Friday, December 19, 2014

I am the Magic Caucasian Man

Some years ago I was in a Walgreen's in a mostly black area when I saw a middle-aged black woman heading straight for me. I thought, "She's targeting me because I'm white, but why?"

Turned out her ancient SUV wouldn't start, so ask the Magic Caucasian Man to do his White Man Voodoo and fix it!

Turned out she had torque lock, so I bounced her car back-and-forth until it started, then advised her to take it to the shop and have the problem taken care of.

The whole world looks to the white man to fix everything. Kipling called it the White Man's Burden, so it's nothing new.

Yet there is a downside to the much of the world seeing the White Man as some sort of magician. Envy, as I've written about before. Which is why we see all these attacks on Dead White Male Slave-Owners, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Perversely, those who are benefited are rarely grateful. This has been noticed and written about for a long time. Kant wrote about it. Kierkegaard wrote about it. Schopenhauer wrote about it.

They claimed it was because many people can't stand admitting someone is superior enough to them to give them things. They can't be grateful for it. Instead they've envious. Biting the hand that feeds them, you know.

There is no cure for any of this, just amelioration. For one thing, there should be no welfare for foreign counties. We're just making enemies out of them. In their envy they want to bring us down, even if they bring themselves down.

And we don't need to let such people in the U.S. We're cutting our own throats.

I'd settle for those two things. Because, ultimately, the envious want to kill you. Honestly, do you want to be swarmed with Morlocks?

Thursday, December 18, 2014

80% of Women Are Unattractive

When I was in college I worked for about six months as a security guard. One time the company had me stand for a street corner for four hours during a football game and keep my eye on things.

To pass the time I decided to judge the women walking by: "Would?" or "Would not?"

It was an eye-opening experience. I don't know how many women walked by. To make things simple, let's say 100. Of those women, I got five "woulds." That means 95% of the women were not acceptable.

I also noticed something else. Many of the middle-aged women looked as if they might have been cute as teenagers. As the years went by I noticed that many women reached their peak as teens and by 35 they were unrecognizable.

I have also found that even for very-good-looking women after age 27 their prospects aren't that great anymore.

When I got off work as a guard the next day I pulled out my senior yearbook and went through the senior class girls. 56 yes and 157 no - roughly three-fourths "no.". I never went through though the rest of the girls because I figured it would be the same.

Henry Rollins once said, "Knowledge without mileage equals bullshit." It's worse than that. A little knowledge with a little mileage equals doubleplusungood bullshit.

And that it why I have a hard time taking so many of the concepts in the Manosphere seriously. It acts as if all women have the upper hand when younger, with their "hypergamy" and 20% of the "Alphas" getting all the women, and "Alpha Fux and Beta Bux," and all the rest of those adolescent delusions.

And this includes the 80% of women who aren't attractive? And all those overweight landwhales are going to be part of some "Alpha's" harem, because they hate "Betas"?

Give me a break. The vast majority of women cannot play those games, not with the way they look and act. Modern-day complaints against women are now legendary - overweight, hostile, blaming all their problems on men. Yet these same repulsive women can apparently play these "Alpha/Beta," "hypergamy" games? Which they cannot - and proof of that is marriage rates are hovering at 50%.

When it comes down to it, I take my experience over some unpopular, womanless guy spouting nonsense about What Women Are Really Like.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

"In Defence of the Patriarchy"

This is from Breitbart and was written by Jeremy Wilson.

I will add, as I've written before, that women's greatest flaw just might be envy. On some level they must realize men invented everything in the world and that they are 100% dependent on men. Because without men and what they have invented...women have almost nothing. And the envious want to destroy, even if they destroy them themselves.

The envious are never grateful.

“Who run the world?” asks BeyoncĂ© in her recent hit song, before answering unequivocally: “Girls.” Her record was the first many had heard of this change of leadership—but it makes you think, doesn’t it? What would the world be like if it were actually true? If civilisation were left in female hands, would we live in a utopia free from violence, rape and urine-spattered toilet seats? Or would we, as feminist academic Camille Paglia once cruelly suggested, still be living in grass huts?

It’s an intriguing thought experiment, and one that many feminists have been doing for decades. What if men invented patriarchy because they were jealous of the amazing societies women had created? What if a female-led society wouldn’t actually dissolve in a fit of bitching and hissy fits?

The idea of girls running the world might make for catchy R&B numbers and amusing listicles in Buzzfeed, but this relentless self-adulation speaks not only to the insecurity of the modern feminist movement, but to something more sinister. Since the 1970s, misandry has been easing its way into the cultural mainstream, driven by a small but vocal clique of militant third-wave feminists. Unhappy with the reality of living as respected equals in the new society gifted to them by first- and second-wave feminism, these radicals have embarked on a mission to dismantle society as a whole. Why? Because society was built by men, and is therefore somehow intrinsically rotten.

