So, since public whippings give the enemies of the family an excuse to meddle, need to synthesize a tribe, and primarily use social pressure rather than public whippings.  A tribe requires a religion.  And the participants in the religion have to socially support all well behaved women, and forcefully exclude all badly behaved women and their male bastards.

God backs the authority of the husband and the father, and the husband and the father backs the authority of God.  God’s authority on earth is manifested through the tribe.  There is something of an exemption for religions – the Cathedral will not jump you provided you stick to weaponized social pressure and observe age limits that are increasingly difficult to observe.  It is illegal or close to it to stop girls nine or older from having sex, and illegal or close to it for them to marry under eighteen, let alone be pressured into marriage, but so far one can socially enforce patriarchy.

The Benedict Option:

What I call the Benedict Option is this: a limited, strategic withdrawal of Christians from the mainstream of American popular culture, for the sake of shoring up our understanding of what the church is, and what me must do to be the church. We must do this because the strongly anti-Christian nature of contemporary popular culture occludes the meaning of the Gospel, and hides from us the kinds of habits and practices we need to engage in to be truly faithful to what we have been given. As Jonathan Wilson has pointed out about the New Monasticism movement (a form of the Benedict Option), the church must do this not to hide away as a pure remnant — the church would be unfaithful to Christ if it did so — but to strengthen itself to be the church for the world.

This assumes that actually existent Christianity is just fine.

It is not. It is cucked. Christianity has to be patriarchal, because of “God the Father”, because its replacement for biological kinship through Abraham is adoptive kinship through the fatherhood of God.

And, despite all the hand wringing by progs, actually existent Christianity is hostile to fathers and husbands. And actually existent Judaism is not a whole lot better.

Even the Mohammedans are in trouble, with Iran and Saudi Arabia gone feminazi. A big part of the appeal of Islamic State is that fighting for Islamic state was apt to get you a real wife.

The problem is not that popular culture is anti christian. It is that actually existent Christianity is anti christian.

You can have an individual relationship with God and Jesus “Jesus is my boyfriend” without patriarchy.

But you cannot have a Christian Church, except it is solidly patriarchal and goes full Pauline on marriage.  If no patriarch, then no nuclear family, if no nuclear family, then no extended family, if no extended family, then no support for actual kinship.  If no support for actual kinship, then no adoptive kinship.  If no adoptive kinship, no church.

You can have individual Christians without Pauline patriarchy, but without Pauline patriarchy, you don’t have a Christian Church.  Dalrock is not a church.  He is another guy with another blog, and taking a sane position on the problem of reproduction and a straightforward position on the interpretation of Saint Paul on marriage has alienated him from his Church, and his Church from him.

If there was a church that was willing to support me, I would support it.

Christianity without patriarchy is Pope Francis celebrating gay sex and transvestite prostitutes. Christianity without patriarchy inexorably winds up joining Heartiste poolside. Some Roman Catholics are whining about the Church supporting divorce, but if you support moment to moment consent, if you oppose “marital rape”, then you have to support divorce. I remember a time when everyone supported marital rape, when the words “marital rape” made no sense, when it was incomprehensible to most people that there might be anything wrong or unusual about a man compelling his wife to perform her marital duty. Today, I don’t think even Dalrock supports “marital rape”, but if you oppose “marital rape”, it is logically inconsistent to oppose divorce at capricious whim. If wives have a duty to honor and obey, and wives and husbands have a duty each to sexually gratify the other, then no such thing as marital rape. If they don’t have such a duty, why do you have a problem with the church service celebrating a transvestite prostitute auctioning off his body cavities?

In order to oppose both marital rape and a church service celebrating transvestism and sodomy, Christians have to be against sex generally, rather than against the war of the sexes, a position that is stupid, contrary to the bible, contrary to the survival of the species, anti Darwinian, and contrary to what the Bible tells us of God’s plan – it is the foolish and wicked heresy that Puritans were rightly accused of. Marriage in the old testament is not a magic ritual making sex magically OK. It is a man’s commitment to keep a woman and never let her go. Such a commitment is impossible and foolish today, however much a man desires it, thus no marriage any more. It is all fornication, the sacrament is in vain.

One of the major earthly jobs of religion is to promote peace and cooperation generally, particularly cooperation between members of the religion, and particularly members of the congregation, and particularly cooperation between men and women in begetting and raising children. This is intended to promote sex, not prevent it. In order to prevent the battle of the sexes, the Church needs to prohibit not sex, but adultery. And adultery is not a code word for sex. Adultery means the same thing in marriage as in beer. Improper mixing. Adultery means one man’s seed going into the same pussy as another man’s seed, because that prevents a man from raising his children.

So the Church abandons its mission of promoting cooperation within the family, and then, to demonstrate that it is nonetheless twice as holy as before, doubles down on opposing movie producers having sex with starlets, even though abandoning marriage and the family makes opposition to movie producers having sex with starlets irrelevant, absurd, and pointless.

Posted in culture | 172 Comments »

Women gone nuts

Friday, April 20th, 2018

The Zman asks “Why Did Women Go Nuts?”

Simple. When you repress bad sexual behavior by males, and do not repress bad sexual behavior by females, you get very little bad sexual behavior by males, and a whole lot of bad sexual behavior by females.

I see women behaving as if raised by apes in the jungle.

Things are going to hell because we fail to restrain bad behavior that gets right in our faces.  Male sexual behavior in the workplace is nigh nonexistent and male heterosexual rape is nigh nonexistent, but to the extent that it exists, the man is looking for a warm wet pussy.  Female sexual behavior is different.  She is trying to disqualify males, testing as many males as possible to see if they meet her exacting requirements.  This testing is necessarily stressful, for she is stress testing men to see if they break under pressure, thus necessarily more disruptive than male sexual behavior, more damaging to workplace productivity, male cohesion, and social cooperation.

In a normal and sane society, ninety percent of fertile age women would within a few minutes of behaving as they now do, be whacked hard with a stick, like a stray dog harassing a farmer’s chickens.  And then they would stop.  Their owner would be called, and they would be hauled off on a leash.

Yet everyone around me acts like zombies and fails to notice.

