Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

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.

Women are the dangerously lustful sex.

Monday, March 7th, 2016

Some time ago, I and a bunch of other reactionaries had a debate on whether women commonly fuck dogs.

I have no evidence that women of commonly fuck dogs, but I have lots of personal evidence that women very commonly do lots of horrifying stuff that many of my commenters find very hard to believe. These personal observations are perhaps statistically insignificant and may be from an unrepresentative sample of females, but is consistent with the rather small subset of women who watch porn, who generally watch disturbingly deviant stuff, while most males watch fairly vanilla stuff.

Most women read romance, rather than watch porn. Romance male leads are generally demon lovers, rather than the nice boy next door – one notable exception being when the female lead is sold, enslaved, kidnapped, abducted, or subject to an arranged marriage without her consent at a very young age by the otherwise nice boy next door. In the very common genre of supernatural romance, the male lead is often a literal demon. How is a real life male going to compete?

Male and female sexual impulses are the product of natural selection. In the ancestral environment there is biological and evolutionary conflict of interest between dads and daughters, in that daughters prefer cad type demon lovers, and dads prefer dad type sons in law. Daughter prefers the best sperm, but dad does not want to be stuck with support. Similarly a conflict between husbands and wives, in that wives prefer demon lovers, and husbands are seldom demon lovers – the best semen is unlikely to belong to the best protection and support.

For civilization to exist, fathers and husbands have to be able to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women.

For it to be politically possible for fathers and husbands to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women, we have to have it generally accepted that women are the dangerously lustful sex, whose dangerously powerful sexual impulses have to be overruled for their own good, for the good of their children, and the good of society – that women’s dangerously powerful lusts and self destructive lusts are the big problem that has to be solved, not immoral males.

Whether or not women commonly fuck dogs, for civilization to survive, men need to be inclined to suspect that they might. For civilization to survive, men need to control women’s sexual choices. For men to control women’s sexual choices, it needs to be politically incorrect to have excessive confidence in the purity and chastity of women. That women are dangerously and self destructively lustful needs to be taught by authority, presented in the media, and the sort of thing you need to believe if you want to get on with the important people you need to get on with if you hope to get ahead.

Cutting

Sunday, March 6th, 2016

In 1985, when cutting first appeared, girls cutting themselves was something astonishing, something no one had heard of, that psychiatric interns had never heard of.

Now a significant minority of women cut themselves.  Hard to say how many, but probably a few percent. Not a substantial minority, but not a tiny minority either. Hot fertile age women.  Women with strong sexual needs and completely screwed up sex lives, usually sex lives screwed up by their own self destructive bad choices.  “Strong independent women” who are not in the least strong, and greatly fear independence. White women. Women totally raised in feminism.

As the epidemic grows, only now is the psychiatric industry coming up with a diagnostic category “Non suicidal self harm”  We did not have a word for cutting until recently, and psychiatrists are only now coming up with a word for it, and not a very apt word yet, for the category self harm is deliberately over inclusive, in order to avoid being exclusively female, including a great deal of what would be more aptly called “stupidity”, so that some males can be put in the same category. (The obvious difference being that after doing something very stupid once or twice, males usually stop doing that particular stupid thing.) It is politically disturbing to have a psychiatric category that is near one hundred percent female, so calling it what everyone calls it, “cutting”, is politically incorrect. Yes. Males sometimes, rarely, cut themselves. Discover it hurts like the blazes, then do not do it again.

If you google for “self harm”, the PC term, you don’t get information on cutting, but deceptive and malicious misinformation on cutting, misinformation intended to cause harm and suffering, and if you google “cutting” any page that comes up with words “self harm” in it is overwhelmingly likely to be malicious misinformation.
cutting

As it says in the Book of Genesis, women are psychologically maladapted to equality.

Think how much more comfortable she would be, how much more at peace she would be, how much saner she would be, how much happier she would be, if those were her owner’s whip marks.

Reading between the lines of girls making videos and posts about cutting themselves, they are saying to the numerous boys that pumped them and dumped them “Punish me, don’t ignore me.”

Single women vote for foreign conquest and rape

Sunday, March 6th, 2016

I am opposed to anyone voting, except perhaps married men of property and wealth who are raising or have raised their biological children with their wives, but the worst voters are single women.

Sweden is now the rape capital of the west, due to importation of masses of North Africans to maintain the vote for failed welfare statism.  When Swedish men say “Hands off our women”, Swedish women say “We are not your women”, and vote for more mass nonwhite immigration and ridiculously light slap-on-the-wrist penalties for rape.

Women do not really want the kind of society where sex happens by consent.  (Check the xhamster porn videos preferred by women) Thus single women subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, want our society to be conquered, the men killed, and they themselves sexually enslaved.

In the ancestral environment, if you were a man and your in group was conquered, you were likely to be killed or enslaved, and thus be no ones ancestor.  If you were a woman and your in group was conquered, you were indeed likely to be enslaved – to a successful man in the victorious group who would have children by you, and, knowing his children were his own, raise them well.

So we are in large part descended from men who conquered, and who resisted conquest with absolute determination, and descended from women who took to conquest, abduction, and slavery like a duck to water.

