Archive for the ‘war’ Category

Link Dump

August 2, 2009

Carl gave me this link: Breast practice on the riviera. It’s about the topless beaches in France.

In the meantime, far from the Riviera, Les Tumultueuses (Tumultuous Women), a group of radical feminists, has staged several topless actions at Parisian public pools.

At their latest outing, Natacha, one of the group members, explained: “The point of our action is to denounce the ways in which men and women are treated differently. Women’s bodies are systematically sexualized in a way that men’s bodies aren’t.”

What you’re denouncing, babe, is nature. If men didn’t get hard-ons from looking at the female body, the species would die out. If seeing a man of less than movie-star attractiveness made women wet, the species would decline because we wouldn’t be choosy enough to evaluate men’s genetic fitness and reliability as a provider before letting them fertilize us. Political action can’t change this any more than it can make us breathe carbon dioxide instead of oxygen.

I grow so weary of these people trying to change the unchangeable. If they really want something different out of life from what tradition would have granted them, ignoring the facts of reality is a bad start. The biological facts can be gotten around, but not if you’re resolutely ignoring them. These feminist shrews can sling their mammaries around in public in the hopes of being seen as “equal” to men, but the actual result will inevitably be one of two things: if they’re goodlooking, people will think about sex, and if they’re not, people will think about how unattractive they are. A woman who acknowledges the immutable fact that the female body is sexual in a way that the male body simply isn’t (except to gay men) will do what virtually all women do anyway: wear normal clothes that do not draw undue attention to their breasts. Undistracted by their mammaries, the people these women meet will be free to evaluate them by other criteria, such as their work, intellect, personality, etc.

But just try to explain to a feminist that there are any choices other than dressing like a prostitute or wearing a burqua. According to feminists, those are the only two options in existence. It’s especially ironic that they drag this out, considering that they are invariably in favor of allowing those honor-killing ROPers to emigrate to the formerly civilized nations built by Christian men.

I’ve found a couple of interesting blogs: Feminine beauty, which carries articles about the scientific basis of what we perceive as beautiful.

Elysium Revisited, a PUA blog. Not often updated, but that just means you can read the entire archive.

Teacher Gives Sex Tape To 5th Graders On DVD

A local teacher accidentally put pornography into a DVD that was meant to be filled with school memories from the past year, and nobody caught the error until after it was sent home, shocking parents and students alike.

Parents of students who attend Isabelle Jackson Elementary said that the woman is a good teacher, but just made a mistake that may become the most embarrassing moment of their life.

The offending DVD starts with a menu screen that displays various school trips and functions, and when you click on one of them, you see kids in a classroom sharing stories. They start clapping, then the video suddenly cuts to sex.

“It goes from my son, straight to her on the couch,” said ‘Joe,’ who saw the video along with his son and did not wish to be identified. “My son’s reaction was, ‘Dad, is that Ms. Defanti?'”

Parents today see no problem with entrusting their children to whores.

Finally, I have been linked by someone called Theo to “proof” that feminism is a Jewish plot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_feminists
Dude, are you sure you’re not a feminist? This is totally their style of logic: 1. Jewish feminists exist. 2. Therefore, feminism is a Jewish plot.

As an exercise, make a list of shiksa feminists. Or examine the Old Testament and see how much feminism you find in it. Matter of fact, I’ve seen essays by Christian feminists who try to evade their faith’s clear instructions about the relationship between the sexes by blaming it all on – you guessed it – The Jooz. If it weren’t for the historical coincidence that, um, God decided that His Son would be born into a Jewish family, then Christianity wouldn’t have inherited the misogyny of The Jooz and women would have spent their lives screwing around out of marriage and being women’s studies professors and senatresses for the past 2000 years.

He(?) also called me an unprintable name, no doubt figuring that this would increase the likelihood of my approving his comment, and suggested I write a post about why women should never have been taught to read or write.

Do I need to point out that the people who espouse feminism and other liberal bullshit are the same gasbags who claim that Israel is a Naziesque state because it heinously defends itself against Palestinian terrorists who are trying to murder all the Jewish Israelis they can? And who generally support allowing terrorism in the Middle East to thrive, terrorism which is a threat to Western countries but a much greater one to Israel? And that most Jewish feminists are the “self-hating” Jews who buy into all that bullshit?

Yes, I probably do.

