Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Monthly Archives: July 2014

The Voice of Evil

So World War T is raging on, and what seemed like a mere blitzkrieg where the anointed elite just sent the a panzer rampage to force everyone to make a transsexual friend or be fired from their jobs immediately; it seems that the blitzkrieg preparations have stumbled ostensibly because of internal wreckers, which of course calls for massive purges.

Steve Sailer gave this iconic quite:

The members of the board of the New York Abortion Access Fund, an all-volunteer group that helps to pay for abortions for those who can’t afford them, are mostly young women; Alison Turkos, the group’s co-chair, is twenty-six. In May, they voted unanimously to stop using the word “women” when talking about people who get pregnant, so as not to exclude trans men.

You can’t make this stuff up. You certainly shouldn’t make this stuff up. What a sick mind would make up something like this? Anyway I wondered what sort of person was this Ms. Turkos, and Google provided.

スクリーンショット 2014-07-30 18.09.58

Cthulhu’s gaze

I’m starting to think that the reason that Christianity and pretty much all religions don’t allow for women priests is for our own good. Men can be brutal, but women can be nasty, evil things. Theocracy was bad enough as it was historically; but letting women into the inquisitorial system would leed to too much cruelty for even the official torturers to handle. It’s a commonly known fact that communist parties and leftist terrorist groups have much more female members than most other male dominated groups. Names like Jiang Qing or Rosa Luxemburg come to mind. Hell, there are stories everywhere of female shamans and witches and what not. We also know that the ancients were more violent and up to a third of all bones found had died of violent deaths. Join the dots and it seems plausible that the patriarchy brought piece and calm to humanity.

So related to World War T, what goes through the mind of a man who transforms himself into a woman? Does he become nice and nurturing? Or an evil bitch? I make a short study with n=1. But it’s a very big n.

I’m usually a serene, mildly mannered, quite cynical man, and there is little that can shock me or disturb me. But sometimes you see such big and naked examples of evil that you can’t help feeling some cold sweat, the disturbing feeling of helplessness when one sees evil and knows one can’t do anything about it. I felt like that when I read Tyler Cowen subtly poison the well of David Brat’s house and exhorted him to refer to Donald McCloskey as a woman. Damn, that was the smoothest leftist signaling I’ve ever seen. And it felt deeply unsettling. Steve Sailer wrote recently about how World War T is just about elite posturing, where does who can make a transsexual friend faster than the others win; if that’s true Cowen won decades ago. In fact one gets the impression that Cowen kinda engineered World War T in order to be able to harness his old relationship with McCloskey.

In fact I gotta admit I didn’t know about McCloskey until Adam Gurri, from Umlaut, and also a Cowen minion (when you think about it Tyler Cowen has built or enabled a pretty impressive internet media apparatus) mentioned it as his intellectual mentor. I checked the title of the book in Amazon and didn’t give it much further thought, until Sailer started writing about McCloskey the Harvard Rugby player and his crusade against honest research on autogynephilia. So I looked on youtube, and damn this is the most scary shit I’ve seen in years.

 

What’s the deal with that voice? Isn’t this the voice of evil? Listen to that ghostly aftersound that comes out after every utterance. If Cthulhu has a voice, this must be the closest thing to it. I thought it was a sound artifact of the video compression, but the BBC anchor has a normal voice, and all other videos of McCloskey have the same demon-ish voice.

I guess the rationalist thing to do would be to hate the sin, not the sinner, 對事不對人 as the Chinese say, deal with people’s ideas without regard to their personalities. That’s just an ad hominem fallacy. Well I’m sorry but I can’t read a piece written by McCloskey ever again without playing that ghastly voice in my mind, and it creeps me out to no end. All I can think of is Cthulhu swimming left, forcing us all to swim with him or be drowned by the huge right-moving waves that the leftwards move produces.

And delusion often prevails

Adult women, both in the U.S. and in Zambia, are in competition for material resources and the men that provide them. The Zambian sub-elite women studied by Schuster are described as being sexually assertive and the matrilineal tradition of most Zambian tribes suggests that paternal confidence would not be high even among more traditional Zambians. The same is likely to be true in the matrifocal communities found toward the bottom of the social ladder in stratified industrial societies. A woman in such a community, therefore, could expect many direct attempts by other women to attract her mate for a short-term relationship, whereas this would be less of a threat to women in communities where male investment is high and women are less interested in short-term relationships. A larger number of sexually unrestricted competitors, rather than just a shortage of desirable men, maylie behind the greater female-female aggression found in communities with low male parental investment.

 

The fighting over reputation (rather than over a particular man) found in Campbell’s and Marsh and Paton’s young adolescent girls may stem from age effects on their economic circumstances and their expectations of male investment. They are presumably living at home and are perhaps less in need of resources than they will be later. They may also be more optimistic about securing the investment of a high-status mate. Schuster describes the Zambian women she studied as being optimistic and “starry-eyed” when young, expecting “to find a handsome, wealthy, educated man and marry, then to go on to life in a big house, with the ideal four children…” After a series of disappointing encounters, however, they typically become tough, get themselves a number of boyfriends, and become manipulative toward men.In the words of one jaded Zambian woman, “Why put all your eggs in one basket, especially since nearly all of them are rotten anyway?”A concern with a good sexual reputation may have mattered when they were young, but the women have other problems facing them now. Optimism about finding a desirable mate has also been described for young women in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, for whom “youth is a temporary asset that they utilize to the fullest extent. [Among those who] have been befriended by more successful men…a particular combination of entrepreneurship and delusion often prevails.”

 

A period of mating optimism among young adult women may be a regular feature of female psychology. A woman’s reproductive value—hence her chances of marrying upward in the social scale—is at its height when she is young. These odds may favor the type of sexual restraint and concern with sexual reputation that would make finding such a mate more likely. As a woman ages, particularly if she experiences disappointments that suggest she is unlikely to get what she wants, a shift in mating tactics may be expected. Schuster’s informants, in other words, may be behaving quite rationally; it would be interesting to know if their experience is widely shared. There is a hint of this shift in Marsh and Paton’s teenage girls. They report that the younger ones were ambivalent about their aggressiveness because they were aware that it is not regarded as feminine, whereas the older teens were uninhibited about their aggressiveness and unconcerned about appearing unfeminine.

The origin of polygamy

If women act on these stated preferences we would expect wealthy men
to have more mates, and there is ample cross-cultural evidence that they do. The importance of resources to women is apparent even in egalitarian societies such as the Ache and the Sharanahua, where the best hunters are able to attract the most sexual partners.

 

The relationship between wealth and male mating success is consistent with female choice for wealthy males, but it could also indicate differences in competitive ability among men, since a wealthy high-status man is more likely to out-compete his rivals for control over women.16 It is difficult to disentangle these causes of polygyny, and a discussion of this problem is beyond the scope of this paper.

 

It seems likely, however, that female choice for wealthy, high-status males (or the choice of her kinsmen on her behalf) is an important factor in many polygynous societies. Borgerhoff-Mulder’s fieldwork among the agro-pastoral Kipsigis provides some of the best evidence that polygyny is a consequence of women’s preferences for wealthy men. In a longitudinal study that followed the marriage histories of pioneers over a 17-year period, Borgerhoff-Mulder showed that women new to the area were more likely to choose as husbands men who could offer them more land (i.e., land available to the prospective wife after division among existing wives). Total wealth (i.e., before division) was unrelated to a man’s chances of getting a mate, which indicates that female choice rather than direct male competition is the key to polygyny in this society. 

Women’s Mating Strategies

The Google guys made billions out of a search engine. Why is that? Back before the Internet, the problem for intelligent people was having access to information. The solution to that was libraries, and an intellectual community of people one could ask about what is important to read.

But then came massive schooling, universal literacy, industrial printing, and eventually the Internet. Access to information is (Elsevier notwithstanding) is not a problem anymore. The problem now is the sheer amount of utterly worthless filth information out there. Access to information is no good if 99.99% of that information is pure crap. In fact it’s worse than not reading at all; as the brain’s capacity has limits, and filling your memory with crap is likely to prevent the absorption of better knowledge.

And that’s why Google is so valuable, it helps tell the wheat from the chaff. But only to a point, though. The fact is that even the Internet is so full of crap these days, you still need to spend hours yourself in order to find some good looking grains of wisdom.

Which is of course why the blogosphere exists; besides our priceless commentary, most of what we do is finding good stuff online and sharing it.

Anyway, I was lurking in some dark and hellish corner of the blogosphere, and I found a link to a very neat paper on sex relations.

Women’s Mating Strategies
Evolutionary Anthropology 5:134–143, 1996
Elizabeth Cashdan
Department of Anthropology, University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112

First thing I noticed was University of Utah. Isn’t there where Cochran and Harpending work? This gotta be good. And it is. And look at the date. 1996! This pearl, no this full oyster farm of wisdom has been hiding in the internet for almost 20 years and nobody told me. Fuck Google, we need the Antiversity running up, fast.

Anyway, my blogging has been slow lately, so I’m going to pull an Isegoria and silently quote some pieces of the paper over several posts. No commentary is needed; the paper is clear as crystal.

What does a woman want? The traditional evolutionist’s answer to Freud’s famous query is that a woman’s extensive investment in each child implies that she can maximize her fitness by restricting her sexual activity to one or at most a few high-quality males. Because acquiring resources for her offspring is of paramount importance, a woman will try to attract wealthy, high-status men who are willing and able to help her. She must be coy and choosy, limiting her attentions to men worthy of her and emphasizing her chastity so as not to threaten the paternity confidence of her mate.

The lady has been getting more complicated of late, however. As Sarah Hrdy1 predicted, we now have evidence that women, like other female pri- mates, are also competitive, randy creatures. Women have been seen com- peting with their rivals using both physical aggression2,3 and more subtle derogation of competitors.4 While they are still sometimes coy and chaste, women have also been described recently as sexy and sometimes promis- cuous creatures, manipulating fatherhood by the timing of orgasm, and using their sexuality to garner resources from men.

The real answer to Freud’s query, of course, is that a woman wants it all: a man with the resources and inclination to invest, and with genes that make him attractive to other women so that her sons will inherit his success. Her strategies for attaining these somewhat conflicting aims, and her success in doing so, are shaped by her own resources and options and by conflicts of interest with men and other women.  

We need a new religion, 3

Isegoria has been running a series of posts quoting John Glubb’s The Fate of Empires. It’s a great book, short and to the point. Not exactly erudite and full of data, but the patterns he points out are very interesting, even though his analysis is not quite consistent.

I also found interesting his chapter on religion, which agrees on some old idea of mine:

 

In due course, selfishness permeated the community, the coherence of which was weakened until disintegration was threatened. Then, as we have seen, came the period of pessimism with the accompanying spirit of frivolity and sensual indulgence, by- products of despair. It was inevitable at such times that men should look back yearningly to the days of ‘religion’, when the spirit of self-sacrifice was still strong enough to make men ready to give and to serve, rather than to snatch.

But while despair might permeate the greater part of the nation, others achieved a new realisation of the fact that only readiness for self-sacrifice could enable a community to survive. Some of the greatest saints in history lived in times of national decadence, raising the banner of duty and service against the flood of depravity and despair.

In this manner, at the height of vice and frivolity the seeds of religious revival are quietly sown. After, perhaps, several generations (or even centuries) of suffering, the impoverished nation has been purged of its selfishness and its love of money, religion regains its sway and a new era sets in. ‘It is good for me that I have been afflicted,’ said the psalmist, ‘that I might learn Thy Statutes.’

 

I’d say we need renewal, and not yet another revival, but the train of thought is similar.

Glubb has an interesting proposal:

If the present writer were a millionaire, he would try to establish in some university or other a department dedicated solely to the study of the rhythm of the rise and fall of powerful nations throughout the world. History goes back only some 3,000 years, because before that period writing was not sufficiently widespread to allow of the survival of detailed records. But within that period, the number of empires available for study is very great.

At the commencement of this essay, the names of eleven such empires were listed, but these included only the Middle East and the modern nations of the West. India, China and Southern America were not included, because the writer knows nothing about them. A school founded to study the rise and fall of empires would probably find at least twenty-four great powers available for dissection and analysis.

The task would not be an easy one, if indeed the net were cast so wide as to cover virtually all the world’s great nations in 3,000 years. The knowledge of language alone, to enable detailed investigations to be pursued, would present a formidable obstacle.

He is also not alone with this idea; many out there are studying this topic, and histories on non-western Civilizations are much easier to find today. At the very least an attempt to map Glubb’s theory of historical stages with the dynastic cycles in China shouldn’t be too hard.

 

Soft Power

So it seems that the USA is in the business of arranging the delivery via surrogate mothers of babies for foreign homosexuals.

For all the faults of the evil empire of the USSR, and the evil axis of Iran and whoever, all they did was run their own fucked up countries and peripheral satellites. The USA today is supplying the needs of sexual deviants, feminists, communists and every other agitators all around the world.

Thankfully the Portuguese legal system hasn’t yet caught up with American innovations like a birth certificate with two fathers; but most certainly the American embassy will take care of that very soon, by applying the necessary pressure on the Portuguese ‘sovereign’ government.

And people complain that some are too sympathetic to Putin or the Chinese. People clutch at straws when they feel in danger, and this sort of stuff is likely to fry the purity foundation circuits of any sane person.