Monday, July 27, 2015

Parents Yoked to Their Children for Decades

I can't remember when my father was born - '32? 1933? I can't remember at all when my mother was born. Late '30s, I think.

I do remember he was (as was my mother) a high-school dropout, although later they got their GEDs. At that time the GEDs were worthless (as a high school diploma is worthless today, along with many college degrees).

He spent his life as a general contractor, building four houses a year (it takes three months to build a house). My mother worked as the night admitting clerk in the local ER.

My father once told me, "I could have been rich but it wasn't worth it." I knew what he meant. Enough is as good as a feast, if you can be grateful.

Still, my family had a nice middle-class existence and I never missed the Porsche and the Lear jet because we never had them, so how can you miss what you never had? I had a bike and that was good enough. (At 14 I had a $50 minibike and as far I was concerned it was a jet airplane.)

I also remember my father telling me, "If I tried to do today what I did then, I couldn't do it."

That was not the only time I've been told that recently. That's how bad the economy is - and it's going to stay that way for a long time.

My parents had two children, me and my sister. My father's parents had nine - and my paternal grandfather dropped out of school in the 8th-grade and had a "career" of installing and finishing wooden-strip floors. I barely remember him doing it just one time, when I was about five. He had one of those big orbital sanders.

My father didn't work all that hard, because I worked for him starting at 12. Get up, go to breakfast, go to work, take a 15-minute break, work, take a half-four lunch, work, take a 15-minute break, work, go home, take a bath, then be just fine.

Being a carpenter is mostly a semi-skilled job, although being a contractor is of a much high skill set. But it's not college-degree stuff.

My parents (especially my father) ended up yoked to me and my sister for at least 18 years, until I went away to college and became semi-self-supporting. I paid for my share of an apartment, my used car, the insurance, my food, my phone, gasoline, etc. My parents paid my tuition, which at that time was about $300 a semester and was pretty much still that when I graduated in '83.

Then, in January, 1974, wages stopped going up, which means the best times, economically, in the U.S. were after the end of WWII and that January of '74. There are several reasons wages stopped going up. One, Nixon went off the old standard in '71, allowing the Federal Reserve to have its merry way with inflating the money supply at will Then the federal government got so big it permanently stalled the economy. And then there is the trillions dollars we've sent to our enemies in the Midwest for oil.

Things have gotten better technologically - so we've stomping on the brake and accelerator at the same time. The free market and technology are advancing our standard of living and our bloated government is retarding it.

As an example, first my family went from no AC to a window unit (and I slept on the living-room floor, which I didn't mind at all) to central air. I never had AC in my car until I was 30, because before then I always had subcompacts that only didn't have AC, they didn't have power steering or power brakes). And the TVs we had as kids...I'm only going to say we had rabbit ears on top of the TV and I was not only the rabbit ear adjuster, I was also the remote.

But economically it's a different story, contrary to the lies of the government.

Because of the collapse of wages, due to the importation of Third World morons, inflated money, exportation of jobs, crushing debt and crushing regulations, many people cannot afford children anymore. Unless they want to live in a rural trailer (which I don't think it a bad idea, but that's just me).

The economy has at least doubled since 1980 and if wages had continued to raise at the same level as the 1950s, the mean salary would be about $100,000 a year. I have not only figured this myself but professional economists have figured it, too. And it's always the same figure: about $100,000 a year.

Those are some of the reasons we're not a replacement rate. Children are just too damn expensive, due to our permanently-stalled economy.

There are other problems, too, such as the problems between men and women - created by the government and its "laws" interfering in those relationships. Some women, for an example, think that men are supposed to be attracted to fat women or career women. They're not and never will be.

Women got those ideas from propaganda, propaganda encouraged by the government and oftentimes enforced by law. Such as Affirmative Action, which "White Men Need Not Apply" (I have seen this happen several times with friends).

Men are getting it from all angles. Very few high-paying jobs exist unless you have an in-demand degree, career women who think you're supposed to be attracted to them, fat disgusting women who delude themselves they are attractive...and there are lots more problems.

Women are getting it from all angles, too. If they get a high-paying career job, men aren't good enough for them. If they get some nothing job, they end up getting some sort of transfer payments for their blobby Wal-Mart asses and their low-IQ kids. So men are supporting them whether they want to or not, through taxation.

The whole bizarre thing is right out of Idiocracy - people who have somewhat of a middle-class existence taxed half-to-death to support obese misshapen women, their skinny drug-addict husbands, and their passel of retarded kids.

This is not good and appears to be getting worse. Because we're not at replacement level, the government is importing low-IQ Third Worlders, who aren't going anywhere except to cut my grass. Their kids are going to cut my grass, too, when they're not filling the prisons.

I used to know some retired men who came of age in the '50s. They told me at that time they'd walk into certain businesses and get hired on the spot. These were working-class jobs, but right from the beginning the pay was high enough to easily support themselves. And they got raises fast.

These days, most of the people who work for minimum-wage are about 35 years old.

When I was in high school, and for a few years after I graduated, all the high school graduates went straight to the steel mill. I'd estimate the starting salary at about $25,000 a year - with a high school diploma. And after several years, about $50,000. And right before retiring, about $70,000.

Minimum-wage was for high school kids working at fast-food places.

One or my father's friend did get a college degree in the '50s. He ended up working for Sears back when it was Sears and not K-Mart. Raises every year, new cars, a house in the suburbs with a two-car garage.

Those days are now gone.

The U.S. is already breaking up because of these problems. The inner cities are so far no-go except for the violent and stupid, the rich are living in gated communities high in the hills, and what's left of the middle-class are fleeing to ethnically non-diverse small towns.

The country breaking up means possibly heading toward Third World status. And it's gotten to the point when you have some kids the family's standard of living collapses and you are still yoked to them for a few decades. No wonder so many men are opting out. Why should they have kids when they drain you economically? Not just a little bit, but a lot, to the point it's crushing?

These problems are overwhelmingly caused by government interference in the economy and the culture for the last 40 to 50 years. So if you want to reverse these problems, get rid of the government interference!

That, however, is not going to happen until the collapse is well on its way. It's going to take a miracle to stop what's coming. Personally, I think once we come out the other side things will be just fine.

But until that time, just about all you can do is prepare for it the best you can.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Sex and Reproduction Stand in Opposition to Each Other

I occasionally engage in thought experiments. "If this was like that, what would be the end result?"

Now imagine if men and women had internal values, under conscious control, that one way would lead to sex and reproduction, and the other way, just sex.

All those arguments about contraception and abortion...gone. Poof. They never would have started in the first place.

For several thousand years people have been trying to control their reproduction, sometimes in gruesome ways, such as exposing babies to die, the way the Romans did.

And a lot of the "witchcraft" in the Bible was about "witches" using herbs to induce abortion.

For the matter, right in Genesis there are admonitions about filling the earth with people, and how women claim they're going to die unless they have children, or daughters having sex with their drunken father in order to have children.

Yet, while the urge for sex is strong, the urge to reproduce is not. That, I suspect is why there are all these prohibitions throughout history against abortion and contraception, and all these encouragements to have children.

Because, when it comes right down to it, many people don't want to have children, and when they do, they want very few, not a lot.

Imagine if we had those internal values 2000 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if the earth only had about one-fourth the population it has now. If not less.

My paternal grandparents had nine children. Three didn't survive past 21. My father, who almost didn't survive past 17 due to a horrendous car wreck, was one of those nine children. He and my mother only had two: my sister and me.

That's a big drop in the number of children.

If the urge to reproduce was strong, the population of the world wouldn't be dropping (except for Africa).

Since Americans aren't reproducing, everyone is up in arms about it, and it's one reason the government is importing 85 IQ to 90 IQ Third Worlders).

There are even movies about reproduction, such as Idiocracy

The late Arthur C. Clarke, many decades ago (I believe in his novel, Childhood's End) suggested what would happen if we had 100% effective contraception. For one, the destruction of the family.

Science-fiction writers are never right on the specifics (except by accident) but they are often right in general.

When people are not at replacement level, then the formation of families starts to collapse. So Clarke was right in that way.

There was a movie I saw a few years ago, called Children of Men. Its premise is that one day, no more children were being born.

Now imagine where that would lead.

My experience has been that when women put off having children, due to abortion and effective contraception, then when they decide to have children, they can't get pregnant. They get Babies Rabies but no babies pop out. They waited too long. If the urge for reproduction was overwhelming, they'd be squirting out kids at age 13, and refusing all birth control and abortion.

Now where does that lead? Just look around at many of the women today.

My experience has also been many men don't particularly want to have children (again, the urge to reproduce is weak) but when they do, they're glad they did.

Of course, reality puts the kabosh on some of the dumber concepts in the Manosphere, such as women choosing "alphas" to have children then choosing "betas" to provide for them. I've never seen this, not once. There's no evidence for it, either. It's one of the mental masturbatory fantasies, like most evolutionary theory.

You can't have it both ways, with women aborting over 60 million fetuses, along with conception so effective their ovaries have dried up by the time they want to have children. Then allofasudden they run out and if they can pregnant by an "alpha" and then find some "beta" (somewhere, somehow) to support them. What sort of naive nitwit came up with this crap?

In college I was taught men are supposed to want to spread their sperm far and wide while women are supposed to seek one man to support her and her children.

I certainly had problems with that, since my experience starting at age 13 was that women were the wildly promiscuous ones, the ones who'd have sex with any man they found halfway attractive. And that has been the history of the world.

As for men, it wasn't about trying to screw every woman they could, since men are the real romantics. You can't have that both ways, either, with men being the real romantics and at the same time wanting to screw 100 women (I've met guys who've spent their lives seducing women, and all were weaklings incapable of love).

So modern-day evolutionary theory has some fatal problems...just like the Manosphere.

The only way I see out of these problems is to look to the past, when we had government a fraction of the size we have now, with sound money, with high-paying jobs for men where they could support a family (because raising children is extraordinarily expensive and don't those imbeciles in the government realize that?).

Even with effective conception and abortion and the collapse of families, I suspect these problems would cure themselves, as they always have in the past.

This isn't going to happen for a long time, though.

Friday, July 24, 2015

"Hypergamy" and Narcissism

My experience with "hypergamy" is that the more "hypergamous" the woman, the more narcissistic they are.

Take the story of "The Fisherman and His Wife" (posted HERE). The wife wants to be God. Everything she gets is not enough. She wants More&More&More and ends up back in her hovel, poverty-stricken.

The story is essentially a retelling of the story of Adam and Eve. The "serpent" targets Eve with promises of "being like God," and she falls for it. Then a weak Adam listens to her, and they go from Paradise to our fallen world.

I've met a few wealthy men, who wives these men allow to spend and spend and spend, and the wives always wanted more. They were never satisfied and never grateful. The men were weak, like Adam.

"Hypergamous" women are better explained by the Seven Deadly Sins: greedy and lazy and envious. They covet, like Eve.

I've mentioned I read Tom Wolfe's Back to Blood a few years ago, when it first came out.

I recently reread it, and part of the novel is about a "hypergamous" woman and how she wrecks her life.

Her name was Magdalene and she was a Cuban-American, raised in what Wolfe calls a "Low Rent" district of Miama.

She's beautiful but not smart, and under Associative Mating (which is what people really do) her mate should be Hector, a Cuban-American cop who is very much in love with Magdalene and wants to marry her. (As for Hector's brainpower, let's just say he'll never make detective, and sergeant if he's lucky).

But while seeing Hector she is also involved with an rich "Anglo" doctor, so she tells Hector no. Hector of course has a fit, because he never saw it coming.

Then she deludes herself some billionaire Russian crook is interested in her. Not just interested, but fascinated.

