Romanovs and war with Russia

April 7th, 2017

Trump is seemingly going along with plans for war with Russia, or maybe he is pretending to go along to separate the sane from the truly mad.

It is supposedly morally imperative to go to war with Russia because some bad people in the in middle east have gassed other bad people in the middle east, instead of their usual schtick, which is cutting people’s heads off. Kind of obvious that our ruling elite is looking for an excuse, any excuse.

And our ruling elite has joined the reaction and the alt right in calling Trump and his family the Romanovs.

Some time ago I remarked:

Trump may well cuck out, as the Romanovs cucked out. But if he does, the left will kill him and kill his children as they killed the Romanovs and their children.

To which Grumpus replied:

(Important people read this blog. Let’s watch and see if the Romanovs analogy grows legs out there.)

What do you know. It has grown legs.

The reason that our elite wants to kill the Trump family, and the Republicans for siding with the Trump family, and kill the Russians is Pussy Riot and European University. The continued existence of Russians, and the continued existence of Trumps, undermines their status. If Trump and the Republicans ever allow the Democrats to regain power, they will be killed.

The stakes have grown too high for democracy to continue. Maybe Trump can de-escalate the situation, but entropy is easier than order, only takes one side to escalate, two sides to de-escalate.

Trump already remakes the world

April 3rd, 2017

Clearly the permanent government is still in control, and Trump is not yet in control. But equally clearly, he is working on it.

With Trump’s election, the Arab Spring died. Suddenly and mysteriously, the mysterious benefactors that enabled Arab subversives to operate from a big important expensive office, stopped funding that big important expensive office.

Simultaneously, Marvel heroes no longer push females doing manly things and sexual deviants doing admirable things. Supposedly this is because of a sudden and mysterious change in public taste, but in fact Spider Girl and Tranny Thor and the rest were always violently unpopular. It is just that until now the official truth was that they were popular, and were bringing in new and more diverse readers.

The Black Lives Matter movement was always a front for the Department of Justice, which is a branch of the United States Government. When Trump was elected, it vanished like smoke, and the numerous incidents of racist cops maliciously gunning down unarmed black male honors students (who dindu nuffin) on their way to choir practice, vanished with it.

When gangs of thugs burned down supermarkets and petrol stations, and forced white people to abandon their houses, that was the Department of Justice in blackface.

With the vanishing of Tranny Thor and the like, has come a similar vanishing of sex incidents in software engineering. Are smart engineers no longer talking down to affirmative action engineerettes in the art harem? Are horny engineers no longer finding excuses to visit the art harem to hit on the affirmative action engineerettes?

When I saw Trump’s tech summit, I noticed that instead of dressing in Silicon Valley expensive dark casual, the summitteers were dressed in job interview formal. I immediately knew that complaints of mansplaining and being hit on by insufficiently high status males (with the subtext that the complainant is entitled to be hit on by higher status males, and in a just and fair society would be considered hot) would no longer receive such a warm hearing. Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas.

The likely shape of a Trump autocoup

April 1st, 2017

For Trump to actually be the executive of the United States government would be something very like a autocoup, a coup by the merely elected government against the permanent government. At present the government continues to fund the left, the IRS continues to target the tea party and conservative organizations. An overwhelming proportion of the “refugees” admitted to the US are still black male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy. Planned Parenthood has not been defunded,

Trump has the praetorians in his pocket, the military in his pocket, but the spies are an obstacle I did not expect.

To get control of the spies, Trump has to fire some spies – but he cannot fire spies without a self coup, and cannot have a self coup until he gets control of the spies. The solution, of course, is to charge some spies with crimes against national security and then place them on administrative leave pending resolution of the charges. It would only take removal of a very few to get enough leverage to get the rest in line.

So why no charges yet? Maybe he is a cuck, but that does not sound like Trump.

In his tweets, he is focusing on getting Gorsuch on the supreme court. Maybe he is worried that anything that looks like preparation for a self coup would make it difficult to get Gorsuch confirmed.

I hope and I believe that the reason that Trump has been pussyfooting around lately is that he wants to get his man on the supremes first, and that once Gorsuch is in, we shall see the old Trump once more, that once his man his in, he will, we will, confront the judiciary and purge the spies.

