Sunday, 31 May 2015

Horatius at the bridge

Horatius at the Bridge

There is yet one Republican in the Senate who understands why freedom is precious, and why it must be defended:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is already back at work after he filibustered on the U.S. Senate floor for about 10 and a half hours on Wednesday. He’s declaring his marathon a smashing success in the quest to get the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop bulk collection of Americans’ records.
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Thursday morning—his first since leaving the Senate floor late Wednesday evening, just before midnight—Paul said his position on the NSA is gaining more and more steam both inside the beltway in Washington and across America. 
“I think the main thing is trying to draw attention to a really, really important issue which is that the government shouldn’t be collecting in bulk our phone records. Warrants should name an individual but really the NSA spying on Americans should end,” Paul said.
It would appear that his heroic attempts to stop Congress from re-establishing one of the most abhorrent and flagrant abuses of Constitutional limits on executive power will ultimately fail. The upcoming "USA Freedom Act"- an Orwellian name if there ever was one- is basically just the godawful PATRIOT Act in a party frock, with some of the most objectionable language removed.

And yet... and yet... the somnambulant corpse of America's once-great and mighty republic shows that it still has some fight in it, however little and however limited.

Sen. Paul showed courage and resolve in standing against this monstrosity, this holdover from the folly of the Dubya years. He did what almost no one else was willing to do. He stood firm against those who would take the tattered remains of that magnificent document, the Constitution of the United States of America, and defecate all over them once again. He held the line, for what it was worth.

For that, he has my respect.

I may not agree with him about everything. (Well, actually, I agree with him about something like 90% of the things that he says, so maybe that isn't entirely true.) But when one of the very, very few men left with any kind of principle stand up to evil, I have to say: well fought, sir.

Always remember, my friends: evil is powerless, if the good are unafraid.

Rand Paul proved that last week. He will prove it again. And because he is willing to stand up to evil, he will almost surely never become President.

But at least he will be able to go before his Creator, when the earth and sky stand presently at God's great judgement seat, and state with perfect truthfulness that he stood by his principles, when others abandoned theirs.

And that is no small thing.

That's one way to deal with the problem

... don't care if you like Lena Dunham or not, she's not a child molester
And here's the problem
China’s top court said it has executed a primary school teacher found guilty of raping or sexually abusing 26 girls.

Li Jishun had committed the crimes between 2011 and 2012 while teaching at a village school in Gansu province.

He preyed on pupils aged 4 to 11 who were “young and timid,” according to a statement by the Supreme People’s Court reported by local media.

It said there have been more than 7,000 child sex abuse cases in recent years and that the trend is on the rise.

Li had raped 21 of his victims and sexually abused the other five in classrooms, dormitories, and the forest surrounding the village near Wushan town.

The statement said that some of his victims had been raped or abused more than once. It made no mention of how he was caught.

But it said that the Gansu court had found him “a grave threat to society” and noted that he had committed the crimes within just one year.
Let me add the very necessary caveat that, in the US, it is entirely possible for a small percentage of men who are branded sexual offenders to be wrongly convicted. There have been a fair few of these cases- and the men who are wrongly convicted are forced to watch as their lives, their health, their sanity, and their futures are completely destroyed. In the eyes of society, it doesn't matter that they were wrongly convicted; all that matters is that they were once labelled with the epithet, "child molester".

In no way should a society devoted to the rule of law hand out convictions for child molestation lightly.

With that caveat in mind, let me also say that when there is incontrovertible proof that a man- or a woman- has sexually abused a child, then there is no need to hold back.

Such behaviour is abomination. It must be punished swiftly and without mercy. And for once, I'd say the Chinese are on to something.

In fact, just imagine what would have happened if we'd applied their standard of justice to known paedophiles- like, say, Marion Zimmer Bradley. And Edward Kramer. And, of course, our favourite bearer of false witness and general waste of otherwise good blood and organs, the Dunham Horror.

Basically, we would have gotten shot of this lot- literally- and in the process, would have gone some distance toward breathing some real life back into the twitching corpse of Western culture.

So tell me- where's the bad?

In fact, if historical patterns are any guide, this return to what the bleeding hearts of the Progressive Left would undoubtedly shriek is a horrible and unfair and extreme form of punishment, is very likely to take place.

Cultures rise and fall based on their inherent strength. A culture that is weak and insipid will inevitably be shoved aside by one that is stronger. In the case of Western culture, that replacement is likely to be Islamic at first- and never let it be forgotten that the reality of child abuse within Islam makes the child molesters of the West look like absolute pikers by comparison.

But eventually, the insanity of Mohammedanism will be replaced as well- likely by a resurgent Judeo-Christian morality that will, hopefully, have learned a very harsh and painful lesson about the futility of accommodation with evil.

And when that day comes, do not be surprised if child molesters are, indeed, rounded up, herded out back, and shot.

Saturday, 30 May 2015

Two years and counting

Happy anniversary, Popp:

Has it been two years already?! Oh well- WINNING!!!

Good luck sleeping tonight with that image

Once you're done catching up on the awesomeness that is Year Two, take a look at the best of Year One to be reminded as to just why Popp is worth watching- especially what, in my opinion, is the best video he ever made, "500 Miles of Mr. Right".

And on a rather more serious note, here is the first video that Popp made, which started him down the path of righteousness:

Congratulations, Popp. Here's to you and Blake O'Kleiner producing many more great videos, showing the ugly face of feminism for what it is.

