The kind of girl you want to marry

This young woman pretty much defines it. She’s not only cute and relaxed about the unanticipated, but has genuine love in her heart.

The dog was coaxed back outside by guests, and with order now restored, the ceremony went forward with the actual bride in place. But as the couple read their vows, the furry wedding crasher returned.

“The dog entered and laid down to sleep on my veil,” Marília said. This time, no one had the heart to turn the dog back out into the storm — certainly not Marília. She was more than happy to share the spotlight, and a bit of her gown, with the sweet pup. “It was a very pleasant surprise for me, because I love animals,” she said. “I liked it very much.”

“We decided to adopt him because he is a street dog,” Marília said. “It took us a long time to find him again, but yesterday, we were contacted and told his whereabouts.” Before long, the couple reencountered the dog, whom they’ve named Snoop: “He came home, and I showered him,” Marília said. “He played a lot, ate, drank water. He is very happy and slept super good the first night.”

It’s always a good sign when a woman loves dogs and says things like “super good.” It is a fairly reliable sign that she’s both grounded and positive. One of reasons Spacebunny and I hit it off immediately was because we both had dogs. Most of our initial dates involved taking them for walks through the forests near one of our homes. Looking at her, surrounded by all the colors of the autumn leaves, calling after one dog or the other, I always felt as if I had somehow found myself in an Eddie Bauer ad.


Defending the home

A wise woman chooses the known and defends her home over the dubious promise of the unknown and the unlikely:

I’ve earned those rewards. There is no way I want to jeopardize where I end up and how I live because I didn’t have the courage or willingness to pursue my marriage and family with integrity now. Before the hurricanes and menopausal tornadoes.

See, to be blunt, we don’t fare well in the re-marriage market as only 25{fb3a76c107ed8c3c77e3185bbb6287afee78a52023d85b1deb746f5c7c504d3b} of women who are divorced in their 30’s-40’s actually remarry. Men will generally marry at a rate closer to 50{fb3a76c107ed8c3c77e3185bbb6287afee78a52023d85b1deb746f5c7c504d3b} but, even then, they aren’t looking at our Match.Com profiles. They tend to marry women far younger than themselves the second time and, well, that rather gives a raspberry to both our aging marketability and our chances at second time marital bliss.

Seriously. 25{fb3a76c107ed8c3c77e3185bbb6287afee78a52023d85b1deb746f5c7c504d3b}.  I don’t like those odds.

Have you seen the dating market for women our age? Have you seen the dudes interested in us? How many of those men would want a ready-made family and a whole set of busted up luggage? How many of those men would you want around your 14-year-old daughter or raising your little boys?

Hollywood says women can do anything and have anything no matter what they look like or what mess they’ve made of their lives. But Hollywood also uses CGI to make dead people talk so we know they’re a bunch of liars anyway.

When it all boils down and we are left with the goop in the bottom of the pain, it seems wiser to just hang on to the 41{fb3a76c107ed8c3c77e3185bbb6287afee78a52023d85b1deb746f5c7c504d3b} chance that I get to be one of the women who can hold on to her husband and intact family for the long haul. At least as much as it is in my power to do so.

One seldom sees a statistics-based anti-divorce article from women, so it is good to see that there are some women who are beginning to embrace reality and acknowledge that muddling through the ups and downs of marriage with determination is a much preferable option to either you-go-girl divorce or the eat-pray-love-lesbian cycle.


Building a new culture

Conservatives love to talk about the need to build an alternative culture.

The culture leans sharply left, and in our current, highly-polarized political climate that means conservatives in the arts tend to be treated as outsiders at best and pariahs at worst. Listen to the personal experiences of conservatives in Hollywood, for example, whether “above the line” (the stars, producers and directors) or below it (the rest of the crew), and you will understand why most keep their politics in the closet to avoid bad vibes, ostracism, and/or outright hostility. The left, of course, dismisses complaints of blacklisting and bias as paranoid whining, but they are very real indeed.