His inaction so far on the judiciary and the spies has me worried – but not that worried. I expect to see the old Trump back once Gorsuch is confirmed.

It took Abbott ten months of confrontation before he deemed the time ripe to go Andrew Jackson on the judges, and I am not necessarily expecting Trump to go any quicker, but I expect the sparks to start flying very shortly after Gorsuch is in.

Unowned women should be unprotected and fair game

March 31st, 2017

You want Roissy ran out of town on a rail. There is a good chance he “raped” your girlfriend, and if he did not, he had her before you, or will have her after you.

But who is going to run Roissy out of town on a rail? No one has incentive to do so, or legitimate authority to do so, unless husbands and fathers have property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services.

So if you want a society where Roissy gets run out of town on a rail, or better, shot like a dog, you need a society where husbands and fathers have legitimate, socially recognized, legally recognized, and legally enforced property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services, where a husband or a father can legally and morally legitimately shoot Roissy for sniffing around where he should not, as he can shoot a burglar for sniffing around where he should not.

And if you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy (“oh the poor things”) you are abandoning male property rights in women.

The system that Victorians liked to pretend that they had, where unowned, unprotected, and uncontrolled women were presumed to be chaste and of comparable value to owned, controlled, and protected women, is not incentive compatible. No one has strong motivation to protect the society that you piously pretend that you have. You are not upvaluing unprotected women. You are downvaluing wives and daughters.

You cannot have the supposed Victorian and the supposed Puritan system, for the same reason as the Victorians and the Puritans could not have it either. The Victorian system resulted in far too many women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, resulting in far too many Oliver Twists, resulting in the welfare state, resulting in far too many women marrying Uncle Sam the big Pimp. And here we are.

If you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy you are not going to succeed, because unowned women are uncontrolled women. And your entire intended system goes down the drain.

You cannot “protect” unowned women from seduction and “rape”, because women are notoriously uncooperative with anyone trying to “protect” them.

Whereupon, surprise surprise, no one runs Roissy out of town no matter how much the preacher vainly rants about chastity.

If chastity is based on male property rights in women, unowned women are outside the system and are presumed to be unchaste – and need to be outside so that they can be discriminated against and treated as of lesser value and lesser worth. Roissy screwing unowned women cannot be allowed to matter, because unowned women cannot be allowed to matter.

High estimates of the number of whores in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century were not based on the modern usage of “whore” to mean a woman rents her pussy for cash by the hour, but rather, were estimates of the number of unowned, and thus presumed to be unchaste, women. Similarly “sluts”.

You cannot keep women permanently chained to the wall. You are going to have to let them loose every now and then to take care of the baby, pick up the socks, and cook the meals. So you need to have a system that is incentive compatible with what women want. If women get entirely their way, civilization collapses, because most men will not have posterity, so will not plant trees for their grandchildren to enjoy the shade. So you need to have a system where male ownership of women is incentive compatible with what women want, where women have reason to cooperate in a system that restrains their worst excesses. So you have to downvalue unowned women and upvalue owned women. And if you downvalue unowned women, you cannot allow yourself to care about what Roissy gets up to. (Unless of course, he starts sniffing around your wife or daughter, in which case you shoot him like a dog, and the cops shrug their shoulders and say “needed killing”.)

The problem is not that women want to bang multiple high value alpha males. They want to bang only one high value alpha male, and that high value alpha male also wants them to bang only that one high value alpha male. The problem is that finding themselves of low rank the high value alpha male’s ever growing harem, they start playing off one high value alpha male against another high value alpha male in order to raise their value. The solution is to associate this tactic with being low value. And if allow ourselves to care about what Roissy gets up to, we are upvaluing women who employ this tactic. No one should care about what unowned women get up to, or about what happens to them, thus motivating unowned women to come in from the cold, and owned women to stay where it is warm.

It does not matter if the archbishop proclaims that all fertile age women are the property of their father or husband. He can, and should proclaim that all fertile age women should be the property of their father or husband, but short of keeping them all permanently chained to the dungeon wall, not all of them are going to actually be the property of their father or husband. Hence Roissy.

