Saturday, March 25, 2017

The Art of the Icon of Sin


This quibcag deserves to be full-size. The illustration is by the Icon of Sin [link], who does very nice, shall we say, right-wing or alt-right work on Deviantart. Go there and praise it. And encourage more such. 

To riff off the quote — and if you don't recognize the name, do google — this is the most compact and convincing statement of its sort that I've ever come across. It pretty much knocks most popular ideologies into a cocked hat, from libertarianism to neoconnery to liberalism. And it demonstrates that any other system of thinking is going to lead to a collapse. Can anybody out there refute that?

Friday, March 24, 2017

Gregory Cochran reads Cordelia Fine, so you don't have to

Bad ideas never seem to go away. At least not the ones that the left likes. And the idea the left likes most of all is equality, and not some silly right-wing equality before the law, or equality of opportunity, either. The leftist idea is that all people are equal, period. That's all races, all ethnic groups, all religious groups, and both all 31 sexes. And since all such groups are equal in ability, temperament, yadda yadda yadda, when they don't have an equality of performance, that means somebody is discriminating against or oppressing somebody, of course. And the cure for that is massive government expenditures to equalize outcomes, and equally (heh!) massive numbers of regulations to punish everybody who doesn't cooperate fully.

This is an example of the "I f*cking love science" faction of the left. You see, guys (and girls) in lab coats carrying clipboards around have scientifically determined that unlike practically all other mammals, which, if they're distributed very widely at all across the world, have separated into subspecies that average differently in intelligence and other environmental adaptations, human beings haven't done that at all. Races don't exist, of course, and they're all equal anyway. Being separated on different continents for tens of thousands of years didn't affect people at all, because they're mysteriously immune to evolution. And they've also proved, somehow or another, that the human sexes (however many there are) are also totally equal in every way. I know they don't seem equal, and are physiologically distinct in many more ways that the obvious ones, and that their brains certainly look different, and that the sexual stereotypes of men and women have been pretty much the same for centuries and seem to mirror reality very closely.
But never mind all that. A feminist says otherwise, and Gregory Cochran [link] reviews her book:

Old T-Rex

I’ve just finished Testosterone Rex, by Cordelia Fine. In this book, she argues against the existence of innate psychological differences between the sexes. She does not want her readers to believe that men and women have different natures – apparently because such differences, or belief in their existence, would prevent social equality of the sexes. Personally, I think the more important question is whether it’s true. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Rather than talk much about differences between the sexes, which would do her case no good at all, she talks about testosterone’s role in creating such differences. Testosterone is a strawman theory, here. Sex differences might be caused, in part or in whole, by biological factors other than testosterone: would disproving an incorrect testosterone-based theory make the differences go away? On the other hand, it might confuse people enough to reduce or eliminate belief in such differences. People are fairly easy to confuse.


Sex differences can be pretty big. Men are about 8% taller, but they have 90% greater upper body strength (about three standard deviations) and 65% greater lower body strength. They run faster, jump higher. Teenage boys routinely beat professional female athletes, as when the Newcastle Jets U-15 team recently defeated Australia’s national women’s soccer team 7-0.

There are psychological differences as well. Boys prefer rough-and-tumble play, girls prefer ‘intimate theatrical play’. Boys and girls have different toy preferences: boys like trucks, while girls prefer dolls. Interestingly, we see similar sex differences in play in other young primates, such as vervet and rhesus monkeys. Young chimpettes are known to carry a stick around, sticks that seem to be stand-ins for future babies – like dolls. Since other primates that are not exposed to anything resembling human socialization [they can’t talk] show similar play preference patterns, socialization is unlikely to be the driver of those patterns in humans, no matter how much Fine would like that to be the case.

Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia are exposed to high levels of androgens before birth: their play styles are more like those of boys, and they (like boys) are better at spatial rotation tests than other girls. Fine suggests that CAH girls are socialized differently [due to their medical condition] , and that this may account for their boy-like play preferences. The female offspring of rhesus monkeys treated with testosterone during pregnancy also show male-shifted play preferences, such as tough-and-tumble play. Similar effects are seen in rats. Socialization is powerful !

Men are far more violent than women, far more likely to commit murder [and suicide], in every society. Obviously, if we see it everywhere and everywhen, the cause must be … climate change.!

Men take more risks, especially after puberty. Fine attempts to talk this away, as she often does. Her
argumentative approach sometimes has a certain mad charm, as when she mentions her baby son rolling across the room to a power drill, juggling knives, and trying to plunge a running hair dryer into the cake mix. I guess that no truly educated person could believe in anything so obvious, so… She also steps up to ” No true Scotsman “. She defines what must be the only correct definition of a risk-prone personality – someone that tends to embrace every possible risk – and if those correlations aren’t perfect, how could there be such a thing as a risk-prone person? She reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld, trying to define away the insurgency in Iraq by explaining that real guerrillas must have a unified doctrine and central command, which would have been a surprise to the raggedy-assed Spaniards fighting Napoleon, the men that gave us the word.

