So… where is the punchline?

In which the nadir of Gamma pseudo-spirituality is explored: the Conscious Men “devote ourselves to the worship of the divine feminine we discover the divinity of the masculine”:

Now, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that one of the leaders is named “Gay”. Not one of this pathetic collection of gammas, omegas, and not-so-latent lambdas would be capable of dominating a woman if you paid them to do it. But it is a very good example of classic Gammathink, endowing the female sex with all sorts of nebulous wonders such as “an intuitive connection to the Earth” on the basis of nothing but pure pedestalization fantasies. The truth is that socio-sexual losers like these Conscious Men honor nothing but the possession of a vagina, the depths of which they are neither worthy nor likely to plumb.

If you ever had a hard time understanding Game, just watch this with the understanding that this is the complete antithesis. If you want to live the rest of your life without ever attracting a woman or having sex with one, I would highly recommend becoming a Conscious Man.

RGD interview with Sean Hannity

Sean was joined by author and columnist Vox Day in the show’s final hour to talk about his book, “The Return to the Great Depression.” You would think a book that tackles such a complicated issue as global economics would be a tough read, but it’s actually quite the contrary. Vox Day – one of the few economics writers to predict the current worldwide financial crisis – explains why it is likely to continue.

The entire 15-minute segment has been made available at


I thought Paul Ryan’s comments were interesting, in that we finally have a politician who is, unlike all the mainstream economists, actually looking at debt levels instead of GDP and the money supply.

“We’re on a debt crisis path. We are on a path where the government goes from 20 percent of GDP, to 40 percent then 60 percent of GDP. We’re on a path where our debt goes from about 68 percent of GDP to 800 percent of GDP over the three-generation window,” Ryan said.

“I asked CBO to run the model going out and they told me that their computer simulation crashes in 2037 because CBO can’t conceive of any way in which the economy can continue past the year 2037 because of debt burdens,” said Ryan.

I also found the CBO simulation crash of 2037 to be fascinating, given that I have predicted 2033 to be the date by which the United States will have either disintegrated or lost its national sovereignty. What Ryan, like Sean Hannity yesterday, leaves out is that government debt is only part of the equation and a relatively small part at that. The combined Federal/State & Local debt has increased from 16% of the total to 22.5% since 2005. If private debt continues to decline, from 31.5% to 27% for financials and 28% to 24.3% for households, then government debt will have to increase in order to prevent the economy from shrinking.

This is why I said that there is no easy way out of it. The Ryan plan isn’t awful, but it isn’t sufficient either.

Solipsism as national security

Kathleen Parker offers further evidence in support of the dire need to end women’s suffrage:

Women, and by extension children, suffer what too many have come to accept as “collateral damage” in theaters of war. We hate it, of course, but what can one do? It isn’t in our strategic interest to save the women and children of the world. Or, as an anonymous senior White House official recently told The Post:

“Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities. There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, no stranger to the importance of advancing women’s rights, promptly repudiated the comment. Even so, the anonymous spokesman’s opinion, though inartfully expressed, is hardly isolated.

But what if this is a false premise? What if saving women from cultures that treat them as chattel was in our strategic and not just moral interest? What if helping women become equal members of a society was the most reliable route to our own security?

The problem, of course, is that it is not. Parker might as reasonably have asked what if buying women rainbow-striped unicorns was in our strategic interest or if buying vibrators for Libyan women was the most reliable route to American national security. I would very much like to know who actually pays this woman for her opinion, as I’m quite confident that one could find a Labrador puppy whose columns would be a) more intelligent, b) more interesting, and c) less expensive than the gynocentric drivel Parker has on offer.

Granted, every column would concern how it is a vital national interest to feed Labradors more raw meat, or alternatively, how it is a national disgrace that Labradors are only fed 60 percent of the amount of raw meat given to Rottweilers, but how is that substantially different from what most female op/ed writers produce anyhow?

Does this moronic female seriously wish to argue that women and children suffer more than men do in times of war? They may suffer more of the collateral damage, but only because the whole purpose of the intentional damage is to kill the enemy men. How many women and children died at Salamanca or Gettysburg? The last time I read something this stupidly myopic, it was an old joke about the New York Times: “Asteroid to end all life on Earth, women, blacks to suffer most.”

But even worse than the total ignorance of military history is the idea that equality, at home or abroad, is in the American national interest. America has been lethally weakened by the equalitarian dogma; there would be no need for the 30 million immigrants that are presently dismantling the social fabric if 30 million American children murdered by their mothers had lived. “Saving” women by enforcing Western equalitarian dogma is not only not in our strategic interest, it quite clearly isn’t in our moral interest either.

Women may not be pet rocks, but Kathleen Parker is clearly less intelligent than a box of them.

They aren’t smart enough

I’m down with Steyn on his condemnation of the would-be speech police:

When I wrote over the weekend about the trial of Australia’s most prominent columnist for expressing his opinions, I did not expect it to be quite so immediately relevant to the United States. But perhaps what’s most disturbing about Lindsey Graham’s dismal defense of his inclinations to censorship is the lack of even the slightest attempt to underpin his position with any kind of principle. He all but literally wraps himself in the flag, and, once you pry him out of the folds of Old Glory, what you’re left with is a member of the governing class far too comfortable with the idea that he and his colleagues should determine the bounds of public discourse.

I’m sick of that. I’m sick of it in Canada, sick of it in Britain, in Australia, in Europe, and I’m now sick of it in America – in part because, as Senator Graham has demonstrated in his fatuous defense, guys like him aren’t smart enough to set the rules for what the rest of us are allowed to think.

The irony, of course, is that Sen. Graham (R-SC), is talking about throwing out the First Amendment in order to defend non-Americans who wish to establish Sharia in the United States from criticism by Americans. That should be more than enough to deny him the Republican nomination in his next electoral campaign. It is time to restore the Constitutional rights of free speech and free association to Americans. I propose establishing the following principles:

a) Any private employer can hire or fire any employee for any reason.
b) No public employer may deny employment or fire any employee for any expressed opinion about anything.

If you are a private employer, then it is your business and only your business if you want to employ nothing but black lesbian Marxists or Holocaust-denying Scottish neo-Nazis. But if you are a public employer, then you have absolutely no right to favor one socio-political perspective over another. Free association and free speech. It doesn’t get anymore fundamentally American than that.