Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

The overwhelming majority of rape accusations are false

Thursday, July 28th, 2016

Follows from the poster girl principle. If poster girls suck then every other girl sucks as badly or worse. For example for example Marie Curie was a second rate scientist, therefore there are no great female scientists. Emmett Till was not lynched, nor killed for whistling at a white woman, therefore there are no examples of blacks being lynched in an obviously unjust fashion, or with reckless disregard for justice.

Earlier I posted this argument, but the early version neglects to mention the internal evidence from the Rolling Stone editors that they knew their rape story was unlikely to be true, went looking for something better, could not find it.

In 2015 Rolling Stone issued an apology for their “Rape on Campus” story. Their investigating reporter saw lots of red flags, that would have convinced any reasonable person that the rape accusation was false, and that going ahead with the story was likely to blow up in their faces, but they decided to go ahead with the story anyway. Deep within the apology there is a guilty line that I missed the first time around, and everyone seemingly missed. After encountering lots of horrid red flags that made it glaringly obvious that it was a really bad idea to pursue this story, that the complainant was lying through her teeth

That summer, Erdely began interviewing multiple UVA assault survivors.

In other words, there was a whole big pile of University of Virginia “Assault Survivors”, but all their stories sucked even worse than Jackie Coakley’s story, so they wound up going with Jackie Coakley’s story for lack of anything better. They were determined to do a rape on campus story about evil white males. They knew, consciously or subconsciously, that the story they had was false, but despite looking around, despite having lots of other “Assault Survivors”, could not find anything better.

In the “Rape on Campus” story Jackie Coakley, the supposed rape victim, lied to the reporter Erdeley, and it rapidly became obvious that she was lying. Erdeley lied to her editors, and her editors lied to the readers. The editors falsely led the reader to believe that Ryan Duffin, the love interest that Jackie Coakley was catfishing with her rape story, had been interviewed, thereby making the story seem as if it had not come from a single source, that Jackie Coakley’s story had supposedly been checked with the other people supposedly involved in that story. That the editors lied indicates mens rea, that they knew this was a mighty weak story and needed some creativity to make it seemingly credible.

In the original story Rolling Stone tells us:

a “shitshow” predicted by her now-former friend Randall, who, citing his loyalty to his own frat, declined to be interviewed.

Implying that they sought out witnesses and encountered the male wall of solidarity protecting rapists and penalizing rape victims. In actual fact, the editors knew full well that “Randal” (real name Ryan Duffin, the man that Jackie Coakley was catfishing in an unsuccessful campaign to get him to sleep with her) had not declined to be interviewed, because they had not attempted to interview him. Had they attempted to interview him, would have learned much that was inconsistent with Jackie Coakley’s story.

The magazine knew from the beginning that Jackie Coakley’s story was not credible, went looking for someone with a more credible story, decided to stick with Jackie Coakley. Therefore, rape complainants with a more credible story than Jackie Coakley are rare or nonexistent.

This is the same argument I made previously, but this time with internal evidence from the magazine that they knew their story was weak and went looking for something better.

At the time of the article, the University of Virginia had not expelled a single student for sexual assault, therefore if any of these “Assault Survivors” were credible, they would be telling pretty much the same story as Jackie Coakley. Therefore, every single one of them was even less credible than Jackie Coakley, and we can see the mens rea that the editors knew that Jackie Coakley was not credible.

Scott Alexander argues against the poster girl principle that maybe there are lots of real rapes, and the person gets convicted, so, no big deal, that the reason that fictitious campus rapes gets reported is because some people doubt their reality, therefore no prosecution, therefore controversy. So, because of controversy, we hear false rape allegations widely reported and fail to hear real rape allegations, because they get dealt with efficiently. But, until the story, no expulsions for sexual assault from the University of Virginia, and yet lots of “Sexual Assault survivors”. So either the university was letting people get away with rape, or else all the “sexual assault survivors” are lying. And, since Jackie Coakley was what the Rolling Stone ultimately ran with despite knowing their story was weak and looking for something better, all the “sexual assault survivors” at Virginia were lying even more blatantly than Jackie Coakley. Rolling Stone was looking for a more credible story, looked at all the other “sexual assault survivors”, did not find what it was looking for.

Rolling Stone tells us that in the previous year at Virginia University, their had been 38 complaints of sexual assault.

of those 38, only nine resulted in “complaints”; the other 29 students evaporated. Of those nine complaints, four resulted in Sexual Misconduct Board hearings.

None of these four resulted in anyone being expelled for assault.

So, either the University is blowing off real sexual assaults, or thirty eight of thirty eight complaints of sexual assault were flagrantly bogus.

And if any of those thirty eight complaints were not flagrantly bogus, Rolling stone would surely have gone with that one instead of, or as well as, the one they did go with.

Patriarchy and fertility

Friday, July 22nd, 2016

We observe high fertility in those nations and cultures where patriarchy is legally and socially enforced, in particular Muslim Afghanistan and Christian Timor Leste. Affordability of family formation has little effect. Clearly males in patriarchal societies are highly motivated to have children. They will do whatever it takes so that they can afford a family.