The strong independent woman, the woman living the lifestyle that feminism and school teaches her she should have, has few or no children, for children take two, and the commitment to stick it out when things go bad.  In the ancestral environment, if you were a strong independent woman you were surrounded by weak contemptible men, in which case abduction, rape, and slavery was a good way to meet manly men.

Suppose the Taliban was to somehow do a Boko Haram and abduct a bunch of baristas with post graduate degrees in victim studies and a hundred thousand dollars of student debt.  They would probably wind up  having six children and umpteen grandchildren each, so we would expect women to have evolved to rather like this sort of thing.

Or, alternatively, you can believe that women was created to be a helpmeet to man, and in the fall was condemned to desire this sort of thing.

Lots of existing societies have arranged marriages or marriage by abduction.  It seems to work just fine.  When parents, society, or respectable authority tell women to fuck someone, they fuck him, and are happy to do so.

Large numbers of well educated and wealthy English gentlewomen in eighteenth century England married whom they were damned well told to, and I don’t see any memoirs or books from any of them complaining about it.

We hear a lot about women being involuntarily trafficked to brothels, and sometimes it happens, though less than advertised, but when white nights go forth to rescue these poor oppressed and victimized damsels in distress, they are invariably disappointed.

Commanding a woman to clean some man’s floor and cook his meals is like commanding children to eat their broccoli, whereas commanding a woman to warm some man’s bed is like commanding children to eat their icecream.

In eighteenth century Australia there was a fair bit of lighthearted and unserious female resistance to shotgun marriages, they were far from entirely compliant, but looking at these incidents, those resisting shotgun marriage do not seem like poor pitiful victims of male sexual desire, but lustful bawds who were worried that the party was going to end.

Since Victorian times, historians have sought to depict eighteenth century Australian women as sexually exploited and sexually hyper oppressed, but they just cannot seem to find any examples of women seriously resenting, complaining about or resisting this supposedly horrid extreme sexual oppression. We see lots of disciplinary issues where women were punished for talking back to the husband that they were assigned to, or punished for failing to work as directed by their husband, or being absent without leave for short periods. We just don’t see any disciplinary issues, zero, despite vigorous and alarmingly imaginative search by historians, that seem plausibly related to disinclination to go to bed with the man to whom she was assigned.

Consent is useful and valuable to the extent that a women voluntarily swears to honor and obey her husband, and to stick it out till parted by death, and eighteenth century Australian authorities were pretty keen on obtaining more or less voluntary consent for that purpose.  If she is not credibly swearing that before God and man, consent serves no useful purpose to husband, family and society, women don’t really like it all that much, and the eighteenth century British and Australian authorities were untroubled by the lack of it.

The unsafe schools initiative

Friday, March 4th, 2016

In Australia there is a program, called the safe schools initiative, targeted primarily at school children near puberty and below puberty, aimed at presenting gay, lesbian and transgender role models as normal, happy, healthy regular people, despite the fact that gays and male to female transgender have an extremely high rate of death, disease, crime, suicide, murder, assault, self harm, and drug abuse, with lesbians and female to male transgender not far behind.  The reason there are not that many old gays is that most of them die of murder, suicide, disease, or drug abuse before they get old.  As the New Testament says Romans 1:27:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

These happy healthy role models depicted in the material are slightly older than the target audience, the role models being just past puberty, and the target audience just before puberty, the obvious point of the propaganda being that the target audience should grow up into these happy healthy well balanced role models.

Here is one of the role models, pushed on pre pubertal children:  a schoolboy with an obviously gay fifty eight year old cuddling him:

This is blatant gay recruiting of children – it is obvious that those pushing this initiative do not believe that gayness is innate, that people are born that way, but rather that gay sex is an acquired taste to which children can be inculcated.

And, indeed, it is obvious that gayness is transmitted from pedophiles to children, Afghanistan being an example of a place and culture where gayness transmitted in this fashion is very prevalent.

While a sexual preference for young males is disturbingly common in all cultures at all times, in places and times where this preference is very severely repressed (death penalty, vigorously enforced) a sexual preference by males for adult males seems to be entirely unknown. In such cultures there is some sodomy of adult males but it is like sodomy of donkeys, an inferior substitute for the real thing. Thus, for example, during the War of Northern Aggression adult male on adult male sodomy was rare, and adult male on adult male pornography entirely nonexistent. No one wanted to look at pictures of adult males getting tapped when they could look at pictures of females getting tapped.

If what gays officially believe, that gays are born that way, is true, then suppressing homosexuality is just pointless cruelty.  If, however, what gay activist behavior suggests that gays believe, that male sexual preference for adult males is the result of gay sex environment near puberty or before puberty, is true, then we should have the death penalty for male homosexual acts, and lesbian acts should be discouraged, with females being coerced into heterosexual relationships.

Heartiste addresses the Jewish Question

Tuesday, March 1st, 2016

Heartiste, minion of Satan, addresses the Jewish Question with his usual combination of insight and empirical data.

His data and conclusions are consistent with mine: My conclusions being that Jews are priests by nature, and we suffer from a crisis of an ever escalating excess of priests, and an ever escalating dangerously great theocratic power, ever escalating persecution of ever more minor deviations from an ever more extreme official state theology and theocracy of equalism, covetousness, and envy, and it is this crisis that causes the over representation of Jews among bad people doing bad things, not the other way around. If we get priests under control, then Jews are under control. If we expel Jews without getting priests under control, we are still screwed.