Monday, 26 September 2016

Rimini by Rudyard Kipling

Marching Song of a Roman Legion of the Later Empire

When I left Rome for Lalage's sake,
By the Legions' Road to Rimini,
She vowed her heart was mine to take
With me and my shield to Rimini--
(Till the Eagles flew from Rimini--)
And I've tramped Britain, and I've tramped Gaul
And the Pontic shore where the snow-flakes fall
As white as the neck of Lalage--
(As cold as the heart of Lalage!)
And I've lost Britain, and I've lost Gaul,
And I've lost Rome and, worst of all,
I've lost Lalage!

When you go by the Via Aurelia
As thousands have traveled before
Remember the Luck of the Soldier
Who never saw Rome any more!
Oh, dear was the sweetheart that kissed him,
And dear was the mother that bore;
But his shield was picked up in the heather,
And he never saw Rome any more!

And he left Rome, etc.

When you go by the Via Aurelia
That runs from the City to Gaul,
Remember the Luck of the Soldier
Who rose to be master of all!

He carried the sword and the buckler,
He mounted his guard on the Wall,
Till the Legions elected him Caesar,
And he rose to be master of all!

And he left Rome, etc.

It's twenty-five marches to Narbo,
It's forty-five more up the Rhone,
And the end may be death in the heather
Or life on an Emperor's throne.
But whether the Eagles obey us,
Or we go to the Ravens--alone,
I'd sooner be Lalage's lover
Than sit on an Emperor's throne!

We've all left Rome for Lalage's sake, etc.

Sunday, 25 September 2016

The unquenchable thirst of Gammas

A lady with whom I've been having some interesting interactions on WhatsApp sent me this image, which she found quite funny, a few weeks back:


I don't think I have ever seen a more perfect encapsulation of how thirsty an emasculated man can look, and what extreme revulsion that such a thing creates in a woman.

This doesn't work in reverse, by the way. When I saw that image, I responded to the woman who sent it by saying something along the lines of, "What if one strapped a bowl of vodka to Cristiano Ronaldo's crotch and sold it to women?". My fair interlocutor giggled- or indicated that she did, anyway- and responded that this was a good business idea.

It was a joke (not a very good one, in my personal opinion), and it got this girl laughing, which was about the only point of my statement.

But in reality, you wouldn't need to go to nearly so much trouble.

Mark my words: if you were somehow able to get him to cooperate (which I imagine probably wouldn't be terribly difficult), women would be lining up in droves to pay for the privilege of servicing Mr. Ronaldo. That is because he is rich, famous, and jacked.

The comparison between what a thirsty man will do for just a smidgen of attention, even from an unattractive woman, and what a woman will do for attention from a high-status man, isn't a very good one. This is because Mr. Ronaldo, for all of his playboy tendencies, has actually worked very hard to get where he is. He has put in the work, and he is reaping the rewards that come with being a charismatic, highly successful, highly desirable man. Good for him.

The woman in that picture, by contrast, simply knew that she could capitalise on the miserable existence of the many, oh so many, thirsty men out there.

She is not particularly attractive; her body has a sort of soft pasty pudginess about it that is quite off-putting, especially in the glare of the hot Sun on a beach. Her hair is stringy and unkempt. Her dress sense is nothing much to gawk at either.

And yet she is still (apparently) making good money, simply by combining thirst and titillation into a single package. I have to say, I am impressed, in a cold and impersonal sort of way, at her business sense.

The most telling thing about that entire photo, though, is her expression. That is the look that I call "The Termite": it destroys wood more thoroughly than the most ravenous colony of vermin ever could.

It is a mix of smug triumph at the fact that she owns the men who come to her for "lemonade", combined with balls-shriveling contempt for those same men, topped off by a not-exactly-trivial helping of disgusted rage at the fact that she can debase herself so blatantly and yet still have guys lining up to try out her wares.

If a woman shoots you that look, you have failed, utterly and totally, in every possible way as a man.

The lesson is absolutely crystal-clear: never, ever supplicate like this before any woman. It will destroy any attraction that she might have for you faster than anything else you do, and that includes breaking wind in her presence. At least in the latter case, there are girls out there who will laugh and punch you in the arm for being a slob- but if you act like a simpering herb, the only thing that will get you into her pants will be a fleet of Ferraris sitting on your front lawn.

Since that is not an option for about 99.999% of men, the only alternative is to refuse to put yourself in that position in the first place.

Never apologise for being a man. If you are on a beach and you want lemonade, walk over to the stand and buy it like a man. Don't abase yourself before some man-jawed (but clearly rather clever) lady with bad hair who will repay your custom with even less respect than a street hooker.

The price is her soul

The thousand-cock stare is real- even on virgins
There is an old joke- a very old joke- that goes something like this:

A man at a party spies an attractive young woman and makes his way over to her to chat her up. The conversation is enjoyably spirited, and eventually the gentleman in question asks the lady if she would like to adjourn to his chambers for the evening. The lady demurs, as this is a day and age in which female promiscuity is much frowned upon. [Ah, the good old days...]

The gentleman, mildly annoyed at being rebuffed, then poses a hypothetical question to his charming companion:
Madam, would you spend the night with me for $10,000?
[Note: this was back when $10K was a huge amount of money, instead of merely being 2/3 of the price of a First Class return ticket to Dubai.]

The young lady's face lights up at the prospect of such easy money, and she eagerly replies:
Absolutely, sir!
 Smirking, our cad then asks,
Very well, madam- would you spend the night with me for $10?
Quickly working herself up into a state of high dudgeon, yon fair lady responds,
Certainly not, sir! What kind of lady do you think I am?!?
To which our friend simply grins and replies in peremptory fashion:
My dear, we have already established what kind of lady you are - now we are merely haggling on the price.
This quote has been attributed to several famous men- Winston Churchill is usually the favourite for this rather devastating shiv directed straight to the heart of the female id. (With apologies to Roissy for blatantly ripping off his excellent purple prose style there.) Other attributions include George Bernard Shaw and Bertrand Russell.