It is completely obvious to me that women in the workplace continually disrupt the workplace by fitness testing attractive male co-workers, and a minor and infrequent side effect of these fitness tests, when the fitness test goes explicitly and overtly sexual, is that the woman complains, and entirely believes, she was sexually harassed.  So am I insane, or is everyone else insane?  Am I hallucinating disruptive sexual behavior right in front of my face by lusty women fitness testing every attractive male they meet to see if he has the stones to beat them and rape them, or is everyone else hallucinating chaste sexless angels persecuted by lecherous men?

Slate Star Codex recently attempted to survey co-worker sexual harassment complaints by workplace type, and reviewed existing surveys.  The major result was that the more women were outnumbered by men, (engineering, mining) the less that women experienced “sexual harassment”, and the more women outnumber men (supermarket checkout chicks, actresses) the more they experience “sexual harassment”.  These results were swiftly confirmed by subsequent work by other people, who also produced similar results for rape – or at least females complaining about “rape”.

But this only makes sense if incidents of men “raping” women and men “sexually harassing” women are generally female initiated, not male initiated, which is what I see in front of my nose, and what I see everyone else failing to see.   All workplace sexual harassment cases of males supposedly sexually harassing females, as near to all of them as makes no difference, are female initiated: It is a fitness test. The chick is looking for a coworker with the stones to beat her and rape her.

If workplace sexual harassment is male initiated, we would expect females in predominantly male workplaces to report a lot of it, in particular we would expect engineerettes and female miners to report lots of it, because outnumbered approximately a hundred to one by males, while we would expect actresses and supermarket checkout girls to report very little of it, because they heavily outnumber male co-workers. Survey data is the exact opposite. The more that female workers outnumber male workers (and thus the thirstier the female workers) the more “sexual harassment” by every plausible measure, indicating that all cases of males sexually harassing female co-workers are actually cases of female co-workers fitness testing attractive males, as near to all of them as makes no difference.

In the time period of the “Rape on campus” incident, University of Virginia investigated thirty eight rape complaints. None led to disciplinary action, therefore all fake, or University of Virginia horribly biased. The fallout of the “Rape on Campus” case indicates fake. If there were any real cases, Obama’s team would have come up with better poster girls. All reports of rape by white heterosexual males are lies, as near to all of them as makes no difference.  Recollect that the University of Virginia accusation “A Rape on Campus”, was driven by female sexual lust.

And, similarly, sex between middle aged men, and girls well below puberty.  Humbert Humbert wants to creep into bed with the sleeping twelve-year-old Dolores Haze, but does not do so, in part because she is not in her own bed, she has crept into the bed of the drunk and sleeping Jeremy Meeks.  Any time you hear that an old man has raped a female child, ascertain whose bed the “rape” occurred in.

We should not “teach women not to lie about rape”. We should throw women in jail for lying about rape, or else legalize rape when done on private property that a woman voluntarily chose to enter. But, far more importantly, need to fire women who shit test co-workers in the workplace, because their disruptive behavior profoundly damages productivity and social cohesion.

To win, we are going to need a red pilled Christianity that is willing to enforce order, patriarchy, and orthodoxy.  We will need to spin the story of the fall not as a literal account of mankind’s descent from a higher plane of existence, but rather a parable or metaphor about men becoming black pilled when we realized large scale cooperation was hard, knowing good and evil, and knowing we screwed up.  Evolutionary psychology and game theory leads to conclusions that parallel the traditional Christian understanding of the fall.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in culture | 144 Comments »

Losing weight is a solved problem

Monday, April 16th, 2018

One frequently reads despairing reports that major weight loss is impossible. If you attempt it, supposedly your metabolism slows right down, making you weak, tired, lethargic, slow, and very very hungry.

I read in far right and manosphere sources anecdotes from people who claim to have lost a great deal of weight. I followed their advice and lost a great deal of weight: The short of it is weigh yourself every morning, paleo (no wheat products, manufactured foods, or sweet drinks), carnivory (adequate protein, lots of animal fat), fasting, and getting your testosterone and estradiol levels correct.

I am not going to repeat the advice on how to lose weight here. Rather, I look at the the connection between successful weight loss, and the rightosphere, and the obesity epidemic, and the endless and rapidly accelerating movement left.

Why is it that there is a connection between the rightosphere and sound advice on losing weight, and the leftosphere and bad advice on losing weight?

Anecdotally, and from my personal experience, low testosterone in men leads to weight gain, high testosterone makes it easier to lose weight. Anecdotally, high testosterone in women leads to weight gain, and makes it hard for them to lose weight. Hence the stereotype of the fat mustachioed lesbian bully from Human Resources berating males for toxic masculinity while groping schoolgirls. In other words, androgyny causes obesity. And leftism promotes androgyny.

A woman who interrupts her boss and who walks down the middle of the corridor, will be prone to getting fat because this raises her testosterone, and the man who scurries out of her way to one side of the corridor will be prone to getting fat, because scurrying out of her way lowers his testosterone, as will the boss who (because no one dares restrain uncivilized female behavior) allows himself to be interrupted in a supposedly helpful and supposedly friendly fashion.

The diet high in fat and meat is demonized because associated with masculinity. Testosterone is made difficult to obtain because masculine. Women routinely get estrogen, but mighty hard for males to get testosterone. Fasting is ignored and deemed harmful because of the connection to old type Christianity.

In this sense, everything that works to lose weight is right wing, and everything that makes us fat is left wing. The obesity epidemic is connected to leftism in much the same ways as the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic is connected to leftism. Leftists want gays to be allowed to make blood donations, fat acceptance, and don’t want us to get testosterone, for much the same reasons.

Tags:,
Posted in culture | 92 Comments »

There are no utilitarians.

Thursday, March 22nd, 2018

Whosoever claims to be a utilitarian is lying. Whosoever lies, is lying because he is defecting on those he lies to, seeks to harm, or is harming, those he lies to. In the case of utilitarianism, the lie is the claim to care about far, in order to cover actions or intentions harmful to near.

By nature, we don’t care about far people. We care about ourselves, then our close kin, then our friends and allies, then members of our ingroup. Except that we prefer to avoid war with outgroups, and except that some individual members of the outgroup are friends or allies, we don’t care about outgroup members.