But crypts don’t lie. Teenage boys are twice as likely to die in accidents: you don’t see girls climbing down into the bear pit on a dare. To be fair, you don’t see boys do it twice. Young men are more likely to get killed making nitrogen tri-iodide, climbing Half Dome, or stealing copper from power lines. They can do it in a car, they can do it in a bar.

Almost all men are sexually interested in women, and the overwhelming majority of women are sexually attracted to men. I’ve heard that there are parallels in the animal kingdom. When you think about it, it makes a twisted kind of sense. Isn’t that a psychological difference?

Moderate differences in the average value of a trait can drive big differences out in the tails of the distribution. Men are only four or five inches taller than women, but all the tallest human beings are male. Men have a moderate edge in spatiovisual processing, but are overwhelming dominant – 100-1 – in the uppermost reaches of mathematics and science. Not just due to visuospatial differences, but that’s part of it. This also shows up in pool, which is not very dependent upon strength, but where the top men are much better players than the top women. Men’s advantage in spatiovisual skills likely plays a part in this. Jeanette Lee, when she was the top women player, said that there were ‘dozens of male players who could wax me.’ And, probably, even more that would have liked to.


Sexual differences are driven by selection favoring changes in one sex that lead to increased reproduction. This must explain men’s strength advantage, a product of competition with other males. Selection is the ultimate cause of psychological differences between the sexes, as well.

Generally, sexual selection is strongest in the sex with the greater reproductive variance. Usually, that means males – some have many offspring while others have few or none. Female reproduction varies less. Fine discusses a series of experiments by Angus Bateman [published in 1948] that led to claims of higher reproductive variance in male fruit flies. There were problems in those experiments – mistakes, technical problems and limitations. Some of the mutations used to trace paternal identity interfered with fitness and thus buggered the statistics. We wouldn’t have to use such a sloppy procedure today, but hey, it was 1948 – they didn’t even have the human chromosome count right. Yet similar studies have been done more recently on many other species – without those problems – and Bateman’s principle, that females are the limiting factor of parental investment, is generally true. Male reproductive variance is generally higher. So how does criticism of errors in a pioneering study refute a now-proven idea? That would be like claiming that Otto Lilienthal’s glider crash, where he died saying “sacrifices must be paid for” [which makes no sense at all] proves that Man will never fly. Fine’s fruit fly chapter is completely pointless. This lawyerly rhetorical technique, criticizing an early experiment in order to snipe at a well-established contemporary theory, was also used by S.J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man, when he argued that Samuel Morton had skewed his measurements of skulls to fit his preconceptions. Which was untrue – but it wouldn’t have mattered a rat’s ass if Morton had screwed up, because the art has advanced very far since Morton’s time. Today we use MRI and CAT scanners to image skulls to millimetric precision.


Fine takes a stab at showing that there’s isn’t much point [in terms of extra evolutionary fitness] in men getting extra mates. She comes up with an unphysical and absurd example – mentioning how unlikely it would be for 100 one-night stands to generate an extra 100 babies. That’s totally irrelevant: all it shows is that she’s innumerate. Here’s the practical example: suppose some dude has a wife and a girlfriend next door. Suppose he has intercourse 50 times with each of them over a year – both are probably going to have a kid, while with just the wife , he would have had one. 2 > 1. Am I getting too abstract here? By the way, if sexual selection doesn’t really happen, what could explain men’s huge strength advantage? Eating Wheaties?

Fine seems to think that only producing a horde of extra kids could have any evolutionary significance – but she is wrong. One more kid is a big deal, fitness-wise. On average, over most of the human past, people only managed to raise two children to adulthood. In real life there are always other factors to consider, of course. Does he have enough resources to feed one more child? Is his girlfriend married, and will her husband be duped into raising someone else’s kid? Or will her husband get wise and clobber our protagonist?

Fine is inspired here by some work by Dorothy Einon, who attempted to show that a famous case, where Sultan Moulay Ismail (“the Bloodthirsty”) is said to have fathered 888 children, couldn’t possibly have happened. Einon was wrong: careful simulations show that it was possible, although Ismail did show real dedication. Fine manages to misunderstand Einon’s mistakes.


If you make a math model whose results that completely contradict common knowledge – if it predicts that the Saudi royal family does not exist, or that Miles Park Romney didn’t father 30 children – you would be well advised to recheck it. Just sayin’.

