Friday, July 29, 2016

Hillary Candidacy

There are some serious questions surrounding Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Yes, she was nominated last night for the Democrat ticket. But there's too much baggage, I think. Character questions, ability questions, leadership questions, and even health questions. If you can "explain away" all of these, then you are either stupid or on an agenda. And that agenda would not be the betterment of the USA.

Benghazi
Seriously, she left those men to die. We have the emails that prove it. We have the FBI director saying she lied about those emails.

Rape
As an attorney, she got a man acquitted of rape whom she knew was guilty. In case you don't see it, there are two major problems here: 1. That's not very pro-woman. 2. That's not very good attorney-client privilege.

Health
Did you see her seizure? What about that time out of the spotlight last year due to "head injury?" I think there's more here than meets the eye, and I am genuinely concerned over her health.

Bernie
Without the super delegates, this election was Bernie's. That's not very democratic of the Democrats.

Death
Why is it that anyone who has dirt on Hillary either winds up endorsing her despite it, or dying? And it used to be that way on Bill Clinton, for that matter.

Wall Street
She says she will take them on, yet her son-in-law works for them, and her major donors come from Wall Street. Regardless of your opinion  of Wall Street, this is inexcusable.

Corruption
Many examples here. The latest? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is forced to resign as Chair of the DNC due to ethics issues, and is immediately hired by Clinton.

Liberal Causes
She is not pro-woman.
She is not pro-gay marriage.
She is not pro minorities.
She is not in favor of any oppressed group, as identified by progressive outlets.

War
What's more, Hillary is pro-war.
More so than Trump.
So much so that the establishment Republicans  (read: warmongers) have started backing her.

Not Progress
This does not sound like progress, according to the Democrat platform.
Thus does not sound like progress according to the Trump platform.
This only sounds like progress from the old establishment Republican platform.


Summary
If you are socially liberal and fiscally liberal, the best candidate for you is the Green Party's Jill Stein.
If you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, then the best candidate for you is Donald Trump. If you absolutely cannot stand Trump, then you might like the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson.
If you are socially conservative and fiscally liberal, then it sounds like you are out of luck.
If you are socially conservative and fiscally conservative, then the best candidate for you is Donald Trump.



Posted via Blogaway


Thursday, July 28, 2016

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Raising Them Wrong

Recently witnessed.

Situation: a divorce. There are two children involved. Originally, mom has custody of the children. After a while, mom got in over her head financially. She agrees to let dad have custody of the kids.

Normally, I'd say this is a good thing. Children typically do better with dad than mom in a divorce situation. This was not the typical. Dad was not a man. He was a cuckservative.

Please remember, cuckservatives are folks who like conservative ideas, but who adopt SJW and liberal talking points when push comes to shove. And, as might be expected, this particular cuckservative was a gamma. A Secret King.

At first, the children did better, as would be expected. Then, the children started waking up to the fact that dad kept the three laws of SJW: he always lied, he always doubled down, and he always projected. Needless to say, the children - particularly the daughter - started expressing severe emotional and behavior issues.

Last time I saw the daughter, she was in trouble for being part of a group of 4 girls who had destroyed another child's property at school. The result was not good.

And that's what happens when a SJW, a liberal, or a cuckservative tries to raise children. That's how our country got to this point. Fortunately, we have Blond Samson leading in the presidential race. Maybe America will see a real man in action and follow his lead to the natural order of things.


Tuesday, July 26, 2016

That's Not Racist

Found via Facebook -
It's Time You Realize #AllLivesMatter Is Racist 


Make no mistake, the BLM movement is racist in its very nature. What's more, BLM has resorted to guerrilla tactics. Some might say "terrorist tactics,' but Mountain Guerilla knows whereof he speaks, so let's go with that.

To me, this author at Advocate has the markings of a SJW. From SJWs Always Lie we learn the three laws of SJW:
1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double down.
3. SJWs always project.

It would seem #1 and #3 are the order of the day.

Clearly, the inclusion of all lives as mattering is not racist. There is zero mention of race. If you feel it maximizes one race, or minimizes another, then it's your problem. Either learn to read with comprehension, or stop projecting. Ah... that's the reason, isn't it???

So, when the SJW at Advocate writes that #AllLivesMatter is racist, she is projecting. She could be projecting her own racism. She could be projecting the white liberal fear of blacks - but this could be countered by a shrewd liberal as Lewis' Twitter profile picture indicates she may be black. Alternately, she could just be passing along the white liberal fear projection she likely encounters from her white friends.

As for me? I prefer #NothingElseMatters - 



Monday, July 25, 2016

Which Way Do They Want It?

A feminist had this picture posted, and right after it, an article with the following headline:
Give it a shot ladies, you won’t regret it, and you just might find yourself with more dates than you know what to do with. :)

And here is a transcript of the article:

Watch out world this week made me realize I love being ballsy af
In today’s day and age gender roles are starting to disappear (can I get an amen?). Women are (almost) making as much money as men, they are proposing and they are essentially ruling the world, so why should I be afraid of texting a guy first or asking him to grab a drink?

The answer is I shouldn’t be afraid, but society tells me I should. Society tells me I shouldn’t double-text, act too interested or even initiate conversation. I’m supposed to wait. I’m supposed to wait until the man decides to give me the time of day, and I’m not a very patient person. So, waiting doesn’t really work for me, and neither does not being in control.

I decided to take initiative with all the men in my life, and I’m never going back.

My previous relationship with these men had always been pretty casual. I would wait for the first text, and it generally led to us never hanging out unless we happened to run into each other at a bar.

Occasionally if I was feeling extra brave I would send the first snapchat (gasp), but honestly this waiting had led to a very bland love life with a serious lack of kissing.

There is no reason I shouldn’t be able to be the one that takes the lead in my relationships. Honestly, I love the rush. I love putting someone in a position where they have to decide if they want to pursue a relationship with me or not.

It feels so much better to know where you stand with someone immediately instead of waiting for them to either take initiative or slowly realize that maybe they just aren’t that interested.

Also, from my experiences this week. I’ve come to the conclusion that many men actually think it’s very attractive when woman take the initiative. There’s something super sexy about a woman that knows what she wants and isn’t afraid to go for it.

I started the experiment by asking four men that I had some interest in if they wanted to grab a drink, dinner or ice cream sometime.I had class with one of them, but we usually just made eyes at each other. I drunkingly slid my number to one at a bar, one was from my hometown and the last one I met through greek life.

Surprisingly, I went four for four. I was pretty pleased with the results to say the the least, but I also had more plans than I had time for.

I had to juggle some things around, and ended up only being able to meet up with one of them, but don’t worry folks plans have been made.

That isn’t the point though. It doesn’t matter that the guys that I reached out to ended up being at least moderately interested. What matters is how much it actually changed the course of my week.

I felt more confident, and definitely more in control. I was no longer waiting around for a boy to read my mind, and ask me out. I didn’t spend anytime waiting by the phone, or feeling sorry for myself because my love life is nonexistent.

I felt like I had the power to change my own life, and that made me feel stronger and honestly more desirable. I know that I want to be with someone that isn’t threatened by my loud personality, so why should try to hide my straightforward attitude? I was finally allowing myself to be myself and be bold in every aspect of my life, and that gave me a new found confidence to just live the way I want to. I held my head a little higher, I send bold texts and I felt beautiful for the first time in a long time, but more than that I felt powerful.

I took control, and the results happened to be pretty great, but even if they weren’t at least I was the one in control, and that’s what’s important. I realized my passive relationships with men was seriously damaging my life.

I was allowing the men in my life to control my joy based on whether or not they took the initiative to push our relationships forward, and that’s not healthy.

Taking initiative gave me control, and reminded me that I am in control of what happens to me, and who is in my life. I don’t need to wait for a boy to decide my worth, because I already know that I’m worth it. I know I deserve a man that isn’t afraid of my assertiveness, and bold attitude in relationships. I don’t want to be with someone who expects me to conform to the gender roles society expects of me, or runs scared because I go after what I want.

My week of initiative taught me more than I thought it would about myself, and I’m never going to pretend to be a passive woman just because it’s what’s expected of me. I’m going after the guys I want, and being ballsy without fear.

Give it a shot ladies, you won’t regret it, and you just might find yourself with more dates than you know what to do with.



Translation:
Feminism will turn off all the alphas and betas; and they will treat you as the dimwit you are. This relegates the pretty ones (7+) to a short period of pump and dump fame followed by alpha widowhood. The plain ones (4-6) will have to employ this methodology to get together with men of the delta and gamma classes. The ugly ones (<3) will have to try this tactic, but will likely resort to asexuality or lesbianism.

Men need to catcall women. Women need men to catcall them.


Friday, July 22, 2016

Hillary's Emails

The statement by FBI Director, James Comey in italics.
My remarks in bold.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.
Put on your wading boots.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.
This response has been coordinated with other agencies and with Hillary and Obama, and this is the consensus message they all wished to be conveyed to you.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
Hillary lied. She deleted emails. Please don't ask what she was hiding.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.
And now, let me begin covering for her... I don't want to get killed.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
More ass covering...

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Didn't we go after Snowden for this very sort of thing... oh, wait... you didn't hear that!

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Even though I just said we did...

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Peasants get charged. Royalty does not.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
Hillary threatened to kill me.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.
My people have helped me cover this up. I'm glad to be alive and off of Hillary's hit list!


Thursday, July 21, 2016

What is a Cuckservative

Some friends and family have seen me use the term cuckservative a few times, and the wonder what it means. Just for propriety,  Milo was probably the first and best to describe it. Cuckservative is, simply put, a word that is an amalgam of cuckold (def. - fetish of watching one's partner having sexual relations with another person; specifically, watching one's wife have relations with another man) and conservative. 

And that's what so many conservatives have done... cuckservatives have relinquished the masculine duties to someone else. Voting for Romney and McCain. Accepting liberals like Kasich and Lamar! in the conservative party. Falling for SJW bullshit lines. Letting other countries and peoples push us around.

Enough!

In SJWs Always Lie,  Vox Day points out, as a strategic principle, that one should keep the moderates in check. Cuckservatives are the moderates. Vox suggests that one can identify a moderate with this litmus test:
- Moderates only shoot at their own side, and never at their enemy.
- Moderates often try to find a middle ground that doesn't exist.

Once the moderates have been identified, Vox suggests that moderates should not be permitted to provide input for strategy or tactics. Also, moderates are not to be accepted as leaders.

I would add that a cuckservative is a person who identifies as a conservative, but often falls for or recites SJW propaganda. This would include the spoutings of feminists. This means if you find a conservative leaning person who 1) always lies, 2) always doubles down, and 3) always projects; then you have found a cuckservative.


Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Book Review: SJWs Always Lie

Recently I read the book SJWs Always Lie:  Taking Down the Thought Police, by Vox Day. This book has many hidden and not so hidden treasures in it, and came highly recommended.

Abstract
I've read Vox Day's blog posts for years. Generally I skip over his penchant for detailing his clashes with folks over matters of gaming or science fiction writing, as I'm not overly fond of either topic. To be sure, this book has plenty of gaming and sci-fi; but it is quite forgivable, as it helps Day give solid advice for dealing with Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) everywhere. 

Review
Day describes in detail his dealings with SJWs in the gaming and sci-fi arenas. In so doing, he draws several broad conclusions that are true of SJWs everywhere. He summarizes the three laws of SJW, eight stages of SJW attack sequence, what to do when SJWs attacking, strategic principles (for dealing with SJWs), and winning the Social Justice War in the West.

There are also many other related tidbits of wisdom scattered throughout the work. I made notes as I read along. You may wish to do the same.

Summary
All you absolutely need to know from the book are summarized by Day's Three Laws of SJW:
1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double down.
3. SJWs always project.

Additionally, he gives other lists, mentioned above, that you will be better for understanding. Most of these I already knew and adhered to. However, it's good to see it formalized in list fashion.

Overall
Great book. 10/10
If you are classically conservative, libertarian-leaning, or otherwise part of the American political "fringe," then this book is a must-read.



Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Know Your Role

This article makes for an interesting read. If it were followed more closely, divorce rates would not hover near 50% in America. Not ironically, the women who make snide comments below the article also speak of being divorced.




1.) Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready, on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him and are concerned about his needs.

2.) Most men are hungry when they come home and the prospect of a good meal (especially his favorite dish) is part of the warm welcome needed.

3.) Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you’ll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your makeup, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people.

4.) Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.

5.) Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives. Gather up schoolbooks, toys, paper, etc. and then run a dust cloth over the tables.

6.) Over the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering for his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.

7.) Prepare the children. Take a few minutes to wash the children’s hands and faces (if they are small), comb their hair and, if necessary, change their clothes.

8.) Children are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part. Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet.

9.) Be happy to see him. Free him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him. Listen to him.

10.) You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first — remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.

11.) Make the evening his. Never complain if he comes home late or goes out to dinner, or other places of entertainment without you. Instead, try to understand his world of strain and pressure and his very real need to be at home and relax.

12.) Your goal: Try to make sure your home is a place of peace, order and tranquility where you husband can renew himself in body and spirit.

13.) Don’t greet him with complaints and problems.

14.) Don’t complain if he’s late home for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through that day.

15.) Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or have him lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him.

16.) Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.

17.) Don’t ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment of integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.

18.) A good wife always knows her place.





In summary, a woman who is a homemaker should take pride in her duties. It is assumed in the article that the woman was raising the children. It is also assumed that the man is out earning a living for the family. Maybe if things were like this, he US divorce rate would drop back to the 20% range.

Another nugget of truth is that if the home is made a peaceful place, there will be peace. Not arguing and fighting. A woman who accepts her feminine role of "allowing" the man  to speak first will often have her concerns put at ease. Much nicer and more congenial than fighting with him the moment he gets home about some insignificant irrelevancy.

The word "partnership" - so abused these days when speaking in terms of marriage - does not appear in this article. It is assumed, though. The man does the masculine jobs and the woman does the feminine ones.

This, and other self help articles from the 1950's, coach women on ... wait for it... being feminine. Women have a certain natural leaning towards being feminine, but it must also be coached. Just like men have a natural leaning toward being masculine, but that must also be coached.


Monday, July 18, 2016

7 Alpha Traits?

7 Traits of an Alpha Male. Interesting meme, and I'm sure the book has some merit, too. However, there are some misleading statements here. Let's take a closer look. For simplicity, let's use Heartiste's ALPHA - BETA dichotomy model.

Helpful, but not condescending
A true ALPHA is helpful, but can also be condescending. In fact, one of the three main methods of passing a shit-test is to ridicule and reframe. An ALPHA won't always be condescending, but will be when you warrant it (men) or ask for it (women).

Confident, but not cocky
Outright false. An ALPHA is confident to the point of cocky when in his element. However, an ALPHA is also brutally honest with himself. If he finds himself in an unknown environment, he may have to simply settle for confidence.

Vain, but not conceited
The conceited part depends. If the ALPHA is just with his boys, then true. However, if a woman of interest or potential interest is in range, then this is absolutely not true.

Proud, but not arrogant
This, too, is false. The ALPHA blows his own horn when needed without apology. This directly contradicts the meme maker's definition of arrogant.

Humble, but not self-loathing
Absolutely correct.

Tolerant, but not weak
True, but with limitations on what is tolerated. An ALPHA understands that there are different people, religions, and politics. However, an ALPHA also understands that just as surely as he allows them to exist, he expects them not to infringe on him, either.

Dedicated, but not obsessed
Teue, but with a caveat. If a man has an obsession that is of benefit, and if this draws the man away from social interaction, and if the man is otherwise a bona-fide ALPHA, then you may have a (Heartiste) renegade ALPHA - aka a Sigma.


Saturday, July 16, 2016

Jeb! Squeaks Out

Jeb Bush, being the gamma he is, has hinted he might vote Libertarian in protest of Trump. This, of course, is the pot calling the kettle black.

Jeb is one of the few (R)'s that, had he achieved the nomination, would have had me voting 3rd party.

And, just in case you forgot who is more man:



Trump vs. Ginsburg

A quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
“He (Trump) is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment.
...
I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be -- I don't even want to contemplate that."
(Via CNN and the New York Times)

Trump's reply sounds as if it was whatever came into his head at the moment -
"Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!"
(Via Twitter)

But... there's a catch.
Trump was actually right!


The Judicial Canon of Ethics states that a sitting judge shall not publicly endorse or oppose a candidate in 5 (A)(1)(b).

Ginsburg later issued an "apology" (it was really more of an "I regret saying that").


Some takeaways -
Alpha jerkboy owns feminist SCOTUS member who hit The Wall some 50 years ago.
Trump shows the influence he wields in making a SCOTUS judge back down.
The left has no regard for the rule of law.
The left has even less regard for common decency.
Feminism is still awful.


Friday, July 15, 2016

Deconstructing the Myth of the Alpha Female

This one is absolutely hilarious. Traits of the "alpha female." We all know there is really no such thing as an alpha female. Females are best rated in tiers. Nevertheless, the talking points in the meme make for a good blog post here.

She is pro woman
On the surface, this sounds just fine. However, we all know this is coded language for "she is a feminist." And quite frankly, there is nothing more unattractive in a woman than the presence of two things: excess fat and feminism. There is no way a woman can retain top tier status if she is a feminist.

She cultivates a life she enjoys
Again, sounds good on the surface. Again there is a "however." This time, the coded language indicates that this woman "don't need no man." Since this is the number one tag line of feminism, the presence of this talking point also detracts from a woman's worth.

She makes her move
The theme repeats itself - sounds good, but is actually coded language. Again, this is code for DNNM. More feminism.

She doesn't push herself down
Yet again, this phrase sounds good. This time, the code is not directly from feminism (Yay for the meme maker!). This coded language is rooted in the entitlement princess mentality. These sorts encourage women to do all sorts of stupid things like "fat acceptance" and the like. Not a good mentality, and definitely enough to drag a woman's tier status down.

She desires a partner, not a boyfriend
Direct play from the feminist playbook. No attempt to even disguise it. Of course, the problem is that feminism doesn't foster a partnership as much as it fosters an anti-male mindset and environmental.

She calls people out
Another from the entitlement princess mentality. These people want to make it socially acceptable for a woman to not only not be feminine, but also to get a pass on being outright rude and anti-social.

She knows when to walk away
Again, looks good on paper. But what is this code for? Simple - this is the divorce porn segment of the meme. The only thing feminism and entitlement princesses walk out on is their families in divorce court. They certainly don't walk out on evil.

She doesn't compete for attention
This one is fun. It is entitlement princess coded language for psychological projection. All these sorts can do is compete for attention. So, when they compete for attention, they attempt to make you believe they aren't really competing for attention.

She creates her reality
Repeat of She cultivates a life she enjoys. The repeat here indicates more projection. It isn't true, so they try to talk themselves into it.

She invests in herself
This one can be interpreted as feminist or entitlement princess mentality. It is one of the overlapping fields of interest. This is code for "me first." And such hypergamy is exactly what is warned against in phrases such as "pride comes before a fall."

She dares to go for "it"
Another repeat of She cultivates a life she enjoys, added to a large dose of "you go, girl." The YGG mantra is another of the feminist mainstays along with DNNM.

She knows the life she lives may be intimidating, but she lives anyways
A bunch of YGG, with a dash of DNNM.


Question
What traits would a real Tier 1 woman cultivate?
Oh, no, you don't... that's for a different blog post!


Thursday, July 14, 2016

Karate For Fighting 4

He who controls the distance controls the fight.
Engage when you want to. Disengage when you don't want to. That's the secret to fighting successfully using your karate skills.

Part 4 - other circumstances

Sometimes, you find yourself not advancing or retreating, but in other situations. Here are some techniques and tactics to survive... and to thrive.

Kuzushi Waza
Sometimes, your opponent over extends on a strike, and you can use kuzushi waza.
Sometimes, you intentionally over extend a strike, and find yourself in a position to execute kuzushi waza.

Sometimes you are nearly in a clinch position. Use ashi-barai (leg sweeps) to trip opponent.

Sniper attacks
Sometimes, you are playing the distance with your opponent, and an opportunity presents itself for a precision attack. In addition to standard punches, here are some techniques that might be useful:
Front kick (solar plexus, jaw, nose)
Front jump kick
Front thrust kick (rear leg) to hip or torso has the effect of a push
Front thrust kick to knee (lead leg or rear leg)
Round kick (thigh, ribs, liver, head)
Back kick
Spinning hammer fist*

* In MMA, you will see a spinning back fist. Use spinning hammer fist if your hands are not heavily wrapped and padded.

Clinch
Use leg sweeps, elbows, knees, palms to the side of the head & face to do damage. Use double hand pushes and frames to get out.


Trump VP

Donald Trump has announced via his social media platforms that he will make public his VP selection this weekend. Of course, rumors abound. 

Cuckservatives in Tennessee think Trump will select cuckservative Tennessee Senator Bob Corker. Only problem with that is nobody else is talking about Corker. Cuckservatives outside of Tennessee are squeaking about John Kasich.

Conservative media outlets have speculated that retired general Michael Flynn will be the selection. Flynn is a registered Democrat, so this rumor might just be sour grapes coming from the media mouthpiece of the party that hasn't done what it's constituents want, and has paid the price so dearly this election cycle.

Neocons have been saying for a while that Newt Gingrich is the presumptive selection. Neocons absolutely love Gingrich, so there's no telling how much of this is rumor vs. fact.

The small, dying, cuckservative movement is unclear. At times, they suggest Ted Cruz will be the pick. At other times, they will throw out liberal names, like Chris Christie, just to bash Trump. If it's not hard Right, they don't think it belongs... but God forbid these idiots fight the enemy instead of their own.

So, who do you think it will be?


Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Karate For Fighting 3

He who controls the distance controls the fight.
Engage when you want to. Disengage when you don't want to. That's the secret to fighting successfully using your karate skills.

Part 3 - retreat and stop-strike
Bait the opponent in, then strike instead of retreating. This can stop an opponent in his tracks. Unlike a lunge or advance, you will likely use only a single strike. Combine with sudden lateral movement to get away unharmed.

Good techniques for a stop-strike:
Mae-geri kekomi (right front thrust kick)
Choku-zuki
Gyaku-zuki
Mae-geri
Double punch

Failure
Be prepared for your stop-strike to fail to incapacitate your opponent. If this happens, fear not! Use clinching techniques such as palms, elbows, knees, and sweeps to help you facilitate your escape.

A double arm push or a frame; combined with lateral movement can make escape from a clinch easier.

Considerations
If you are retreating, but running out of room; use lateral movement to maintain the distance.
If your opponent is cutting you off, reverse your lateral movement to gain space.
Be aware of your surroundings. Don't get caught in a corner. Use walls and obstacles to your advantage.


Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Karate For Fighting 2

He who controls the distance controls the fight.
Engage when you want to. Disengage when you don't want to. That's the secret to fighting successfully using your karate skills.

Part 2 - Advancing
Advancing is the art of going after the opponent. You can go directly after the opponent, or you can cut him off. Cutting him off means you go where he is going, not necessarily where he is now.

Once you decide whether you plan to attack directly, or cut him off; you must then decide whether to attack with a lunge or advance-step. Here are some good combos.

Triple punch
Jun-zuki - gyaku-zuki - jun-zuki
Or
Gyaku-zuki - jun-zuki - gyaku-zuki
You can use either a lunge or advance.

Double punch
Jun-zuki - gyaku-zuki
Or
Gyaku-zuki - jun-zuki
Again, this can be used with a lunge or an advance.

A double punch can be followed by a front kick or round kick with devastating results.

Kick - punch
Mae-geri - jun-zuki
Mae-geri - jun-zuki - gyaku-zuki
Mawashi-geri - jun-zuki
Mawashi-geri - jun-zuki - gyaku-zuki

Use a rear leg kick on this one. Target the midsection (solar plexus for front kick; ribs for round kick) with the kick to improve punch results.

Calf kick
Mawashi-geri - jun-zuki
Mawashi-geri - gyaku-zuki
Gyaku-zuki - mawashi-geri
A mawashi-geri to the calf can knock a man off balance, or even trip him altogether. Follow with a quick jun-zuki or gyaku-zuki  for maximum results.

Alternately, lunge in with gyaku-zuki and follow it with mawashi-geri for a surprise.



Monday, July 11, 2016

Karate For Fighting 1

Several readers have asked me over the years to summarize what karate I would use for self-defense. Easy enough task, let's dig into that this week.

First, let's look at the techniques of karate that I would actually use. All techniques described will be based on an orthodox fighting posture. That is to say, left hand and left foot in front; and right hand and right foot to the rear.

Punches
Choku-zuki - straight punch (left)
Gyaku-zuki - reverse punch (right)
Jun-zuki - lunge punch or advancing punch

Kicks
Mae-geri - front kick
Mawashi-geri - round kick
Mae-geri kekomi - front thrust kick

No doubt, there are many more effective strikes and kicks. However, these form the base from which many effective combos are built. Additionally, most other strikes and kicks are highly situational, whereas these movements have broad application.

Body movement - tai-sabaki
Head & shoulder movement
Bouncing on feet
Ducks & slips
Lunge step directly toward opponent (large left step)
Advancing step directly toward opponent (elongated walking step)
Cutting off (advancing toward where opponent will be)
Retreat from opponent
Lateral movement to change distance / angle (basically any angled movement or movement to the side from your front / rear orientation).


Guard position:

Essentially like this. Maybe hold the hands a bit higher.

Engagement
Simply put - stay out of range until you wish to engage. Use retreats and lateral movement to maintain a distance of greater than two-arms' length.

Engage when you are ready - either with:
- A designed "stop:" that is, retreat to draw opponent in. When the timing and distance are right, strike and move out of range again. A boxing coach might call this "counter-punching."
- A lunging attack. Large step forward with the left leg leading directly to a punch or kick.
- An advancing step. This is an elongated walking step. Use with a punch or kick.
- Distance play. As you and your opponent both cautiously play with the distance, pick a precision attack to use. Be prepared to follow up if it lands or disengage if it fails to land.

Disengage
Get out of Dodge! Any time the distance was controlled by the opponent, get out of there. It is natural to move backwards. A skilled fighter will move laterally, as it is more unpredictable and, therefore, more difficult to follow. Be prepared to use:
- Counter punching
- Inside strikes
- Clinch work
- Off-balancing techniques
- Footwork and head movement

Conclusion
He who controls the distance controls the fight.
Engage when you want to. Disengage when you don't want to.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Sitting This One Out

Black Lives Matter
Blue Lives Matter
All Lives Matter

I'll let them fight this one out.

On one side is BLM. A known terrorist organization who has called for the taking of innocent police lives. They want to turn everything into a race issue... particularly when it's not.  They want to come to the defense of felons and other criminals, instead of innocent black people.

The other side is our national police state. This group "feels threatened" more than anyone on the planet ever. When accused of a crime, they investigate themselves and find themselves free of wrongdoing a great majority of the time. A total lack of accountability and repercussions has tainted what ought to be an upstanding career choice.

So I see people on social media saying they will stand with police. Or stand with BLM. I'll let them. And I won't be joining them. Let these groups kill each other off a bit. It will improve our society.


Friday, July 8, 2016

On Abuse

It's not abuse until the man fights back. Harrowing words, but true.

In our modern society, we are taught and told that it's men who do the abusing. Fact is, that's just plain not true. Women, being far more emotional creatures, are more prone to act out emotionally. Sometimes, this cascades over into abuse - physical, verbal, emotional, etc.

According to this article, mothers are the culprits of child abuse 70.6% of the time. Fathers account for 29.4% of the time. But, you only ever hear the stories about the men.

Furthermore, 60% of the victims are boys! Yet, we are told that it's the girls who suffer the most abuse. Clearly, that is false.


It is a common occurrence that a man complains of abuse (or even reports it) and authorities laugh it off because "she's just a girl." Yet, over 40% of domestic violence victims are male.  How much higher would that number be if police actually took more threats by women against men seriously? 


In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
- George Orwell




Don't fall for the lies and the rhetoric. Understand the truth - women abuse as much as or more than men do. Fight back with facts: abuse is wrong, regardless of who is dishing it out and also regardless of who is receiving it.


Dallas in Chaos

We awake to news this morning of all hell breaking loose in Dallas last night. The crux of the matter seems to be protests by Black Lives Matter. Make no mistake, BLM is a domestic terrorist organization. It is the USA's ISIS.

Evidently, one (possibly more) BLM shooters were targeting police officers and several have been shot. Some shot dead. Media reports are calling it a sniper situation.

I am skeptical about it being an actual  sniper situation.

BLM claims the tension because a cop shot a black man who was legally carrying a firearm. At this moment, there are conflicting reports about the claim of him "legally" carrying. Of course, if someone is shot by a cop, the cop and the involved police force are going to try to make their kill seem provoked and warranted. Sometimes the police are right. Sometimes the police are wrong.


