Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Certain arcana

Courtesy of Heartiste, Lord Chesterfield writes to his son:
I will therefore, upon this subject, let you into certain Arcana that will be very useful for you to know, but which you must, with the utmost care, conceal and never seem to know.

Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle, and sometimes wit; but for solid reasoning, good sense, I never knew in my life one that had it, or who reasoned or acted consequentially for four-and-twenty hours together. Some little passion or humor always breaks upon their best resolutions. Their beauty neglected or controverted, their age increased, or their supposed understandings depreciated, instantly kindles their little passions, and overturns any system of consequential conduct, that in their most reasonable moments they might have been capable of forming.

A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in the world that they are proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which by the way they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man who talks more seriously to them, and who seems to consult and trust them; I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it.
At the end, he's referring to a key difference between Gammas and Alphas. Both tend to surround themselves with women, but only one socio-sexual rank actually takes them at face value and listens to their advice.

Its remarkable how much wisdom and knowledge from the past has gone wholly unlearned, not so much through being lost as being obscured. Game, in many ways, is merely a reinventing of the socio-sexual wheel.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Of media and mudshark murder

Burn de coal, pay de toll:
A missing person report submitted Sunday afternoon in Red Lion, Pennsylvania, led authorities to check on Rebekah Jea Strausbaugh at a house where she lived with her boyfriend, Michael Anthony Morant, police said.

A relative of Strausbaugh reported her missing Sunday, two days after she failed to return from a trip to Baltimore.

Investigators said Morant, 48, went to Baltimore on Saturday to look for Strausbaugh, 30, and found her at the Shake Shack on Pratt Street. Police said the two got into an argument while driving north on Interstate 83.

Police said the couple stopped near Ensor Mill and Belfast roads in the Sparks area, where the argument turned physical. According to a court charging document, Morant admitted to pushing Strausbaugh to the ground, causing her to hit her head.

Police said Strausbaugh suffered injuries that left her unresponsive.

"Her boyfriend took her body, drug her into the woods and covered her body with a blanket, and left her there to die," Baltimore County police Cpl. John Wachter said.
I find it interesting that increasingly, in the case of these mudshark murders, the media is beginning to avoid showing pictures of the black murderer with the white victim. I suppose it puts a rather negative capstone on all those happy multiracial commercials they are showing these days.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Equality is the primarily problem

Return of Kings lists eight factors driving wedges into male-female relationships and correctly identifies the primary problem:
“Equality” for women is the most abominable lie to have ever perpetuated on mankind.

Men have always provided for women. Men hunted for food, labored to build everything, and fought battles to defend their tribe. To say that men oppressed women throughout history is an insult to all those who sacrificed themselves in the factories, the coal mines, and the trenches. If women didn’t have certain rights that feminists like to cherry-pick, it’s because women weren’t drafted to fight wars. In exchange for their toil, the only thing men asked of women was to be supportive in their roles as wives and mothers.

But fast-forward to today, now that women have “achieved” social and political “equality” and even various advantages just for being born a female, many women today no longer feel that it’s necessary to exchange values with men for mutuality. It’s like when humans developed automobiles and didn’t need horses anymore. The difference is, humans and horses don’t need to be together; men and women do.

However, men’s sexual desire—which is greater than that of females—is still alive and kicking. So what we have today is a situation where women have gotten their social equality while sexual inequality persists for men (which is why many men choose to give up sex entirely to level the playing field). This is what happens when you standardize human beings into economic units.
Martin van Creveld, the Israeli military historian, has written extensively on the development of the concept of equality, which he labels "the Impossible Quest". It's an excellent, well-researched book and it illustrates the fundamental impossibility of ever achieving anything that is even a reasonable approximation.

The histories of justice and liberty have often been written. Not so that of equality, which, so far has failed to find its proper biographer. There seems to be no equivalent to Plato's On Justice (better known as The Republic) or to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. That is strange, for equality is quite as important as the other two. Never has this been more true than in our own day. On one hand, we are inundated by volumes that warn us of the dangers of growing socio-economic gaps and by movements that protest against those gaps.[1] On the other, equality’s opposite, discrimination, has not only become taboo but is being used as a lever for all kinds of social reforms, credible and incredible alike.

In fact, so closely linked are the three concepts as to be inseparable. Where there is no equality there can be neither justice nor liberty. On the other hand, equality itself is not without its dangers. Should it be pushed too far, it can easily reach the point where it limits, or even eliminates, both liberty and justice
.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

The man who learned nothing

This foolish man's infertility is a metaphor for his insipid failure to understand the concept of marital commitment:
In the days that follow, I’m not ready to collapse into existing expectations about what is to come. I ask her: what do you actually want? Was this an accident? Do you still want to be with me? Do you want the three of us to co-parent?

Amid ongoing tears and the wreckage of our old life, she confesses her terrible dilemma: I don’t think I can love more than one man. Therefore, I choose him.

Soon we are sitting across the table from my parents, married 30-plus years, who look to us with cautious optimism. I’d already warned the news wasn’t what they might be expecting. In truth, to them and most of our friends, Katherine and I were the perfect couple. Loving, productive and stable, we never quarreled. Ever.

I break the news. “Katherine and I are separating.” My mother immediately bursts into tears. My father leaps into fix-it mode, suggesting the merits of marriage counseling. “We’re certain,” I confirm. They did not know about our open relationship, and I feel it is too much to reveal the pregnancy now.

Plus, I can’t admit the secret shame that I had screwed things up. I had ruined my marriage.

“I’m sorry,” my mother wept. “I’m sorry your marriage didn’t work.”

I spent the rest of the month on the road, returning only to pack my share of the belongings. No battle. No lawyers. Katherine finds the paperwork online and we fill it out on the kitchen table. We agree to split the mortgage equity. I will take the vehicle, the blender, and the Nintendo Wii. She will retain “the rest of the household contents.”

I spend the afternoon carrying my things out the front door and packing them in the car. It’s both freeing and sorrowful when I realize my life now fits into a 2002 Subaru hatchback. My plan is to catch a ferry to Victoria, where my friend has already set up a desk in her office. I had found a temporary apartment just outside downtown, close to Mya, whose long-term partnership had also ended for reasons that remain their own.

For one last time, I sit alone on the backyard patio of the house that no longer bears my name. I light the cigarette I had taken from Katherine’s secret stash (I rarely smoke) and watch it curl into the amber dusk.

A few hours before, she had revealed how she had begun drifting from our marriage the first time I’d confessed about kissing the other women, almost a year earlier. “You never told me,” I pleaded. “How could I have saved us?”

I believed wholeheartedly the myth of the One. The belief that human happiness means finding your other half, pledging them your heart and soul, and committing until death do you part.

She was my One. Yet I struggled for years to reconcile my desire for others with the inherited story of traditional monogamous marriage. The hidden cost of monogamy, when culturally reinforced as the only acceptable ideal, is the unquestioned coupling of sexual fidelity with “real” partnership. Anything falling outside these norms is, at best, labelled an unwillingness to commit, at worst, condemned for hedonistic promiscuity.
Marriage is difficult enough for women, bombarded as they are with encouragement to behave like unthinking, hedonistic animals, without their husbands throwing them at other men so they don't feel guilty about unwashed, dreadlocked hippy girls at Burning Man. What on Earth did the idiot think was going to happen the first time his wife came across a man willing to give her a better offer?

It's also a reminder that it's not always women who ruin marriages.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Girl grind vs Alpha jock

So much human action comes down to basic socio-sexuality. Even the current U.S. presidential election:
This is not the first time Hillary Clinton made history as the first female to top a presidential ticket. Back in high school, she ran for president of the student government, surprising her classmates because no girl had ever done that before. They always served as secretary instead.

Nor is this the first time that Donald Trump has been called names — though perhaps not quite the ones he’s being called now. An alpha male even back in high school, he was voted a “Ladies’ Man” in his yearbook and described as a brawler by his classmates. He also seems to have let it be known that he was rich.

If all the world is a re-creation of high school, then this election is between two candidates who as teenagers already embodied the traits for which they have become famous, and, it’s safe to say, they would not have liked each other very much.

It just might explain why so many voters don’t like them either.

Clinton and Trump graduated just a year apart — he in 1964 from the New York Military Academy in Cornwall, N.Y., she in 1965 from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, Ill. But “the times” were just about the only thing they had in common.

Clinton was by all accounts an earnest, nerdy, uber-involved student. Think Hermione Granger at Hogwarts. Or Patty Simcox at Rydell. A Buzzfeed list of her high school activities runs 17 printed pages, but to name just a few, she was on the student newspaper, the “It’s Academic” TV quiz show team, the cultural values committee, the committee to write a new school constitution and the antivandalism committee.

She was also director of the school’s Republican organization (yes, she was an ardent Goldwater girl), vice president of the Honor Society, and vice president of the junior class (where she was regularly ticked off, friends say, that she ended up running most of the meetings because the president – the guy she would run against for president as a senior — was away at football practice.) She wasn’t valedictorian, but according to an article in the Boston Globe during her 2008 run, she told the student who was chosen that she thought she was smarter.
Just imagine the most irritating, self-righteous girl on your high school student council. Then imagine her running the country. That's the situation the USA is facing today.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Vote LEAVE today

Jacob Rees-Mogg explains why voting LEAVE today is an imperative for the British people:
You have a failed state. A failed state on the Agricultural Policy, a failed state on the Fisheries Policy, a failed state on the Euro, and a failed state on migration. That is what we have tied ourselves up to – but as we tie ourselves up to it we have lost our democratic right. Once it is a European competence, we cannot change the law.

How you vote at a general election cannot change what happens, so the parties draw up manifestos, but anything they say on agriculture is all irrelevant. It’s all decided by EU. Anything on trade. It’s all decided by the EU.

Specific promises in manifestos turn out to be undeliverable because of the EU. The Conservatives, in their last manifesto, said that they would stop paying child benefit to people whose children did not live in this country. A pretty modest and reasonable request, but it is not allowed under European Law.

The Conservatives also said they would bring migration down to the tens of thousands from the hundreds of thousands, not allowed under European Law. So how people vote is of less importance.

In 1997 and 2010, the British people had the appearance of a complete change of government, but they could only change the government in relation to things that were not decided by the European Union. Anything that is with Europe is not any longer our democratic right.

This has a number of effects. Some of our laws come in in spite of the opposition of the British Government. We only have under Lisbon 8% of the votes on the Council of Ministers, which is lower than the proportionate share

We have one MEP for every 450,000 of population against one for every 70,000 from Malta. Again, beneath our proportionate share and more like the pre-1832 Parliament than the one we have got now so we cannot stop laws coming in.

David Cameron has lost every single vote in the Council of Ministers since he has been Prime Minister, forty of them since 2010, so we do not get our own way within the EU.

Then you cannot as a constituent, as a British citizen, seek redress of grievance once it is with Europe. This right of redress of grievance is something that has existed since Parliament first assembled in 1265. It is one of our most ancient rights, but once it is a European competence, that ancient right has gone.

The choice is: is your country Europe, and are you European? Or is your country the United Kingdom and are you British?

If you are European, you are voting for a bureaucratic state. A state controlled by an unelected, unaccountable commission. A state where your vote does not count.

If you are voting for the United Kingdom, you are voting for a democratic, free nation.
A nation with a long history of liberty. A nation where your vote counts, and you get the government that you want. It is a clear choice. A choice of vision. A choice of opportunity. A choice of freedom. Is that choice a European superstate, or a free, democratic United Kingdom?
If you are British and you have not yet voted today, stop reading this, go out, and vote LEAVE. Choose freedom, for both yourself and your nation.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Father knows nothing

Disney is in the business of selling contempt for fathers to children:
“Every 3.24 minutes, a dad acts like a buffoon.”

That’s the conclusion of a small study done by a student at Brigham Young University after watching eight hours of the two most popular Disney “tween” shows featuring families. The results of the research — “Daddies or Dummies?” — are not particularly surprising.

Are “Good Luck Charlie” and “Girl Meets World” any different from previous sitcoms like “Roseanne” or “Home Improvement”? A 2001 study by Erica Scharrer in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media found that the number of times a mother told a joke at the father’s expense increased from 1.80 times per episode in the 1950s to 4.29 times per episode in 1990.

But what’s interesting about the new research is that the author, Savannah Keenan, also looked at the reaction of the children on screen to their fathers’ displays of cluelessness. At least half the time, children reacted “negatively” to these displays — by rolling their eyes, making fun of Dad, criticizing him, walking away while he’s talking or otherwise expressing their annoyance.
Disney is an evil corporation bent on destroying the family, Christianity, Western civilization and the white race. Don't support it.