Thursday, 16 April 2015

Don't be "nice"

http://www.potentash.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/nice_guys_finish_last_by_keokotheshadowfang-d4slzex.jpg

The other day, Didact Sr. and I were having a conversation in which my father uttered perhaps the most unusual words I've ever heard him say. We were discussing my sister and her rather irritating self-centred tendencies. It was at about the point where I was grumbling, albeit rather half-heartedly, about the fact that my sister tends to be all over the males in the family when she needs something but then conveniently forgets to keep in touch when she doesn't, that my dad pretty much said, point-blank, that "All Women Are Like That".

Now, for any Recovering Nice Guy out there, this is not news. There is nothing surprising or novel about the fact that women are selfish, narcissistic, manipulative, and capable of inflicting terrible damage upon the male ego and sense of self. This has been known for millennia- I believe there's a rather old book called "the Bible" which has quite a lot to say about the character of women, and about why their worst excesses must be contained.

No, what was astonishing about this particular exchange is that this is perhaps the first time that I can remember where my father has uttered words that are so transparently "red-pill".

It's not that my father isn't worldly or wise. You don't stay happily married to the same woman for 35 years (and counting) without being the unquestionable head of the family, the leader in all aspects of the relationship, and the masculine rock upon which the safety, comfort, and stability of your family are founded. A weak, effeminate, emasculated man cannot do this. This is partly why my father is the man who commands my highest and deepest respect; as every good father has always done through the ages, my father taught me how to be strong, independent, and confident.

Yet there were many things that he did not teach me, which I had to figure out for myself. For starters, my father never taught me how to fight, how to lift weights, or- most importantly- how to understand women. These things just didn't come up in conversation. Which makes it all the more surprising when the son, whose intellectual path of discovery has diverged so significantly from the father's, hears pure red-pill wisdom coming from that same father's mouth.

Having dropped a rather unusual bomb on me, he proceeded to point out that, if I was not careful, I would find out the hard way that women in my life would take advantage of my natural masculine tendency to want to help and protect them, and would use it mercilessly for their own ends.

And again, he was right.

Every institution around us, from our schools to our churches to our workplaces and our governments, have attempted to condition us for the last 40 years to believe that a man should be "nice" and considerate at all times. According to these harbingers of civilisational collapse, the ideal man is inoffensive, tolerant, non-confrontational, and accommodating in manner, speech, body language, and comportment.

You will notice, by the way, that all of these traits are the same ones that women constantly claim to want in a man- and yet, when shown men who actually conform to these archetypes, are visibly repulsed by them.

Every one of these archetypes is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a man. Every one of them is designed to tear down the great gift of masculinity, and replace it with femininity.

Now, let us be clear about a few things.

First and foremost, let no one be deceived about this- both masculinity and femininity are great gifts. A masculine man is a man to be admired, respected, and deferred to. A feminine woman is to be admired, respected, and taken care of.

Second, and just as importantly, masculinity and femininity are gifts that work for very specific recipients. By definition, masculinity is a gift intended for use by men, which is why both men and women find effete and feminine men to be deeply unsettling. Also by definition, femininity is a gift intended exclusively for use by women, which is of course also why both men and women find butch women rather revolting.

Third, while it is true that women are selfish, narcissistic, and manipulative, it is also true that they are caring, sweet, and valuable. Women are what they are; raging against their bad qualities is every bit as stupid and as short-sighted as blowing their good ones out of all proportion.

From these basic observations comes a very simple but very important lesson: being "nice" is a losing strategy.

The reality is that being "nice" is not an asset. "Nice" is simply a euphemism for "pushover". A "nice" man is not really a man worthy of respect- not if you think about it carefully.

A "nice" man is one who has a warped and dysfunctional view of reality. A "nice" man is incapable of seeing the world for what it truly is. A "nice" man can never aspire to be a real man, because his conception of masculinity is completely wrong.

Being "nice" doesn't get you the girl. It doesn't get you your next promotion. It doesn't win you friends. It doesn't influence people. It simply tells the world that you are a doormat, to be trodden upon and used as others please.

So why does society place such massive emphasis on "nice" men, when being "nice" is so clearly a losing and foolish strategy from both a theoretical and an empirical point of view?

The basic reason comes down to modern Western society's fundamental misunderstanding of masculinity. The West's major cultural institutions have been infiltrated thoroughly and completely by cultural Marxists, sodomites, feminists, and all manner of other unsavoury and intellectual enfeebled characters, all of whom hate Western civilisation and the explicitly masculine values upon which it was founded. It is therefore no surprise that the modern West, and by extension the modern Western (or Western-raised) man finds himself in dire straights when it comes to understanding what it means to "be a man".

Even our churches have fallen prey to the folly of preaching the virtues of being "nice" over the virtues of being strong and confident. Churchians love to preach about how the Lord Christ told them to "turn the other cheek" and that "the meek shall inherit". What they forget to mention is that Christ wasn't telling His followers to be weak and cowardly; rather, He was telling them that retaliation often as not leads to further escalation, and that in order to avoid the wanton destruction that comes with such escalation, a Christian must know when to be the bigger man and let go of his petty grievances. Christ was preaching the overwhelming importance of keeping a sense of perspective.

This is admittedly probably easier when you are an extension of the omnipotent and infinitely merciful creator-God made flesh to walk among Mankind than it is for your average man. But the point remains.