Thus, if pro social behavior in a patriarchal society is rewarded by a wife and the ability to support a family, you get highly motivated workers and soldiers.

Some people have argued that this observation is psychologically unreasonable “The guys I know don’t want children”

Henry Dampier explains why males in our society don’t want children in his 2015 article “Why no one wants to be a patriarch”

If you want men to join the legions, you make it so that the clearest path to power for a typical man will be to join up with the legions, serve his time, and then marry and be fruitful on his plot of land. If you want men to form households, you given them rights over those households and the families that issue from them. …

… Men lost the right to use legal force against their wives and children in stages. …

… the disciplining doesn’t really go away from society. The switch is just passed on from the father to the policeman and the schoolmaster. The state’s hirelings retain the right to discipline children, although wives tend to be permitted to run wild, especially nowadays, restrained only by their desires and sense of self-interest.

The disciplining also changes from spanking to drugging, often heavy drugging of untested chemicals onto children. …

The reason why no one wants to be a patriarch today is that patriarchs have no more legal authority. They have no formal power over their wives or children. They only have influence. Influence is both fickle and distinct from power. When a child misbehaves in the modern world, there are only a few paths that a parent can take. They can verbally discipline the child (more likely to work in a higher-class household than a lower-class one), they can illegally or semi-legally beat them, they can take them to a psychiatric professional of some kind, or they can feed the kid to the justice system. Schools have their own corrections systems of varying levels of effectiveness.

Further, paternal heads of household can be deprived of their assets and children at any time at the arbitrary whim of their wives. The wife can commit adultery, and the man can still lose his property in the ensuing divorce. The children and the wife alike can be wildly disrespectful to the head of household, and the man has no recourse other than whining.

I was the boss of my family and I found being a patriarch and having children hugely rewarding. But then I am a grade A asshole, and I am not afraid to commit illegal acts, though I tend to consult lawyers on ways to weasel out or buy my way out if caught, before I commit them. It is hard to be a patriarch if you are a nice guy, or if you have respect for law and social pressure, because marriages on the Pauline model are illegal, being marital rape and psychological abuse. Marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years is illegal and criminal, so of course the population is collapsing. Workable families are similarly illegal. Indeed, these days any sexual interaction with women is illegal with the notable exception of hiring whores and escorts – whores, escorts, and porn stars being the only women who are likely to give you explicit verbal consent moment to moment.

Extrapolating my subjective experience, and the subjective experience depicted by Henry Dampier, fully explains observed fertility patterns, for example the very spectacular collapse of Japanese fertility.

People don’t want children as assets. Never have, never will. If you think we can modify fertility with the tax system read Luke 15:11-32 and 2 Samuel 15:2 – 19:6 to gain an understanding of human nature and the human condition.

The problem is that children can be taken away from a man and used as hostages against him. That is why men do not want children.

Marriage and family is outlawed, thus only outlaws have wives and families.

Western Civilization

Thursday, July 21st, 2016

Western civilization is a bunch of things that tend to come together.

Christianity (forget that “Judeo Christian” crap, Judaism still has the problems Jesus complained about)

Classic Greek art, culture and philosophy (hey, compare our comic books with Greek statues, then compare with Indian statues or Japanese comic books, and no one except us and the Greeks does philosophy)

Western music descended from seventeenth and early eighteenth century composers, in particular and especially Bach. If you are fan of country and western, or Elvis, or whatever, it still a lot more like Bach than it is like anyone else’s music, except, like the Japanese, they have adopted western music. Indeed pretty much everyone has adopted western music, but they are all imitators and continue to be imitators. Note how much Engrish there is in East Asian pop music. Any music you hear is derived from someone, who derived it from someone, who derived it from someone, who derived it from Bach, and classic western music, such as the concert the Russians put on in Palmyra to remind us that the west was victorious, is that western music that is most directly derived from Bach. I think Handel is better than Bach, but everyone in the west winds up copying Bach even if they are punk rockers who do not know they are copying Bach, and pretty much everyone in the world winds up copying the west.

Science: The first statement of the scientific method comes from Roger Bacon, who proceeded to do a great deal of scientific research starting in 1247. Science really got going with the Royal Society in 1660. The King made science high status, so wealthy gentlemen proceeded to engage in or sponsor science, and the pirates who were conquering what became the British empire, who aspired to become wealthy respectable gentlemen, would sometimes take a break from shaking down Sultans for bloodstained gold to do scientific research. The best thing the Royal Society did was define the scientific method, give status to anyone who applied it successfully, and, more importantly deny status to those who falsely claimed to be applying it. When the Royal Society was subordinated to Harvard after World War II. no one with authority defined or enforced the scientific method, and these days the name of science is generally invoked by those who seek to restore the demon haunted dark, global warmerers and the like
Worshipper of the demon haunted dark:

Every year 47 million species go extinct

Fan of what used to be the scientific method

Name one that went extinct in the last few years

Worshipper of the demon haunted dark gives seventeen impeccably authoritative citations.
Fan of what used to be the scientific method

None of these name or describe a species that went extinct in the last few years.

