Archive for June, 2008

Let’s hope he escapes the fate of Larry Summers.

June 30, 2008

Don’t know much about history

In a nutshell, a professor had the cojones to criticize women’s studies. Kerfluffle ensued.


Nice guys finish last

June 30, 2008

Bad guys really do get the most girls

* 18 June 2008
* news service
* Mason Inman

NICE guys knew it, now two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the “dark triad” persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs.

The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism. At their extreme, these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies. People with these personalities risk being shunned by others and shut out of relationships, leaving them without a mate, hungry and vulnerable to predators.

But being just slightly evil could have an upside: a prolific sex life, says Peter Jonason at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. “We have some evidence that the three traits are really the same thing and may represent a successful evolutionary strategy.”

Jonason and his colleagues subjected 200 college students to personality tests designed to rank them for each of the dark triad traits. They also asked about their attitudes to sexual relationships and about their sex lives, including how many partners they’d had and whether they were seeking brief affairs.

The study found that those who scored higher on the dark triad personality traits tended to have more partners and more desire for short-term relationships, Jonason reported at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society meeting in Kyoto, Japan, earlier this month. But the correlation only held in males.

James Bond epitomises this set of traits, Jonason says. “He’s clearly disagreeable, very extroverted and likes trying new things – killing people, new women.” Just as Bond seduces woman after woman, people with dark triad traits may be more successful with a quantity-style or shotgun approach to reproduction, even if they don’t stick around for parenting. “The strategy seems to have worked. We still have these traits,” Jonason says.

This observation seems to hold across cultures. David Schmitt of Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, presented preliminary results at the same meeting from a survey of more than 35,000 people in 57 countries. He found a similar link between the dark triad and reproductive success in men. “It is universal across cultures for high dark triad scorers to be more active in short-term mating,” Schmitt says. “They are more likely to try and poach other people’s partners for a brief affair.”

Barbara Oakley of Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, says that the studies “verify something a lot of people have conjectured about”.

Christopher von Rueden of the University of California at Santa Barbara says that the studies are important because they confirm that personality variation has direct fitness consequences.

“They still have to explain why it hasn’t spread to everyone,” says Matthew Keller of the University of Colorado in Boulder. “There must be some cost of the traits.” One possibility, both Keller and Jonason suggest, is that the strategy is most successful when dark triad personalities are rare. Otherwise, others would become more wary and guarded.

From issue 2661 of New Scientist magazine, 18 June 2008, page 1

Are women naturally amoral?

June 30, 2008

Mr. Zopo asked what I think of the theory that women are naturally amoral. I would put it that women are naturally more inclined towards amorality, but basically, I do think that it’s true.

The fact is that morality – the ability to stand by principles when doing so makes one’s life more difficult, or even puts that life in peril – is adaptive for men, and maladaptive for women.

Incidentally, most people’s “lizard brains” – their subconscious minds, where all the real decisions are made – are far more sexist than my frontal lobes. When I was a child, I was downright priggish. I was always pointing out to the adults around me the immorality of their behavior or theories. (As you might expect, I had a very unpleasant childhood as a result.) Also, I often refused to do things people wanted me to or that other children were doing, on moral grounds. This made other people, both children and adults, angry at me, but even more than that, they were astonished. It wasn’t until well into adulthood that I realized that they were astonished to see a female standing on principle! They would never have articulated such a thought, but they knew which sex was supposed to make a moral stand and which wasn’t.

But let’s get back to the survival value of morality. For a minute, pretend you are a cave man. You decide to kill a woolly mammoth in order to feed your tribe. But woolly mammoths are big honkin’ critters. You can’t just go up to one with your little handmade spear and kill it all by yourself. Bringing down one of these requires teamwork. So you ask two other healthy young men of the tribe, your pals Og and Ug, to help you. After they’re done switching to Geico, they agree. (Okay, it probably takes more than three guys, but that’s not important right now. Three guys or ten guys, the principle is the same.)