But the ingroup are our direct competitors for status, power, and wealth – they occupy, and threaten, our own ecological niche. Thus the evil man always seeks to ally with far in order to destroy those closest to him. Hence leftism. Thus the evil man always loudly claims to love the outgroup.  Thus the evil man is supposedly more concerned with the welfare of women and children than husbands and fathers, and proceeds to institute a cash and prizes system to incentivize women to divorce their husbands, even though these divorces invariably wind up being extremely bad for women and children.  Yet that same evil man is more concerned with Muslims than with women, and so ignores rape and violence against women by rapeugees, even though this is totally inconsistent with his position on affluent white male university students having sex with half drunk co-eds, and his position on actresses whoring themselves out to movie producers, and those actresses then getting butthurt when they hit the wall, and movie producers are no longer buying.

Samaritans were not the neighbors of the man set upon by thieves.  In the parable, the good Samaritan became a neighbor because he acted in a neighborly fashion, and the priest ceased to be a neighbor, because he did not act neighborly.  But all the other neighbors did not cease to be neighbors, and all the other Samaritans did not become neighbors.

When we recognize evil, we recognize someone as dangerous to have as a friend or ally.  And if you look at all the cases where utilitarian doctrine prescribes evil behavior, it prescribes behavior that would identify the person behaving in that fashion as dangerous to have as a friend or ally.  And conversely, utilitarian doctrine allows an evil person to be pious and holier than thou about his evil behavior.  He is being malicious because you are a Trump supporter, or a white male, or heterosexual, or some such, so being malicious to you serves the greater good.  Thus, for example, progressives will disrupt thanksgiving dinners, harming members of their family, on the basis that they suspect some family members of having voted for Trump, which is a hint of the potential for more serious malice, such as murdering members of their family in order to inherit the family home.

If someone is a progressive, chances are he will harass the family because some family members voted for Trump, and if someone harasses family members over Trump, chances are he will murder family members over inheritance. Notice that when progressives seize control of a company, they burn the shareholders.  And similarly, the current progressive policy of race replacement.  If all whites except their good selves are murdered or expelled, this benefits those whites remaining, since whites are always and everywhere the chief competitor to other whites.  Of course you lose the benefit of the high trust society characteristic of whites, but evil people benefit from a high trust society less than good people.  And in the long term it is likely to be harmful because you lose science, technology, and industry, but evil people do not care about the long term.

Evil is almost the same thing as dangerous to near, because near is the competition, and progressivism and utilitarianism are rationales for behaving badly to near.

The word “evil” is not defined by philosophers, or even by priests, but rather by mothers to their children.  The story of Snow White defines evil.  No one would genuinely think the stepmother evil for taxing the peasants, but for attempting to murder her stepdaughter, and likewise, we think Snow White is good because she does her job of housekeeping with enthusiasm, because she honors her commitments.

Posted in culture | 128 Comments »

The ruling underclass

Friday, February 23rd, 2018

Hanson, once a neoconservative, finds himself a second class citizen in a California that is increasingly strange, alien, and dangerous.

I and one of my sons have mostly fled Silicon valley. The other lives in a shrinking island of whiteness that is ever more dangerous and ever more expensive, in San Francisco near the Embarcadero, near where Kathryn Steinle was murdered for being white, and her murderer acquitted, because high status people can get away with shooting second class people.

Hanson complains:

Throw out onto the road three sacks of garbage with your incriminating power bill in them, or dump the cooking oil of your easily identifiable mobile canteen on the side of the road, and there are no green consequences. Install a leach line that ends up one foot too close to a water well, and expect thousands of dollars of fines or compliance costs.

…

A cynical neighbor once summed up the counter-intuitive rules to me: if you are in a car collision, hope that you are hit by, rather than hit an illegal alien. If someone breaks into your home and you are forced to use a firearm, hope that you are wounded nonlethally in the exchange, at least more severely than is the intruder. And if you are cited by an agency, hope it is for growing an acre of marijuana rather than having a two-foot puddle on your farm classified as an inland waterway.I could add a fourth: it is always legally safer to allow your dog to be devoured by a stray pit-bull than to shoot the pit-bull to save your dog.In the former case, neither the owner nor the state ever appears; in the latter both sometimes do.

He fails to name his rulers.

He neglects to notice.:

  • Is it permissible for a member of Tribe A to criticize Tribe B?
  • Is it permissible for a member of Tribe B to criticize Tribe A?
  • In physical conflicts between As and Bs, who is more likely to be the aggressor, the A or the B?
  • Given equivalent circumstances, is the judicial system more aggressive in punishing offenses of As against Bs, or vice versa?
  • Given equivalent circumstances, in economic competition between an A and a B, which is more likely to win? If you are looking for a government contract or position, an official distinction, an educational opportunity, etc, etc, is it better to be an A or a B?
  • Is it more socially marginal for a B to be rude to an A, or an A to be rude to a B?

If the territories of two tribes overlap, one must necessarily rule, one must necessarily be ruled. It is that, or war.

He is ruled.

Humans are naturally fissiparous. During the filming of the “Planet of the Apes”, extras costumed as orangutans formed a tribe, extras costumed as chimps formed another tribe, and extras costumed as gorillas formed yet another a tribe.

But with improved communications and mobility, we don’t get physical separation between tribes. Which is a problem, because if tribal territories overlap, the natural outcome is that one tribe rules, and the other is ruled.

And because white males ruling has been deemed unacceptable, the inevitable outcome is that whites get ruled. Actually war and slow genocide, rather than rule, is the natural outcome, but if we are lucky, careful, and clever, we can avoid that and merely get one tribe ruling and one tribe ruled, though this arrangement is always fragile, unstable, and apt to tip into genocide, slow or swift, unless carefully managed from above.

Empires and their state religions want to make everyone into one big tribe, but this does not work. The great big tribe lacks cohesion and solidarity, and is first parasitised, then predated upon, by smaller tribes within the larger tribe. Too big a tribe, too hard to maintain good behavior.

The traditional solution to this problem is territorial states each with their own state church, the peace of Westphalia. But this is no longer workable. For it to work, needs smaller states and less migration.