According to this worldview, society's ills can be traced back to the ground zero of human depravity: something called “toxic masculinity”. In order to save society from itself, human civilisation must be cleansed of masculinity. Does that mean the elimination of men? For some of them—lesbians are strongly represented among third-wave feminist ranks—the answer may be yes. Others, however, believe “genocide” is the sort of masculine pursuit that got us all into trouble in the first place.

Step one of the feminist plan to rescue civilisation has been to convince everyone else that gender is an arbitrary construct. In defiance of biological science (a field dominated by men and thus of course steeped in patriarchal dogma) feminists have decided that gender was cooked up by the patriarchy to justify violence against women. Amazingly, they've been quite successful: most people accept the sex-gender distinction uncritically.

Second, feminists want to undermine men and engineer masculinity out of society in favour of feminine virtues such as gentleness, empathy and ruthless backstabbing. And it’s here things get ugly. Almost one in five boys in the US have been neutered with drugs like Adderall and Ritalin to control their hyperactivity and impulsiveness. Schools are banning games like “tag.” woe betide any boy who chews pastry into the shape of a gun.

Efforts to micromanage masculinity out of boys reach ludicrous heights in places where women are most “equal” in society. In Sweden, the advertising regulator has been reprimanding toy stores for producing inappropriate catalogues that dare to suggest that girls might like to play with dolls, and has offered “training and guidance” on how to market Barbie to boys.

We know that most boys prefer playing with lego and most girls prefer playing with dolls. Science knows it too: in a famous experiment at Cambridge University, one-day-old male infants were observed to be more likely to look at a mechanical mobile suspended above them than a human face; female infants behaved in the opposite way.

Men enter university to find that expressions of masculinity are not only offensive to women, but apparently contribute to an environment in which women feel unsafe. The display of any remotely boyish behaviour is chastised as “lad culture,” and, when the puritanical feminists can get away with it, punished for promoting “rape culture”.

The claims made by campus warriors about the perverse nature of masculinity are so ludicrous it can be hard to separate fact from satire. Last week, the president of the Cambridge Union suggested that the matching ties worn by some university drinking societies “normalise and institutionalise rape culture”.

Despite the best efforts of zealots to make their daughters play with fire engines and to ban Robin Thicke from the airwaves, business and politics is still dominated by men. This failure to reprogramme men has led to step two of the girl power manifesto; remove men from positions of power and influence by force. The preferred tool for this war on men? Emotional manipulation.

In order to give their case credence, the entirety of human oppression has been recruited to their cause. Men aren’t in positions of privilege and power because patriarchy has gifted them a free pass, but because of an even bigger overarching system that is oppressing women and ethnic minorities and gays and disabled and transgendered people. Especially transgendered people. It’s something the feminist Bell Hooks calls the “white-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchy”. You will notice it’s only white men who need booting out of their computer science jobs.

The victimhood and whining is working. Barely a week goes by without a commentator in the media bemoaning the lack of women in the upper echelons of the workplace. And by the workplace, they mean cosy bourgeois office jobs, not agriculture, construction or driving trucks. Since 2002, listed companies in Norway have been obliged to meet a forty per cent quota for female directors, a myopic policy that has given rise to the “golden skirts” phenomenon. A small cabal of around 70 suitably qualified women hold multiple directorships; at one time, the most in-demand token woman, Mimi Berdal, sat on 90 boards.

In spite of Norway’s unimpressive track record, Spain and the Netherlands have passed similar laws, Germany has just announced that it will join them and the European Commision is considering imposing the practice across the continent.

Efforts to atone for the sins of the white-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchal monsters seem to have no end. Despite the glass ceiling no longer existing in British politics, the Labour party has introduced all-women shortlists, a system that bans their male members from running for office in certain constituencies. This illiberal and anti-democratic policy of over-promotion has unsurprisingly not been the greatest success, both delivering voters sub-par candidates, ruining the careers of talented young women and holding men back.

The most notorious of Labour’s failed shortlist candidates, was the hapless Jacqui Smith whose inexplicable promotion gave the UK its most inept Home Secretary in living memory. After leaving the Cabinet she gave a candid interview in which she confessed that while she hoped she had done a good job ”it was more by luck than by any kind of development of skills.” She also bemoaned her “lack of training” for the position of power she was given.

