Thursday, February 11, 2016

"CAPITALISM, THE ENEMY"

i believe in political and economic liberty as the highest economic and political good. As for religion, if it doesn't support political and economic liberty I consider it false (read the theologians during the founding of the U.S. - all of them supported economic and political liberty).

Unfortunately "capitalism" today is not about freedom. It's about impoverishing the common man by the "elites," who got a lot of their money by using government to steal it from people.

The late Sam Francis understood this.

He wrote this in August of 2000. It's originally from Chronicles but I got it from Radix.


By a slim margin of 63-56, the South Carolina House of Representatives voted on May 10 to pull down the Confederate battle flag that has fluttered above the state's capitol dome since 1962 and to remove it to "a place of honor" on the capitol grounds. The vote was the grand (or perhaps the petty) finale to a controversy that has lurked above and below the surface of South Carolina's politics for much of the last decade and has now begun to haunt the politics of other Southern states and, indeed, that of the whole nation as well. Proponents of removing the Confederate flag from the capitol argued that the flag is, in the immortal and typically stilted phrasing of a 1991 resolution of the NAACP, "an odious blight upon the universe," or, in the lesser eloquence of Sen. John McCain, "a symbol of racism and slavery." Supporters of the flag argued, generally, that it was not a symbol of racism and slavery, though they seemed to disagree as to what it actually does symbolize — states' rights, Southern independence, cultural tradition, or simply the martial virtues of honor, loyalty, courage, and willingness to sacrifice for a cause that most Americans, learned or not, associate with the Confederacy and its hapless warriors. Like all real symbols, the flag, in fact, symbolizes many different things, most of them intimately connected to each other in the enduring bond called "civilization." If the meanings of symbols could be neatly translated into simple and clear language, there would be no need for symbolism at all.

The absence of a simple and clear slogan that encapsulates the real meaning of the flag, as opposed to the simple, clear, and false slogans that encapsulated its meaning for its enemies, may tell us a good deal about why the defenders of the flag lost and its foes prevailed, and it is ever thus in the continuing conflict between the forces of civilization and tradition, on the one hand, and barbarism, on the other. At no time since the French Revolution have the forces of tradition been able to enlist simplicity and clearness on their side, and the immense power that simplicity and clearness exert on the human mind is a major reason the enemies of tradition triumph. The power of tradition and its allies does not lie in the ability to justify themselves through logic but in their capacity to mobilize those who remain attached to tradition, and, almost by definition, in a declining civilization or one being challenged by the enemies of tradition, that capacity will continue to dwindle as the power of the challenge grows. So it was in South Carolina, where, as in most of the rest of the South, the memory and identity of its traditions have been dwindling for the last century, even as the power of its enemies — simple, clear, and profoundly evil — grew.

The NAACP and nitwits like John McCain are by no means the most dangerous enemies of Southern traditions. As noted, the NAACP has been crusading against the Confederate flag since at least 1991, but only this year was its crusade successful. It is impossible to account for its victory without considering the immense assistance it received from the Republican Party and the “capitalism” before which the party loves to prostrate itself. If it's dangerous enemies you're looking for, those two will give you a fight to the death any day.

The unreliability of the Republicans on the flag has been manifest since at least the early 1990s (some would say since the 1860s), when South Carolina's Republican Gov. David Beasley actually violated a campaign promise he had made in 1994 not to try to remove the flag from the capitol dome and then at once proceeded to devote much of his ensuing administration to trying to do just that. He soon gathered the support of Sen. Strom Thurmond, former Gov. Carroll Campbell, the Christian Coalition, and all the rest of the repellent crew that performs under the Big Tent of the Grand Old Party. As it developed, the determination of the Republican establishment to get rid of the flag was of no avail, since a populist movement centered on defense of the flag stopped them from doing so. Gov. Beasley, whom Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed had boomed as a possible presidential candidate, was promptly bounced from office in the following election, largely because of his treachery over the flag issue.

Republican betrayal in the earlier flag controversy was grounded in a lust to gain Black votes that never materialized, but in the most recent battle, it was compounded by greed and fear, which the NAACP cleverly managed to incite. The campaign against the flag was joined to the NAACP's proclamation of a national boycott of the state until the flag was removed from the capitol building, and since the boycott struck directly at the capitalist heart of the Republican Party and, indeed, at capitalism itself, it was a far more efficacious tactic than simply threatening to vote against politicians who refused to remove the flag. By targeting the business elites that call the shots in the GOP, which controls the majority in the South Carolina House, and the $14 billion tourist industry of the state, the NAACP actually struck at the heart of the modern South.

