Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

American Law Institute Sexual Assault Draft

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

You have probably heard that congress makes law. It does not, it has not for a long time, and were it to start doing so it would be a revolutionary act. First there would be tanks in the streets. 2201 C Street would be on fire and full of bullet holes and dead bodies. Blood would be running out the doors into the gutter.

Harvard makes law, and when Harvard, having decided in general form what the law is going to be, gets to working out the details of that law, a committee of the Ivies meets to draw up the fine print, and that committee of the Ivies is the American Law Institute.

And right now they are drafting a law that says that an explicit verbal no outweighs any amount of non verbal yes, and that any sexual act without an explicit verbal yes is sexual assault.

Since this is the internet, I assume that some substantial portion of my readers are unfamiliar with the normal way that sex goes down between a man and a women.

You never get an explicit verbal yes from a normal decent women, only from whores and hard core burned out sluts.

The human mating dance is innate, instinctive, pre verbal, and pre rational. You get a woman into a sex place, (such your bedroom) using lots of touching and gentle caresses but also all the human arts of words and persuasion. (Where are your etchings? I thought you were going to show me your etchings?) But once she is in there, words soon stop.

If you try to get explicit verbal consent, at best you are breaking the mood and interrupting the playing out of your and her sexual instincts, and at worst you are very likely just not going to get it. And it continues to be that way with your wife and girlfriends, except that the full mating dance gets abbreviated.

Normal decent people just don’t do sex in accordance with Harvard rules and they are not going to start. They are going to go right on doing it the way it always has been done.

We are all criminals now.

Rabid Puppies and My Little Pony

Saturday, April 30th, 2016

For a long time the major science fiction publishing houses have been vomiting forth tedious hate filled political lectures that patronizingly scold the traditional audience for science fiction and fantasy: White males. The only part of what they produce that actually sells is romance porn for women where the female protagonist or gay bottom protagonist gets nailed by demons, dinosaurs, vampires, zombies, and werewolves.

(I have only just now discovered that dinosaur porn actually exists. I thought it was a joke of the Rabid Puppies. You would think it would be ironic, but porn does not do irony. Girl gets nailed by carnivorous dinosaurs with grotesquely large equipment.)

The Hugo awards have generally celebrated the most pompous and worst written political lectures, works that are very little read, plus a few celebrations of grotesquely deviant female perversion, works considerably more widely read.

The Rabid Puppies are akin to Gamergate, in that social justice warriors don’t like anything that white males do for fun, and intervene to stop it from being fun and instead make it morally improving. Thus, for example, Title IX is largely aimed at stopping white males from engaging in physical team sports. Apolitical white males get pissed with this and become political. Hence the rabid puppies want good science fiction and fantasy to get the awards. And particularly good science fiction and fantasy that pisses on social justice warriors.

And among their nominations were a two episode My Little Pony story.

Social Justice warriors took this as a troll, that the Rabid Puppies were nominating something bad just to show that they could, much as Social Justice Warriors stage revolting and disgusting events to see how far they can force people to degrade and humiliate themselves, but of course that is not Rabid Puppy style. If they nominate it, has to be good, or something they think is good.

So I downloaded this My Little Pony Episode, “the cutie map”, And it is pretty good and very deep. 1984, Brave New World, and Harrison Bergeron, written for ten year old girls.

A commie pony has established a commie utopia, and our major characters drop in to investigate.

There is the mandatory official happiness of “Brave New World”, the destructive equalizing downwards of “Harrison Bergeron”, and the poverty, ugliness, and lying authoritarianism of “1984”. All depicted for ten year old girls.

Of course “My Little Pony” is in the business of teaching little girls prosocial lessons, and the first lesson that we are beaten over the head with is “people can disagree, and still be friends”. Which gets repeated numerous times. Sounds pretty bland and innocent as a lecture to ten year old girls. Right? Except that it is set in a society of terrifying political correctness where everyone agrees with everyone or else. Which makes it not at all bland and innocent.

In other words, Social Justice Warriors, the mob who wants to no platform Moldbug, the rioters trying the shut down the Trump rallies, are behaving like naughty, unpleasant, bad, nasty children. Like naughty ten year old girls.

Another lesson, less heavily thumped, is that some people are better than other people, and that some people can be better than other people, and still be friends. Also, the commie utopia has no choice in goods, and what goods it does have are no good. The equal ponies are dressed in identical coarse sacks, and eat identical bad food. Since everyone is supposedly equally good at muffin production, the cook is in fact dreadful at cooking muffins.