Now, when the three of you pick out your woolly mammoth, it’s entirely possible that one or more of you will get killed in the process of hunting it. So on the face of it, it would seem that running away and abandoning your comrades at the first sign of trouble would be adaptive, would have survival value. But let’s say the mammoth gets feisty. You and Ug run away, leaving Og behind to be trampled by the mammoth. You and Ug live through that day, but you and your tribe are less likely to survive because you don’t have mammoth steaks. Plus, if you’d killed the mammoth, the chicks in your tribe would have dug you. They might not have bartered a straightforward exchange – their sexual favors in return for a chunk of mammoth meat – but killing it would have given you and your pals status, which is excellent currency for getting laid. So you’ve just lost several opportunities for passing on your genes.

Since you, Og and Ug are most likely to succeed in killing the mammoth, staying alive throughout the hunt, and going home to a feast and sex with grateful cave women, if all three of you stick together even when the hunt is dangerous. In other words, loyalty and courage are adaptive for males, even when it imperils them. Loyalty to an ideal and courage against inquisitors who are trying to stamp your ideals out come from the exact same personality qualities. Hunting, or defending your tribe against the tribe across the river, also requires aggression, and that aggression can also be channeled into, for example, crusading against evils such as slavery or communism.

Understand, a lot of cave men are going to die trying to stick together while they attack woolly mammoths. The fact remains that the cave men who survive and reproduce will be the ones who stick together in the face of danger and succeed, not the ones who run away when the mammoth gets tetchy.

Another personality quality that morality requires is independence. This, too, is adaptive for males. Let’s say there’s a hominid tribe living in a valley. They’ve been there for generations, but lately pickings have been slim, and consequently so are the hominids.

Driven by their testosterone, a couple of young males propose leaving the valley in search of territory richer in food. The elders warn them not to. Everybody knows that outside the valley are dragons, ogres, and who knows what other monsters, ready to gobble up hominids who wander out of the valley.

But teenage boys never listen to anyone. Our two young males insist on leaving anyway. That is, they take a risk on their own independent judgment. Two things could happen. One, they could die, of starvation or of being eaten by a cave bear or any number of other things. In this case, their genes vanish and they matter not. The other possibility, however, is that they discover that a mere half a day’s walk away is a much nicer valley, with lots more fruit-bearing trees and plenty of animals just waiting to be killed and eaten. They claim it for themselves, then invite other hominids who are willing to accept their dominance to join them. As the ruling males, they get first call on poontang. Thanks to their independence, their genes are passed on.

A few thousand years later, their descendant refuses to renounce his faith even on pain of death. Let’s say this descendant is a Christian living in Rome before Constantine. He is showing his independence by following what his own heart and mind tell him is right even when everyone else he knows thinks he is wrong, just as his ancestors did when they went in search of a new valley to live in. Our Roman martyr might die himself, fed to lions in the arena, but his brave sacrifice is part of what founds the largest and most powerful force for morality in human history: Christianity.

But these ingredients of morality – loyalty, courage, aggression, and independence – are as maladaptive for females as they are adaptive for males. Any of them could cost a woman her life and her chance to reproduce.

Think about it. What constitutes reproductive success for a woman? She has to invest nine months in gestating the child without miscarrying, then take care of it for at least a decade. Carrying it, nursing it, watching it to make sure it doesn’t eat toadstools or walk right up to a cobra or simply wander off, providing it with food and basic training in human behavior. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, a man can ejaculate and die 30 seconds later and still be a reproductive success, but for a female, the investment is far larger. A female cannot afford personality qualities, such as courage, aggression, curiosity, and innovation, that might get her killed before her children reach puberty. Females who had those qualities generally didn’t live to be our ancestresses, so we didn’t get their genes. We got the genes of the meek women who pleased the men of their tribe and stayed far away from the woolly mammoths.

(I would hypothesize that these traits are sex-linked, but not perfectly so. This would explain why most women inherit the genes of their submissive ancestresses, but occasionally manifest those of their independent, aggressive ancestors. Similarly, while men will usually inherit the genes that made their fathers viable, like courage and loyalty, sometimes instead they will show the qualities of their mothers, of manipulating and befriending.)