The Turkish Caliphate prefigures a solution better adapted to our mobile era, though that solution ended in genocide when the Caliphate, which was keeping the precarious system in balance, fell. The solution to the problem successfully implemented by the Caliphate is microterritories in addition to macroterritories: for example with blacks and whites we get the spontaneous formation of the ghetto and also the spontaneous formation of the black table at the school cafeteria. Put a black in charge of the ghetto, a Jew in charge of the Jewish area. Explicitly recognize territories, acknowledge the black table and the white tables in school cafeteria, make them formal and official and put them overtly and formally under the authority of the relevant tribes.

The concept of equality under the law should be inexpressible and incomprehensible. That we can speak such nonsense means that there is something wrong with our words, which fail to cut reality at the joints. Different tribes naturally have different laws. A member of tribe A in the microterritory of tribe A will of course be subject to different rules than a member of tribe B in the microterritory of tribe B. Equality should only be in that if a member of tribe A is in the microterritory of tribe B, he is under disabilities that are sometimes roughly similar to the disabilities of a member of tribe B in the microterritory of tribe A, though by no means exactly the same.

Which does not mean that a black should not be allowed to sit at the white table at the school cafeteria, or vice versa, but does mean he should only be allowed to sit at the white tables only as a guest of a white person in good standing with the white tribe of cool schoolkids, and this white person shall be responsible for that black person’s good behavior, and if black person misbehaves, then the white person whose guest he was loses his good standing with the white tribe at the school.

Notice how when buses were integrated, when blacks no longer had to go to the back of the bus, whites were forced to stop riding buses in areas with significant black ridership, because of a well founded fear of being beaten up. Diversity plus proximity leads to war.

Similarly, males and females. For reproduction to be successful there needs to be peace between men and women.  For there to be peace between men and women, territories outside of the proper female sphere need to be male, and females only be present as a guest of a male, who for fertile age women should always be a father, brother, husband, or betrothed.  And if he is not, then she is slut, and sluts should get a substantially lower level or protection than decent women, should likely suffer minor physical violence.

Tags:, ,
Posted in culture, Uncategorized | 142 Comments »

School shot up because murdering white kids is OK

Tuesday, February 20th, 2018

The Florida school shootings did not happen for lack of gun control.  They happened because of refusal to enforce law and maintain order when blacks and hispanics attack white children.

Back in 2015 I said:

> Difficult to say what will happen to Mestizos and Indios. In Mexico, the old gods walk again, but this has not happened in the US,

Well now the Old Gods have walked from Mexico to Florida, and spoken to Nikolas Cruz.

Nicolas Cruz had a long history of violence, menace, evil, and madness. And, of course, the school’s response was:

> “We do, as teachers, everything that we possibly can to help them”

Maybe when someone hears voices commanding him to terrible things and willfully chooses to obey those voices, it is time to think about not about helping him, but helping those near him.

But, instead:

> that harsh approach fell out of favor amid concerns that it was funneling too many young people — and particularly black and Hispanic students — into the juvenile justice system.

When a fat feminist who is hitting the wall complains that group of white males have an unhealthy attitude to women, does anyone say “We should do, as teachers, everything that we possibly can to help them”. No, they say “Let us throw the book at them, and not worry whether these accusations are true, false, or even remotely believable.”

When white males are accused of misbehavior, everyone has total confidence in the effectiveness of swift and harsh penalties, which should not be slowed down by old fashioned concerns about evidence or guilt. When a bunch of white males get together for some purpose that does not involve fucking each other, they are automatically suspected of being an evil terrorist organization.

> In recent years, Broward schools became a leader in the national move toward a different kind of discipline — one that would not just punish students, but also would help them address the root causes of their misbehavior. Such policies aim to combat what is known as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” giving teenagers a chance to stick with their education rather than get derailed, often permanently, by criminal charges.

In other words, a free pass for blacks and Hispanics to attack people at random, while if a white kid nibbles a slice of bread into the shape of a gun, the social workers get called to take him from his parents.

Blacks attack kids to take lunch money and such, without much regard for race, religion, ethnicity or social class. They are dangerous to everyone near them, ingroup or outgroup. Education and culture has little effect. Harvard blacks almost as dangerous as ghetto blacks. Blacks are more responsive to effective law enforcement than whites, thus black misbehavior is always a symptom of refusal to enforce the law on blacks.

But in Mexico, killings are generally human sacrifices of outgroup members to the old gods. People say they are drug cartel related, but this is politically correct bullshit. War is good for business only if someone else is paying for it. War is bad for business if you are paying for it. If a black drug gang commits mass murder, it is because they are doing it for business reasons but are incompetent at business. If a Mexican drug cartel in Mexico commits mass murder, they are murdering members of a near outgroup because they hear the voices of the Old Gods. The black drug gang commits murders because too stupid to find a peaceful resolution of a business dispute. The Mexican drug gang commits mass murders because listening to demons.

And now the voices of old gods have been heard in Florida.

Tags:,
Posted in culture, war | 110 Comments »

Losing weight

Thursday, February 15th, 2018

At my morning weigh in, eighty eight pounds below my maximum, despite having added a lot of muscle.

I used to assume that this was because I no longer have to cook for my sick wife and hand feed her, thus relieved of continual food temptation, and that no doubt is part of it. I still cannot outstare a pizza and a pitcher of mountain dew.

But I notice that the average weight loss among men on added testosterone is thirty six pounds, Jordan Peterson lost fifty pounds on the low carb paleo diet, and that people report similar weight loss from regular fasting, and since I am following all of those at once, I guess my weight loss is absolutely typical of these methods.

So we have medical evidence that testosterone therapy has, on average, a huge effect, and anecdotal evidence of effective diet strategies which also have huge effect.

So, Americans are fat, but weight loss looks like a solved problem.  Every male needs to eat a pound of meat a day, everyone needs to stop eating bread and such, (pizza is my Achilles heel) almost every male needs testosterone therapy, everyone needs to stop eating vegetable oils except for olive oil and coconut oil, everyone needs to eat more butter and eggs, and everyone needs to fast regularly.

