Tag: society

Darkstream: why no one likes you

I probably should have called this Darkstream “how to be less disagreeable” or something, but regardless, it’s something that unpopular people really need to listen, understand, and apply. So much behavioral unattractiveness is avoidable, it just requires a modicum of self-awareness and self-control.

A really big giveaway is trying to make a issue about the person rather than the issue. If you disagree with someone, do you have a tendency to focus on what the person said and what was wrong about that or do you immediately go to try to question the person’s motivations, you immediately go to try to question the person’s character, you try to discredit the person in the eyes of other people? Those are all gamma behavioural patterns.

There’s a good comment here and this is exactly true. He says, “I notice that they tend to scan for trigger words that they respond emotionally to rather than processing the ideas and then responding to the ideas.” People don’t like this behavior. This is what this is what is so strange about these patterns is that no one likes this behavior. Men don’t like it, women don’t like it, absolutely no one likes to be around it, and no one likes to be subjected to it. And so, you know, if you find that you’re not popular, if you find that people go out of their way to avoid being around you, if they kick you out of their groups online, you know, the chances are very good that your behavior is caught up in in this vicious spiral of negativity. Some of it is directed internally, but a lot of it gets directed at anybody who upsets you or makes you feel bad.

The problem is that other people know about this even if they even if they can’t articulate exactly what your behavior is. They have seen it before in others and they have had bad experiences with others who exhibit those behavioral patterns….

The one thing that I would like to convince you if you are someone that is unpopular, disliked, etc, the one thing that I’d like to convince you more than anything is to understand that everyone sees through all of your little posturing. Okay? The snarky declarations of victory, the redefinitions of defeat and claiming that you actually really won, these are things that are not fooling anyone, you know?

Because, like I said, there aren’t that many fundamental behavioral types and so when you’re doing that kind of crap, then you’re doing something that the other person has seen a hundred times before from other losers like you. So you know, you’re not getting anything past them. Even if they don’t call you out, even if they just roll their eyes and let it go, you shouldn’t think you’re getting away with anything and you’re not fooling anyone, all right? The snarky comments, the posturing, the eye rolling, these are things that people notice and they remember.

UPDATE: Then again, this comment tends to indicate that many unpopular, disagreeable people prefer their negative behavioral patterns to popularity.

I often find that the people who self-identify as alpha and put everyone else down are actually narcissistic sociopaths attempting to justify their anti-social behavior and pretend they’re a much higher status than they actually are. That you admit to looking to your wife for approval before you speak definitely takes you out of the alpha category.
– Jack Burton

I suggest Jack watch the video again. I’m literally talking to him and men like him. By the way, Big Trouble in Little China quotes are also a gamma tell.

In any event, I don’t look to Spacebunny for approval. I look to her because she actually pays attention to the social mood of the gathering and the flow of the conversation, which I don’t always do. This helps me avoid humiliating someone who really doesn’t deserve it or responding to a harmless statement in a manner others are likely to deem awkward or inappropriate.

His audio is never good. His content is never good. His speaking ability is never good. Why does a self-proclaimed genius speak like he has brain damage? He’s stupid, lying or both. Using your podcasts to attack others all the time = gamma of the lowest order.
– Jack Burton

I suggest you look in the mirror because you’re literally talking about yourself and projecting your faults on others. You ARE the nerd, a huge nerd. You don’t just know quotes, you create the quotes. You don’t just visit fantasy worlds, you live in a fantasy world. You make your living writing third-rate fiction to appeal to the same nerds you seem to hate. Your complete lack of self-awareness and hypocrisy is astounding and just shows how deep your narcissism is. The idea that merely quoting a movie or book means you’re gamma is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard and is completely nonsensical. You’re a nerd pretending you’re better than other nerds. It’s really pathetic. You’re a liar and a fraud. I’m not making sarcastic sounds. I’m not indirectly taking shots. I’m telling you directly that you’re full of shit. Something your wife, real or imagined, does a lot I’m sure. 
– Jack Burton