Thursday, 28 May 2015

It's not JUST about intelligence

"... what was your name again?"
A boffin by the name of Prof. David Bainbridge caused a bit of a stir in the mainstream media when he released findings that, among other things, claim to support the view that men prize brains over breasts:
Men value intelligence in women far above large breasts and long legs, a Cambridge evolutionary biologist has claimed. 
Although having a large bust and never-ending pins are deemed by western culture as the epitome of femininity, when choosing a mother for their children, men look for brains first. 
Professor David Bainbridge, of the University of Cambridge said that intelligence is by far the most attractive quality for men looking for a long term partner because it demonstrates that his chosen partner is likely to be a responsible parent. 
It also suggests she was brought by intelligent parents and so was likely to be well fed and looked after in childhood, and so healthier. It may explain why a man like George Clooney ended up marrying human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin. [Didact: Um, no, the fact that he wants to go into politics explains why he ended up marrying her.]
Prof Bainbridge said men actually do not care how large breasts are as long as they are symmetrical [Didact: that's right, Wonk-tits, get this through that sawdust that's in your head] while for legs, it only matters that they are straight, as bent, uneven legs suggest a developmental illness, like rickets. 
“Breast size doesn’t matter,” he told the Hay Festival. “Actually large breasts are more likely to be asymmetric and men are more attracted to symmetry. And they look older more quickly, and men value youth. 
“And men are not looking for long legs. Straight legs are a sign of genetic health so that is something that is more attractive, but surveys have shown most men prefer regular length. 
“The main thing that men are looking for is intelligence. Surveys have shown time and time again that this is the first thing that men look for. It shows that she will be able to look after his children and that her parents were probably intelligent as well, suggesting that she was raised well. 
Men also look for symmetry in facial and bodily features which suggests ‘stable’ genes and youthful partners. Studies have shown that men who are four to five years older than their partners are more successful. 
However men do like women to be curvaceous with voluptuous thighs and bottoms, and a waist that is much slimmer than their hips
Carrying a bit more weight on the thighs and the bottom suggests that a woman has stored enough fat during puberty to adequately provide for the huge requirements of a growing baby.
Colour me suspicious. Not least because, in another Telly article on the same subject, there is a poll embedded in there which actual men did in fact vote on whether they preferred looks to brains, and... well, see for yourself:

So, on the surface of it, either this egghead's complex and prestigious study is about as methodologically watertight as a colander, or there is something more going on here.

The funny thing is, Prof. Bainbridge's other results confirm virtually all of the accumulated wisdom within the Androsphere concerning what men prefer when it comes to the way women look. So clearly, he isn't talking out of his ass. At least, not entirely.

For instance, Prof. Bainbridge argues that women with symmetric figures are preferred over women with specific outstanding features. This is not in the least bit surprising, and has been repeatedly confirmed by studies that are both more and less rigourous than the one referenced above.

The redoubtable Blackdragon did just such a study recently. It was by no means scientifically rigourous; it was a straight opinion poll, it did not have a control group, it did not attempt to verify whether or not those who voted were in fact men, and it did not pretend to be even slightly objective.

Last week many of you gentlemen participated in a poll regarding the female body type you found most sexually attractive. An overview of the seven body types is pictured above and you can click the image to zoom it. If you want more detail on the specific descriptions, please refer to that post
After several thousand votes, here is what you guys said are the most sexually attractive body types:
female body types 

So if Prof. Bainbridge was right about the types of bodies that men prefer, why is he so wrong about whether men prefer intelligence over looks?

I think it is because he didn't tell us the full story.

If you ask men- and by this I mean real men, not Gamma and Omega males- what qualities they most prefer in the women that they would most like to settle down with long-term, the answers will likely include the words, "someone who I can have a decent conversation with at the end of the day".

Thing is, this does not necessarily mean that said woman needs to be of high intelligence. Rather, it means that she needs to have a warm, nurturing, caring personality, combined with a modicum of intelligence.

And that is precisely what Prof. Bainbridge apparently didn't test for.

Sure, you'll come across the odd man or three who wants his wife or girlfriend to be nothing but a subservient doormat, who exists simply to wait upon him hand and foot, but then, those types of men tend to have some serious issues of their own to deal with. I'm writing from personal experience here; one of my blood relatives back in the old country is just such a man, and he is quite simply a failure as a human being.

However, what the study omits, or didn't bother to ask, is whether intelligence in a woman needs to be accompanied by certain other feminine virtues, such as domestic skills and an agreeable personality.

And that is the major mistake that the media and others have made in taking this study at face value. This is the one question that nobody seemed to bother asking.

If that question had been asked, the answers would have been very different.

The reality is that, as a general rule, women like to settle down with men whose intelligence exceeds their own. And that intelligence doesn't have to be just in terms of IQ, although it tends to be. Those who break this rule more often than not find themselves trapped in unhappy marriages with men that they can't stand, because they are intellectually superior to them. Such a woman finds herself in the position of leading her man, having to take the big decisions that he cannot take because he is not capable of taking, nor is qualified to take.

That is a deeply unnatural position for a woman to be in. And that has led to the breakup of many a relationship, and many a marriage.

As for men, well, again, it's quite simple. No man in his right mind would ever want to come home from a long and exhausting day at work, followed by a hard evening working out in the gym or on the sparring mat, to deal with a man dressed as a woman. No such man would ever want to have to come home, make his own dinner, and then spend the rest of his evening debating the finer points of Aristotelian rhetoric, or the current state of quantum physics, with a woman who is as blunt, as uncompromising, as stubborn, and as abrasive as a man can and should be.

This is the mistake that highly intelligent women keep making. They keep thinking that, in order to be taken seriously by men, they need to act just like men, both in their professional and private lives.

The simple fact is that, if men are presented with a straight-up choice between a high-IQ woman with no domestic skills and no feminine traits but stunning good looks (and good luck finding that combination outside of the unicorn stables), or a still-intelligent but lower-IQ woman with lesser looks but amazing cooking abilities and a warm, nurturing, loving personality, we will ALWAYS choose the latter.

Women must always remember that men prefer three qualities above all else when it comes to the opposite sex: youth, beauty, and femininity. That's about it.

The first two are easy to figure out. All else being equal, a woman in her mid-twenties is always going to be preferable to a woman in her mid-forties- I don't care if the latter looks like Kate Beckinsale.

Kate Beckinsale – Out in West Hollywood, April 2015
... OK, maybe that's not ENTIRELY true
And, again, all else being equal, if you have to choose between a 25-year-old who looks like  Anna Kendrick, or a 25-year-old who looks like Rebel Wilson, which one would you pick?

(Eye bleach, eye bleach, ferdaluvvaGOD....)


The third quality, femininity, is the hardest to nail down, but it is by far the easiest to get wrong. And that is the critical fact that Prof. Bainbridge and his much-ballyhooed study evidently forgot to account for.

The bottom line is that highly intelligent women are at a significant disadvantage relative to their less intelligent peers. They have been taught all of their lives that they are special, that their talents are special, and that they deserve only the best things in life because of their talents. But when it comes time to actually find a man and settle down, those very things will work against them, and they'll find themselves losing out to the women who concentrated instead on maintaining their youthful looks, their beautiful symmetric proportions, and their domestic skills.

Neomasculinity: the TL;DR version

Paul Joseph Watson breaks it down for you:

If you're too busy to read Roosh's original article, this is about as good a breakdown as you're going to get.

Neomasculinity, as a philosophy, is not just about Alpha/Beta dichotomies. It's not about pure hedonism. There is room in this philosophy for a Creator. The philosophy is focused on the ultimate aim of aggressively reclaiming our culture and our world.

Those who dislike the "red pill" crowd for its focus on hedonism will find much to agree with in this set of ideas. Those who aren't interested in turning their backs on sex and love, the way much of the MGTOW crowd does, can find much of value here. Those who find Men's Rights Activists to be a little soppy and weak-kneed will find the aggressive self-awareness of neomasculinity to be the perfect antidote for those problems.

One can argue about whether Roosh is right to claim "ownership" or originality of the intellectual property associated with neomasculinity. But what is very difficult to argue is whether or not the philosophy makes sense- it simply does.

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

How stupid can a neoconservative be?

Joel Pollak over at inexplicably chose to tie a noose around his credentials as a conservative- and then proceeded to kick the chair out from under himself:
Though the execution of the war was deeply flawed, there are at least five reasons it was justified, even without WMD. 
1. In a post-9/11 world, uncertainty about WMD is not an option. The central preoccupation of policymakers after 9/11 was preventing any further mass terror attacks against the United States. The George W. Bush administration would have been blamed–and rightly so–if Iraq had used WMD or passed WMD to terrorists. It was not a chance the U.S.–or the world–could afford to take. And given the refusal of Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the UN, there was no alternative. 
2. An American force in the Middle East would increase pressure on Iran. Removing Saddam Hussain meant removing a threat to the Iranian regime. But putting hundreds of thousands of American troops on Iran’s western border–along with those already in Afghanistan to the east–meant posing a much more potent threat to the regime. That is why Iran temporarily slowed its nuclear program after 2003–and why the Iranian people found the courage to rise in 2009. 
3. Freeing the people of Iraq was, and is, a worthy goal. Just a few years ago, with American and allied troops still in Iraq in significant numbers, the sectarian violence and terrorism that had plagued the country for years had begun to slow down. The Iraqi people began to enjoy some semblance of order, of democracy, and of liberty. Instead of staying in Iraq to guide and protect that process–as Obama had promised to do in 2008–Obama abandoned the Iraqi people. 
4. International law means nothing unless it is backed up by the will to enforce it. Saddam Hussein defied international law repeatedly: He used WMD against his own people; he invaded his neighbors; he sponsored terrorism. And he did it because he had no fear of facing the consequences. International law, flawed though it is, is a necessary and stabilizing institution–and needs enforcement, even (especially) when global institutions are too corrupt to enforce it. 
5. There is potential for freedom in the region–with American leadership. The fall of Saddam Hussein inspired the Lebanese people to rise up against Syrian occupation, and planted the seeds of what later became the Arab Spring. If American leadership had remained strong, that process might have been a positive one. (Certainly Syria would not have become a killing field.) The Middle East may never be fertile soil for democracy, but it can certainly be freer than it is today.
If this is the best that American neoconservatives can do to defend their hubris-driven and utterly failed vision of a democratic Middle East, then one would be fully justified in holding their opinions on any other subject in utter contempt.

Here are a few simple, straightforward, and easily understood rebuttals to Mr. Pollak's points above.

1. WMDs in the hands of sovereign states are not a problem. This might sound radical at first, but in fact there is considerable theoretical reasoning and practical evidence to support this assertion. Martin Van Creveld pointed out in his excellent book, The Transformation of War, that the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological weapons, will actually make a sovereign state that possesses such awful weapons rather skittish about having to use them- at least, against other sovereign states. The reason is simple. No sovereign state wants to risk utter destruction at the hands of enemies with access to similarly nasty weaponry.

Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of non-sovereign jihadist nutbags are an entirely different story. Such wackos have absolutely no hesitations or compunctions about using weapons like these on their most hated enemies, because there is no one single entity against which retaliation can be visited. But in Iraq's case, we know now that there was never any real threat from WMDs in Saddam's hands; nor, for that matter, was there any real threat at the time either.

2. And what exactly is Iran up to now? If the end goal, or at least one of the goals, of invading Iraq was to put pressure on Iran, why then is Iran evidently just as strong, as stable, and as repressive as ever? Why is Iran funding Islamist nutball organisations throughout the Middle East in a clear bid to destabilise its Sunni Arab enemies? Why is it becoming clearer by the day that the Middle East is rapidly destabilising, as the old sovereign states are destroyed by internal and external pressures, and far more dangerous and fractured 4th-Generation, non-state entities take over them?

The realities of the Iranian situation are far more complex than any neoconservative can bring himself to admit. Iran is facing a population crisis without precedent in its, or any other Muslim nation's, history- and as David P. Goldman states in that flawed but rather good book, nations facing long-term demographic suicide do not act or respond rationally. It is particularly unwise to attempt to provoke such a nation, since its actions will inevitably be anything but predictable.

Yet that is precisely what the neoconservatives under President Bush did. They invaded and occupied a Shi'a nation in the hopes of pursuing some damned fool Wilsonian quest for "democracy" (once it became clear that the WMD shtick was nonsense, anyway), and were then surprised to discover that Iran did not cower down in fear, but responded by lashing out, and hard.

3. Imposing democracy and freedom on those who do not want it is idiotic beyond belief. Arabic cultures have a very hard time thinking beyond family and tribe. This is one of the many reasons why a federalist republican form of government- let alone full democracy- is unworkable in an Arab nation. The very idea runs counter to the entire grain of Arab culture.

What neoconservatives consistently fail to understand about democracy is that it only works, if at all, in high-trust societies. For a democracy to work, you have to be at least somewhat willing to trust your neighbour not to screw you over the first chance he gets. Yet the Arab mentality of "me against my brother; me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother, and my cousin against my tribe; me and my tribe against the world" gives you some idea of what would happen if democracy were introduced into a society where no one trusts anyone else.

A democracy is merely a stepping-stone between rule by the few and rule by the mob, but incalculable damage can be done between those two points in a low-trust society. And that is precisely what we have seen in Iraq, where democracy has been nothing short of a disaster.

4. International law means nothing, full stop, except for the arbitrary value assigned to it by sovereign states. The entire canon of international law essentially comes down to gentlemen's agreements between governments. This is no bad thing, since international law regulates the flow of commerce between states and ensures that war and its manifest unpleasantness is kept to a minimum. If war does occur, states are generally interested in "playing by the rules".

When Saddam Hussein defied "international law", he was really just defying the US and its proxies in the United Abominations. Russia, China, and other less gullible nations were rather less willing to play along with the foolish American policy of pursuing the wrong enemies to the wrong ends of the Earth, and rightly made their objections felt on the assembly floor of the UN. When it became clear that "Iraq's defiance of international law" was not in fact sufficient reason for the world to go to war against a single relatively defenceless nation, the US went to war on rather sketchy Constitutional grounds.

So who, exactly, was defying international law here- Saddam Hussein, or George W. Bush?

5. American "leadership" has now created a massively unstable vacuum of power in the Middle East. It is directly due to George W. Bush's decision to invade, and subsequent decisions made by his Administration to handle the various crises that came their way, that trillions of dollars of American taxpayer's money and tens of thousands of lives were ruined and wasted in the sands of Iraq. When America left, bloodied and beaten- there is no use softening words here- the result was an entirely predictable vacuum of power that has led to the emergence of a very nasty 4GW entity in the form of ISIS.

As William S. Lind pointed out in his columns from 2004 to 2007, the war in and occupation of Iraq lurched from disaster to catastrophe with almost monotonous regularity, simply because the Administration refused to admit that it was fighting 4th-Generation enemies with 2nd-Generation military tactics and strategies.

It's actually something of a miracle that President Bush never went to war against Iran as well. And if he had done that, then he truly would have gone down in history as the absolute worst President since Woodrow Wilson; even the jug-eared idiot in the White House today would not have been able to better such a monumental act of stupidity.

In every way, the current Middle East and its attendant instability, chaos, and bloodshed are directly attributable to George W. Bush's flatly wrongheaded decision to invade a nation that posed virtually no threat whatsoever to America or its interests.

The results of the last 12 years have clearly shown that America and its allies are utterly incapable of facing and defeating 4th-Generation enemies in open battle. Even Israel, doughty and redoubtable as she is, has struggled and mostly failed to meet the challenge of 4th-Generation, largely stateless enemies like Hamas and Hezbollah for the past 10 years.

Yet instead of learning lessons from these failures and revising their worldview accordingly, neoconservatives continue to insist that they were right, and that their vision of a democratic, stable world order is possible if only more American blood and treasure is sacrificed upon the altar of their prideful stupidity.

The reason they continue to insist on this nonsense is because, like all unreconstructed Leftists, neoconservatives are ideologues. True conservatism is not an ideology- it is the opposite of ideology. A true conservative accepts Man for who and what he is, and accepts Man's nature for what it is. A true conservative recognises the futility of attempting to change Man's character, and is content to leave well enough alone.

Not so the ideologue. Such a man seeks to perfect the character of his fellows, and in so doing opens himself to the worst of all possible bad consequences. In a fight between what Man is and what Man wants to be, never bet against Man's character- as everyone but the neoconservative has been discovering for the past 15 years, you'll always lose.

Slaying the white horseman

Or so we'd like to believe, anyway:


Technically, the white horseman was "Conquest", not necessarily "Pestilence", but anyway, that's a minor detail.

This does sort of put things into perspective, though, eh?

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

It only took 40 years...

BACON BEER MUG - Proof That God Loves Us And Wants Us To Be Happy

It would appear that the received wisdom about hearthealthywholegrains is finally dying the ignominious death it so thoroughly deserves:
For decades they have been blacklisted as foods to avoid, the cause of deadly thickening of the arteries, heart disease and strokes. 
But the science which warned us off eating eggs – along with other high-cholesterol foods such as butter, shellfish, bacon and liver – could have been flawed, a key report in the US has found. 
Foods high in cholesterol have been branded a danger to human health since the 1970s – a warning that has long divided the medical establishment. 
A growing number of experts have been arguing there is no link between high cholesterol in food and dangerous levels of the fatty substance in the blood. [Didact: There isn't one. The latest theories on heart disease have everything to do with inflammation of the arterial walls, and very little to do with cholesterol other than as a repair mechanism for that same inflammation.]
Now, in a move signalling a dramatic change of stance on the issue, the US government is to accept advice to drop cholesterol from its list of 'nutrients of concern'. 
The US Department of Agriculture panel, which has been given the task of overhauling the guidelines every five years, has indicated it will bow to new research undermining the role dietary cholesterol plays in people's heart health. 
Its Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee plans to no longer warn people to avoid eggs, shellfish and other cholesterol-laden foods. 
The U-turn, based on a report by the committee, will undo almost 40 years of public health warnings about eating food laden with cholesterol. US cardiologist Dr Steven Nissen, of the Cleveland Clinic, said: 'It's the right decision. We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They've been wrong for decades.' 
Doctors are now shifting away from warnings about cholesterol and saturated fat and focusing concern on sugar as the biggest dietary threat. 
The Daily Mail's GP Martin Scurr predicts that advice will change here in the UK too. 
He said last night: 'I think we're at a tipping point where cholesterol is concerned. There have been a lot of vested interests in people talking about cholesterol because it's easy to convey to the public that fatty foods like butter, cheese and red meat are furring up their arteries. In fact there are many other risk factors involved but somehow we've become obsessed with cholesterol.' 
London-based cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, science director of campaign group Action On Sugar, wrote in the British Medical Journal that it was time to 'bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease'. 
He added that the food industry had effectively contributed to heart disease by lowering saturated fat levels in food and replacing it with sugar. 
Matt Ridley, a Tory peer and science author, yesterday said there should be an inquiry 'into how the medical and scientific profession made such an epic blunder'. [Didact: Well that's really easy. Scientists and their research went where the government's money was.]
Well, it's about time that science caught up with what those of us who listened to our grandmothers have known for years and redesigned the food pyramid so that it starts with the real four basic food groups- beef, bacon, whiskey, and lard.

Macarons burger – Een burger gemaakt van macarons.
This tests my belief that there is no such thing as TOO MUCH BACON to the very limit... 
In all seriousness, though- consider just how much damage the government food pyramid has done to our health, our physiques, our very mental well-being by promoting the nonsensical low-cholesterol, high-carb diet that the ubiquitous Food Pyramid has been promoting for the last 40 years.

Kate Upton Responds To Fat-Shaming Blogger
For some reason, Kate Upton shows up in the image search results for "Americans have gotten really fat". Make of that what you will.
The reality of cholesterol is very different from the evil, artery-clogging substance that the US government has wanted you to believe it to be for the last two generations.

In fact, every single cell in your body has the ability to produce cholesterol. It is an absolutely essential chemical compound in your body. Your brain runs on the stuff. If you starve your body of it, or try to reduce it through powerful drugs such as statins, you risk throwing your own body's carefully evolved and calibrated mechanisms for self-repair, recovery, and defence out the window.

So why did this anti-scientific fraud persist for so long? Even though there were hundreds if not thousands of scientists worldwide- many of them of considerable renown in their chosen fields- and multi-decade studies arguing against it?

Well, for that, you have to go back to the work of one Senator George McGovern and his US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, which set the precedents for the later Dietary Guidelines for Americans, issued by the Centre for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. The very same Centre, by the way, which just disavowed cholesterol as a "problem substance".

Sen. McGovern's abiding conviction was that fat and cholesterol were the causes of the growing rates of heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions which were emerging at the time. And he used his Select Committee to make that point of view- which was contentious at the time and has remained so ever since- official government policy.

Given that this is the same Sen. McGovern who discovered, to his utter shock, that running a business is not quite as simple as his Leftist ideology would have liked him to believe, perhaps it's fair to argue that maybe he and his Senate staffers were just a little overzealous and jumped to conclusions a wee bit too early.

The good news from all of this- aside from the fact that it means that eggs, meat, and high-fat dairy have now been confirmed as being rather good for you- is that yet another unscientific, unsupported fraud has now been cast upon the ash-heap of history. It won't be too much longer before another unscientific, heavily government-funded, utterly absurd and unsustainable fraud joins it upon history's funeral pyre for stupid ideas.

Yes, that's right- it won't be more than another ten years, in my opinion, before the US government will finally be forced to abandon its long-held view that humans are causing the world's climate to change.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go celebrate this momentous occasion by devouring a large skirt steak... oh, wait, I did that already anyway.

Well, never mind- there's always chocolate-covered bacon for desert...

The warrior mentality

As I said, Chris Weidman is a champion worthy of respect and admiration. Just how much respect and admiration, though, doesn't become clear until you see how the guy trains:

Chris Weidman stands in rather stark contrast to certain previous champions. Compared to Jon "Bones" Jones, who just can't seem to keep his nose clean (literally), Chris Weidman is practically a choir-boy- who also happens to be one of the most talented, hardest-working, down-to-Earth, and downright lethal men on the entire planet.

He loves his wife. He adores his children. He wants to do the best he can for the people who he cares about. He believes in giving back to the sport that has rewarded him for his own incredible work ethic and considerable talent.

He reveres his Creator. He finds refuge and solace in prayer to God, and he is unabashed in speaking of his faith.

Best of all, he understands the warrior's mindset. He knows what it takes to conquer fear, uncertainty, and doubt- because he has to do it, every single day, to push himself to be the very best that he can be. He understands that fighting in the Octagon is about as real as it gets, and that no man, no matter how hard he tries, is going to be able to master all of the infinite varieties and levels of skills within the world of martial arts.

Though he is a master of wrestling and an adept striker, he retains that beginner's mindset which is so critical to becoming truly great at anything. He has not (yet) let his incredible success and talent go to his head; he has not (yet) let his ego blind him. He remains the same fierce yet humble fighter that he was when he first fought in the UFC.

As role models in sport go, we could do a lot worse. We have done a lot worse.

So why, then, do so many fans of the sport continue to boo him whenever he walks into the cage? I have no clue why; as far as I'm concerned, he is the real deal, a great champion and a good man, from whom I, at least, could learn a very great deal about martial arts and the warrior mentality.

Monday, 25 May 2015

Honour the fallen... by bringing the rest home

Memorial Day Cartoons

The fact that this country still takes, even today, such enormous pride in its soldiers is one of the many, many things that I love about it. You have to travel outside of the US to understand just how unusual it is to find a country that not only loves but reveres its military personnel. Most European nations, with perhaps the very notable exception of the United Kingdom, mostly pay lip service to the notion of honouring their war dead.

That is because they have grown so comfortable and cozy in their little worlds without war that they literally cannot comprehend the notion of fighting, bleeding, and dying for any concept so ephemeral as freedom, or so concrete as their own cultural values and norms. They have forgotten what freedom really means. They no longer understand that this amazing thing we call "freedom" comes at a truly terrible cost, and that nations which refuse to shoulder this cost will eventually find that they are unable to hold on to what they valued so little until it is too late.

Not so in America. Not yet.

Here, the very real cost of liberty, that most valuable and most wonderful of all of the Creator's gifts, is still remembered. Here, entire cemeteries are set aside solely to house the last remains- and all too often not even that much- of the flower of this nation's youth.

Here, every year, there is a very real and very painful sense of loss to be found throughout the country when tallies are taken of the sons (and far, far too many daughters) who will never again walk through the front door of their parents' home.

On this day, let us remember those who died doing what they believed to be just and right- no matter how foolish and how wrong the causes for which they fought.

For that is the situation this country is in now. It squanders its most precious asset, the blood of its fighting men, in vainglorious pursuits of empire in distant foreign shores. It is bleeding its military dry through politics and stupidity at the behest of its leaders, and the incompetence, stupidity, and sheer crass historical ignorance of its utterly worthless current Commander-in-Chief.

This country insists on sending its troops to fight wars for which the US military is utterly unprepared- 4th-Generation or non-trinitarian wars that break all the rules of existing American war-fighting doctrine. Its last three wars, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, whether declared or not, all followed exactly the same deeply depressing pattern: bold declarations of overwhelming firepower to be applied to individual targets, followed by a near-complete rout by technologically unsophisticated but tactically skilled weaker opponents.

The cost of these misadventures has been truly staggering. More than 20,900 dead and wounded during the (ongoing) war in Afghanistan. More than 36,000 dead and wounded during the exercise in utter futility that was the "liberation" and occupation of Iraq. The total economic costs of all of these wars has exceeded $4.4 TRILLION.

In the space of just 15 years, this country has spent roughly as much on "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here", as the entire country of Japan produces in a single fiscal year.

And for what?

What grand strategic cause could possibly justify so many tens of thousands of dead and maimed American soldiers? What could possibly be a good reason for spending money that the country does not have on ends that the country does not need?

It is already abundantly clear that 4th-Generation war, in the form of the Third Wave of Islamic jihadist expansion, is happening right here on American soil. If the goal of all of these ridiculous wars was to prevent Islamic totalitarianism from taking hold here, then that policy has failed. Utterly, totally, and abjectly.

It is also perfectly obvious that this country cannot defend its own borders, let alone the borders of countries roughly a third of the way around the world. Illiterate Mexican peasants swarm over the southern border every day in what amounts to the greatest undeclared invasion of a sovereign state in history. And instead of being met with a completely justified hail of bullets to keep them out, your country insists on dusting off the best of the household furniture for their use.

Is this what your sons and daughters died for? To see their nation corrupted and destroyed, enfeebled within and invaded without?

Bring the troops home. Use their blood and their valour for the true purpose for which those magnificent qualities were always intended: to defend the Homeland, from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

On this day, remember those who died, so that we might be free. And remember that their sacrifices will indeed have been in vain, if those of us who yet live, continue to squander that which they purchased.

Sunday, 24 May 2015

Rediscovering ancient wisdom

Roosh caused a bit of a stir in the Manosphere recently when he posted a long set of ideas that he calls "neomasculinity". It's a great post, and I highly recommend you read the whole thing. I'll just provide the synopsis:
Neomasculinity combines traditional beliefs, masculinity, and animal biology into one ideological system. It aims to aid men living in Westernized nations that lack qualities such as classical virtue, masculinity in males, femininity in females, and objectivity, especially concerning beauty ideals and human behavior. It also serves as an antidote for males who are being programmed to accept Western degeneracy, mindless consumerism, and immoral state authority.
This set of ideas is far more than just the usual so-called "red pill" advice of "get strong, get rich, get laid". It is a blueprint for recreating a male-driven, masculine society in which traditional gender roles are once again revered and preserved, rather than mocked and destroyed.

Interestingly, his ideas took a while to get off the ground. He published his original article back in mid-April. I didn't even read it until at least a month later. Reception to his advice was mixed, at best, depending on what and whom you read.

The most prominent criticism of "neomasculinity" is that it is essentially about trying to save a degenerate and decaying civilisation that has made it perfectly clear that it does not want to be saved. This is exactly the tack that Blackdragon took when he responded to Roosh's original post. As he pointed out in an earlier post, the drunken, shambolic remnants of what was once a civilisation without equal in human history appears to be perfectly content to let itself slide into oblivion.

And when looked at in that light, critics like Blackdragon- who actually agree with something like 80% of Roosh's ideas about neomasculinity- have a rather good point. After all, why should we men attempt to fight for something that clearly is not worth saving or bothering with?

The reason is simple. As Vox Day has pointed out repeatedly, the future belongs to those who show up for it. And those who argue that we should simply let Western civilisation die a thoroughly deserved and pathetic death, that we should put it out of its (and our) misery, are taking a very short-term view.

The question remains: what will arise after the shattering of the West finally occurs?

If you happen to like freedom, if you happen to believe that men and women should both live and die by their choices, and if you happen to believe in the existence of a merciful and loving Creator who endowed His creation with free will, then you're not going to be too crazy about the alternatives presented if we simply retreat into the night and let the world burn.

The alternatives are to choose between Islam, and all of its barbarism, its backwardness, its illiteracy and unscientific stupidity, and the rising pagan cultures of what would once have been regarded as "the West".

Neither is a particularly palatable option.

That is where Roosh's neomasculinity comes in. As he outlines in the video above, neomasculinity is about far more than just game; it's about much more than picking up women. There is more to it than just the Alpha/Beta/Omega hierarchy of (socio-)sexual relations.

Neomasculinity provides an intellectual framework for those of us who accept and understand the need for masculine strength and leadership, but are repelled by the self-worshipping hedonism of the PUA sect. It provides a real political philosophy for those of us who seek the restoration of ancient liberties and traditions, yet are disgusted by the nature of the current political process and have turned to older ideas like monarchism or timocracy. And it provides a very clear dividing line between "us" and "them"- between those of us who stand for a thriving civilisation built on a true moral foundation of justice and virtue, and those of them who seek to tear down those very same influences.

No, the issue with Roosh's ideas is not the fact that he has opened a schism with the PUA or "red pill" community. The issue is not the fact that he has disavowed those same communities, which he did so much to build and influence.

My issue with Roosh's ideas is that he claims credit where it is not necessarily due.

Now, to be clear, I agree with something like 95% of his neomasculinity platform- right down to his very clear decision to exclude any and all sodomites from the same. However, I remain interested in standing up for the truth above all else, and there are several statements that Roosh has made which are, at best, questionable in their veracity.

The first issue that I have is the fact that he claims that he was the first to introduce the concepts of "Alpha" and "Beta" into the context of human sexual relations. As far as I know, this is simply not true.

As he states, he started the DC Bachelor blog in early 2005- more than 10 years ago- and that is where he introduced these concepts. However, he was not the first to do so. If you read Neil Strauss's The Game, for instance (published in September 2005), you'll see that Neil Strauss, in his persona as "Style", had discovered the same concepts floating around in the PUA community at least a year, probably two, before Roosh did.

Moreover, Roosh himself states in his book, Bang, that he had discovered an online book called Tony's Lay Guide, which he downloaded and printed out, which gave him his start into the game. It provided him with the initial roadmap, which he then used to build out his own style of game.

And if you go back farther through time, you will find that in age after age, the same wisdom about men, women, and their respective roles in building (or destroying) civilisation simply keep coming up, keep repeating.

In other words, what Roosh is marketing as new and innovative is in fact quite ancient.

That is not to say that Roosh's ideas are bad. Quite the contrary. They are excellent. It's just that they aren't new. They are simply restatements or reformulations of ancient wisdom, brought up-to-date for a modern age.

There is nothing in the world wrong with this, and that is what Roosh's critics need to recognise. They need to understand that there are significant shortcomings in the current "red pill" philosophy, because it is simply too limited.

To be a man in this day and age means more than simply banging women left, right, and centre. It means more than simply lifting heavy weights. It means more than simply reading or improving your mind. All of these, taken alone or together, are worthy pursuits and any red-blooded man is strongly advised to take them up. Yet, even then, they are not sufficient to allow a man to live a full and happy life.

At some point, every womaniser hits hedonic overload. Roosh himself appeared to hit this point a little while ago, when he confessed to feeling worn out with his pursuit of worldly pleasures.

Eventually, even the strongest of men will see their strength fade, their muscles slacken. This is inevitable with the passage of time; cruel as it is, there is no escaping it.

And ultimately, all of the book-learning in the world cannot compensate for the need for men with potential and promise to do something good with their lives.

That is why neomasculinity is important. Roosh might incorrectly take credit where it is not due; well, so be it, that doesn't make the message itself wrong. The key question we each have to ask ourselves is whether we are willing to take risks and make sacrifices in order to rebuild civilisation.

I know how I plan to answer that question. Do you?

RIP John Nash


John Forbes Nash Jr., the genius who formulated the concept of the Nash Equilibrium which is so central to game theory, died yesterday in a car crash in New Jersey:
The Princeton math genius whose life story was the subject of the film “A Beautiful Mind” died Saturday in a crash on the New Jersey Turnpike. 
John Forbes Nash Jr. was killed in the 4:30 p.m. crash, along with his wife of nearly 60 years, state police said Sunday.

The crash happened in the southbound inner lanes of the highway.

Nash was 86. Alicia Nash was 82.

The couple were in a taxi that crashed with another vehicle.
The paper said the driver of the taxi, a Ford Crown Victoria, lost control as he tried to pass a Chrysler in the center lane and crashed into a guard rail. 
The Nashes were ejected from the car, a state police spokesman told the Newark Star-Ledger.
The person in the Chrysler was transported to a hospital and was expected to survive. 
Known as brilliant and eccentric, Nash was associated with Princeton University for many years, most recently serving as a senior research mathematician. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1994 for his work in game theory, which offered insight into the dynamics of human rivalry. It is considered one of the most influential ideas of the 20th century.
I've studied a bit of game theory in my time- actually, next to linear algebra and differential calculus, it was probably my favourite mathematical sub-discipline. There is an elegant simplicity to game theory in general, and to the Nash Equilibrium in particular, that makes it a remarkably interesting field of study.

And unlike quite a lot of the more esoteric parts of mathematics, game theory is highly applicable in real life.

A case in point would be the auction of 3G licenses to various UK telecommunications companies by the British government in 2000. The entire auction process was essentially designed from the ground up by game theorists- the most prominent of whom was a chap named Dr. Kenneth Binmore.

The auction ended up generating something like GBP 22 billion for the government, because it was designed with the specific intent of using powerful mathematical ideas to accurately model human behaviour.

None of that would have been possible without John Nash. And now he's gone, leaving behind a void that will be rather difficult to fill.

I've had the privilege to study under people who have been his students and associates. From what they say, John Nash was every bit the eccentric genius that he known as being in popular culture. But that doesn't change his immense impact upon multiple disciplines within mathematics, economics, and the social sciences.

Prof. Nash was hugely influential in the worlds of mathematics and economics. He also happened to be a complete f***ing nutball for a while. But then, insanity and genius do seem to be mirror images of each other.

Clear skies, Prof. Nash.

Give him the respect he deserves

LAS VEGAS -- A UFC middleweight title fight more than one year in the ...
Staring up into the face of love, eh?
Chris "All-American" Weidman emphatically put doubts about his worthiness for the title of UFC middleweight champion to the sword last night by pounding the hell out of Vitor Belfort's skull in UFC 187:
Weidman retained his middleweight title by finishing Vitor Belfort by TKO in the first round Saturday night here at MGM Grand and then addressed all his detractors afterward. 
"Hey, stop doubting me," Weidman shouted to the fans in an interview with Joe Rogan. "It's enough. Stop doubting me. You better join the team now. This is my last invitation. Join the team. I love you."

Weidman has now finished Anderson Silva twice, beaten Lyoto Machida and taken out Belfort. Yet, the Long Island, N.Y., native still thinks not enough people give him credit.

"I'm for real," Weidman said. "I felt that after the Machida fight there was a good group of people that started following and there was believers. But with the time off, the haters just grew stronger and stronger, so I had to just come in here and do my thing again."

He certainly did. Belfort caught Weidman early with some big punches. During a flurry against the cage, it seemed like Weidman might have been in trouble. He wasn't. The former All-American college wrestler shook it off, took Belfort down and easily slipped into a dominant position.

Weidman (13-0) by ground-and-pound TKO was basically academic at that point with Belfort seemingly out of gas.
I didn't watch his fight, or the Jones/Cormier match. I did get a chance to watch the Weidman/Machida fight back at UFC 175 last year, and I can tell you this: from what I saw, based on the five rounds that Weidman fought, he is absolutely the real deal.

His victories against Anderson Silva were not flukes. The highlights from UFC 162 give you a very limited idea of just how good Chris Weidman really is:

Unfortunately, they don't give you the full picture. The full fight showed that, as dangerous as Anderson Silva was (and still is), Chris Weidman had all of the tools necessary to take him down- which he quite literally did during that fight by forcing Silva to go to ground.

The reason I bring this up is because I was listening to the senior belts at my martial arts school talking about the upcoming Weidman-Belfort fight with a real sense of boredom. They just weren't excited or interested in the fight, because they felt as if Chris Weidman wasn't a truly great fighter.

And try as I might (and did) to change that perception, the feeling remained that there was simply no way that the legendary Anderson Silva- whose repertoire as a fighter truly defies understanding- could have been beaten by some shmuck.

Well, Mr. Weidman conclusively proved last night that there was nothing offhand or lucky about his victory. He beat Vitor Belfort fair and square- by taking him to the ground and then beating him like a drum.

And remember, Vitor Belfort is a man who failed not one, but two tests for banned substances. One can argue about whether or not such substances should be allowed in sport; I personally think that, given how rife steroid usage is at the elite level in most sports, there isn't much point in banning it, but that's a discussion for another time.

The fact remains, though, that Vitor Belfort, whether he is on drugs or not, is a damned dangerous opponent. This is the man that very nearly submitted Jon Jones at UFC 152 3 years ago, after all.

And Chris Weidman made him look average.

All of which simply tells me one thing: Chris Weidman is a worthy and deserving champion of the UFC middleweight division.

I became a fan when I saw how he methodically took apart Anderson Silva in both of his fights against the man. I remained a fan when I saw him take everything that Lyoto Machida had and still came back to win convincingly on points. And I continue to be a fan now that I've seen how he dominated one of the most dangerous contenders in his division.

This is a man worthy of respect and admiration. He is a true champion. Those who dislike him for beating Anderson Silva need to get real: he earned those victories.