If we could stop unowned women from seducing Mohammed, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But we cannot.

Or if we could prevent significant numbers of women from becoming unowned, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But that would require measures that are extreme, cruel, disturbing, and, worst of all, inconvenient.

Apology to B.

March 29th, 2017

B did in fact win the bet that the Orthodox were holding the line on gay marriage. I failed to notice, because I ignored the evidence he brought up. I will settle the bet shortly.

Fixing healthcare

March 26th, 2017

Obamacare is in a death spiral.

Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, but then ran dead on it, allowing Ryancare to fail and washing his hands of it.

Trump then announces he has to compromise with the Democrats on medicine.

Single payer for everyone, as in Britain and Canada, is a horrible disaster, but despite being a disaster, once in place it seems impossible to remove. If we get single payer, we are screwed.

The key problem of US healthcare is absurdly high and completely unpredictable health costs – you stroll into hospital for something trivial, and if you are white and male, get hit for three hundred thousand dollars for no apparent reason. Routine and standard health care procedures like a colonoscopy typically cost twenty times what they cost in the rest of the world, and even though they are absolutely routine and standard no one will tell you what they are going to cost.

So, America has to copy from countries that have attained low and predictable health costs, and most importantly, up front health costs, where you know what you are going to be charged: These are Singapore, India, and Thailand, which have single payer for poor people. Which means that when some bum shows up at the rich people’s hospital, they send him over to the poor people’s hospital.

The reason America has no market in healthcare is cross subsidies – white males pay for everyone, and this requires opaque prices. The government decrees that hospitals will take care of the poor and female, that insurance companies will take care of the poor and female, which in practice winds up as cross subsidies, white males taking care of the poor and female, which results in a system with no prices and no markets.

To get health costs down you need a market and prices. Singapore and similar countries have a market and prices, and they can get away with this politically because there is a safety net for the poor, the feckless, and the unlucky.

If you have clear up front prices, someone has to pay for the poor people. If explicit up front prices then you need an explicit overt handout in place of the hidden handout paid for through hidden prices.

The trouble with single payer for poor people is that it is apt to grow into single payer for everyone, as has more or less happened in France and is happening in Germany. But Singapore has kept single payer under control, and single payer has not swallowed up the entire medical industry in Australia.

What I would really like is a system where you can just turn the poor and the sick away, but we cannot have that when we pretend to democracy, so some kind of single payer for poor people it has to be.

The trouble is, of course, the Democrats are going to demand single payer for everyone. But as the Obamacare crisis ripens, and the mid term elections approach …

Lancelot, Guinevere, romance, and the red, blue, purple, black, and white pills.

March 21st, 2017

Evolutionary psychology predicts that a man will love a woman he regularly has sex with, who lives with him and that he lives with and will be inclined to look after her welfare, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what she wants. He will do what he thinks is good for her, and make her do what he thinks is good for her, even if she wants something different. Because one flesh. Taking care of her is taking care of her capacity to bear him children and raise his children.

It does not predict that she will love him all that much, since Gnon wants resources transferred from men to women, and from parents to children, but it does predict that she will obey him, respect him, and physically desire him, in order that he can take care of her and the children they have together.

That is how it supposed to work.

If, however, she is someone else’s wife, or is staying with her family rather the joining with him to form a new family, thus someone else is going to be looking after his kids by her, maybe the state is going to be taking care of her and he is just passing through, then evolutionary psychology predicts romantic love, that he will flatter her and do whatever she wants, no matter how foolish, unreasonable, and self destructive, as Lancelot treated Guinevere.

So, evolutionary psychology predicts that males will primarily experience romantic love in the case of adultery, and to a lesser extent in casual fornication. It predicts that they they will experience the love that a husband bears his wife after they have been living together and having sex for a while. And that women will tend to be at best good wives, rather than in love with their husbands. The wife who craves the seed of a man more alpha than her husband says

“I do not love my husband any more, therefore it is OK for me to service this rock musician and his biker roadies”

but women never love men all that much. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to respect, honor, obey, and desire their husbands.