Worshipper of the demon haunted dark gives twenty three more impeccably authoritative citations.

Enlightenment “Rationalism”. Enlightenment rationalism transliterates Christian beliefs about the next world, where they can never be disproven, into this world, where they are demonstrably false, which is the opposite of rationalism. For example “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. The Enlightenment was western civilization taking a very bad turn, which may well be the end of us all. The scientific revolution gets identified as part of the enlightenment, but this is like Marxists telling us that Marxism is scientific socialism. Science predates the enlightenment in that science got started around 1247, and the enlightenment around 1750. The high period of science, 1660 to 1945, occurred during the enlightenment, but was caused by the reaction, not the enlightenment, in that King Charles gave the Royal Society status, and the Royal Society gave science and the scientific method status. If Western civilization is to survive, the Enlightenment must be thoroughly purged and erased. Eradicating the enlightenment make make restoring Christianity necessary and possible, but the urgent necessity is the thorough and complete erasure of the enlightenment. Western civilization cannot survive the enlightenment.

Adam Smith and capitalism. Adam Smith showed that capitalism, done right, channels impulses that can be immoral and destructive, into ends that are moral and constructive. Thus, Western Civilization is inherently capitalist, and National Socialism is stupid, not because racist, but because socialist. The ten commandments consist of four that deal with God, thereby defining the adherents as a different and separate people, and six that prescribe how to deal with one’s fellow man, and in those six the rule against covetousness is the rule that is particularly and specially emphasized. Covetousness is wanting that which is someone else’s. If you see someone’s pretty wife, and think, I should have her, he treats her badly, he does not appreciate her as I appreciate her, he is too old and ugly for her, if I were to sneakily kill him and take her, she would be happier with me”, that is covetousness. If you think “Perhaps she has a younger sister who is still single”, that is not covetousness. And similarly, if you look at a rich man and think “He got his wealth by doing bad things, so he deserves to be punished by me taking away his wealth and having it myself”, that is covetousness. If, instead, you inquire how he got rich, and think about what you could do similarly, that is not covetousness. Adam Smith explained why the latter approach is usually more appropriate to wealth. Whenever you think of excessively clever rationales why the excessively fortunate do not deserve what they have, and should be deprived of it, that is covetousness, and civilizations end when the mob is empowered to give effect to covetousness.

It is plausible to argue that the key element of Western Civilization, the killer app, was the rule of law, laws that Kings had to obey, and yet, there is something wrong with this story, in that the law in England began as common law, which was not law centric, but judge centric, and the judges were, pretty much, local aristocrats, and local aristocrats pretty much did what they wanted, so the common law was not literal law written down as laws, but generalizations made by lawyers about the common moral culture of the aristocrats. So distributed power, limits on the power of kings, gave rise to laws that kings had to obey, not the other way around. A key feature of Western civilization is that it has always had a lot of nation states, and these nation states tended to have within them subsidiarity, many dispersed powerful people, rather than one king, or one all powerful bureaucracy. This gave rise to competition that mostly peaceful, though far from entirely peaceful, and the from this competition, the best tended to win, and be imitated, and worst tended to lose, and be ignored or replaced It was not the rule of law, but rather the rule of law was one of the consequences of subsidiarity, of mostly peaceful competition between powerful people and groups. The overwhelming dominance of the Cathedral over a multitude of nominally independent nation states, and the centralization of each of these nation states means that madness goes unchallenged. Doctrine goes out from Harvard, and goes unchallenged by reality. Competition made the west great, and real competition has been silenced. The megacities grow because winners and losers are not made by the market, but by government. Housing is expensive because everyone needs to be close to the man who is close to the man who is close to the man who is close to the man who is in the revolving door between regulators and regulated. Decentralization of nation states is difficult and hard to define. Independence of nation states is easier to define and easier to attain, hence the neoreactionary position that there need to be more nation states, and those nation states independent. When we have more nation states, and more independence for them, then perhaps will be able to look at them and say what constitutes decentralization.

Separation of Church and State has failed catastrophically.

Sunday, July 10th, 2016

Same problem as anarcho capitalism. The vacuum is apt to be filled. And today it is filled with an official government belief system that daily becomes more extreme, and is enforced more coercively.

In retrospect it is clear that in England the demand to disestablish the Anglican Church came from a competing religion, then called Evangelism, descended from Puritanism, which was already most of the way to becoming the state religion of England though it continually changed its name in the process.

The history of official religion in the US is more complex. When the United States was many separate states with a common defense and a common foreign policy, back when people said “The United States are” rather than “The United States is” there was absolutely no separation of Church and State, for each state had its own state religion, and the seminary of the state religion of Massachusetts, charged with promoting and enforcing the state religion, was Harvard.

After the English restoration the religion of New England became aggressive, political, this worldly, and bent on conquest and domination. They forever resented the English restoration which had disempowered them and purged them from lucrative positions in the Church of England and in the English government. Whig history began as their plan for reconquering England and the world.