Testosterone therapy needs to be accompanied by estradiol monitoring, and an appropriate dose of exemestane to keep estradiol above twenty and below thirty picograms per milliliter.  Anything higher or lower is likely to cause male sexual problems, depression, psychological problems, spiritual problems, impotence, male sexual deviance, and sudden death in males. Low estradiol in males is usually caused by low testosterone, and in males low estradiol should be treated with testosterone, not estrogen. High estrogen in males is usually caused by being too fat. American males suffer simultaneously from obesity and low testosterone, so their estradiol levels are all over the place, about as many with dangerously high levels as with dangerously low, which may explain such weird things as cuck porn.

It also needs to be accompanied by monitoring of luteinizing hormone. Added testosterone can cause your luteinizing hormone to drop resulting in your balls shriveling up, possibly permanently, and male infertility, possibly permanent male infertility. If your luteinizing hormone drops too far, you will need Human Chorionic Gonadotropin to compensate.

If you are fat, and your testosterone levels are artificially raised to healthy normal male levels (six hundred to nine hundred nanograms per deciliter) your estrogen is going to go way too high, likely causing health and sexual problems, and your luteinizing hormone may well go way too low, causing damage to your testicles, quite possibly permanent damage.

But if every male American was put on testosterone therapy, likely the average weight loss would be thirty pounds or so, since most Americans have testosterone levels far below those that used to be normal, (to which the government has responded by redefining “normal” way down to levels so low as to have major and serious health consequences) Most males have hormone levels, low testosterone and out of range estradiol, that are known to be associated with major adverse physical and mental health consequences.

This would go a good way to explaining and curing the obesity epidemic.

Well, it would explain it if we had the explanation of falling testosterone and sperm production levels. My guess is that the cause of falling testosterone levels is not estrogen in the water supply, but spiritual estrogen in the spiritual water supply – that the war on “toxic” masculinity is the equivalent of being continually defeated, degraded, and humiliated, which is well known to lower testosterone, that the war on men, maleness, and masculinity starting in school is making men into fat chicks.  Compare Musk’s rocket scientists with Wernher von Braun.  Just looking at American males and comparing them with males of earlier periods, looks like something has gone massively and horribly wrong with their hormones, that we have a massive epidemic of hormone derangement, which, combined with too much sugar and wheat flour, may well explain our male obesity epidemic.  There is also some hormone derangement going on with our females.

Bread, sugar, and snacking, especially sweet drinks is also a significant part of the problem.  People are not eating home cooked meals any more, which puts them on the opposite of the paleo diet, and since the low carb high saturated fat paleo diet causes major weight loss, likely the frequent snacking on heavily processed food diet causes major weight gain.  Likely the abandonment of the kitchen had a worse effect on women than men.  If you snack on heavily processed food you are snacking on grain derived carbs, soy oil, soy protein, and soy phytoestrogens.  Grain, soy, and low testosterone likely explains a great deal of our problems.

My experience of testosterone is that testosterone does not itself directly cause weight loss, but strengthens and frees the will, making it easier to diet, fast, and exercise, that the direct effect of testosterone is primarily spiritual, and that the physical effects are secondary upon the spiritual effects.

I also guess that the decline in testosterone is primarily caused by the spiritual, rather than physical, environment. When I fail a shit test, I can feel my testosterone fall. When I pass a shit test, I can feel it rise. Androgyny makes men and women fat and ugly. When a woman marches down the middle of a corridor, and her male co-worker scuttles to the side of the corridor, her testosterone rises, making her fat and ugly, his testosterone falls, making him fat and ugly.

For a long time the medical profession has been telling us that nothing works for obesity.  They tell is that they try everything, nothing works, and it always fails.  But everything that works has been ignored by the medical profession, because associated with maleness and masculinity.  The campaign against meat started with oppressive government regulation of meat slaughter that raised the price of meat and reduced the availability of meat, which regulatory assault on meat was motivated by a left wing campaign demonizing slaughterhouses.  The left just does not like meat, and looks for reasons to stop it, just as they just don’t like coal and coal mining and look for reasons to stop it.  Too male.  Then followed the food pyramid, based on pseudo science even more transparently and flagrantly bogus than global warming.  Everything that works tends to be associated spiritually and culturally with various maleness and masculinity movements, which is why official science does not like anything that works.

Tags:
Posted in culture | 74 Comments »

On Punching Women

Wednesday, February 14th, 2018

Many women deserve to be punched, and do not get punched, but punching a woman indicates loss of control and weakness. You should avoid getting into fights except where you can bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and you should always be able to bring overwhelming supremacy to bear on a woman. If you have overwhelming supremacy, you can pin the opponent, and either put a painful submission hold on them, or whack him part of the body where it is safe to do so without likelihood of causing injury.

I have found I can use this kind of violence on a woman in public, safe and controlled irresistible violence, and everyone just grins. Especially other women.

Part of being able to control what kind of fights you get into is to be well prepared for a terrible, destructive, and uncontrolled fight where you cannot bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and I am always prepared for such a fight. I am trained in unarmed combat, and when going into an unpredictable situation carry the most dangerous concealed weapon legally permitted, but the reason to be prepared for such a fight is not to get into such a fight and win, but to be able to better get out of such a fight by offering your opponent a safer path, offering your opponent a dignified way out of such a fight. One prepares for such a fight in order to better obtain your opponents cooperation in staying out of such fights, not to fight and win them, for even if you win, seldom profitable. Even if you win, you lose. Having the potential to do your adversary great harm is often profitable. Actually exercising that potential is rarely profitable.

Jesus said “resist not evil”, but we cannot take this literally, because if evil smells that you are a soft target, evil will be on to you like a dingo on a baby. We have to interpret the sermon on the mount as Jesus anticipating crucifixion, and pointing at our inability to attain salvation by personal virtue in a fallen world. Literal application of the Sermon on the Mount would be suicidal in a fallen world. We apply it by always being willing to do what it takes to find the path that does not involve terrible and destructive combat. But it takes two to make peace, only one to make war, and to find the peaceful path requires the ability to dissuade your opponent from the path of combat.

White knights are evil men – a man who white knights another man’s woman is a man who will spread hateful lies about his friend behind his friend’s back to sow discord and anger between friends. A man who white knights another man’s woman also engages in every kind of depraved and cowardly evil.  When you punch a woman, no matter how much she deserves it, you show weakness and loss of frame, and weakness attracts evil. Deal with a misbehaving woman with firmness and strength, you will have no problems. Deal with her from weakness, white knights will materialize like flies on rotting meat.