No matter who uttered that brilliant put-down, though, it remains a stupendously effective insight into female psychology. And, unfortunately, beautiful young women everywhere continue to prove the fundamental and universal truth of that retort:
A mother has pleaded for her 17-year-old beauty queen daughter to come home amid claims she has flown from her home in Russia to Dubai to sell her virginity for £10,000. 
Anna Feschenko, 17, a model who was runner-up in the Miss Moscow contest in June, travelled to the United Arab Emirates after claiming its was a prize from the pageant. 
But her friends denied it was a prize and said her true intention was to join an escort service which would offer her as a virgin to Arab clients. 
She hoped to earn money to pay for her university education in Moscow. 
Her travelling companion, named as Ekaterina K, 19, fled when she realised Miss Feschenko's alleged intention to work as an escort in Dubai. 
She said: 'I travelled there because Anna invited me and said that it was a prize paid for by the Miss Moscow contest. 
'In two days we had a scandal when I got to know the truth about why we were there.I told Anna that I was not going to stay and would go home. 
'Anna tried to push me, she asked me to go away and leave her alone there. But I don't need this kind of job.' 
Ekaterina's parents - who flew to Dubai to bring their daughter home - informed Anna's mother who called on Russian police to help, reported Life.ru news website. 
Ekaterina added: 'I believe she had a right to know. It is a privilege in the UAE to be a virgin. 
'I think Anna was just impressed with the amount of money she could get.' 
She also claimed Miss Feschenko was no longer living in the hotel where they originally stayed but was now in a flat in Dubai with two other eastern European girls who were ready to work as escorts.
Knowing what I do (now) of women- and I don't pretend that it's all that much, by the way- stories like this shouldn't have much of an effect on me. The nature of women is what it is- one would find it easier to make a leopard change his spots than it would be to turn a whore into a nun.

Even so, I find this story, in particular, deeply and profoundly saddening. All that any real man can feel in reading that story, and after seeing the pictures that accompany it, is a soul-killing sorrow for the young lady in question, and for those who love her as a daughter and a friend.

Consider: you have a young, stunningly beautiful woman with a bright future ahead of her, apparently planning to sell herself as an escort to some rich Middle Eastern oil baron, in return for money and material goods. She is just 17 years old, and yet she has decided that selling herself to men and performing what are likely to be pretty depraved sex acts is what she wants to do with the next few years of her life.

The impact that such a life has on a woman is quite astonishing to see. Here, courtesy of the Roosh V forum, is an example of what happened to one of the world's favourite adult film (((actresses))) after just a few years of getting spit-roasted by men (and women) for money on film:

1,000-cock stare, age about 21 or so

10,000-cock stare, age about 27-28
The difference between those two photographs speaks for itself. And this, let us please note, is a woman who genuinely loved her work as a porn actress. Ms. Grey is now 28, and you can see for yourself how badly she has aged in the years that she was in the industry.

That is the future which Ms. Feschenko has chosen for herself. She is young and beautiful now, but in less than ten years, her beauty and youth and innocence will be gone. And there is not one damn thing that she will be able to do in order to get those immeasurably precious qualities back.

I've written about the impact that this sort of life has on women before. It is devastating, both in terms of the destruction that it wreaks on a woman's looks, and on her future ability to accomplish what, for most women, is the apex of their lives: becoming a mother to good children. A woman who sells her body at its most youthful and beautiful and resilient to men who use it as not much more than a receptacle for bodily fluids well deserves the label of "Dubai Port-A-Potty", because that is precisely what she ends up looking like, both on the outside and the inside.

That does not mean that any man should try to save young Ms. Freschenko from herself- absolutely not. No man should ever be fool enough to try to play Captain Save-A-Ho. She made her choices, and now she must live with their consequences. Unfortunately, so too must those around her who love her and want the best for her- including her mother, who is clearly devastated at what her daughter has chosen for herself.

The other major lesson to learn here is that no man should ever be under any illusions about the nature of women. Don't ever fool yourself into thinking that "your" special girl wouldn't do something similar for the right amount of money.

One of the hardest truths that every man has to face in his life is that everyone has a price. Everyone's soul can be bought for a price- with one exception. This sort of cynicism about human nature is difficult to bear; it creates a certain bitterness in the soul that shows itself in the interactions that men who understand such things have with beautiful women.

Such men are not fooled by a woman's youth or innocence, and focus entirely on what a woman does, never on what she says.

This is not a pleasant place to be- but then, the truth is not supposed to be comfortable or easy. It simply is what it is, and the sooner we accept that fact, the better off we will all be.

The final lesson to be learned here is one that, in a morally upright world, would be dinned into young girls from the time that they are old enough to read: every woman has her price, but that price is quite often her soul.

And no sensible woman should ever be willing to pay that price in exchange for mere material goods. I don't care how many shoes, how many handbags, how many first-class tickets to a Gulf Emirate it buys such a woman; there is always someone younger, tighter, fresher, and more beautiful out there for some Middle Eastern oil sheik to bone.

In just a few years, such women will find themselves used up and tossed aside like toilet paper- which, if they were brutally honest with themselves, is exactly what they signed up to be.

I fail to see how a few years of material comfort and hedonistic enjoyment is worth spending the rest of one's life mired in repentance and self-loathing. Maybe there is a woman out there who can square that particular circle, but I fail to see how it is possible.

Saturday, 24 September 2016

Deus Vult!