The state Church of Massachusetts was state church of New England, and New England set up its Rome, its Papacy, in Massachussetts. The civil war and the Mormon war was New England conquering America – and then, following the civil war, denied it was a religious institution and proceeded to apply the doctrine of “separation of Church and state” as a very thin coat of white wash over the state religion of Massachusetts being enforced on everyone in America. And after World War II, everyone in the world, except those protected by nuclear weapons, Russia and China. There is a direct correlation between one’s alma mater’s proximity to the Boston-NYC-DC corridor and the height of one’s position in the government and ruling class of one’s country. Outside of Russia and China the only substantial resistance comes from Muslims. If you are Muslim a tranny nonetheless wins your song contest, your universities are run from Harvard, two thirds of the youngsters attending university are women due to affirmative action for women, and shortly after they attend university they find themselves covered in semen from head to foot and are told that they are liberated. Approximately half of all Muslims are moderate Muslims, and if you are a moderate Muslim you support the gay parades, you have only one wife in the event you have a wife, and if you do get married you will probably marry a women nearing the end of her fertile years, and are failing to reproduce. Immoderate Muslims, most of whom support Islamic state or some faction equally violent, are getting laid, marrying young women in their most fertile years, and having numerous children.

Ann Coulter famously said “Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”. Predictably, the US government adopted a policy of killing their leaders and converting them to progressivism, which policy is not entirely failing, but is having considerably less success and more serious problems than admitted. Conversion to progressivism is not keeping up with rate at which real Muslims, the ones that make women submit to their husbands, breed.

By and large, I tend to focus on power at the bottom – that women interrupt their boss tells me that they are hired for reasons other than their contribution to profit, that businesses are forced or morally pressured to hire women, and then stuff them into parts of the business where they cannot do too much immediate damage. Blacks walk down the street like aristocrats, taking up lots of space, while white males walk like serfs.

I also write a lot about female sexual preferences. Sexual selection, female choice, results in a positive feedback cycle, hence the peacock’s tail. I expect my readers, unlike Harvard alumni and Word Bank economists, to know the difference between positive feedback and negative feedback, to, unlike the typical Harvard alumunus, understand why the peacock’s tail is a really bad thing for peacocks, and to know that positive feedback is apt to have extremely bad consequences, and almost always needs to be broken and disconnected in the most direct way possible.

But this post is about power at the top. It is, however, also about my favorite topic: Positive feedback loops. And if you did not get that the peacocks tail is a manifestation of a positive feedback loop and that the peacock’s tail shows that women should never have been emancipated, do some homework before commenting. Seems that these days all they teach in university is how to hate white males, even if your degree is nominally in computer science. If your degree is in computer science, you damn well should know what a positive feedback loop is and why it is a bad thing.

During the reign of Charles the First of England, there was a remarkable outbreak of holiness. By and large, the holiest people tended to get the preaching jobs in the Church of England, and, since there was not a whole lot of entertainment and social events other than going to church, they persuaded other people to be holy.

To some extent this holiness was genuine and sincere. On the other hand, since Church of England jobs had good pay and status, it was to some extent pharisaical, and became increasingly pharisaical. And this pharisaical holiness started to increasingly resemble nineteenth century leftism, alarming the King, so Charles the First set to appointing Bishops that opposed and suppressed left wing pharisaism – or perhaps Bishops that, like Charles himself, enjoyed a good time and were not particularly holy. And this led to civil war, which the exceedingly holy won.

And pretty soon each candidate for office was even holier than each of the other candidates.

And pretty soon pharisaical holiness developed a striking resemblance to twentieth century leftism, the twentieth century labor movement and the hippies, Which alarmed Oliver Cromwell, who, like Stalin, found himself outflanked on his left, so he cracked down on it, a good deal more vigorously and more successfully than Charles the first did. Cromwell is both a villain to reactionaries, for executing a great King, and a hero to reactionaries, for putting a stop to leftism, and for equipping General Monck with a praetorian guard, the Coldstream guards.

Cromwell’s leftism did not go all the way to twenty first century leftism and celebrate sodomy, but the wind was blowing that way, as men ever more holy had to denounce yesterday’s holiness. The war on Christmas and the war on Marriage began under Cromwell, foreshadowing the twenty first century celebration of sodomy.

After Cromwell died, General Monck staged a coup, and to this day the Coldstream Guards, who were originally his praetorians, guard parliament. General Monck restored the monarchy, and the monarchy, Charles the Second, purged puritans from state institutions, including the Church of England.

This pissed off the puritans no end. Charles attempted to purge New England’s ruling institutions, but whereas puritans were unpopular in England, pretty much everyone in New England was a puritan, and the puritans eventually regained power in New England by a revolt that England let slide, and eventually legalized.

And having regained power, they proceeded to get holier and holier, until they were holier than Jesus (abolitionism and prohibition). And here we are.

Teaching boys to be beta

Wednesday, June 29th, 2016

I was watching “Troy”. And for the first hour it was totally great. The mother of Achilles, who has the power of prophesy, and is believed to be a goddess or something similar, prophesies that if he goes to war with Troy, he will die in that war, but his name will live for a thousand years.