Thus, the first mention of sexual love in the bible: Rebekah meets Isaac, explains herself. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” The second mention of sexual love in the bible on the other hand has love and romance preceding sex and marriage instead of following sex and marriage – and things go badly wrong.

Romantic love was celebrated by the troubadours, and as depicted by the troubadours, was always adulterous love. King Arthur’s wife Guinevere desired Lancelot, and had sex with him, and Lancelot romantically loved Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife. In consequence Lancelot does lots of stupid humiliating self sacrificing things that prove his enormous burning love, Guinevere acts like an arrogant depraved obnoxious spoiled slut bitch, the fellowship of the Round Table breaks up, Camelot is defeated, and everyone gets killed.

This makes sense for maximizing reproductive fitness. Crazy destructive passion in order to cuckold other men, calm, gentle, firm, nurturing affection for one’s own family. Romance is what the troubadours depicted with alarming accuracy.

Romance is defect/defect equilibrium. Lancelot believes he is sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, and the troubadours believed he was sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, but in fact he is maximizing his Darwinian genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else. Guinevere also behaves badly to both Lancelot and to her husband King Arthur because she is maximizing her genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Guinevere and King Arthur are in a defect/cooperate relationship. King Arthur is cooperating with Guinevere, by looking after her, and cooperating with Lancelot, in that Lancelot gets benefits as a knight of the fellowship of the Round table, while Lancelot and Guinevere are defecting on King Arthur.

King Arthur, of course, finds out, and Camelot gets defect/defect. Everyone is much worse off, and Camelot falls. That is Romance.

Sexual love is a bad thing except inside the confines of marriage. Men are supposed to have sex first and love later, and women are not really supposed to love men all that much at all. Nowhere in the bible are we told of women loving their husbands, and Guinevere treats both Lancelot and King Arthur very badly. We are, however, fairly frequently told in the bible of women seeking the love of their husbands.

If a woman thinks she is love, she is lying to get some alpha cock. Perhaps lying to herself because all the books she reads and all the movies and television shows she watches tell her that romantic love justifies and purifies every kind of horrible bad behavior. In reality, women are never in love all that much, rather they experience desire for love and sex, which they confuse with love when they proceed to do bad things in pursuit of this desire. Rather than loving a man, a woman desires to be loved by a man. If a man is in romantically in love with a woman whom he is not living with and having regular sex with in his own bed, he is crazy or evil.

What is the Red Pill?

It is the practical and applied knowledge of the Dark Enlightenment, the bad news about how the world really is, and especially and particularly the bad news about the nature of women. The Dark Enlightenment is science and the Red Pill is engineering. There is a certain cynical ruthlessness about the Red Pill. You are told how to use it against other people, and how to protect yourself from other people. Much seemingly virtuous and altruistic behavior, like the behavior of Lancelot towards Guinevere, is revealed to be foolish or, more commonly, wicked and dangerous. Even virtue is reduced to pragmatic self interest – virtue is trying to get into and maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships – as distinct from pretending to virtue in order to get into defect/cooperate relationships. Also, virtue is developing one’s own excellence, as for example lifting iron, or perfecting social skills.

What is the Blue Pill?

It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

What is the Purple Pill?

It is an attempt to reconcile Red Pill truths with Blue pill morals: “Not All Women are Like That”. It is an attempt to avoid the most grossly self destructive behavior commanded by the Blue Pill, while still accepting that Blue Pill behavior is wise and virtuous behavior, rather than foolish, destructive, self destructive, and evil behavior. It is an attempt to reconcile with reality while remaining virtuous as Blue Pillers see virtue. But Blue Pill “virtues” are like Lancelot’s love for Guinevere: They are evil in themselves, and manifestations of evil. It was wrong for Lancelot to love Guinevere, as much wrong as it was wrong for Guinevere to have sex with Lancelot. Not only is it unwise to be the equal of your wife, it is also wicked. It is your job to supervise and discipline your wife, and some women, not all of them, not most of them, but quite a lot of them, sometimes need to be physical disciplined. You are wicked if you are not prepared to physically discipline your wife and your children in the unfortunate case that the necessity should occur.

What is the Black Pill?

The Black Pill is despair at the sad and cynical truths of the Red Pill, and the belief that we are doomed, that we as individuals shall not know a good sexual and family relationship, that we shall have few or no great grandchildren, that our race shall perish, that our homelands will be flooded by hostile angry sullen low IQ aliens who live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left, who get violent at microaggressions, that our civilization will die, overrun like Detroit and Salisbury by savages incapable of operating civilization.

What is the White Pill?

Deus Vult: That we will be victorious. That those of us that are lucky and strong will create proper families, that we will have love and grandchildren, that we will save our civilization and conquer the enemies of our civilization. That the able will rule over their inferiors, and men will rule over women, as is right for us to do.

UN Peacekeeping

March 15th, 2017

Trump proposes radical cuts in US taxpayer funding for the UN, and in particular and especially, “Peacekeeping”

Now if you are a typical reader of this blog, your reflexive assumption is likely to be that “Peacekeeping” is code for mass murder, terror, and artificial famine.

A major part of our peacekeeping is Ivory Coast, where we “democratically” installed some guy with extensive connections to Harvard and the UN, but no particular connection to Ivory Coast, in power.

This was democratic because of population replacement. The people lost the confidence of the UN, so the UN elected a new people, importing the new people and expelling and dispossessing the old people.

OK, that is not mass murder and artificial famine, though it certainly is and was terror. But peacekeeping in the Congo (now wound down) was, for the most part, mass murder, terror, and artificial famine.

Another significant part of our current peacekeeping is Haiti, which is not mass murder and terror, but it is, or very recently was, artificial famine.

If you are an empire, you have to do this sort of stuff from time to time. And if you are an empire that is pretending it is not an empire, you have to do this sort of stuff one hell of a lot more that you would if you just put proconsuls openly in charge of your protectorates.

Of course if the world was not an empire, there would be chaos, and other actors would be creating mass murder, terror, and artificial famine. But they would be the ones paying for it.

Congressman Steve King’s solution to healthcare

March 13th, 2017

Instead of having a plan developed behind closed doors and then you have to vote for it to find out what is in it, you legislate the old fashioned way, congressional vote by vote. “A return to regular order“.

The great advantage of this is its great disadvantage. Congress cannot centrally plan the economy, or any significant part of the economy. No one central plan can receive a majority vote, or even a large plurality. Your are only going to get two or three percent to vote for one central plan, and four or five percent for another, and three or four percent for yet another, because there is a near infinity of possible central plans, any one of which is going to step on lots of people’s toes, each plan stepping on a different set of toes. You can never socialize medicine, or anything else, by congressional vote, except they vote for a closed box and discover to their big surprise what is in it when it gets implemented.

Before Obamacare, American medicine was unreasonably expensive by a factor of about ten or twenty.

After Obamacare, American medicine was unreasonably expensive by a factor of about ten or twenty, but bums, drug addicts, and vagrants were getting a lot more of this very expensive medicine, paid for mostly by white middle class males, and very shortly thereafter, white middle class males were getting a whole lot less of this very expensive medicine. Obamacare wanted more care for the poor, but it sought to prevent the total consumption of care from rising, for fear that would accelerate the already excessive price pressures, so a reduction in access to care by white middle class males was planned and intended from the beginning, though I don’t think anyone wanted to admit just how drastic and radical a reduction they had in mind.

The way to substantially reduce the cost of medical care is to have a free market in medical care with well known, well defined, and advertised prices, as in Singapore. At present, no one knows how much care is going to cost, and prices are frequently absurd by world standards. There is no good reason why a treatment in America should cost ten or twenty times what unsubsidized, for-profit, care, paid for out of pocket, costs in Taiwan and Singapore.

Genuine advances in medical care make medicine more expensive, as things can now be (expensively) treated that formerly could not be treated. But this fails to explain the enormous discrepancy in healthcare prices between America, and prices charged by private enterprise, for profit, healthcare businesses in Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, and India.

Undead Christianity

March 10th, 2017

Europe is the faith, the faith is Europe. When Roman Paganism died, the Roman Empire in the west died. Julian the apostate tried to revive paganism, got an undead religion. My commenters tell me Christianity survives as a mustard seed, but to me, it looks like a dead parrot.

I wish Christianity could be revived, I hope it can be revived, but am not all that optimistic.

European Christianity was the official state religion, which is sort of odd because Europe was never really one state, even when there was a functioning Holy Roman Emperor and Holy Roman Empire. It has been said that the Holy Roman Empire was not holy, not Roman, and not an empire. But this is not true. It was not Roman, and not an empire, but it was holy. The Emperor, the Empire, and the state was subject to the Church in those matters where it is proper for the Church to command, and the Church was subject to the state in those matters where it is proper for the state to command. (With the usual frequent disagreements as to what is Caesar’s and what is God’s)

When the Empire faded, the Church inevitably and inexorably got drawn into earthly politics, backing one state against another, which led to the Church of England, the protestant reformation, and the sack of Rome, and eventually the bloody religious wars of the early seventeenth century. These terrible wars were resolved by the peace of Westphalia. The King gets to set his state’s religion, and other states are not supposed to interfere, though, of course, they did.

The peace of Westphalia in effect said “forget about universalism, leads to too much bloodshed”

The rise of Progressivism was the return of the holy universalist state Church, and led to the terrible wars of the twentieth century. These wars ended when one superpower became supreme, ruling in the not quite imperial style of the Holy Roman Empire, not quite an empire, but an empire nonetheless, and imposed its faith on all of Europe, and almost all of the world – but now that superpower is fading, while progressivism is more holy and more universalist than ever.

To cut the long story short, today progressivism is the state religion, and Christianity is effectively suppressed. My commenters assure me that a mustard seed remains, but I just don’t see it. Recently existent Christianity enforced patriarchal durable monogamy, with divorce being damn near impossible. The wife got a permanent obligation to honor and obey, the husband got a permanent obligation to love and cherish. And, apart from some tolerance for polygyny in early Christianity, Christianity has always been this way, until now. The New Testament, and the communion of the Saints, are quite clear on the topic.

The earthly church is a fictive kin of God, God and Church being a reflection of husband and family, (Ephesians 5:22-33) making all Christians in a church fictive kin, a tribe. Marriage is the sacrament that everyone has the power to make, the sacrament that priests could never take away from the congregation, and which links families to the congregation and to God, since the husband and wife rely on God and the congregation for social enforcement of the deal. If you end marriage as it used to be known, you end Christianity, and if you end Christianity, you end Europe. Durable Patriarchal marriage is not just one doctrine among many, it is a keystone part of the functioning of Christianity, hence the joke “Hatched, matched, and dispatched”.

For 1900 years, from the beginning of Christianity, to second wave feminism in the nineteen sixties, men removed their hats on entering church, and women covered their heads in church and on the way to and from church. For 1900 years women had their hair long. (1 Corinthians:11)

And now they don’t, and no one seems to notice that there is anything wrong with this. But don’t you feel just a little bit uneasy when you face a fertile age woman with a pixie cut? Something is wrong, something is off, something is odd, unpleasant, and disturbing, but you are not allowed to notice it.

Today’s Christians, including the supposed reactionaries like Dalrock, Bruce Charlton, and Zippy will tell you it was just a cultural thing, just Paul foolishly mistaking the fashions of his day for the universal laws of God. Which is not much different from saying that when Paul prohibited men having sex with males, he was just mistaking the fashions of his day for the universal laws of God. Similarly, Ephesians 5. Bruce Charlton will tell you that Ephesians 5 is just a metaphor, about the relationship between God and man, but not about the relationship between husband and wife. Dalrock will tell you he totally supports Ephesians 5, except he does not, and Zippy would rather not go there.

You cannot have Christianity without patriarchy, and if you are not entirely comfortable with patriarchy maybe you should be worshiping the Goddess.

In short, the Christian right, like the Republicans, are just progressives who are a bit behind the times. You may say that a short haircut on a girl is not like a man sodomizing a boy, and it is not, but if a fertile age woman wears a pixie cut, chances are she has been taking it up the ass from Mister Very Wrong, and she will forever feel in her heart that Mister Very Wrong was way more manly than you are.