Posted in culture | 40 Comments »

Guns, Ideas, Fashion, and Military Parades

Saturday, February 10th, 2018

Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas.

If Trump has a military parade with snappy parade uniforms, we may well win. Trouble is that our elite has been busy making soldiers dress androgynously, because they hate and fear the military. We are always ruled by warriors or priests. If soldiers continue to dress like Elon Musk’s rocket scientists, soldiers, like nerds, will remain low status, and priestly rule will continue.

They probably will not make the marines wear high heeled shoes, but they will make them wear baggy clothes that are interchangeable with the similarly baggy clothes worn by female “soldiers”.

If they parade wearing camo versions of what Elon Musk’s rocket scientists wear, military will remain low status, and thus warriors will be unable to challenge priests.

People in large masses toting guns and moving in unison is impressive, and big rockets are impressive, but to translate that impressiveness into power, need to dress the part. Clothes make the man. Consider Musk’s show with the heavy rocket.

Musk is a showman and Trump is showman, but Musk’s show sucked because everyone was dressed in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually casual. Needed to dress them in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually Silicon Valley Cool.

You look at a bunch of very smart rocket scientists acting and looking like World of Warcraft players who have just cleared a dungeon, and you think “low status”

I want warriors in power, and I want people who make cool toys for warriors in power, and they will need to dress the part.

Let us imagine how Musk’s heavy rocket launch would have gone if he draped a bikini model over the sportscar that he launched to Mars, if his rocket scientists were better dressed, and if he himself posed with the bikini model and the sportscar wearing nice clothes with a touch of mad scientist. Similarly, however cool a military parade is, (and a military parade, like a rocket launch, is very cool indeed) you are not going to visualize those parading in power unless they dress the part.

Obviously the parade will raise Trump’s approval rating significantly. The problem is, however, at some point he is going to have to demonstrate that an airforce commando outranks a supreme court justice, so we need to raise the approval rating of air force commandos.

My assessment of the fall of Kings that began in the nineteenth century is that kings did not fail because of gunpowder, did not fail because industry rather than land became the source of wealth. Kings failed because George the fourth was fat, lazy, had a fat mistress, a bad tailor, and slept with other men’s wives, but most of all, Kings failed because Beau Brummel made the Puritan aesthetic cool. If King George the Fourth had had better fashion sense and hotter mistresses than Beau Brummel, and if his mistresses had, like Beau Brummel’s mistresses, only been sleeping with him, instead of sleeping with him and their husbands, we would have been fine. Also, if he had gotten off his fat ass and did some kinging, we would have been fine. He failed in the job of being the fount of all honors, mortal and divine (which is to say the job of regulating status competition into prosocial positive sum displays, rather than antisocial negative sum displays). The successors of the puritans took that job, ran with it, and have never let go of it.

So far, however, our attempts to produce reactionary fashion have all been miserable failures, and perhaps we will always fail until we have victorious soldiers exercising power, for all the cool reactionary fashions of the past are based on the uniforms worn by soldiers in victory parades.

But I am now coming around to the view that fashion should feature physically fit men wearing tight clothes that have been personally tailored to them. Standard stretch pants that fit without requiring a belt, and on the top a shirt, perhaps a T shirt, that has been tailored to fit, and tailored to end just below the point on your pants where a belt would be if they needed a belt, which your pants should not. The shirt goes outside the pants, but is almost, but not quite, tight around the pants.

Well fitting clothes are automatically high status. It is the last sumptuary display. An off the rack business suit is not high status. A custom fitted T shirt is high status. Baggy pants are low status. Men wear baggy pants because gangsters who claimed high status on the basis of violence were countersignaling by wearing baggy pants, but baggy pants do not work unless you can also plausibly signal real capability and will to commit violence. Such plausible signals are apt to get you killed, so make sure your pants fit. If you countersignal by poorly fitting pants, have to signal by violence, which can get costly.

Secondly, the costume should contain some element of peacocking, ideally a unique and idiosyncratic element. I now wear a fighting cock feather in my hat, the tail feather of a fighting cock that died in battle. Unfortunately, such feathers do not last a whole lot longer than the cock that donated them. It is tricky to get the right feather attached in the right place. Each fighting cock feather is unique and different (fighting cocks themselves peacock, with longer, floppier, and more diverse feathers than regular cocks). Most fighting cock feathers will do something bad like flopping in your eyes. Need a feather that flops around, but stays out of your eyes and your field of view, while flopping around in the other guys’s field of view.

Big hats are good, and better with something decorating them.

Good old boy hat

Gold chains also good, though male gold chains need to be big. Fine gold chains are girly. Not sure if multiple peacocking elements are a good idea. The Regency Aesthetic failed through excess, which excess justified the Puritan Aesthetic. A gold chain needs to be accompanied by bros or a bodyguard. If no wingman, then no gold chain. if a weak geek neck, cannot support a fighting cock feather.

You cannot peacock unless the alpha male of the group is also peacocking, or unless it is plausible that you are, by at least some metric, the alpha male of the group. Your boss is not going to be peacocking, and if your subordinate is peacocking while you are not peacocking, you will need to do something about it.

Any item of peacocking that draws attention to your head needs a suitably large neck to support its metaphorical weight, as if it had actual physical weight. I have therefore added neck exercises to my exercise regimen. I attach a looped belt to a resistance cord, and pull with my head in different directions, in order for my neck to be strong enough to support the mighty weight of the fighting cock feather in my hat. If you have a geek neck, don’t try to wear a big hat.

Obviously you cannot wear something to job interview or similar occasion that is more dramatic or unusual than your interviewer will be wearing. No peacocking allowed at work or in job interviews, but you can wear better fitting clothes than your interviewer. If Silicon Valley Casual is socially required, you can wear Silicon Valley Casual that just happens to fit you perfectly, as Steve Jobs invariably did. Also, matching colors combined with dramatic clash of colors, so that the clash is clearly intentional, rather than the result of whatever passed the sniff test that morning. If you are going to have a dramatic clash of colors, superhero style, make sure that one major part of your costume matches another part.