A little POWERWOLF to go along with one's morning coffee is always a great way to wake up:

Friday, 23 September 2016

Friday T&A

You know that old saying about how great minds think alike? Well, LastRedoubt and I, being the proudly chauvinistic pigs that we are, concluded separately but with a remarkable synchronicity of thought that Kate Upton really does look pretty fetching in a bikini.

Well, it's more accurate to say that her titanic tits look great in a bikini; Ms. Upton herself does not quite have a face that would, in fact, launch a thousand ships- in my opinion, that singular honour belonged to Sophia Loren, back in the day- but if you found her in your bed tomorrow morning, would you say no?

Anyway, since we are of course roaring assholes, we thought- again, separately but following quite similar lines of logic, so to speak- that we'd each turn this into a weekly thing.

Now, I hate to be a buzzkill- it is Friday night, and that is traditionally the time for manly men to go in search of beer and babes- but I do have to impose a couple of rules here. Sorry, lads, but it's a sad necessity in this day and age.

Note that these apply predominantly to those who are new here. All of you old-timers who have been reading what I write for a while- all, like, 5 of you- are manly men of manliness who know that there is nothing that kills a lady's attraction faster than needy betatude.

These rules are for those guys. The rest of you lot, go about your business, have fun, skip down a few paragraphs, and find the eye-candy waiting.

The Didact's Anti-Beta Rules


1. NO Beta-Orbiter Comments

I don't ever want to see a comment following on from a hot girl's picture about how you would "suck a fart out of her ass". (Yes, I am very sorry to say that this is a real comment on a real random hot girl's Instagram page somewhere.) Any such nonsense gets deleted, instantly- and the dumbass who posted it will get publicly shamed by me, with an open invitation to everyone else to pile on.

2. Outing of Dubai Port-A-Potties is STRONGLY Encouraged

The only thing that repulses me even more than a simpering Beta's neediness is an Instagram whore pretending that she is scoring Louis Vuitton handbags and rides in Ferraris solely on the basis of her looks and her day job as a hairdresser. If you happen to spend time on Instagram or Snapchat or whatever- I don't- and you see that one of the girls in these pictures is selling her orifices for money, put her name, Instagram handle, and any other details you can think of in the comments.

Shame is a powerful weapon, designed and meant to be used to keep loose women from being stupid. It's about high time we got back to using it for precisely that purpose.

And I don't want to see any complaints from white-knight types about how outrageous it is to suggest such a thing. You want to be such a paladin, be my guest. But don't come whining to me when the very girls whose "honour" you are so eagerly defending, turn out to be utter slores.

3. NO FAT CHICKS ALLOWED

If you have a request that you'd like to have entertained, that's fine. Just note: I will not post pictures of fat girls in bikinis. I'd like to keep my lunch where it is, thank you very much.

I have no problems with girls who have nice curves. (See: Kate Upton, Sophia Loren, etc.) I have serious problems with women who are so fat as to possess their own gravitational singularity, being called "role models" and "inspirational". The only thing they're going to inspire is my upchuck reflex.

4. No PR0N

Enough said. This is still a somewhat family-friendly website, after all.

That being said, I have no problem with adult film "actresses" being featured as long as they are clothed. To, y'know, some extent.


And that's about enough of the rules, I think.

Happy Friday, y'all.

This week's talent courtesy of Caveman Circus:



Thursday, 22 September 2016

And now for something completely different...

The Arch-Villain of Fabulosity dressed up as Marilyn Monroe and sang The Star Spangled Banner in front of a packed crowd at LSU and DEAR LORD ALMIGHTY WHAT DID I JUST SEE?!?!?:


I... er... um...

I have literally no response to that.

"Tears of the Dragon"

I listened to this classic BRUCE DICKINSON track for the first time in what felt like an eternity yesterday, and I have to say, it's still as fresh and poignant and beautifully executed as it was back when it was first released, waaaaaaaay back in 1994:


His output as a solo artist is, in my opinion, deeply underrated. Once he got his "hard rock" phase out of his system, and settled back down to making terrific heavy metal records again, he and his solo band released two of the greatest "classic" metal records ever created: Accident of Birth, with its hilariously gruesome cover art, and The Chemical Wedding- which to this day occupies a place of high honour in my list of the ten greatest albums of all time that were not released by an outfit called IRON MAIDEN.

And it's not like his hard-rock records were bad, either. Tattooed Millionaire isn't anyone's idea of a great album, but it's far from terrible. Balls to Picasso, with its ridiculous name and dreadful cover art, is downright weird in places, but it contains several truly great tracks like "Shoot All the Clowns", "Laughing in the Hiding Bush", and "Sacred Cowboys"- and, of course, "Tears of the Dragon".

And Skunkworks is uneven, but at least half of the album is terrific; my personal favourite tracks on that one are "Solar Confinement", "Space Race", and "Innerspace". "Strange Death in Paradise" ain't half bad either.

Honestly, the records he was putting out at the time were superior to anything IRON MAIDEN had done for, like, 10 years. Don't get me wrong, I love the Blaze Bayley-era albums- yes, I know, HERESY!!!- but there is no question that the only singer worthy of leading IRON MAIDEN is the one and only Bruce Dickinson.

Which, of course, he proved beyond the palest shadow of any doubt the day after he returned to the fold in 1999.

If you're a fan of classic heavy metal, then see if you can get your hands on the 2-disc version of The Best of Bruce Dickinson. It's a phenomenal "best of" album, but the much more rare 2-disc edition contains a number of B-sides that are in some cases better than the singles that they appeared with.

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

The Children's Song by Rudyard Kipling

From the story "Puck of Pook's Hill":

Land of our Birth, we pledge to thee
Our love and toil in the years to be;
When we are grown and take our place
As men and women with our race.


Father in Heaven who lovest all,
Oh, help Thy children when they call;
That they may build from age to age
An undefiled heritage.

Teach us to bear the yoke in youth,
With steadfastness and careful truth;
That, in our time, Thy Grace may give
The Truth whereby the Nations live.

Teach us to rule ourselves alway,
Controlled and cleanly night and day;
That we may bring, if need arise,
No maimed or worthless sacrifice.

Teach us to look in all our ends
On Thee for judge, and not our friends;
That we, with Thee, may walk uncowed
By fear or favour of the crowd.

Teach us the Strength that cannot seek,
By deed or thought, to hurt the weak;
That, under Thee, we may possess
Man's strength to comfort man's distress.

Teach us Delight in simple things,
And Mirth that has no bitter springs;
Forgiveness free of evil done,
And Love to all men 'neath the sun!

Land of our Birth, our faith, our pride,
For whose dear sake our fathers died;
Oh, Motherland, we pledge to thee
Head, heart and hand through the years to be!

Black Lives MAFFer

Janet Bloomfield had a guest post up from a black mathematician by the name of Dr. Jonathan David Farley a few days ago, in which Dr. Farley attempted to explain (blacksplain?) away the fact that NO black mathematician has ever been awarded a Fields Medal.

The Fields Medal is, of course, the most prestigious award handed out in the field of mathematics, and is considerably harder to win as an achievement that any of the Nobel Prizes. (That includes the "pretend" Nobel Prize for Economics, which is in fact the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. It ain't the real deal, Buster.)

That would be because, unlike the annual Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal is handed out every four years. And unlike the "Nobel Prize" in Economics, you actually have to be a truly great mathematician to be awarded one of these.

You have to be under 40 to qualify. You have to have solved some of the most knotty, challenging, fiendishly complex, mind-bendingly arcane mysteries within your field- and in case you are wondering, yes, mathematics can get seriously weird. I'm talking about things like figuring out how to navigate around non-spherical topologies (such as toroids)- in plain English, this means "how to drive on a planet shaped like a donut without getting lost". Or dealing with the Riemann Conjecture. Or, say, proving Fermat's Last Theorem.

Now, Dr. Farley basically attempted to explain the lack of black Fields Medalists by resorting to attacks on the well-known and highly controversial (to some minds, anyway) arguments about the wide disparities in average racial intelligence between blacks and whites. He followed these up with anecdotal attacks on people that he felt had denied him a possible shot at a Fields Medal.

Here is what he actually wrote, so we are clear:
John Derbyshire, a columnist for the National Review, wrote an essay last week implying that black people were intellectually inferior to white people: “Only one out of six blacks is smarter than the average white.” Derbyshire pulled these figures from a region near his large intestine. 
One of Derbyshire’s claims, however, is true: that there are no black winners of the Fields medal, the “Nobel prize of mathematics”. According to Derbyshire, this is “civilisationally consequential”. Derbyshire implies that the absence of a black winner means that black people are incapable of genius. In reality, black mathematicians face career-retarding racism that white Fields medallists never encounter. Three stories will suffice to make this point. 
The first involves Saunders Mac Lane, one of the most influential algebraists of the last century. He co-authored, with Garrett Birkhoff, a text that enthralled me as a first-year undergraduate. I first encountered lattice theory, which for a long time I loved more than anything in life, in that book. In 1951, Mac Lane was president of the Mathematical Association of America (MAA). Vanderbilt University hosted an MAA conference, and three black mathematicians wished to attend the conference’s banquet. They were barred and Mac Lane refused to take a stand: Vanderbilt University was in racially segregated Tennessee, and he did not want to offend his hosts. 
The second story involves one of the few black mathematicians whom white mathematicians acknowledge as great – or, I should say, “black American mathematicians”, since obviously Euclid, Eratosthenes and other African mathematicians outshone Europe’s brightest stars for millennia. His name was David Blackwell. I first met Blackwell in 1995, in the common room of Berkeley’s maths department, one of the few times two black people had ever been in the room. Blackwell obtained his PhD in mathematics when he was only 22. 
While he had a fellowship to work at the Institute for Advanced Study, the American home of Einstein and the other-worldly logician Kurt Gödel, nearby Princeton University refused to allow Blackwell to attend lectures because he was black. Although he later became the first black member of the National Academy of Sciences (with a colleague saying, “he would come into a field that had been well studied and find something really new that was remarkable”), the University of California at Berkeley’s maths department would not hire Blackwell on account of his race (a European later asked Blackwell to join the statistics department).
Now, the moment I read a couple of those claims, my BS detector popped straight up and started yammering. There is something deeply suspect about these arguments, and a mathematician- especially a highly accomplished one like Dr. Farley- should know better than to make them.

Let us start with the first: that John Derbyshire, well-known pessimist, curmudgeon, and remarkably astute scholar of the human condition, pulled the statistic about "one in six blacks being smarter than the average white" out of his arse.

Well now. The average IQ for black Americans is about 85, give or take a couple of points depending on which dataset you're using. The average IQ for white Americans is about 103, again depending on which dataset you use.

Let us assume, for simplicity's sake- it's never this simple in real life, obviously- that the standard deviation of the distribution of both black and white IQs is 15 points. That is, after all, the well-known and repeatedly recorded gap between the two races.

What does the distribution of IQs look like under these conditions?

Brought to you courtesy of the R statistical computing package- go get it, it's totally FREE
OK, so that's obviously fairly remarkable, if you know how to interpret a graph like that (not difficult), but it's not in itself particularly revealing.

To check Derb's figures, we need to do a little MAFF ourselves. Again, not terribly taxing.

So. If you open up any standard high-school mathematics textbook, you will note that it is possible to calculate the cumulative density function, or distribution, of a Gaussian distribution given a mean and a standard deviation.

For the anoraks among you, this is the actual formula:



(I do so love LaTeX...)

It just so happens, of course, that we have three Gaussian distributions right there in front of us. So we can therefore calculate the percentage of the population, under each scenario, that is above the "average" intelligence level of 100, given those distributions.

We do this by simply subtracting from 1 the cumulative density of each distribution, at the point 100.

Easily enough done. What do we get if we do this?
  • For the population as a whole, where the average is 100 and the S.D. is 15, exactly 50% of the population is smarter, and 50% is dumber, than the average IQ of 100- which is not exactly a surprise 
  • For whites, though, given an average IQ of 103, 58% of whites are smarter than the 100 mark 
  • For blacks, only 16% are smarter- and that's after rounding up
Hey- you know else 16% is? It's a little less than 1 over 6.

And if you subtract from 1 the cumulative density of a Gaussian distribution centred at 85 with an S.D. of 15 at the point 103, you get: 11.5%.

That's right. Just 11.5% of all black Americans are smarter than the average white American.

So actually, Dr. Farley has a point, just not the one he thought he did. Derb was, if anything, understating his case.

We can extend the analysis done above a little bit further, by the way.

Consider, for instance: what are the general, white-specific, and black-specific probabilities of hitting genius-level IQ? This is generally considered to be an IQ score of 130 and above, but it depends somewhat on exactly which assessment method you're using.

(The usual caveat about genius-level IQs applies; just because someone has a nosebleed IQ doesn't mean he isn't an idiot in many respects. Jimmy Carter supposedly has an IQ of around 150; Ronald Reagan had an IQ of about 140. Odoofuss, of course, has an IQ of roughly 116. The defence rests.)

Now then: if you use the same method to figure out what percentage of people would be over genius level, here are the results:
  • General population: 2.275%
  • White Americans: 3.593%
  • Black Americans: 0.135%
Yeah. Less than a fifth of a percent of blacks register in the genius range.

Now I will be the first to admit that these intelligence tests are flawed, and that these comparisons are not nearly as cut-and-dried as a maths geek like me would like to believe. But they are still useful exercises nonetheless, and they illustrate precisely how different black America is from white America.

Then we get to the whole point about Euclid and Erastosthenes, and... oh dear.

Euclid was not "North African". He was Greek. The only way you can call him "North African" is if you argue that he was born in Alexandria- without bothering to consider that Alexandria was founded by the very European conqueror named, you guessed it, Alexander the Great.

Eratosthenes was born in Cyrene a couple of hundred years later. Now, the last time I checked, Cyrene was a Greek city at the time, even though it was situated in Libya. Furthermore, both of these mathematicians and great philosophers worked under Greek rule- that's what the Ptolemaic Dynasty was, a group of Greeks descended from one of Alexander the Great's top generals who controlled Egypt from the time of the conqueror's death to the coming of Julius Caesar.

Oh dear. Dr. Farley is already 0-2. Now what?

Without contending further with the points that he has raised, let us at least stop to consider that there are, in fact, clear and observable racial differences between different subgroups of humans, and that furthermore there is nothing wrong with concluding that some of these differences do determine the types and quality of societies that these subgroups will establish.

There is nothing in the least bit wrong with making any of these observations, as long as they are backed up by fact. There is everything wrong with subscribing to a simplistic "blank slate" theory of human behaviour that refuses to take into account the very real differences between us.

Such a theory cannot be intellectually rigourous, for it cannot be open to disproof. Therefore it is no actual theory at all, it is merely ideology masquerading as intelligent discourse.

One would think that a man with a PhD in mathematics would know better.

Sunday, 18 September 2016

How an Alpha handles an interview

It's truly instructive and illustrative to watch the way that The Donald defangs his critics in interviews. Like most extroverted Alpha males, he does it through a very cleverly crafted combination of charm, wit, resolution in the face of criticism, and a stoic acceptance of what he can and cannot control.

Take a look at how he handled one of the liberal comedians who has most persistently mocked him in public:





And that is before we get to his epic trolling of the MSM.

The results of that effective rick-roll, by the way, were clear to see as early as Friday night. I was in the gym that night- it was chest day, which for me is actually a light workout- and as a result I had plenty of time to watch the Clinton News Network's Friday night (((news))) coverage of the campaigns.

Anderson Cooper's show was in full flow at the time, and oh boy, did they ever have an axe to grind.

From 8-9pm, the entire show basically centred around The Donald's flip-flops, inconsistencies, controversies, and deficiencies as a candidate, both real and imagined (mostly the latter).

Now, I had no idea when the show started that Mr. Trump had beaten the shit out of the media like that earlier in the day. I only found out about that a little bit later when I checked out Breitbart.com and saw the story in passing.

Once I did, though, the fury and spleen-venting suddenly fell into place.

And you know what? It doesn't matter.

The media overplayed their hand this week. Mr. Trump made them show their cards for the entire American public to see, and then he humiliated them in front of those same people, while simultaneously garnering free publicity for both his campaign and his new hotel, and putting to rest that whole question of whether he's a "birther" or not.

(For the record, and just so we're clear: Mr. Trump was NOT the original birther. That would be the Hilldebeast. Not, of course, that the MSM would ever admit that- not without being subjected to the rack and the breaking wheel. The closest they'll ever come is to say that it was "someone in her campaign" that started the rumour.)

As the interview clips above show, and as Mr. Trump's increasingly effective handling of the MSM reveal, his enemies simply have no idea who and what they are up against.

They have tried everything to discredit and destroy him. They have savagely attacked his (smoking hot) wife. They have attempted to show how he has contradicted himself and crossed policy positions repeatedly (which I actually find justifiable). They have smeared his followers and his supporters with the vilest and basest of accusations. They have implied and insinuated and accused and outright declared things about Trump that, if the same things were done to the Hilldebeast, they would have shrieked for the heads of the perpetrators to be mounted on pikes outside the headquarters of the New York Times Pravda.

And none of it is working.

Mr. Trump is now within a single percentage point of the Hilldebeast in the national polls. The electoral college map, which once showed a roughly 80% probability that the Bitch would be crowned the next President (God help us all), has now narrowed radically to a less than 60% probability of that same outcome, and Mr. Trump is now pulling ahead in several battleground states. The gap in the electoral college is now perhaps 36 votes, and it is narrowing further.

All of this has happened before the first Presidential debates even take place. If the predictions made by me and others like me are correct- and so far the evidence appears to be in our favour- the Teflon Don will squash the Bitch fairly handily, even though he is in fact a pretty poor debater by most standards.

It's not just that he is not a great debater. It's that the Bitch is just that bad a candidate.

If nothing else, the next few weeks should provide some damn good entertainment.

Donald Trump is campaigning like the Alpha male he is. You can see the hallmarks of his personality and his socio-sexual status in just about every interview, almost every public interaction with his supporters, and in the very skilled way in which he handles and disarms critics.

We haven't seen a conservative- or rather, a nationalist- Alpha male like this since the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan. All I can say is, it's about damned time.

Saturday, 17 September 2016

The sound of your spine tingling

Commenter Kapios alerted me to the latest launch trailer for Top Gear Series 24 the new Amazon Prime show featuring the former hosts of what was formerly THE GREATEST TV SHOW IN THE WORLD. And, like him, I reacted very much the way a 5-year-old kid does on Christmas morning:


Oh boy. Oh boy oh boy oh boy. They're BACK!!!

Well, it looks like I just found my new favourite thing to do on Friday nights, starting November 18th. I suspect Amazon is going to make quite a packet from disgruntled fans of the old show who are seriously cheesed off at the way the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation has turned their once-magnificent stallion of a show into a rented mule.

Why do I say that? Well, just LOOK at the clips from the new show- ALL of the things that made the old Top Gear so brilliantly, ridiculously, wonderfully amazing are all there:


I was laughing so hard watching that compilation of matey blokishness that I nearly ruptured my spleen.

This show is going to be EPIC. And it's going to make the Beeb's management absolutely wet its collective pants in fury and terror.

Friday, 16 September 2016

What is the matter with white people?

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
-- From The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling
One of the most common and relentless criticisms of the alt-Right, both from the Left (but who cares what they think), and from the old Right (who really should know better) is that the alt-Right is really just alt-White. In other words, the platform that we support, and the values that we believe in, are the values of white people.

This assertion is always made by our critics in tones of anywhere from deep disapproval to outright horror. On the cuckservative Right, the alt-Right is viewed as a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic Islam-hating, Jew-fearing Nazis (I paraphrase minutely) who, if we had our way, would happily setup concentration camps throughout the continental United States to finish what one Adolf Hitler started.

The major problem with this caricature of the alt-Right is, of course, that it simply isn't true.

With all of that being said, I do have to ask: what, exactly, is so bad about white people? Why is it that people seem to think that a white nationalist movement would be so terrible?

I am quite obviously not white. I am not even American. I was born and brought up in the Third World; though I speak better English than anyone native to the US (since I actually speak English, not American), it was not considered my first language until I was about 7 years old and I'd forgotten the four other Asian languages I spoke as a very young child.

But I've lived in Western nations for my entire adult life, and I've lived with what might be called "Western civilisation" and mostly Western values for my whole life. And I've seen some of the alternatives to "white" civilisation- which is really Western civilisation- firsthand. I grew up in an Islamic country. I've lived in Singapore for years. I visit Asia every year. I've traveled all over the Western world, and across much of Southeast and East Asia.

With that background in mind, if one is going to argue that white people are horrible and terrible and nasty and dreadful, and that white culture and civilisation is oppressive and patriarchal and cishetnormative and whatever the f@ck that's supposed to mean, then one must logically also ask:
What are the alternatives to white civilisation, and are they viable for Americans?
Let's look at the three nearest alternatives to white civilisation, starting with:

1. Black Civilisation

Black Nationalist: We want to live apart from white people.
White Nationalist: Ok. We will help you with that.
Media: That is horrible
— Parriah Pottymouth (@PariahPotimouth) September 9, 2016

Take up the White Man's Burden,
The savage wars of peace
Fill full the mouth of famine,
And bid the sickness cease
And when your goal is nearest,
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hopes to nought
-- From The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling
Hoo boy. Starting off with one of the several "third rails" of American politics? Eh, what the hell, why not- if you're reading this, you either agree with me, at least up to a point, or you hate my guts. Either one suits me just fine.

The demands of black people for reparations from whites for the sins of their forefathers, whether real or imagined, have been growing louder and more violent every day for the past year. We all know this; we've seen the results of the riots that occur when "peace-loving blacks" decide to descend en masse onto whatever hapless city happened to experience a shooting in which a "dindu nuffin" innocent black man got killed to death by those racist, bigoted, horrible, terrible, no good, very bad po-leece.

Except... those stereotypes just aren't true:



Bill Whittle makes a very simple and very powerful point, even if only implicitly, that most conservatives are still reluctant to admit, but the alt-Right is not: black people's problems are overwhelmingly THEIR OWN FAULT. And it is well past time that white people stopped apologising for that fact.

The reality of black culture in the United States is that it experienced one of the biggest and most shocking declines in cultural strength and integrity, over the shortest time-span, ever recorded in human history.

Black America was once one of the most staunchly conservative (voting almost entirely Republican until the mid-1930s or so), religious, devout, family-oriented, and patriarchal communities in the USA. Marriage rates among black families were high, children grew up in dual-parent households, and black children practically grew up in Church. Say what you will about the awfulness of segregation, whether legal or implied, the fact remains that before 1965 or so, black culture, especially in many of the Northern states, was stable, God-fearing, and respectable.

And then it all went horribly wrong.

It is beyond my abilities (and limited time) to speculate as to exactly what happened. The causes are many and complex, but the outcomes are absolutely undeniable.

Black culture is today a shattered wreck. Children grow up without fathers; black women give birth to bastards by multiple fathers; and those children in turn grow up to perpetuate a cycle of violence and degradation that has made the "Black Undertow" in cities across America such a nasty phenomenon.

The effect that the destruction of black culture has had upon areas in which blacks live is quite simply astonishing. You have to see it to understand just how bad it is.

If you are ever in Manhattan, take a walk up Broadway from about 125th St. through Morningside Heights and then up towards Washington Heights. You will understand firsthand just how radically different black society is from white society.

Below the 125th Parallel, if you will, is a society that is clean, ordered, quiet, polite, civil, stable, and mostly white. Above it is a society that is dirty, chaotic, noisy, rude, dyscivic, anarchic, and largely black.

You will find that pattern repeated in just about every large American city you care to name.

Here's the thing, though- as dyscivic as black America's culture has become, this is AS GOOD AS IT GETS for blacks.

Consider the evidence:
  • Average white American IQ: 103
  • Average black American IQ: 85
  • Average sub-Saharan African IQ: 70
  • The 12% of the male US population that is black provides 37% of the male prison population.
  • Blacks commit violent crimes at 8.5 times the rate that whites do.
Camden, NJ; Newark, NJ; Detroit, MI; Chicago, IL- these cities are all heavily populated by blacks. They are universally nasty places to be- when people refer to Chicago as "Chiraq", it's not as a compliment. They are dirty, dangerous, and noisy.

And they're still better places to live than most of Africa, especially the sub-Saharan part.

Take a look at Africa. Name one country out there that is in the ranks of the First World. About the closest that one can get are small nations that have largely stayed out of everyone's way and gotten on with the business of, well, business- specifically, Botswana and Lesotho. And yet both nations suffer from serious infrastructure and healthcare issues related to the spread of the AIDS virus throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

Not for nothing did Keith B. Richburg once say:
Thank God. Thank God my nameless ancestor, brought across the ocean in chains and leg irons, made it out alive. Thank God I am an American.
[Emphasis added]

In other words, black Americans have benefited enormously from the tolerance and forbearance of white Americans to give them the opportunities to build their own distinct culture within American society.

And, with the very important and valuable caveat of Derb's ISWBs, they repay that forbearance with violence and destruction.

The same will not be true in reverse. Whites, and Asians, and Hispanics, who live in societies dominated by blacks will not be left in peace and allowed to thrive. If you want proof, just look at what has happened to white farmers in Zimbabwe, and what is happening to white folk in South Africa.

2. Asian Civilisation

Take up the White Man's burden,
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead
-- From The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling
One can sum up the difference between the success of Asian culture in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Korea, and large sections of urban China, with the failures of black culture, in a single picture, courtesy of our friends at RoK:



Here is the thing, though: all of the highly successful nations that I have referenced above have two major factors in common.

First, the people of those nations are all from similar genetic stock. A Korean man may well be unable to bring himself to spit on a Japanese man- and who can blame him, given the long and antagonistic history between those two nations- but the fact is that, racially, they are related. The same goes for the Japanese and the Chinese.

Singapore is very roughly 70% ethnic Chinese, the last time I checked. Hong Kong is even more so.

In other words, the most advanced Asian nations all share a common racial characteristic that has undeniably been a part of their success.

It is categorically not true that other Asian nations have experienced similar rates of growth and success. The most notable exceptions are the nations of South Asia, especially the Islamic ones.

Of course, the "Asian tigers"- Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and so on- lag behind their Chinese counterparts in terms of advancement and growth, yet there is a large ethnic Chinese component in those nations as well. What explains the difference?

Part of it comes down to fundamental values. And this brings us to the second major factor for the success of (East) Asian culture.

The Confucian ethic that pervades Sino-Japanese cultures is in many ways deeply alien to Western eyes, but it emphasises hard work, devotion to family and king, and unquestioning respect for authority. One of the side-effects of this philosophy is that it has a notable intolerance for the sheer stupidity and internal contradictions of the "social justice" ideology, which is why calls for equality between the sexes tend to fall a lot flatter in the heavily patriarchal Asian societies than they do in the West.

That's not to say that Asian culture is immune to social justice bullshit; Singapore, in particular, has regressed a long way in that regard. But it's still nowhere near as bad as the West has become.

So with all of that said, would white people be able to live under Asian culture?

No.

"White" culture, as we know and understand it, is based upon three pillars: Aristotelian logic, Graeco-Roman philosophy, and Christian morality rooted in the Ten Commandments. These traditions and ideas are utterly alien to the Eastern lands and people. The two cultures get along reasonably well when one is subordinate to the other; Asians have, after all, shown themselves to be fully capable of adapting to American and European culture when the occasion calls for it.

There is no good reason to think that the reverse is true as of yet.

Furthermore, most Westerners simply do not understand just how deep the concept of nationalism and cultural pride runs through most East Asian cultures. The Chinese and Japanese, in particular, are extremely parochial about their ways of life, and will brook no interference in the same by meddling Westerners if they can help it.

East Asian culture is about the closest and most comfortable alternative for whites who are denied the right to live in their own white societies. But it is by no means a good or even close approximation of what whites consider to be "their" culture, whether they admit it or not.

So that is Asian culture taken care of. What about the third major alternative?

3. Islamic Culture

Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
-- From
The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling
If I pissed you off with what I've written so far, stick around- you ain't seen nuttin' yet, considering that your head is still attached to your shoulders and hasn't exploded by this point.

The thing is, not all Islam-dominated societies are like Saudi Arabia, dominated by a bunch of RIFs who think that their "prophet" banned all things fun.

Some of them are, in fact, downright liberal.

At least one of the Arabian Emirates is that way. The Emirate of Dubai, for instance, is considered to be a very pleasant and modern place by most Western expats. Under the surface, of course, the story is very different, but in Dubai and Abu Dhabi you could, as a white Westerner, get away with fairly libertine behaviour- at least, in private. In public, not so much.

Note also that Western expatriate views of the Middle East are very much coloured by the fact that they tend to have their own segregated cultural enclaves in those regions. In Saudi Arabia, Americans tend to live in their own little bubbles, surrounded by other Americans, playing baseball and eating burgers and drinking beer. In Dubai, they can drink and party and dine at any of the city's numerous clubs and bars and restaurants. 

It is little surprise, then, that many Westerners quite enjoy their time in the Middle East- under such luxurious circumstances, who wouldn't? 

But if you're not an expatriate there on a work visa for a foreign company, or an Emirati one, then life in the Middle East is no picnic.

If you were to bring the real culture of an Islamist society over to the United States, and impose it upon the white, Christian, population of this country, you probably couldn't concoct a more effective recipe for turning a once great country into Hell on Earth.

But then, that's if you're importing the Wahhabi or orthodox Shi'a versions of Islamist canonical law to the West. What if you were to use, for instance, Indonesia's more secular approach to Islam? 

Well, even there, you'd have some serious problems. 

I spent a large number of my formative years in Indonesia. I can tell you from personal experience that the awful realities of Islam- the intolerance, the oppression of women and gays and Jews, the recidivism when it comes to science and technology and modernity, and all of the many other problems with Islam from a Western perspective- were kept at bay only by a strong central government and a totally secular military. 

And even that has not stopped fundamentalist Islam from taking hold in parts of Indonesia, such as Aceh. While their particular brand of RIFfing isn't quite as loony as what you find in Arabia or Persia, it's still not kosher to Western sensibilities.

So is Islamic culture a suitable alternative to Western, therefore white, culture?

To ask the question, given all that is going on in the Middle East and other parts of the world dominated by Islam, is to answer it.


So Now What?

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.
-- From
The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling
The three main cultural alternatives to white civilisation have all been explored briefly. They have all been found wanting. (I didn't look into Hispanic culture because I have next to no experience of it- others are welcome to make up for this shortfall in the comments.) The fact is that all of them are at odds with white culture's unique combination of attributes.

And what, specifically, is so bad about white culture in the first place, I wonder?

Perhaps the best way to illustrate why I am asking this question is to look at what happens when an Asian guy like me takes a trip into the heart of white America. Which is precisely what I did for the July 4th weekend by driving up to Vermont.

There, I found a lily-white state where an outsider like me was very clearly different from everyone else. Yet at no point did I ever feel unwelcome. I was treated with the utmost politeness and civility; I was invited to share in the food and drink of my hosts; and I knew that as long as I returned decency in kind, I had no reason whatsoever to feel unsafe or threatened.

What I found was a safe, orderly, quiet, peaceful, and thoroughly decent society that is hospitable to well-behaved strangers.

Could it be, then, that white culture is in and of itself worthy of respect, and that white people should be proud of who and what they are?

Could it be, indeed, that white people can and should vigourously defend their people and their culture, just like everyone else does?

The only rational conclusion is, of course, an emphatic yes.

The Uncomfortable Facts

Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
-- From
The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling
In the end, it really doesn't matter what you think of whites and white culture. The facts remain what they are.

Racial differences exist between blacks, whites, and others. They matter.

Cultural differences exist between those same groups. They matter.

Ignoring these firm facts of life is not only insane- it is suicidal.

As for the alt-Right being a supposedly "white supremacist" movement, there is a diversity of thought and opinion within it that makes an utter mockery of the Left's much-vaunted claims to a monopoly on the concept of plurality. (Yes, this is a massive contradiction in terms. Spend more than ten minutes trying to figure out how a Leftist thinks and you'll realise that their entire philosophy is a mass of mutually contradictory nonsense.)

Within the alt-Right, you will find a complete melange of people and ideas, who often disagree quite violently with each other on a very wide range of subjects. It is perfectly normal to have a 1488r (or Stormfronter), who is openly and virulently anti-Semitic, arguing hysterically with natural conservatives and the intellectual types about the Jewish Question, just as it is perfectly normal to have an ardent Zionist arguing with a paleoconservative of the Pat Buchanan mold about the best way to secure America's borders.

In my experience, two things unify and define the alt-Right movement- and they have nothing to do with skin colour.

The first is the feeling, common among all of us that identify as "alt-Right", that Western civilisation is under unprecedented attack. We consider the Western way of life, of war, of peace, of individual freedom supported rather than controlled by a minimalist government, to be far and away superior to any of the available alternatives.

And that would be because, by just about any objective measure, it bloody well IS.

And that is why we feel that we have been called to shoulder a glorious burden- to fight, in any way that we can, for the civilisation and the culture that we hold most dear.

The second is the certainty that, no matter how much we might differ from each other on specific points, there are no enemies to the Right.

I don't expect everyone here to agree with what I write. Nor do I particularly care if you do or don't agree with me. I am solely responsible for what I write and believe- not what you believe. The same goes for all of those whose writings I follow- including, of course, the Supreme Dark Lord of the Vile Faceless Minions, Vox Day, with whom I agree with on like 98% of what he says. There are still a very small number of things where I don't agree with him.

It just doesn't matter- we have bigger problems to worry about than ideological purity. So, to quote the man himself, SHUT UP AND SHOOT LEFT.