The role of Big Business in forcing the flag off the dome was clear at least as early as last year, when the New York Times ran an article discussing it. The article quoted Paula Harper Bethea, chairwoman of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, as offering up most of the clich├ęs that riddle the businessman brain in justification of removing the flag. “The shrinking world in which we live, the way technology has brought us together,” Miss Bethea beamed, “has made us come to realize that we are not islands unto ourselves. If we're going to be part of the next millennium, we have to move that flag off our Statehouse dome and put it in a place of honor elsewhere.” Of course, the reason the NAACP demanded its removal was that it claimed the flag is a symbol of racism and slavery, and if that were so, why on earth would anyone want to “put it in a place of honor elsewhere”? The statement made little sense, but what was driving it was not sensibleness so much as the mere determination to make the controversy go away and get back to business. Michelin Tire Company, which has constructed a new plant in South Carolina to replace the textile mills put out of business by free trade, was also “particularly vocal about the need to move the flag off the dome,” the Times reported.

In Alabama, the same dynamic was evident. Capitalist Neal Wade, of a group called the Economic Development Partnership of Alabama, told the Times that the Confederate flag had to go because, "Anything that causes division within a state makes it less attractive to a potential employer, particularly from overseas,” and the Times itself commented that “the pressure is even greater to join the global economy, and foreign employers do not want the slightest hint of a divided work force or a reputation for backwardness.”

Conservatives—real conservatives, at least, not classical liberals and not neoconservatives—should not be surprised. Capitalism is at least as much an enemy of tradition as the NAACP or communism itself, for that matter, and those on the “right” who make a fetish of capitalism generally understand this and applaud it. The hostility of capitalism toward tradition is clear enough in its reduction of all social issues to economic ones. Moreover, like communism, capitalism is based on an egalitarianism that refuses to distinguish between one consumer's dollar and another. The reductionism and egalitarianism inherent in capitalism explain its practical and destructive impact on social institutions. On the issue of immigration, capitalism is notorious for its demand for cheap labor that imports a new working class that undercuts the cost of native workers. But it is not merely in contemporary America that it has done so.

The capitalist agriculture of ancient Roman plantations imported slave labor for much the same reasons, with the result that by the end of the first century A.D., there were virtually no Romans, and not even many Italians, left in Italy, and so it has been throughout history. In South Africa, the main reason for the rejection of Prime Minister Verwoerd's project of grand apartheid, under which the black majority would acquire their own independent states, was that South African and global capitalists needed black labor to exploit and to drive down the wages of white workers. It was for that reason that the South African Communist Party in its early days actually supported apartheid or something like it, since the party was then largely composed of white working-class members, to whose interests the party leadership was attentive. And, indeed, the same imperative of capitalism to import foreign labor as a means of undercutting the costs of domestic workers is apparent in the American South itself, where a main economic argument for black slavery was that it made white workers as well as production in general a lot cheaper. Today, of course, not only does global capitalism demand the importation of cheap labor through mass immigration but also, through free trade, manages to export its own production facilities to whatever country contains the cheaper labor. The capitalist Mohammed both goes to the mountain and also has the mountain come to him.

Nor should it be surprising that the Republicans who control the House of Representatives in South Carolina bent in the direction of the capitalist wind, even at the risk of their own political careers and explicit previous commitments. House Majority Leader Richard Quinn actually burst into tears after voting to remove the flag. “My vote was very difficult,” he whined to the press afterward. “It was the hardest vote I ever cast.” As Mrs. Frances Bell, state chairwoman of the Council of Conservative Citizens, remarked after the vote, “Many legislators lied.” Caught between the cultural and political rock that demanded the flag be kept waving over the capitol and the capitalist hard place that demanded it be pulled down so the state could be part of the new millennium, be brought together by technology, join the global economy, and avoid the slightest hint of a divided work force or a reputation for backwardness, the Republicans chose modernity—and the betrayal of their own state's traditional identity.

The spat over the Confederate flag in South Carolina may seem to most Americans as, at best, a provincial imbroglio, but two facts combine to impart to it a national significance. First, with the emergence of a non-white majority in the United States because of mass immigration, there is every prospect that similar battles over other historic cultural symbols and icons will take place. Indeed, some years ago in San Jose, California, the local city council authorized the construction of a statue of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl in the city's main square, instead of a statue to the American soldier who occupied San Jose for the United States during the Mexican war. There are a number of other instances of similar Hispanic acts of dispossession against traditional symbols, though none so far has quite compared to the NAACP's perpetual war against the Confederacy.

Second, even with the emergence of a non-white majority and its hatred of traditional American cultural symbols, it is the willingness of ostensibly “conservative” forces, like the Republicans and capitalism itself (organized religion, in the form of the mainstream churches, is yet another), to support the war against these symbols that makes the war important and dangerous. In the long run, of course, the war is not confined to symbols but will extend to the people who have historically composed American civilization. At what point will pseudo-conservative forces like capitalism, mainstream religion, and the Republican Party abandon their mythologies and the powers that stand behind them and actually start defending their own civilization and people?

The betrayal of the Confederate flag by the Republicans and the capitalism by which the GOP is so hypnotized says as plainly as can be stated that neither institution can any longer be counted on as defenders of either Southern traditions or national and civilizational ones. There are few traditional Southerners who did not already know this, though most have supported the GOP since the 1960s in what was really an alliance of convenience for both sides, and most conservatives of all kinds have allied with capitalism against the more militant forms of egalitarianism of this century. But the entrancement of the Republicans by capitalism— and the disengagement of capitalism from every other social institution in pursuit of its own profits and its antagonism to any institution that presents an obstacle to profit—pitches the usefulness of these alliances in the garbage dump of history. If serious conservatives are going to salvage whatever remains of their civilization, in its local or national or civilizational forms, they will have to start working toward not only a new political vehicle but toward a new form of economic organization as well.„

I Like Individuals But I Don't Like Groups At All

I like individuals of whatever race, sex or ethnic group - but I don't like the groups themselves.

Unfortunately, I have found stereotypes about groups are true. If there wasn't truth to stereotypes they wouldn't exist.

I like blacks individually. In college I worked on a production line and used to ask for three line supervisors to work for. All them of them were black. They were top-of-the line people.

Unfortunately, I have found stereotypes of blacks as a group are true. The low intelligence, the impulsiveness, the childishness, the inability to see two seconds into the future.

Women? As a group they are big children, ruled by their feelings (they think if they feel something that makes it true). They blame their problems on men (which means they think they are always right). They can't raise children by themselves, especially boys (which they refuse to admit).

Asians? The men are short, scrawny, little-dicked nerds who lack any kind of leadership qualities. If they feel "shame" they think it is someone else's fault.

Jews? Liars, cowards, thieves, spies and traitors who attempt to destroy their host cultures. There is a reason they've been expelled over 100 times in the past 2000 years - and this happened before Christianity was around.

Whites? No problem with them except for the lower classes. The white trash. Low intelligence, impulsive, blame their problems on other people. Ghetto rats, except they're white.

The biggest problem I've noticed with people is that they are ruled by their feels. It took me a long time to realize that, since I am not ruled by mine and in fact am pretty rational.

I'm going to quote Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihnn again: leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature. They don't understand it all all.

This means non-white immigration and "multiculturalism" (both of which are leftist) are going to cause nothing but death and destruction. Of course leftists will never admit this, until they end up under attack. Which, sooner or later, is going to happen. It always does.

We're going to need a lot more guillotines.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

"THE MYTH OF FEMALE RATIONALITY (PART 1)"

As I've pointed out several times, Carl Jung observed women are biologically indispensable because they have the babies and men are culturally indispensable because they created everything. Besides the babies, women can't do much of anything.

Many women are ruled by their feelings and think if they feel something is right, that makes it right.

This is from Illimitable Men.


“The heart has its reasons which reason knows not.” ― Blaise Pascal

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) My Philosophical Position
3.) How Female Emotivity Manifests In Disagreement
5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

The claim that woman’s capacity for reason matches man’s is humorous, and yet be it espoused by radical feminists or well-intentioned humanists, the “equality of reason” myth persists.

It was only the other week I observed two men debating woman’s logical capacity, one man insisted women were less reasonable, whilst the other disagreed whilst conceding “all women are like that“. Yet in spite of this concession, said man went to the lengthy effort of recalling instances where he had observed women exercising reason. It was as if this particular man wasn’t quite willing to accept women are the less reasonable sex, which ironically is an unreasonable position in and of itself.

