The US Academic Mafia has churned out yet another bogus research study; of the typical sort designed to generate potentially lucrative publicity. One Dr. David Buss of the University of Texas, a self-purported expert on "the evolutionary psychology of human mating strategies" published a study that has the Manosphere Game Cult all abuzz with supposed proof that their doctrine of female hypergamy actually has some scientific basis in fact.
Female Hypergamy is the notion that women have an inherent biological tendency towards infidelity; and their natural tendency is to desert one male as soon as a more attractive option presents itself. The Game Cultists use this theory to justify their belief that females are expendable; that they are created to bear children, sexually satisfy the Alpha Males, but are incapable of deep emotional bonding. Of course, there's an ego component in it as well: obviously if females are hypergamous, the Alpha who's sexually successful must, by extension, be the most attractive option.
To begin with, the first flaw in Buss' theory is that Evolutionary Psychology is mostly a pseudoscience. It is based on extent knowledge of prehistoric man to the present---as if 60 or so millennia of civilization never changed anything. What we know of prehistoric man's daily life is so incredibly thin that it is nearly impossible to base any type of theory on it. We know now from DNA evidence that the first ancestor of modern humans lived about 65,000 years ago in what is now Uganda. What we know of the life or culture of these first humans is next to nothing; and outside of religious traditions, science knows nothing even of their origin.
Buss, with no evidence whatsoever, claims that "Lifelong monogamy does not characterize the primary mating patterns of humans. Breaking up with one partner and mating with another may more accurately characterize the common, if not the primary mating strategy of humans."
Buss does not even see the obvious contradiction here: that, in order to break up with one partner and mate with another, monogamy, or sexual exclusivity must already be premised. Nonetheless, he expounds the following:
"For our distant ancestors---when disease, poor diet, and lack of adequate healthcare meant that few people lived past 30---looking for a more suitable partner was necessary, researchers say."
If they actually had done their research, they would have learned that most of our distant ancestors actually did live far beyond 30. Up until the 19th Century, there was no immunization, for example, and there were high mortality rates among children and young adults. But by 30, most of them lived about as long as we do. It actually didn't make any sense to mate-switch---especially not for women, who then relied on a man for provision and protection moreso than today.
"Women are pre-disposed to have backup plans in case their relationship fails." the researchers assert.
Again, another contradiction: why would women need a backup plan if monogamy wasn't premised as the natural order of relationships? It's not complicated logic: if mate-switching is the cultural norm, there is no purpose in 'breaking up' or having 'back-up plans'. What Buss is clearly doing is taking the postmodern cultural norms and anachronistically projecting them back onto our ancestors---not an uncommon theme among what passes for academic research today.
Buss, a graduate of UC Berkeley, is also a supposed expert in gender conflicts, stalking, jealousy, status and reputation, and even homicide. Actually his expertise, like most of today's Academic Mafia, seems to be in inventing justifications for a high-salaried position at a taxpayer-funded institution.
The study has some Gamers asserting the study is proof of hypergamy; while others believe the study is simply an excuse for it; but the truth is simply that Female Hypergamy does not exist. While women may be drawn instinctually to males with whom they feel safe and secure, the notion that they seek social status in so doing is absurd. Again, this theory is another derivative of the Game Cult's dependence on the economic model of interpersonal relationships; as is Buss' theory which is evidently steeped in Marxism.
In all of recorded history, adultery and infidelity were considered moral or legal offenses, regardless of whether a given culture was monogamous or polygamous and fidelity was universally considered a moral virtue. We actually do not know of a historical period when marriage in some form did not exist. Even the most primitive peoples on earth today practice marriage. If hypergamy were a natural condition, we would have some historical or anthropological proof of it; but there is none---absolutely none. We have only the word of a few modern innovators against centuries of tradition, and tradition typically turns out to be the correct course.
According to some recent Corporate Media headlines, we here the Prozac Nation are once again experiencing one of our regular paroxysms of collective outrage. This time, the focus of Ameroboob anger is a directed at an adventurous 12 year-old girl named Aryanna Gourdin of Utah. It seems that young Miss Aryanna enjoys travelling on safaris with her father, and has scored a rather impressive trophy record, bringing down big game with her trusty pink bow-and-arrows. She's posted photos on Facebook with some her successes---really quite some remarkable kills---including a giraffe, impala, a wildebeest, and zebra.
Of course, these photos have caused a hysterical uproar among a population which sees nothing wrong with the US selling cluster-bombs to Wahhabis who drop them on Yemeni schoolchildren. But in our Postmodern dystopia, schoolchildren hunting big game creates almost as much social horror as schoolchildren smoking cigarettes or showing interest in the opposite sex. A heavy dose of Ritalin is the accepted cure for these types of non-Politically Correct behaviors.