Fine goes on to criticize the ‘man-the-promiscuous-horny-hunter/woman-the-choosy-chaste-gatherer. It can’t be the case that men want sex more than women – why, if that were true, prostitution would exist. Ba-dum-bump. Among foragers, are men really the hunters, almost always? Of course they are: men have much greater upper body strength. Spears and arrows don’t launch themselves.

it is possible to argue against a too-simple version of that narrative. For example, in populations of European descent – the ones we’ve looked at – the rate of false paternity is low, around 1-2%, and has been for centuries. It is not the case that many women have children by alphas and trick betas into paying the bills.

Another approach would be looking at brains, trying to identify sex differences (or the lack of them) in brain structure. If men’s and women’s brains were indistinguishable, surely men and women be couldn’t be psychologically different. But that notion is a bit treacherous, since it assumes that we can detect all functionally relevant differences in the brain. We can’t – certainly not in living subjects, but not even in studies after death. How do you detect memories? Can we see the differences in the brains of border collies that make them want to herd sheep? Not yet. Fine discusses some work by Daphna Joel, a behavioral neuroscientist at Tel Aviv University. Joel thinks that there really aren’t differences between male and female brains. Oddly enough, other people, like Larry Cahill, can reliably identify a brain’s sex: no single currently measured feature is definitive (other than presence of a Y-chromosome) , but statistical approaches exist that can make that distinction almost perfectly. Women’s brains are smaller (even after adjusting for body weight), connectivity patterns are different, white/grey matter percentages differ, gene expression patterns in the brain are different, etc., etc. Daphna Joel is a bad source: she sees what she wants to see, and disregards the rest. Psychology seems to have a bad case of that, which is why we’re hearing about the “replication crisis”. Michael Inzslicht, a dealer in stereotype threat and ego depletion [and unicorns] , said ” As I said, I’m in a dark place. I feel like the ground is moving from underneath me and I no longer know what is real and what is not.”

The incidence of mental illness is not the same in the two sexes: dyslexia and autism are much more common in males, depression more common in females. Sex differences in brain structure ( could be differences in gross anatomy or down at the molecular level) must be responsible for these differences in disease incidence.


In talking about the effects of testosterone, Fine mention a kind of cichlid fish where dominance influences gonadal events – causation ( in part) goes from behavior to hormones, instead of hormones to behavior. Interesting. But is there evidence of a similar pattern in humans? No. Are humans so evolutionarily close to fish – in particular, cichlid fish – that any pattern we see in cichlids is an immediate heads-up, something that might be happening in humans? Christ no. Then what’s the God-damn point? If we’re talking logic and inference, there is none: Fine seems to think that random unconnected facts are just fine for confusing her audience, and of course she’s right about that. Or, more charitably and probably more accurately, they’re good at confusing her. Makes me miss ye olde-fashioned steel-making, pistol-packing, Cheka-loving Commies: one of them could write an entire book explaining how humans are really vernalized naked mole rats while still sounding intelligent.

If, in this book, Fine had at some point conducted a sharp analysis and found the hidden causal pattern in a web of data, or had a sound mathematical model that answered the key question, or even casually tossed off a few accurate thoughts about the central limit theorem or Simpson’s paradox, I’d have to think that she was a bad person – dishonest. I see no sign of that.

At the end of her book, Fine says that we’re all for sex equality. I can think of at least a billion exceptions to that statement – but let me say this: I’m for what works. Listening to Cordelia Fine is not going to make things work better.
----------
Stop the presses. Chateau Heartiste is commenting on the same Greg Cochran post here [link]. I've extracted the quote in the last quibcag from his commentary. Now, the illustration on that quibcag may confuse those of you who are not familiar with Ranma ½ (らんま½). Pictured is Ranma-chan, who is the female version of Ranma. Ranma fell into a cursed Chinese spring once, and since then turns into a girl whenever he's splashed with cold water. He turns back into a boy with the application of hot water. Now, in the picture, Ranma-chan is making a martial arts move, and she is a total master of martial arts. However, Ranma her/himself acknowledges that boy Ranma is a better martial artist than girl Ranma. It's just that bundle of physiological differences. This demonstrates that males are intrinsically better at combat than females, even if the female is the same person, transformed magically from a male. By the way, this is one of my two favorite animes — Ranma ½ (らんま½) and Detective Conan (Meitantei Conan  名探偵コナ). Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン). I recommend them both to you.
----------
Quibcag: Illustration by diami-mi. The second one is an old Johnny Quest still. Number three is Pepe and I don't know where the girl came from. Fourth is illustrated by Mori Ran of Detective Conan (Meitantei Conan  名探偵コナ). Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン). Fifth is illustrated, mostly, by our own Baloo. The sixth I found on the net, and the seventh is illustrated by Princess Mononoke (Japaneseもののけ姫 HepburnMononoke-hime, "Spirit/Monster Princess").  The eighth is Sensei, from Denkigai no Hon'ya-san (デンキ街の本屋さん?, lit. "The Electric Town's Bookstore"). And the final one is illustrated by Ranma of Ranma ½ (らんま½). More about that in the body of the post.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Good Fences, etc.

