Shutting down the slaughter

Alabama leads the charge against Roe v. Wade:

After several hours of contentious debate, the Alabama Senate on Tuesday night voted 25-6 to pass what many say will be the strictest abortion ban in the nation. The bill makes abortion a felony in Alabama. A similar measure already passed the Republican-controlled House but controversy erupted last week in the Senate after an attempt to add amendments that would allow exceptions for victims of rape or incest. Another attempt to add rape and incest exceptions on Tuesday also failed and led to a filibuster attempt. Proponents of the measure pushed for a “clean bill” without amendments in order to clear the way to a legal fight in the U.S. Supreme Court and a review of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. The bill now goes to Gov. Kay Ivey, who will decide whether to sign it into law. 

Roll Tide.

UPDATE: It just keeps getting better:

If it’s signed off, the new law will make it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy – punishable by up to 99 years in jail.

They should probably make it a felony for ANYONE to perform an abortion at any stage, with a similar penalty attached.

This is what individualism looks like

Jordan Peterson’s me-first philosophy is NOT helping you or the society in which you live:

I feel like a ghost. I’m a 35-year-old woman, and I have nothing to show for it. My 20s and early 30s have been a twisting crisscross of moves all over the West Coast, a couple of brief stints abroad, multiple jobs in a mediocre role with no real upward track. I was also the poster child for serial monogamy. My most hopeful and longest lasting relationship (three and a half years, whoopee) ended two years ago. We moved to a new town (my fourth new city), created a home together, and then nose-dived into a traumatic breakup that launched me to my fifth and current city and who-knows-what-number job.

For all these years of quick changes and rash decisions, which I once rationalized as adventurous, exploratory, and living an “original life,” I have nothing to show for it. I have no wealth, and I’m now saddled with enough debt from all of my moves, poor decisions, and lack of career drive that I may never be able to retire. I have no career milestones and don’t care for my line of work all that much anyway, but now it’s my lifeline, as I only have enough savings to buy a hotel room for two nights. I have no family nearby, no long-term relationship built on years of mutual growth and shared experiences, no children. While I make friends easily, I’ve left most of my friends behind in each city I’ve moved from while they’ve continued to grow deep roots: marriages, homeownership, career growth, community, families, children. I have a few close girlfriends, for which I am grateful, but life keeps getting busier and our conversations are now months apart. Most of my nights are spent alone with my cat (cue the cliché).

I used to consider myself creative — a good writer, poetic, passionate, curious. Now, after many years of demanding yet uninspiring jobs, multiple heartbreaks, move after move, financial woes, I’m quite frankly exhausted. I can barely remember to buy dish soap let alone contemplate humanity or be inspired by Anaïs Nin’s diaries. Honestly, I find artists offensive because I’m jealous and don’t understand how I landed this far away from myself…. I used to think I was the one who had it all figured out. Adventurous life in the city! Traveling the world! Making memories! Now I feel incredibly hollow. And foolish. How can I make a future for myself that I can get excited about out of these wasted years?  What reserves or identity can I draw from when I feel like I’ve accrued nothing up to this point with my life choices?

Man is not a solitary creature. He thrives best when surrounded by his own herd, his own pack, his own kind. This is not “collectivism” or “statism”, and group identity is not “pathological”, it is, to the contrary, the epitome of healthy and normal humanity.

Putting individualism first and foremost is a good way to end up broke, friendless, and feeling that you’ve wasted your life.

Women working destroys marriage

The social science backs up common sense and observation concerning the terrible social policy of encouraging women to work outside the home rather than marry and raise children.

We examine causes and consequences of relative income within households. We show that the distribution of the share of income earned by the wife exhibits a sharp drop to the right of 1/2 , where the wife’s income exceeds the husband’s income. We argue that this pattern is best explained by gender identity norms, which induce an aversion to a situation where the wife earns more than her husband. We present evidence that this aversion also impacts marriage formation, the wife’s labor force participation, the wife’s income conditional on working, marriage satisfaction, likelihood of divorce, and the division of home production. Within marriage markets, when a randomly chosen woman becomes more likely to earn more than a randomly chosen man, marriage rates decline. In couples where the wife’s potential income is likely to exceed the husband’s, the wife is less likely to be in the labor force and earns less than her potential if she does work. In couples where the wife earns more than the husband, the wife spends more time on household chores; moreover, those couples are less satisfied with their marriage and are more likely to divorce. These patterns hold both cross-sectionally and within couples over time.