There is of course a discrepancy here, a gentle person can get angry and a frugal man can make a large purchase in the same way that an unreasonable person can demonstrate logic; a capacity for something does not equate to a propensity for it. The man who could not believe women are less reasonable is naive, the claim was not that women never make logical decisions, even a broken clock is right twice per day, the claim was that women are governed so strongly by emotion that their capacity and proclivity for reason is greatly vitiated, ergo, their reason is inferior to man’s.

Even in the comments section of this very publication, the notion women are just as logical as men is oft dispelled, for women are quick to offend and be offended by nature of their volatile reactivity. Now of course the same principle applies to man, an angry man cannot reason too well either, but here is my contention: the average woman becomes emotional far more easily than the average man, and thus whatever reason she does possess is quickly lost when even a modicum of pressure is applied.

I believe less intelligent women are simply incapable of reasoning to any elaborate degree, whilst smarter women can only do so whilst their emotions are in check, eg: they have managed to encounter something unsettling without taking offence to it. Nevertheless, I do not believe smarter women are any less emotional than their lower IQ counterparts, but only that they have better impulse control. This is why although smart women can exercise reason, they often do so with less frequency than even the average man.

2.) My Philosophical Position:

In my analysis of women’s behaviour I try to minimise my sexism as much as possible, for I do not wish my weaker expectations of women to sustain an untrue personal delusion, but rather, I wish for my view of man as the primary sex to be grounded in sound observation and empirical evidence. For example, I observe men making sounder judgments more often than women, debating better, skewing more to the right on the IQ bell curve, as well as making the majority of discoveries and inventions that elevated us out of the stone age.

In my inquiry into male and female differences I have discovered women’s sole biological reason for existing is to reproduce and nurture the young, whilst man’s is to reproduce, protect his mate (oft dying in wars in an attempt to do so) and contributing to the grand project known as civilization.

In case any wish to contest the point on civilization, do so bearing in mind you contend the point with a machine invented by a man, using a power source discovered and refined by a man, in a house designed and built by a man. As women are and have historically been preoccupied with child rearing and maintaining social ties, the elevation of the human condition can thus be credited almost solely to man.

Even since half a century of woman’s emancipation, women have done little but accrue more money, in terms of major intellectual and civilizational achievements, few have achieved anything of significance. Yes, women have entered highly prestigious professions such as medicine and law, but do the majority of women make major contributions to their fields, or do they just teach and practice the work of men who came before them, rather than endeavouring to truly excel in, innovate and push the boundaries of their chosen disciplines?

In case it is not clear, my intent is to make a philosophical inquiry into man and woman’s complementing nature as to allow for the refinement of my view, the goal is not to arbitrarily denounce one sex whilst heralding the other. If women are thereby described as being secondary or lesser in some form, it is because this is what reality is indicating to me, not because I want it to be so.

3.) How Female Emotivity Manifests In Disagreement:

As somebody who likes to be proven wrong by reason and empiricism (because I can learn from this) it is disappointing but nevertheless predictable the majority of comments women have made in my time writing have been subpar. If it is disjointed emotional babbling, I hastily remove it to prevent an explosion of vitriolic derailment from occurring in the comments section.

Despite my desire for an open forum and strong ethical appreciation for freedom of speech, not all speech is equal in its reason or value and thus I do not permit the dregs of human thought to manifest and take root within my comments section, censorship be damned. Offending comments are not removed on the basis of whether they agree or disagree, but rather, whether they are well argued or not. If you disagree but make a compelling argument, I won’t remove a comment. But if the person knows no better than to try to play mind games with me on my own blog, I will vibrantly dispose of their trite.

The women who are offended and disagree with the content here oft do so on a profusely emotional basis, with typically little in the way of cogent reasoning in their attempts at refutation. I imagine due to the choice of topic and depth of language, my comments section attracts a higher IQ female than average, and even from this pool of women, 3 kinds of comment tend to be made:

– “I agree with what you’re saying because I’m a traditional woman (usually she is Christian or highly conservative) and my emotions/upbringing agree with your world view. I arrived at similar conclusions I couldn’t verbalise, reading what you’ve deduced has confirmed my intuitive beliefs and suspicions.”

– “I disagree with what you’re saying because I cling to the interpretations of reality indoctrinated into me by feminism, your criticism of women is misogynistic and what you say represents everything that is wrong with society.”

