Friday, December 2, 2016

Chicks dig Alpha

Always have, always will. Keep this reaction by NeverTrump Louise Mensch to Trump's newest political appointee in mind the next time you find yourself tempted to moderate or conceal your opinion in order to harmonize it with a woman's.

I read this and started to fancy Mattis *immediately*. I don't care if he's 95. This is what an actual alpha male looks like.

And what was she responding to? This. You know that the feminists won't even TRY to make noise about his language. Why? Because Alpha.


Thursday, December 1, 2016

Feature, not bug

It is reported that Hillary Clinton voters are cutting supporters of the God-Emperor Ascendant out of their lives:
Many Hillary Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and even family members, who voted for Donald Trump. It is so common that the New York Times published a front-page article on the subject headlined “Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving, Too.”

The article begins with three stories: Matthew Horn, a software engineer from Boulder, Colo., canceled Christmas plans with his family in Texas. Nancy Sundin, a social worker in Spokane, Wash., has called off Thanksgiving with her mother and brother. Ruth Dorancy, a software designer in Chicago, decided to move her wedding so that her fiancĂ©’s grandmother and aunt, strong Trump supporters from Florida, could not attend.

The Times acknowledges that this phenomenon is one-sided, saying, “Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald J. Trump.” A number of people who voted for Trump called my show to tell me that their daughters had informed them they would no longer allow their parents to see their grandchildren. And one man sent me an e-mail reporting that his brother-in-law’s mother told him that she “no longer had a son.”

All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided? Why don’t we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president — fundamentally transform the United States of America.
Because conservatives and Trump supporters are considerably less likely to be solipsistic, emotionally incontinent, logic-challenged individuals. If a Clinton voter declares that she - and it usually will be a she - is cutting you out of her life, smile and tell her that you are doing the same.

And when she comes crawling back, as she will, don't let her. Never let an opportunity to cut a self-serving narcissist out of your life.

That being said, this is one of those "three people are a trend" stories that the Carlos Slim blog likes to run, so chances are it will, like most of those trends, have absolutely no relevance to your life.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

11 out of 10 pedos agree

But, but, it is SCIENCE that totally recommends gay men should raise little kids, pedophile scientists explain:
From the Abstract:

… The current study applied … meta-analysis to 10 studies … to evaluate child psychological adjustment by parent sexual orientation. …[R]results indicated that children of gay fathers had significantly better outcomes than did children of heterosexual parents in all 3 models of meta-analysis.

The emphasis on “better” was in the original — a word that was noticed in the popular press.

If the results are true, then surely if we want what is best for the nation’s children, they should be placed in the households of men who enjoy non-procreative sex-like activities. (Actual sexual intercourse can only take place between males and females.) Leaving kids to fester with their own parents dooms them to lesser outcomes.

That prescription might to your ears sound absurd, but it does follow if Miller and his co-authors are right. Are they?

The authors used a controversial technique,badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias.

The trio used a statistical technique called “meta-analysis,” which I jokingly define as a method to prove a hypothesis “statistically” true which could not be proved to be actually true. Actually, it is a way to glue together results from disparate studies, so that one needn’t be troubled by the hard work of investigating the disparate studies. In other words, it is a controversial technique, often badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias. I suspect that is true here.

Miller et al. gathered 10 studies culled from “a list of over 6,000 citations of published and unpublished studies from 2005 and later based on the search terms same sex, same gender, gay, child, and parent in any combination.”

Somehow — it is a mystery — in their diligent search, the researchers did not turn up the remarkable 2012 study known by all sociologists,  “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. That study made national headlines!
Since we're talking about statistical analysis, it is perhaps worth pointing out that gay men are 14 times more likely to abuse children than normal men. So, this leads to the obvious question: precisely how do the pedo-scientists define "better outcomes"?

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Your TV lied to you

Even being from a wealthy and famous family, with a first-rate athletic pedigree, isn't enough to overcome the negative factor of being black in the eyes of most young women:
So much for having famous parents. Actress Gabrielle Union said the boys she's raising in Chicago with Bulls guard Dwyane Wade have had difficulty "pulling chicks."

Wade has two sons, 14-year-old Zaire and 9-year-old Zion, with his high school sweetheart Siohvaughn Funches. He had a third son from a different relationship, Xavier, in 2013. He is also raising his teenage nephew, Dahveon Morris. Wade, 34, and Union, 44, wed in 2014.

Union told Harper's Bazaar in an article posted online Monday that she empathizes with her older boys' desire to fit in at school and to be seen as "raceless and truly judged by their character, not for the skin they are wearing."

"So much of their issues with skin color have to do with who girls choose," Union said. "And if you're going to a school where there aren't that many black girls, A) you're already further down on the totem pole, and they're like, 'We've got two famous parents, this should really be helping us pull chicks! But nope? Nothin'? Nobody?'"

Union said their popular female classmates in Chicago are choosing "Bieber looking" boys.
Imagine that! Who would have ever imagined that all those ads and television shows were not faithfully reflecting the realities of male-female attraction?

Monday, November 28, 2016

Alpha Mail: divorce rape

A reader wants to start a #GamerGate-style movement against the divorce courts:
I want to start a gamergate style movement against divorce rape.

I just got divorce raped. In the end I'll pay to my ex around 50-60% of my net payh. I went from joint possession (50-50, equal possession) of my kids throughout the divorce, about two years. I now have four days a month. I must maintain a life insurance policy with my ex as beneficiary. I must pay in cash for medical support. The bitch can remarry, have another man raise my boys, and make me pay for it. And the state will beat me and put me in a cage, if I don't surrender.

I now have negative net worth, my ex has all the property and a net worth in the millions. She is a [professional] and earns [a lot more than most of us].

I'd have contributed much more to alt-tech if this hadn't been going on. Sorry, but this sucked the life out of me.

Following my own interests, I'm going to take the war to cuckservatives and feminazis who passed these damn laws that invert male headship of the family. We're going to change those laws. We're going to remove anti-male judges from the bench. We're going to work on getting Trump on-board with pro-father initiatives.
It really happens. It can happen to any man. And retreating from society and civilization and women is really not a viable option.

Perhaps we should stop pedestalizing and demonizing women, and instead focus on doing what men do, which is fixing the structural problem.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

There is always a "them"

Rational Male observes how feminists are dependent upon cutting off young women from the herd using a largely imaginary revisionist history:
In femopshere there will always be an ‘us’. As I’ve outline in many prior essays, the Sisterhood will always take precedence above religion, politics, personal conviction and even family affiliations for women. Largely this is due to women’s evolved propensity for collectivism among their own sex. In our hunter gatherer beginnings women had an interdependent need for collective support for keeping tribal cohesion as well as child rearing.

This intrasexual collective support has carried over into what’s become the Sisterhood today. If you look at the interactions of young girls and their social group interdependence you begin to see that nascent tribal collectivism naturally come through. In terms of larger societal scope this collectivity becomes about acknowledging a shared experience of an imagined oppression by men. Between all women there is a gestalt understanding of “the plight of women” and a presumption of an endemic sexism no matter how culturally or socioeconomically dissimilar those women are.
The best way to attack this is not to surrender and abandon all women as the MGTOW do, but rather, to attack the feminist paradigms, deconstruct their propaganda, and save young women from it. Yes, there is risk in this, but there is absolute and certain defeat in "going your own way" to the grave as an evolutionary and civilizational dead end.

There will always be a "them". It is up to men to ensure young women that there will always be an "us" that is a more powerful and meaningful and attractive bond.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Nine Laws

THE NINE LAWS, Ivan Throne's uncompromising philosophical manual, is now available in paperback and casebound hardcover editions.

It is in acceptance of the preposterous nature of existence and appreciation of the inherent nonsense of form, that man rises beyond them both and connects with the infinity of the endless divine.

There is great challenge in understanding this.
There is bottomless absurdity in the form of all things, for they are forms only and not reality. This is known to all faiths, and to all sacred texts, and to all ways of spiritual growth that men have arrayed for themselves in response to the weird and terribly lovely fabric of time and space.

Yet in order to pass through daily life and not fall into a spiraling insanity of gurgling incomprehension, the mind accepts form as reality. We have five fingers on each hand. The sky is blue. Matter has mass, there are nuclear forces, there are mechanical, physical laws we can test and prove.

But this is a simplistic overlay to enable simple living.

Consider the depth of space and time.

The age of the universe is virtually beyond comprehension. Understand the scale of it, the breadth of it, the vast and infinite deep and the tiny, almost instantaneously negligible slice of reality that the presence of humanity represents.

It is preposterous to consider it as real. For with sufficient perspective, even the billions of eons of deep time and the swirling clouds of a billion galaxies that lattice through the visible universe are themselves mere immeasurably brief and ridiculously tiny hiccups within something else.

Where God is infinite and unbounded, how can He have a definitive image in which to create His children?

In the vast and staggering distance and age of the universe, how can there be purpose in such fleeting self-awareness of human beings who think and feel and experience?

How absurd to believe that we are alone in the universe, that the span of time and space are solely for our amusement.

How ludicrous to believe that life arises at all in a universe teeming with sentience but built upon entropic principle where heat death and extinguishment are foregone imperatives!

How can there be reconciliation between the provable operation of Newtonian physics and the weird and bubbling probabilistic froth of quantum foam that creates it?

How can we conceive of division by zero but be unable to approach the impossible answer?

The truth is in acceptance of the preposterous nature of all things. That division by zero results not in error and halted information, but laughter and delight.

It is silly to invest mortal seriousness beyond effective utility.

Preposterousness is the Eighth Law.