The feminized police force and army

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

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

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.

If you are a conservative

June 11th, 2016

You believe that a wall for the US is immoral and racist, but a wall for Israel is not.

You believe deporting anchor babies is unconstitutional.

You believe that free trade consists of other nations accepting US copyrights, patents, and US investment, but not US goods.

You believe that the US should be the world’s policeman.

You believe in gay marriage.

You oppose abortion but support state funding for an abortion business that sells baby meat.

You propose that a tax payer funded organization should fund and guarantee mortgages where Hispanics put three percent down on mortgages whose mortgage payments substantially exceed their annual income. (This is your plan to make Hispanics into conservative voters – fund them getting houses in leafy green suburbs)

You believe that America is a propositional nation, defined by allegiance to a proposition, not a land or a people. But you are not terribly clear on what the proposition is. Maybe it is that all Gods chillun are entitled to Obamaphones?

For many decades, Conservatism incorporated has been purging those to its right. Anyone too right wing was deemed to not be a true conservative. And the purge went ever leftwards ever faster.

The alt right is those that have enemies to the left, and no enemies to the right. As conservatism purged ever more people, ever faster, it would inevitably happen that conservatism would become a minority in the Republican party, and the alt right, the faction that fails to purge rightists, the majority.

And so it has come to pass. The alt right outvotes conservatives.

This may well result in the Republican party becoming a genuine political party, rather than the outer party to the Democrats inner party, which is what it was under Bush.

But it will not result in democracy working, since the inner party is permanently in power regardless of election results, and can only be removed by measures resembling a military coup followed by gleichschaltung. Making democracy actually effect policy is likely to require measures strikingly similar to abolishing democracy.

Trump for King

May 31st, 2016

This image, and this entire blog is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This is an outline of how President Trump might well become King Trump the first, if we are sufficiently lucky and virtuous.

The world is sick of anarcho tyranny, and hungers unknowingly for the power and authority of Kings.

The recent election of Duterte, on a platform of his praetorians simply killing the bad guys out of hand without charges or trials, is an example of this hunger.

Now I hear some of you saying (and the progressives thinking but not saying out loud) that apart from being tough on crime, corruption, and governmental indiscipline, Duterte is a leftist and that is just a bunch of rice niggers, low IQ south Asians. White people are more civilized than that – perhaps a little too civilized for our own good.

In Australia, one of the whitest countries remaining, a few elections back, the election was on the issue of illegal immigration. Tony Abbott said he would stop illegal immigration.

The judges, of course, ruled stopping illegal immigration illegal. Tony Abbott ignored the judges. The net effect is that today, if you violate immigration law they send you to jail in Villawood detention center without bothering with charges or trials. From time to time the left whines about due process, and gets absolutely zero traction. Suddenly it was revealed that there is zero support for due process, that there are almost no voters who care about due process any more. And in particular and especially very few white voters who care about due process.

The purpose of due process was supposedly to ensure that the innocent do not go to jail, and the guilty do go to jail. But anarcho tyranny means that with so many laws, the innocent are bound to be guilty of something or other, while actual criminals are deemed the oppressed, and are coddled and protected by the state. Due process lets real criminals loose, mostly dark skinned real criminals who prey on white people, while imposing enormous and impossible legal costs on innocent middle class honest respectable people. For middle class people, due process is just the government’s way of punishing you when it cannot be bothered finding a crime to convict you of, even though with so many laws you have undoubtedly committed more crimes than you can shake a stick at.

White people just don’t like due process any more, for much the same reasons as Filipinos rejected it.

So in our current environment due process and judicial review is discredited, and lacks political support. In Tony Abbot’s Australia as much as in Duterte’s Philippines, it was suddenly and startlingly revealed that judges are simply all out of moral authority. No one cares about due process, because, under anarcho tyranny, there is no reason why they should care. It is not just a tiny handful of reactionary intellectuals thinking like this. It is pretty much everyone.

The point of due process was to prevent the King from treating repectable decent people like criminals. But now that we are all treated like criminals, people just don’t care.

Power divided can be power reduced. If the benevolent party controls all the food, or ninety nine percent of the food, as in communist China, today’s Venezuela, or Allende’s Chile, then you are toast. The result is at best severe oppression as in Venezuela, at worst mass murder on an enormous scale, as in China.

If however ninety nine percent of the food is controlled by ninety nine members of the one percent each of whom controls one percent of the food, then no problem. In this case, power divided is power reduced.

But if you need ninety nine approvals by ninety nine bureaucrats to build a house, you are more than ninety nine times as oppressed than if you need the approval of one bureaucrat, because you face a coordination problem between bureaucrats.

With one bureaucrat, you could hope to pay him off, formally or informally, by giving his bagman/consultant, say, a third of the surplus value you create by building the house. With ninety nine bureaucrats, they each want ten percent, so you just cannot build the house.

In this case, power divided is power increased, enormously increased. This enormous multiplication of oppressive power is another aspect of anarcho tyranny that leads people to hunger for the power of kings, they hunger for one man who could say “give me half the surplus value and build it” and who would tell the other ninety eight bureaucrats to take a long walk off a short pier. They hunger for a Duterte who would shoot the other ninety eight bureacrats behind a shed.

America’s smartest member of the ruling progressive elite tells us:

Investigating the reasons behind the bridge blunders have helped to illuminate an aspect of American sclerosis — a gaggle of regulators and veto players, each with the power to block or to delay, and each with their own parochial concerns. All the actors — the historical commission, the contractor, the environmental agencies, the advocacy groups, the state transportation department — are reasonable in their own terms, but the final result is wildly unreasonable.

Larry the prog worries that regulation, a multiplicity of veto players, makes government inefficient, and therefore unpopular, worries that he cannot get the bridge he needs to go to and from Harvard, and fails to see the glaringly obvious, that regulation makes the private sector inefficient.

I, too, have had to deal with a multiplicity of veto players, each with his bagman collecting his bribe.

And I do not believe that any of them were reasonable. That is just Larry the prog issuing the required pieties. All of them deserve to be shot. All of them were evil, corrupt, and insane.

Larry is pissed because his commute to Harvard is obstructed, blissfully unaware that Americans further from the seat of power suffer from the anarchy of government far more severely than he does.

In America, the presidency has gathered to itself enormous power, intervening in every small business, every household.

Husbands are thrown out of their houses, fathers torn from their children, thanks to the Department of Justice, which is theoretically answerable to the president. Women with husbands tend to vote Republican. Children with fathers tend to vote Republican. If the Depart of Justice has its way no woman will have a husband, nor any child a father.

Similarly the department of Justice arranged for white people to be burned out of Ferguson, forbidding the Ferguson police from protecting people and property, and forbidding collective self defense against collective aggression.

But the presidency is not the president. It is an enormous horde of bureaucrats that are theoretically supposed to obey the president, but which the president cannot fire, which results in anarcho tyranny. If the president could fire them, this would enormously increase the power of the president, but enormously decrease the power of the presidency, because one would be merely subject to one tyrant, instead of ninety nine tyrants.

In practice, the bureaucrats tend to treat the president as their public relations boy, rather than their boss. And if he fails to run good PR for what they have already decided to do they will smack him around the ears in the pages of the New York Times.

The bureaucrats are answerable to the consensus of their fellow bureaucrats, they have to be a square peg in a square hole, but the consensus is controlled by the consensus of the Ivies, and the consensus of the Ivies is controlled by the consensus of Harvard.

And as we have seen Harvard does not much like Trump, and to judge from his list of Supreme Court judicial candidates, Trump does not much like Harvard.

For Trump to rule, for Trump to accomplish any of his goals, the president has to subjugate the presidency, a process that will inevitably require massive firings, and some actual violence against those who decline to be fired. Quite possibly some Duterte style sudden violent deaths that no one is inclined to investigate because everyone knows what an honest investigation would reveal.

Trump will need to get rid of some turbulent priests.

The president’s power is so very great as to diminish the power and effectiveness of democracy thus we see a tendency to dynasties – the attempted Kennedy dynasty, the attempted Clinton dynasty, and the Bush dynasty.

An enormous increase in the power of the president, which will happen if Trump succeeds in firing those bureaucrats who do not obey him, would pretty much guarantee dynastic rule. Trump would govern for eight years, then be succeeded by his sons.

So we would have a system that was nominally democratic, but actually hereditary and monarchic. Such a difference between actual and formal power is necessarily corrupting and destructive, because such government operates by lies. To remedy this corruption, one of Trump’s sons would have to declare himself King Trump the third, and his predecessors King Trump the first and King Trump the second.

So for Trump to become King in substance, and eventually King in name, he has to seize the power to fire the fireproof.

Which, given that he has support from the military, the praetorians, the cops, the rentacops, and the mercenaries, and that judges do not have much support from anyone, is quite doable.

If Trump says “You are fired”, and security frog marches the offending presidency bureaucrat out of the building and does not let him back in, has that bureaucrat not been fired?

If HR attempts to keep paying the bureaucrat, apply the same measure to HR. If judges rule the firing illegal, do like Abbot and Duterte, and tell the judges to take a long walk off a short pier.

Thus could Trump exercise the power of Kings.

And if he wants to build a wall and deport anchor babies, that is what he needs to do, he needs to exercise the power of a King, for otherwise the presidency will not permit the president to act.

And if Trump exercises the power of Kings and does so competently and bravely, if he is worthy to exercise such power, Kings shall in due course ensue. I will then apply for the job of Grand Inquisitor when the time is right.

Keeping up with PC

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

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.

New Canon on Church and State

May 26th, 2016

I hearby declare Citadel’s statement on Church and State to be neoreactionary canon.

A lot of neoreactionaries are Christian adherents of organized religion – or wish they could be Christian – or wish they could be adherents of some organized religion or other.  I suppose all of us wish that.

Trouble is that today’s Roman Catholicism and the rest are heretical, satanic, and are committing institutional suicide as fast as possible.  The pope wants “speaking ex Cathedra” to become yet another letterhead of Acorn, the Vatican to become a museum run by Havard with tour guides giving spiels written by Ivy Leaguers explaining how stupid and wicked things were in the bad old days, and the Church buildings where once Catholics met to receive the Eucharist to become Marxist Lesbian bookstores, as most of the Churches in San Francisco already have.

Speaking as a believer, Citadel argues the same conclusion I have less convincingly argued as an unbeliever, that I argued less convincingly because an unbeliever.  The Church should be subordinate to the good state as a woman should be subordinate to her husband.

The Church inevitably succumbs to the state religion.  See the Pope kiss Harvard’s feet.  And back when the Church arguably had some independence, and real earthly power, when the Holy Roman Empire had lost all power, but the Church had gained far too much earthly power, we got indulgences and Chaucer’s summoner.   Henry the Eighth was doubtless a bad man, but you got no indulgences from his church, and his summoners were subject to discipline.

The worst of the Roman Catholic Church was not the pornocracy, when Popes were succeeded by the sons of their mistresses.  Hereditary priesthood is an excellent system, and normatively celibate priesthood a horrible mistake.  The Church was great, faithful, orthodox, glorious, and virtuous under the pornocrats and under the Holy Roman Emperors.  The worst of the Church was indulgences and corrupt summoners.

All slopes are slippery

May 20th, 2016

Just as overt discrimination against blacks was replaced with overt discrimination against whites with no intervening period of neutrality, when people opposed the double standard and started socially enforcing chastity on men, they abandoned social enforcement of chastity on women.

In the social world, everything is a feedback loop, and all slopes are slippery. The resulting equilibria rarely involve “equality.”

Either men are morally superior to women, and women’s sexuality is restricted, or women are morally superior to men, and male sexuality is restricted. Someone is always in charge, both at the societal level, and at the individual level.

The only time someone is not in charge is when the two sides don’t know each other very well, and don’t know how hard they can push. This is why dating is a process of the woman figuring out what she can get away with. They want to progress to the power shakeup so they know who is in charge.

Once someone wins an initial dispute, and gets defined as the party with the most valid needs (or greatest grievances), then their moral superiority turns into power. Once the first Schelling Point has been crossed, it’s very hard for the losing party to hold other Schelling Points, and will lose as much ground as the culture/subculture allows and the virtue of the winning party (e.g. upper class, lower class, and feminist women will take different amounts of flesh if they win at moral superiority).

Once one Schelling point goes, there can be no natural equilibrium at some new, nearby Schelling point.  The new equilibrium is not a new stationary Schelling point near the old, but rather is unending retreat.   Retreat under fire always turns to total rout.

One possibility would be to give both men and women moral status in different spheres of society. This seems like it could work, but isn’t it what the Victorians tried? Women were given great prestige and moral authority in the home and education, but that moral authority expanded, as Mencken makes clear. Women’s moral sphere got bigger and bigger until eventually it swallowed the male sphere, and we now have Codes of Conduct in tech.

Blacks and whites could separate, and be in some sense equal if apart.  But men and women need to be together, and being different, either men will rule women, or women rule men, and for obvious biological reasons women ruling men does not work very well.

Shit tests are designed to be passed

May 13th, 2016

This is not a PUA blog.  Not going to tell you how to recognize a shit test or how to pass it.  I myself am not all that good at such things.  But I will tell you that you need to know such things.

Mostly the red pill is the rediscovery of stuff that back in the fifties and sixties everyone knew but no one would plainly say.

Shit tests, however, represent a new and clearer understanding.  The Taming of the Shrew is all about passing shit tests, so this is not a completely new discovery, but we understand shit tests better than men in the past.

Girls cannot help shit testing men that they like, any more than a man can help looking at a woman’s breasts.  When acquiring a girlfriend, you will be hit by shit tests.  When trying to keep your wife or girlfriend in line, you will be hit by shit tests.

A shit test is a power struggle.  If the girl wins, for example getting you to apologize, making you hold her bag, making you try to please her in ways that can never please her, she loses.  If you win, you win.  Never apologize, never explain.

I think girls are genuinely unconscious of shit testing men. They think their supposed attitudes are sincerely held, though their attitude evaporates in a puff of smoke when you blow off their shit test.  (Some shit tests, like showing up late, or going home to mother, require a bit of patience before you will see the attitude change.)

And it is hard to tell the difference between a shit test and girl really not liking you, or really not wanting to have sex with you.  Except that shit tests are designed to be passed.

And shit tests are often horrifyingly harsh.  It is often hard to pass a shit test, because they are really meant to be hard to pass.  And if you fail a shit test it is likely to become retroactively true that the girl really did not like you, or really did not want to have sex with you.  Hard to tell the difference between a thermonuclear shit test and a thermonuclear rejection.  Except that one will reliably get you laid and the other one will not.

I am not going to tell you how to detect a shit test.  You just have to intuit it.  After a while you get a reflexive feeling of resentment “Hell, this girl is out of line.  She is behaving improperly”. But you should not react to a shit test by getting hostile and angry since such an attitude assumes in advance you will fail the shit test, rather than pass it and claim your startlingly generous reward. Rather, you should assume she will be happy to be gently but firmly put in her proper place.

Not going to tell you how to pass them.  I am not particularly good at passing them.  They are hard to pass, particularly in a society that gives women nuclear weapons.

Consent does not make sex right, and lack of consent does not make sex wrong.

A porn star is apt to wind up feeling mighty bad about sex and her life, even though she gets formally videotaped giving explicit verbal consent to absolutely everything. Most women married by abduction or by arrangement feel pretty good about their marriage, and all the better if husband firmly insists on sex every night.

Women do not really like needing to consent to sex, let alone consent moment to moment. Which is one of the reasons you will probably strike out if you try to get a woman to give you explicit verbal consent. They much prefer “It just happened”.  Women really don’t want to succeed in getting their own way on sex, because if they get their own way, that kind of implies that the person they are having sex with is weaker, needier, or lower status that they are.  In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, if a woman really does not have much choice in who’s semen gets thrust into her pussy, it is probably better quality semen from the standpoint of Darwin, and more honorable and legitimate sex from the point of view of the God of the old Testament.  They like to be dominated and commanded into sex.  So a girl losing shit tests is her warm up to getting nailed.  Just as every time a man looks at a girls boobs, he is thinking about having sex with her, every time a girl shit tests a man, she is thinking about being overcome, overpowered, dominated, and submitting sexually to that man.

I took a lady friend, and her good friend, to a resort, because I hoped for a threesome.  This was extremely stupid of me, because one is never going to make a threesome with one’s lady  friend’s good friend, because they will fear breaking up their friendship, but, hey, all the blood had as usual rushed from brain to my little man.

Let us call my lady friend girl 1, and her good friend who failed to have sex with me and distracted the attention of girl 1 away from me girl 2.

I met a man at the resort, and he wanted to join my group, and that was fine with me because he, being an outsider trying to join the group, was unavoidably confirming my alpha male status with every move he made, so I asked him to join us.  We will call him beta man.

Eventually he very delicately sort of asked which girl was surplus to my requirements, which girl was the third wheel on the bicycle.  To which I straightforwardly replied that girl number 2 was the extra, but he could not have her.  He should hit on some other girl.

And, predictably, everyone acted as if I was being completely reasonable and had rightful authority over girl 2’s life.  But, of course, girls do not take this kind of treatment lying down. Or rather, standing up.  If you tell a girl she cannot have something, she is going to want to have it.

Predictably, after a while girl number 2 just happened to wander off so that she is as far from me as she can be while still remaining in line of sight.  And I pretend to not look at that line of sight.

And Beta man disappears, takes a circuitous route while out of sight, and just happens to reappear near girl number two.

I pretend to not look, while glancing every now and then out of the corner of my eye

I know he is going get an absolutely brutal shit test, because, he, and she, are literally sneaking behind my back, and thus he is acting beta.  To get enough alpha cred to nail her, he needs to pass a brutal shit test, and she is going to give him the opportunity to gain enough alpha cred to nail her.

So he chats to her, she chats to him.  I cannot hear them and they are too far away to see very clearly, but suddenly he acts has though she has stabbed him with a spear, the spear is sticking all the way through him and out the other side, and he is coughing blood.  He flees in shame and horror.

The poor man was severely traumatized, perhaps for life.  The next day we saw him in town, and my girls called out to him to join us, and he acted like we were opening fire with a machine gun.  He fled again in abject terror.

But I know girl number 2 liked him, and wanted to spend a night in his room at the resort, because she was disappointed when he fled.

Had he joined us again, he would have faced an even more brutal shit test, to give him the opportunity to gain the alpha cred he lost by being beta to my alpha, and failing the first shit test.  But if he had passed – well, it was obvious to me that girl number two had plans, though I don’t know if it was obvious to her.

Maybe like Roger Elliot he spent the rest of his life creepily staring at women from a great distance waiting for them to approach him, then fleeing in terror if approached, and finally broke down, killed a bunch of people and committed suicide.  Maybe he became a hairy hermit in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest.  But it was obvious to me that girl number two had conscious or subconscious plans to spend the night in his room, rather than on the spare bed in mine, and was visibly disappointed when her plans fell through.

The moral of the story is:  Pass your shit tests.  The rewards are great.  The punishment for failure is dire.  And it is easier to pass your shit tests if you believe in the chain of being:  Beasts < blacks < children < women < men < angels.

But the trouble is that society arms women with nuclear weapons against being hit on by upper class males, and in particular white males.  This makes upper class men less sexy than lower class men, and lower class men less sexy than underclass men, and white men less sexy than black men.  It is harder to pass a shit test the higher your social class.