Senior educated white male.

Senior educated white male.

Madame speaks about Harvey Weinstein

 

“Did it ever occur to you how you look to them?”

My wife had an insightful comment about Harvey Weinstein and men in general. She said that it often does not occur to men that a woman might not want to have sex, then, there, at that time of day, over the back of a chair, or on the desk, on the spur of the moment, while she is dressed, under lights, in an office, on the floor, just then. Just because a man is randy doesn’t make her equally turned on. Women are so choosy, choosy.

And it occurred to me from recollecting my earlier life that some situations were best explained by the idea that women often are not in the mood. I do not know why, but they are frequently not in the mood. Go figure. Whereas I was in the mood from the age of 16 onward. And pulling out a hard dick does not constitute foreplay, but frequently might be seen as an unwelcome advance. I do not understand why women are like this, but they are.

Failure to adjust to these realities can get heterosexual men into an awful scrape.

Harvey ought to have known better.

Quebec’s Niqab Ban

I am in favour of it. It is appropriately targeted discrimination. It targets Muslim women who feel compelled to cover their faces in public. People do not cover their faces in public unless they have reasons to fear being looked at or identified. In the case of Muslim women, it is the fear of being subject to the lustful gaze of males who are not their husbands.

Quebec insists, rightly or wrongly, in the assertion of collective values over the choices of individuals. In Quebec and the rest of the western world, women are in general forced to cover themselves from above the breasts to above the knees. We do not think twice about it except when a woman wants to go topless somewhere else than the beach. Even toplessness at the beach is considered provocative in most places. Yet these rules exist and police enforce them. Men as well as women are frequently told by store signs: “No shirt, no shoes, no service”. This is plainly discriminatory, and society generally agrees with the discrimination.

The National Post today is filled with shrill defences of the right of Islamic women to be shamed into covering their faces. Who do you think enforces the shaming? Islamic men, of a particular and strictly Islamic disposition. Body shaming of this sort is the worst form of misogyny, and reinforces power of the Islamic shame culture. Quebec society has had the guts to say no, as in just say no to Islamic body shaming. Is this discriminatory? You betcha.Is it a just and reasonable discrimination? Yes, absolutely.

[The logic of this reasoning about the female face and the male gaze suggests that soon some women in universities will be covering their faces too, so as to escape the “male gaze”, one of the favoured tropes of feminist furies. Face coverings will be labelled progressive.]

In the Islamic idea of male-female relations, it is always the female who is responsible for inciting male lust. Males are not expected to show any control whatever; they are the passive victims of female provocations. The female is covered up to prevent public indecency, because women by their nature are indecent.

Quebec has shown much greater sense than the English-Canadian commentariat about the real reasons women wear the niqab, and much better sense that the collective has a right to insist of public standards of decorum, including not only what must be covered, but what must be uncovered.

 

 

Academic rot

Quotes:

We are producing graduates who have very little idea of the diversity of opinion in the real world.

Peanut allergies are rising because we are not exposing kids to peanuts. The same is occurring with conservative opinions.

You need to experience exclusion and intolerance in order to grow up.

Kids today are never out of sight of adult supervision.

“Bias response teams” are always available to be called in to mediate conflict. “Bubble-wrapped kids”.

What do universities do to promote interaction of different political viewpoints? Nothing. They are suffocating it.

Slurs replace argument. Kids learn to slur, not argue.

The key to the new morality is a method of looking at society as a matter of power and privilege. That is the only perspective they learn. Privilege is bad, victimhood is good. One totalizing perspective. we are actually making students less wise.

Does the Left not  know that what they are doing is causing the election of Trump? [That’s Jonathan Haidt asking, not me]

 

 

Jonathan Haidt

Jonathan Haidt discusses the university political monoculture of leftism, victimhood, and social justice warriors. You gain prestige by invoking the university’s authority to settle your sensitivity issues with professors. Haidt links this tendency to changes in the American parenting style: a parent is always present, and kids never learn to settle things by themselves. He calls it a feminized culture. Liberty and freedom are not talked about; diversity and inclusion are always talked about, and diversity never means diversity of opinion. A gigantic staff of therapists supervizes the playground. “We need to change diversity training”, he says. That is a code for changing the moral education of students.