This is actually conservative, for Achilles was part of the collapse of Bronze age civilization, three thousand years ago, and his name still lives.

And Achilles, being warlord, a king, and a hero, and the greatest warrior ever, and a living legend, and incredibly brave and manly, naturally decides to go to Troy.

He goes to Troy, and after the first battle, orders his men to loot the temple of Apollo. So his men dump a kingly share of the temple loot in his tent, part of that loot being a dazzlingly beautiful girl, a virgin dedicated to Apollo tied up in his tent.

And then he just … he … he just totally fails to act like a man. In addition to being famous, and a hero, and the greatest warrior ever, and a living legend, he is also unbelievably handsome. But I swear, that there is no way that girl would voluntarily bed him in real life, if he acts like that.

Now I am old, and fat, and no one terribly important, and I look like Jabba the Hut, but if I had had a few hours with that girl in my tent, she and I would have been going at it like weasels in heat. (Voltaire said all he needed was ten minutes, but I think he was lying, and in any case, I am not as good as Voltaire.)

Everything Achilles does prior to going into that tent is totally, unbelievably, impossibly manly. Everything he does in the first hour of the movie is totally, unbelievably, impossibly manly. And then he goes into that tent and he is just …

You know why boys are no damn good with girls these days. Because they watch movies like that. They are taught to respect women. But women do not really want to be respected. And what is this girl that Achilles should respect her? We see him disrespect King Agamemnon. Until this scene we only see him respecting mighty warriors who have earned it by their courage and their prowess, or King Odysseus, whom he respects for his cunning. What has this chick done to earn respect?

After that scene, I just could not watch the film any more, because I just could not see Achilles as a man. Just some kind of cuck. Real men just don’t treat women like that. It is not just that it will not get you laid. It is unmanly. It is wrong. It is gay. It is effeminate.

OK. In the workplace I have to treat women like that or be fired, but it burns. OK, I bend to power and grit my teeth and suffer the humiliation, but the whole Achilles story is that he does not bend to power. Show him acting like a cuck, then there is no story any more.

Achilles does not respect King Agamemnon. He does not respect the King of Thessaly. He does not respect the champion of Thessaly. He does not respect the troops of Thessaly. He does not respect the ambassadors of King Odysseus. Why is he so damn respectful to some speaking temple loot?

The feminized police force and army

Wednesday, June 22nd, 2016

1. In response to the Orlando terrorist massacre there were women in uniform among those police responding. This was absurd, outrageous, despicable, shocking, and immoral. We should not expose women to danger – and because you cannot treat women differently to men, no police were exposed to danger.

2. In response to the Orlando terrorist massacre police of both sexes hid some distance away for three hours while the shooter continued shooting at leisure and victims continued to bleed out on the floor for three hours.

The problem is that if you are going to incorporate women in a workforce, you cannot tolerate masculinity. If you have women in the workplace, along comes the schoolmarmish attitude that men are brutes and this shocking brutishness cannot be tolerated. But there are some jobs, such as firefighting, policing, and war that just really need masculinity.

And even if, as in engineering, you don’t really need masculinity, it is really oppressive that men are just not allowed to be men.

A situation where unowned fertile age women are mingling with masculine men is socially intolerable. The woman have to be owned, or the men emasculated, and since keeping women under control is today deemed intolerable, the men are emasculated, and we are now seeing that it is costly to emasculate police, and the Brits have repeatedly demonstrated that it is very costly indeed to emasculate soldiers.

Fertile age women should not be allowed to mingle with men except that they are firmly controlled by some male who is present, in authority over them, and responsible for their good behavior, and the number of women he is responsible for is small enough that he actually can control them. In practice, the alternative is always emasculating the men.

It is interesting that the astonishing cowardice of the police is being covered up – shows guilty mind – that this episode of horrifying cowardice is not just some bad apples, but is recognized as a result of government policy, much as the reaction to the Fort Hood shooting showed guilty mind in that they recognized the Fort Hood shooting was the result of affirmative action promoting people who absolutely should not have been promoted.

Omar Matteen eliminated opposition, then proceeded to shoot a bunch of people. Police arrived, and were told to wait for the SWAT team. They waited, and waited, while he kept on killing people at leisure, and victims continued to bleed out on the floor. Police withdrew.

Eventually, after half an hour, he stopped shooting, maybe he was short of ammo, maybe tired. Then he called up the FBI, told them this was a terrorist attack. It is not clear whether he resumed shooting after that.

Two and half hours after the attack, police started taking out wounded people lying on the floor.

Three hours after the attack, the SWAT team finally counter attacked.

So it is not quite literally true that they waited three hours while he killed people at liesure. They waited half an hour while he killed people at liesure, then two and a half hours more while he could have killed people at leisure, and possibly did. They also waited two and a half hours while wounded people were bleeding out on the floor.

Hey, if they were arresting you for failure to show up in court, for a court hearing whose date had been changed without informing you of the change, would have shot blind through your door, then it would have taken them two seconds to shoot your dog, and three seconds to break your child’s face.