Well, this is the latest in a long string of attempts to conjure reactionary meanswear into existence, and all previous attempts have failed embarassingly. Let us see how this one goes. We still need a victory parade with cool manly military parade dress uniforms to really make reactionary fashion stick.

But, lacking a victory parade, physical fitness is something. Reactionary males tend to be markedly stronger and slimmer than progressive males, due to fasting, diet, and lifting iron. Reactionary fashion will succeed, if associated with reactionaty phenotypes.

In the age of feral woman and family breakdown, when fatherhood is illegal, when everyone is a bastard, menswear that is associated with being able to beat people up is likely to succeed. The difference between today and past ages was that in successful civilizations, top fashions were associated with being a member of a group that was able to beat up other groups in organized collective disciplined physical violence, hence the connection to victory parades, while in an age of social collapse and family breakdown, in a civilization in decline, in a time when a dark age looms, when fatherhood has been criminalized, successful fashion tends to be more associated with the capability to perform individual thuggery, hence the perverse and ugly baggy pants fashion. When fatherhood is illegal, only criminals can be fathers. The underlying problem with menswear fashion is that the state is violently, coercively, brutally, and forcefully imposing black mating patterns and white gay mating patterns on white heterosexual males, which mating pattern in turn causes unattractive clothing to be fashionable, and attractive clothing to be unfashionable, the baggy pants fashion being an example of this problem.

If reactionaries are having troubles restoring reactionary fashion, it is because we are having troubles restoring reactionary families, and reactionary families require reactionary male social groups that collectively enforce reactionary socialization on potentially feral women. But, on the principle of fake it till you make it, reactionary fashion can cause the social conditions that will in turn cause reactionary fashion.

Dress like a patriarch, dress like an aristocrat, and have your women dress as if under patriarchal authority. Good fit is patriarchal, and peacocking and physical fitness is aristocratic. You cannot peacock at work if your boss is not peacocking, but you can be physically fit and wear well fitted clothes.

Tags:
Posted in culture | 127 Comments »

The disastrous effects of females in power

Monday, February 5th, 2018

Women cannot do men’s jobs, and the pretense that they can and are is doing immense damage to men’s work and the creation of value by men.

Women in men’s positions subtract value. Women in powerful male positions subtract enormous amounts of value. Men at work get paid for creating value, and are forced to pay women for destroying the value that men create.

The reason for female under representation among top engineers, scientists, etc, is that women are slightly less competent on average and have a narrower distribution.

The reason for female under representation among CEOs is moral and emotional, unrelated to competence. Women are very competent managers. A woman has always managed my affairs, and generally done so very well, but women are uncomfortable running things without a strong alpha male supervising them and approving their work from time to time. If they don’t get the supervision that they emotionally need from someone masculine, patriarchal, and sexy, they start acting maliciously, and self destructively, running the operation off the road and into the ground in a subconscious effort to force an alpha male to appear and give them a well deserved beating. The problem is that if she does not get the supervision that she emotionally needs, she will maliciously run the operation into the ground, like a wife married to a beta male husband whom she despises, destroying the family assets and the lives of their children.

Happens every single time, as near to every single time as makes no difference, no matter how smart and competent and hard working they are. Exceptions are so rare as to be nonexistent for all practical purposes.
CEOettes
I would explain the fact that a company with a female founder was one eighth as likely to get follow on funding by the fact that absolutely none of them should have received funding, and the only reason that any of them got any follow on funding was that the venture capitalists wanted to deny that anything was wrong. The official and enforced explanation is that it is proof of irrational hatred and misogyny by venture capitalists. And if you doubt this, you obviously must hate women.

So, to decide between these two explanations, let us look at company acquisitions. When venture capitalists fund a company, they intend it that if it succeeds it will be acquired by a big company. If a company is not acquired, the venture capitalists have pissed away their money. Most times they lose, sometimes they win big.

So, that eleven percent of companies with all male founders were acquired represents the venture capitalists winning one time in nine.

With all female founders, they won one time in two hundred and seventy. With all female founders they had only one thirtieth the chance as with all male founders.

One might suppose that this indicates that women are one thirtieth as likely to be able to operate a company as a man, but obviously this conclusion is absurd. The companies must have been acquired for political brownie points, not because they were being operated successfully. It is as plain as the nose on your face that women are absolutely disastrous when given this kind of authority, but official sources will deny what is spitting in their faces and kicking them in the balls, so how do we check this? Are they insane, or am I insane?

Answer: Look at companies with both male and female founders. If the reason is misogyny, then the female founder will have no effect, because the purchasers will assume she is only there for decoration and to warm the bed of the real founders.

So, if misogyny, companies with mixed founders should be purchased at roughly the same rate as companies with all male founders.

If the problem is that women are just naturally incompetent as CEOs, then companies with mixed founders should be purchased at a somewhat lower rate, as the male founders carry the female founders on their backs while the purported female founders paint their nails, powder their faces, and discuss their most recent booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

If, however, the problem is that women in power just invariably and uniformly act like feral animals, as if they had been raised by apes in the jungle, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that the female founders need to be placed in cages and put on leashes, but the male founders are not allowed to do so, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that these days women are no longer subject to the restraints of civilization, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased.

Well, guess what.

If a woman has a strong husband who is himself wealthy and powerful, and she washes his dishes and sorts his socks, then she can be a good CEO. Today, however, husbands are generally weak, and therefore competent female CEOs correspondingly rare.

Females can no more do large group socialization than they can chop wood with an axe, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete. Females in or near positions of power have a disastrous effect on the social cohesion of the group to which they belong, on the propensity of group members to cooperate with each other, on the asabiyyah of the group, on the group’s capability to pursue goals in common.

It is a standard psychiatric finding that women are supposedly more agreeable than men, and in very important ways they are.

If tell a woman I have mislaid my keys, she will find them. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I tell a woman to get me coffee, she will get me coffee. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I slap a woman on the backside, she will yelp and jump, but then smile and laugh. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

But who is it that interrupts the boss?

It is always a woman. Yes, she interrupts in a supposedly friendly, supportive, and agreeable manner, but interrupting is in reality unfriendly, undermines him, and is in fact disagreeable.

