Tuesday, July 26, 2016

War as a False Religion

The last 15 years of wars have been enlightening to me about how some people react to them. The last few wars the U.S. was in -- the first Iraq war, the "war" on Serbia, and Panama -- were so short I couldn't draw any conclusions. We haven't been in such a long conflict since Vietnam -- and for people born since then, for all they know about it, it might as well have been a century ago.

I was a kid during Vietnam, too little to pay that much attention. I do remember the ghoul Robert McNamara, who'll be washing several million gallons of blood off his hands for a long time to come. He was such a catastrophe, and so incompetent, he made Donald Rumsfeld look like a tactical and logistical genius.

I also remember the evil, power-mad Lyndon Johnson. LBJ, a pathological liar (as all true politicians are), said he would get us out of Vietnam and instead escalated the war. Then after his first term he ran away, dumping the war in Richard Nixon's lap. Close to two-thirds of the casualties in Vietnam occurred during Johnson's administration. There is a special place in Hell for him, as there is for McNamara.

But now, with these current wars, so I've had plenty of time to think about the effects of war on some people. The conclusion I've come to is that war, for some people, is a religion.

Admittedly it is a false religion, but it is a religion nonetheless. The word "religion" means "to tie, fasten or bind." That is exactly what war does to some people -- it brings them together into a community. It gives meaning and importance to their lives. And that makes war a religion, albeit a ghastly one.

Robert Nisbet, an influential conservative sociologist -- and "conservative sociologist" almost sound like an oxymoron -- wrote in his book Community and Power, "The power of war to create a sense of moral meaning is one of the most frightening aspects of the 20th century...one of the most impressive aspects of contemporary war is the intoxicating atmosphere of spiritual unity that arises out of the common consciousness of participating in a moral crusade."

The book, indeed all of his books, is about the alienation that comes from the loss of community. Such as loss always happens with the expansion of the State. As it expands, it destroys all the intermediary institutions such as religion, neighborhoods and families. Finally, what could be left is nothing between people and the State. There are various names for such a condition -- fascism, communism, Nazism. The State becomes everything, and people become absorbed into it. Think of the Borg.

Writers such as Erich Fromm and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn have pointed out many people want to be absorbed into a group as an escape from their alienation. It gives them a sense of community and security. Nisbet adds there is something else -- such people don't give up their individuality in these groups, but instead exalt their selves, as they now believe they are part of something they believe is much larger than they are.

They become, you might call it, a community of deluded self-worshippers. They believe the group itself it god-like, or blessed of God, so they partake of that "divinity" by being part of the group. They are literally worshipping their selves, a worship that always means those outside of the group are devalued into sub-humans whose murders are dismissed as "collateral damage."

As Russell Kirk noted, "the monstrous self is the source of all evil." The Nazis, the communists, and the fascists were that monstrous self writ large. I believe this is why Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote, "'I' is from God and 'We' is from the Devil." That "We" can only be of the Devil when the State destroys the intermediary institutions, and the only "We" left is the combination of the people and the State.

During long-term warfare society becomes militarized and in doing so damages, destroys or absorbs such intermediary institutions as churches. Then we end up with disgraces such as the Satan-worshipping Jerry Falwell claiming "God is pro war," which of course means God supports only the wars of the United States.

When the interests of religion and the interests of the State coalesce into supporting the same unjust wars, what we have left is no true religion at all. The State instead becomes God on Earth. War then becomes the fist of that god, one to smite the "wicked."

"When the goals and values of a war are popular," writes Nisbet, "both in the sense of mass participation and spiritual devotion, the historic, institutional limits of war tend to recede further and further into the void. The enemy becomes not only a ready scapegoat for all ordinary dislikes and frustrations; he becomes the symbol of total evil which the forces of good may mobilize themselves into a militant community."

In short, war can give meaning, importance and community -- and an intoxicating power -- to some people's lives. That makes it a religion, a false one based on hubris and being drunk with power. Power does more than just corrupt; it intoxicates. In The Lord of the Rings it was that power that turned Smeagol into Gollum. The same thing could happen to people in reality.

Always ignored, of course, is what war does to those on the receiving end. If not ignored, then rationalized. "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them," noticed George Orwell.

This meaning and community -- this religion -- is a false one, destined to bring disillusionment and destruction to those who believe in it. War is a false god. Perhaps sometimes war is unavoidable, but it is an idol that can never give true meaning to a person's life.

Monday, July 25, 2016

Men Do All the Hard, Dangerous Work, Then Women Follow and Whine, "Give All of Good Stuff to Me"

I've pointed out before, more than once, that you can feel envy or gratitude, but not both at the same time. That’s been noticed for thousands of years.

I've also pointed out before, again more than once, that leftism (feminism is leftist) is about the murder of the archetypical Father. And that leftism (and therefore feminism) is based on envy. Which means there is no gratitude or appreciation whatsoever.

Envy, more than anything else, wants to overthrow and destroy. And that is why you get such concepts as Dead White Males and "patriarchy" - destroy them! Overthrow them! Give it all to me! I should rule!

I've been thinking about this for decades, long before the Internet and certainly long before the Manosphere (which is why I know so much of it is adolescent nonsense).

Ingratitude is one of the worst vices in the world. It's a species of envy: "You've got it, now give it to me."

Men invented everything in the world. Okay, maybe not everything. Just 99.99% of it. Women did invent some things (who has ever heard of Grace Hopper?) but those women are extreme outliers.

And it's not because of "oppression" and "patriarchy." It's because men and women have different brains. Hell, different everything.

Not only was it men, it was specifically white men (specifically Western European), who created/discovered/invented about 98% of everything in the world. Of course the envious are going to say they stole it and did it on the backs of those they “oppressed” and “enslaved” - or destroyed all those wonderful ancient societies that had jet airplanes and advanced brain surgery 50,000 years ago. But again, that's what the envious claim, and again, it's easy to tell who the envious are - they consistently, chronically, put down those who are better than they are – who've done a lot more than they have.

Men invent, discover, create (sometimes losing their lives in the process), then many women follow, feel sorry for their selves, start whining about a non-existent "oppression" and "patriarchy," then howl, "Since you've done all the hard, dangerous work and now that things are easy with air conditioning and cars and airplanes, give me my cut! No, wait! Give all of it to me because I can run it just as well as men! No, wait! Better!"


Why should men give women a say in anything when men created everything? Would I give a child a say in running society and civilization?

It didn't surprise me decades ago when I found both Schopenhauer and Lord Chesterfield referred to women as big children. I've seen it myself, as have all my friends.

I've had women tell me, "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world" (what is this, 1967?) All of them were unmarried, middle-aged, and made about $45,000 a year from jobs created by men. Gratitude? Appreciation? What are those? But envy? Certainly.

Women would be up shit creek if men didn't love them – and many women are doing their damndest to screw that up. Those goofy evo-psych/Manosphere hallucinations about it all being about sex - goofy as hell. It's about love - and if love didn't exist we'd be on the same level as cats and dogs. Both men and women.

I've mentioned before about "The Little House on the Prairie Books," which everyone should read. There is a scene in which Laura Ingalls Wilder's father ("Pa") builds a house basically with an ax. He chops down trees, has the horses haul them to the site, makes logs out of them, builds a house, then splits logs lengthwise, smoothes the insides, then uses them for the floor. Then he builds the furniture!

This is what he did for his wife and children. And bulldog, for that matter.

His wife ("Ma") did the cooking, cleaning, canning, etc. Could she have built the house? BWAHAHA!!! Could he do the cooking, canning. etc.? I’d rather build the house!

And I don't think Pa was as big or strong as I am. I know what he went through, since my father was a general contractor and I started building houses when I was 12. It was pretty horrible at times. I almost got killed once and hurt myself several times - smashing your thumb with a hammer is not funny, no matter what the cartoons tell us.

I once found the tip of a guy's finger when he fell off of a ladder and grabbed the wrong thing. I've also seen guys run power saws over their hands and fingers and shoot themselves in the foot with nail guns.

I occasionally ask women what would happen to them if men withdrew from running and maintaining the world. No more water or electricity or food. Poof! Just like that.

Now what have I done to create/discover/invent? Nothing! But guess what? I can maintain civilization – which women cannot do. And there are hundreds of millions of me!

One woman told me, "Men wouldn't get paid," to which I responded, "You just don't get it at all, do you? Men invented everything in the world. And 'getting paid' is a concept men discovered. Just like they discovered economics."

Carl Jung understood this. Men are culturally indispensible since they created everything and women are biologically indispensable since they have the babies. Until we create artificial wombs and sexbots!

I've mentioned before about the wisdom of the story of the Garden of Eden. Women's greatest flaw is envy (the "serpent" is a symbol of envy) and men's greatest flaw is listening to envious women - and apparently being unable to perceive that they are envious!

Envy wants to drag people down. It shows no gratitude and appreciation. So when women put men down and demand things from them (especially without giving anything in return), those are the main signs of envy.

Take Hillary Clinton, for an example. She got everything she's gotten on the coat tails of her husband. Without him where would she be? A second-rate lawyer fixing traffic tickets?

This envy of women, with men unable to recognize it, is part of the Battle of the Sexes, which has now apparently taken on the dimensions of a war!

Marriage rates have collapsed, which of course women blame on men - since they refuse to look in the mirror. And babies being born? Not so much anymore.

Why should men get married and have children? What's in it for them anymore? Being the object of envious attacks and having every problem in the world blamed on them? Who needs that?

These problems have happened in the past, which is one of the reasons all past societies have collapsed.

Yet people don't learn from history. In fact, if there is one lesson from history everyone should know, it's that people don't learn from it.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

The Six Killer Aps of Prosperity

I don't agree totally with this article because I am not politically correct.

I put modern medicine, property rights, competition, the work ethic, the consumer society and the scientific revolution under under the free market, which created these things. I'd add European ancestry, which is what created all of it.

So, in simplest terms, the U.S. government is trying to get rid of minimal government/free market (they go together) and white people.

This is from the site The Dollar Vigilante.

The Six Killer Apps of Prosperity that the US Government is Destroying

"It is worth your while to watch it as it brings up a number of interesting points. More importantly, it does something that no one ever seems to think of nowadays: It looks at the past and tries to figure out not only what happened but what worked and what didn't.

"We now have enough evidence of political and financial systems to be able to come up with some ideas on what works and what doesn't. Yet, rarely is this analyzed by the public.

"Niall tries to look back into history and see what created the most amount of wealth and freedom. He says it boils down to the following six items:

Scientific Revolution
Property Rights
Modern Medicine
Consumer Society
The Work Ethic

"You may agree or disagree with some of the points... but in general most rational people would say this is a fair list.

"So, let's go through that list from the perspective of the current state of affairs in the United States, and most western nations, today.


"Nial makes the point here that this not only includes competition between free-market entities but also competition between political systems. As he states, 'Not only were there a hundred different political units in Europe in 1500 but within each of these units there was competition between corporations as well as sovereigns.' He goes on to state, 'Nothing like this existed in China where there was one monolithic state covering a fifth of humanity.'

"This is an excellent point. Competition between political systems is very healthy. The founding of the US explicitly encouraged this by attempting to give the majority of the power to the States and not to the Federal Government. This, of course, has been mostly erased over many decades as all the power has been taken over more and more by the U.S. Government itself. In fact, this process began 150 years ago with the US civil war when the south tried to secede but was brutally put down in its attempt.

"Today, in the U.S., there is virtually no political competition and even corporate competition is constantly restrained or manipulated by regulations and subsidies.


"By 'scientific revolution', Niall's simply means using evidence to form opinions and ideas and testing those opinions and ideas. Today, in the U.S., the Government has become such a major player in the field of science that it has turned science itself, on its head. As example, economics is still taught in the U.S. from the Keynesian perspective - which has all but been debunked and proven to be wrong. And other areas, including things like physics (as we denoted in our piece, 'The Day Science Died'), have seen the Educational Industrial Complex completely skew it towards maintaining the status quo rather than doing real science.

"Not to mention that the U.S. Government outlaws truly revolutionary forms of science such as research on stem cells. Of course, all this does is ensure the U.S. falls further behind in the sciences. And, as Peyton Manning showed, it just ensures the poor and middle class do not get access to scientific advances while the rich have the ability to jet off to countries for treatment.


"This is the reason the U.S. is still hanging on somewhat. It still has fairly reasonable property rights. However, it should be made clear that people in the U.S. do not own their houses. They rent them from the government. Try not paying your 'property tax' and you will see who owns your house. The same goes for businesses and other assets... try not paying all the license fees or your capital gains tax or dividend tax and you'll quickly find out who really owns your business or assets.


"Niall's point here is mainly about how advances in medicine in the last few hundred years doubled life expectancy due to things like antibiotics. However, in today's 'medical system', the system itself has as its main focus to keep people sick. Rarely are the root cause of problems identified (which would almost always be diet or exercise related) but only the symptoms are treated... usually putting most people into a downward spiral where they become more and more dependent on toxic chemical medications that make them sicker and sicker. Today, in the U.S., because of things like corn subsidies causing a massive increase in fructose corn syrup and a medical establishment beholden to the pharmaceutical companies who disallow natural, healthy medicines to be used, such as marijuana, most people are not only dependent on expensive pharmaceuticals but are all much sicker than they would have been without government involvement in the food and pharmaceutical industry.


"Aha, here you say, the U.S. is doing very well! But, no. Niall's point is that in a society where everyone is a Buddhist monk who does not desire material items the economy would be very small. And, he is right. It is healthy for an economy for people to desire things. However, what has happened in the U.S., thanks to the criminal Federal Reserve banking cartel, interest rates are always kept artificially low leading people to stop saving and spend more... however, this does not lead to a prosperous economy. An economy prospers when it produces more than it consumes. This should be obvious to anyone except those who get Ph.D.s from places like Princeton and Harvard. The American society today believes it can become prosperous by consuming more than it produces... the effects show in the jobless rate and the poor economic conditions in the US today.


"Here the U.S. is still above many parts of the world although it has been losing against many parts of Asia. But the entire structure of American society is so warped by government involvement that most of the 'work' goes for naught. With Government subsidized 'education' it means that most Americans will spend 16-20 years in school - and in many cases learn next to nothing during that entire time - and then be encumbered by student loan debts and other debts, such as mortgages (which are mostly needed because the price of housing has been artificially inflated by the U.S. Government's involvement in subsidizing interest rates and mortgage loans). Just ask many of the young '99%ers' at the Occupy Wall Street rallies. Many state that they have 'worked hard' and done 'everything right' but they have no job, no assets and have overwhelming debt. This is because the government's interventions led everyone down the wrong path. There is no doubt many of them worked hard for many years but they were doing the wrong things.

"Thanks to the internet, education is completely free today... a fact that won't help many who wasted 4-8 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a piece of paper.


"Milton Friedman once said, 'If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand'. As can be seen above, in Niall's 6 'killer apps of prosperity' the government's involvement has either ruined or is in the process of ruining each of them.

"Now, in reaction to the collapse of the U.S., many people have taken to the streets in the 'Occupy Wall Street' protests. However, many of them are asking for MORE government involvement in the economy and the lives of Americans as a solution.

"Sadly, thanks to 12-16 years of government funded or regulated education they cannot see that the solution many are rallying for is the cause of most of their problems today."

Watching Sleazy Politicians Commit Political Suicide and Enjoying it Immensely

"Cruz must now accept that his political career is over." - Nicholas James Pell

I watched the creepy-looking Ted Cruz (who looks like the offspring of Lyndon Johnson mating with Richard Nixon) commit political suicide at the Republican National Convention. What was he thinking?

If Trump wins Cruz will never have a post in his administration. If Trump loses he still has changed the Republican party beyond it ever going back to what it is. Cruz is going nowhere for the rest of his life.

How can it be that someone like me, descended from Scots-Irish Appalachian/Tennessee/Kentucky hillbillies, sees this - and Cruz cannot? Maybe because I’m smarter and more knowledgeable than he is – and the Bushes and Clintons?

The same applies to the Bush crime family. There will never be another Bush as President – and I thank God for that. There will never be another Bush in any administration.

My God! I’ve always known politicians were stupid and narcissistic – but this is nearly beyond belief! What kind of morons commit political suicide when politics is their life?

Do they really think people care if the Bushes or Cruz endorse Trump or not? It reminds me of the senile George Will whining he’s left the Republican Party because it's no longer to his liking.

Honest to God – who cares?

I suspect all of them are eaten up with envy, especially after seeing Trump introduce his impressive family. I can imagine George and Barbara watching them and thinking, “Jesus, compare my alcoholic, crackhead offspring with his! ARRRRGGHHHH!!!”

Trump is certainly a flawed man. But he’s less flawed than the Clintons and Bushes combined.

I’m laughing at the whole circus.

By the way, does anyone really believe a short, dumpy, post-menopausal woman, who was never attractive, and who covers up what she is with $10,000 sack-like dresses, can beat beat a 6'2" multibillionaire with a successful, attractive family?

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Built by Slaves Under the Whip and Sword

I don't remember exactly when I realized it. It might have been watching The Ten Commandments as a teenager. These people spent their lives as slaves building huge worthless monuments? Under the whip and sword? Dying by tens of thousands? Jesus, what an awful life!

Later I realized all these glorious monuments and even cities were built by tens of thousands of expendable slaves. I have mentioned the Great Wall of China and the Taj Mahal. These things weren't built by highly-paid, voluntary workers. By slaves! With a sword at their throats!

Recently I saw a PBS program about Machu Picchu, which was an amazing Inca city pretty much built on a top of a small mountain for Inca royalty. It was built of various sizes of stones chiseled into bricks. It was never quite finished.

Scholars don't know much at all about its history. But consider this: since all those other places were built by slaves, I think it's obvious that Machu Piccu was built by life-long slaves who toiled for what? Fifty years? A hundred years? To build this place!

Whenever you see something large and amazing built a thousand or two thousand years ago it was always built by slaves. And those societies are always the same: a vanishingly small minority of that "1%" using the police and military to oppress and crush the povery-stricken peasants. Who dropped like flies working.

I'm sure all those amazing engineering feats of the Romans were built by slaves. And as for Greece, the smarter ones spent their times creating philosophy while the slaves did all the work.

Slavery, of course, even infected the United States, which was why the South created nothing of value. The planters were a indolent and lazy class. Everything of value was created by the non-slave states.

I've mentioned Saudi Arabia recently. The "royalty" doesn't work. They've imported tens of thousands of Third Worlders to do all the work. Who are paid a pittance. And if their "employers" keep their passports...well, just too bad. For all practical purposes they've got slaves! Indentured servants!

Thank God slavery didn't last very long in the West - not even 200 years, if I remember correctly. The British used to send warships out to intercept slave ships, and they even sent said warships to Brazilian harbors to put a stop to slavery in Brazil.

I was raised in Illinois and once visited when I was 19 the Old Slave House, which is in far southern Illinois. It was in the only county in Illinois in which slavery was legal. The stories the curator told us were horrifying. For one thing he told us no one had been able to spent a night in the house.

Many years ago I read a story by the late Manley Wade Wellman (I still have a copy of the magazine in which it was published - "Cavalier," perhaps) in which slave ships tossed their slaves overboard - in chains - to drown them when they saw a British warship coming their way. Of course, the story ended with the dead slaves coming up out of their watery graves and dragging the captain down with them.

Actually the West never got really going until it got rid of slavery.

Of course there are people in the West who think certain people (it always seems to be Republicans) who want to impose slavery.

I used to be a newspaper reporter and editor. I once interviewed an idiotic middle-aged woman who wrote a novel (which she had published by a vanity press) which was about how Reagan wanted to impose slavery on women - to keep them barefoot and pregnant. I thought, is this stupid woman serious? She was.

Good Lord, people really are imperfect, to do the things they've done! And they always rationalize why it's a good thing.

As Robert Heinlein once said: people aren't rational. They're rationalizing. And they'll rational everything. Slavery, child molestation, murder. Everything.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Comic Books and the Loss of Chivalry

There is a local coffee house I frequent. The last time I was there the woman who took our order – who appeared to be about 25 – also made our drinks. I didn’t see anyone else behind the counter.

“Are you the only one working here?” I asked. In response she put her hands akimbo on her hips and turned her head sideways. I started laughing.

“What are you, Superman?” I asked.

“Supergirl,” she answered.

I crossed my wrists at my chest and said, “You look more like you’ve got the Wonder Woman thing going.”

“Well,” she answered. “She did have the uniform and bracelets.”

Then something struck me. “You read comic books,” I said.

“I certainly do,” she answered. That’s why she knew about Superman putting his hands on his hips and turning his head sideways. And that Wonder Woman had bracelets. She didn't mention anything about her golden lasso, though.

That encounter got me thinking. I was never that much of a Superman fan – I much preferred Commando Cody flying around with that jetpack on his back and blasting evildoers with his .45 – but he and Superman and all the rest of the comic book heroes were chivalrous. That’s why they were superheroes – at core knights with superpowers.

But not so much anymore. Superman has now given up his U.S. citizenship and is supposedly a citizen of the world – a demented, indeed perverted, fantasy if there ever was one. Whatever happened to Truth, Justice and the American Way?

Chivalry is a Western invention. Or should I say discovery? It came from Christianity and is based on the better warrior virtues (which means it’s not based on murdering innocents and calling them “collateral damage”). It’s about protecting the weak and helpless, and about righting wrongs and punishing evildoers.

All comic book heroes were originally chivalrous, be they Superman or Batman or the Phantom or the Green Hornet or the Rocketeer (who is the modern-day version of Commando Cody). Before them it was King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

I originally learned about chivalry from Edgar Rice Burroughs, specifically his novel, A Fighting Man of Mars, which I encountered when I was 12. (You can argue that ERB wrote novels, not comic books, but I’d respond that his novels, as wonderful as they are, are actually comic books that happen to not have drawings, although some of the cover artists, such as the late Frank Frazetta, did comics.)

Some of the superheroes were more of knights errant than not. Batman, for one, who was a bit of a psychological mess. But he still tried to be a chivalrous knight.

We’ve lost the chivalrous ideal. Organizations where young boys can learn the basics, such as the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, are now considered by the “elites” to be embarrassing. That’s one of the reasons, among many, why our “elites” are anti-American traitors.

The military no longer teaches chivalry, not when soldiers are just cannon fodder to be used up by our treacherous and cowardly elites to advance the destined-to-collapse American empire. The last time the military was half-way chivalrous was during the War between the States. The syphilitic brain-damaged homosexual Lincoln and the insane alcoholic Sherman put a permanent end to that.

It’s too bad the South didn’t win. I’d take Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson over any Northern general every time. (I find it interesting the South evolved from Celtic warrior culture, while the North was dominated by greasy merchants who put money-making above everything – just as we have today with what I call Cosmodemonic Transnational Corporations.)

People are imitative animals, as Thomas Jefferson noticed. It’s how we learn, as he also noticed. When boys and girls have poor models, mentors and mirrors, they’re going imitate degraded values and grow up confused. It’s not hard to see that today, what with chivalry and Christianity both on life support.

Feminism, which has founded by man-hating females and then taken over by envious man-hating, hairy-legged lesbians, certainly hasn’t helped. Leftists think human nature doesn’t exist and people aren’t much more than Lockean blank slates. That is why feminists, even today, are trying to turn little boys into little girls, usually with Ritalin.

If I had my way I’d close down the public schools. These days it’d be impossible to teach Edgar Rice Burroughs in them (he wasn’t taught when I was in school). And the Greek myths. And the Brothers Grimm. And Rudyard Kipling and H. Rider Haggard. As for comic books? God forbid. The deluded and self-righteous would wax wroth and froth at the mouth.

When it comes to boys, I’d teach them how to read with the stories in comic books. I’d teach them Edgar Rice Burroughs starting when they were six. I’d guarantee you they’d Hoover those stories right up. They’d learn what chivalry really is – and they’d be better for it (I never heard the word “chivalry” mentioned in school or even college).

Teaching boys means more male teachers. Some women have enough sense to let boys be boys. Most women teachers don’t, though. I’ve met enough of them to know that many of them shouldn’t be teachers. Education degrees, no matter how advanced, are worthless.

Men have lost their way. They’re finding it again, fortunately. It’s a healthy reaction to the evils of feminism, which, being leftist, has damaged and destroyed everything it touched. Including the characters of many men.

I had mentioned three words – mentor, model, mirror. A mentor is obvious. Boys and girl need mentors. These days, even a fair number of parents are not mentors, since they leave it up to the schools to do their jobs. And what a job many schools do!

A model is someone you model yourself after. A mirror is someone who reflects back to you. A bad mirror will humiliate and abuse a child. Children will see that and then they become what they behold. A good mirror builds children up.

Boys today lack mentors. They lack models – decent models, at least. I see a noticeable number of boys who are “aspiring rap artists,” which is worse than merely embarrassing - it's downright retarded. It can be dangerous. And guess what kind of lowlifes these boys took for their role models? And since people are educated by imitation…

The mirrors for boys in schools today are mostly terrible ones. We all know what is reflected back to boys, and what attitudes are directed at them.

Incidentally, I’ve seen children, especially boys, dress up as Harry Potter. He’s a model for kids to imitate. When my nephew was little he was such a huge fan of BraveStarr he had his mother make him a costume of him that he wore for Halloween.

Unfortunately, if private schools imitate public schools, they aren’t going to be any better than the public ones. But, in the long run, competition improves everything. Including the schools.

And someday, maybe, just maybe, boys might come out of school knowing who John Carter is. And Woola the loyal Martian hound dog. And Barsoom. And Tarzan (who was created by Burroughs). And all the whole pantheon of chivalrous comic book heroes.

"Hi! I'm Woola the Martian Hound Dog and I'm the best part of the movie!"

It even works for girls, as in the case of my nerdette friend who was such a fan of Supergirl and Wonder Woman. It might even help stop young girls from falling for the destructive and dangerous delusion of feminism.

Fortunately, in the long run, people and society will straighten themselves out. The pendulum always swings back.

Trump, His Kids and his Wife

Compare to the Homosexual Half-Breed, his "wife," and his kids (whom you will never see interviewed because I suspect they're appalling ignorant, if not downright stupid), Trump and his family came across an All-American family.

How many people are going to think, "I hope my kids turn out like Trump's" as compared to those thinking, "I hope my kids turn out like Obama's."

The answer is as clear as can be.

I'm sure Trump waited until the convention to introduce his family.

As for the plagiarism accusation again Melanie Trump...it's going exactly nowhere.