Who lies more, Peterson or “Vox Day?” Who lives in a fantasy world and sells his fantasies to others, Peterson or Vox? Who is a huge nerd but attacks and exploits other nerds? Vox is clearly much more dysfunctional, deceptive, parasitic and negative than Peterson.
– Jack Burton

It’s amusing that the biggest gamma nerd of them all pretends he’s alpha, LMAO. He’s up to his castizo eyeballs in comics and pretends he’s some kind of chad alpha. He’s a short, doughy geek who couldn’t defend himself to save his life. He even admitted he doesn’t respond to people unless his wife gives him permission. Just stand there and hold her purse, you wimp.
– Jack Burton

Don’t ever change diapers

Just leave infants lying in their own excrement until they can articulate their consent to have their diapers changed:

Deanne Carson, a “sexuality educator” with Body Safe Australia appeared on the show to talk about establishing a “culture of consent” in the home.

Speaking during the segment on ABC news she said she works with children from birth on issues of consent. When asked to give an example of how parents could establish the culture in their home she said they could ask questions such as “I’m going to change your nappy now, is that okay?”

Deanne Carson said parents should create a culture of consent for their children
She continued: “Of course the baby is not going to respond ‘yes mum, that’s awesome. I’d love to have my nappy changed.’

“But if you leave a space, and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact, then you’re letting that child know that their response matters.”

Many viewers were left confused by this advice.

Twelve years ago, I showed that tolerance is not merely a vice, but is “the sin of Jeroboam” described in the Bible. Experts like this clearly demonstrate the desperate need for not merely revival, but holy inquisition.

St. Torquemada, pray for us!

The opposite of progress

Modern progressivism has led to an increasingly dysgenic reality:

The potential problem was first noted by Galton in 1869. In the 1930s Raymond Cattell was pretty sure that the greater fertility of poorer and duller couples was going to bring down the population average, but was surprised to find that the data showed a contrary trend. Perhaps this was because the effects of copious fertilizer overcame a drop in the quality of the seed, but results are results, and the dysgenic hypothesis looked weak. Of course, to continue the agricultural analogy, yields could also be adversely affected by over-use of pesticides. One possible cause of less capable brains is that these sensitive organs are being poisoned by man-made toxins.

All this and more is covered in the introduction to a new paper:

What Caused over a Century of Decline in General Intelligence? Testing Predictions from the Genetic Selection and Neurotoxin Hypotheses Michael A. Woodley of Menie & Matthew A. Sarraf & Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre & Heitor B. F. Fernandes & David Becker

What are we to make of all this? The Woodley et al. argument is that general intelligence, the important and heritable part of mental ability, is falling; and that specific skills, the environmentally-influenced non-heritable part of mental ability, had risen over the last century and is now on a plateau.

The supportive findings are as follows: if you take the g loadings of mental tests (their saturation on the general factor of intelligence) and you link those loadings with the effect sizes of things like inbreeding depression and correlations with motor reaction times, then the strength of selection against intelligence (duller citizens having larger families) is more pronounced on g loaded abilities, but correlates negatively with the Flynn Effect (the secular rise in many, but not all mental tests).

So, it is better to track general ability rather than specific specialised skills.

Well, regardless of whatever might have caused this decline in Western intelligence, it’s nothing that importing a few hundred million sub-85 IQ third-worlders shouldn’t fix, right?

The Christmas wines

I know the oenophiles here enjoy the occasional recommendation even though we stick to the affordable, so allow me to recommend the following wines, both from Torres in Catalunya:

  • White: Habitat Vino Ecologico 
  • Red: Celeste Crianza
We went with the usual proseccos from Treviso and cavas from Freixenet, so nothing unusual there. The Celeste is a particularly good wine from Ribera del Duero.

The Deep State and degeneracy

Anonymous Conservative sees a connection between The Last Closet and Pizzagate:

The media conglomerates formed because someone realized that if the microwave company owned the TV Station, they would get free mentions for their microwave, and sell more and make more profit, and then they would get the profits from the TV Station too. It was win-win, times a hundred.

Soon, the media company formed as TV stations bought radio outlets, publishing houses, movie production companies, and magazines. It could put mentions in books, magazines, in news stories on the radio station, in news broadcasts on TV stations, and on and on. Wasted airspace in the news show was now producing income because of stories about products the media company sold. The softdrinks in the concessions at the theme parks could be in paper cups with the latest movie’s graphics, while the soft drink company bought advertising on the TV station that featured the movie’s actors promoting their movie in the softdrink ad. It is all one giant corporate advertising circle-jerk, which will drown out any smaller business beneath the tsunami of free mentions for the big company’s products. Use things like hypnotic techniques and market analysis to optimize the return on advertising effort and investment, and nothing could stop the machine.

The media companies either formed or bought publishing houses because it was easy money. Take something cheap to produce and utterly moronic like Fifty Shades, and promote it for free on your media platform with news stories and puff pieces, and you can reap hundreds of millions from the books, movies, and whatever else. Licensed sex toys, clothing, posters, and on and on. And as Fifty Shades takes off, you use it to build actors and talent that can promote other stuff, and mention products in the movies which you want mentioned for other profits elsewhere. Even the first book promoted the second and third, which themselves promoted other stuff. It was the world’s biggest corporate advertising circle-jerk.

Of course the Deep State has its tentacles in the machine too. Where there is power and money there is control, and Deep State made sure it owned the key players in that machine, so it could control the machine.

One does wonder how so many broken, damaged, dysfunctional people seem to somehow keep winding up on top, no matter how often they underperform or fail. It’s almost as if someone, somewhere, wants those sort of people running things.

But then, it is always wise to remember that when Satan offered Jesus Christ all the kingdoms of the world, Jesus didn’t see fit to dispute whether the offer was a genuine one.

Mailvox: low morale men

JAG defends MGTOW:

This is why I don’t look down my nose at the MGTOW guys. Most of them are MGTOW because women have become so toxic through feminism that they are no longer attractive. Plus, many of these guys have seen their brothers, fathers, uncles, etc., utterly destroyed by the feminist court system that makes the man an indentured servant for the rest of his life after taking everything else away from him all because the woman got bored or some other ridiculous reason.

I realize that this is not a popular opinion around here, but those are my reasons for being sympathetic to the MGTOWs. How could you blame them, really? I know that lack of breeding is the biggest issue many have with them, but they are staunch allies when it comes to the issue of feminism.

How could you blame them? Easily. MGTOW are low morale cowards. From the societal and civilizational perspective they are useless parasites who, by their fecklessness, are helping the barbarians win the civilization war. Sure, they’re vastly to be preferred to the feminists, foreigners, globalists, and anti-Christians who are actively waging war against Western civilization, but they are passively refusing to defend it in any way.

How are they any better than the very Western women they excoriate? They are, in fact, observably worse, as both are in it merely for themselves but at least the women may produce the next generation of Western children, even if they will surely raise them in a sub-optimal manner. Neither the feral woman nor the fearful MGTOW is capable of maintaining the civilization whose toys they enjoy.

If we aren’t sympathetic to soldiers who run the moment they see the first casualties in their unit, we should not be sympathetic to men who run from women because they saw someone taken down by a toxic woman. The truth is that men often suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it. Would any Roman patrician have meekly submitted to being made an indentured servant at the whim of his wife and the word of a judge?

No. He would have killed the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly gone home and opened his veins in the bath. That’s why Roman law permitted patriarchs to kill those under their authority who crossed them in any way – because they were going to do it anyway and the maintenance of legal order in their society relied upon acknowledging that reality.

But the modern man values his toys more than his honor. That’s why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either. Men could end the entire divorce machine in 30 days if they chose, but instead, they prefer to live alone as indentured servants or in fear of becoming an indentured servant. I am not saying “wife up those sluts”, I am merely saying that living one’s life in fear of potentially wifing up a woman who may turn out to be less than entirely faithful and interested in playing the divorce lottery is not worthy of respect or emulation.

A man of the West takes risks. A man of the Wests molds his wife and his children. A man of the West is willing to fight for his honor, his family, and his civilization. Success is not guaranteed. But then, when, in the entire history of Man, has it ever been guaranteed? For millennia, young men of honor have fought and died for what they believe. But for what, if anything, would an MGTOW risk breaking a fingernail?

Covering for the monsters

Inadvertently and out of good intentions, I have no doubt. But women like Claire Berlinski are covering for the monsters all the same:

We are a culture historically disposed to moral panics and sexual hysterias. Not long ago we firmly convinced ourselves that our children were being ritually raped by Satanists. In recent years, especially, we have become prone to replacing complex thought with shallow slogans. We live in times of extremism, and black-and-white thinking. We should have the self-awareness to suspect that the events of recent weeks may not be an aspect of our growing enlightenment, but rather our growing enamorment with extremism.

We should certainly realize by now that a moral panic mixed with an internet mob is a menace. When the mob descends on a target of prominence, it’s as good as a death sentence, socially and professionally. None of us lead lives so faultless that we cannot be targeted this way. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

Your computer can be hacked. Do you want to live in the kind of paranoid society where everyone wonders—Who’s next? To whom is it safe to speak freely? What would this joke sound like in a deposition? Do you think only the men who have done something truly foul are at risk? Don’t kid yourself. Once this starts, it doesn’t stop. The Perp Walk awaits us all.

Given the events of recent weeks, we can be certain of this: From now on, men with any instinct for self-preservation will cease to speak of anything personal, anything sexual, in our presence. They will make no bawdy jokes when we are listening. They will adopt in our presence great deference to our exquisite sensitivity and frailty. Many women seem positively joyful at this prospect. The Revolution has at last been achieved! But how could this be the world we want? Isn’t this the world we escaped?

Who could blame a man who does not enjoy the company of women under these circumstances, who would just rather not have women in the workplace at all? This is a world in which the Mike Pence rule—“Never be alone with a woman”—seems eminently sensible. Such a world is not good for women, however—as many women were quick to point out when we learned of the Mike Pence rule. Our success and advancement relies upon the personal and informal relationships we have with our colleagues and supervisors. But who, in this climate, could blame a venerable Oxford don for refusing to take the risk of teaching a young woman, one-on-one, with no witnesses? Mine was the first generation of women allowed the privilege of unchaperoned tutorials with Balliol’s dons. Will mine also be the last?

Yes, and it should be the last. The grand feminist experiment in sexual equality has failed, brutally. It failed faster than communism. It failed faster than civic nationalism. It failed faster than multiculturalism. Feminism is literally the dumbest, most destructive ideology that has ever been invented, which is no surprise because it was invented by the most neurotic women history has ever known.

And the more we learn about (((Hollywood))) and Washington and Berkeley and London, the more it is clear that not only were those “moral panics” and “sexual hysterias” justified, they were merely scratching the surface of a diseased evil that runs much deeper and wider under the surface of society than most normal Americans realized. Consider the following passage from The Last Closet, in which one member of science-fiction fandom describes the reaction of the Berkeley science-fiction community to the public behavior of Marion Zimmer Bradley’s husband.

At first Berkeley was indifferent to Walter’s sex life. This gradually began to change. There were two main causes for this. At a GGFS meeting at the S’s, S walked into her son’s bedroom—age 13—to find him in bed with Walter with Walter’s arm around him. They were watching TV. (Walter is incredible.)  S wasn’t about to take this. She didn’t make a scene at the time, but from then on, someone else was anti-Walter. Thenceforth the S kids were under instructions to retire into their room and barricade the door with furniture whenever Walter was in the house. They did too. S wanted to ban Walter from the house entirely but Alva felt great reluctance to reject any fan.

Most people were rather amused by this incident, feeling that the kid could say “No” and even if he said “Yes” the experience probably wouldn’t hurt him any. After all, Walter is so child-like himself that it would be just as if the kid were playing around with another kid. And quite apart from the sexual connotations some people were outraged that an adult could prefer the society of children to that of adults, as Walter does.

The second cause was Walter’s sex play with 3-year old P. He had her trained up to the point where she would take off her clothes the minute she saw him. He would then “rub her down” and all that. I recall one occasion—a fairly large gathering at the Nelsons — in which he also used a pencil, rubbing the eraser back and forth in the general area of the vagina, not quite masturbating her.

What I have learned from editing Moira Greyland’s book is that where there is sulfuric smoke of this nature, there is not merely a fire, there is a raging inferno. What is really worse for women, sacrificing a few career opportunities for the evolutionary dead ends in the workplace or sacrificing women as young as three to the depraved appetites of sexual predators?

Mailvox: throwing girls to the wolves

Rollory disapproves of men protecting their daughters. He claims Dalrock does too, although I would not be so sure of that.

This is the sort of thing Dalrock rips to shreds every chance he gets. I don’t always agree with every detail of his argument but it’s definitely worth thinking about.

The message this shirt is sending is “I belong to my daddy, not to the young man who might otherwise be interested.” It’s crazy for the young woman, it’s crazy for the father, and any young man who is sane will receive the message loud and clear and stay far away, choosing instead another girl whose father ISN’T playing the overprotective sexually jealous guardian.

An excess of suitable young grooms needing ever stricter winnowing is not at all the problem facing marriageable young women today. Again, Dalrock has covered this, and continues to do so.

Dalrock is good on many subjects, particularly on the Church and feminism, but if Rollory is correct and the message on this t-shirt is the sort of thing that Dalrock rips to shreds every chance he gets, then he doesn’t understand female psychology very well, nor would he appear to have daughters or sisters. It may help to keep in mind that this is the original context of the phrase.

  1. Take a position on high ground somewhere in the middle with clean sight lines of the entire route.
  2. Load a round into your .50 caliber rifle.
  3. Take the lens covers off the scope.
  4. Watch as your little girl walks off to school by herself.

There is nothing crazy about a father being protective of his daughters. There is nothing even remotely crazy about a young woman wanting to feel protected by her daddy. While people can, and do, go too far – and anything that is more suited for a wedding or a high school prom is going too far – there is nothing overprotective or “sexually jealous” about paternal protectiveness; anyone leaping to that conclusion is raising serious questions about their own psychosexual issues. The ironic thing about citing Dalrock in this regard is that Dalrock regularly complains about “feral” young women; he even has a category called Feral Females.

Now, where do you suppose feral young women come from, families where men protect their daughters or families where men simply throw their daughters to the vagaries of sexual selection, to fend off the predators as best they can on their own? The symbolism of the t-shirt is less about winnowing the suitable young grooms, than it is about giving the daughter the strength and the permission to say “no” to the wrong ones in the full knowledge that her father will have her back.

But as it happens, the real target of the message is not men. The t-shirt is actually status-signaling on the part of the daughter, or the wife, when that version of the t-shirt is ready. It is less a warning to young men than it is bragging to other young women that she is valued, that she is loved, and that she is worthy of protection by a man who is strong enough to provide it for her. Both Dalrock and Rollory appear to have forgotten that support and protection are the two primary male roles in every relationship with women and children, and that stable young women really do treasure those things.

I suspect a telling determinant will be who loves these shirts and who hates them. My prediction is that good girls from strong families will love the message and feminists will furiously hate it. The more interesting question, and one to which I do not have an answer, is: why do men like Dalrock and Rollory dislike it so much?

Regardless, King Edward’s motto is appropriate.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.


UPDATE: since we’re discussing the shirt, I should mention that the long-sleeve crewneck version is now available as well.

Of art and the artist

It is interesting to observe that when SJWs insist that the art MUST be judged in light of the artist, it is merely another example of how they are projecting:

Like Hitler, Jeanneret wanted to be an artist, and, as with Hitler, the world would have been a better place if he had achieved his ambition. Had he been merely an artist, one could have avoided his productions if one so wished; but the buildings that he and his myriad acolytes have built unavoidably scour the retina of the viewer and cause a decline in the pleasure of his existence.

One of Jeanneret’s buildings can devastate a landscape or destroy an ancient townscape once and for all, with a finality that is quite without appeal; as for his city planning, it was of a childish inhumanity and rank amateurism that would have been mildly amusing had it remained purely theoretical and had no one taken it seriously.

A book has just been published—Le Corbusier: The Dishonest Architect, by Malcolm Millais—that reads like the indictment of a serial killer who can offer no defense (except, possibly, a psychiatric one). The author shares with me an aesthetic detestation of Jeanneret, and also of his casual but deeply vicious totalitarianism; but, unlike me, the author both has a scholarly knowledge of his subject’s life and writings, of which the perusal of only a few has more than sufficed for me, and is a highly qualified structural engineer. Mr. Millais is able to prove not only that Jeanneret was a liar, cheat, thief, and plagiarist in the most literal sense of the words, a criminal as well as being personally unpleasant on many occasions, but that he was technically grossly ignorant and incompetent, indeed laughably so. His roofs leaked, his materials deteriorated. He never grasped the elementary principles of engineering. All his ideas were gimcrack at best, and often far worse than merely bad.

To commission a building from Jeanneret was to tie a ball and chain around one’s own ankle, committing oneself to endless, Sisyphean bills for alteration and maintenance, as well as to a dishonest estimate of what the building would cost to build in the first place. A house by Jeanneret was not so much a machine for living in (to quote the most famous of his many fatuous dicta) as a machine for generating costs and for moving out of. In the name of functionality, Jeanneret built what did not work; in the name of mass production, everything he used had to be individually fashioned. Having no human qualities himself, and lacking all imagination, he did not even understand that shade in a hot climate was desirable, indeed essential.

The artists, authors, and architects of the modernist era have much to answer for, and they are answering for it in Hell. The best tribute that we can pay to them is to tear down their buildings and destroy their sculptures while pointing relentlessly to their paintings and books as preeminent examples of what no man should ever do.

An ugly man can produce beautiful artwork, but those with ugly souls can neither recognize nor create beauty. They can only destroy.

Average global IQ = 86

The blank slatists and civic nationalists are in for a nightmarish disappointment if these global IQ figures are even remotely correct.

The World’s IQ = 86. Test results of 550,492 individuals in 123 countries.

Every test, either “school near” as those designed for PISA or “school far” as designed for intelligence testing, are subject to the same concerns about sampling, measurement invariance, individual item analysis, and the appropriateness of summary statistics. Why the difference in public response to these two different points on the assessment spectrum? Perhaps it is as simple as noting that in scholastic attainment there is always room to do better (or to blame the quality of schooling) whereas in intelligence testing there is an implication of an immutable restriction, unfairly revealed by tricky questions of doubtful validity.

Perhaps it is a matter of publicity. PISA has the money for brochures, briefing papers, press conferences, meetings with government officials. Richard Lynn put his list together in his study, and came up with results that many were happy to bury.

106.02 CHINA
100.46 GERMANY
 96.99 USA
 92.79 ISRAEL
 88.51 MEXICO
 83.04 JORDAN

I suspect the 8-point decline I calculated in the USA hasn’t fully shown up in these tests yet, although the initial decline is clear in the way it is declining faster than the European norms. Anyhow, as incomplete as the data presently is, it suffices to put the lie to more than one dubious IQ-related narrative.