The reality is that manliness does not mean being "nice". It means being polite. There is a huge difference between the two, but in our modern Alice-in-Wonderland world where words have little concrete meaning, they are often and incorrectly conflated.

A masculine man is not fawning, or sycophantic, or overly accommodating. He is polite. He greets the world with dignity and composure. He refuses to let the little things overwhelm him. He treats people with dignity and grace, but he never panders to them. He treats women with gentleness and kindness, but he never subordinates his needs to theirs. He refuses to compromise on the things that are most important to him, whatever those might be. He is independent, reliable, honourable, honest, courageous, strong, and respectful.

What does this mean in practice? Well, about 2 years ago I wrote a post about how the words "Just Be Yourself" are probably the three most dangerous words you'll ever hear. Commenter Spartan set me straight by pointing out that, in fact, "being yourself" is no bad thing if you are someone worthy of respect. This is how he put it:
I had been set up on a blind date by a woman I had been casually sleeping with. She had a colleague at work that was single and looking. Her advice was to me was "just be yourself and it should go great". It didn't go as well as I was hoping and then next time I saw the woman who set me up she said "Wow you sure screwed that one up. She told me that you were very nice but not what she was looking for right now. What the hell?" I gave her a puzzled look and she replied "You aren't nice. You're polite. There's a huge difference. I told you to be yourself and it sounds like you weren't. Had you been yourself, you wouldn't have spent more than 30 minutes in the restaurant.
And in that simple story lies the difference between being "nice" and being polite.

Being "nice" is a sign of weakness and compliance. Being polite is a form of strength expressed through self-control- which all men must have in order to create a functional and civilised society.

The polite man- the gentleman- controls the darkest and most dangerous urges of masculinity in order to get what he wants through persuasion and the use of power, both subtle and overt. The nice man has no power at all, and attempts to compensate for it through supplication.

So the next time a girl, or a co-worker, or a relative, tells you that you're really nice, don't take it as a compliment. It is not. It is a warning sign of the highest order. You do not need to be nice. You need to be polite.

You need, in other words, to be masculine.

Or, as Sean Connery so eloquently put it:

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

Messing up matriarchy

By William Bond, comments by Rasa Von Werder…..4 9 14

Recently I finished up Karen Traviss's final book of the Kilo-Five Trilogy, titled HALO: Mortal Dictata. The book itself was interesting enough, I suppose; at any rate, her work in the HALOverse did a lot to raise my dismally poor opinion of her work, after having suffered through the godawful hatchet job that she pulled in the STAR WARS Expanded Universe novels that she wrote a few years back.

The book itself was interesting for a number of reasons, but one of the most intriguing ideas posed within it was the notion that the Jackals of the HALOverse live in a matriarchy.

Now, a female sci-fi writer bloviating about the virtues of matriarchy is nothing new. They've been doing it for decades, usually with next to zero success. The fact that Ms. Traviss decided to introduce a matriarchy into the HALO universe is not of interest to me- it was bound to happen sooner or later.

No, what interests me is the fact that even women don't understand how to accurately depict a matriarchy.

If you read through the book itself, you'll quickly realise that although there is a female Kig-Yar character who gets rather a lot of time allocated to her in the novel, the Kig-Yar in the book are almost all male. The female in question, one Shipmistress Chol Von, is in fact surrounded by an escort of male subordinates most of the time.

In a supposedly matriarchal society, males do the fighting, the technical work, and the messy business of killing and dying.

The fact is that, for all that feminists love to go on and on about the virtues of matriarchy, they have no clue what it really means or how it actually works. I once had a conversation with my own sister where she insisted that the reign of Elizabeth I of England was an example of a matriarchy. I had to patiently point out to her that, starting with Walsingham and on down through her advisors and the ranks of the English nobility, virtually every single other person in Her Majesty's government was male.

So what, exactly, is matriarchy? Well, if we go by simple dictionary definitions, it is a system in which women hold all political and institutional power. In practical terms, this means that women make the major decisions; women determine who gets to inherit property and wealth; women decide what is fair and just; women lead the armed forces at every level.

If such a society sounds utterly absurd to you, that is not surprising. This is because, in every way, the entire construct described above is completely contrary to the basic and fundamental nature of women.

It has been said, here and elsewhere, in a near-infinite variety of ways and shapes and forms, that women fundamentally do not seek to lead. They seek to be led. It takes a very unusual woman indeed to overcome her biological and psychological aversion to leadership and actually take charge- anyone who has ever had to work for a female boss knows what I'm talking about. It is incredibly rare to find a woman who is not only comfortable with the burdens and responsibilities of command, but relishes them.

It is precisely because matriarchy is so fundamentally at odds with human and feminine nature that it is nearly impossible for even the most feminist of female writers to come up with convincing examples of matriarchy in either theory or practice.

Surely, though, there must be real-life examples of matriarchy at work that would serve as templates for authors like Ms. Traviss to use in depicting such a society in realistic fashion?

As it happens, there are indeed. The results are entirely to be expected, as long as you look at the world through a realistic perspective.

The first example comes from a fascinating, and quite accidental, experiment conducted a few years ago on Dutch television. The experiment consisted of seeing what would happen when a team of men and a team of women were put on an island and told to get on with the harsh business of survival. As any red-pill man might expect, the blokes went about building something resembling civilisation, and the sheilas essentially spent their time sunbathing and cat-fighting.