What does a woman need in order to raise her offspring, the carriers of her genes, to adulthood? Other people to help her watch the sprog so he doesn’t run into the nearest pride of lions would be good. Other people with spears and torches to chase off hungry predators who come around hoping to snack on some juvenile Cro-Magnons. Other people to bring her some food when she’s eight months pregnant and can barely move, or when she’s got a baby in her arms and a toddler following her everywhere and she just can’t gather enough for herself because she and the baby have both come down with something. Other people to kill antelopes – she’d do it herself, but her three-year-old follows her everywhere and keeps crying and alerting the antelopes – so that she and her kids can get some of that essential protein. Other people to hold the baby for a little while so that she can climb a tree to get some fruit off the high limbs.

In short, other people. Hillary was, in a sense, correct: it does take a village. But not in the way she meant.

This means that women cannot, evolutionarily speaking, afford to be independent. An independent female would be drummed out of the tribe, and with no one to help her protect and care for her small children, she would be dead very quickly. Even if she did manage to survive, her children would have no one to mate with, being without a tribe, and her genes would die out. A woman’s survival depends upon her keeping enough of the favor of the tribe, or at least of a powerful member or two of the tribe, that they will let her stay and enjoy the protection and support of the tribe. She can’t stand up to the chief because she thinks his decisions are immoral. He would either beat her into submission or exile her, and unless she found other protectors, she would soon be dead.

A woman also cannot afford the aggression that allows men to promote moral ideals. Aggression often leads to fights, and anyone can get killed in a fight, and women are smaller and weaker than men, so their chances aren’t as good. A woman can’t afford courage. Survival rewards her for avoiding danger, and placating fellow humans who might be dangerous, including by having sex with them. If she bravely defied the males from the next tribe when they came in and took over, they would kill her, then no reproduction. The males’ courage and aggression in invading has enabled them to pass on their genes; her courage and aggression in resisting them has destroyed her chance of doing the same.

Loyalty is the same. Again, imagine you are a young cave man and you and your friends Og and Ug see a gang of cave men from a rival tribe on your territory. The three of you walk up to confront them. As you get close, Og notices that one of the other lads is much bigger and more muscular than any of you. Og might decide on the spot that casting his lot with this large stranger is his best course. He does, and you and Ug are killed by him and the other guys. Now maybe Og will get a chance to pass on his genes with the females of the rival tribe, but more likely they’ll never really trust him and he’ll never have enough status to get laid. He lives out a cave man lifespan, but his turncoat genes are unlikely to be passed on.

However, if Og sticks by you and Ug even when he sees how big and strong one of the enemies is, the three of you have a chance to prevail against the big stranger and his buddies. If you do, you’ve defended the territory and you live and you get nookie. Your loyalty to each other has survival value.

But what does loyalty mean to a female? Imagine for a moment that you are a primitive woman. You have recently been married to a nice young man from a friendly neighboring tribe. While the two of you are traveling back to your new husband’s tribe, a tough guy from yet another tribe happens along. He looks you over, likes what he sees, and kills your husband without preamble. You’re all primitive, so that’s how it’s done. He grabs you and takes you away on his horse. As you ride back to his camp, you weep for your dead husband.

But once you get to your new man’s camp, you have a choice. You could be loyal to your dead husband and reject this new man. Most likely he’ll rape you if you resist, but after that if he’s not pleased with you he might kill you, or he might just not make your offspring his heirs, minimizing their chances of reproductive success. Or you could dry your tears, make the best of a bad job, and set about making your new man happy with you so that he will make the son you will give him his heir. (Heirs get more nookie.)

This is not hypothetical. More than 800 years ago a woman named Hoelun was faced with that choice. She made the latter decision. Today, the world hosts roughly 16 million of her descendants, because the son she bore her abductor grew up to be Genghis Khan, who got a lot of nookie. Disloyalty to her first husband – ingratiating herself with his murderer – meant tremendous reproductive success for Hoelun.

I think it’s pretty clear that people who are designed by nature to be this opportunistic should not be allowed a great deal of power in a civilization.

Now, it isn’t that women are incapable of being moral. It’s just that they require massive societal (male) support for their morals. It requires a man to invent systems of morality. Whether you believe that the Torah and the Gospels and other holy books were the work of man or of God using a man as His instrument, we know for sure that they were not the work of woman. Ayn Rand was a woman and a brilliant philosopher, but she was drawing on centuries of patriarchy and grew up in a patriarchal culture – and, by the way, she was a self-described male chauvinist.

Women are not going to invent morality. When barbarians first came up with the notion of ethics, thus launching civilization, it was male barbarians who did this, not female ones. Women can practice morality, but they need to be supported by men in this: fathers, husbands, clergyMEN, policemen, the MEN who run the government of the society in question, and God the Father.

When Margaret Mitchell was a teenager, she wrote a short novel which was published in the 90’s. In it, an innocent, virtuous young girl is captured by an evil man who intends to rape her. She kills herself rather than endure the proverbial fate worse than death. She chooses death out of loyalty to her fiance rather than be unfaithful to him, because of the patriarchal ideal of chastity, and because of her strong Christian faith. In other words, she gave up the reproductive success which nature would have made her choose, because the men in her life had provided her with the artificial moral values of religion, loyalty, chastity, independence and courage. I approve of the choice – for one thing, it would discourage other evil men from kidnapping and raping women, if they know the women are likely to choose death over sex with them – but it’s one that is only possible to a woman with religion and patriarchy to back her up.

This is why I keep pointing out that secular, “liberated” feminists see no problem with encouraging terrorism and tolerating Islam. They know, at some level, that when the time comes, the Mohammedans will spare their lives, because women are more useful as living sex partners than dead. Western men will have to be killed, but feminists are okay with that; they know they’ll live. Some Western women will of course refuse to yield to the invaders. These will be chiefly the conservative Christian women, who have learned the artificial values of loyalty to their husbands, of chastity until proper (not forced or polygamous) marriage, of religion which forbids them from becoming the whores of infidels. In other words, without moral Western men to protect these moral women, the moral women will die and their genes disappear while the amoral women – feminists – will not be killed and will bear children for the terrorists.

So yes, one could say that women are naturally amoral. Women can be moral, but it is not natural to them. It requires the support of moral men.

Equal opportunity to be criminal

June 27, 2008

A tale of two teenagers: Terrified OAP contrasts her life of hardship with the 14-year-old hoodie who terrorised her

These two photographs of very different 14-year-old girls are held up as a stark illustration of the moral decline in the behaviour of Britain’s young women.

The sepia picture taken in 1939, shows smartly dressed teenager Maisie Jones smiling bravely at the camera at a time when she is forced to work whilst her family were fighting for their country against Nazi Germany.

The second, 69 years on, is a sullen police mugshot of foul mouthed hoodie Sinead Duffy – taken this last month after she waged a vicious two year campaign of terror against Maisie, now 83, and other pensioners in their neighbourhood.

Great grandmother Maisie was beaten, spat at and threatened with garden shears as she tried to stand up to layabout Duffy and her gang of hoodie thugs who had been drinking cheap cider.

As Duffy was named and shamed by a judge under the terms of an anti social behaviour order, widow Maisie compared the pictures of herself and her tormentor and condemned the scourge of violent teenage girls blighting the country.

Recent Home Office figures shows that girls between 10 and 17 committed 59,236 crimes last year, up 25% from 47,358 in 2004.

Mother jailed for 12 years after leaving her three-year-old daughter to starve to death in filthy, beetle-infested room

I recommend not reading this one. It’s wrenching.

Mother jailed after baby she left unsupervised died of drugs overdose


June 27, 2008

After making the post below, as long as I was logged in to this Google ID, I decided to check my email. The following two advertisement links came up at the top of the page:

Obama Intensifies Campaign to Corral Women Voters

“In the name of truly compassionate liberalism, I am going to propose that Senator Obama immediately introduce federal legislation for a law that makes it a Class C Misdemeanor for a man to stand and pee into a toilet within any residential dwelling occupied by one or more females.”


Are you enjoying a life you truly love? Are you living your full-potential? Is your life moving forward with ease, peace and without obstacles? Are you experiencing yourself as someone who gets whatever she wants?

If you’re like most women the frustrating answer is, “No”. It was for me too.

It’s not only frustrating for women as their desire is constantly thwarted, but it’s confusing for men as they watch the women they love endure seemingly endless cycles of emotional swings, not knowing that it’s all natural and perfect.

Therefore, to give women power and ease around their desire, and men an understanding of what’s really going on with women, Donna and I are launching two brand new tele-series this summer, one for women and one for men.

June 27, 2008

Companies should employ more women, even if they aren’t good enough.

This is not what “Equality Minister” Harriet Harman actually said. But she is advocating “positive discrimination”, or “affirmative action”, as Americans call it. And positive discrimination means that you favour a weaker candidate who is black or female over a stronger candidate who is white or male. Positive discrimination favours the inferior….

It is as well for Miss Harman that she is “Equalities Minister”, an absurd non-job funded by the taxpayer. Were she in business and having to earn her keep, her incompetence at even basic logical thinking would ensure rapid bankruptcy. A woman working part-time earns on average 40 per cent less per hour than a man working full-time. This is because full-time jobs, for both men and women, are better paid than part-time jobs, and men are more likely to be in full-time work. There is nothing discriminatory about this. If a woman were paid less per hour for exactly the same job, as used to be the case, then this would be discriminatory. Moreover, women often choose less demanding jobs than men because of family responsibilities, or indeed because they want a balanced life. This is a reasonable choice, but why should it be subsidised by those who work longer and harder? Narrowing pay differentials between hard jobs and easier jobs means that those who make personal sacrifices must subsidise those who do not.

Harman vows to force through ‘true equality’ in the workplace, as bosses call plan ‘a nightmare’

Critics said the law would effectively reintroduce discrimination to the workplace by allowing people to be chosen purely by their race or gender.

David Frost, of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: ‘This could end up being a bureaucratic nightmare. The intention was to simplify the law. Increasing the complexity of tendering for public contracts and putting more emphasis on positive action is unlikely to make life simpler.’

But Miss Harman said: ‘There might be controversy, but you don’t get progress if there isn’t a push forward. Women will be able to see they are paid less than men and they will be able to complain and challenge it.

‘Entrenched discrimination is allowed to persist. It’s the British thing of not talking about pay.’

Sex discrimination is the basis of civilization. It should not be merely legal, but actively encouraged. It should not be made profitable for women to clog up the workplace, holding jobs they are unwilling and unable to do, instead of staying home looking after their children and cooking healthy food for their families.

Perhaps in the interests of “fairness” we could make exceptions for widows and confirmed lesbians, but straight women of childbearing age have no business in the workplace.

June 27, 2008

Nepali boy turns hero after rescuing Indian girl

KATHMANDU: A 13-year old boy, who pulled out a two-and-half year-old Indian girl from a narrow fissure in a deep gorge, has become a hero in Nepal, with a secondary school offering him free education and locals awarding him a cash prize of Rs 45,000.

Kamal Nepali rescued Aradhana Pradhan, daughter of Indian parents from the nearly 200 ft deep gorge of Seti river in Pokhara, a famous tourist spot, over 20 hours after she fell into it.

The boy volunteered to venture in, after rescue workers could not to enter the narrow and dark ravine. The rescuers attached ropes to the boy’s body before sending him inside the gorge, where the girl lay trapped midway at 70 ft.

June 27, 2008

British Government Attacks Fatherhood

It’s official: The British government despises fatherhood. Last week, “progressives” on both sides of the House of Commons voted to scrap laws requiring fertilization clinics to consider a child’s need (and right) for a father before administering in vitro fertilization (ivf) treatments to women.

Among its ghastly edicts, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill, an update of legislation from 1990, says that lesbians and single mothers can conceive children without having to demonstrate that the child will have a father, or even a father figure. The bill says that babies only need “supportive parenting.”

This website appears to be a bit on the nutter side – it’s a fundamentalist Christian site, and has an article saying that the Bible predicts that Germany will try to take over the world again – but the news above is nonetheless disquieting. I agree with the essayist I linked some time ago who said that men should refuse to give babies to women who do not enter a legally binding agreement to love, honor and obey them.

Lesbians and Feminism

June 26, 2008

If the measures of feminism could be confined to lesbians, there wouldn’t be a problem. Almost no straight woman really wants to work outside the home, but a lot of lesbians do. Straight women are by definition designed to get men to work for them, which is appropriate in a marriage, but lesbians naturally lack that programming and will actually do their jobs.

Much as I hate to admit it, it was my sort – dykes – who were really responsible for feminism. Most of us genuinely have no comprehension that straight women are fundamentally different from ourselves. Liz Cady Stanton once wrote to her girlfriend and fellow suffragette Susan B. Anthony, “Such pine knots as you and I are no standard for judging ordinary women.”

So a tiny percentage of females, namely lesbians, campaigned to force on all women what is good only for us. Of course a lesbian can’t understand that straight women *want* a husband; we don’t want one, so why should they? Most of us dykes have a large masculine component to our personalities, so naturally we assumed that because we want the same things that men want, like autonomy and a career, of course all women want those things. Never mind that few of them had made the slightest move in that direction, and that nearly all of those who have it now are miserable. The things that make straight women happy and the things that make lesbians happy are completely different.

Artful Dodger, a while back, pointed out another wrinkle that hadn’t occurred to me. Back when open homosexuality was out of the question and women had little choice about getting married, lesbians ended up married to men. A lot of these dykes probably had no idea what their true desires were. What they did know is that they didn’t like heterosexual intercourse and they just didn’t grok the relationship between man and wife. Contrary to what Hollywood tells us, most marriages of yore, including arranged marriages, were happy ones. This is partly because heterosexuals enjoy heterosexual intercourse and committing it is a bonding act. Also, straight women need and enjoy having a man to look after them and guide them; they need male authority in their lives. They might resist it, but that is just to reassure themselves that their husband (or father, or king) is still strong enough to assert himself over her.

(It is also because people did not have excessively romantic expectations of marriage being easy and blissful, and understood that they would have to work to get along with the spouse they were stuck with. They also knew that even if their marriage wasn’t perfect, life had other compensations, such as children, family, religion, etc.)

But a lesbian isn’t wired to respond to male authority, and doesn’t enjoy sex with men. This meant inevitable conflict in the marriage. The husband would wonder why his wife didn’t submit to him as the wives of his friends submitted to them, and why she was always evading sex and showed so little enthusiasm when they actually did it. At best, this would lead to many quarrels; at worst, he might end up beating and raping her. Thus confirming her bad impression of men and marriage.

And by the way, this wouldn’t just have been true of the era of arranged marriages. This could have happened in the first half of the twentieth century too, when women had few career options and societal pressures to marry were enormous, and lesbianism not even presented as an option. Those dykes who didn’t clue in to their own nature would have married for security or in hopes that once they got started, it would work out well; after all, they no doubt knew a lot of women who were happily married.

When it didn’t work out, they concluded that the problem was not that they had unusual needs, which they did, but that all women were as miserable as they were and needed to be “liberated”. Hence, feminism. This is why many of the major feminists have been lesbians.

Genuine lesbians ended up paying a high price for this in the 60’s and 70’s, incidentally. Many of them had been out of the closet in the 50’s, many doing the butch-femme thing, braving the ostracism and harassment they received. Then in the 60’s, some radical feminists decreed that “the only real feminist is a lesbian” and started sleeping with women even though they were straight. (These “lesbian-feminists” always went back to men eventually, often breaking the hearts of their genuine-lesbian girlfriends.) As part of their bullshit political agenda, they all wore hideous clothes, like overalls and construction workers’ boots (women should never, under any circumstances, don the latter), shaving their heads, and all looking as butch as possible. They would inform the genuine lesbians, who’d been out before it was cool, that theirs was the “right way to be a lesbian”. I once read that a lesbian who opened a lesbian bar in the 60’s confided to a rare femme who walked into her place, “I’m glad you’re not a feminist. I hate feminists.” The irony!