 

 

Amy Wax

I need not dilate further on this woman’s virtues of bravery and truth telling. That she remains so free from rancor after her recent experience of the left-wing mob of law professors howling for her head is  a testament to her character. And she is right, the university is rendering itself irrelevant, and the question we tax payers must ask is: why are we paying these people?

Why are we paying for universities? What are we getting from them but ill-educated mobs of leftists? Indeed, positively badly educated people, who think they know everything and really know nothing.

 

 

 

You might also want to look at Heterodox Academy for a statement of the underlying problem.

The Problem

Harvey, we always knew ya

 

Harvey Weinstein’s fall from power has shown:

  1. everyone knew about his behaviour for years;
  2. no one could do anything about it without immense moral courage, and indeed so great was Weinstein’s power over careers that it would have been fatal to denounce him;
  3. Hollywood does not cherish moral courage unless it is to attack white racism, the Catholic Church, Nazis or other left-wing bugaboos where the struggle has already been won;
  4. the downfall is happening now because the political cover provided by the Clintonescus is gone (does anyone imagine that this would be happening if Hillary were President?);
  5. the industry that makes money mocking Christianity, hating Catholicism, and degrading morality and ordinary American beliefs, now loses its moral cover.

Of the things most to be hoped for, it is the destruction of the influence of these savagely immoral nihilists in Hollywood. Another pillar of the American Democratic Party is collapsing. Wall Street took a hit in 2007, but still stands, as rich and as disgraced as ever. I can only hope that Black Lives Matter and Anti-Fa are next, and that their dooms will be final.

It is an agreeable event when all one’s prejudices about a corrupt institution are confirmed.

Trump may be a raving loon – I still think not -but there are many and considerable benefits to his having taken power.  Do you think it is merely accidental that Weinstein is being exposed now, when the Democrats are out of power in Washington? And there will soon be no Vanity Fair soon to applaud the ogre, as the mouthpiece of fashionable Democratic show-biz political twaddle will soon go through a massive downsizing, the prospect of which caused its editor, Graydon Carter, to resign before he had to chop his friends from jobs.

Vanity Fair reports:

Outside of Hollywood, Weinstein built a reputation as a strong Democratic supporter, donating at least $1.4 million to candidates, parties, and political action committees over the years, per Variety.

I read with interest Graydon Carter’s recounting of his various encounters with Trump.

Carter’s conclusion was written in October 2016

[Trump] has touched—embraced!—every third rail in American politics. He has offended (and I apologize if I’ve left some group out): African-Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, Jews, Muslims, war heroes—war heroes!—families of war heroes, the disabled, women, and babies. Babies! Through word or action, Trump has promoted gun violence, bigotry, ignorance, intolerance, lying, and just about everything else that can be wrong with a society. And yet he marches on, playing to a constituency that just doesn’t seem to care. The thing is, this ramshackle campaign, following a ramshackle business career, has exposed his flaws and failures to the world and, more importantly, to the people he will brush up against for the rest of his life. To them he is now officially a joke. I suspect he knows this. And if his thin skin on minor matters is any indication, he will be lashing out with even more vitriol. He is a mad jumble of a man, with a slapdash of a campaign and talking points dredged from the dark corners at the bottom of the Internet. I don’t think he will get to the White House, but just the fact that his carny act has gotten so far along the road will leave the path with a permanent orange stain. Trump, more than even the most craven politicians or entertainers, is a bottomless reservoir of need and desire for attention. He lives off crowd approval. And at a certain point that will dim, as it always does to people like him, and the cameras will turn to some other American novelty. When that attention wanes, he will be left with his press clippings, his dyed hair, his fake tan, and those tiny, tiny fingers.

 

It gives me a measure of satisfaction to observe that Harvey Weinstein is now disgraced, Graydon carter is out, and Trump is still President. I grant you, my standards are low, but they have to be in this disgusting era.

Taleb on Trump

 

Published on May 18, 2017, and still relevant. Trump, says Taleb, is trying to do the right things. He is trying to get rid of the metastasizing growth of bureaucracy caused by tax codes and ecological fantasies of clean energy.  Trump has never had a boss in his entire life. Second point, does Trump gain from stress and turmoil? Essay question: Is Trump an anti-fragile President?