So then the producers of the show, desperate not to offend the right-on public in the Netherlands- this was back when political correctness still made sense to most Europeans- they sent three of the men to the women's side of the island, and three of the women to the men's side.

The result was equally predictable. The men in the women's camp worked their butts off the compensate for the laziness and ineptitude of their companions. The women in the men's camp had a fantastic time because they got loads of male attention for free and barely had to lift a finger.

This is no random accident. It has been observed time and again in reality TV shows around the world with similar premises.

The second example comes from probably the most well-known case of a matriarchal society in the world- the Mosou of South China. This is a society in which power is concentrated entirely in the hands of women. Inheritance is determined through women. Men are subservient and subordinate to women in social hierarchy, sexual power, and overall rights.

It sounds like a feminist's wet dream. (Ewww...) There's just one big problem with it: the Mosou have not advanced in technological terms beyond pretty much the Bronze Age, if that. And because they have pacifistic tendencies- as matriarchies do- all it will take to wipe them out is a determined and ruthless invader who doesn't much care for niceties like "sparing the women and children". You may remember, by the way, that China has been host to quite a few such conquerors- all of them male.

The reality is that a matriarchy is what Jack Donovan called "the bonobo masturbation society", in which disputes are resolved not through straightforward contests of strength and power, but through subtle manipulations of language, out-grouping tactics, and sexual favours.

The problem is that such a society is almost completely unsuited to building and preserving a healthy, stable, self-propagating civilisation. Such a society is simply incapable of defending itself against external threats. It is not equipped to compete economically or politically with more ruthless competitors.

And it is absolutely incapable of fostering lasting pair-bonds between high-status men and high-status women; by definition, a matriarchy is a society in which high-status women have complete freedom to pick the highest-status man that they can, but the realities of hypergamy and its effects on men are such that it is all but guaranteed that high-status men will immediately move to greener pastures where their status, and the efforts that they put into securing that status, is rewarded.

In the final analysis, a matriarchy is impossible for most people to imagine because it is literally ridiculous. It doesn't work in reality, and therefore it is extremely difficult to make it work in theory- much like Marxism, in fact, which was so transparently idiotic an idea that an entire host of jargon and obfuscating literature had to be invented in order to make it look like it could work.

The fact is that Camille Paglia was right: "if civilisation was left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts". For final proof of that statement, look no farther than the Mosou, for Paglia's epigram is a roughly accurate description of their actual living standards.

Sunday, 12 April 2015

A very Gamma movie

Have you ever been so beta, that you hover handed cardboard

The other day I wrote up a post about Kingsman, possibly the best movie released in at least the last six months (and maybe even better than American Sniper), and one of the absolute best movies that I've ever seen. That movie delivers home truths about the masculine virtues and their indispensable importance in a society that is increasingly sick and weak and losing its way. It is an important movie in many ways, not least because it presents manliness, masculinity, and the values of a gentleman in a very positive (and extremely funny) manner, which is something that Hollywood films simply don't do anymore. Films like Kingsman are few and far between nowadays, and when something that is as brilliantly conceived and as well-executed as this is released to the public, it is worthy of note and respect.

Recently I had the "opportunity", if you want to call it that, to revisit a movie that is, in almost every way, the antithesis of Kingsman, and found the experience to be... illuminating, to say the least.

The film in question is A Million Ways to Die in the West, the personal vanity project produced by, directed by, and starring one Seth MacFarlane, the sometimes funny, often irritating, and always snarky creator of such cultural touchstones as Family Guy and Ted.

The man is undeniably talented- he is a gifted musician, voice actor, screen actor, writer, producer, and director. And if you looked at the trailers for his latest movie project, you would be forgiven for thinking that the movie is worth watching because of its side-splitting jokes and sarcastically entertaining storyline:





Unfortunately, this is one of those movies where all of the best and funniest jokes are told in the trailers themselves.

The first time I watched it, I found myself wondering how it was that a movie with such promise was let down so badly in its execution. Then, when Vox Day published his recent series of posts about Gamma males over at Alpha Game Plan, I suddenly realised exactly why this movie was such a letdown. It sucked because this movie embodies virtually every single trait of the Gamma male.

Snarky, witty loser of a protagonist? Check.

Protagonist has a cute girlfriend that he loses because she thinks he's a bit weedy? Check.

Protagonist desperately tries to win girlfriend back by showing her how he disarms his opponents with effortless snarky wit? Check.

Really hot woman finds her way into protagonist's life and begins to fall for him because of his innate intellectual superiority over his peers? Check.

Alpha male antagonist arrives and quickly threatens protagonist's life, property, and love with the most dire of consequences? Check.

Protagonist wins out over antagonist through particularly devious application of vastly superior intellect? Check, check, and triple bloody check.

At every turn, this movie panders to the delusional self-image that Gamma males have about themselves. In order to mask their deep and fundamental insecurities about themselves, they give themselves implausible and heroic personas in their own imaginations. Because of their issues with self-image and power, and their relative lack of physical attributes, they place great emphasis on their own estimations of their wit and personality.

All of this is done in order to seek out the approval of others, which Gamma crave above all other things. They do so because their own neuroses prevent them from standing up for themselves- deep down, they don't even particularly like themselves, which is why they create all of these strange facades within their own minds to compensate for their own shortcomings.

Once you realise that Seth MacFarlane essentially created a movie by, for, and about Gamma males, the mystery about why it sucked donkey's balls evaporates instantly. (Try sleeping tonight with that image running through your head.) Suddenly, everything about the movie makes a great deal of sense- from the forced jokes, to the utterly unfunny physical comedy, to the painfully stupid dialogue, to the completely historically inaccurate depiction of 19th-Century Western society as loutish, violent, and dangerous.

And once you start comparing this movie with truly great works of cinematic art like Kingsman, you realise what it is that Hollywood has become. It is no coincidence that the latter film was not made in America by Americans, even though it was distributed by 20th Century Fox (which, incidentally, is ultimately owned by a Brit). 

Kingsman, over-the-top though it might be in its graphic depictions of (utterly hilarious) violence, never once gives you the impression that it was created within the mind of a snarky, self-obsessed twerp who is seriously high on himself and his own perceived talents, and secretly longs desperately for society's approval and reacts with rage and righteous fury whenever someone has the temerity to question his skills or competence.

And Kingsman never tries to force its comedy down your throat- it shows, it doesn't tell.

Bottom line: if you want to know what makes a great movie that you can easily watch with your son in order to show him role models to aspire towards, do one of two things:
  1. Watch Kingsman
  2. Watch any movie that is the exact opposite of A Million Ways to Die in the West (like, say, Unforgiven or A Fistful of Dollars)

A very disappointing audition indeed

Need a new Batman? We’ll just get Ben Affleck

Is anyone still operating under the delusion that Ben Affleck will be able to do the goddamn BATMAN justice in the upcoming Superman/Batman movie this year?

If so, just take a look at what happened with 2003's Daredevil:


Can we all now please stop pretending that Henry Cavill is a good Superman and that Ben Affleck might be a good Batman?

Saturday, 11 April 2015

Get 'em started young

You know you've been doing a little too much Krav Maga when you watch a ridiculously adorable video of a 7-month-old baby playing with a Siberian husky and you find yourself telling the kid to use the dog to practice his triangle and rear-naked chokes:


I'm pretty sure this violated a number of state and Federal ordinances regarding "acceptable" levels of cuteness. I'm just waiting for the Gestapo local SWAT team to break down the door to arrest the kid for "cruelty to animals", or some such nonsense.

Joking aside- it's an ugly world out there. Sometimes it's easy to let that ugliness grind you down and wear you out. Videos like this, though, remind even the most hardened and cynical among us that there is indeed much to be grateful for, and much to enjoy.

And I do hope that when that tiny tot grows up, he (or she- I'm very bad at understanding parental choices regarding infant clothing) gets some training in martial arts. Judging by the look of things, the kid's got some natural aptitude.

Just remember, squirt: the dog isn't trying to hurt you. The rest of the world might not be quite so considerate.

Friday, 10 April 2015

Warpigs... literally

If this is the best that the Kazakhstani military has to offer as a recruiting incentive, then I seriously doubt that they'll ever pose any kind of threat to the other former Soviet bloc states in their immediate vicinity:
Military officials in Kazakhstan have introduced a Miss Army competition in the hope of encouraging more recruits. 
The Kazakhstani Ministry of Defence has chosen 123 of its prettiest female soldiers and posted their photos online where viewers can vote for their favourites.
The pictures show the women in three set poses – in military uniform, with weapons and in civilian clothing – and they have already been viewed more than 30,000 times. 
A spokesman for the MoD said: 'Voting began this week and the competition is open until the 10th of May. 
'We've been flooded with views and the clear favourite at the moment is Sergeant Aigerim Karakuchukova who is in the lead with over 1,100 votes. 
A spokesman for the MoD said: 'Voting began this week and the competition is open until the 10th of May. 
'We've been flooded with views and the clear favourite at the moment is Sergeant Aigerim Karakuchukova who is in the lead with over 1,100 votes.
In case you're wondering what all the fuss is about, take a look-see at some of the... umm... "women" being considered for the, uh, "honour" of being dubbed "Miss Army" by President Noidontfindthisfunny:

Frontline femme fatale: Abildaeva Aigul Isahanovna is among 123 of Kazakhstan's 'prettiest soldiers' who have been put forward by the military for its Miss Army competition in the hope of encouraging more recruits
I can't quite tell where the body armour ends and the rest of her begins...
Deskbound diva: The pictures show the women in three set poses – in military uniform, with weapons and in civilian clothing – and they have already been viewed more than 30,000 times by voters
Kazakh the Hutt
Husnitdinova Khalid Myrat
Because we all know how important it is to pick the right boots to go with your outfit
And check out the front-runner of this exercise in futility competition:

Favourite: Sergeant Aigerim Karakuchukova is the front-runner so far with more than 1,100 votes
... Well, at least the dog is cute, in a terrifying sort of way
Now I know that Army fatigues and body armour don't do all that much good for a woman's looks, but if this is Kazakhstan's idea of trying to improve its international image and reputation after the utter mauling it took from Sascha Baron Cohen's hilarious send-ups of it, then I think they're probably going about this the wrong way.

Any (non-Kazakh) man worth his rod-and-tackle is simply going to look at these pictures and say, "not only NO but F**K NO!!!". Indeed, looking at the pictures in the article, I think I have a very good idea as to why alcoholism is so rampant among the men of the former Soviet bloc. Looking at these BADAZZ GIRRRRRRRLSSS in their sparkly uniforms, the term "beer goggles" just doesn't seem sufficient. In these specific cases, it's more like "sake bomb goggles"... and in at least a couple of cases, "vodka telescopes":

Meyramova Sulushash AdilhanovaDzhanabaeva Zarina Sabitzhanovna

All right, come on, this has to be a troll job. There is NO WAY that picture on the left is that of a woman.

It's not ALL bad news, though, boys. There does appear to be MAYBE one passable woman among the entire lot:

Batyrbaeva Umit Ganievna

Here's the problem: that picture is AFTER heavy use of makeup, lighting, and Photoshop. And she still ranks at best a 7.

The most hilarious part of the entire article, which is side-splitting once you stop taking it seriously, is this quote from a chap named Emil Efremov:
After the world was introduced to Borat, people have the impression that everyone here lives on a farm and sleeps with donkeys.
Mr. Efremov, based on the evidence, are you really all that surprised?

donkey.jpg#donkeyProne to male advances: A military spokesman said the competition was also open to voters not only from Kazakhstan but also neighbouring countries Krygystan, Azerbaijan and Russia

I'd say the Kazakhs would be well-advised to spend some of their recently acquired mineral wealth on bringing in some Romanian and Latvian women to help with their gene pool a bit.

While we're at it- why not take a moment to play a truly CLASSIC IRON MAIDEN video:


"Deaf as Beethoven" is not necessarily an insult


At least, not when it applies to old Ludwig himself. After all, even when deaf, he was able to compose possibly the most sublime suite of orchestral music ever created by human intelligence:


Brings me to near-tears every time I hear it.

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

Count the mistakes

Back before I came across the Manosphere, I did things along the lines of what the guy in this video did when on a blind date with a "female" bodybuilder:


(I use quotes simply because female bodybuilders have to take serious amounts of testosterone in the form of steroids to build muscle like that- women simply CANNOT naturally put on that much muscle- and the end result is that their voices deepen and everything that is appealing about their femininity disappears.)

See if you can get all the way through the video without suffering from spontaneous rage-vomiting of some kind. It'll be a challenge, even though the video is only 2.5 minutes long. And then, next time you're on a date, just remember: DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THIS GUY DID.

Raggy! Relp!!!

kicky musical number to accompany a chase through the hallways and ...
Did you ever notice how awesome Daphne's tits were as a kid?
The SJWs appear to be very, very unhappy at the massive inroads made by the Sad Puppies campaign to hold science fiction to a higher standard:
The Hugo Awards have been at the centre of a furore after two campaigns successfully prevented female authors and authors of colour from being proportionally nominated. Some people are comparing the controversy to GamerGate, which in 2014 saw coordinated misogynist attacks aimed at people who spoke out about sexism in the gaming industry. 
In 2014 the Hugo Awards celebrated the increasing diversity of sci-fi and fantasy writers, with younger writers, women and people of colour all picking up awards. [Didact: All of this wonderful VIBRANCY!!! At the cost of actual, y'know, talent that would have given fans of science fiction some real pleasure.] At the time, pop culture website io9 commented that the awards heralded "a sea change". 
The nominations for this year's awards were announced on Saturday and showed that two campaign groups, the Gamergate-affiliated Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, have succeeded in getting a list of predominately male, white writers nominated. [Didact: Dear God Almighty, but these people are morons.]
The Hugo Awards are voted for by members of World Science Fiction Convention, who pay $40 (£26) for membership, which allows them to vote for nominations in 2016, too. For the third year running, Sad Puppies encouraged their followers to vote for their selection of nominees, making the greatest impact yet. 
On February 1, Sad Puppies released their selection, urging readers: "If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard." 
Sad Puppies has been spearheaded by Brad R Torgersen and Larry Correia, two members of the sci-fi and fantasy community who have critised the "rarefied and insular" group of fans they believe were responsible for women and non-white authors winning Hugo Awards last year. Debut author Kameron Hurley was among the women picking up Hugos in the 2014 ceremony. 
Torgersen accused the Hugos of being "an affirmative action award: giving Hugos because a writer or artist is (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) or because a given work features (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) characters." 
Theodore Beale, who goes under the pen-name of Vox Day and runs Rabid Puppies, has received Hugo Award nominations in two different Editing categories, following his own inclusion on the Rabid Puppies' suggested slate. Beale is also lead editor of Castalia House, which has received nine Hugo Award nominations this year. 
Members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America have called for Beale's exclusion from the group after he has written against women's suffrage and posted racist views towards black writer NK Jemisin. 
Io9 has commented, "it's a weird turn of events that, the year after Hurley's double win, we see list of nominees that includes someone published by Patriarchy Press." Patriarchy Press is a "joke" e-publisher created by Hugo-nominated author Michael Z Williamson.
Melt some tar and start plucking some feathers, my friends. The useful idiots of the mainstream media apparently do not realise that their desperate attempts to smear the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies slates are backfiring horribly upon them; in the spirit of comradeship and brotherhood, I say that we get in on this epic dogpile while we can.

The Daily Telegraph was once a highly respected and respectable newspaper. But now, even its own readers are beginning to recognise that it produces little more than thinly disguised SJW-pandering propaganda. And judging by the reactions to the suspiciously anonymous article posted on the Telegraph's website, its own readers are fed to the back teeth with this ridiculous attempt at smearing both #Gamergate and Sad Puppies with the tar-brush of BADTHINK!!! and FEELBADZ!!!:


The reality that the SJWs are discovering, to their utter shock and horror, is that they dramatically overestimated their own intelligence, strength, numbers, and power. As Vox Day pointed out quite well earlier today, they are so occupied with the task of sniffing each other's farts that they literally cannot imagine anything else. And they certainly cannot comprehend the notion that the rest of us might find their afflatus to be disgusting and offensive.

As I'll be pointing out in my next Reaxxion column, the reason they were able to get away with their flagrant abuses of sense, decency, and taste for so long is that the rest of us let them. When the progressive-minded among us decided that first movies, and then television, had to conform to their point of view and no one else's, the rest of us moved on to sci-fi and fantasy writing. When the SJWs decided to make both genres as queer as a three-dollar bill with their nonsensical stories of dinosaur rape porn and Strong Independent WIMMENZ soldiers who could out-badass the BAMFiest of their male counterparts without ever mussing their mascara, the rest of us moved on to video games.

But now that they have attempted to take their foul and putrid ideology into gaming, we have discovered that there is nowhere else for us to go. Our backs are against the wall- and we have now discovered, thanks to #Gamergate, that WE are strong and they are weak.

And we will not be pushed anymore. Enough is enough. Now it is time for them to be afraid. And they are, indeed, terrified.

You can see their fear and loathing and hatred in the near-hysterical reactions that they have issued in the face of the massive success of Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies.

They insist that both slates exclude women and Persons of Colour, whatever the hell that means- even though both slates are PACKED with both women and non-white writers.

They claim, without a single shred of evidence to support it, that "dark forces" have somehow corrupted and perverted the nominations process- despite the fact that the entire process was created by them to maintain their grip on power.

They shriek that "exclusive cliques" are sweeping their awards- and yet this year's slates provided more fan input to a supposedly fan-led award than there has been for years.

The Sad Puppies slate succeeded precisely because it took the rules of the game that the perverts among the SJW set created to sustain their own power and success, and used those same rules against them. Brad Torgersen, Sarah Hoyt, Larry Correia, Vox Day, and all of the many others who have contributed so much great writing to their genres over the last few years deserve tremendous credit for turning the enemy's perceived strengths into glaring and terrible weaknesses that the rest of us can now exploit with near impunity.

First through #Gamergate, and now through Sad/Rabid Puppies, we are proving that we can face them anywhere, anytime, on their own ground, and DESTROY them.

Victory is not guaranteed. Our enemies are numerous, devious, and backed by the full power and force of the establishment that they created specifically to maintain their power and authority. We face many long and terrible battles ahead before we can reclaim our culture and rebuild our civilisation.

Yet that, my friends, is our glorious burden. It falls upon us to fight back against the filth and folly that has been imposed upon us. It is up to us to do what must be done.

Will you not join us?

Sunday, 5 April 2015

Happy Easter 2015

 

Jesus Appears to Thomas

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

For the hundreds of millions of Christians around the world who believe and have faith, today is a day of celebration and rejoicing. This marks the day that evil and death were defeated by the King of Kings. This is the day that the Messiah arose from the dead and returned to His disciples, charging them to carry His gospel to the world.

It is important to understand precisely what Easter Sunday truly means. The entire construct of the Christian faith, based though it is on logic, evidence, and a highly perceptive understanding of Mankind's failings as a species, really comes down to a promise. Through the Lord God and His Son, the Christian faith promises an eternal release from death and damnation for those who believe. And as final and absolute proof of the validity of this claim, Christ Himself was sacrificed for the sins of Mankind- thereby granting Man a reprieve from God's wrath and one last chance to earn true redemption.

Any Churchian can tell you these things- it's written right there in the textbook, after all, and it doesn't take any great imagination to go look up what the book actually says in plain black text on white pages. And for Churchians, simply parroting what The Book says is as far as their faith extends. They pay little more than lip-service to the true nature of the Christian faith, and there is no point in paying attention to such folk.

But a Christian acknowledges what a Churchian cannot- namely, that if the Resurrection is not true, then the entire Christian faith is nothing more than a sham. It is false, and anyone who follows it is deluded beyond any hope of redemption.

If indeed the Resurrection did not happen, then untold billions of people throughout history have believed in and followed the most terrible and malicious lie ever told. If the Resurrection were ever to be disproven, then those who follow the Christian faith would ultimately be hypocrites and fools of the worst possible kind.

Fortunately, from the Gospels onward, we have a veritable mountain range of evidence telling us that not only was the Resurrection real, but that it was the greatest miracle that humanity has ever been blessed to receive. Indeed, the more closely one examines the accounts of the Resurrection of Christ and the evidence at hand, the more inexorably and inevitably is one drawn to the conclusion that the Resurrection was literal and actual fact.

Because the miracle of the Resurrection did, as far as nearly 2,000 years of evidence, analysis, debate, and investigation can tell us, absolutely take place.

And therein lies the power of the Christian faith. It comes from the fact that the Messiah delivered precisely what He had promised- an eternal reprieve from death and despair. Against Him, no evil could ever prevail, and not even death itself could hold claim to Him.

This day is also a chance for doubters, or at least those who are undecided about Christianity, to understand what the Christian faith is all about, and why it is as close to Truth as we will ever get. These are people like the doubting Thomas- people like me- who have difficulty believing, even when the Truth stands literally right in front of us. People who can come as close to accepting the message of Christ as we can, and yet have trouble taking that last step to becoming baptised and joining the fold, for fear of being hypocrites.

On this day, I ask you to pray for those of us who are almost, but not quite, there yet- those who want to believe, and yet are held back, for whatever reason.

Finally, this day is an opportunity for Christians- real Christians- to recognise that you have a lot of work to do. An awful Time of Testing is upon you. Evil is on the march once more, and it regards the rest of us as mere inconveniences to be swept aside. Our culture is falling apart before our eyes; our most treasured institutions, including the Mother Church itself, are choking and dying under the rapidly rising tide of filth that threatens to overwhelm them. Our leaders lie to us and lead us to slaughter; our people are distracted by meaningless baubles and shiny toys; our children are left to suffer in the wasteland that our sins and the follies of our so-called "tolerance" have created.

Yet even now, even in this terrible darkness, there is light and there is hope. On this day of days, we have real, tangible evidence of that proof. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Christ is risen!

O God of Earth and altar, bow down and hear our cry,
Our Earthly rulers falter, our people drift and die,
The walls of gold entomb us, the swords of scorn divide,
Take not Thy thunder from us, but take away our pride

From all that terror teaches, from the lies of tongue and pen,
From all the small speeches that comfort cruel men,
From sale and profanation of honour, and the sword,
From sleep, and from damnation, deliver us, good Lord!

Tie in a living tether, the prince and priest and thrall
Bind all our lives together, smite us and save us all!
In ire and exultation, aflame with faith, and free,
Lift up a living nation, a single sword to Thee
-- G. K. Chesterton, 1906

Friday, 3 April 2015

Go to hell, you stupid dingbat

SIGN UP FOR THE NEW UBERHUMOR NEWSLETTER
Which is why you don't waste time arguing with them- you simply destroy them and move on
I know I've been banging on about Top Gear for a while now, but I just couldn't help reacting when I saw that Jeremy Clarkson had been fired from the show that he turned into a global phenomenon. I have watched this show since I was 15 years old; I have seen it grow from a genteel yet stuffy old show about cars that no one much cared about, into a blokey, prank-filled, fun-loving over-the-top extravaganza of exhaust noise, explosions, and male camaraderie. I have seen the show become a cultural phenomenon that hundreds of millions of die-hard fans like me love and admire, led by hosts who genuinely love their jobs.

So you'll excuse me if I get my back up a bit when I come across what I can only describe as a half-digested regurgitation of epic stupidity displayed for all to see in what was once one of Britain's most respectable newspapers:
Jeremy Clarkson has been all over the news for 19 straight days. 
That’s over a fortnight of reporting on SteakGate, as well as Clarkson’s worst moments, his best moments, his most controversial moments - it’s still unclear if there is any difference between these - and endless debate on whether the BBC should have sacked him or not. 
Frankly, I no longer give a damn. 
Clarkson is finally off our TV screens. After 13 years of racist comments, general rudeness and physical violence (Piers Morgan also fell prey to his wayward fist), the BBC has grown some balls and sacked the man. Yes, this is great news for anyone with common standards of decency, and yes, it's also sad for his diehard fans
I get it, honestly. But can we please just get over Clarkson and focus on what we all really care about here: Top Gear
The TV show is so well loved that it brings the BBC £50 million of revenue each year, is shown in dozens of countries and has reached semi-cult status. 
Cue tired arguments from Clarksonites that everything’s over for the corporation now it has lost the star of the show. Top Gear’s nothing without Clarkson; doom doom doom. 
But Top Gear was popular before Clarkson and it will continue post-Clarkson. The only thing that matters now is who replaces him. 
There have been whispers around Steve Coogan, sports journalist Dan Walker, or comedian Johnny Vaughan. Each contender is equipped with enough testosterone to get the show firmly back on its macho, borderline-sexist feet. 
Unless, of course, the BBC is brave enough to take a step away from the petrol heads and go for someone who could lower those raging hormone levels, while bringing in hordes of new viewers: a woman. 
A female presenter is just what the show needs. [Didact: And a psychologist specialising in treating people with severe cognitive disabilities is just what you need, Ms. Sanghani.]
This sort of thing, written by a woman with a nose large enough to serve as the prow of an icebreaker, illustrates perfectly the terrible consequences of permitting the SJWs to enter our institutions. No matter how vigilant we are, no matter how hard we try to guard the Last Redoubt of our culture against their insidious evil, they will do their damndest to find their way in, and they will do everything in their power to destroy everything that we hold dear.

And they'll do it using the stupidest possible arguments as well.

Ms. Sanghani starts off in a very bad way, by confusing cause with effect. She states, quite accurately, that Top Gear has a gigantic fan base that brings in huge amounts of revenues each year. This is completely true.

But then she makes a huge mistake by blithely assuming that the revenues generated by this cultural touchstone will simply continue, as is, without the people who made it what it is today.

She apparently doesn't seem to understand that the show's hosts, Clarkson, May, and Hammond, all have tremendous chemistry with each other that shines through in each and every episode. She doesn't comprehend that the show's producer, Andy Wilman, is a creative genius, and that the show's various directors are exceptionally good at managing the mercurial talents of their three stars- actually four, since you absolutely cannot leave out The Stig.

She doesn't quite get the fact that the show works because it delivers something that you simply can't see on television anymore, and especially not from the politically correct lefty loonies in charge of the Bulls**t Broadcasting Corporation these days. The show delivers politically incorrect commentary with an air of complete disdain for the opinions and feeeeeeeelings of others, yet does it in a humourous and light-hearted way, so that only the most ideologically blinded and foolish among us could possibly be offended by the blokeish, clumsy, yet oddly endearing stupidity of the hosts.

Then Ms. Sanghani really goes off the deep end by claiming that Top Gear was popular in the years BC- Before Clarkson.

She actually does have some justification for stating this. Top Gear was indeed once a popular show... if you consider six million viewers that the old show had at its peak to be popular, relative to the THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION that the current format of the show routinely enjoys.

Having thus established that Ms. Sanghani is incapable of understanding logic and may also have failed maths at the primary school level, we now turn to the question of whether or not a female host for Top Gear will return the show to its former level of popularity.

For this, we can simply turn to other female-fronted shows that focus on male-dominated pursuits, such as sports or cars. And there are two good examples that we can use to check whether Ms. Sanghani's assertions make any sense at all.

First, we have a US sports show called "We Need To Talk" on CBS, which has the, er, "distinction" of being fronted by an all-female group of hosts who talk less about what actually happens in the various sports that they cover and more about their feeeeeeelings about those sports. (As if one could expect anything different with a title that scrotum-shrivellingly awful).

CBSSN_WNTT_DMP_1076
The 11 horse-faced women of the Sportspocalypse
Now, I have been unable thus far to find any ratings numbers for this show- which I find deeply suspicious on a number of levels. However, judging by the fact that CBS management basically outright stated that they aren't going to judge the success of the show based on ratings, I have a sneaking suspicion that this show probably isn't the runaway success that feminists thought it would be.

Second, we can look at motoring shows that actually do have female hosts- such as Fifth Gear, which has a female presenter named Vicki Butler-Henderson, and D Motor, which is basically Germany's equivalent of Top Gear and boasts THE best driver that the Nurburgring has ever seen, Sabine Schmitz, as one of its hosts.

Again, I have no ratings numbers against which to judge the relative successes or failures of these shows. So we have to go by user reviews of both when compared to Top Gear. And the results are... interesting.

Top Gear gets an average viewer review of, depending on which site you use, about 89-90%.

Fifth Gear gets an average user review of about 73%.

D Motor is watched pretty much only in Germany, which means that its viewer base is small and its ratings in English are unknown and probably unknowable. But it's fair to say that by the only measures that count- ratings and fans- it can't come anywhere close to competing with Top Gear.

In fact, the only shows that can compete with the Top Gear juggernaut are procedural crime drama shows like CSI. That gives you some idea of just how hugely popular the show really is.

So there you have it. The best arguments that the SJWs have for introducing yet more estrogen into yet another male space are systematically destroyed through simple but brutal applications of logic, reason, numbers, and sheer cussed common sense.

My common sense is tingling
I'm just waiting for Ryan Reynolds to ruin this the way he ruined Green Lantern
At this point, the inquisitive man will ask, if their arguments are so stupid, why do they seem to persuade so many people so easily?

For that, we have only to turn to Vox Day's First Law of Social Commentary- namely, MOST PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS (MPAI).

This isn't that difficult to figure out, and Vox himself has illustrated it with a very simple and straightforward series of arguments.

First, understand that it is a statistical reality that 50% of any given statistically significant population will, by definition, be at or below the average IQ of 100. This of course assumes that IQs follow a Gaussian distribution, which in "sufficiently large" populations (say, n > 1,000) is observably true. 

Second, understand that most people with IQs at or below 120 are not actually "really smart". They're just smarter than roughly 95% of all other people. That doesn't make them the smartest people in any given room, it just makes them smart enough to fall prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect, whereby they greatly overestimate their own competence and skill relative to the rest of the population.

Ms. Sanghani is assuredly more intelligent than the average person. Yet she has very clearly fallen prey to the whispered stupidities of people telling her what a special and wonderful snowflake she is, simply by virtue of being a female of above-average intelligence- which still makes her considerably less well-versed in basic logic, numeracy, and the rhetorical and dialectical modes of argument than a man of above-average intelligence.

Now I'm sure that, in person, she's probably a very nice young lady- though you'd be hard-pressed not to stare at that whacking great wine-sniffer of hers. But she needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, that she is a mid-witted moron, so that the rest of us are never again troubled by her absurdly misinformed and deeply ridiculous bleatings about "inequality".

And if her FEELZ are hurt in the process, well, too damn bad. I have already shown, both here and in previous posts, that Ms. Sanghani is not only not particularly intelligent or well-informed, but deeply intellectually dishonest as well. Why, then, should the rest of us be required to pay her the most miniscule micron of attention?

There is precisely one appropriate reaction to this monumental outpouring of sticky, malodourous stupidity from a woman who is patently incapable of understanding the difference between cause and effect:

Posted byNoah Smith at 10:45 AM
And her nose is nicer to look at, too