The problem is, when the police are wrong, the officers who murder and commit other crimes rarely get punished. And in the unlikely event that they do get punished, it's almost never as severe as a common citizen would get punished.

But here's the catch...

Shooting innocent police officers for the crimes of others is equally as wrong as kingshit cops killing innocent blacks for the crimes of others.

That's why I call BLM a terrorist organization. If it were simply a vigilante organization, they would kill the cops in question. Killing the killer cops would be the logical and sensible thing to do, based on BLM's  claims, from their point of view.

The most disturbing noise is the silence coming from the White House. To quote Metallica... "all the pieces fall to his wish." The Community Organizer in Chief wants this strife. Because strife warrants martial law. Martial law allows for more government control. And everything Obama has ever done in office points toward more government control. It's a play out of the playbook, Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.  Part 8 in the list below:


And the beat goes on...


Thursday, July 7, 2016

Gun Control Lies

Every time the media blows up over a mass shooting, the liberal articles come out of the woodworks. This predictable response includes references to the NRA as a "big lobby group." If you believe the articles, you'd be led to believe that the NRA is one of the largest lobbying groups in Washington. But we all know the liberal media lies.

So... is the NRA one of the largest lobbying groups?

Liberal outlet,  Huffington Post, says "no." The NRA is (correctly) not even mentioned among the top 10 largest lobbying firms. Liberal media torch bearer, CNN, agrees. Here is  their list of the top 10:

1. General Electric (GE): $134 million
2. AT&T: (T, Tech30) $91.2 million
3. Boeing Co (BA): $90.3 million
4. Northrop Grumman (NOC): $87.9 million
5. Comcast Corp (CMCSA): $86.4 million
6. Verizon Communications: (VZ, Tech30) $86.4 million
7. FedExCorp (FDX): $85.7 million
8. Exxon Mobil (XOM): $85 million
9. Lockheed Martin (LMT): $78.8 million
10. Pfizer (PFE): $77.8 million

By contrast, the NRA's  largest year on record was $3 million.

Conclusion?
Don't buy the hype. The NRA is small potatoes compared to actual lobbying efforts.



Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Well, Bye

Recently, George Will announced he was leaving the GOP over Donald Trump. He's not the first, and he won't be the last. Some even say the GOP is in a tailspin. Funny... more people voted in Republican primaries than ever before... more people voted for Trump than had ever voted in Republican primaries before.

Perhaps the GOP is in a tailspin, though. Perhaps it had succeeded for decades in pulling the wool over the eyes of conservatives, American patriots, and the like. Perhaps the GOP was never representative of they typical liberty loving American. Perhaps it was always the party that was the lesser of two evils for whom these patriots felt obligated to vote.

Mitt Romney ring a bell?

In fact, if you "held your nose" and voted for either Romney or McCain, and now you say you'll never vote for Trump - you are exactly what was wrong with the GOP. You are the reason for the tailspin. Election results show you are a minority in the party. And the days of you and your ilk holding power in the party are over. You aren't needed anymore. You aren't wanted anymore. Go and vote 3rd party... it won't matter.


No Charges

From  this link -
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

And...

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

In other words, they are saying they won't bring charges because they don't think #HillaryForPrison2016 intended to break laws. But, if you or I did same, we could expect to face charges and almost certain jail time. 


Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Not What They Meant

Recently, I distributed Starbucks gift cards to several clients. On the back of the card it read -
Treat this card like cash.

Oh, so save you up in large quantities and exchange for guns and ammo?
Because that's what I do with cash.



Somehow I feel the Starbucks card will be somewhat less effective at procuring guns and ammo.


Friday, July 1, 2016

Destructive Influences

A reader poses the question -
What's your take on the Eat Pray Love types?

EPL is nothing but divorce porn. These days, men are chastised for seeking to "upgrade" wives (you know - younger and hotter), but so rarely do in actuality. But divorce porn directly sells women on the idea of "upgrading" their husbands.

70% of divorces are initiated by women. The laws and the "family" courts are already heavily skewed in favor of women. Divorce porn simply gives the woman a faux rationale to their antisocial actions.

EPL and similar tear at the very fabric of our society. EPL is a destructive influence.