Women are catty. Two women are friends, three women are a contest to see which two will become friends. Women are disruptive. They never stop shit testing their bosses. If a woman interrupts her boss, talks over her boss, even though her interruption is supposedly friendly, supportive, and all that, as it always supposedly is, she is disrupting and damaging the organization.

Women take advantage of and abuse restrictions on physical violence, and other rules commanding prosocial behavior, which abuse undermines prosocial behavior and impairs large group cooperation between males. Women are bad for and disruptive of any large group that attempts to cooperate to get something done. They undermine asabiyya, throwing sand in the wheels just for the hell of it. They are always throwing down shit tests to find which male is alpha enough to subdue their bad behavior, always disrupting, always looking for a well deserved spanking.

The psychiatric category of “agreeableness” is cooked to support the doctrine that women are wonderful. It conflates going along with bad behavior, with going along with good behavior. It declares resisting bad behavior to be disagreeable, while ruthlessly and cynically imposing on good behavior is supposedly not disagreeable.

Yes, women really are wonderful in their proper sphere. In power, they are only tolerable to the extent that strong males keep them in line.

A more accurate analysis of female behavior is that females are bad at, and bad for, large group social dynamics. Female or substantially female businesses fail, often fail very badly. Women are better at one on one dynamics than men – all women, all the time. Worse at large group dynamics than men. All women, all the time. All women are like that.

It is obvious to me that women are having a devastating effect on male efforts to create wealth, and I have long been puzzled at other people’s inability to see what is not merely right in front of their faces, but repeatedly spitting in their face and then slapping them.

A business appoints a female boss because progress. She acts in an angry hostile manner, infuriating customers and vital employees, disruptively knocking the business off track instead of keeping it on track, as if the business was a beta husband, and she wanted a divorce with the house, the children, and alimony. Business goes down the tubes. No one notices. Supposedly the business ran into mysterious head winds that have absolutely no connection to the new boss whatsoever.

When males aggress, they get in each other’s faces, they shout, there is always a hint of the possibility it might turn physical, a suggestion of physical menace. Women aggress and disrupt in a more passive manner, and these days we are not allowed to react to female aggression by shouting at them and getting in their faces, by menacing them. It used to be, within living memory, within my memory, that female misbehavior was met with a male response that hinted at the possibility that she might get spanked, put in a metaphorical cage, or put in metaphorical or literal irons, just as an aggressively misbehaving male got then and gets today a response that hints at the possibility of a punch in the face or imprisonment. Women today therefore routinely aggress and disrupt in a manner I find shocking, crazy, disgraceful, bizarre, and extreme, and do so with shocking and disgraceful impunity, as if within my lifetime women came to be possessed by demons, and everyone is walking around like zombies pretending to not notice. Recall in the infamous interview, Jordan Peterson looks away from Kathy before calling out her bad behavior, because if he looked her in the face while calling out her bad behavior it would have been socially unacceptable, because women are supposedly wonderful.

A male quarrels with a male. They get in each other’s faces, you feel that violence might happen, or at least one of them will call security and have the other shown the door. They have the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over possession of a female goat.

A female quarrels with a male. She interrupts him and talks over him in a supposedly friendly and supportive way “So what you are really saying is …”

A male who intends to aggress against another male who is ignoring him intrudes into the other male’s space and just plain gets close enough that the male he is aggressing against has to drop what he is doing and pay attention. Again we see the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over a female goat.

A female who intends to aggress against a male who is ignoring her also intrudes, but not so close, and proceeds to interrupt what he is doing and distract him with some halfway plausible excuse as to why he has to stop what he is doing and pay attention to her, which excuse is something that in theory should not irritate him, and he has trouble understanding why he is irritated, and why she lacks any real interest in the nominal justification that she supposedly has for demanding his attention and interrupting his activities. Supposedly she is helping him in a friendly pleasant nice way, though her “help” is hostile, nasty, angry, disruptive and entirely unwanted, and she ignores his forceful denials that he needs any such “help”.

We need a society where women feel that if they act like Cathy Newman did in that infamous interview with Jordan Peterson, they might get slapped in the face, or sent to the kitchen and the bedroom and restricted from getting out except on a short leash. But if Jordan had responded to her bad behavior by getting in her face as if she was a man, they would probably have called security and tossed him out. Notice that whenever Jordan calls out Cathy Newman’s bad behavior he looks away and gives a little laugh. If he called out her bad behavior while looking at her, it would have been socially unacceptable. What needs to be socially acceptable is that her husband should have given her a slap in the face for publicly disgracing his family with her bad behavior. The same government policies that helicoptering women into powerful positions are allowing them to act badly and destructively in those positions.

As affirmative action makes the differences between men and women starkly and dramatically visible to everyone, at the same time it makes it a criminal offense to notice, or even think about, those differences.

A woman in power is like a woman who finds herself the breadwinner, and her husband is a kitchen bitch, like a dog who finds himself the alpha male of the household, like a woman who intrudes into a males space and proceeds to feminize it and make it hostile to males. She behaves badly in an unconscious effort to smoke the alpha male out of hiding by provoking him to give her a beating.

Supposedly the reason there are so few female CEOs is because of evil sexism, not because boards keep appointing female CEOs and those CEOs keep driving their companies into the ditch. From time to time some big important Harvard expert informs us that female headed or female founded companies do better than male companies, but they will not show us their data, which data conspicuously flies in the face of common sense, anecdote, and casual observation. And if you ask to see their data, you are a racist sexist islamophobic misogynist, and the only reason you could be asking such an obviously hateful question is because you just hate women and are trying to harm them by asking hate questions about hate facts. Also, you are anti science and a global warming denier. We ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence that women can do a man’s job are just like those ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence for global warming. We are anti science, because the science is settled.

Well, fortunately, a surprisingly truthful feminist chick went looking for the data.

Her graphics were truthful, but somewhat misleading, as she de-emphasized and partially hid the most important and dramatic datum, so I edited her graphics for clarity. The graphic at the start of this post is mine, but based on her data and graphics. Which got purged from the internet, not long after I posted this.

Posted in culture, economics | 58 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »