Wednesday, October 19, 2016

- A Minor Inconvenience

I hurt my back the other day. Nothing serious, I just bent the wrong way. When I was a senior in high school I was hit by a drunk driver as I walked home from my job as a bus boy at a local restaurant. The resultant injuries kept me out of the Army, and have caused me minor problems from time to time throughout my life. The symptoms come and go once every few years or so, but the larger problem is permanent. In spite of the pain, I don’t really need much in the way of medical care for it. I’ll just be lying grumpily on my back for a few more days. But I’m sure I’ll be up and about again shortly.

There isn’t much you can do to fill your time when you’re in too much pain to concentrate, and barely able to sit up on your own. So far I’ve filled mine by re-watching Game of Thrones. If you know the show please continue on, but if you don’t, you might as well stop here. With my present level of discomfort I’m disinclined to explain the notoriously complex backstory.

I noticed a parallel we have with the common folk in that show. Like them, we get our news of the world from actors. In season six some time is spent focused on the story of what they call “the war of 5 kings”, being reenacted for the people by a troop of actors who cross paths with one of the characters.

And it’s an interesting narrative they tell. In the actor’s story of the war, Ned Stark is a mercenary idiot, Tyrion Lannister is a soul-less, grasping villain, Tywin Lannister is a befuddled and tragic victim, Sansa Stark a virtue-less whore, and Cersei and Joffre Lannister are described only as the noble and faithful victims of villainy by all the others.

Obviously as TV viewers, we see the events of the land of Westeros quite differently. In the version of the story that we get, the people depicted in the actor’s narrative as heroes were all villains and the villains all heroes. Joffre was a vicious and cowardly weasel who took his nasty pleasure from torturing the weakest around him and his profoundly psychotic mother Cersei is correctly described as “the queen of madness”. Sansa was a virgin until she was raped by a minor character much later in the story, Tywin was the heartless and brutal patriarch of his clan, and Ned Stark and Tyrion both are admired for the noble and more or less honorable way they suffered the shameless wickedness, cruelty and lies of the others.

So how did the players in the story get it so wrong? How did they come by this narrative which isn’t a minor departure from the truth, but a stunningly accurate repudiation of it in every way? The answer is that they did it on purpose. Players in Westeros and 21st century America both, aren’t rewarded for telling the truth, they are rewarded for telling those in power, the story they want to hear.

One of the most powerful things about a purely subjective worldview is that in our own minds we all think we’re the heroes, even the worst of us. Hillary Clinton is a prominent example. After rising to public prominence as the wife of our most powerful living philanderer, she has staggered and stumbled from incompetence to careless disregard, leaving a trail of felonious wreckage in her wake. But when she looks in the mirror she doesn’t see the trail of dead bodies and misery for which she has at least some small responsibly, she see’s a noble long suffering hero of the people and champion of women. That she utterly despises those common people she means to rule over, is seen by her as a problem with them not a problem with her.

But our players in 21st century America, like the ones in Westeros, know where their bread is buttered. They know that powerful people like Hillary only want to hear stories where they are depicted in the same light that they see themselves in. Our players know that if they contradict the narrative of the powerful, there won’t be any cloaked swordsmen who show up in the night to murder them, but there will be other things. Their careers will be ruined and their access to the powerful limited forever. So they are no more interested in ‘the truth’ than their “Game of Thrones” peers. All they want to know, is what they’re supposed to know, and they have no intention of letting the facts get in the way of that.

I was just thinking about one of our better known actors, Anderson Cooper. He’s a gay man who lives in the west village and plays the part of an expert in current events on TV. In the last debate he all but accused Trump of promoting sexual assault, but what does a gay man know about the sexual assault of women? The best guess is very little. But he knows how to keep a secret. He knows how to tell a story. He knows how to tell a lie so that the lie seems more believable than the truth.

These are the skills he’s no doubt used to work his way to the top of the ladder in the acting business. But now that he’s there, he has one specific skill he relies on more than all the others. He knows how to ingratiate himself to the powerful. He knows that the Clinton machine’s vindictiveness knows no bounds, and he knows how his bread is buttered. He doesn’t care at all about whether what Trump did or didn’t do met the burden of sexual assault. He has no idea if the women involved were flattered, offended, or made the whole thing up out of whole cloth. He only knows that Hillary Clinton and the ruling Democrat machine cares how that story is told, so he’s going to make sure he has all the right heroes and victims before hand.

The rest of the media are all the same – either climbing the hill upon which Anderson Cooper sits, or sitting there beside him. They can see how the elite want the story of modern America told. They won’t risk the wrath of their leaders by contradicting them.

Meanwhile in the fictional land of Westeros, a violent uprising is growing. The deplorable wildlings from beyond the wall (with their obsession about freedom) are joining the fight, as are the gaggle of unwashed savages and fanatics of the eastern lands, unified under the dragon banner of the most popular character in the show. When season 6 ended she was finally sailing off to begin her attack on the crown.

I wonder what the players in Braavos will be saying about that? My bet is that they wait until they see who’s in charge at the end before they write that part of the story.

The funny thing about our ‘press’ is that they want to believe they’re all heroes too. They see themselves as afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. They call themselves the insightful and thoughtful critics of the modern world, telling all we unwashed deplorables how things should be rather than how they actually are. They don’t see their own villainy, or how complicit they are in maintaining the villains in power. And if they have to believe a lie or two in order to continue to be the heroes of their personal story, that’s a small price to pay.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

- The Morality of Women

There is an interesting piece from the College fix about students being told "be a man" is part of toxic masculinity. The quotes are fun, go read them. But a different couple of lines are what jumped out at me.

“We are in a culture that doesn’t value caring,”

Anyone who thinks that women value "caring" more highly than men, doesn't understand men or women.

Show me a woman who says that she would literally die or kill for another woman (one who isn't her daughter at least), and I'll show you a liar. But men make such existential commitments to each other all the time and mean them. It's common in our culture to describe men as disloyal, but the commitment of combat soldiers to one another dwarves any ever made by a woman. Women will not risk themselves for other women. But I've been lucky enough to have a number of friends who I've made that commitment to, and gotten it in return. It was always offered seriously.

Women on the other hand, despise other women. I'm a little older now, so I can tell you dozens of stories about the hostility that a single 40 year old feels toward any and all single 22 year olds. But it's so common a theme that you don't need me to. Those women know that man like me could have a younger girl if I wanted one, and they resent it terribly. They know that since they are past their prime childbearing years, their value has been reduced in the eyes of men.

Many think it shouldn't be, but what does 'should' have to do with it?

Since it looks quite likely that we'll be going down this treacherous road together, we should all start acknowledging the way women really are instead of the way they describe themselves. They don't believe is 'caring', they are vicious, backbiting, nasty, hostile creatures whose wrath can be brought down in a heartbeat and without apparent cause. The closest they actually come to believing in caring, is believing in their own feelings, and believing that violence is terrifying. Women will do anything to avoid fear, even happily choose slavery.

And when they get to define all our morals, they will expect we men to do the same.

- NeverTrump Greasing the Liberal Slope

So it begins, the slippery slope of female entitlement at the expense of men, previously supported in spirit anyway (see my last post), by leading light of the intellectual right, Jonah Goldberg. Over at slate, one writer is now arguing to begin criminalization of 'assaultive kissing'. How does one define whether a kiss as a greeting is an 'assault'? By the subjectively defined emotional reaction of the woman involved. Thanks Jonah, for lending your intellectual weight behind this one. I'm sure there won't be any unintended consequences of that decision.

This is my big problem with the Nevertrumpers. They all claim they are 'principled enough' to not support Trump, but all too often, the hills they choose to die on are the liberal hills of 'racism' and 'misogyny'. Those are not conservative principles, nor is the process of determining guilt or innocence of a person exclusively by the subjective emotional reaction of the offended. But if it's an argument against Trump, they see that as more than principle enough. And don't get me wrong here. My beef is not that they have found common interest with the left on a political question, but that they have embraced the leftist process for determining the 'truth'.

In my opinion, no one who believes a person's guilt or innocence should hang alone on the feelings of the aggrieved, has any business calling themselves a conservative. The process itself is incompatible with the principled conservatism nevertrumpers say they support.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

- The Feminist Standard of Law

Here then it has arrived, a new definition for 'Sexual assault', defined by the left and embraced by the right. Man of the right Jonah Goldberg, places no distinction on the difference between "groping women" and "Sexual Assault". The latter involves a lack of consent, and in the case of Trump, the consent has been revoked years later. Not one woman complained at the time.

I groped a woman I'm not married to last night, and again this morning. (grin) Did I ask her first? No. Did we exercise positive consent? No. Did she in fact say no to me verbally? She did this morning yeah, but I knew she didn't mean it, and she knew I knew it or she wouldn't have said it. If I had tried to stop this morning she would have thought something was wrong.

The fact of the matter is, sometimes no means no, but in many cases no means yes, and on a few occasions, it means 'harder'. This is no secret, and is tied up in the complicated business of being a woman and wanting to be a little slutty, without actually admitting to it. It's really no big deal.

And the reason it's no big deal is that in spite of what she actually said, I obviously had her 'actual consent'. If I didn't, she would not have invited me into her bed last night in the first place.

But those days will be coming to an end soon. Now that the right has firmly embraced the female standard for 'sexual assault', it's all over. Soon there will be a raft of laws saying what men can and can't do, and a long list of legal requirements for relationships, if the man wants to avoid the risk of getting thrown in jail for seducing his girlfriend.

One dark mood, one bad day of PMS, and even years later, you will be subject to the full force of law. Do you trust the woman in your life to be responsible with that kind of power? Do you imagine life will go along normally for you when that's how the world works? The real unwritten rule will be a requirement for all men to meet all women's expectations of them, or be subject to immediate prosecution. This will hold true, even when those expectations are conflicting.

Try dating in that environment.

If you're a heterosexual male, you have to vote Trump, or this is the way the world will work. I'm not being dramatic here. This is already the standard in much of academia, and the man hating blue haired, physically monstrous feminists will see this law implemented 'to protect women', even over the objections of more rational women. There are too many of the former and not enough of the latter.

'Protecting women' from patriarchal 'rape culture' will be the feminist standard of Hillary's America. And ex-post revocation of consent, is what that movement is all about. All it takes is one irrational shameless woman who believes she has something to gain, and your life will be destroyed.

This applies to you married guys too. Suppose you come home one day and find you're wife in bed with the entire front line of the Spanish National Soccer team. You'll want to get divorced of course - who wouldn't. But in the process of getting divorced, your wife will have the option of revoking consent on some past sexual liaison with you, and accusing you of 'sexual assault'. You can then be convicted, and now you're a convicted felon suing for divorce. You won't get the kids. You won't get the house. She will get the gold mine and you will get the shaft.

Or, you can just stay married to her, and let her continue to do what she likes, which is the whole point. You're in a no win situation. That's the Feminist standard of law. Men are guilty, first and always, and anything that happens to the women is never her fault.

Right now you're saying, "my wife would never do that". I think you're wrong (OK, maybe not the soccer team). When you divorce a woman, even a reasonable woman, with good cause, she will turn into the most psychotic creature you'e ever met. She will believe she is perfectly entitled to whatever she can get, and the family courts will see to it she can.

If you don't want to spend your life knuckling under to the will of women, you have to vote Trump and persuade others to do so as well. It's already far worse than you know. and if it goes even an inch further from this, we're all finished.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

- Message From Brussels

- Politics In America: 2016

There is a flame war ongoing on Twitter between the #blacklivesmatter crowd (who are acting like they represent victims of a serious injustice) and the #clownlivesmatter crowd (who are doing the same.) It's an elegant bit of sarcasm I think, but it's tragic that in a once great nation, this is what the conversation has degraded to.

In the area of comedy the US is still a leader. In the area of serious political thinking, probably not so much.

- Life Under A Feminist Sky

You’re a cis-gender heterosexual man, and when you saw Donald Trump’s discussion with Billie Bush you were horrified. “How can any man treat women with such disrespect!” you said to yourself. That’s an easy question. He can, because they want him to.

Keep in mind… they don’t want you to. You could never get away with treating women that way – not even with unattractive women. You aren’t famous and rich. But Trump can get away with it because being rich and famous has the same effect on women as being a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model has on men.

From a man like him, being 'treated as a sex object' is seen as a 'huuuge' compliment. It means she's so hot she can even get a rich famous man like Trump. If you're attractive enough, women enjoy being objectified immensely. It's an ego boost. A compliment.

Why do you think good looking girls dress that way? Everything about women is really about sex. It's much more important to them than it is to us, and on a completely different level. They know their sex gives them power over us, and the most attractive of them use it as a weapon, while the least attractive want to enforce a political disarmament rather than having to go around unarmed.

That Trump can get away with treating women like that seems unfair to you, and it is. It’s one of the many things about life that remain unfair no matter how we try to use the law to change them. But women are attracted by what attracts them, the same as men. No law is going to change that. But that isn’t going to stop Feminists from trying.

If you’re a guy whose more like me, you weren’t put off by Trump’s comments in the first place. But it wouldn’t have mattered if you were. The new rules that Feminists want to see implemented won’t matter much to guys like me. I’m not famous or even super rich. But I am well off, and combined with the fact that I’m more attractive than average in other ways means that the new Feminist rules that apply to less attractive men will never be enforced against me.

That’s the thing. What Feminists want isn’t to limit the options of men they are attracted to. All they want to do is limit the options of men they find unattractive. They want the law to be a reflection of them and their egos. Remember, how attractive a man is to women involves more than his looks. You saw the ‘crazy-Hot matrix’ - if a man is rich enough it doesn’t matter to women what he looks like. But if a man has enough of a combination of looks, fame, wealth, and charm, the new Feminist rules won’t apply to him either.

But they will apply to you. You know this, and it’s why you embraced Feminism in the first place. You thought Feminism would make girls more promiscuous, and it has, which has opened up some options for you, but no options that you actually like. What you’re trying to do by embracing it is to be an ‘insider’. Get close to the women by agreeing with them. And while they rant and rage about the ‘dick’ who mistreated them (who they can’t get out of their mind and would go back to in a second if he'd have them), you plan to take what opportunities present themselves.

Sure, you can have some blue haired, drunken, tattooed freak for the night if you find yourself in the right place at the right time, and that’s a nice release. Certainly better than nothing. But you wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with anyone like that, let alone raise children with them. And in the meantime, guys you think are total dicks, like Trump, and sometimes me, will still be the only thing those women can think about. They’ll forget about you as soon as you get your pants back on.

But it will always be different for guys like Trump. Leonardo DiCaprio will still be able to have anyone. That isn’t going to change. And while Trump will continue to bed supermodels, and guys like me leave with your hotter than average dates while you’re in the men’s room, the new rules of Feminism will close in on guys like you like a trap. What Feminists really want, but will never admit, is they want to make all the choices of who gets who. Put another way, Feminism is really just a complicated and convoluted strategy for ugly girls to ‘better deal’ guys like you. If they make thinking like a man illegal, Feminists imagine that men will stop finding the young swimsuit model so much more attractive than them.

Think about it. It’s true that not all Feminists are repulsive, but did you ever wonder why repulsive women all seem to be Feminists? It holds a natural appeal for them. They see it as a way to remake the world of what men find attractive. And in a world where virtually no one wants them, they see absolutely anything else as a big improvement.

It’s not about morality. Since when did Feminists ever care about morality? Sure, they make it seem like a moral argument, but it isn’t. It’s about sex and access. That’s it. The thing they’re so angry about is that no man who they want, wants them back. They think that’s a problem with men but it isn’t. It’s a problem with their expectations.

I’m the first to admit that this is complicated, and it doesn’t seem ‘connected’ enough. But modern Feminism is decades of bad ideas layered on bad ideas, with the most effective motivator known to man as an incentive. And you need to recognize what it really is far more than I do. Because life under a Feminist sky is not going to change things for me or Trump. but it will be world that you really don't want to live in.