Every cult needs a creation myth and third-wave feminists have a corker of a genesis story that puts Scientology to shame. You see, if men invented patriarchal social norms in order to suppress women, there has to have been a time before the system was invented: a garden of Eden where men didn’t bat an eye at low cut tops and women, unencumbered by societal norms, hunted lions with their bare hands while palming off nappy duties to one of their husbands.

The idea that mystical ancients governed themselves based on feminine principles has propelled much of the anti-patriarchy movement. The doctrine started in the 1860s when Swiss anthropologist Johann Jakob Bachofen argued that early societies were governed by women and maternal love was the glue that held civilisation together. These early people lived in harmony with nature and the universe until men seized control from women and asserted their domination.

The idea snowballed. In her 1930 book Mothers and Amazons, a self described “first feminine history of culture”, the Austrian intellectual Bertha Eckstein-Diener popularised the notion that all societies were matriarchal until they were overthrown and poisoned by the patriarchy. She was capitalising on the rot that had set in a few decades earlier when when Friedrich Engels, in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State used the matriarchal myth to justify the overthrow of society. He proposed that before capitalism women dominated men, but as men acquire material goods they needed to created a system that allowed them to pass wealth on. Thus patriarchy, the subjugation of women, capitalism, greed and individualism.

Perhaps the most puzzling thing about the claim that men seized control of the family for their own malevolent ends, is that it is completely at odds with reality. I mean, just ask any husband who really rules the roost in their house. Patriarchy’s genius is that it divides social responsibility along biologically defined lines. Of course there are plenty of exceptions that prove rules, but the differences between men and women are real, and rooted in biological fact.

At this point it’s probably worth defining what patriarchy is and how it relates to masculinity. Patriarchy seeks to produce and protect children by assigning roles to men and women. Women look after the children, men provide for the family. For much of history this may have sucked a bit for the minority who didn’t conform to gender norms: women who hate children and men who like playing house. But, in terms of human survival, it served us pretty well.

What patriarchy has never been is a system for oppressing women. Many men throughout history would have happily had sex with a woman, then disappeared off without providing support or protection if society had let them get away with it. Patriarchy is a form of social control that suppresses men’s sexual instinct for the good of society and keeps them around to look after the kids. It certainly doesn’t act in men’s unfettered self-interest.

In recent years, studies by scientists such as Professor Simon Baron-Cohen at the University of Cambridge have proved what we already know: women are more adept at empathy and boys are better at systematising. That is to say, that the male brain is better at understanding how a system works and thus how a system can be controlled or improved. Men’s brains are the perfect tool for battling and overcoming the natural world, for example to build cities or aircraft or ships.

The second difference is men come with a greater variance in intelligence. In effect, this means men are more likely to be air-headed simpletons or sublime geniuses, whereas women tend towards the mean.

The final defining difference between men and women is more abstract. Women tend to have less difficulty making peace with their place in the world, while a man's sense of purpose is often more fraught. Men can find contentment harder to achieve. There’s an innate desire in men to prove one’s worth, to overcome the natural order, to achieve and to satisfy the ego. It’s what people mean when they say men are competitive: boys have an innate desire to win.

That desire to control, a greater propensity towards extreme intelligence and an obsessive compulsion to prove oneself are at the root of both the vilest crimes and greatest achievements of the male species. To again quote Camille Paglia, “there is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.”

When it is perverted, masculinity can indeed be terrifying. But masculinity itself is not a perversion. The patriarchy gifted us fire, agricultural ploughs, wheels, textiles, capitalism, painting, writing, medicine, music, metal, paper, literature, the pyramids, canals, bridges, sculpture, optics, pottery, fireworks, printing, industrialisation, mechanics, electricity, planes, trains, cars, spaceships, phones, radio, TV, sports, towns, cities, skyscrapers, nuclear fusion, computers, the internet, politics, philosophy, economics, democracy, the enlightenment, microwaves, hoovers, disposable nappies, washing machines and even battery-powered vibrators.

The feminists are right about one thing. It’s a great privilege to be a white man. We have liberated humankind from the drudgery of agrarian subsistence and built a world where individual liberty can take precedence over all else. The patriarchal masculinity that today's feminists are trying to squeeze out of boys is responsible for the appliances that ended domestic drudgery, devised the economic and philosophical frameworks that bestow freedom on women to self determine their own lives and created the birth control pill, freeing women from nature’s animal cycle and from their obligation to keep their side of the patriarchal bargain.

Not to be entitled, but: some appreciation would be nice.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Jackie the Attention Whore/Munchausen's Nut

I picked this up from the poster "MV" at Dalrock's. I started smiling. It's a perfect recap of a very disturbed woman who fooled liberal loons, who want to be fooled because they are not interested in the facts, just their agenda.

"Randall, Andy and Cindy come out with real names:


"So, let’s recap the story:

"1) Jackie falls in crush with Randall.
"2) Randall LJBFs Jackie
"3) Jackie doesn’t understand that “no means no”
"4) Jackie invents an imaginary boyfriend 'chem guy,' complete with fake photos and phone number
"5) Jackie boasts with chem guy in front of Randall to make him jealous. She even gives “chem guy’s phone number” to Randall, Andy and Cindy and, impersonating chem guy, insinuates to Randall that she loves him.
"6) Randall remains unimpressed.
"7) Jackie goes to date with chem guy.
"8) Few hours later Jackie gives Randall a 'damsel in distress' call.
"9) Randall arrives and she hysterically tells him that chem guy lured her into a gang rape of clinton-levinsky variety.
"10) Instead of falling in love with her, Randall calls reinforcements: Andy and Cindy.
"11) They try to console her and convince her to go to police, but she refuses.
"12) After that night chem guy still sends texts to Randall singing praise to Jackie.
"13) Randall still doesn’t want to fall in love with Jackie.
"14) Jackie is heartbroken and gets depressed.
"15) Jackie finds out campus anti-rape activists and activities. Here she get attention, she didn’t get from Randall.
"16) In next two years Jackie gets obsessed with anti-rape activism. Her story of that night gets newer and newer juicy details.
"17) Two years later, Rolling Stone femipropagandist Sabrina Rubin Ederly is combing campuses nationwide to find THE perfect person for 'campus rape culture awareness poster girl'.
"18) Jackie and Sabrina meet.
"19) Sabrina interviews Jackie, is too impressed to check the facts and runs the story to the printing presses.
"20) Zombie apocalypse breaks out.

"Have I forgotten something?"

Thursday, December 11, 2014

"The Sexodus, Part 2: Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality In Crisis"

This is from Breitbart and was written by Milo Yiannopoulos.

I've already reblogged Part I.

The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society

Sexual dysfunction is not unique to the twenty-first century—nor, certainly, to the West. Japan's "herbivores"—men who shun sex and prefer saving money and going on long walks to riding motorcycles and flirting with girls—have been well documented and are regarded by social scientists as the best example of male sexuality turning in on itself.

But although the sexodus, a new retreat into solitude by Western males, has a different flavour to it and dramatically different aetiology from previously observed social crises, many characteristics are identical. And what's troubling about men throwing in the towel in both East and West is the rapidity with which the malaise is spreading across entire generations, fuelled not just by sexual dissatisfaction but also the economic and educational pressures felt by so many young boys.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. It's little wonder that in the disorientating modern world, men should seek out extreme measures to help them relate to, and gebrt what they want from, the opposite sex. That probably explains the rise of Julien Blanc, who claims his seminars can transform the way women will respond to you. Blanc is at the extreme end of a movement known as "pick-up artists" or PUAs.

But other voices in the PUA or "red pill" movements, including Daryush Valizadeh, who goes by the pen name Roosh V, says there are structural reasons why society is evolving away from inter-gender contentment. Part of the problem is unrealistic female expectations, says Valizadeh. "Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men. Women today of average or even below average quality desire an elite man with above-average looks, muscles, intelligence, and confidence.

"If an average girl works hard enough, she will be able to have a one-night stand with a 'hot' guy every now and then because he happened to be horny and wanted an easy lay. The girl then thinks that she actually can get such a man to commit to her for the long term, and so doesn't give the average guys a chance, holding out for the type of stud that she had a brief sexual encounter with in the past."

Valizadeh has some controversial views on the state of modern womanhood, too. He says: "It's also damaging that the attractiveness of women is rapidly declining, mainly due to the obesity epidemic. No matter what members of the 'fat acceptance' movement say, men have an innate need for fit women. What happens is the few attractive girls left get unimaginable amounts of attention."

According to Valizadeh, today's sexual marketplace represents a Pareto distribution in which "20 percent of the top guys have access to 80 percent of the best women," which has the effect of leaving women holding out for the perfect man, a man who of course never comes.

Valizadeh agrees with masculinity author Jack Donovan that men have been feminised by a culture that rejects and ridicules male characteristics and habits. "Good luck naming one male role model that men have today that actually helps them become men," he remarks. These thoughts are echoed on occasionally rude but compelling male-oriented blogs, such as the phenomenally popular Chateau Heartiste.

They are also supported by the current state of the sex wars, which are constituted bizarrely. One of the remarkable things about recent high-profile skirmishes with feminists is how few mainstream heterosexual men have been involved. In the GamerGate video games controversy, opposition to "social justice warriors" and their attempts at censorship on Twitter has come from older gay men in public life and younger geeks, gamers and drop-outs; in the case of Matt Taylor, it was geeks and other women.