He has sex with her one time and dumps her. She has gone from Hector to the doctor to a billionaire.

So she calls Hector, trying to get back together with him. She says something interesting: "Just as I started to feel something for him..."

What matters to her is what she feels. She has problems with boundaries, which is a problem all narcissists have.

Magdalene devalues Hector when he dumps him, she devalues the doctor, she idealizes and then devalues the Russian.

At the end Hector has already found another woman, one actually somewhat smarter then Hector, and who is good for Hector because she makes him a better man.

Magdalene ends up with no job, no boyfriend to support her, no money and no hope. Her life has turned into a living hell. And she never had any gratitude for any of these men. Her attitude was that she deserved it - was entitled to it - and they owned everything they had to her.

Magdalene's story is also a retelling of Eve.

Notice that Hector ends up with a woman who is good for him and makes him a better man.

"Hypergamous" women, being consumed by envy and covetous and laziness, will bring down every man they get involved with.

It's a more humble, self-aware woman, who wants the man to be happy and be the best he can be - those are the ones who make the best wives.

Not a greedy, lazy, covetous, "hypergamous" woman who's imitating Eve in everything she does.

A Middle-Class Job Ruined by Immigrants and Shot Straight to Hell

I have no respect for those open-border types who think immigrants of whatever nationality will improve the United States. The facts are otherwise. The Third World is a hell hole and many of the immigrants from there want to bring their cultures with them. And when different cultures collide the result is usually, to quote the War Nerd, "genocide." It's also been the history of the world. For a Westerner, just read the Old Testament if nothing else.

I refer to these clueless pseudo-economists as "spergs," as in "Aspergers." They think their theories and misunderstanding of economics is reality, instead of the dumb stories in their head they try to impose on reality. And they cannot change their minds unless reality comes crashing down on their pointy little heads. And even then, sometimes they still don't change their minds.

These people are ideologues - and since ideologues are convinced that what they think is the truth, they will never change their minds. These days - and for a long time before these days - leftists are ideologues. And no matter how many people are killed, they'll never change their minds.

The open-borders fanatics are the same way. No matter how much crime Third World immigrants bring - rape, murder, assault, mugging, burglary, drunken driving - they just look the other way. Just as bad as looking the other way is their rationalizing and making excuses for horrible behavior.

Owning a taxi. as I did for five years, showed me what happens when different cultures collide. Driving a taxi used to be a very good, middle-class job. But not anymore. That was a long time ago. Now taxis are often driven by criminal immigrants.

When I first bought a taxi I encountered some of the older drivers, the ones who started driving in the '50s. They were great guys and we had a good time together. And they were all Americans.

One of them was named Al. He appeared to be in his early 70s but was still driving. The first time I met him he told me when he started driving a taxi he wondered, "Where has this job been all my life?" I knew what he meant. The job was a blast.

Al, like many of us, owned his own taxi. We were independent contractors and made our owns days and hours. We worked when we wanted and started and quit when we wanted.

We paid the taxi company a certain amount a month, and as long as we paid that the company didn't care if we drove or not.

Al told me he worked 11 months out of the year, then took a month off, put his wife in the sidecar of his motorcycle, then for a month they toured the country.

Now how's that for a hell of a job? Better than living in a cubicle like Dilbert and Wally.

I used to work on Friday and Saturday nights because it was a party. Sometimes I'd stop work at 2 or 3 in the morning and go home with $200 cash, excluding my charge accounts.

One of my friends told me about his neighbor across the street when he was growing up. He retired from the Post Office with a lot of money and a good pension and died two months later.

I've met other guys who worked high-paying but unpleasant jobs and died soon after retiring. That's not my idea of a life.

"Oh well, I spent my life slaving away at some awful job, but now I'm retired and will live the good life...I've got how long left, doctor? Two weeks?"

At the end no one has ever said, "I wish I worked more." But some will look back and say, "I wish I had a better time and had more fun."

The fun is mostly gone in driving a cab, ruined by smelly, criminal Nigerians, sex-pervert Muslims who gargle with garlic, corrupt Russians and thieving Somalis. And because of all of these excess drivers the money has collapsed. Driving a taxi is now for poor people.

Not one American driver, black or white, liked Nigerians. And we've had people call the cab company and ask, "Don't send me a foreign driver."

I knew one Nigerian fired because he would not put air-conditioning his his taxi. Some were arrested for stealing credit card numbers. They used binoculars to read people's PINs at ATM machines. One was fired for refusing to let a woman out of his cab and instead driving her around. I've been in fights with them.

In my life I've never met a Nigerian who wasn't a thief and a liar.

Al is no longer with us. He had a stroke and quit driving. I do remember another driver telling me the doctor asked what are these? (touches his own glasses).

Al responds, "I don't know what they're called but I've got some, too." That was Al's humor.

He died maybe six months later, at about 75.

Al had a great life, and like me had an amazing fund of stories.

A few years ago I read a novel by Tom Wolfe, the most well-known chronicler of modern American society. Back to Blood. It wasn't one of his best efforts, but it was good enough.

It was about the multicultural paradise known as Miami, a mishmash of white Americans, Cubans, blacks, Haitians and who-knows-what-else.

Each ethnic group lives in separate neighborhoods and none get along. If they were jumbled together the problems would be even worse.

God knows who drives the taxis down there.

As for me, I got the tail end of when owning a taxi was fun. It was back when drivers were great guys and driving a taxi was a great life. And the drivers were Americans. But that life is gone, ruined by our criminal government and its determined attempt to destroy the United States and its economy through the importation of anti-American, criminal immigrants.

I'll never drive a taxi again or even get in one.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

The Nonexistence of the "Robber Barons," or, Never Believe a Word a Leftist Says

I learned decades ago to not believe one word any leftist says. They're all liars. Either that or as ignorant as hell.

I suppose at one time I believed "the Robber Barons" existed. Then I found out they didn't. I had been conned by anti-free-market leftists and their writings. They were actually entrepreneurs.

Let's take Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie wasn't American - he was Scottish.

He was an incredibly wealthy man, yet he wrote this: "Man must have an idol - the amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry - and no idol more abasing than the worship of money."

He spent almost $350,700,000 on various public projects - 2,811 free public libraries, for one example - and when he died, he had disposed of almost everything he possessed. He ended up being buried in Sleepy Hollow, next to Washington Irving.

Then we have J.P. Morgan. He was a sincere Episcopalian, one who had an absolute code of conduct. His riches were based on incremental accumulation (what was been done to "J.P. Morgan" today is another story). Because of his absolute code of right and wrong he ended up being considered an aristocrat, one looked up and respected by the moneyed world.

John Rockefeller once said Morgan wasn't even wealthy.

I could go on, but it's the same thing, over and over.

What these men had in common was that they made their money in the free market.

It's different today. Carlos Slim is right now the richest man in the world and he made his money by having a monopoly given to him by the Mexican government.

I have a friend who taught at a private high school in Mexico and who told me, "There is rich and there is Mexican rich."

He told me one teenage girl came to school in a different outfit every day. She never wore the same outfit twice. Her father was a billionaire.

Bill Gates? Don't make me laugh. One of the reasons Gates is so wealthy is because the U.S. government uses his products. No only do we buy his products from his company, we have to give him more money through our involuntary taxes. His company, even today, uses versions with bugs in it. They are released early even though defective, to corner the market. That's why there are so patches for Microsoft's products. And I certainly remember the BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) so common on early Microsoft products.

Gates was also born wealthy, which you never hear about.

It's got to the point very few people can become wealthy through the free market. Whenever you hear of someone becoming a billionaire almost invariably they did it though the government favoring them.

About the only two decent people I can think of who made their money through the free market are Stephen King and J.K. Rowling - entertainers.

For that matter, just about the only people I can think of today who become extremely wealthy are "entertainers." The Kardasians? Paris Hilton? Rappers? The popularity of these decadent people is a sign of a degraded culture.

We've gone from admiring and respecting such people as Carnegie and Morgan to worshiping nonentities and non-entertainers.

But when it comes to business - and making tens of billions of dollars - the government has enriched certain people through monopolies and giving them billions in taxpayer money, which impoverishes the taxpayers.

Kevin Phillips, the political scientist, wrote countries go through three phases - agricultural industrial, then in decline and collapse, financial.

This country was originally agricultural, which accounts for Thomas Jefferson's idealization of farmers.

Then we had the industrial - that's when the so-called "Robber Barons" emerged. Wages and the standard of living were skyrocketing.

Now we are in the final phrase - the financial. Along with the financial goes Empire.

That's when you get massive government, horrendous debt, a sputtering economy, declining wages, bread and circuses for entertainment, billionaires created by the government.

Governments based on these things always collapse. Look at Greece.

The reason we have avoided the fate of Greece is, for one thing, we are the world's reserve currency. We have access to the world's entire economy through our money, which is why you can use American dollars in Canada and Mexico but you can't use their money here.

Too bad there are no Andrew Carnegies and J.P. Morgans around any more. They were infinitely better than having pictures of Kim Kardashian's greasy ass shoved in my face.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

The Peace and Joy of Happily-Married Life

"What a happy and holy fashion it is that those who love one another should rest on the same pillow" - Nathaniel Hawthorne

When I was in college I delivered pizzas. Once, when my car broke down after I had delivered my last one, I knocked on the door of a "starter" house (do they exist anymore?) and the man let me use his phone (there was no cellphones at that time).

His wife and two kids were there.

I experienced something usual, and I still wonder about it and other experiences like it.

The man and his life appeared to be very happy. What I was picking up from them was happiness, warmth, friendliness.

I've never been able to figure out if I imagined these things or if I was somehow really picking up those feelings radiating from this family. But I lean towards picking up those feelings.

It reminded me of a saying I once read: "the peace and joy of happily-married life." William James said something similar about the peace and happiness of a good marriage, and how surprised he was at what he experienced.

That's what I was picking up from these people. Peace and happiness.

Later, I gained admittance to what was clearly a very expensive house, almost a mansion. The feeling was one of coldness and distance. No one was paying the slightest bit of attention to anyone.

I've experienced both several times, but not in such extreme form. Which leads me to think most marriages or neither very happy or very unhappy. Extremely happy ones are rare, but then, so are extremely unhappy - they get divorced.

When parents do not have a happy marriage, what then do children have to emulate? I'm sure that has a lot of do with the poor state of relationships between men and women.

I have a friend whose parents fought all the time. He and I both agree that these arguments happen because the husband and wife enjoy them. Yet they rarely understand the effect it has on the kids.

My friend in fact once pulled a .22 rifle on his father, watched his mother split his father's scalp open with a phone, watched his father accidentally knock his mother out.

Then there were the unending police cars outside the house.

My friend is not married. He's said he never wanted to be married. He was a 21-year-old son, but he's not married.

Unfortunately men are the true romantics - and I've lost count of the divorced men I know who now hate women - because they didn't want to get divorced and the ex-wife raped them in our joke of a court system.

Then there are the never-married or divorced women who are full of hate and rage. I've seen several of these women and they lash out at any man in their vicinity.

I have a hard time imagining any of these people having happily-married parents to emulate.

A few months ago, I suppose, I saw an older man on TV - perhaps 65 - who spoke rapturously of his long-term marriage. One argument in 40 years.

Sitting a few seats from him was an unmarried man apparently his late 20s - and his attitude was the exact opposite of the older man.

Neither man spoke about their parent's marriages. I wish they had.

Obviously, the older man came from a different time. The younger man came from the modern times.

It's not just the emulation of a good marriage, there's a lack of education. The Old Testament, for all the horrors in it, also contains some very good wisdom about men and women. Is that still taught in church? Apparently not.

Good advice also exists in literature. I was surprised when I read Nathaniel Hawthorne, he of The Scarlet Letter we read in high school. Yet he, too, wrote about the greatness of a happy marriage. He had the experience - he was writing about his own ("We were never so happy as now—never such wide capacity for happiness, yet overflowing with all that the day and every moment brings to us. Methinks this birth-day of our married life is like a cape, which we have now doubled and find a more infinite ocean of love stretching out before us").

What literature exits today about such things? If it does exist, I'm not familiar with it.

We lack almost everything about what makes a happy marriage: examples, church, literature.

It's gotten so bad one of my friends mentioned to me he knows a 45-year-old women, going back to college, who took a class on "Society and Marrige," or a class with a similar name. He told me he was surprised at the wisdom in the textbook.

Is this how these things are taught today? In college? It's better than nothing, but way too late.

You're such not going to get much good advice from the Manosphere, not with the babbling from the more popular writers, many of whom are liars and frauds, about "alphas" and the "Dark Triad" and other such inaccurate concepts.

I wonder what the future. But then, I often wonder about the future.

The marriage rate is about 50%, which means it's really going to affect children, since the family is the bedrock of society.

It's been a long time since I've been in a house where I felt that peace and happiness from the family within. Years, actually.

That's not good at all, for men, for women, for children, for society.

I, For One, Welcome Our New Eve Overlords

I think women should rule the world. Now, of course, this can only be done through the force of law, since it goes against human nature, but that’s okay. Human nature, if you’re a leftist, doesn’t matter. Because to them it doesn’t exist!

Let’s look at what we’d have to do. First, we’d have to keep men out of influential high-paying jobs that require a lot of education and work. That can be done with Affirmative Action, which essentially means “white men need not apply.”

We’d also have to keep men out of college, which is what is happening these days. Right now there are a lot more women in college than men. This is a good thing. No, it’s a great thing!

Men should only be carpenters (I used to be one), taxi drivers (used to be one), coal miners (nope), stuff like that. Stuff that women don’t want to do because it’s too hard, hot, dirty, dangerous, unpleasant, etc.

Women want those nice indoor air-conditioned jobs where they can sit around, drink coffee, hold meetings, and think they’re working. And this is good!

One of my taxi driver friends got murdered. Another got repeatedly stabbed in the face with a steak knife by a crazy woman. Then there was the one had the misfortune of having a pistol pointed at him three times during three different robberies. But all of this is okay! Men are worthless and expendable!

The fact is, men shouldn’t be educated at all. They’re awful!! They should be like those Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons in Brave New World, the ones that ran the elevators. Serves them right.

The worst -- especially the worst! – are white men, who are drooling troglodyte sexist racist homophobic specieist child-molesting rapist pornographer Ice People brutes who introduced slavery into the world. (Well, actually, that’s not true – white men got rid of slavery, and in record time: about 55 years, after slavery was around at least 7000 years. But facts don’t matter!)

Men should receive no education at all. Not even reading, writing and arithmetic! Revenge is good, and it doesn’t matter if it’s aimed at the wrong people.

One way to prevent this education is by drugging little boys. I think Ritalin would be a good choice. It’ll fix their brains up but good, like that Ritalin child Kurt Cobain, who returned the favor by fixing his own brains permanently!

Yep, make sure men receive no education, dope them up, prevent them by law from getting educated jobs…and women will be able to rule the world!

Now what kind of world would we have if women ruled it completely and men had absolutely no influence at all, had no education, and were completely at the bottom?

I think the humorist P.J. O’Rourke gave us a clue with his comment, “Without men, civilization would last until the next oil change.” Or as Camille Paglia commented, if women had been in charge of civilization, we’d still be living in grass huts. Okay, well, maybe teepees.

Hmmm…let’s see…who invented about 97% of everything in the world? Well, as best as I can remember, it was European men and their descendants in America. Those horrible hideous white men who are responsible for every problem in the world! . . . they invented almost everything? Huh?

But let’s concentrate on the United States and not the entire world. If women ruled completely and men had no influence at all, it’d be a great country. Utopia! Paradise on Earth!

Things would go backward, of course, I suppose to some sort of primitive, barely technological society. Tribal and pastoral. But that would be great!

I think I might be exaggerating a little bit (or maybe a lot) but you can learn a lot from reductio ad absurdum.

Very few women can invent anything – or drive for that matter -- but so what? A primitive, loving, pastoral tribe in which everyone chipped in and helped change the babies…it’d be wonderful! It’d be just like that idyllic tribe in One Million Years B.C., in which Raquel Welch wore a two-piece fur bikini. Woo hoo, what a life! I can’t wait.

Of course, women (and some men) don’t believe this would happen. Somehow – not quite sure how – we’d still have an advanced technological society with big-screen TVs and SUVs and dentistry and surgery and easy high-paying careers, even though men would be so uneducated, stupid, doped up and out of work they couldn’t do anything except drink and smoke dope and lie around jerking off to computer porn and wondering how to use that sex-toy they bought mail-order.

But what the heck. All those women oppressed throughout history, why, once they’re free, think of all the inventions waiting to be invented by them! Forget that Gloria Steinem said that logic didn’t matter. It doesn’t matter! Or that there are certain things that shouldn’t be investigated, like the differences between men and women. She’s right about that, too!

And of course, women would have all the government jobs, so we can be ruled by bureaucrats. Of course, being women, they won’t act like bureaucrats, unless they were mommy-bureaucrats. Thank God for that!

Women being supported by the government is a good thing, since marriage would collapse, what with men not being able to support a family. So women would have babies without being married or the children having a father’s influence. All of us would end up acting lower-class. And this is good!

It’s always a good thing for teenage girls to not get married and have kids to get more welfare. And for teenage boys to form gangs as surrogate families. And the fact these things are caused by not having intact families with fathers? It’s a good thing!

In essence, women would be marrying the government. And this is a good thing. Families and fathers are so primitive!

Well, primitive yes, but not primitive like tribal primitive. That’s good primitive. It’d be some other kind of primitive, like not-needed primitive, like hair in your ears or nostrils.

So what if many women would be unhappy hateful frustrated hysterical shrews, except for all those revenge-minded man-hating lesbians who helped found feminism? And envious ugly leftist feminists like the hideous monster Betty Friedan? And if men are unhappy and drink and do drugs and get violent? Ha! Since when did happiness ever matter? Revenge is what matters! Fairness is what matters…well, yeah, I know, it wouldn’t be fair, but so what?

And if society didn’t advance and instead went backwards, so what about that, too? Primitive tribes without dental care and air-conditioning are the place to be!

Many women are natural socialists, which means they are irrational, ruled by their feelings and think everyone should be forced to share and do favors for others whether they want to or not. This is good. I think that’s the reason they’ve always been denied the vote. That’s not good! It’s certainly why so many of them vote Democrat. And that’s good!

Throughout history women have always been the home and the heart (maybe it should be the Home and the Heart). Men have always been the rational creative inventing part – the fixers, the inventors, the discoverers.

About 40 years ago the brain researcher Paul McLean discovered three structures to the brain: at the bottom, the reptilian complex, on top of that, the limbic system (emotion) and on top of that, the neocortex (reason).

One writer called it the Snake brain, the Eve brain, and the Adam brain. But whatever you call it, the rational brain sits on top of the emotional brain, which means our emotions are supposed to be subject to our reason -- not the other way around.

It’s not as if men are all reason and women are all emotion. Each sex has a bit of the other in it, like Jung postulated with the anima/amimus or that Yin/Yang thingie.

If each gender didn’t have a bit of the other in it, we’d never be able to understand each other. Both sexes have mirror neurons, although women have more. Men have a bigger visual-spatial area in their brain. That’s a bad thing! . . .I think.

But, heck, so what? Facts don’t matter. Only archaic left-wing socialist/tribal fantasies matter. It doesn’t even matter if they don’t work and destroy lives and societies!

I, for one, welcome our new Eve overlords. All our base are belong to them!