Large scale social cooperation, the larger organization of society, is something men do. It is part of masculine behavior. And if feral fertile age women are allowed to wander loose, you cannot tolerate masculine behavior, which makes large scale cooperation difficult. Either masculinity has to be deemed wicked, or fertile age women not under male supervision and authority have to be deemed wicked, or at least deemed feral. And so we have come to deem masculinity wicked.

What people really mean when they say there is a lot of rape

Friday, June 17th, 2016

Official, politically correct truth, is that there is a whole lot of rape, and very few rape convictions, and when women claim to have been raped, it is always true.

Now of course the poster girl law applies.  If there was a whole lot of unpunished rape, or if most rape accusations were true, or even if more than a tiny proportion were true, then when Rolling Stone and suchlike go looking for a poster girl, they would be able to find one that did not blow up in their faces.

On casual observation and common sense very few rape accusations are true, the overwhelming majority of rape convictions are false and unjust, and the courts exhibit guilty conscience in convicting obviously innocent men, and then frequently sentencing them to sexual assault awareness class, time served, and suchlike.  Obviously people do not really believe that many rape accusations, or even many rape convictions, are true in the ordinary sense of logic and facts.  Rather it is an emotional truth.
“Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus”

People believe that many rape accusations are true, that many rape convictions are just, the way they believe in Santa Claus.

DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
Papa says, ‘If you see it in THE SUN it’s so.’
Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Recently my wife died, after a long and terrible illness. She was always a good wife, she gave me two good sons, and we were together since we were teenagers. My sisters came to visit me for the funeral. I have not seen them for a long time.

After the funeral my oldest sister, recently widowed, and a good wife all her years to the best of my knowledge, told a story of how she and a bunch of other politically active women had investigated a girls religious school for pedophilia, and found and presented a pile of evidence that obviously no one else found the slightest bit convincing, and I am pretty sure my elder sister did not find convincing either. I was disturbed, and argued that she was overdoing it, creating a danger than innocent people would be unjustly impugned, that if they could find nothing substantial, should have let sleeping dogs lie. And in the course of this quite civilized conversation I casually said “The vast majority of rape accusations are false, the vast majority of rape convictions are false”. My tone of voice, and my honest expectation, was that we were all family, we don’t need to pretend, no one is going to overhear us, so we can get away with acknowledging the glaringly obvious. My work is not really due to the inspiration provided by Comrade Stalin, and there is not really much rape, or at least not much rape by white heterosexual males.

My sisters were outraged. They exploded. I could not get a word in edgewise. They spewed forth a torrent of condemnation and rebuttal. In particular and especially my divorced sister who was especially loud and spoke especially fast, and not very coherently.

She proceeded to passionately and very loudly describe various recent rape convictions, which were, she told me, clearly and overwhelmingly right and just.

Her evidence that these rape convictions were real strikingly resembled the SUN’s evidence that Santa Claus exists:

Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see.

I have no idea what really happened in these alleged rapes. But I know what my sister told me happened. According to her:

“They expected to be loved and cherished, they expected to be treated kindly. But instead …”

But instead really really terrible things were done to them.

According to her, it was all regret “rape”. The girls consented, then regretted consenting but the girls were not regretting trivially or foolishly. According to her the girls had really good reasons for regret, up to and including serious physical injury. Really really good reasons.

My divorced sister also has lots of good reasons for regretting some of her sexual choices. I don’t know if any of them are as good as the reasons she attributes to these girls and these convictions, but they are good reasons. Which may explain her passion on the topic and her somewhat surprising choice and depiction of what constitutes genuine rape.

Women reliably and very predictably make disastrous sexual choices that cause immense harm to themselves and to everyone around them. So when they say they believe complainant X, even when, as with Jackie Coakley and Crystal Mangum, it is glaringly obvious that the complainant is making stuff up, what they actually mean is that complainant X is suffering real and genuine pain as a result of her choices to have sex or to refuse to have sex. For example, Jackie Coakley suffered great and real pain as a result of having casual quickie no strings attached hookup sex with Ryan Duffin, and repeatedly offering to have more casual quickie no strings attached hookup sex with Ryan Duffin, and repeatedly hatching overly complicated and excessively clever plots to manipulate Ryan Duffin into giving her another quickie, and Ryan Duffin repeatedly being too busy to get around to giving her any more quickies.

The current free-for-all sexual jungle just chews women up and spits them out. It breaks them. It makes them into trash, into garbage, into filth, into scum. It makes them into women who cannot stand the thought of being touched by any man who would be likely to marry them, or even hang around with them for very long. If Jackie Coakley manages to marry someone, she will probably find it mighty hard to fuck him. This is a major factor in our population collapse. Wives just not being able to stand fucking their husbands. And since fertile age women have to have sex …

And that is what women mean when they say that most rape complaints are real, that most rape convictions are just. Like Santa Claus, it is an emotional truth, not seriously intended to be a factual truth. Virginia will not be able to see an actual Santa Claus coming down the chimney, and the SUN is not really saying that she will be able to. Men are convicted because women suffer, not because anyone really thinks that those particular men personally did anything in particular to cause the suffering of those particular women. Phi Beta Kappa and its members are still under various punishments and persecution even though the original rationale (their supposed rape of Jackie Coakley) has collapsed, new and ever more improbable rationales appear to fill the gap to justify the partial continuation of various measures originally applied to the fraternity to punish the rape of Jackie Coakley – though the original measures were mild enough as to reveal that no one had ever actually believed that the fraternity had been complicit in actual rape type rape.

