Tolerance is not Acceptance.

Readers of this blog will not be surprised by the fact that I don't support the concept of "Gay Marriage". In fact I don't support female ordination, polygamy and a lot of other social novelties which men of a more saner age would have instantly rejected. Of course the usual charge levied at me by "sensible people" who are horrified at my views is that I'm intolerant.
Homosexuals and other groups pushing a social agenda frequently bandy the term around to censure anyone who opposes the desire to fully legalise whatever social innovation they are seeking.

The virtue of tolerance is the virtue of living with people whom you don't like or disagree with. Tolerance isn't liking what you don't like or agreeing with that which you don't agree; that is acceptance. Of course, with the social innovators, these people aren't seeking tolerance, what they're wanting is full acceptance of their behaviour under the guise of tolerance. If a man wants me to be tolerant of his behaviour he wants me to leave him in peace even though I find his behaviour objectionable. What the liberal mob wants when it calls for tolerance is for me to accept without question their system of belief.

Take for example Homophobia. Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, does a man have a right to be homophobic? Or a Racist? The opinion may be disagreeable but provided a man leaves others in peace, should he be censured for holding that opinion?

Liberals of course would argue that every man has a right to an opinion, but when given legislative power they effectively nullify that right, and the way they do this is through anti-discrimination laws. Now let me be perfectly clear, society is divided into the public and private spheres, and tolerance is a virtue of the public sphere. What the anti-discrimination laws do is encroach on the private sphere. A private businessman may not like homosexuals but he is compelled to employ them. Catholics are compelled to hire and enroll Muslims into their schools under the name of anti-discrimination. Freedom of speech is effectively nullified by "Hate speech" laws, which are ostensibly designed to promote tolerance but in reality, legal mechanisms to enforce group think as Geert Wilders found out. Now I don't like Geert Wilders, but what I really hate is how any criticism of Islam is immediately characterised by the liberalised Dutch political class as hate speech and pretext for punishing Mr Wilders.

Of course, not all hate speech is hate speech. Criticism of white men(Racism) is perfectly acceptable, criticism of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church is not hate crime, but walk into any Government organisation or Media outlet and say Homosexuality is wrong or hold racist opinions and suddenly the call to punish is proclaimed far and wide. Young Carrie Prejean learned this the hard way. When asked what she thought about same sex marriages she gave this reply:

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

Note, she was not calling for the gassing of gays, or their beating or their imprisonment, what she was saying in a free country where people can live as they please and I, Carrie, don't agree with that lifestyle.

Well the predictable happened--and it's predictable because it has happened so many times before--Ms Prejean was pilloried from pillar to post for holding an unacceptable opinion; not for acting inappropriately or for infringing anyones rights. The parties that most openly talk about tolerance are those who cannot tolerate anyone having an opinion that differs from their own, the whole liberal/multicultural/diversity industry rose as one voice condemning Ms Prejean. Liberal hypocrisy in action.

Tolerance is a public virtue which allows people with differing beliefs to share a common public life. It however implies a private sphere in which the individual has a right to be intolerant. It acknowledges the right to hold and freely express an opinion without censure from another. More importantly it demands from others the obligation to publicly tolerate the disagreeable. This of course is precisely what the "enthusiastic" Lefties do not want, they don't tolerate anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Under the threat of punishment, they want all of us to think a certain way, or more importantly, not to think at all.

Traditionalism and Conservatism: Old vs Right.

I've been engaged in a bit of a debate over at Oz Conservative. As I have mentioned previously, I feel that the traditional views of female sexuality are wrong and the evo-bio approach to the subject is closer to the truth( I say this with caveats, because I thing the evo-bio crowd aren't completely right either). I think a variety of forces have combined to "beta-ize" the modern male; the law, the economic structure of society, feminism, etc. But one of the other forces has been cultural, and one of the major influences on culture is tradition. Now it's true that modern Western society is profoundly different now than say one hundred years ago, but we still are the products of a lot of traditional cultural baggage. And one of those factors is the traditional view of female sexuality.