One point I've tried to make here in many different ways is that once we advanced past tribal organization, the optimum system for human beings is a system of nations. Individuals are too weak to defend themselves against coalitions. Tribes are too weak to defend themselves against coalitions of tribes, i. e., nations. And nations alone are powerful enough to defend their constituent individuals from empires or, perish the thought, world government, whatever it calls itself — "globalism" is popular right now.

You can't be a citizen of the world, any more than you can be everybody's spouse. Divided loyalties aren't loyalties at all.

Stuart Schneiderman [link] has this to say about it:

Nationalists vs. Internationalists


Somehow or other we have been lulled into thinking that we must all become idealists and that our idealism should trump our patriotism.

We have been told, by thinkers on the left and right, that America is an idea and that belief in this idea is essential to becoming a citizen. I have variously offered my view that a nation is not an idea. A nation has borders and it has citizens. Some people belong. Others do not. Belonging has to mean something more than sharing a state of mind or believing in a bunch of dogmas. You cannot belong a nation while identifying yourself as a citizen of the world.

In two columns George Friedman—the only Friedman worth reading these days—has used slightly different terms. By his lights liberal democracy cannot exist outside of a defined nation. But, he does not see liberal democracy as an ideal. He sees it correctly as a set of practices. Historically, liberal democracies replaced monarchies. They could not have done so, Friedman argues, without a strong sense of nationalism, that is a sense of belonging to a nation.

Read the rest here:
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2017/03/nationalists-vs-internationalists.html

And Chateau Heartiste [link] says that when you eliminate borders, you get more borders, because it's a human thing. 

Dear Sh*tlibs, A Hall Monitor Is A Border Monitor On A
Smaller Scale

Recall a CH maxim about national borders: If you dissolve a nation’s borders, a million smaller borders
will take its place.
See, for example, any 7-Eleven check-out bulletproof plexiglass.
Borders are a feature of human nature. We want them, and if one disappears, another must rise. It’s the Law of Conservation of Border Control. We have a national border, or we have a lot of gated communities. Either way, borders win.
Which brings me to a tragicomic sidebar to that Rockville Rapefugees horror story. From the world’s newspaper of record, the Daily Mail,
Gboyinde Onijala, a spokeswoman for the Montgomery County Public Schools, said that staff at Rockville High will increase monitoring of the bathrooms.
First……Gboyinde Onijala.
Gboyinde Onijala.
In Rockville, Maryland, USA.
😂😂😂🤔
Second, the bathroom monitoring. Libs really love monitoring. Hall monitors, bathroom monitors….this is how sh*tlibs ensure a “safe school environment” without really doing a goddamned thing. Hey, libs, here’s a thought: how about monitoring your nation’s border so that you don’t have to creepily monitor your schools’ bathrooms for potential kidnappings and rapes by Squatemalan enrichment?
The lesson for libs is this: you can virtue signal to your black hearts’ content about open borders to the trash world, but if you eradicate national borders all you’re doing is creating pressure to move those borders inland and multiply them to protect your local fiefdoms. Think on it.
------------
Bathroom monitoring. Ah, yes. When traditional limits like borders and basic morality are sneeringly cast aside, they end up being replaced by bathroom monitoring and rigid rules of political correctness. And speaking of the Rockville atrocity, where are the feminists on this one? AWOL, that's where they are. Now, if a Black prostitute had accused a White frat boy, the feminists would be rioting in the streets. A 14-year-old White girl raped by Central American illegals, not so much, because that doesn't really jibe with the modern feminist narrative.
----------
Quibcags:  The first is illustrated by Hatsune Miku 初音ミク), sometimes referred to as Miku Hatsune., and the second by —I think her name is Yui — from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) .

Friday, March 17, 2017

Hot-Headed Bob Newhart

Many years ago, in an episode of Bob Newhart's Vermont show, several of the townspeople kept referring to Bob as "hot-headed." This was extraordinarily ludicrous, as it's hard to imagine a person less hot-headed than Bob Newhart in any of his incarnations. But that was for comedy and it was all in fun.