Feminism has only benefited two groups: aspiring dictators, who know that women are much easier to manipulate and subdue, and lesbians. One group is evil and will destroy all of the others, the other constitutes maybe 3% of the population. For these two groups, the others have been rendered miserable.

Women and War

June 26, 2008

I’m sure you’ve all gathered by now that I am rather a hawk. I am very pro-military and pretty much pro-war. We could argue about individual wars, but to take the present conflicts as an example: whether you think the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were a good idea or not, they were a direct reaction to terrorism. Terrorism would not exist had women not been allowed to take part in government and turn a large percentage of adult males into manginas. If America and Europe were still ruled by men, not women and manginas, the very first forays into terrorism by Mohammedans, the IRA, etc. would have been firmly crushed instead of coddled and indulged, and the problem would have been nipped in the bud. The present U.S. involvement in the Middle East would never have been even considered. The feminists who are bitching about it have only themselves to blame.

Of course, feminists adore terrorists because women cannot help responding to real men. They know that the men around them have been castrated, by themselves, and can’t be relied upon to defend them from virile Muslims, by their own fault. The fact that feminists are themselves responsible for this does not change their allegiance. They know that when the Muslim invasion of the U.S. begins in earnest, the Muslims will follow the tradition of time immemorial: kill the men and spare most of the women so they can rape them and then order them to cook dinner. The feminists who currently holler for the police or the courts if a man dares to speak to them will eagerly spread their legs for terrorists; only traditional, Christian, nonfeminist women will have the character to resist them – and they will probably lose their lives for it. Feminists are supporting terrorists because they know that this is their best chance of survival. The net result of feminism will probably be that women succeeded in undermining one male regime so that another male regime could take over.

But I am straying from my point, which is more in the line of the lack of female education. I was just reading something that mentioned in passing that in Europe a few centuries ago, most women had no idea why their countries were at war with the Turks or whoever, and often got sulky about having to do without their husbands for the duration. They genuinely had no idea that if their husbands hadn’t left them to bear arms, they would have found themselves as spoils of war for far less pleasant men. The female intellect is, in general, more limited than the male, but women of that time were kept so ignorant that they knew nothing about whatever wars occurred except that it inconvenienced them. Probably their menfolk didn’t want to scare them and so refrained from telling them about the horrible things that would have happened to them if the men didn’t go to war.

In other words, women were mouthing tripe about war being “meaningless” and it being “dying for nothing” and other such crap centuries before the hippies were. And it is from them, these uninformed, self-serving bimbos, that the hippies got their philosophy of pacifism.

The problem is that this didn’t change before women were allowed to take part in government. When women were first granted the vote, most schools were not co-ed. This was of course a good thing, but in this instance it backfired. Boys had learned the truth about the harsh sacrifices which must be made for good men to defend the innocent from bad men, about the horrors visited upon nations which do not defend themselves, and so on. Girls had learned to paint china. Suddenly these china-painters were allowed to make decisions about running and defending the nation. How could this not have ended in disaster?

I am not implying that if women were properly educated, that is, instructed in the fashion and subjects that boys were before women destroyed the Western educational system, that women would then be fit to take part in government. There is still the innate feminine nature that makes women unsuited for such responsibility. Women cannot help being cowards because nature made them too weak to defend themselves, so they will not fight when fighting is required. Women cannot help surrendering to any man with sufficient force or status because nature programmed them to do this to ensure the survival of their offspring. Women cannot help being fickle and dishonest because in terms of survival, honesty and principle have always been things women could not afford.

I am simply making the point that much of today’s corruption has been caused by unleashing a population which is not only biologically inferior, but was also educated in a fashion that made that inferiority even greater than nature intended. Perhaps even patriarchies ought to take care to educate girls as well as it does boys, so that if some fool allows women access to the corridors of power again, the results will be somewhat less disastrous.