Commentator Expatriot made the following comment:

Growing up I was never exposed to the core truths of female psychology elucidated by Devlin and Roissy. I didn’t get them from family, I didn’t get them from school, I didn’t get them from the media and I certainly didn’t get them from the church. I learned the truth about women not from reading Roissy or anybody else, but in the school of hard knocks—very hard knocks.

I think a lot of men have had a similar experience, and a lot of the sympathy for the Roissy/Devlin view comes not from a misogynous nature but practical experience. Frequently it's not the knockbacks, but the success with women that re-enforce this view.

The Traditionalists find this view of female nature disturbing and deny its existence in the much the same way liberals thought-filter away inconvenient truths. Although two mortal enemies; the traditionalist and the liberals share the same intellectual pathology:They are closed to facts which they find disagreeable. These are not the thought processes of Conservatism.

Conservatism, first and foremost is about living in the truth and about being open to the truth, closed minds are not conservative. Now the liberals may argue that they too have open minds, but difference between Liberals and Conservatives are:

1) Liberals are only open to facts which they find agreeable.
2) By rejecting pertinent yet--ideologically repulsive facts--their policy and responses are ineffective and bear no relation to reality.

Take for example a favourite liberal cause: Condoms in the battle against AIDS.

Uganda is one of the few African countries to have recorded a decline in the rate of AIDS. It's program ABC-Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms-- but with a big emphasis on the first and second points seems to have been remarkably successful despite the rest of Africa recording higher rates. Of course, to the liberal mind these results are "confusing" and "more research" needs to be done into the matter since this policy goes against the liberal shibboleth of sexual promiscuity. It's only confusing to a man who doesn't want to see. Screwing around with less people means less risk of infection. That's logic, not ideology. But in the presence of overriding ideology: Logic be damned.

Traditionalists likewise share a similar thought process. The old ways were the best the new ways are simply wrong, end of story. Facts which were inconvenient with the Traditionalist vision were simply ignored. It's this attitude which probably explains the inability to defeat liberalism culturally. Traditionalists prefer to live in the past rather than the real world: Life is lived in the real world. Traditionalistc share some of the views of Conservatives but do so with the thought processes of Liberals.

I'm not saying the Traditionalists are completely wrong. A lot of traditionalism is worth supporting because it's right, but what Traditionalists need to recognise is that our forefathers did not have all the answers and based the order of their societies on the information available, changing their minds according to changed facts; at the same time incorporating the knowledge of the past where it didn't contradict : They had intellectual flexibility and open minds, something traditionalists in general aren't known for.

It's my opinion that the conservative movement needs to treat Game as a serious phenomena. Game does not need to be anti-family or anti-Christian. Athol Key's site gives us a glimpse into how such a synthesis could be made.(He is not Christian and I don't agree with all his points, but hey, at least He's thinking).

It's my belief that Game and its insights will eventually be part of a Conservative revival, despite the opposition to the Traditionalists. Why? Because it remasculates men and provides a antidote to the poison of Feminism. Game is not the answer to all of Liberalism's ills, only part. Liberalism is a hydra and Game affective against only one of its heads.

Who Would Have Guessed.........

Turns out that Phil Jones(of shonky climate "science" fame) wasn't really that different after all........(Hat tip, Watts Up With That)

Reminds me of my previous post.

Beta Movie.

Ok, let's set the scene.

The guy carrying the tree is our nice guy.

The girl in the hospital bed has just had an abortion. Her bad-boy boyfriend, who knocked her up, left her when he found out she was pregnant. Nice Guy, who had secret crush on the girl, came to her aid and hocked his prize possessions--which he slaved to get in the first place--to pay for the abortion.......

It's like watching a train crash.




It was a cheesy movie, but it really deserves more commentary in the conserve-o-sphere.

"Alternative Lifestyles"

A great article in the New Republic. Read it here.
Dalrymple says pretty much the same thing.