Right now we're going through a similar phenomenon with much less benign intentions and results. Trump is constantly being accused of things in much the same way. At the top of the list is the notion that he's "stupid." Leaving aside the impossibility of a stupid person accumulating that much money, you have to remember that for several decades now, the Democrats/liberals have called all Republicans stupid, especially Republican Presidents and Presidential candidates. It's just what they do. The last one they couldn't bring themselves to call stupid was Nixon, because he was so obviously intelligent that they had to settle for "unhip" instead. Meanwhile, of course, they've praised such mediocrities as Hillary, Biden, and Obama for their magnificent intellects.

Another accusation is "thin-skinned," which is absurd. He'd be a basket case by now if he were thin-skinned. The last time we had a President so hated and reviled by such a large group of people we had a civil war over it. And, frankly, Lincoln had a lot of it coming.

And we also have the constant cries that he'll get us into a war. Well, no. He's made it clear that he'd much rather cooperate with the Russians than fight with them, in contrast to war-mongering psychos like Hillary and McCain. The latter is right now trying to get us into a war with Russia over Montenegro [link].

Has anybody called him "lazy" yet? Just wait.

Finally, here's an interesting comparison with an earlier President:

Is Donald Trump a Jacksonian?

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Populism at the expense of liberty is no populism at all.

Guest post by Kuma Gogatsu:

One of the worst aspects of Socialism is the notion that we can take away free speech and thereby somehow make things better.

This has been tried again and again, particularly egregiously in Europe these days. The best example of this is Sweden. Tim Pool does a bang-up job talking about this after his visit to Sweden recently. There's plenty of information out there about him and plenty of journalistic hit pieces written about it.

The tl;dr verison of Tim Pool is very simple. Paul Joseph Watson challenged journalists to go to Sweden to prove or disprove Donald Trump's comments about the horrible things happening there and Tim Pool stepped up to the plate. Other journalists were referring to what Donald Trump said as 'fake news' and insisted that he not go to Sweden. Tim Pool was baffled by the notion of journalists being discouraged to disprove a story through facts. He went. The conclusion?

Donald Trump was right.

Full video HERE of Paul Joeph Watson interview with Tim Pool afterwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkxA4BliUwM


If you don't have time to watch the video, the biggest takeaway for me was one simple thing that happens in Sweden that is part of Socialism with a capital S. If you post something inflammatory on Facebook, the government doesn't try to find you. No. The journalists, the newspapers, the media try to find you and get your face on camera. After that point, they make sure the government knows about your hate speech and you face up to two years in prison for it. Sometimes more, if you give too much evidence.

Now, someone might argue that Swedish prisons are so luxurious. That's a terrible argument when your rights are nonexistant. That's a terrible argument when you have mouths to feed and suddenly you're yanked from your job because you spoke out about wanting to protect your family. That's a terrible argument when every other form of Socialism ever practiced didn't actually have utopian luxurious prisons.

Beneath the surface of every notion of wonderful Scandanavian allure lurks the reminder that a viking wouldn't put up with any of this shit for two seconds. Nor would a Christian knight.

Modern Communists and Socialists have this notion of policing speech too. They think that it'll make things oh so much better by policing it, controlling it, advocating for it. There is this notion that privilege and identity politics has something to do with why we should be policing it because those voices are silenced.

We currently live in a nation where the nephew of a prominent rapper belonging to a minority group is able to tweet about pimping out the President's wife and get away with no criminal charges. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7COPGqVAAA4NDz.jpg
Thankfully, we also currently live in a nation where everyone can criticize a man who runs for public office repeatedly but we can't criminally charge him for the words that he says while he's running for President. Or even before he ran for President. Unlike France. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/20/marine-le-pen-trial-charged-anti-muslims-hate-speech

This is exactly why Communism and Socialism are bad. Populism at the expense of liberty is no populism at all.
-------------

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

MIddlebury — Mao would be proud

No, the leftist thugs at Berkeley and Middlebury, etc., aren't "acting like fascists." What they are doing is asking for fascists to materialize and set them straight. Fascists, you see, didn't go around shutting down freedom of speech with violence. Fascists showed up to fight leftists who were shutting down freedom of speech. It's only a matter of time, snowflakes, until by your behavior you bring into existence your right-wing counterparts, so to speak, who will send you to the hospital.

As for your charming shouts of "Hitler" at anybody and everybody who disapproves of your destructive agenda, remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? Maybe you jerks should stop crying "Hitler" before it's too late. But I hope you keep doing it until it's too late.

Anyhow, for those of us on the Real Right, your Hitler accusations have real utility, because you're helping us by pointing out who of our group is being the most effective at opposing you, by calling him "Hitler." Then we know who our best spokesmen are.

Greg Cochran reacts to Middlebury here [link].

SBPDL, in a slightly different take, says this [link]:


Charles Murray Attacked at Middlebury College by Anti-Mob White because he Failed to Mention 'Hidden Figures' Black Heroines in his book on Apollo Program

Before Charles Murray wrote The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, he wrote Apollo: The Race to the Moon

Curiously, Katherine Johnson nor any of the black women featured in Hidden Figures were mentioned in Murray's book. 

This is far, far more racist and egregious than writing anything about race, hereditary, and genetics in The Bell Curve

Thus, the underlying reason for the attacks on Murray at Middlebury College all revolve around his failing to note in his book on NASA and the Apollo program that it was actually black women who were responsible for every gain we made in the race to the moon. [Middlebury Professor Assaulted, Injured While Escorting Conservative Speaker, ZeroHedge.com, 3-3-17]:

Keep reading here: [link].

Vox day's [link] reaction is here:

SJW thugs injure professor

Violent anti-speech SJWs attack Charles Murray and Middlebury College professor: 
Middlebury College Professor Allison Stanger was injured by protesters Thursday evening as she was escorting a controversial speaker from campus. She was treated at Porter Hospital and released.

Charles Murray, a political scientist who has been criticized for his views on race and intelligence, was invited to speak on campus by a student group. He was greeted late Thursday afternoon outside McCullough Student Center by hundreds of protesters, and inside Wilson Hall, students turned their backs to him when he got up to speak.

College officials led Murray to another location and a closed circuit broadcast showed him being interviewed by Stanger, the Russell J. Leng ’60 Professor of International Politics and Economics.

As Stanger, Murray and a college administrator left McCullough Student Center last evening following the event, they were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protestors,” according to Bill Burger, the college’s vice president for communications and marketing

Burger said college public safety officers managed to get Stanger and Murray into the administrator’s car.

“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.
This almost makes me want to do a college speech tour, accompanied by dozens of armed, trained VFM. The Right needs to stop playing victim and start imposing its will. Remember, if they're not calling you Hitler, you're not even trying.
------------
Quibcags: #1 illustrated by a girl from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)  and the other two by random illustrations I found on the net.

Friday, March 10, 2017

The Feminization of Everything

Not all that much of an exaggeration. You could say it started, or took a big jump, with the enfranchisement of women — the great accomplishment of the suffragettes. I had a blog post the other day on the problem of male v. female rule [link], with the conclusion that, bad as it may be, male rule is vastly superior to female rule. Males, you see, evolved from many, many generations of hunters, and they had to establish a hierarchy to make hunting work. And so evolution selected males for their ability to form hierarchies and function within them. Hierarchies of males, adult males, so males concentrate on rights that other males must respect and duties that are owed to  others. But females evolved to administer families — children and other, younger females. And administer them in all respect, from teaching them to walk and talk to running their hygiene. A quite different skill set than the hunters'. Women, then, are concerned about caring and self-esteem and other things that are quite necessary at the family/children level, but which are toxic obsessions at the sociopolitical level.  So a feminized politics is a degenerate politics that is self-destructive and not long for this world, because it'll be replaced by masculine politics. That's what's happening in Europe, you know. The nice ladies and feminized men who run many of the countries there — Germany and Scandinavia most prominently — are arranging for their own replacement by ultra-male barbarians from the Muslim and African world.

And speaking of that, caring is a female thing, and when did we first hear about politicians and whether they cared or not about one thing or another? It seems to me that it got started in a big way with Bill Clinton, who cared and cared and felt our pain. And he's a great example of the feminized male, who is either outrageously promiscuous or psychologically castrated. One guess which one Bill is. The male equivalent if "caring" is "doing one's duty" or "doing one's job." Trump is accused of not caring, which is fine with me, as long as he does the duty/job thing. A President could care like mad and do a lousy job, which seems to be okay with a certain type of woman. And "caring" is so important to women/feminized men that they care about anything, including stray cats and useless, malignant immigrants. If you don't want Tsarnaevs and Farooks, they accuse you of not caring. And when the immigrants kill some people, the care-ers are off letting some more in and don't want to hear about it.

And TV commercials. I saw two in a row the other day about how goddam dumb White heterosexual males are. One was that cutesy insurance commercial where the little girl sets her stupid dad straight using an adult male Negro's voice — don't buy any insurance from that outfit. And the other was still another insurance commercial where the smart woman rakes her stupid White male heterosexual husband over the coals for having said that men drive better than women. Feminized commercials in the worst sense.

Finally, restaurants are getting feminized. Where we used to have nice waitresses, we now have metrosexual waiters describing the patty melt. Not for male diners, for the most part, but for female ones. And what's on the menu? Sweet tea, for crying out loud. Tea was meant to be bitter. Is it the female sweet tooth that's driving this? And I got a salad the other day with cranberries on it, of all things? Another thing that's not meant to be sweet is a salad. Might as well pour powdered sugar all over it. And when you ask for a cup of plain coffee at Starbucks, they look at you like you're some kind of troglodyte. Don't you want some syrup in it? Some goddam herb from Guatemala? M&M's?

I'll go lie down now.
---------------
Quibcag: Illustrated by the gang from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul"), in drag.


Friday, March 3, 2017

A Couple of Things, and Some quibcags:

First off, now that we have the first President since Eisenhower who seems to actually want to do something about illegal immigration, I offer this for everybody to pass around, and if it's not in violation of the First Amendment, maybe Heimdall can be the official God of the Trump Administration. You don't think Heimdall would let Muslims into Valhalla, do you? The real Heimdall, not the Idris Elba abomination.


And now we have this, which I add because it's sort of related and sort of funny.




































And here's a Matt Bailey quote you can use when some SJW, especially the libertarian variety, points out that walls absolutely can't work. Don't know where I got the illustration.


Something for you to use, sarcastically, of course, on social media.


I may use this in a post yet, but it's a quote from you-know-who when he first visited the NSDAP, which, as he describes it, sounds rather like the LP. The latter lacks a leader of his caliber (hint: Gary Johnson doesn't make the cut). Got the illustration from here: http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/12/07/the-worlds-dictators-turned-into-anime-women/


I love this kind of stuff. For you youngsters, the characters are actually from Johnny Quest:


A contrast between Jesus and Mohammed recently pointed out to me, illustrated by Winry Rockbell of Fullmetal Alchemist  鋼の錬金術師, Hagane no Renkinjutsushi),


And a wise quote illustrated by Ran of 


And another quote about open-borders libertarians, illustrated by characters from Ranma ½ (らんま½) 


And a mantra that always applies, illustrated by an anime Alice in Wonderland


Gynocracy in Practice

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. The differences between males and females are stereotypical, and like most stereotypes, they're based on a grain of truth — in this case, a whole silo full of truth. Men and women don't think alike, as a rule. Brains are wired different, literally. And a long evolutionary history has led to a lot of differences, some overt, some more subtle. Everybody knows, for example, that women are physically weaker than men, and yes, I know that you have female friends who could beat the bejeezus out of me, but we're talking averages here, which is almost always the case when you're talking about human beings and the groups they fall into.

As a rule, men are good at fighting, and women aren't. The military history of the whole planet substantiates that. And, again yes, I've seen Mulan, and read both Monstrous Regiment and The Guns of the South.  Click on any of them you don't recognize. Point is, the soldier girls in them are anomalies, or outliers, who are not typical females, and they're surrounded by hundreds of regular-type males who are doing soldier work, because practically any male human being can perform as an infantryman if he's the right age for it, and almost no female human being can.

But here we're talking about a big difference that's more subtle — the ability to rule. Thing is, in human evolutionary history, the ladies seldom rule anything except children and, sometimes, younger women, and they've evolved to be good at that. Males, on the other hand, leave handling children to the women, and participate in rule of the tribe, clan, city-state, country, and empire. And they've evolved to be good at that. As Robert Lindsay would put it, women's knee-jerk ideas about how things ought to be run are completely impractical, and only women who have accepted the male set of ideas and rules and moral questions can usefully participate in political rule, as voters or as elected officials. A feminized political system is unstable and, frankly, suicidal. Just look at the ladies running Germany and the Scandinavian countries.

But human beings are never that simple in practice. You also have feminized male voters and politicians who might as well be women, from the way they think. A shining example of that is Baby-Face Trudeau, who is in the process of spreading Canada's legs for millions of Third-World thugs who aren't feminized at all. Pardon the metaphor. I seldom get that vulgar, but this is a situation that calls for it. And while I'm knocking Canada around, be aware that I'm aware that here in the US it's just about as bad, and Trump has heaps of girly-men trying to keep him from vetting any foreigner at all who wants to fly in and sign up for freebies. Women like feeding helpless things. It's in their genes. Oh, another prominent girly-man is Tim Kaine. Remember how he behaved in the VP debates? Interrupting Pence and getting in his face? He was behaving like a woman does to a guy who, she is confident, is too polite to knock her on her ass. That was safe, because Pence is probably the politest politician running loose today. But most of us would have knocked him on his ass.

And now, a piece from my favorite leftist, Robert Lindsay [link], which would make most modern leftists burst into tears of indignation. But Robert does his own thinking, bless his heart. He starts by answering a comment from a reader:

Female Rule Is Feminism In Power and Nothing More or Less
TJF: To Rob:
The West is under female rule..? Not sure if I understand, what are you labeling as female rule aside from some rules passed on college campuses regarding consent…?
Look! Female Rule is feminism! Female Rule occurs when feminists gain so much power that they can start imposing their rules and laws on society. Female Rule is Feminism in Power, period.
Female Rule is imposing rules and laws on society that are based on the rules and mores of women and against those of men. We have generally had Male Rule because male rules and mores at best are at least sensible, but they don’t lead to this World of Justice that women want and demand because life is messy, unfair and often cruel with no legal or societal repercussions for this nastiness.
The crazy Consent Rules came about because women are determined to stop date rape on campus. Thing is you cannot stop it. Date rape will go on. And it is almost impossible to prosecute. This is a horribly unfair thing. But men will just shrug and say life is imperfect and unfair. Yet women will try to create a Just World when there is no such thing and there probably cannot ever be such a thing.
Read the rest here:
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/female-rule-is-feminism-in-power-and-nothing-more-or-less/#comments

Now, lest you misunderstand both Robert and me, remember that we're talking about male rules and mores. Women who accept and abide by them can rule very well if they have the other abilities of a ruler — I think of Thatcher and Indira Gandhi in our time, and Elizabeth I in the past. None of them had a feminist bone in her body, and clicked right into the male system and hierarchy. The scary thing about Hillary was that she explicitly said she was running as a woman, meaning that there'd be a female/feminist bias in her rule. Which means, of course, that she planned to wreck the country. An example of her incisive feminist thinking is here [link].

Robert has more to say, and the post quoted above is just the most recent. You should go to his site at
and scroll down to at least two more posts on the subject of male v. female rule. 

And, while you're at it, here's a thought-provoker from Kathy Schaidle [link].
-----------------
Quibcgags: #1 is illustrated by Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア) versions of Julius Caesar and a Roman girl supporting him. The second is Ranma and Akane from Ranma ½ (らんま½). Number three is characters from Project A-ko (プロジェクトA子 Purojekuto Eeko). And I can't remember where I found the laughing girls in number four.

And let's finish up with something funny:

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Imagining No Borders, No Nothing, Bupkes!

Boy, am I sick of preening self-styled "libertarians" who are nothing more than useful idiots for the neocon/liberal establishment. You see, we've had a bit of an electoral revolt, and we seem to have elected a President who doesn't want us overrun by incompatible third-worlders, unlike the last few Presidents. And the Establishment, or, as I like to call it, the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) is having hissy fits over the whole business, because it wants us overrun by incompatibles, because an ethnic-hodgepodge country is much easier to run than an actual nation.

And you persuade people to go along with the mass immigration policy with the looney-bird concept of a "Proposition nation." As Vox Day says in the quibcag, there's no such thing, no matter how many times the neocon/liberal/libertarians blather on about it and quote Emma Lazarus (a proto-Zionist) and think of Ellis Island instead of the Founding Fathers.

And the Founders thought of themselves as British. Indeed, the Revolution was about asserting their rights as Englishmen. Then when they achieved independence, they regarded themselves as an independent branch of Britain. The closest they came to a "proposition" was to allow immigration by White Europeans who wanted to become Englishmen.  They knew very well that most of the human race would be incompatible with the American nation. That's why it took them so long to declare native Amerinds American citizens. That's why they outlawed immigration from China.

And here's a delightful little video explaining what's wrong with open borders, with particular regard to the ditzier libertarian theories:



One person who doesn't believe in "propositional nations" is Marine Le Pen. Here she takes Angela Merkel, who does believe in them, to pieces:



Vox Day has more to say than just the quibcag on the subject here:

Germany has Magic Dirt too

Angela Merkel announces that standing on German ground is sufficient to make one a member of the Volk:
Read his article here:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/03/germany-has-magic-dirt-too.html

And on the same subject, Steve Sailer is at his most snarky here:

From the Los Angeles Times:
by Brian Bennett
Behind President Trump’s efforts to step up deportations and block travel from seven mostly Muslim countries lies a goal that reaches far beyond any immediate terrorism threat: a desire to reshape American demographics for the long term and keep out people who Trump and senior aides believe will not assimilate.
“Reshape American demographics!!!” Whoever heard of such a thing? It’s completely unethical for a political party to use immigration policy to try to reshape American demographics to win future elections.

Read the whole thing here:
http://www.unz.com/isteve/i-cant-even/
---------------
Quibcag: Illustrated by mascots of many countries from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア). Do they look "propositional" to you?"