– “I disagree with what you’re saying because my solipsistic point of reference is more valid to me than your reason, I don’t fit neatly into your world view because I’m different from most women and thus your world view cannot possibly apply to most women, you must be wrong.”

A woman who makes a very well-reasoned comment is a rarity, but when it happens it is a welcomed delight regardless of whether there is consensus, nevertheless, such a thing is rare enough that one does not hold their breath waiting for it to occur.

If Illimitable Men was contingent on women making reasonable comments for sound discourse and new topic ideas, as a platform for unorthodox ideas it’d die with much haste. Now I am not going out of my way to be offensive here, but I am emphasising a point: women just aren’t all that reasonable, logic is not their primary mode of function and this shows emphatically in their contributions.

In case you think this site is read exclusively by men, you would be mistaken, I receive enough page views that if even a meagre percentage of my readers are female, that’s a good few thousand women.

4.) How Women Form Opinion:

Time and time again, be it a televised debate, a private argument or even in universities where the female IQ skews higher, I see little in the way of reason espoused by women. This does not mean women do not say correct or truthful things, but rather that they do not rationally deduce truth so much as they intuit it, intuition being the vague sensation that something feels or sounds right.

Likewise women will hold untrue and irrational beliefs because said irrational thing feels good to believe. You should begin to see a pattern emerging here, whether a woman holds an opinion based in truth or an opinion that isn’t, this opinion is almost always held because it feels good to believe, or her peer group believes it and thus she adopts their view. Scarcely does she hold a view because she has rigorously investigated a topic with reason and come to a conclusion she believes to be true; this is not impossible but I believe it improbable.

Often when the veracity of a woman’s viewpoint is being challenged, if she believes her opinion to be true out of no more than an intuitive emotional conviction, she feels the validity of her emotion is being disputed rather than the credibility of her reasoning.

When a woman’s reasoning is disputed, she oft perceives this as the invalidation of her emotion, the deprivation of her “right to feel” because her opinion and its hasty conclusion is oft founded upon an instinct or feeling rather than a deduction or investigation.

Women have a tendency to defensively double down on their position when they feel bad, employing Machiavellian fallacy such as shaming (eg: reductio ad absurdum) rather than opening themselves to greater scrutiny and taking the time to step back and re-evaluate their opinion.

Essentially, women trust their emotions far too much, they act on their emotions almost entirely without restraint, and often fail to question, analyse, check and hold their emotions to account. For a woman if it feels right then it is right, a woman does not consider that perhaps although some things feel good to hear or believe, they may be logically unsound, false, outright incorrect or otherwise verifiably false.

One can make such discernments by comparing how men and women back up their arguments, for example, an incorrect man is generally able to devise a chain of reasoning to explain his thinking, whilst a woman is scarcely capable of producing any such evidence of reasoning. Why? Because even when a man is wrong he’s thinking in a way that is logically congruent even should his conclusion prove to be false. A woman on the other hand merely felt the thing to be true, so has no cogent basis for communicating why she believes her opinion to be correct, “it just is!”.

5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading:

It appears to me that women just hold opinions, and that they have these opinions because they feel intuitively correct, and if anybody presents them with evidence counter to what they feel to be correct, rather than accept the evidence presented to them and adopt a world view more aligned with reality, they lash out and refuse to internalise the uncomfortable truth.

Women would appear prone to correcting emotional inconsistencies rather than logical ones, that is rather, women are better adapted to coping with things than understanding them. Of course woman can understand things, it would be idiotic to claim otherwise, but an underlying ability to understand does not always translate to a desire to understand. Generally, a woman won’t even make the attempt to understand something if she believes the truthfulness pertaining to it will upset her emotionally.

In accordance with AWALT theory, I believe this to be true of all women but to differing frequencies, that is to say, some women are like this most of the time, whilst others are only some of the time. I’m not saying men are infallible and do not do blunder or even indulge in the exact same ignorance either, I believe they do, just with less frequency, reckless abandon and fervour than do women.

I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, so in part 2 expect me to explain how conformity, shame and female evolutionary psychology almost compel women into Machiavellian/emotive responses rather than honest or logical ones. It should be noted this article has been designed as an introductory piece for a more substantive follow up, expect a sequel very shortly.

I Was Right But One Primary Off

I had called Trump/Sanders for Iowa but was wrong. I was right for New Hampshire, so I was one primary off.

I lived in Missouri for 15 years, so I know Missouri is called the "bellwether state."

From Wikepedia.

"The Missouri bellwether is a political phenomenon that notes that the state of Missouri voted for the winner in all but one U.S. Presidential election from 1904 to 2004 (the exception is 1956). While states like Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico have been arguably stronger indicators of political trends in recent years, Missouri was a consistent swing state throughout the 20th century. Prior to the 2008 elections, Lincoln County, Missouri was said to be the only bellwether county in a bellwether state. Missouri is also considered a bellwether of U.S. views on hot-button social issues such as stem cell research, gay rights, and school vouchers. Some economists also consider the state a bellwether for economic trends such as consumer confidence and unemployment."

Speaking of "gay (sic) rights," Marco Rubio looks gay to me.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

"Virgins? All that you can use."

I drew this cartoon a few months after 9-11, when I discovered Muslims believed there would be 72 virgins waiting for them in the afterlife.

I remember thinking at that time that none of these suicide bombers would end up being good-looking, popular men. They would be the outcasts and rejects, the kind who were very unpopular with women. So why not go to meet all your virgins? You've got nothing here.

Sure enough, a few years ago, if not longer, I ran across a study that expressed just that belief - that suicide bombers are overwhelming losers who were utterly unpopular with women.

If works over there that way, so why not here?

All the mass shootings over here are done by young men who are hopeless with women. Indeed, hopeless in life.

The first one I am familiar with it Charles Guiteau, who killed President James Garfield. Guiteau had lived at a free love commune called Oneida and the women did want anything to do with him. That called him Charles Get Out.

As for the spate of recent shootings, all of them involved mentally-ill young men, on psychiatric medication, humiliated behind belief, who decided to get revenge and replace shame with pride by blowing away a bunch of people.

It's not just the mental illness and medication, although these days the medication appears to be a trigger for the violence. But Guiteau wasn't on medication (it didn't exist) and neither was George Sodini, who killed a bunch of women at a gym since women had been rejecting him all his life.

What all have in common is revenge and resentment. Of feeling humiliated and rejected.

Something I noticed decades ago is that some women seem to think they have the right to abuse men, but of course nothing of the sort is supposed to be done to them. There's not all that many of them, but enough to be very noticeable.

Is this an American thing? I don't know, but I have not seen that attitude among the foreign women I've met.

I'll say this: we are going to see more of these revenge shootings. It's as if there is something wrong with our culture that creates these crazed men.

Monday, February 8, 2016

The Betrayal of the West

Ultimately there are only two political parties - the establishment party and the antiestablishment one.

There are some people in the United States who are betraying the West. Most of these traitors are politicians, most especially the open borders ones (those who think Marco Rubio is not an open-borders establishment whore are going to find just how mistaken they are).

People are beginning to wise up to what's going on, which accounts for the fact that three of the four top candidates are antiestablishment in one way or another - Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. I am surprised that Hillary Clinton, another establishment whore (not to mention a sleazy old dyke) is doing as well as she is.

Even if Trump does not win (which I find very hard to believe) then the next candidate will be like him, just the way Barry Goldwater's loss led to Ronald Reagan's election (if only we could have bypassed the evil LBJ and Vietnam!).

I'll say it again: I want both parties destroyed. Both are leftist, and both are trying to dispossess and impoverish Americans, to use them as scapegoats and sacrifices to further enrich and further empower themselves.

Speaking of leftism, I will again quote Erik von Keuhnelt-Leddihn: leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature, they don't understand it at all.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn defined leftism as "the murder of the Father." That's "father" with a capital "F," which means attempting to destroy that oppressive, white male capitalist/patriarchial culture - which doesn't exist. The archetypical Father, the creator and sustainer of civilization!

Leftism always wants to destroy - destroy everything. Do these people really think all that non-existent human goodness will just pop up after all this destruction? Talk about completely deluded!

Such leftist idealogies such as Communism, Nazism and fascism were perhaps responsible for the deaths of up to 200 million people in the 20th century. I don't care if you call it "progressivism" or "liberalism." It all leads to the same place.

Feminism, being leftist, is about the envious and hateful trying to destroy men, to also use them as scapegoats and sacrifices. Look no further than the creepy cultural destroyer Hannah Rosin and her glee in writing her book, The End of Men.

Leftism itself is feminine - the Bad Feminine. And the Bad Feminine always wants to destroy the Good Father (there is a very good reason it's God the Father and not Goddess the Mother).

For that matter, the masses are always feminine, because they are never ruled by reason and always by their feels. Even Hitler, that demented master of propaganda, noticed this.

Here I will again quote Carl Jung: women are biologically indespensible because they have the babies, and men are culturally indespensible because they created 99% of everything: civilization, science, technology.

And leftists want to destroy this? Do they not realize they will end up destroying themselves? Or do they somehow think they'll escape it? Are they that grandiose and deluded?

I have for a long time thought that some men want to be remarkable. And what do they ask in return? A bit of respect and gratitude.

It's hard to get even a drop of that anymore.

I'm not quite sure where I got the idea that some men want to be remarkable. Perhaps I got it from Joseph Campbell's idea of "the Hero on a Quest," in which the Hero comes back with a boon for mankind after suffering all kinds of Luke Skywalker trials and tribulations.

Considering that men created 99% of everything in the world, it makes more sense the desire is inborn in them, along with the desire to bring back that boon, than the non-science, non-sensical evo-psych "explanation" they do it just to get some pussy (Adam Smith, Isaac Newton and Nickolai Tesla were apparently virgins their entire lives).

I have found the Bible to be a repository of good practical wisdom about life. After all, look at that observation in Genesis about how women want to rule men but men must always rule women. And remember that Adam's first wife was Lilith, who kept rebelling against him.

Don't forget Jezebel and Deliah!

Even women today who claim they're aren't feminists or are even anti-feminists have still been infected by its lies, such as the falsehood that women only make 66% of what men make.

The Manosphere is a necessary response to what has to done to men. People predicted this kind of response. And yet there are leftists - manginas and white knights - who apparently still don't have a clue as to what is going on.

I've met women who claim "men are responsible for all the problems in the world" and that "they won't accept my career" ("career" means little to nothing to most men). And these women wonder why they are alone.

Of course, they blame all their problems on men, which accounts for their hostility and lies.

When men are not allowed to be protectors and providers, not allowed to invent and discover (think of the Ph.D in Physics who helped land a spaceship on an asteroid 300 million miles away and was attacked for wearing a girlie shirt), when they don't get any respect or appreciation, when their enemies and betrayers are eternally trying to scapegoat and sacifice them, what it going to be the end result of all of this?

It won't be anything good. But that's obvious, isn't it? But I guarantee you that it will involve revenge.

That is what's going on with these antiestablishment votes. Revenge for what the government has to done to the citizens. Throw the rascals out! And the rascals are clueless.

For that matter, the PUA/MGTOW phenomena are about revenge on women (every PUA I've known didn't like women - think about "Roosh" and "Roissy" and their lies).

Unfortunately, men brought these problems on themselves by letting women get out of control. That's in the Bible, too, when Adam listened to Eve while knowing full well he should not have done so. Just remember all the problems that happened because of that.

None of this modern political nonsense will last. It never does.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

My Holocaust is Worse Than Your Holocaust!

It got to the point a long time ago I started being amused about people claiming, "The Holocaust of my people was worse than the Holocaust of your people!"

No one knows anything about what King Leopold did in the Congo, or what the Japanese did in China during World War II. Look up the Rape of Nanking sometime.

Jews tried to claim six million of them were killed during World War I (no, not just World War II, but also World War I). Yet some of the worst mass murderers of the 20th Century were Jewish - look up Genrikh Yagoda. And Communism was originally called "Jewish Bolshevism."

And take a look at the Holodomor.

The worst, per capita, was Cambodia. The worst, in terms of numbers, was what Mao Tse Tung did to China - on top of what the Japanese did.

By the way, I've had people tell me there were 20,000,000 Indians in north America. Really? Hunter-gatherers who sometimes grew corn? There were about a million, and most of them died from European diseases to which they had no natural immunity (the story about Indians being given smallpox infected blankets is pure fantasy). In combat about 2000 Europeans died and about 2000 Indians.


Chinese Holocaust = 60,000,000

Russian Holocaust = 30,000,000

Congo Holocaust = 10,000,000

Ukrainian Holocaust = 8,000,000

Jewish Holocaust = 6,000,000 (Disputed)

Cambodian Holocaust = 4,000,000

Armenian Holocaust = 2,000,000