So too, is online harassment and threats, which Miss Aryanna has been receiving in spades. This isn't the first time angry cyber lynch-mobs have done this kind of thing. In 2014, a lovely Belgian woman named Axelle Despiegelaere was forced out of a modeling contract after it was learned that she went on a safari. Last year, an American man suffered considerable harassment after killing a lion; and more recently a heroic Cincinnati police officer was targeted by those outraged that he saved a boy's life by shooting a gorilla.
It's fairly obvious to any rational mind that the crackpots attacking people like these---especially with the level of hatred and vitriol they exhibit---are mentally unbalanced themselves. The massive proliferation of mind-altering narcotics in the United States doubtless contributes to their behavior. But there are probably other psychological factors involved as well.
21st Century American culture has largely become dehumanized. We see this both in the cavalier attitudes towards the destruction of human life and the deconstruction of gender roles. We have in many ways, lost our collective soul---in other words, lost that which separates humanity from the beasts of the field. Naturally, many of the most dehumanized identify with the superior physical powers of the Animal Kingdom. It shatters their illusions when a mere human shows himself (or herself in this case) superior to the Forces of Nature. Thus they resent a svelte Belgian model shooting a gazelle---a gazelle which any local leopard would have gladly killed and eaten in a much less humane way.
Wildlife Conservation is of course important, but hunting laws have been in effect in the US since 1907, which regulate the indiscriminate killing of wildlife. Instead of attacking 12 year-old girls online, however, these outraged activists would be much more constructively engaged if they would expend their efforts lobbying for greater infrastructure protection. The neglected condition of our National Forests and public waterways are causing considerably more destruction to our ecosystem than hunting, fishing, or trapping by licensed sportsmen.
The Internet Crackpots, however, will unlikely be influenced by rational arguments. These types of trolls get adrenaline rushes from feeling powerful, which in our passive-aggressive social milieu is always carried out in a dastardly and cowardly way. It takes courage to face a wild animal with a bow and arrow; it takes none to assume an arrogant tone to a 12 year-old. Which is another reason why they hate Aryanna; she has courage and her detractors do not.
This weekend, over 100,000 Yemeni citizens gathered in the capital of Sanaa to demand the Wahhabi government abdicate in favor of Yemen's legal president Ali Saleh. Saleh was forced from office in 2012 as part of Obama's and Clinton's so-called Arab Spring. Saleh's supporters---over the objections of the Beltway and Wall Street---reinstated his party, which led to a US-backed invasion led by the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia.
This weekend's protest was met with a typically barbaric Wahhabi response: the Saudi Air Force launched air strikes near the demonstrations. There were an unknown number of casualties, though at least three were killed by the bombs and numerous others killed or injured in the subsequent stampede.
Wahhabi atrocities in Yemen have reached such a level that even our Rainbow-Pride Pentagon is feeling the pressure to downplay its own involvement in these crimes. Speaking from a US Naval Base in Bahrain---another country suffering from Wahhabi oppression---one Lt. Ian McConnughey stated to the press that 'fewer than five' US personnel were now involved in the Saudi-led Coalition in Yemen.
"The cooperation we've extended to Saudi Arabia is modest and not blank check." reiterated Adam Stump, a spokesman for the LGBTQ-friendly Pentagon.
Saudi forces have been directly implicated in hundreds of civilian deaths in Yemen, mostly targeting Yemeni Shiites and Christians. Their policy of ethnic cleansing seems particularly directed at children: schools, hospitals and orphanages not being spared. The United Nations recommended sanctions against Saudi Arabia, which were blocked by the US and Wahhabi-controlled countries. Three days after the sanctions were withdrawn, the US concluded a lucrative arms deal with the Saudis.
Has the treacherous Obama actually decided to slink away from Yemen and throw his allies under the bus as he's done elsewhere? Not really. The military draw-down in Saudi Arabia merely involves transferring personnel to Bahrain; one of the Saudis' coalition partners in Yemen. The Pentagon is also upping arms sales to the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait---who are in turn allied with the Saudis.
This military draw-down is all for show. Last week, Saudi jets bombed a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders which caused a huge stir in Europe. Obama, who needs European support in the Middle East, took these actions for the benefit of the European Press. The other reason is that the Saudi-led Coalition, supplied with the latest Pentagon weapons and US military advisors, is meeting spirited resistance from Yemeni forces. The Yemenis have practically no outside help and yet have fought the Wahhabis to a standstill after nearly 18 months of fighting. This is bad advertising for future US military sales.
If anything, Obama's policy shift is Yemen is one of overt-to-covert aid for the Wahhabi Regime. The Wahhabis can now behave with even greater impunity, since they no longer even need US diplomatic cover. But the bright spot is that Yemen is showing sign of capitulating to the Wahhabis, and the region is rapidly turning from the 'Arab Spring' into the 'Arab Vietnam' for the Beltway and its confederates.
The Neo-Nazi rulers in what is left of Ukraine are mulling the possibility of declaring martial law. The pretext for this move is an alleged threat from Russia---actually caused by a failed terror attack in Crimea tied to Ukrainian officials. The Regime's approval ratings among the Ukrainian people are at all-time lows. But the Ukrainian Army---mostly a mercenary force made up of European Skinheads and Wahhabi Jihadists---remain loyal.
This week, DC Leaks exposed 2,500 secret documents from the Soros Foundation, which complicated matters for the Kiev Regime greatly. George Soros, one of the Wall Street Oligarchy, has been implicated deeply in intrigues favorable to Kiev. In the first batch of leaked files we learned that Soros purchased interest in the Ukrainian media and built a network between them and select international news outlets to slant foreign opinion to favor Kiev. In the next batch, we discovered that Soros lobbied the European Union for a bailout to stabilize the Ukrainian economy---though not disclosing to the EU that Wall Street insiders whom Soros coordinated were buying Ukrainian interests at rock-bottom prices first.
Today we learned that shortly after the 2014 coup, Soros met with top US and Ukrainian officials; and in fact basically dictated policy to them. Soros held a series of meetings with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. Pyatt stated in the leaked document that US Secretary of State John Kerry "would be interested to hear Soros' views on the situation."
"What should the US government be doing differently than it is currently doing?" Pyatt asked---not of the President or the American people, but of a Wall Street hedge-fund manager. To which Soros replied:
"Obama has been too soft on Putin, and there is a need to impose intelligent sanctions. These sanctions should be imposed for 90 days; or until Russia recognizes the new government."
So how do our European readers like that revelation? The higher prices you pay thanks to EU sanctions came to you courtesy of a Wall Street market-manipulator. And, as a side note, Wall Street's profit-margins have jumped considerably since the sanctions were imposed. And then there is TTIP...
At Pyatt's solicitation, Soros agrees to fund a professional Public Relations firm to organize a global smear campaign against President Putin, facilitated of course through Soros' media channels. He also suggests hiring professional agitators to foment anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine.
These are the same people who, since 2014, have been accusing Russia of doing everything they themselves are guilty of in Ukraine. Where in the US Constitution are unelected financial robber-barons given legal authority over American foreign policy? Nowhere: but it happens because the American people choose to live in denial that it is happening.
It is a fact that must be faced, however. People who have no qualms about sacrificing innocent Ukrainian lives for their own profit will have no scruple about sacrificing American lives either. It is past time that Congress intervened here and launch a meaningful investigation into Soros and his henchmen.
Some readers have recently noted that it is increasingly difficult, and often impossible, to access RT News feeds from our site. This problem is temporary, we believe and not a problem from the blog site.
RT News has been under a sustained and sophisticated cyber attack for the past week. They have technicians addressing the problem. According to sources, the attack originated from a central point in the US and is designed to flood RT's gateways and shut down access.
Kalinsky Security Specialists---the same organization who exposed the NSA ties to the Equation Group, estimates that the RT attack has cost the hackers about a quarter million dollars so far to implement. So obviously it is not the handiwork of a few random cyber-anarchists.
These types of attacks are not new. SANA (Syrian Arab News Agency) is also hit sporadically; typically coinciding with news of a US-backed forces' defeat, or implication in a war crime. As Edward Snowden revealed this week, Russia, Syria, Iran, and China are known targets of The Equation Group.
It's rather ironic that in the last century, it was the countries in Nazi-occupied Europe and later those behind the Communist Iron Curtain who were notorious for jamming and disrupting broadcasts from the Free World. America never bothered jamming Axis or Communist propaganda. The belief then was that the Truth needed no defense; only the lies promoted by freedom's enemies needed protection from closing dissent.
And really the same principle holds today. We don't see these types of attacks aimed at Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or Reuters. It does give one pause to consider who is and who isn't reporting the truth these days.
When we look at our Postmodern Era's military and see the revolting Political Correctness and utter lack of morality or professionalism inherent throughout the entire organization, it is difficult to imagine a time when conditions were the exact opposite. The US military once prided itself on turning boys into men; building character through discipline and taking responsibility and initiative. But that, of course, was an era when the military was still comprised of actual men.
This weekend's entertainment recommendation is another late-Golden Age WW2 series: 12 O' Clock High. The series ran from 1964 to very early 1967 on ABC, and was based on the Academy-Award winning 1949 feature film of the same name. It follows the exploits of the 918th Bomber Squadron in the years prior to the Normandy Invasion. Like many wartime dramas of this period, the producers sought realism, and the series contains extensive WW2 footage filmed from actual B-17 bombers in combat.
The lead character in the series was the squadron commander, General Frank Savage; and later in the series, his protégée Colonel Joe Gallagher. This was an interesting component of this series: in an early episode Gallagher was a failing pilot whom Savage mentored into one his best crewmen---and ultimately the Squadron Commander.
Redemption and character-building are fairly common dramatic themes in 12 O' Clock High. The commanders are frequently faced with moral and ethical challenges in the course of executing their duties; not infrequently they are called upon to lead their subordinates into the right path. Unlike subsequent wartime dramas, this series does not glamorize or disguise the realities of actual warfare. It fairly accurately depicts the wartime pressures men and women faced---from civilian levels to high command.
In our effete era, the idea of personal sacrifice for a higher good and becoming an integral part of a social structure working toward that end is a notion looked upon with horror. The military is, in a society, a microcosm of masculine duty and responsibility which in peacetime translates into the obligation of building civilization as part of a greater whole. This is why in the past fathers were also generally the community leaders---united with other fathers and men in overseeing the security and affairs of their given residences. As our culture began to decline into narcissism and escapism, this infrastructure broke down radically.
As mentioned in other articles, there are many in the Manosphere who talk about reclaiming masculine leadership roles. Yet their attitude is entirely wrong. They fail to understand that male leadership is not simply a matter of posing as an Alpha; it requires an ability to empathize with other men and help groom them into better men. The Game Cultists simply consign those whom they deem non-Alphas to various levels of inferiority to themselves. In 12 O' Clock High, even the lead characters like General Savage had older generals above him who often counseled him. There is a Biblical proverb about "iron sharpening iron" which seems to be a recurrent theme among the men of the 918th. In fact, in one episode Savage supports a bereaved Jewish sergeant who is losing his Faith in God.
Contrary to what these Gamers teach men, a masculine does not simply affect leadership by setting himself apart from and above other men. The genuine leaders of men are those willing to put their skills and words to actual deeds. Savage and Gallagher both lead every mission personally, although technically exempt by military regulations. That's a genuine form of masculine confidence, which the Gamers distort into mere posturing. True masculine confidence is a willingness to take risks and stake one's own life and reputation on the outcome. That obviously involves commitment; another concept the Gamers especially disavow.
12 O' Clock High is available on DVD and for free viewing on Youtube. This series is one of the better WW2 dramas produced. It follows tightly-drawn character profiles, without losing sight of the background of war. Most importantly, it shows men that a moral and ethical code can be maintained even against such a background, if men are willing to work as a team.
Until a series of hostile corporate takeovers in the early 1990s, the American and British news media were universally considered the premier sources of information. The US media was privately owned, and fiercely competitive but each company held to a strong Code of Ethics. In some cases, these ethics were backed by laws. The British media, although an extension of the government, built a reputation for independence and integrity.
In our Postmodern Era, however, where winning at all costs and profit at any price is the name of the game, journalistic ethics are something of an anachronism. Corporate Media outlets do pay some lip service to the idea, like a vague concept they're all supposed to believe in without actually understanding what it actually involves.
Sky News, a British subsidiary of Australian-owned and Wahhabi financed News Corp, is a case in point. Recently, to shore up anti-Russian sentiment in the UK, a Sky News team allegedly travelled to Syria to interview a secret Russian commando squad operating under the suspiciously neo-Nazi sounding code name Vagner. Sky News interviewed two of the soldier-whistleblowers, duly disguised to protect their identity, who informed the press that up to 600 Russians had died in their covert operations, whose deaths had been covered up by the Kremlin.
The only problem with the Sky News story is that it never actually happened quite as presented. The Sky News team never went to Syria; they conducted the interview in Moscow employing two Russian actors for the purpose. Sky News allegedly hired the actors and presented them a script; telling them that the interview was intended to be part of a movie.
One of the actors, Alexander Agapov, became suspicious and recorded part of the interview between himself and Sky News correspondent John Sparks. After Russian television network NTV began investigating the Sky News report, Agapov turned over the recording to NTV for analysis. A team of specialists identified with 85% certainty that the voices in the report matched Agapov's recording.
Sky News vehemently denied any such shenanigans; but it certainly not the first time Murdoch's henchmen at News Corp have been implicated in such incidents. News Corp was at the bottom of a national scandal a few years ago in the UK for obstruction of justice involving a missing girl; and a subsequent investigation found that News Corp's 'inside sources' in high British places involved wiretapping and computer hacking.
Most recently, Sky News was involved in a scandal in Romania, where correspondent Stuart Ramsay interviewed two masked men divulging the illicit arms-smuggling trade in Romania. As it happened, they too were paid actors, and the Romanian government is currently seeking legal action against Ramsay.
Hopefully, since BREXIT, the UK will start putting some of these media outlets under some scrutiny themselves and start holding muckrakers like Murdoch accountable.