Sullivan announced a new contract between the university and fraternities that includes enhanced safety measures for social activities designed to discourage binge drinking. The university said that Phi Psi was the first fraternity to sign the updated agreement, and fraternity officials said that Phi Psi members have participated in a sexual assault awareness program.

“We believe that in the midst of this ordeal, there is an opportunity for good,” Scipione said. “This has prompted us to take a closer look at ourselves and what role organizations like ours may play in ensuring student safety.”

A sexual assault awareness program, in the absence of any actual sexual assault, is just punishment, humiliation, and degradation. If you actually thought someone committed sexual assault, or was likely to, you would deploy something more forceful than a sexual assault awareness program. The purpose is brainwashing, to convince the innocent that they are guilty. to punish them for failure to comply with the narrative, for their disgraceful and shocking failure to be actually individually and personally responsible for the bad feelings and bad consequences that women suffer as a result of their bad sexual choices. The point of sexual assault awareness course is to re-arrange reality so that men are at fault for the bad decisions that women make, to punish Phi Beta Kappa and its members for Jackie Coakley’s self destructive decision to fuck Ryan Duffin.

Supposedly believing the story to be real, the actions of the authorities were not nearly drastic enough for people who supposedly believed. Knowing the story to be completely false, their actions are far too drastic for people who disbelieve. The leniency of the initial punishment revealed the authorities’ guilty knowledge that almost all rape accusations are false, the severity of the final punishment revealed the guilty intention to punish innocent men for the grave and terrible wrongs that women so frequently and predictably do to themselves.

It would greatly improve Jackie Coakley’s prospects of marrying and her ability to be a good wife if she was publicly caned for fucking Ryan Duffin, because caning and public degradation would render the man who was willing to marry her more alpha in her eyes. It would relieve the psychological problems caused by her bad sexual choices. This is what girls who cut themselves are trying, and failing, to achieve. Women who do bad sexual things want men to punish them. Jackie Coakley’s rape story was a sexual fantasy of receiving a well deserved punishment from high status males.

Consent based morality is based on the idea that we make rational choices. If two men agree to exchange iron for wheat, the exchange must be in the interests of both of them, it must make them both better off, or else they would not agree. But sexual consent in fertile age woman is based on raging hormones, on volcanically powerful and entirely irrational forces, thus women make terrible sexual choices that are very much against their interests. For this reason, sexual consent is not sufficient to make sex right, nor lack of sexual consent sufficient to make sex wrong.

We have an army of too clever by half intellectuals thinking up clever stories why the government and society should intervene in people’s economic choices, even though even the stupidist man will generally be careful with his own money, yet everyone thinks that female consent is necessary and sufficient to make sex right, even though everyone sees women making terrible choices, and regretting those choices.

Emancipating women, allowing them to choose who to sleep with and who not to sleep with, is like setting ten year old children loose in the jungle to live by hunting bears. When menarche hits, women become less capable of consenting competently, not more capable. The age of consent should be menopause. Women should not be allowed to consent to sex except under male supervision.

Women despise men who treat them well, hence the effectiveness of negs and preselection. I should know. I am an asshole. Ask my sisters.

All woman respond to PUA tactics. Look around you. A woman will only be happy if she is virtuous, and will only be virtuous if she is bagged by a good man who keeps her and restrains her inherently wicked impulses. Women reward playful cruelty and cheerful selfishness.

Women do not reward kindness. If they choose to submit to a kind man, that is their good luck, not their good judgement.

Consider how much better off Kate Gosselin would be had she not been allowed to speak back to her husband, nor refuse to sleep with him, nor to sleep with anyone else.

Church Authority versus Sovereign authority

Monday, June 13th, 2016

The natural tendency is for Church and Sovereign to become one (interpreting Religion and Church broadly to include progressivism as a religion and Harvard as its Church)  If one, the question goes away.

But sometimes church and sovereign are geographically different, as when the Holy Roman Empire lost power, resulting in one Roman Catholic Church and many Roman Catholic Kings. Whereupon trouble ensues, and the question becomes urgent. What tends to happen is that the Pope proclaims himself superior to Kings, but is under the thumb of one particular King, so that the supremacy of the Pope started to look suspiciously similar to the supremacy of the Habsburgs. Today we see that Harvard has alarmingly great power in Iran, and Obama alarmingly little, and we see state department functionaries taking power in supposedly independent states, which state department functionaries were usually educated within a very short distance of Harvard.

The solution to this problem is given by the Chrismation of Solomon: Zadok the Priest & Nathan the Prophet Formally Chrismated Solomon King

Formally, Solomon became King because the priest and prophet anointed him so, making church authority supreme over sovereign authority. (Chrismation is Eastern Orthodox Christian language for anointing with oil. Supposedly the oil goes back to biblical times, having been continually diluted with fresh oil.)