The publishing world is not exempt from this state of affairs. When conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s new book The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left appeared at Number seven on The New York Times bestseller list, despite actually having outsold all fourteen of its competitors on the list, D’Souza called out the Times on Twitter: “In what alternative universe do Jeff Flake’s 7,383 book sales for this week (BookScan data) top mine at 11,651? Thanks @nytimes fake list!”

This was far from the first time conservative authors had called foul about their books’ rankings on the Times’ all-important bestseller list. Cortney O’Brien at Townhall pointed to another noteworthy recent example: Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer, by co-author couple Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney. A horrifying exposé of the dark(er) side of the abortion industry, the top-selling Amazon release was perceived by some as an attack on the left’s sacred cow of abortion rights. The New York Times did have the book at Number 13 on its “Combined Print & E-Book Nonfiction” list, but did not place Gosnell at its deserved Number four slot among bestselling nonfiction titles.

“It’s not only an insult to the people who have bought this book,” McElhinney said “but an insult to the readers of the New York Times who buy the newspaper and think they are getting the truth about book sales across America but instead get false facts disguised as a neutral list.”

A Times spokesman insisted that the “political views of authors have no bearing on our rankings, and the notion that we would manipulate the lists to exclude books for political reasons is simply ludicrous.”

Ludicrous? The Times says its list is based on “surveys” of “a wide range of retailers who provide us with specific and confidential context of their sales each week. These standards are applied consistently, across the board in order to provide Times readers our best assessment of what books are the most broadly popular at that time.”

Confidential context? Best assessment? Broadly popular? This sounds suspiciously unscientific and non-transparent, and does not address the evidence of the sales figures themselves.

Guess how many times a conservative media organ has reviewed, or even mentioned, a Castalia House book? Zero.

The conservative media talks a lot about “the culture”, and complain about the Left’s behavior in relation to it, but as is so often the case, they do absolutely nothing proactive about it. Conservative billionnaires don’t invest in culture, because they’re frightened of what they consider to be a “hits-driven business”. They’d rather blow millions on politics and television ads, even though, as Instapundit noted, all the money spent on political ads in the last presidential campaign would have been better spent buying up all the women’s magazines.


“Police have disappeared”

From Twitter:
“Police have completely disappeared from #Berkeley. People getting beaten up. Red flags being waved in the air.”

This is a surprise? Again? Really?
What part of “when seconds count, the police are 20 minutes away” failed to register with gun-owning conservatives?
Observations:

  1. The police have ZERO responsibility to protect you. None. This is settled case law. Never, ever, count on police protection from anything.
  2. The police work for the local mayor. The local mayor’s political allegiances dictate how the police will be utilized.
  3. This marks the third time – at least – that police protection has been proffered and then withdrawn.
  4. Street rallies serve no positive purpose, although they can be effectively used to demonstrate a) the politicization of the police as well as b) the violent lawlessness of the Alt-Left.

It’s not that bad

And it’s really not that hard to figure out, either.

The concept of communication range was established by Leta Hollingworth. It is +/- 2 standard deviations (roughly 30 points) up or down on one’s own IQ. It denotes the range where meaningful interaction (communication, discussion, conversation and socializing) is possible. If the IQ difference between two persons is more than 30 points, the communication breaks up. The higher IQ person will look like an incomprehensible nerd and the lower IQ as a moronic dullard – and they will not find anything common.
+/- 30 points does not sound much, but once the IQ is past 135, the downsides are imminent. When someone has a perfectly mediocre IQ (100 for Caucasian average), his communication range is from IQ 70 to IQ 130, which covers some 98% of the whole population. But when it is 135, it is from 105 to 165, which is approximately 36% of population. And it gets worse: if it is 162, your whole meaningful set of human interactions is restricted to Mensa qualifying people only (2% of whole population). Good luck for finding friends, acquaintances, colleagues – or spouse.
And it gets worse.
When the average IQ of a group is lower than the lower end of your communication range, the group will see you as a hostile outsider. They will do anything to bully you out of their presence. They will ostracize, excommunicate and oust you amongst themselves.
Sorry, but this is basic human psychology. Human group dynamics dictates that when the diversity grows too big, the group becomes incooperable – the group interaction becomes impossible. And high IQ means exactly that.
You may say that nobody must left behind and that mobbing and bullying is nasty and unacceptable, but our biology dictates otherwise. Exclusion is the basis for co-operation. A group which does not exclude people differing from the norm off or otherwise eliminate their presence, becomes dysfunctional.
Let me put this bluntly: every single human being with IQ of 135+ has experienced this exclusion, ousting and loneliness. The stereotype of a lonely genius does not come from empty air. It is cruel reality. And each and every human being with IQ of 135+ has experienced such unhappiness and misery the mediocre IQ people can not even imagine in their nightmares. I have cried my cubic metre of tears.
And this issue – that unhappiness is due to loneliness and the loneliness is due to the communication range – is something very few high IQ people ever realize.