Straight young men simply don't want to know any more. They're not getting involved. Some women, too, horrified by what lesbianised third-wave feminism claims to do in their name, opt out of the argument. The absurd result is that geeks, queers and dykes are dominating the discussion about how men and women should interact. Jack Donovan, for example, is gay, as is your present correspondent. It's as if gays are the only men left prepared to fight masculinity's corner.

Men want normal relationships that include sex, says Valizadeh. Some of them will read pick-up artist books or go to seminars by people such as Roosh V if they don't get it or need to be trained out of "white knight" behaviours instilled in them by a female-dominated culture. (Men have been taught that being a nice guy gets you laid. It doesn't.)

What strikes a lot of women as strange is how rational and systematic so much of this decision-making is by men. Many young men literally perform a cost-benefit analysis and decide that women aren't worth the hassle. It's girls who lose out in this scenario: men don't need the sustained emotional intimacy that comes with a fulfilling sexual relationship and can retreat into masturbatory pursuits, prostitution and one-night stands much more comfortably.

But that's exactly what it is, from a male point of view: a rational opting out from education, work and marriage by men who have had enough, as a remarkable book by Dr Helen Smith called Men on Strike warned in July last year. (The consensus on this stuff is growing rapidly.)

Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.

Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.

Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.

Some might call these statistical trends "female privilege." Yet everywhere and at all times, say men's rights advocates, the "lived experiences" and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that women haven't just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect. What inequalities remain are the result of women's choices, say respectable feminist academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, not structural biases.

And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege. The bizarre but inevitable conclusion of all this is that women are fuelling their own unhappiness by driving men to consider them as sex objects and nothing more, because the thought of engaging in a relationship with a woman is horrifying, or too exhausting to contemplate. And the sexodus will affect women disproportionately harshly because research data show that when women "act like men" by having lots of casual sex, they become unhappy, are more likely to suffer from depression and destroy their chances of securing a meaningful long-term relationship.

It's not just video games and casual sex that young men are retreating into. They are also immersing themselves in fetishes that to their grandparents' generation would resemble grounds for incarceration, and which drive them further away from the formerly fairer sex. Consider, for example, the example of furry culture and anthropomorphic animal sex fetishism, both of which are experiencing explosive growth, fuelled by the internet.

Jack Rivlin's student newspaper The Tab, which we encountered in part one, has noticed the trend spreading on UK campuses. (It's already rife throughout the US.) Other alternative sexual behaviours, including homosexuality and transgenderism, are more prevalent on campus now too.

"It's eminently plausible that there are a greater number of people who identify as homosexual, bisexual or other sexualities who are happy to be labelled as such these days," agrees Cambridge Union president Tim Squirrell, from whom we heard in part one, speaking about the students he sees passing through his Union. "I think we're becoming more open and accepting of people who live different kinds of lifestyles and have different kinds of identities."

Gay emancipation, of course, may not have been a uniformly good thing for women. Depending on whose figures you believe—and you're wise not to take the claims of gay advocacy groups or gay magazines too seriously, for obvious reasons—somewhere between 1 per cent and 10 per cent of the adult male population is gay. (It's probably a lot closer to 1 per cent.)

Just a few decades ago, many of those men—at the risk of stereotyping, the most sensitive, artistic, attractive and highest-earning men; that is, perfect husband material—would have got married, had a few kids and led a double life to pursue their forbidden urges. They wouldn't have bothered their wives for sex and they would have made great fathers.

But now they're settling down with men, in many cases not having children at all. In other words, a healthy chunk of the most desirable men—men who no doubt would have cooed along approvingly to feminist exhortations—are now off the market, leaving even fewer eligible men in the dating pool.

(As a side note, here's an argument you won't read elsewhere: gay men test significantly higher, on average, for IQ, and we know that IQ is at least partially genetically determined. Gays don't reproduce as much now they don't have to keep up the pretence of straight relationships. In fact, surveys say they barely reproduce at all.

Is it too much of a stretch to ask whether society's newfound tolerance of homosexuals has made society... well, a bit more stupid? Granted, it sounds far-fetched. But while there's no doubt that liberating gay men from the shame of their secret double lives has been a moral imperative, driven by compassion, no rapid social change comes without trade-offs.)

All this comes before we even discuss the rapid growth of sadomasochistic sex among the young and the "new civil rights frontier" of transgenderism, a psychiatric disorder currently in the process of being repackaged by the Left as an alternative sexual lifestyle.

The response to part one of this series was colossal. To date, over 300,000 readers have shared it on Facebook. 16,500 readers left comments. Over 500 men wrote to me privately to express their gratitude and support, from every continent and in all age groups. The younger men spoke especially movingly. (Predictably, hundreds of angry feminists on Twitter scorned it as "entitled whinging from white male manbabies," rather proving the point of the story's premise for me.) Here are the most representative quotes from my conversations, reprinted with permission.

Mark, 24: "Everyone I know feels the same. Your article spoke directly to us. We're not all losers and nerds, we're just normal guys who are either scared of being accused of terrible stuff by harpies or simply can't be bothered any more. I can't believe I'm saying this but I just can't deal with hassle of women any more."

Mickey: "I say no to the whole thing, even though I am very heterosexual and would like the intimacy of a relationship based on mutual respect. Well, I thought I did, but it’s been so long and the standard of behavior for women remains so low, along with my tolerance for dating bullshit, that it does not look like a realistic desire anymore."

Francis, 28: "I'm an athlete. My parents have a lot of money. I have plenty of friends and a good social life. I don't hang out with women any more. Occasionally I'll have one night stands, but mostly I fill my time with other things. I got accused of molesting a girl at college and since then I've just thought, whatever. I play sports instead."

Tilo, 20: "I don't know for sure but your article sounds like me and a lot of my friends. I do furry stuff online in secret. I'd be horrified if my parents found out but it's all that gets me off. Girls are a nightmare. I have a brother who's ten years older and he feels the same. We've given up."

Hector, 26: "I did stick to that social belief for a brief time thinking that the need for a serious relationship would come with the age, but it never happened and slowly I gave up. Today, a few hours before reading your article, I was having lunch with my mother and she kept talking about girlfriends and how I needed to get married, meanwhile I kept thinking 'why would I waste my life with this shit?', and it wasn't until I read your article a few hours later, that I realised. And I don't think it's just my generation that is affected by this."

We can be quite sure now that the sexodus is not some fringe, isolated internet movement as "Men Going Their Own Way" has sometimes been characterised. A combination of disastrous social engineering, special privileges for women, the relentless mockery of white men on the basis of their sex and skin colour and the economic and educational abandonment for boys has created one, if not two, lost generations already.

Men created most of what is good about the world. The excesses of masculinity are also, to be sure, responsible for much of what is bad. But if we are to avoid sliding into decline, mediocrity and a world in which men are actively discriminated against, we must arrest the decline in social attitudes towards them before so many victims are claimed that all hope of reconciliation between the sexes is lost. If that happens, it will be women who will suffer.

Some names have been changed.

Monday, December 8, 2014

I'm the King of America!

I hereby declare myself King of America. And all my new subjects had better take me seriously, otherwise I’ll quit and let the Democrats and Republicans back into power. And no one in his or her right mind wants that, right? Personally, I’d rather get a nice paper-cut on my lip with some lemon juice poured on it.

As both the late Catholic anarchist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, have noted, a constitutional monarchy is far superior to any other form of government (it’s not perfect; it’s just the least of all the evils. No, that’s not true; the least evil would be no State at all, but I have serious doubts about that ever happening.)

Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote the relationship between a monarch and his citizens is much like that between fathers and children, and Hoppe has made persuasive arguments that since kings in a sense "own" the country, they’ll take better long-term care of it than a democracy, which invariably looks no further than the next election.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn, quoting Rivarol, had this to say about the difference between monarchy and democracy, "...a monarch can be a Nero or a Marcus Aurelius, the people collectively can be a Nero, but they can never, ever, be a Marcus Aurelius" (my view is that the population may expand, but intelligence is a constant). He also wrote, in Leftism Revisited, "Outside of Switzerland, there has never been a republic that did not become a monarchy. Only the ignorant, the insular, or provincial can consider a republic or democracy – both antique forms of government – ‘modern,’ or a monarchy ‘obsolete.’"

Hoppe writes this about democracy: " ...democracy has been the fountainhead of every form of socialism: of (European) democratic socialism and (American) liberalism and neo-conservatism as well as of international (Soviet) socialism, (Italian) fascism, and national (Nazi) socialism."

He has this to say about monarchs: "...a king, because he ‘owns’ the monopoly [the country] and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on ‘his’ territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock."

Concerning the lying weasels who run democratic governments, he writes, "the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government."

Friedrich Hayek noticed the same thing in chapter ten ("Why the Worst Get on Top") in his 1944 masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom, when he wrote that "the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful" in any society that sees government as the answer to society’s problems. "Seeing the government as the answer to society’s problems" is one of the best one-sentence definitions of democracy I’ve run across.

Unfortunately, democracy is the worst form of government there is. One hundred million to two hundred million people were sacrificed in the "Age of Democracy" known as the 20th century.

If you’ll look at history, you’ll find that King George III’s abuses of the American colonies were but a small fraction of what the – yech, blech, I can barely bring myself to say it – "federal" government does to the citizens today. We’d be far better off if the entire modern Black Thing just disappeared and George, as loopy as he was, was still king.

My first action will to be to close down most of the government. Since the average serf – I mean American – is paying about 40% of his or her income to the government, out goes the IRS. No more tax-forms! People will pay no more than two percent of their income to the government.

Department of "Education" – gone! All public schools are immediately closed down. All schools are now private. No more special interest groups mauling each other, trying by the force of law to impose their curriculum on students. Unfortunately, I’ll have to be a little harsh here and fire every leftist in every college. And every economics, history, law and political-science professor who doesn’t teach anything but the free market and political liberty.

Since all government will be a fraction of its current size, most judges can hit the streets and get honest jobs, instead of transferring citizen’s wealth into the State’s pocket (Thomas Hobbes correctly noted, "Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money").

Any lawyer or judge who doesn’t understand the concept of Natural Law (what used to be called "the common law"), and doesn’t realize that law is discovered and not invented, is obviously unfit for the profession.

Department of Energy – poof! The mud flats in Alaska are now open to exploration. And anywhere else in this country. If anyone is worried about pollution, companies will by law not be allowed to pollute anyone’s property. That’s what the law was supposed to do in the first place, but rarely did. It almost always looked the other way when businesses polluted people’s property. Said it was to protect people’s jobs, which were more important than other people's private property (never mind the fact that without private property there are very few jobs).

All the troops we have in 144 countries – home they come! All political connections with other countries are now severed. If private businesses want to trade with foreign countries, fine. No more foreign aid, which almost always goes to the rulers anyway. Which they then used to oppress and murder their own impoverished citizens.

All welfare is immediately ended. That doesn't mean the "poor" but it does mean the lazy. Most especially it means the corporate pigs sticking their snouts into the public trough. All the private charities that will spring up to make the lazy support themselves. No more subsidizing unmarried teenage girls to pop fatherless babies onto the public dole. If they can’t support them, then open the orphanages back up. They did a fine job in the past.

All gun control laws are now repealed. Anyone can carry a weapon, concealed or unconcealed, in public. If people want to own Tommy guns, wonderful. They’re stupid weapons, anyway. You can’t hit anything with them. Shotguns are much better (machine guns make holes; shotguns make craters, or will even remove your head completely. So guess which one is legal now, and which one isn’t?)

All drug laws are now repealed. No more sending billions to narco-terrorists in foreign countries. No more wasting billions fruitlessly trying to stop drugs from getting into the country.

And no conscription, either, ever again. Waste all my valuable citizens in worthless foreign wars? Hey, they’ve got better things to do, like invent things and advance society.

Obama will immediately be charged with treason and/or war crimes, as will Tom Daschle, Chuck Schumer, Janet Reno, Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz will never work in any government agency again. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will be parachuted into Africa. Okay, maybe I’m exceeding my authority, but cut me a little slack, will you? Even kings aren’t perfect.

All illegals are now immediately deported. All Third World immigration is cut off except for the most educated or intelligent (hey, it’s my country, and I want the best, not the worst). Since the Republican and Democratic Party no longer exists, they can’t attempt to import the entire Third World into the U.S. in order to keep themselves in power, even if it will turn the entire nation into the Balkans. Not that they ever cared in the slightest.

The airports are completely privatized! No more waiting in lines longer than football fields. No more pathetic – no, worthless!--attempts at security. If passengers and pilots want to carry pistols with frangible ammo onto the plane, that’s up to the airlines.

All anti-discrimination laws are repealed (I’ll have to admit, it was when I watched airport "security" disrespect Americans with blond or red hair and blue or green eyes while Arabs loaded bombs, uh, I mean suitcases, into the luggage compartments of planes, or else inspected carry-ons to make sure weapons were, oops, I mean weren’t, allowed on. Such are the wonders of federal anti-discrimination laws.)

All ridiculous rules and regulations hobbling the free market are now eliminated. The gold standard is reinstated. Inflation will cease to exist. Without inflation, the business cycle will disappear. No more recessions, and certainly no more depressions.

All "federal" lands will become private. I might just give them away (and certainly not to the rich). In fact, all land will be privately owned, and none will be owned by any government. That includes all streets. So the meter dweebs can get real jobs.

As annoying as the liberals and fascist/socialist war-mongering armchair-general neocons in the media are, I’ll still allow complete freedom of the press. However, since all liberals and necons are wusses, I will cork all of them on the arm and make them cry like girls.

If anyone is abused by what little government is left, he or she can appeal to me directly. And believe me, I’ll almost always favor the citizen. Then I’ll go to the government official and kick him in his rear-end. Just like Eric Cartmann in South Park.

Can anyone imagining any of this happening under any democracy? Nope. Not even in the next 50 years. How about a republic? Fat chance, since Lincoln started the destruction of it. See how great it is to have a King, even if he is a little eccentric?

That’s enough for my first day as King. Then I’ll take a break and act the way royalty is supposed to act: gamble, drink, wear a tux and bow-tie, try to look as mysterious and cool as Sean Connery when he played James Bond, fool around with the royal floozies, and wave to the crowds from my ducal Chevy Cavalier. But first, I have to find a gold cigarette case.

Hey, it’s a hard job, but I’m more than willing to stay with it.

"Jackie" the Non-Raped Psychopath

"Jackie," she of Rolling Stone fame, clearly has some problems. I was thinking Munchausen's Syndrome.

John Craig, of Just Not Said thinks so, too.

Sociopath alert: UVA rape accuser "Jackie"

There have been a lot of words written about the University of Virginia Rape-gate scandal over the past two weeks. But the one word which seems to be missing from all the accounts is "sociopath."

Steve Sailer, as usual, had the best take on it, "A Rape Hoax for Book Lovers." He did an excellent job of analyzing in detail how the purported rape victim's story didn't add up. He also touched on the essential dishonesty of a media all too willing to suspend disbelief in the service of political theater.

But Sailer also referred to "Jackie," as the self-styled victim wanted to be known, as "unsettled," a vague word which misses the key point about her personality. She is a pathological liar, ergo, a sociopath. (The only surer sign of sociopathy is serial killing.) And while sociopaths may unsettle other people, they rarely suffer from nerves themselves. (It actually takes a lot of nerve to run with a huge lie the way Jackie did.)

Jackie was described in other accounts as "troubled" and "unhappy," which also miss the point. Sociopaths trouble others, but generally don't suffer from self-doubt themselves. And "unsatisfied" is a better description of a sociopath than "unhappy." A sociopath always wants more: more fame, more admiration, and more sympathy.

It was this last desire which motivated this entire charade. Jackie has Munchausen's Syndrome, whose "sufferers" (sociopaths all) invent various maladies in order to quench their bottomless need for sympathy and affection. But instead of inventing an illness in order to gain attention and sympathy from doctors and nurses and friends, Jackie invented a rape in order to gain attention and sympathy from her friends and the UVA dean and other actual rape victims in the campus support group she joined.

She even tried to get sympathy from Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and by extension, her readership. It was that national exposure which ultimately proved her undoing.

A non-sociopath would simply never try to perpetrate such a hoax. Try to imagine yourself doing what Jackie did. First, you tell your friends that you were raped by nine guys. Then, you go to the dean of the university and report your "rape" to her. Then, you tell a reporter from a national newsmagazine about it.

These actions require a level of shamelessness that goes far beyond what a nonsociopath is capable of. They also require the confidence that you can always fool other people with your lies, a confidence only sociopaths seem to have.

The only other alternative here is that Jackie is somehow psychotic. But her actions reek of dishonesty, not insanity. She can't even be that dumb, either: it's hard to get into the University of Virginia. (Of course, as a sociopath, Jackie must have gamed the system as much as possible: cunning often trumps IQ.)

Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the original Rolling Stone article, is not a sociopath herself. If she were, she'd have seen through Jackie. (In fact, if she'd had any extensive firsthand experience with sociopaths, she'd have seen through Jackie.) But Erdely is dumb, and also slightly dishonest, in that peculiar way that so many liberals are. She wanted so badly to believe that this rape took place, and she wanted so badly to believe that all those WASPy frat boys were capable of such evil, that she never looked critically at the "victim." And, she never bothered to let the accused speak.

When the Rolling Stone article first appeared, the usual people saw this as a great opportunity to "raise awareness" of campus rape. But the only thing this incident should raise awareness of is sociopathy. Unfortunately, that angle will undoubtedly be lost amid all back and forth about feminism and politics and the media.

So far Jackie's real name hasn't been given, a courtesy traditionally extended by the press to all rape victims. But should that courtesy be extended to those who make false rape accusations?

Personally, I'm curious to find out more about Jackie. What were her parents like? Was she adopted? What was her childhood like? What other lies has she told?

I'm not sure what the appropriate penalty is for Jackie. She never tried to get those fraternity brothers sent to jail (she never filed charges with the police), so perhaps a jail sentence is not appropriate. But, she did name some of her "rapists," to the dean and others. So her real name should be made public.

And, if justice is served, this story will hound her for the rest of her life.