In actual substance, Solomon became King by murdering his brother Adonijah, arguably the legitimate heir, in a fight over Abishag, the most beautiful woman in Israel, even though it was illegal and immoral for either of them to possess her, and even though there is no mention in the bible that she intentionally did anything to tempt either of them, and by shedding the innocent blood of Joab in the tabernacle, thereby desecrating the tabernacle.

However by formally submitting to the Church, the sovereign pointed away from the unpleasantness of a messy succession, and to God. In substance, Solomon was in charge, largely due to craftiness and ruthlessness. In form, the church was superior to the state. In substance, Solomon dismissed one priest and appointed another, violating the principle of hereditary priestly succession. 1 Kings 1 and 1 Kings 2 lists numerous morally dubious or openly wicked killings and purges by Solomon over the succession question, and 1 Kings 2 concludes:

So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out, and fell upon him, that he died. And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

So was it blood or oil that made Solomon King?

Thus the bible points to the formal authority of Church over Sovereign, in order to give the sovereign authority, in order to make Kingship inspiring rather than demoralizing, but the substance of authority belongs to the sovereign, not the the Church. Napoleon was wrong to crown himself, not wrong to have himself crowned.

If there is a distinction between Church and State, and there usually is not, nor should there be, we should take the Chrismation of Solomon to demonstrate the proper relationship of Church and State. The Church should be formally superior, to make Kingship holy, to give dignity and virtue to the state. But actual superiority leads to the problems encountered with the sons of Samuel, and with Papal indulgences, and with Habsburg empire, and with Harvard.

Keeping up with PC

Monday, May 30th, 2016


I would not like to be incorrect, so is pedophilia still an abomination and absolutely the worst thing ever, or is it holy and sacred already?


Relax. Still an abomination and absolutely the worst thing ever.


What if the pedophilia is part of an anti bullying program teaching pre pubertal children to accept gays.


Never happens.


I seem to recall the anti bullying literature depicting an obviously gay fifty year old man embracing a pre pubertal child of indeterminate sex


A totally non sexual embrace intended to demonstrate social acceptance of whatever sexual whatever the child was expressing. Which is therefore totally holy and sacred


I seem to recall a pre pubertal child born male but said to be identifying as a girl who was …


Totally holy and sacred. Obviously someone who knows he is a girl before puberty and can choose sex change treatment before puberty can know and prefer his sexual preference before puberty but … um … ah … er … people like me would never do anything that is not holy and sacred.


But I can definitely positively absolutely tell you that pedophilia still an abomination and absolutely the worst thing ever, and if a twenty four year old hot female teacher should have sex with a handsome high school football star who is big enough and strong enough to pick her up, toss her on the bed, and give her a spanking this is totally shocking, indescribably disgusting, and she needs to go to jail for the terrible terrible terrible harm she has inflicted on the poor victimized high school football star.


still an abomination and absolutely the worst thing ever.

Menstrual synchronization and cryptic ovulation

Saturday, May 28th, 2016

The PUA interpretation of cryptic ovulation is that it is an evolutionary adaption to make it easier for women to cuckold their husbands.  Doubtless there is some truth in this, but some untruth also, since when females get their way the result is not polyandry, which is cryptic, but serial monogamy, which female behavior is far from cryptic, whereas when males get their way, the result is polygyny.   Further, females have control of which males can get them pregnant, since their cervix will open for one man’s sperm and not for another man’s sperm, so cryptic ovulation for this purpose is overkill.

Another effect of cryptic ovulation is to promote more sex, for the telos not of reproduction, but for the telos of the unitive bond between man and woman, that the two should be one flesh.

Since ovulation is cryptic in humans it is odd that human females tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles.  It is apparent that a female’s subconscious mind can see what a male’s subconscious mind cannot see.

This implies an evolutionary arms race, in which it is valuable to males to know a female’s fertile period, but valuable to females that a male not know her fertile period.  And it is also valuable for females to know the menstrual cycle of competing females, and valuable for them to let her know their fertile period.

If a females fertile period is transparent to a male’s subconscious mind, this facilitates pump and dump.  By enabling more reproductively efficient sex by the male, undermines the unitive bond and male investment, to the females disadvantage, and facilitates mate guarding, to the female’s disadvantage.  It is easy to see why it should be important to females that their fertile period be cryptic to males, but why should it be transparent to females?

It is well known that females living together tend to synchronize menstruation but this serves no useful evolutionary purpose, so is presumably a side effect of something that does serve useful evolutionary purpose.

Personal observation, not necessarily statistically significant:  Women sleeping with the same man all tend to menstruate simultaneously, or very close together, even if they never meet. It looks to me that when no one is using any form of contraception, one menstruating triggers the other to menstruate.

This, assuming the observation to be valid, serves the evolutionary purpose, useful for women, of making polygyny harder, and making it less likely that a polygynist who may well consciously or subconsciously perceive a woman’s fertile state will get two women pregnant in rapid succession, thus making it more likely he will stick with whoever first gets pregnant.