Dalrymple speculates as to why people take drugs(do dumb things):

....In other words, whatever caused them to commit crimes in all probability caused them also to take heroin: perhaps an adversarial stance to the world caused by the emotional, spiritual, cultural and intellectual vacuity of their lives.

That last bit is probably pertinent to the previous post

Tupac?

In Case You're Wondering.................

On the charges frequently thrown at conservatives is that their choices in life are a product of preference or an inability to see another's point of view. Many of the liberal Left are convinced that we just "don't get it" and that deficiencies of intellect or character are what give a man a conservative point of view.

This may be the case for some conservatives, but not me. Whilst I've always found the intellectual underpinnings that form the foundation of the left wing view of the world pathetically weak, some of them do resonate. For instance, though I know it is wrong, atheism is attractive. Also, the allure of Hedonism is also quite compelling. If I were to describe my "natural default mode" it would be that a of highly cynical skeptical hedonist; someone perhaps "harder" are more opportunistic than Roissy.

When you combine "the faith" with that type of mindset what you get is a fair amount of questioning and doubt. In my early days of proper religion, I'd often wonder if I made the right choice, or if the people who lived the libertine care free existence were actually having more fun than I was. The pleasure of the libertines was self evident as the barrenness of my ascetic existence. Religion in University was not "joyous", in fact it was lack of joyous. A man who wants to live the Religion gives up a lot; and it's a lot to give up when the arguments at the time are purely intellectual, the pleasures of the flesh real. I'm convinced that God has a sense of humour. Giving a man religion whilst in an ocean of nubile females has more the quality of a comedic act rather than a serious test of character by a humorless examiner.

I think it was Blake who said "Oh Gallilean, the world has gone pale with thy breath". This snippet, which I picked up in Chesterton, resonated powerfully with me; especially in university. In the world of my young adulthood I often felt that I was a member of the boring team. The lefties were having more fun than I was. Being good was no fun.

This sentiment of mine gradually became dispelled as I practiced medicine and came into contact with people from different walks of life. Doing some back of envelope calculations, I imagine that I have had approximately one hundred thousand consultations with patients in my clinical career. That much contact certainly does leave impressions, impression which over time have strengthened my view of my religion and disabused me of any illusions of who was having more fun. It was the lefties who straightened my belief in God.

Some things I've observed in my clinical practice over the years:

1) For all their freedom from social constraints, lefties actually seem less happy than conservatives. This is not my opinion, this is something I have observed. It's something I continue to observe and one of the biggest proofs that their world view is wrong and personally unappealing. People who are miserable always hope that a change in circumstance will improve their lot, I imagine that's why liberals are Utopians.

2)Whilst lefties seem to have more sexual encounters with different people, if the hook up culture was giving them personal happiness, they certainly didn't show it. Their relationships with their partners were never "clean". There were always issues of some kind or another. Loneliness seemed to permeate the liberal's existence even when they were in a relationship.
With conservative couples you always got the impression that they were a "unit" even if they hated each other. With liberals, the parties always seemed separate event though they were officially a couple.

3)As a group they're were a miserable and hateful bunch. When conservative patients disagree with me, they tend to be polite. Liberals tended to become very aggressive. My most aggressive and intolerant patients tend to be liberals and New Age Spiritualists. Now the fact that people disagree with me is not the issue, it's how they disagree with me. Personal venom and invective seems to be a feature of the liberal character.

4)Children of liberal parents are badly behaved, the kids of right wing parents much better.

5)Proletarian lefties are generally happier than their better educated lefty overlords, who generally as a group, are miserable and boring. Amongst a group five conservatives you're likely to get five opinions, amongst a group of five liberals only one.

6)Liberal girls do it because they have to, conservative girls because they want to. Conservative girls tend to be prettier.

7)Conservative women generally were happier, more confident and had less "issues".

8)Conservative men are both physically and psychologically manly: the more liberal a man, the less manly he is.

9)Liberals are more artistic and dress better than conservatives.

10) Liberals are have better theoretical education than conservatives, but worse practical application of that education. They might be able to describe the workings of a locust liver but be unable to manage their day to day financial affairs.

11) Conservative people "lived" their lives better than liberals. What I mean here is that their lives seemed more fulfilling and less drama filled.

12)When liberals did "fun" things, they seemed to have less fun than conservatives. I can't explain why, it's an impression that's been formed.

Once again, these are things that I observed and they are impressions that firmed with experience and time. They are not the product of any statistical study. I do believe that I'm fairly objective about the matter.The one thing that contact with liberals has proven to me is that whatever makes up a liberal's "headspace" it certainly doesn't seem to lead to happiness in the real world. I don't worry any more about missing out on the "fun" by being religious. Just in case you were wondering.

(Note by Conservative, I mean Social Conservative not Social Liberal)

And as if on que..........

A young lady presented to my rooms for a consultation. She was concerned about a lump on her neck and wanted my opinion on the matter. The lady in question was young, very attractive and intelligent. A solid 8.

After examining the girl and reassuring her that the lump was most likely benign. The lump itself was trivial in size and suspected that the woman in question may be suffering from a small amount of anxiety. I questioned her about her life and circumstances and sure enough, there was a fair amount of anxiety. The main stressors in her life seem to center around her work (the issue had just resolved) and her relationship with her partner.

What became apparent when talking to her was that the main issue was her partner. She was troubled that whilst he was a good man she lacked desire for him. Her brain was in conflict with her emotions. Some choice comments made by the lady (from recollection)...

"I'm the one making all the decisions"
"He never makes one(decisions)"
"He always lets me have my own way"
"He's really good to me."
"Sometimes I feel like I'm looking after a child"
"He has no ambition"

Now I have known this lady since she was an adolescent. She works two jobs, not because she has to, but because she has ambition. She has put herself though university under extremely trying circumstances and I have a reasonable knowledge of her personal life to be able to safely claim she was not wanton. It was apparent when talking to her that she did not want to leave this man but she was finding him increasingly unattractive. She was smart enough to realise that he was a good man but perplexed as to why she increasingly did not like him. Astute readers will immediately recognise the character flaw in the man.

I spoke, "I imagine that what you want is a man who can sometimes make the decisions for you and sometimes disagree with you. I imagine that you're pushy and want to have your own way a lot and I imagine you can get pretty much get your own way......."

She: "You know I've got more balls than nearly all of the guys I meet"

Me: "I imagine you do, you'd put up quite a fight if challenged, I imagine you can be quite bitchy and immature at times. What you need is a man who every now and then can boss you around, put you in your place but still look after you best interest. Someone who leads the way. Your partner is acting more like a girlfriend and not a man and that's why there's diminishing sexual attraction."

She looked at me with combination of amazement and shock. I spoke to her a bit about Alpha and Beta theory, and stated that what she wanted was a Gamma male. Now the interesting thing about this young lady is that she studied quite a bit of Feminism in University. I once chided her for adopting the dress habits of the hairy armpit brigade and reminded her to dress like a lady. Indoctrinated in the concept of innate gender asexuality she was initially resistant to my opinion. For a while I thought I wasn't getting anywhere until she said;

"Can I bring my partner in to talk to you"?

Physicians dilemma. Game theory is not an accepted mainstream theory and its certainly a politically incorrect body of knowledge. If her relationship was to implode after taking my advice I could be censured for practicing unorthodox medicine. Still her relationship is doomed if things stay as they are, and nearly certainly doomed if she accepts mainstream psychological therapy.

(Details of the story are true but others have been changed to preserve patient anonymity)

Gamma Man.

One of the blogs I like most to frequent is Ferdinand's. His In Mala Fide blog is perhaps the best pop conservative sites out there. The term Pop Conservative is not meant as a slight, it's likely to be far more influential that a highbrow blog since it adopts a style that the average man can appreciate. I like his site not because he mentions my blog, but rather he promotes other blogs which are far more interesting than mine. One that has caught my eye and has impressed me no end is Athol Kay's, Married Man Sex Life. Really, although the blog title might be a bit off putting--he really should call it Wife Management 101--the blog is definitely worth the read. Why? Because Athol "gets" the big picture.

The Roissysphere tends to view relationships as purely sexual. A man status and happiness are measured by the quality of the lay. A man banging 10's is more Alpha and happier than a man banging 8's. While there is a great deal of truth to this in high school, in reality adult relationships need much more than simple sexual attraction. That's not to say that sexual attraction is not important--social conservatives please note--rather grown ups tend to want other things as well: stability, friendship, love etc. Neil Strauss, the populiser of Game realised this; his own relationship with Lisa Leveridge failed. He could pull in the hotties but it appears he couldn't keep them.

The curious paradox is that what seems to keep relationships going long term is a combination of both alpha and beta traits. A man has to possess characteristics which both turn a woman sexually on and turn her off. In Roissy's taxonomy of men, the males are divided into Alpha, Beta and Omega. But Roissy only measures by the ability to get laid. Instead Athol Kay--who is focusing on long term relationships-- builds on this and proposes the Gamma male:
(I've shamelessly borrowed this image and text from his site. It's brilliant)

The Omega Male is easiest to dispense with. He’s just devoid of positive qualities and only the most desperate of women would desire to mate with him. Even then he’ll likely need up being supported by her to some degree. Avoid him.

The pure Alpha Bad Boys certainly do pull the women, but the relationships tend to be short as eventually the women become uncomfortable with the lack of comfort building support. There’s plenty of excitement, and sizzling sex as the attraction is definitely there for her, but she knows from the beginning its not going to last, but she is drawn to him anyway.

The pure Beta Nice Guy also pull women, but they pull differently. They “make sense” on an intellectual level and they are very comfortable to live with. More than likely they are too comfortable, and the woman tends to want to see a display of dominance of some sort before she becomes fully attracted to him. Ultimately the nice guys are just too sexually boring to women to remain completely focused on one. Queue the “I love you, but I’m not in love with you speech”. What is often seen in young women is ping ponging between bad boys and nice guys – she gets a dose of crazy sexual attraction from the bad boy, but then she needs the comfort building and she seeks it from a nice guy, and then the cycle repeats over and over until the music stops around age 35 and she’s scrambling to find a chair anywhere.

The ideal is the Gamma Male. Not often talked about, but they are out there. Usually a Gamma is an Alpha Male that “grew up” and toned down the antics slightly and started being socially conscious and more of a team player. Or they started as a Beta Male that “grew a pair” and started bumping back on the rest of the world rather than just taking it lying down. Either way works as a route. Like Jean-Luc Picard, Gammas use diplomacy but when required to they will respond with adept force. Mostly they are consciously aware of both their own natures, and the needs of women. They adjust on the fly to the situation, sometimes hard, sometimes soft. Gamma’s are the true ideal, but I think the Alpha and Beta terms are so ingrained, that it is simply easier to broken record the idea that if you’re too Alpha the solution is to add Beta, and if you’re too Beta the solution is to add Alpha. You already know what your weak area is. Work on that for easy gains.

A couple of points. Firstly, these are pretty astute social observations and they square up with what I see in practice. Implicit in Mr Kay's observations are that women are sexual beings and that there is a sexual dimension to normal male female relationships. Secondly, for a male, being "nice" alone just doesn't cut the mustard as a woman needs a sexual dimension to the relationship for it to go anywhere; women are inherently sexual beings. Religious conservatives please note, sexual desire isn't something that "foreign" to the female ideal, it's part and parcel of the female package. The romantic meme, that the way to woman's virtue is via the path of "niceness", flaunts real world observation and is not congruent with reality. Finally, when women are asked what type of guy they like, a nice guy is usually the answer. What they of course mean is a nice guy who makes them hot and horny.

The Roissysphere has popularised the notion of the Alpha male. And really, if a life of Hedonism is your goal then that's all you need. Because it's quite apparent that women--when freed from social mores--are just as superficial judges of character as most men are. In our current bathhouse culture, women are more likely to be motivated by their loins than their heart in the choice of a bed mate, especially when drunk. So if your aim is to bed as men women as you can, being Alpha is all that matters. The Beta traits, the traits that are the foundation of lasting love, domestic awe, industry, prosperity are unnecessary. But if these things matter to you, then your going to have to cultivate both alpha and beta traits you're going to have to strive to be a gamma male.

Really, nice guys don't finish last. It's nice guys without alpha traits that finish last.

Read Athol Kay's blog. Its very very good.

(N.B. I don't agree with everything he says, I disagree with his pharmacological opinions i.e how the pill works and the use of anti-depressant medication, but his understanding of psychology in my opinion is spot on.)

But Honestly,.....I'm Not Like Those People.

Recently, the local paper ran an interesting article on a woman's regret on getting tattooed. Whilst the local paper is not of any real quality, (English readers, it mirrors itself on The Guardian) every now and then an insightful article slips past the censorious eyes of the liberal editors.

Now, like any person with half a brain I deplore tattoo's. Their widespread acceptance amongst people who should know better is proof of middle class prole drift.

I have always considered them declasse, no matter how artistic. The presence of one on a girl, no matter how small or discrete was immediate deal breaker. Not just because tattoos were the mark of the society's dregs but more so because it was character revealed in action. What a tattoo said about a man/woman was not only about what type of man he was, but of the type of man he had shown himself to be. Now it is true that people change over time, and that everyman is capable of all vices, but we presume a man of good character until he has proven otherwise. The tattoo is a permanent mark of bad judgement.

Milday's Tattoo Tells a Very Different Story

Initially, my partner at the time agreed that we should take the plunge together on my 30th birthday. In those days, tattoos were still mostly the preferred accessory of sailors, wharfies, prisoners and the like, but I figured that it was OK to get a tattoo as long as you didn't look like a person who would have one.

and

Fast forward again and I am picking my daughter up from school. At the school gate, the only other people with tattoos are fat and toothless and complaining about the price of fags.

I suddenly realise that I am a member of a club that I did not intend joining.

These days, my tattoo has faded, just like my desire to be as daring and alluring as Milady.

Like every other fashion choice you make, tattoos tell people at lot about you. But sometimes they tell people who you were, rather than who you are.

I found this article interesting on so many levels. Firstly, the author is at pains to ensure that while she adopts the mark of the declasse, she herself is not. Ummm....No. You see, from the vantage point of the unmarked there are only two types of people: Those tattooed and those not. Secondly, she sees a distinction between herself and the fat,toothless hags she clearly despises. I wonder if the other women sporting tattoos were slim, rich and well dressed whether she would complain about belonging to that same group. The problem with this woman is not that she has changed, rather it's the group that she now aspires to has. She's still the same person; an impulsive egotist still concerned about her social status.

Theodore Dalrymple does a wonderful demolition job on the tattoo culture, far better than I can. But in the end, he comes to the same conclusion I did when searching for a mate; the tattooed are best avoided as their self inflicted brand is an outward sign of character flaw.

Note: There are very limited exceptions to the above post. Certain traditional cultures made them part and parcel of group identity.

What Next?

Hollywood once had a modicum of class, even if most of it was manufactured. Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn, Eve Marie Saint, Gregory Peck and Jimmy Stewart had a certain degree of dignity and style. Today Hollywood has no class, more and more the "stars" resemble privileged rednecks and skanks. I don't think I could every imagine Audrey Hepburn getting herself vajazzled. On the other hand Jennifer Love Hewitt has. I suppose it's the perfect accompaniment to the "tramp stamp". The pornification of culture, especially female culture, continues. The prole models lead the way.