At eighteen minutes in the first episode, we find that the incompetent muffin cook has, like Harrison Bergeron, been deprived of her special talent that once made her better than others.

We also encounter the Overton Window “that sounds extreme”. Or rather “that souNDS EEEXXXTEEEEEEEEME!!” – for views that before the communist revolution would have been utterly ordinary and taken for granted. Even those plotting counter revolution are incapable of crimethink. They want moderate and reasonable counter revolution – nothing EEEXXXTEEEEEEEEME!! They are cuckservative ponies. Communism is horrible, brutal, and failing disastrously, so they want just slightly less communism. But nothing “EEEXXXTEEEEEEEEME!!”

Yes, My Little Pony features a cuckservative.

And then, at the end of the first episode, they discover there is no leaving utopia,

At the start of the next episode, we hear propaganda broadcast by loudspeaker. “Exceptionalism is a lie” say the loudspeakers. But the ten year old girls viewing the episode know the major characters are exceptional – leading to a moral unusual in shows directed at ten year old girls “Don’t trust the mass media – it is probably propaganda.”

But the major characters have had their special abilities, their superiority, magically removed from them. They are handicapped down to the lowest common denominator. They find that they like dull books and crappy soviet style goods.

Then comes the pressure to rat out your fellow reactionaries and counter revolutionaries.

Then Fluttershy discovers that some commies are more equal than other commies, reveals it, and counter revolution ensues – an ending that I fear is far too optimistic. We already know that some commies are more equal than other commies, and no one is revolting.

Inequality is great

Saturday, April 9th, 2016

We should love what we are, rather than conceding that the left is morally superior for wishing reality away.

It is great that women are what they are and men are what they are, otherwise I would have an absolutely terrible sex life. Vive la différence. It is good that men should lead, and women should follow.

It is great that whites are superior to all brown and black races in intelligence and prosocial conduct.

The east Asians are on average a bit smarter, though I think this is more that east Asian women are considerably smarter than white women than that east Asian men are smarter than white men. East Asian men are not all that overrepresented among competent engineers relative to white men, whereas east Asian women are way overrepresented among competent engineers relative to white women.

However, white men are more naturally manly than east Asians, and in some important ways more prosocial, hence better able to engage in large scale cooperation, hence white men are the most successful race at large scale war by far.

It is great that white males are better warriors than east Asian males, regardless of whether east Asian males might be slightly smarter.

East Asian men should build a great Chinese civilization, or maybe several east Asian civilizations, White men should build a multitude of great white civilizations (since whites will never form one nation) and the rest of mankind needs to be conquered and subdued.

I am not unduly worried about whether Japan gets absorbed into the greater Chinese co-prosperity sphere or vice versa, but it is a really bad thing that America rules the white world, this being contrary to our nature. We really need at least one white civilization west of the Hajnal line, and at least one white civilization east of the Hajnal line. One white civilization is far too few. (Hurrah Putin.)

The Feminine Imperative

Sunday, April 3rd, 2016

One of my commenters had never heard of the Feminine Imperative, and it is not listed the social matters compendium, so here is a description and definition.

The Feminine Imperative is that when a woman follows her pussy, it should have good results for her, and if it does not have good results for her, it is the fault of some dastardly man and not an indication that women are too childish and irresponsible to be allowed to follow their pussies.

Whenever illicit female sexual desires lead to illicit acts which have bad consequences, those consequences are deemed to be the fault of men, and it is the duty of men to make female sexual desires come out with good consequences for the woman, even if it means bad consequences for the man. Man up and marry those sluts!

Thus, for example, serial monogamy is deemed to be perfectly moral, while polygyny is totally unacceptable meaning that women are allowed to be permanently on the prowl to trade up from their current husband or boyfriend, while it is absolutely terrible for a man to sleep with multiple girlfriends, or to sleep with other women in addition to his wife.

When women do bad things, they are treated like children morally, let off the hook, protected from the consequences, yet they are allowed to make potentially disastrous choices without adult supervision, choices that men will pay for when those choices go wrong. Thus women receive substantially lesser penalties for crimes, and are not really expected to honor contracts – yet any business that discriminated against contracts signed by women would be in big trouble, even though it is also in trouble when it tries to enforce those contracts.

A pregnant woman can abort, or give the child away, but if she decides to keep it, she can demand child support from the father – while denying the child a father.

The system that the father and the mother get married at shotgun point, and the father is forced to support his wife and child, and the mother forced to honor and obey the husband makes moral sense. The system that a single mother is on her own would also make moral sense, if women could be treated as independent adults, equal to men, but when we tried that the result was far too many women giving birth to fatherless children in the rain in dark alleys. So now we have a system where pregnancy obligates men, but not women, where women make the decisions and men pay for the consequences. That is Feminine Imperative.

The underlying mechanism leading to the Feminine Imperative is that adult women are assumed to be adult, to be capable of making responsible decisions about sex and reproduction. And when it becomes painfully obvious that they are not, then men have to pick up the pieces, without however having the power and authority to restrain women from making bad decisions.

The Feminine imperative is a result of the fact that letting women take the costs of their decisions leads to intolerably bad outcomes.  So men have to take the cost of women’s decisions.

But even if we try to ameliorate the costs of bad decisions, these decisions are still terribly harmful and should never have been permitted. For example Kate Gosselin should not have been permitted to be rude, hateful and shrewish to her husband, and should not have been permitted to frivolously divorce her husband, as these choices led to extremely bad consequences for her and her children, and making her husband pay for her wicked, foolish, and self destructive behavior did not much diminish the self destructiveness of it.

The quality of pussy that Jian Ghomeshi kicked out of bed

Tuesday, March 29th, 2016

Movie star, grad school.

Some white knight in the comments has been defending the virtue and chastity of womanhood and how warmly they treat nice guys, and how if you treat women as equals, or even better, the superiors that they naturally are, you will get laid.

Jian Ghomeshi’s procedure consisted of beating them up on the first date, having sex with them on the first date, and then brutally dumping them to make way for the next girl in line.

A woman will crawl nine miles over broken glass to have sex with her demon lover.  It is not in the nature of women to be chaste except that they submit to male authority.  If you are not having sex with your wife, she is getting it somewhere else.

Monogamy and chastity was invented by men to reduce conflicts between men, and imposed on women with a stick.




Jian Ghomeshi rape case

Friday, March 25th, 2016

Umpteen different women accused Jian Ghomeshi of raping them. He was rightly acquitted.

Reading the evidence, I interpret it as indicating that he was so besieged by hot chicks that he generally would not date the same woman twice. When he dated a woman he would rough her up to turn her on. This sometimes resulted in her becoming so sexually excited she would have sex with him on the first date. In which case he when he was finished using her, he would kick her out like a piece of trash. Or if she did not have sex with him on the first date, he would also kick her out like a piece of trash, presumably because he expected the next date to be more compliant.

She would then pursue him in email and in person, offering quick casual sex in language that became ever plainer and more direct, which contacts he politely or rudely ignored. This is a man who having had a woman once, would continually turn down offers to have her again.

Some women, after being ignored in this manner, then charged him with sexual assault. These were the classic failure-to-booty-call rape accusations.

Jian Ghomeshi is tolerably good looking, but not exceptionally handsome. He is not charismatic. He is mildly famous and mildly influential. He is not particularly narcissistic. I conjecture that the chief reason for his success with women was that he is just naturally and instinctively a total asshole with a tendency to sadistic violence.

Progressive degenerates define BDSM as role playing – safe words and all that. He states that he never role played – which would indicate Ghomeshi got real, rather than pretended, submission from women.

Ghomeshi piously claimed to be a feminist, which is a piety that is absolutely mandatory for someone with his kind of job, but in practice always treated women as they love to be treated – like domestic animals.

He is Iranian by ancestry, therefore may have been raised redpilled.

Against sexual consent

Saturday, March 19th, 2016

Castalia house has produced an excellent booklet “Safe Space as Rape Room” 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I, II, III.

Which documents how the fetishization of consent allowed gay science fiction authors to prey upon young boys attracted to science fiction fandom.

In other words, a pedophile with the Delany mindset is given carte blanche under the Scalzi-endorsed code to attract children “desperate to establish some sort of sexual relation with an…adult figure” for invited sexual and physical attention.

“Why? Because I want my friends and fans to be able to come to a convention and feel assured that the convention is making the effort to be a safe place for them.” – John Scalzi

Scalzi’s desire for his friends’ and fans’ safe place becomes a nightmare if just one of those friends or fans happens to be a molester like fellow SFWA member Ed Kramer, who attracted children to his hotel room at the conventions he ran.

When we came down from the trees, children and females were dependent on males for protection from predators, and males were dependent on each other.  Contrary to Locke’s original state of nature, we were not distant and equal, but instead close and unequal.

Chimps and men are unusual among apes in that we hunt, and unusual among mammals in that we make war.  Lions and hyenas are instinctively and permanently at war, but conflicts between lions are normally one on one, and at most one pair of brothers against another pair of brothers.  Chimps, on the other hand, while mostly at peace with neighboring tribes of chimps, are frequently at war, and these wars often total and genocidal.  Since chimps and men are omnivorous killer apes, it is a good bet that the common ancestor of chimps and men were omnivorous killer apes.

When our ancestors first came down from the trees and out of the forest onto the plains, they could not walk or run very fast or far, and to this day, we are lousy sprinters compared to almost any predator.  So, our ancestors avoided being eaten by being the meanest sons of bitches on the plains, with a team of killer apes using their superior ability to cooperate and coordinate against a team of lions.

Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that women got any opportunity to consent to sex or refuse sex.  It is also unlikely that females were shared, as this would undermine group cohesion.  Yes, the male penis is shaped to scoop out competing sperm, but the male hands are designed for a more permanent and final solution to sperm competition.  In the trees, females could screw around because they did not need male protection, and because meat was less important in the trees.  On the plains it would likely be a really bad idea for a female to wander out of sight of her owner.  Human and chimp males are both shaped for violence, but human males arguably more shaped for violence than chimp males.  Humans are more sexually dimorphic than chimps, and the dimorphisms all bear a fairly obvious relationship to the capability for violence.  Almost every human male can easily subdue almost any human female.  This is not true among chimps.

The ancestors of men, the omnivorous killer apes that came down to the plains, survived because they loved their comrades and cooperated well.  And the main thing that they cooperated to do was to slay their enemies.  Humans are more specialized for cooperation than chimps, for example the whites of our eyes that make it easy to accurately tell what direction a human is looking.  Our ancestors were, compared to most other creatures, and compared to chimpanzees, loyal, good, and kind – good to and kind to their comrades – brutal and deadly to everything else.

Consent does not make sex right. Nor does lack of consent make sex wrong. Lots of societies have arranged marriages, and some societies have marriage by abduction. Women seem to like such marriages just fine.

In the early settlement of Australia, the authorities regularly applied shotgun marriage on a large scale, and often assigned a woman to a man without bothering with the formality of marriage or any pretense at female consent, and it does not seem to have led to any difficulties. Whereas porn stars give carefully recorded consent to everything, and usually wind up badly disturbed by all the disgusting things they consented to.

Sex is far too important to be left to the decision of those directly involved.  And women are not much better at making the decision at thirty than at ten.

Crowd sourcing the question: How recent are open borders?

Tuesday, March 15th, 2016

Cathedral sources say that open borders, resettle them in green leafy suburbs on generous welfare, has been the law of the land since forever, and only recently have evil racists started to protest, but the way I recall it, worldwide, borders to white countries received some reasonable degree of enforcement until enforcement quietly but abruptly stopped world wide in 2011.  This led to a ginormous flood of illegal immigrants, increasing many fold each year, resulting in public resistance in numerous white countries starting in 2013.

Which resistance is on the one hand increasing with the flood, and is on the other hand collapsing under the impact of pious moralizing.

The way I recall it, before 2012, they were legally letting in lots of low IQ layabouts and petty criminals, to live on welfare and crime, with a small but significant number of rapists, serious criminals, and terrorists in the mix, but illegal entry was not a problem.  Then enforcement abruptly stops in 2011, huge numbers of illegals show up unopposed in 2012, and even larger numbers in 2013, with a corresponding rise in the proportion of rapists, murderers, and terrorists – who also live on welfare and crime.

One day even Obama opposes gay marriage.  The next day, no one opposes gay marriage, and no one remembers that they ever opposed gay marriage.   The same thing is now happening with illegal immigration.  Not only is it policy, it always has been policy and all decent people always have supported it.

Theoretically the Roman Catholic Church still opposes gay marriage – like it theoretically still supports the husband’s authority in marriage, theoretically opposes divorce, and theoretically has a male only priesthood.

But in fact, if you go to Roman Catholic Church you will see a woman doing stuff that looks very like the stuff a priest does, remarried women taking communion, and at a Roman Catholic marriage the priest will ad lib some feminist talking points.

We have abruptly moved from guarded borders, and border guards, being an uncontroversial fact that every single person takes for granted, to them being a crime equal in seriousness to being the first person to stop applauding at a gay wedding.  This does not look to me like “decades of kindergarten to hospice propaganda” but more like hate week in Orwell’s 1984.