Like all market people, they overemphasize the role of the stock market, but that is their professional deformation. But on the main issues, Taleb has pointed out the essential features of Trump’s nature and program.

 

Men!

The morally inferior second sex is at it again. Yet another phenomenon which is good for men is held to be bad for women. Or so says a ridiculous study highlighted in today’s National Post. The study can be downloaded here.

The Findings

“The rise of the bromance “is very, very good for men,” said one of its authors, Professor Adam White . It offers young men the opportunity for, as the research found, “elevated emotional stability, enhanced emotional disclosure, social fulfilment and better conflict resolution, compared to the emotional lives they shared with girlfriends.”

“€œBeyond the need for sex, we found that for this cohort of men, bromances performed a very similar, and often superior function to romances.”

“But it’s not necessarily benefiting women, and in fact it may well be disadvantaging them,” White said.

“What happens in 50 years, say, if these bromantic relationships really take off and men decide, ‘Hang on, we really enjoy these. These are much better. We can gain more emotionality from it. We’re less regulated, we’re less policed,’” White said. “And therefore women actually just become the sexual fulfillers of men and nothing else. That’s the worrying aspect.”

Dalwhinnie predicts

Men will withdraw until their price goes up. Women who figure out that a man is a relatively scarce phenomenon first will prosper. And then watch the pendulum swing.

But just look at how this piece of sociology is constructed.

Sample size:

Would you base your important social findings on 30 interviews about the “bromantic” lives of male undergrads? In short it appears that the authors sought young hetero men who were living with other young hetero men.  Thirty interviews now constitutes real science, or sociology, at least.

Publication

The study  was published in Men and Masculinities, a journal ranked as 68th out of 138 in the category of sociology, according to Wikipedia.

Analysis, Dalwhinnie

For the past forty years we have been inundated in feminist blather – you know the line: over-privileged and frequently over-promoted middle class achieving women whining about the arduous nature of their sex’s role, the fact that everything that goes wrong in their lives is either the fault of men or biology, the patriarchy and anything but their characters and talents. Men growing up in the period since 1970 have heard nothing else.

It has always been true that the emotional lives of both sexes have been principally with their own sex, and that the relations between the two sexes were economic, sexual, and pro-genitive – they were purpose-driven, when the primary point of existence was progenitive (child-productive) marriage. The notion that the primary emotional bonds of men are exclusively with women, and women with men, is about as old as Betty Friedan.

 

I overheard in a bar last week a mannish woman and a feminine man strongly agreeing that:

  • women were shortly to be earning more than men
  • men would be relegated to second-class status
  • this would in some real sense be a desirable state of affairs
  • Young women were calling each other sluts as a term of approval, and not without reason.

So, let us review the state of affairs in the contemporary western world:

  • carping women with a deep sense of both grievance and entitlement;
  • people who cannot control their emotions (principally young sheltered women) insisting that other people then must control their own behaviour;
  • males who find that their freedom of expression and action is severely curtailed by their girlfriends;
  • declining male participation in overtly feminized educational (read ideological training) institutions;
  • An ideological environment in which the moral superiority of the female is endlessly proclaimed;
  • people talking about “campus rape culture” as if such as things existed outside the fevered brains of the lesbian thought police;
  • women seeking casual sex, and getting it, while complaining about men’s lack of commitment;

leading to

  • lack of family formation
  • population decline

I would say the problem is self-solving. And no, I do not think this is a sustainable state of affairs. It is sheer moral, social and cultural decadence.

But if a few straight guys want to live together and experience fraternity for a few years, that is “bad for women”. Let me be clear: what women want is men who are not going to kow-tow to feminist crap. Men will not argue the point, they will simply exemplify being men. Women may not say so, but leadership must come from the male. Males have done so for as long as there have been humans and men will continue to do so, despite anything you read.

Those men in need of strong remedial therapy from feminine domination are invited to explore a Sterling Men’s Weekend. More traditional methods of getting out of the house for respectable masculine company of a civilized sort are invited to enquire about the Masons. Masonic Lodges are active in every provincial, state, and local jurisdiction in every place formerly a part of the British, Romanoff and Hapsburg empires from Chile to Canada, and Russia to Australia.

The word “bromance” and articles like this suggest the Matriarchy is starting to be worried. They should be. Men have always gotten along. Now it appears to be quasi-revolutionary.

Or you can just watch Jordan Peterson.

My answer to aboriginal political exploitation of liberal guilt about their dire fate

 

From Francis Parkman, France and England in North America, volume 1,  Chapter XXIII, 1645-1648,  A Doomed Nation

It was a strange and miserable spectacle to behold the savages of this continent at the time when the knell of their common ruin had already sounded. Civilization had gained a foothold on their borders. The long and gloomy reign of barbarism was drawing near its close, and their united efforts could scarcely have availed to sustain it. Yet, in this crisis of their destiny, these doomed tribes were tearing each other’s throats in a wolfish fury, joined to an intelligence that served little purpose but mutual destruction.

Read Parkman on the early relations between whites and “Indians”, and among Indians themselves. It is a tale of ghastly tortures, raids, massacres, enslavements, kidnappings and discriminate slaughters of men, women and children by Indians, our native brethren, of other Indians and whites. Do not believe a word of this stereotype of Indians as the peaceful ecological guardians; they were engaged in a wars of brutish domination. The Iroquois tribal alliance triumphed over Huron and other tribal alliances from Hudson’s Bay to Tennessee. The Iroquois alliance exterminated the Hurons and the Neutrals; even the Nazis did not get all the Jews, nor the Turks the entire Armenian nation. And do not think I mean any insult to the Haudenosay Alliance; they were just the victors in the situation, as were the Aztecs in Mexico.

As to the Aztecs, no understanding of Amerindian culture can take place without reading the Conquest of New Spain, by Bernal Diaz.   The Aztec culture was based on ritual slaughter of victims whose hearts were torn out of their chests as they lay across stone altars at the top of cués, those sacrifice pyramids visited by tourists (which I view as an Auschwitz raised into a publicly proclaimed religion). Human sacrifice was their Mass. It was depicted in Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto. It is recorded that on the accession of Moctezuma to the Speakership of the Aztecs, 30,000 captives were slaughtered and eaten in a gigantic cannibal feast. In 1521, on the final assault of Cortez’ band across the causeways that protected the city of Mexico, some of the Spanish were captured. This is what happened:

“the dismal drum of Huichilobos [the Aztec sun god] sounded again, accompanied by conches, horns, and trumpet-like instruments. It was a terrifying sound, and when we looked at the tall cue from which it came we wsaw our comrades who had been captured in Cortes’ defeat being dragged up the steps to be sacrificed. When they had hauled them up to a small platform in front of the shrine where they kept their accursed idols we saw them put plumes on the heads of many of them; and then they made them dance with a sort of fan in front of Huichilobos. Then after they had danced the papas laid them down on their backs on some narrow stones of sacrifice and, cutting open their chests, drew out their palpitating hearts which they offered to the idols before them. Then they kicked the bodies down the steps, and the Indian butchers who were waiting  below cut off their arms and legs and flayed their faces , which they afterward prepared like glove leather, with their beards on, and kept for their drunken festivals. Then they ate their flesh with a sauce of peppers and tomatoes. They sacrificed all our men this way, eating their legs and arms, offering their hearts and blood to their idols as I have said, and throwing their trunks and entrails to the lions and tigers and serpents and snakes that they kept in the wild beast houses I have described in an earlier chapter.

The Conquest of New Spain is a book of such astonishing marvels and ghastly deeds that it reads more like a science-fictional account of an alien planet than it does a sober history, but it has the rare distinction of being an account of what an intelligent young soldier actually saw with his own eyes. Its veracity is overwhelming.

Do not weep with false pity for our North American Indians; they fought us every step of the way and the last resisters did not lay down arms until the early 20th century.

At the core of Amerindian religious conceptions was human sacrifice.  Even Quakers would have taken up arms against it.

Torture and human sacrifice of captives is not the whole story, nor is it a balanced story. But it happened, was endemic, and made wars with and among Indians particularly horrible.

The next time you hear some twat announce that he is giving a speech on traditional territories of the Ottawa, Huron, etc, do something rude.

 

PS: For more of the same, see the article in the Federalist on the same topic. Everyone has a cannibal and a slaver up the bloodline.

Iroquois Indian scalping white man in Canada from Encyclopedia of Voyages 1796 by Grasset de Saint Saveur and Labrousse