Link Dump

July 23, 2009

To test the idea that people use conformity strategically to signal agreeableness, Vladas Griskevicius and his colleagues ran another “mating prime” study. They expected a sex difference, because women have a stronger preference than men do for mates who display assertiveness, dominance, leadership, and risk taking. So, mating primed males may try to display these lower-agreeableness traits through conspicuous anti-conformity  by resisting and rebelling against peer influence. On the other hand, mating-primed females may try to display their higher-agreeableness traits (kindness, empathy, social networking ability) through conspicuous conformity to peer influence.

From Spent: Evolution and Consumer Behavior, via Delenda est Carthago.

Bad guys really do get the most girls

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.

Bottled Water: Bad for Males, Good for Females

The Department of Aquatic Ecotoxicology at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, found that plastic mineral water bottles contaminate drinking water with estrogenic chemicals. In an analysis1 of commercially available mineral waters, the researchers found evidence of estrogenic compounds leaching out of the plastic packaging into the water. What’s more, these chemicals are potent in vivo and result in an increased development of embryos in the New Zealand mud snail. These findings show for the first time that substances leaching out of plastic food packaging materials act as functional estrogens.

When I first learned about this, I tried to avoid consuming things that had been contained in plastic. After a couple of days I realized that this is impossible in the modern world.

A Female World

My male students are really adapting and faking to be sensitive fashion-aware feminized creatures, all in an attempt to score. That is what girls want, so that is how men will be. It took me a few years to recognize that the sensitive, unmanly young male students I meet in the university are not homosexuals, but perfectly normal males trying to get near the super-attractive semi-nude girls so abundant on the campus. They talk about feelings and astrology, they hate any show of violence or force. They hide their maleness, they adopt soft and sensitive forms of speech, they wear girlie pastel-colored blouses and soft-texture pantaloons, they are as unthreatening as they come. Welcome, new world.

Link Dump

July 10, 2009

I just got back from the gym. In the locker room, I overheard a conversation that amused me. It was a few older women who were married to Korean War veterans. Their husbands, they related, say that despite getting shot at and having just enough money to live on, the years in the Army were the best time of their lives. Why? One of them summed it up: “No problems with women.” I was snickering into my locker.

Tough Love by Theodore Dalrymple (Everything this man has written is worth reading. Also seek out his essays under his real name, Anthony Daniels.)

Last week, a 17-year-old girl was admitted to my ward with such acute alcohol poisoning that she could scarcely breathe by her own unaided efforts, alcohol being a respiratory depressant. When finally she woke, 12 hours later, she told me that she had been a heavy drinker since the age of 12….

I asked her whether she thought a young and violent burglar would have proved much of a companion. She admitted that he wouldn’t, but said that he was the type she liked; besides which—in slight contradiction—all boys were the same.

I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and violent boyfriends, unless she changed her life. I told her that in the past few days, I had seen two women patients who had had their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull broken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a tenth-floor window to the tune of, “Die, you bitch!”

“I can look after myself,” said my 17-year-old.

“But men are stronger than women,” I said. “When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage.”

“That’s a sexist thing to say,” she replied.

A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and of feminism in particular.

“But it’s a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact,” I said.

“It’s sexist,” she reiterated firmly.

A stubborn refusal to face inconvenient facts, no matter how obvious, now pervades our attitude toward relations between the sexes. An ideological filter of wishful thinking strains out anything we’d prefer not to acknowledge about these eternally difficult and contested relations, with predictably disastrous results.

Evan shared this link with me, about a false rape accusation:

The story of prisoner F95488

Women tough on missteps of friends

Traditional views hold that women are more socially co-operative than men, but researchers from the Université du Québec à Montréal, Harvard University and Emmanuel College in Boston found female same-sex friendships are significantly less tolerant, more volatile, and likelier to degrade based on a single negative incident than male same-sex friendships.

Having had female friends, I can believe it. Hat tip: Davout.

Sacrificing our children

Regular readers will know that I disagree with a lot of this blogger’s beliefs, but this post is nonetheless valuable.

Some of my acquaintances seem to regard my concern as being alarmist, but look at this story about the fate of a young women with the typical high ideals.

The remarks of the young woman’s parents are also a textbook example of politically correct denial. Far better, apparently, to sacrifice your children than to think ill of anyone, at least, anyone from the world’s protected groups.

Another way in which many people deal with this kind of news story is to proclaim that it’s an anomaly; that most such young women don’t come to a violent end, or that in any case, it might just as easily have happened right here at home. The latter is the rationalization of the bereaved parents in the above story.

But her fate was not exactly a freakish, one-in-a-million occurrence, as similar stories show.
And if the comments following the above-linked article are still there (they may not necessarily be), you will see that a few other young women state that they were assaulted during their volunteer stints in such countries.

I have a lot more links that I’ve accumulated, but I don’t want to overwhelm you guys, so I’ll keep posting a few a day until they’re all posted.

November 15, 2008

How warfare shaped human evolution

Chimpanzees don’t go to war in the way we do because they lack the abstract thought required to see themselves as part of a collective that expands beyond their immediate associates, says Wrangham. However, “the real story of our evolutionary past is not simply that warfare drove the evolution of social behaviour,” says Samuel Bowles, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and the University of Siena, Italy. The real driver, he says, was “some interplay between warfare and the alternative benefits of peace”.

Though women seem to help broker harmony within groups, says Van Vugt, men may be better at peacekeeping between groups.

Gandhi: A Malign Inspiration to Women

August 3, 2008

Today I heard somebody talking about Gandhi. Now, don’t misunderstand me: I’m not criticizing him. But I think he’s the source, though in some cases removed a few times, of the prevalent notions women have today that they can end violent behavior through means other than violence.

Before the 20th century, nobody was silly enough to believe that there was any way to stop a tyrant from slaughtering people, Indians from burning widows alive, or little boys from beating up little girls, aside from force.

Nowadays, Western women actually become angry if anyone suggests that female genital mutilation or stoning women for adultery ought to be stopped by force. Gentle pressure and education, they insist, are the only effective means for stopping such things. I’m sure that’s a comfort to the women who are being maimed and murdered while the West stands by gently pressuring their attackers.

A few years back, there was actually an article in Vanity Fair that seriously said that we shouldn’t overthrow dictators by military force because if we don’t, they might stop oppressing and slaughtering on their own. Yeah, that worked real well with Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Saddam… oh wait.

I believe that they have taken the example of Gandhi and turned his actions into a general principle, which they aren’t. His tactics worked because the people he was opposing were the honorable English, who were, generally speaking, too decent to keep on assaulting people who weren’t defending themselves. The strategy relies on the morals of one’s opponent. If one’s opponent does not have morals, IT ISN’T GOING TO WORK. One of those sci-fi writers who writes alternative history novels wrote one about Gandhi using his nonviolent resistance against Nazis. The Nazis shot him. There went his resistance! Indeed, the real Gandhi himself stated that had he been dealing with Nazis instead of Englishmen, his tactics would have been far different.

A lot of the silly women who presume to say that they know how to deal with barbaric behavior don’t know much about Gandhi, but the notion that his tactics are across the boards effective has trickled down. Sort of like how many second-rate fantasy authors have never read the works of Margaret Mead, but nonetheless reproduce her inaccurate account of blissful Samoan promiscuity quite faithfully, having inherited the ideas at a remove of three or four imitative authors.

It’s only to be expected that women will latch on to this tactic. Why? Because it’s one that women are capable of doing. In fact, it’s one they’re better at, since the tactic requires nothing more than passivity, something which comes naturally to women. Force requires muscles, courage, and large guns – not things women are likely to have or be able to acquire.

EDIT: I only have a very general knowledge of Indian history. I think that the women who were inspired by Gandhi’s story probably got it from the hagiographic movie about him, not from the actual historical figure. Comments elucidating the historical facts concerning him are welcome!

Gandhi: A Malign Inspiration to Women

August 3, 2008

Today I heard somebody talking about Gandhi. Now, don’t misunderstand me: I’m not criticizing him. But I think he’s the source, though in some cases removed a few times, of the prevalent notions women have today that they can end violent behavior through means other than violence.

Before the 20th century, nobody was silly enough to believe that there was any way to stop a tyrant from slaughtering people, Indians from burning widows alive, or little boys from beating up little girls, aside from force.

Nowadays, Western women actually become angry if anyone suggests that female genital mutilation or stoning women for adultery ought to be stopped by force. Gentle pressure and education, they insist, are the only effective means for stopping such things. I’m sure that’s a comfort to the women who are being maimed and murdered while the West stands by gently pressuring their attackers.

A few years back, there was actually an article in Vanity Fair that seriously said that we shouldn’t overthrow dictators by military force because if we don’t, they might stop oppressing and slaughtering on their own. Yeah, that worked real well with Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Saddam… oh wait.

I believe that they have taken the example of Gandhi and turned his actions into a general principle, which they aren’t. His tactics worked because the people he was opposing were the honorable English, who were, generally speaking, too decent to keep on assaulting people who weren’t defending themselves. The strategy relies on the morals of one’s opponent. If one’s opponent does not have morals, IT ISN’T GOING TO WORK. One of those sci-fi writers who writes alternative history novels wrote one about Gandhi using his nonviolent resistance against Nazis. The Nazis shot him. There went his resistance! Indeed, the real Gandhi himself stated that had he been dealing with Nazis instead of Englishmen, his tactics would have been far different.

A lot of the silly women who presume to say that they know how to deal with barbaric behavior don’t know much about Gandhi, but the notion that his tactics are across the boards effective has trickled down. Sort of like how many second-rate fantasy authors have never read the works of Margaret Mead, but nonetheless reproduce her inaccurate account of blissful Samoan promiscuity quite faithfully, having inherited the ideas at a remove of three or four imitative authors.

It’s only to be expected that women will latch on to this tactic. Why? Because it’s one that women are capable of doing. In fact, it’s one they’re better at, since the tactic requires nothing more than passivity, something which comes naturally to women. Force requires muscles, courage, and large guns – not things women are likely to have or be able to acquire.

Women always sleep with conquerors

July 19, 2008

Context: French Women’s Choices During the Occupation

Over at Discarded Lies, there is a discussion going on about the extent and nature of French women’s involvement with occupying German men during WWII. Posted below is my contribution to the discussion, which raises some key issues about France in this period that are often overlooked by American commentators:….

I don’t think many non-French realize just how many family men in their prime were captured and what this meant to life in France post-truce. There was hardly a family who was not directly affected and the POW issue would dominate French life for the entire war.

The great majority of these POWs were rural men, who left behind women and children without the primary source of management and labor for the productive side of the family’s farm.

The result was a great deal of misery and desperation. Many of the small city to rural women who took on a German boyfriend did so to find a way to ameliorate their desparate condition. Research is quite clear that many of these cases were actually just outright prostitution, though a more typical case was the Germans billeted at French houses and farms forming a close relationship with the woman of the house/farm, to mutual benefit.

I’m not prepared to condemn outright a French woman for securing access to needed farm seeds, an exemption for her teenage son from German labor conscription or just food in such circumstances.

I’m quoting this because it points out something I’ve mentioned several times: that straight women always sleep with their conquerors. Which is why we don’t want them involved in making policy decisions, or even picking those who will make them.

I’m not condemning these Frenchwomen. It would be silly to criticize them for doing something that millions of years of evolution designed them to do.

On the other hand, because of that same evolutionary program, women are no more designed to wield power than cats are to herding sheep.

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.

The reason for the anti-war movement

June 23, 2008

I just read a quote from some old novel about how a petty criminal became a moral person after serving in the army during the First World War. The experience taught him the value of courage and sacrifice and so on.

This was quoted on some blog with a bemused comment about the quaint point of view people had back then.

Then it occurred to me the real reason behind the anti-war movement. Anti-war nuts have made it clear that they are indifferent to human suffering and death; they clearly understand that the only way to prevent dictatorships from committing mass murder and torture is to go to war, but they don’t want to do it.

It’s because military service, whether it involves an actual war or not, is an experience that makes men out of boys. And men – real men – are a lethal threat to the totalitarian forces that are promoting feminism, as well as to feminists themselves. A silly woman who has been convinced by her professors that she is the equal of men isn’t going to be able to preserve this delusion when she is faced with men who have risked their lives, put themselves on the line for their comrades, and accepted the responsibility of taking another human life so that others may be spared.

(Women do take human lives, but for their own convenience rather than to save innocent lives, and they get a doctor, usually male, to do the dirty work while they’re unconscious, rather than doing it themselves.)

And real men are not going to turn all their rights, property, and responsibilities over to a government. They know that it’s their place to do things themselves. Only women and manginas will allow themselves to be taken over.

Thus the real motivation behind anti-war movements: it’s a practical way of preventing the male of the species from growing testicles.

In spite of themselves we must protect the ladies!"

January 17, 2008

“Nothing can be done, or if it can I don’t know what it is. No man respects and admires women more than I do, but some women have faults and the fault most commonly found is a seemingly insatiable desire to interfere in matters they do not understand. War they understand least and from it they instinctively recoil. There is danger in this situation. Women now have the vote and outnumber the men. There must be some action by the men which will bring women to realize that it is for their comfort and protection that all wars are fought. It is to the interest of women that they permit men to obtain the necessary armament. Only in this way can they be assured of the comfort and protection they need. In spite of themselves we must protect the ladies!”
~Admiral Bradley A. Fiske, 1925