What Republicans are voting on in Ohio

Tuesday, March 15th, 2016

All right thinking people care about all humans everywhere to exactly the same degree – except, of course, that they hate white people because of all the horrible evil white people have done to all other races and hate males because of all the horrible evil males have done to females.

So every decent right thinking person believes that all people everywhere have the right to live in America, receive section eight housing in a nice American suburb, and receive EBT and SSSI until they magically become as middle class as the rest of the people in that suburb. (Which, of course, they will, magically transforming from tax consumers to tax payers, and from arsonists, rapists, and vandals to mortgage payers, thereby solving the problem of the missing grandchildren.)

And anyone who does not believe that is an unthinkably horrible evil person who is provoking violence by thinking thoughts that make it right that he should be physically attacked.

In Ohio, it is a straight up and down vote between the good kind virtuous Kasich, who holds that it is immoral to obstruct America’s border with Mexico, and everyone who crosses it should promptly get a green card, and all the associated benefits, and the evil Trump, who is causing horrible violence by disagreeing with Kasich’s position, and is therefore at fault whenever anyone engages in attempted violence against him or any of his supporters.

Ohio is a straight vote between the advocate of wide open borders with generous welfare for the entire world, and the advocate of a wall along the border.

Now you might well ask how we got to the situation where the Kasich’s of this world are treated as saints, rather than evil madmen.  Does not anyone remember how completely insane this would have been a couple of decades ago?

And the answer is, we all speak newspeak.

The vocabulary, the language, that is capable of expressing the thought that we have different and more important moral obligations to kin, friends, and neighbors than to far away strangers has been taken away from us.

Whatever the outcome of this vote, the fact that Kasich taken seriously shows that democracy is simply unacceptable.  If he wins, it is an indictment of democracy.  If he gets five percent, it is an indictment of democracy.

So what is the indictment?

The indictment is that democracy empowers the people who can simplify our language and erase our past.

Democracy must end!  It dies, or we die.

We are always ruled by priests or warriors.  It is not the voters fault that we are ruled by priests, nor is it the voters fault that our priesthood is evil and insane, and daily becoming more evil and more insane.  But it is democracy’s fault that there is not much the voters can do about it.



Trump and assabiyah

Wednesday, March 9th, 2016

In the days of its greatness, the Roman Republic had assabiyah

“Horatius,” quoth the Consul,
“As thou sayest, so let it be.”
And straight against that great array
Forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome’s quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
In the brave days of old.

Then none was for a party;
Then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great:
Then lands were fairly portioned;
Then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.

Now Roman is to Roman
More hateful than a foe,
And the Tribunes beard the high,
And the Fathers grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction,
In battle we wax cold:
Wherefore men fight not as they fought
In the brave days of old.

Baron Macaulay’s poem neglects to explicitly mention, but takes for granted that the reader knows, that all three were aristocratic officers, and that the two that fought on Horatio’s right and left were lieutenant generals. This is reminiscent of Britain in the days of its greatness, when aristocratic officers led from in front, charging into battle in costumes that conspicuously marked them as targets, and engaging the aristocratic officers of the opposing army in personal hand to hand combat, for which glorious privilege they paid extraordinarily large amounts of money.

Our political class hates and despises the white working class, as much as it hates and despises soldiers, cops, and security guards. Democrats are disgusted by the fact that the white working class votes for them. If Hillary could turn her white working class voters away from the voting booth with whips she would, and a major reason the Republican establishment is horrified by Trump is that he is bringing white working class voters from the Democrats to the Republicans. They would rather lose to Clinton than win with the unspeakably vulgar Trump.

Trump regularly pulls stunts that our chattering classes do not understand, and therefore ignorantly ridicule, much as the New York Times ridicules Sarah Palin for using sentence structures that exceed the comprehension and reading level of the New York Times staff. In Trump’s recent victory celebration, he had piles of Trump products on display. “What is this?” asked our chatterers. “An infomercial?”

Trump was making the point that capitalists did not just grab their wealth from the secret stash before the rest of us could find the secret stash, but rather organize the production of stuff – that capitalists are rich because, in substantial part, they create wealth.

In another stunt, he called up two of his black supporters and campaigners, the Stump For Trump women, Diamond and Silk, and introduced them as having made themselves rich.

This is, subliminally, the classic fascist message – forget about class differences, let us work to make America Great Again. It is the reverse of Sanders’ message, yet appeals to the same people. One is a message of envy and covetousness, the other calls on us to be greater than that. And to the extent that the chattering classes understand Trump’s message, they hate him for it and rightly call him fascist.