Whatever the theoretical benefits of doubling the percentage of women in the workforce were, the material costs to society have dramatically exceeded them. This is not about women working per se, as one-third of women have always worked, but the change since 1950 is that most young marriage-age women now work so that old men can collect Social Security, watch TV, and play golf instead of working as they always had before.

The results have been not merely dyscivic and dysgenic, but downright dyscivilizational. And regardless of what you think on the matter, it is clear that a society which encourages widespread female education and employment is not sustainable and is guaranteed to collapse sooner rather than later.

How to spot a liar

Owen Benjamin explains:

Number one is a passive voice. Notice when someone doesn’t use the word “I”. Passive. Like saying “you”. When you add too many words, liars a lot of times are trying so hard not to be caught lying that they overdescribe things. They won’t say things like “I saw, I see”, those are direct, that’s direct language. It’s always passive. “You’d be inclined to believe that”. Liars also speak in the negative. Always understand that when a liar is speaking, they’re always simply trying to avoid being caught in a deception. They’re not trying to say anything, they’re only trying to evade. It’s like word judo.

So they don’t say what they saw, they say what they didn’t see. And they say “you”. It’s never “I”. Because when you say “I saw, I went, I am, I will” that is people hold you to that. That’s why Kennedy was like “We will go to the Moon. That’s very direct language.

Evasive language is when you say “the gun went off”. You don’t say “I shot someone”, you put all the onus on the object and not yourself. Like “you know how fast you were going?” “The car started accelerating.” No.  A liar is always trying to take everything off you and you’re never going to make a statement that can later proven to be false.

It’s so funny because if someone speaks clearly and strongly and with meaning, I am so much more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt as just being wrong than if someone speaks this way. The odds are really high that they are liars…. They also tend to stutter on the word “I” when they are lying. “I… I… I.”

I am immediately suspicious of anyone who will not answer a direct question or who begins evasive action. I knew Jordan Peterson was a liar due to his dishonest response to criticism on the IQ question, so when I saw his first video and witnessed his “I… I… I’ve been thinking so deeply about this for so long that I can’t possibly give you an answer”, that simply confirmed what I already knew. But it would have been enough to make me deeply suspicious of anything the man said.

Another tell is when they avoid precision with regards to quantities. They suddenly can’t remember what their IQ is, but somehow, they know it is really high! They can’t tell you how much they owe you, but they always know to the penny how much someone else owes them.


Do tell us more about how the USA has changed for the better:

In 1960, for example, average weight of an American man was 166 pounds, according to a previous CDC report. By 2002, it had increased to 190. During that same time period, average height increased by a single inch for men, from about 5 feet 8 inches on average to about 5 feet 9 inches.

Add another 14 years, bringing us to 2016, and average height stayed the same (or maybe even dropped a fraction of an inch), while weights jumped another 8.5 pounds on average for men– up to 197.9 pounds, according to the newer CDC report.

The numbers weren’t much better for women, for whom weights on average rose from 163.8 pounds in 2000 to 170.6 pounds two years ago.

They left out the bit about women weighing, on average, only 140.2 pounds in 1960.  And only 127.7 for women 20-29. What a hellish place the pre-1960s USA must have been!

They dread the day

There’s no Cultural Marxism here, avows the Cultural Marxist:

At the chilling climax of William S. Lind’s 2014 novel “Victoria,” knights wearing crusader’s crosses and singing Christian hymns brutally slay the politically correct faculty at Dartmouth College, the main character’s (and Mr. Lind’s) alma mater. “The work of slaughter went quickly,” the narrator says. “In less than five minutes of screams, shrieks and howls, it was all over. The floor ran deep with the bowels of cultural Marxism.”

What is “cultural Marxism”? And why does Mr. Lind fantasize about its slaughter?

Nothing of the kind actually exists. But it is increasingly popular to indict cultural Marxism’s baleful effects on society — and to dream of its violent extermination. With a spate of recent violence in the United States and elsewhere, calling out the runaway alt-right imagination is more urgent than ever.

Talk about projection. The Left so dreads the Day of Deus Vult that they are no longer content with merely policing speech, now they seek to police dreams and imagination.

If you want to see what has the New York Times more frightened than a teenage girl alone in the house reading a Stephen King novel, you can pick up the paperback here.

This is how you win

To win the cultural war, you have to actually fight it:

Several schools in Poland have canceled activities promoting tolerance for gays and lesbians following government pressure and threats in some places. More than 200 schools had planned to take part in “Rainbow Friday,” an anti-discrimination event that a civic rights group, the Campaign Against Homophobia, had promoted in hopes of building greater acceptance for LGBT students.

The education minister of Poland’s conservative government, Anna Zalewska, had warned ahead of time that any principals who allowed such events to take place could face negative consequences. She also asked parents to report any such activities to authorities.

Civilization is winning in Poland and Hungary. Why? Because their politicians are aggressively taking the battle to the Left and using the full force of the law against it.

The consequences of #METOO

Some of them are downright beneficial to society:

The Society for Human Resource Management published a report Thursday that documented the result of the movement that called on society to believe allegations of sexual harassment without question.

According to the study, nearly a third of executives report that they have “changed their behaviors to a moderate, great or very great extent to avoid behavior that could be perceived as sexual harassment.”

The CEO of the SHRM, Johnny C. Taylor Jr., explained that “some of the more concerning pieces of data that came out of the research are around the concern that there may be a backlash of sorts.”

“There were men who specifically said I will not hire a woman going forward,” he explained.

“Those who said they would hire a woman said they would not travel with one, and they, more importantly they would not engage in activities after business hours,” Taylor added.

Ironically, a genuine misogynistic woman-hater is considerably safer in the current environment than the most passionate confirmed male feminist. I don’t hate women, but I have never trusted them or believed in their doe-eyed innocence, which is probably why I’ve never had any problem in this regard even though feminists have hated me since 2001.

My habits are pretty straightforward. Don’t touch women and never initiate contact with them. Don’t talk to women outside the friends and family circle except to exchange the customary civilities or to do business with them. Don’t express attraction to women. Don’t betray any emotion or vulnerabilities to women. Don’t permit yourself to be put into situations where you are alone with women. Don’t allow your mind to be distracted by a pretty face or a shapely figure. When in doubt, walk away.

There are a few exceptions, of course, but they are women who have proved, over time, that they are individuals who can be trusted, and not merely in the context of male-female relations either.

At the end of the day, I just like Spacebunny a lot better than the rest of them, so it’s less a series of intentional behavioral guidelines than a lack of interest on my part.

High school never ends

The media appears to be on the verge of discovering the socio-sexual hierarchy:

Is this the genesis of a new Sailer’s Law?

The most passionate tweets by male journalists tend to be demands that, Come the Revolution, the guys who beat out the journalists in getting the girls in high school will be destroyed in their adult lives.

The late Tom Wolfe suggested something similar in Back to Blood, in which an old editor, Topping, reflects upon young reporter John Smith. Only Wolfe thinks it all starts ten years younger:

If you ask me, newspaper reporters are created at age six when they first go to school. In the schoolyard boys immediately divide into two types. Immediately! There are those who have the will to be daring and dominate, and those who don’t have it. … But there are boys from the weaker side of the divide who grow up with the same dreams as the stronger … The boy standing before me, John Smith, is one of them. They, too, dream of power, money, fame, and beautiful lovers.

The sort of men who go into journalism tend to be gammas. Just look at the average high school boy working on the school paper or college man majoring in journalism. That’s why so many of them get themselves into trouble once they climb the ranks, become a public face, start amassing real money and influence, and find themselves in the position of being a situational alpha. They simply don’t have the self-control that the young alpha naturally develops over time and their ability to rationalize their actions is off the charts because gamma.

But in truth, it’s more that elementary school never ends. That’s the age where most people appear to be stamped into what more or less remains their final form. Even the late-bloomers who transform themselves over time tend to more or less retain that early form on the inside.

Boys suffer more dating violence

This news about girls being more inclined to domestic violence than boys isn’t even remotely surprising. I can only speak for myself, but I’ve been struck by far more girls and women than by boys and men:

Who is more likely to be victimized by teen dating violence? If you’re quick to think it’s girls, new data shows you’re wrong. In a surprising twist, recently published research indicates boys are more likely to report being victims of dating violence committed by partners who hit, slap or push them.

Researchers with the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University conducted a longitudinal study of dating violence. While reports of physical abuse went down over time, they say there is a troubling gender-related trend.

Five percent of teens reported physical abuse from their dating partners in 2013, down from 6 percent in 2003. But in the last year, 5.8 percent of boys reported dating violence compared to 4.2 percent of girls.

Cue the “but she’s smaller and less likely to hurt him” excuse. Sure, but size does not rationalize a resort to violence. It’s not only wrong, it’s stupid.