Saturday, January 31, 2015

"Three fundamental truths" (about men and women)

It was C.S. Lewis who wrote that men are Sons of Adam and women are Daughters of Eve.

Women's greatest flaws are pride and envy (the serpent is a symbol of envy|) and tells Eve she could be like God) and men's greatest flaws are listening to women motivated by pride and envy.

This article was written by Moose Norseman and is from his site, Moose Norseman.


There probably won’t be many posts here for a while. I am currently in the midst of several things that relate directly to what we discuss here, but I need to let them play out further before I discuss them. In the meantime though, I will leave you with three fundamental truths–fundamental truths that I hold as a guide while navigating these aforementioned situations, and that will serve you well in the situations you must navigate.

Truth #1: The Fundamental Truth about Humanity

The fundamental truth about humanity is that it is fallen. Sinful. Wicked. Fucked. It’s who we are at our most basic level. In the words of J.C. Ryle:

There are many things on earth which a natural man cannot explain. The amazing inequality of conditions,-the poverty and distress,-the oppression and persecution,-the shakings and tumults,-the failures of statesmen and legislators, -the constant existence of uncured evils and abuses,-all these things are often puzzling to him. He sees but does not understand. But the Bible makes it all clear. The Bible can tell him that the whole world lieth in wickedness,-that the prince of the world, the devil, is everywhere,-and that it is vain to look for perfection in the present order of things. The Bible will tell him that neither laws nor education can ever change men’s hearts,-and that, just as no man will ever make a machine work well, unless he allows for friction,-so also no man will do much good in the world unless he always remembers that human nature is fallen, and that the world he works in is full of sin.

Truth #2: The Fundamental Truth about Men

As men, we are all sons of Adam. We are all prone to his failure. Just as Adam was not deceived, but consciously chose to harken to the voice of his wife over the voice of God, so each of us has a tendency to abdicate the leadership responsibilities given to us to please and placate women–even when we know that it would be wrong to do so.

Truth #3: The Fundamental Truth about Women

The truth about women is that they are all daughters of Eve. Like Eve, women are tempted to elevate their desires and listen to the beguiling words of those who would tell them their desires and emotions are a greater source of truth than God.

These truths are simple. They are short. And they may seem rather depressing. Take heart! These truths will allow you to exit the endless cycle of disappointments. Instead of looking for people who are not fallen, look for those who have acknowledged their problem and are being made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Don’t look for the man who does not have a tendency to abdicate his leadership responsibilities in favor of pleasing and placating women, but rather for the man who recognizes his sinful tendency and in the grace of Christ is learning to lead properly. Do not look for the woman who does not have a tendency to elevate her desires and emotions above the Word of God, but rather for the woman who recognizes her sinful tendency and in the grace of Christ is learning to bring every thought into captivity of obedience to Christ.

Friday, January 30, 2015

Women Have No Idea What It's Like to be a Man

This is about a woman who spent a year-and-a-half pretending to be a man (she ultimately cracked up). Even before I saw this I believed that the normal man's life would create mental illness in women. And since today so many women are trying to live a man's life...well, now, what will that lead to?

Women truly are the weaker vessel.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

"Six Reasons Why Men Are Avoiding Marriage, with Helen Smith, Ph.D."

"Paul Krugman Is Brilliant, but Is He Meta-Rational?"

Paul Krugman is nuts. He admitted he wanted to be an economist after reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, in which a "psychohistorian" named Hari Seldon figured out how to plot the course of the Galactic Empire 10,000 years into the future with a handheld calculator.

Fiction is one thing and reality is another, and Krugman does not dwell in reality. This article explains why.

I figured out a long time ago my mind is not totally rational and actually is more intuitive. But everyone is self-deluded through pride or greed or any of the Seven Deadly Sins. As for Krugman, he is not interested in new information unless he twists it to agree with his previous beliefs.

For at least 2500 years and probably more, Pride/Hubris has been considered the worst sin of all, because it is the basis for all the rest. So I conclude that Krugman is so full of himself he can't admit new information and therefore change his mind.

Since Pride/Hubris is the basis of all sins, it makes me think Krugman has some pretty serious problems none of us know about.

It is from The Umlaut and was written by David Shankbone.


Nobel laureate, Princeton economics professor, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is a brilliant man. I am not so brilliant. So when Krugman makes strident claims about macroeconomics, a complex subject on which he has significantly more expertise than I do, should I just accept them? How should we evaluate the claims of people much smarter than ourselves?

A starting point for thinking about this question is the work of another Nobelist, Robert Aumann. In 1976, Aumann showed that under certain strong assumptions, disagreement on questions of fact is irrational. Suppose that Krugman and I have read all the same papers about macroeconomics, and we have access to all the same macroeconomic data. Suppose further that we agree that Krugman is smarter than I am. All it should take, according to Aumann, for our beliefs to converge is for us to exchange our views. If we have common “priors” and we are mutually aware of each others’ views, then if we do not agree ex post, at least one of us is being irrational.

It seems natural to conclude, given these facts, that if Krugman and I disagree, the fault lies with me. After all, he is much smarter than I am, so shouldn’t I converge much more to his view than he does to mine?

Not necessarily. One problem is that if I change my belief to match Krugman’s, I would still disagree with a lot of really smart people, including many people as smart as or possibly even smarter than Krugman. These people have read the same macroeconomics literature that Krugman and I have, and they have access to the same data. So the fact that they all disagree with each other on some margin suggests that very few of them behave according to the theory of disagreement. There must be some systematic problem with the beliefs of macroeconomists.

In their paper on disagreement, Tyler Cowen and Robin Hanson grapple with the problem of self-deception. Self-favoring priors, they note, can help to serve other functions besides arriving at the truth. People who “irrationally” believe in themselves are often more successful than those who do not. Because pursuit of the truth is often irrelevant in evolutionary competition, humans have an evolved tendency to hold self-favoring priors and self-deceive about the existence of these priors in ourselves, even though we frequently observe them in others.

Self-deception is in some ways a more serious problem than mere lack of intelligence. It is embarrassing to be caught in a logical contradiction, as a stupid person might be, because it is often impossible to deny. But when accused of disagreeing due to a self-favoring prior, such as having an inflated opinion of one’s own judgment, people can and do simply deny the accusation.

How can we best cope with the problem of self-deception? Cowen and Hanson argue that we should be on the lookout for people who are “meta-rational,” honest truth-seekers who choose opinions as if they understand the problem of disagreement and self-deception. According to the theory of disagreement, meta-rational people will not have disagreements among themselves caused by faith in their own superior knowledge or reasoning ability. The fact that disagreement remains widespread suggests that most people are not meta-rational, or—what seems less likely—that meta-rational people cannot distinguish one another.

We can try to identify meta-rational people through their cognitive and conversational styles. Someone who is really seeking the truth should be eager to collect new information through listening rather than speaking, construe opposing perspectives in their most favorable light, and offer information of which the other parties are not aware, instead of simply repeating arguments the other side has already heard.

Contemporary macroeconomic debates are a case where it is clear that a number of participants on both sides possess less than average levels of meta-rationality. It seems clear, for instance, that the “Internet Austrians” are not meta-rational. It seems equally obvious that Krugman is not meta-rational.

For example, when Jeff Sachs put forth a long, reasoned argument that Krugman’s crude Keynesianism was inadequate and dangerous, Krugman responded by saying that his model was not crude but sophisticated, pointing to published research that Sachs has no doubt already read. He did not respond to Sachs’s factual assertion, for instance, that profits are soaring, or to his claim that this conflicts with Krugman’s argument that our economic problems are purely demand-related.

Another recent example comes from Krugman’s hasty dismissal of Miles Kimball, who argued more narrowly that Krugman’s advice to Italy in particular to spend more was misguided. Krugman’s response, in full, was that the paper that Kimball cited, by Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff, did not constitute conclusive proof that high debt levels were bad for growth. I happen to agree in general about that paper, but, as Noah Smith pointed out, Krugman himself had argued a mere three days earlier that Eurozone countries, because they do not control their own currencies, do need to be concerned about their levels of debt. In case you need reminding, Italy is a Eurozone country.

And to take a non-recent example, who can forget Krugman’s blanket dismissal of the “conservative” blogosphere: “I don’t know of any economics or politics sites on that side that regularly provide analysis or information I need to take seriously.” As if this were not already a caricature of self-deception, recall that Krugman frequently and irritatingly refers to libertarian economists as conservatives.

What does this mean for the rationality of disagreement with Krugman? To quote Cowen and Hanson (emphasis added):

"For a truth-seeker, the key question must be how sure you can be that you, at the moment, are substantially more likely to have a truth-seeking, in-control, rational core than the people you now disagree with. This is because if either of you have some substantial degree of meta-rationality, then your relative intelligence and information are largely irrelevant except as they may indicate which of you is more likely to be self-deceived about being meta-rational."

Our intellects may be inferior to Krugman’s, but if we cultivate our own meta-rationality, we are more likely to be right than he is. Meta-rationality trumps intelligence. We would be fools to dismiss Krugman out-of-hand, because, after all, that would not be very meta-rational of us. But, having given due weight to his and other arguments, if we continue to disagree, we may do so with the strong suspicion that our disagreement is warranted.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

"Not Even Sexual Abuse is Egalitarian"

I, of course, have noticed this myself, for decades. It's one of the reasons I refer to feminism as the Dark Triad for women (amusing that some deluded men think all women are attracted to the Dark Triad in men, but men are completely blindsided and outraged when they get involved with Dark Triad women and find themselves manipulated and abused. And it's much more common than you think).

It's all about power, domination and control. There are popular sites that deal with the men who fall for these women, such as A Shrink 4 Men.

This was written by Cane Caldo and is from the site, Things We Have Know and Heard.


Generally speaking: The male form of sexual abuse is when a man abuses his power (usually some combination of money, respect, or strength), against a woman, to gratify his sexual desires. This is well-noted and agreed upon by everyone.

The female form of sexual abuse is: When a woman abuses her sexuality, against a man, to gratify her desire for power (usually some combination of money, respect, or strength). This is not usually acknowledged, and never fully.

I say it is not fully acknowledged because while it is sometimes frowned upon, the incidents are treated lightly. “Well, she shouldn’t have done so,” we tsk, “but he should have known better.” Which is a good bit different from the fiery condemnation that is heaped on male transgressors. Where is the movement to outlaw gold-digging? Who is creating a safe space from women?

Which church advocates custody of the eyes as a wardrobe selection strategy for women to employ rather than as a stick with which to beat men into being blind of their surroundings??

Every so often a female will imitate male patterns of sexual abuse. Those incidents don’t rise above the level of talking points. The occasion of a female teacher seducing a male student causes us to ask, “What is going on with that woman?”, as if she’s diseased or ensorcelled; rather than acknowledging that she chose evil because she liked it. A college op-ed about a man who surrenders to the protestations and physical manipulations of a college woman is a mere thought experiment. Crichton’s book Disclosure was a fictionalized story, but it was based on true events which failed to make the news and outraged no one. Why? Because we don’t get emotionally involved. Well why is that? Because our experience tells us that it’s not a pattern of which to be wary.

The first reason these thought experiment stories are ever reported are the novelty of “man bites dog”. But the important reason is that they give cover to the idea that we are striving for equality under the law; that our laws against males forms of sexual abuse constitute a full spectrum of justice to which men and woman can be held.

It's a lie.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Some Common Sense to Memorize

This is from More Right.


Patriarchy and families are the foundation of society.

The natural and unmolested course of selection and elimination must be allowed to occur in economics and society.

Hierarchy is the natural and right way for people to cooperate.

Different people are different. Equality is a lie.

Progressivism is an insane religion advanced by a hostile media/academic machine.

It’s not just “The Jews”.

Democracy isn’t going to fix these problems.

Merely denouncing those to the right creates a deadly signalling spiral, so no enemies to the right.

Monday, January 26, 2015

"When Narratives Collide—SELMA Versus AMERICAN SNIPER"

I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but one of my friends has and said it had a subtle antiwar message.

I know that Kyle was a bit of a nut and a liar, but movies are mythology - and let's not forget all the lies about Magic Negroes in movies today. It's American mythology against the mythology of leftists who wish to destroy us.

This was written by Paul Kersey and is from VDARE.


American Sniper, the latest film from director Clint Eastwood, is americansniperseemingly designed to enrage the Left. The film tells the story of the late Chris Kyle, a rodeo rider from Texas who became a Navy SEAL and the deadliest sniper in American history. It unapologetically portrays Kyle as a proud warrior dedicated to his country and his profession, a bracing change from the usual Hollywood treatment of American servicemen as either psychopathic killers or ashamed and broken victims.

Associated Press attributes the film’s success to conservatives flocking to the see the movie [‘Sniper’ success reveals power of conservative audience, Washington Post, January 20, 2015]. But this is a simplistic assessment of American Sniper’s appeal—it’s an unapologetically pro-American movie with a white male hero at a time when white male Americans are constantly lectured to feel guilty about their race and nationality.

That would be bad enough in the eyes of the Left, but American Sniper also came out over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend. Worse, it’s competing with the latest political hagiography dedicated to “Dr.” King: Selma. As King is less a historical figure than a modern American god, a competing film about a heroic white man has been interpreted as nothing less than a form of blasphemy.

What’s especially infuriating to the Leftist nation of “anti-America” is that American Sniper made $110 million over the Martin Luther King Day weekend and received several Oscar nominations. [Wow! “American Sniper Four Day Take Was a Whopping $110.6 million, by Roger Friedman, Showbiz 411, January 20, 2015]. In contrast, Selma is a box office flop.

The response from the cultural commissars who govern the commanding heights of American entertainment: this is a kind of national moral failing.

Film critic Scott Mendelson moans:

The sad irony of a weekend dedicated to a black man who preached non-violence and created great social change through pacifism being dominated by a movie about a white guy who (at least in the movie, final ten minutes notwithstanding) is most noteworthy for his record-breaking body count on a battlefield is not lost on me. \[Box Office: ‘Selma’ Grossed $5M On Martin Luther King Day, Forbes, January 21, 2015]

Matt Taibbi, whose anti-establishment posturing conceals his shameful retreat on immigration, threw up a lazily written blog post for Rape Hoax Magazine entitled “’American Sniper’ Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize” [Rolling Stone, January 21, 2015]. Unconsciously echoing the “millennial generation motto” of the permanently triggered, Taibbi intones, “It’s the fact that the movie is popular, and actually makes sense to so many people, that’s the problem.”

And of course, there’s Lindy West, a kind of walking (or waddling) caricature of the “Social Justice Warriors” who busy themselves searching for and complaining about “racism,”“sexism,” and “homophobia” among normal people. West compares American Sniper to Chappelle’s Show, a comedy show abandoned by its eponymous black creator because he found whites were laughing for the “wrong” reasons. West screeches:

If [Eastwood], intentionally or not, makes a hero out of Kyle—who, bare minimum, was a racist who took pleasure in dehumanising and killing brown people—is he responsible for validating racism, murder, and dehumanisation?

The real American Sniper was a hate-filled killer. Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero?, The Guardian, January 6, 2015]

It’s no wonder critics are so angry. Kyle was a real-life Captain America, the kind of positive heterosexual white male role-model our elites have been desperate to drive out of the military. [Bradley Cooper on portraying famed Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, by Meghann Myers, Navy Times, January 16, 2015]

But in an age when schools ban the American flag, American Sniper seems like a subversive phenomenon. The audience’s rejection of the official Narrative about evil traditional values and racist white males is eerily reminiscent of the public’s reaction to The Passion of the Christ. The film is a reminder the historic Majority of America thirsts for the type of heroes Hollywood, academia, and the federal government are increasingly devoted to destroying.

The rarely-spoken rationale behind the System’s hatred is that our cultural commissars link any expression of patriotism and pro-military sentiment to Nazism, a trope that Peter Brimelow calls “Hitler’s Revenge.”

Actor Seth Rogen made it explicit when he tweeted, “American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that’s showing in the third act of Inglourious Basterds.” He was referring to “Nation’s Pride,” a fake Nazi propaganda film shown during Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 Inglourious Basterds, a movie that featured the gleeful torture and slaughter of German prisoners by a fictional unit of Jewish-Americans. There were few Main Stream Media complaints about that film.

In contrast, “hate porn” like Selma is a product of the official culture and was heavily subsidized by both charities and the school system. Primarily black K-12 public school students were able to see Selma for free this past weekend thanks to the Selma for Students campaign. [Black business leaders raise over $2M so students can see ‘Selma’ for free, by Brooke Lefferts, FoxNews, January 19, 2015]

An estimated 275,000 tickets were provided to students just by part of this effort, making this cinematic entitlement an important part of Selma’s box office take. [275,000 Students Receive Free Tickets to Academy Award Nominated® “Selma,” Business Wire, January 16, 2015]

This includes students in:

Montgomery. [Montgomery students to receive free admission to ‘Selma’ showings thanks to local business leaders, by Amber Sutton, AL.com, January 16, 2015]

Memphis. [Mayor says students can see ‘Selma’ free, by Daniel Connolly, Memphis Commercial Appeal, January 15, 2015]

Detroit. [Free ‘Selma’ tickets available for Detroit students, by Julie Hinds, Detroit Free Press, January 17, 2015]

New Orleans. [Tickets to the civil-rights drama ‘Selma’ being offered free to local students, by Mike Scott, New Orleans Times-Picayune, January 14, 2015]

Washington D.C. [Thousands of D.C. students can see ‘Selma’ free, by Emma Brown, Washington Post, January 15, 2015]

Atlanta. [Free ‘Selma’ tickets for Atlanta Public Schools students in high school, by Rodney Harris, CBS Atlanta, January 16, 2015]

St. Louis. [STL among select cities offering 7-9 grade students free admission to ‘Selma’, St. Louis American, January 16, 2015]

Indianapolis. [Several Indy Venues Offering Free Admission on MLK Day, by Donna Schiele, Praise Indy, January 15, 2015]

Newark. [Free ‘Selma’ tickets for NJ students, by Stephen Whitty, NJ.com, January 14, 2015]

Philadelphia. [10,000 Philly students can see “Selma” for free through Jan. 19, by Josh Kruger, Philly Now, January 13, 2015]

Baltimore. [Free tickets for students to Selma, Baltimore City Schools, January 22, 2015]

Dallas. DISD students can see ‘Selma’ free, thanks to donations, by George Rodrigue and Demond Fernandez, WFAA, January 16, 2015

New York, Chicago, Oakland etc. [Selma’ Free Screenings Expand to Chicago, Dallas, D.C. and Other Cities, by Brent Lang, Variety, January 14, 2015]

Yet even with this artificial head start, Selma is a box office disappointment which will struggle to gross the $80 to $90 million it will need just to break even [As America Tires of Race Hoaxes, ‘Selma’ Disappoints At Box Office, by John Nolte, Breitbart, January 12, 2015].

Perhaps Barack Obama will issue an executive order dispensing reparations to reimbursing the producers of Selma, one of whom is his fellow ex-congregant at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church, Oprah Winfrey.

The box office battle between Selma and American Sniper is just another chapter in our cultural Cold War. An official culture dedicated to multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and white guilt tries to impose itself on a historic American nation which is still showing signs of life. But, as the ticket sales show, racial fatigue is beginning to hit home. Even the cinematic equivalent of Affirmative Action can’t force whites to sit through yet another movie designed to trash the country they once possessed.

The real question: will Hollywood executives—and politicians—will take a look at the money made by American Sniper? Change will come when elites decide, if only out of self-interest, that they can benefit from championing the people that the official culture ignores.