I suspect it is significant that this piece is written by a high IQ woman. It’s not only harder for them to find friends, it is MUCH harder for them to find romance. A man is just as happy with a less intelligent woman as a more intelligent woman, whereas a woman is unlikely to want to settle for a less intelligent man, just as she’s less inclined to settle for a shorter man.
I knew I was much more intelligent than the average from the age of four, but I had an even smarter friend from the age of five. So, while I certainly experienced my share of exclusion and ousting, I can’t honestly say I ever experienced much in the way of loneliness. And frankly, very intelligent kids tend to be more than a little obnoxious as well as somewhat dishonest with themselves; it’s fine if you decide to reject the way that people have settled on doing things, but then, you have to recognize that you are making a choice.
In that refusal to admit that they are making a choice, many a gamma male is made.


Too low to parent

Speaking of IQ, apparently an average 69 IQ is insufficiently intelligent to care for children in Oregon.

Controversy as Oregon couple are forced to give up their children to social services after they were deemed ‘not intelligent enough’ to care for the babies. Amy Fabbrini, 31, and Eric Ziegler, 38, had both of their children taken into foster care, the youngest right after he was born in the hospital. After taking a required IQ test, Ziegler scored a meager 66 and Fabbrini a 72. The IQ of the average person ranges anywhere from 90-110. Domestic abuse and neglect were not factors in the custody case, but didn’t need to be, according to a report.

This indicates that 15.9 percent of all Black Americans, and 2.6 percent of all White Americans, are not intelligent enough to be permitted to raise children by Oregonian standards. I tend to doubt they were intending to establish that principle, but that’s what the bell curve dictates.


Enjoying their tolerance

It’s always mildly amusing to see progressives forced to face the consequences of their moral posturing, however disastrous those consequences may be for everyone.

I’ve lived in Los Angeles for over a decade and have seen my fair share of transgender/gender fluid people. They in no way offend me. I’d consider myself pretty progressive and tolerant of most things…except maybe people who identify as a person wearing socks with sandals. We all have our line in the sand and that’s totally mine. But how transgender people feel, how they choose to dress or any surgeries they get, don’t infringe on any parts of my life, so I support their decision to live as they see fit. I’ve also seen my fair share of transgender women in the women’s restroom before. Not ALL the time. But over the past few years, I’d say 4-5 that I noticed. Men…who were in some stage of transition and making every attempt to be a woman from mascara to heels. Transgenders who certainly felt comfortable in the women’s room and probably frightened to go into the men’s. At these times, I smiled…I peed…and life went on. But 2 weeks ago something very different happened.

I was at Disneyland with my son, my friend and her son. We were over in California Adventure in the food court area. We’d just finished eating and decided to pee before we headed out to The Little Mermaid. I went to the bathroom while she watched our boys in their strollers, and then I did the same. (For anyone who’s tried to fit a stroller in a bathroom stall, you get it).

I was off to the side waiting with the two boys, when I noticed a man walk into the restroom. My first thought was “Oh shit, he’s walked in the wrong restroom by mistake. lol” He took a few more steps, at which point he would’ve definitely noticed all the women lined up and still kept walking. My next thought was, “Maybe he’s looking for his wife…or child and they’ve been in here a while.” But he didn’t call out any names or look around. He just stood off to the side and leaned up against the wall. At this point I’m like, “WTF? Ok there is definitely a very large, burly man in a Lakers jersey who just walked in here. Am I the only one seeing this?” I surveyed the room and saw roughly 12 women, children in tow, staring at him with the exact same look on their faces. Everyone was visibly uncomfortable. We were all trading looks and motioning our eyes over to him…like “What is he doing in here?” Yet every single one of us was silent. And this is the reason I wrote this blog.

If this had been 5 years ago, you bet your ass every woman in there would’ve been like, “Ummm what are you doing in here?”, but in 2017? The mood has shifted. We had been culturally bullied into silenced. Women were mid-changing their baby’s diapers on the changing tables and I could see them shifting to block his view. But they remained silent. I stayed silent. We all did. Every woman who exited a stall and immediately zeroed right in on him…said nothing. And why? B/c I and I’m sure all the others were scared of that “what if”. What if I say something and he says he “identifies as a woman” and then I come off as the intolerant asshole at the happiest place on earth? So we all stood there, shifting in our uncomfortableness…trading looks. I saw two women leave the line with their children. Still nothing was said. An older lady said to me out loud, “What is he doing in here?” I’m ashamed to admit I silently shrugged and mouthed, “I don’t know.” She immediately walked out, from a bathroom she had every right to use without fear.

It’s always informative to spot the exact point at which the progressive virtue-signaling stops. It’s invariably somewhere between “violence directed at me” and “potential violence directed at my children.” Adjust your rhetoric accordingly.


The decline of trust in the USA

Bill Bishop attempts to address it, in the Washington Post, of all places.

The easiest sell of President Trump’s life is that a “corrupt” media produces “fake news.” After all, fewer than 2 in 10 Americans have “a lot” of trust in news organizations, the Pew Research Center has found, and we live in a “Matrix”-infused “conspiracy culture,” according to social scientists, where one is thought to be impossibly simple to not understand that the world is ruled by collusion and machination.

Trump has helped make trust a big deal for media types, and they are now searching for ways to regain the faith of their readers. To combat the “fake news” charge, the New York Times, for example, is running full-page ads and even bought a television spot during the Oscars declaring that “the truth is more important now than ever.” For some, the problem is that journalists have allowed too much of their personalities to creep into their work. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editor David Shribman prescribes “less analysis and more reporting, less personality and more facts.” For others, there’s a need to demonstrate that journalists are not faceless elites but real people. Washington Post opinion writer Dana Milbank wrote of his newsroom colleagues: “They hail from all corners of this country, from farms and small towns, the children of immigrants and factory workers, preachers and teachers.” But even local papers, the ones most closely connected to their readers, are struggling to defend their integrity. One editor of a rural California paper accepted an op-ed about the danger of “fake news” in an attempt to instill some faith among the anti-press crowd.

You can hear similarly fretful discussions in dozens of other professions. The president has maligned politicians, scientists, judges, teachers, labor union leaders and intelligence officials, among others. “Donald Trump’s most damaging legacy may be a lower-trust America,” the Economist’s Lexington column predicted. Trust in American institutions, however, has been in decline for some time. Trump is merely feeding on that sentiment.

The leaders of once-powerful institutions are desperate to resurrect the faith of the people they serve. They act like they have misplaced a credit card and must find the number so that a replacement can be ordered and then FedEx-ed, if possible overnight.

But that delivery truck is never coming. The decline in trust isn’t because of what the press (or politicians or scientists) did or didn’t do. Americans didn’t lose their trust because of some particular event or scandal. And trust can’t be regained with a new app or even an outbreak of competence. To believe so is to misunderstand what was lost.

Well, I certainly think the behavior of the media, the political class, and the university professors has contributed to the decline in trust.  However, look at how the USA is more heterogenous and more US residents now possess national backgrounds from historically low-trust peoples.  Thanks to Robert Putnam, there is now an understanding that a more diverse population is a lower trust one due to inter-group dissimilarities.

But I haven’t seen anyone connect the fact that low-trust immigrants tend to bring their lack of trust with them to these observations of declining trust, even though the demographic math would indicate that it is likely an additional contributor.


Why the Alt-Right is so scary

Robert Weissberg explains the Alt-Right is threatening to the political establishment because only the Alt-Right is speaking the truth about what everyone can see is happening all across the West:

Even in today’s acrimonious political landscape, nothing seems to draw as much vitriol as the minuscule “Alt-Right” (shorthand for an alternative to mainstream Conservatism Inc.). Indeed, if America’s political class organized 1984-style two-minute hates, the Alt-Right would be the star of the show with Richard Spencer substituting for Emmanuel Goldstein.

Given this aversion across the ideological spectrum, one might surmise that the Alt-Right embraced doctrines totally antithetical to core American values. Not quite. In at least in one key regard, the Alt-Right is as American as apple pie…

.Let me offer a speculative explanation. In an increasingly heterogeneous society where there is always a potential for internecine strife, prudence dictates permitting everyone (regardless of race or ethnicity) to create their own “private” ethno states, but caution also counsels the Mafia’s Omerta, the code of silence. Not even the liberal-dominated mass media will run stories of how real estate developers in cahoots with elected officials undermine residential diversity with under-the-radar “ethnic cleansing” by enticing large numbers of urban underclass blacks into suburban public housing (Ferguson, MO is one example). The only way a New Yorker might realize that whites are forcing out blacks in historically black Harlem is by reading reviews of new trendy restaurants and clubs in Harlem.

Into this Omerta comes the Alt-Right willing to speak the unspeakable: if we want America to be America, exclude low-IQ Syrian goat herders and wife beater with nine children who embrace a religion deeply incompatible with America’s core Christian principles. Alt-Right trouble-makers relish recounting grim tales of culturally indigestible immigrants or explaining how corporate America willingly destroys the country to attract cheap Third World labor all the while sending the clean-up bill—policing, welfare, medical care–to hapless, largely white taxpayers. The Alt-Righter resembles an un-socialized youngster who regularly blurts out the unspeakable, embarrassing truth.

And finally, there’s The Great Fear: this Alt-Right “virus” may escape the laboratory’s Petri dish and gain a modicum of political traction. Think Marine Le Pen and the National Front in France or, in Germany, Frauke Petry and the Alternative for Germany, two nationalist, anti-immigration parties that arrived out “of nowhere” and are now serious electoral players. After all, there is a demonstrable market for the idea of a white ethno state and an ambitious demagogue, perhaps a modern-day cleaned up George Wallace, could easily champion it. To be sure, an American National Party would be unlikely to capture any office, particularly under its current leadership, but it could peel off 5% or so of the popular vote as a protest vote in at least some states. Stranger things have happened so it is no wonder that the establishment obsesses over this tiny handful of heretics whose xenophobic views resonate with millions of deplorable Americans.

The Left is lying. The cuckservatives are lying. The conservatives and civic nationalists were misguided, but at this point, if they’re still sticking to their guns, they are knowingly speaking what they now know to be false.

And that is why the Alt-Right scares all of them. Because we speak the truths that they wish to hide.


How Trump happened

Brendan Neill explains at The Spectator:

It happened because you banned super-size sodas. And smoking in parks. And offensive ideas on campus. Because you branded people who oppose gay marriage ‘homophobic’, and people unsure about immigration ‘racist’.

Because you treated owning a gun and never having eaten quinoa as signifiers of fascism. Because you thought correcting people’s attitudes was more important than finding them jobs. Because you turned ‘white man’ from a description into an insult. Because you used slurs like ‘denier’ and ‘dangerous’ against anyone who doesn’t share your eco-pieties.

That’s part of it, anyhow. But it also happened because conservatives refused to fight for the nation or to conserve anything. It also happened because neocons invaded the world while inviting the world. It also happened because corporations set up factories in China and hired H1B foreigners instead of employing Americans. It also happened because Churchians decided it was more important to spare the feelings of non-Christians than obey the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible.