Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Decentralize Everything and Get Rid of College

"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of the truth." - Albert Einstein

I've had enough jobs to know most of my "bosses" were morons, and that especially includes MBAs from Harvard and Yale. I came to the conclusion years much of college is worthless and sometimes even dangerous.

College and most jobs are based on hierarchy. There is nothing especially wrong with hierarchy, as long as those in charge are competent. That is, it is a legitimate hierarchy based on competent authority. College doesn't particularly lend itself to that. And that's the rub.

Everything is in reality a web or network. There is no one is charge of any of it. Those networks work best when decentralized. And although there are various hierarchies in that network, the people at the tops of those hierarchies have to be the best ones.

I have found the Old Boy's Network really does exist and in that hierarchy the stupid are promoted. That's an incompetent hierarchy within a network that will disappear. More competent, better networks will erase them - and this is how it should be.

Those networks or web are not static but dynamic. The existence of those webs in static but the fact they change is dynamic. We just want them to change for the better, which they don't always do.

Bureaucracies are as static as can be.

These days, those people aren't the ones coming out of those creaky, decrepit institutions known as colleges. Look at what Khan Academy has done.

There are more women than men in college. The ignorant howl. Ninety-percent of my time in college was worthless. All of high school was worthless. For all practical purposes I could have dropped out of school in the first grade, after I learned to read and write and do arithmetic. Nearly everything I learned, I taught myself.

Everything that can be decentralized will be decentralized, which is why I expect the U.S. to break up. It should have broken up before we ended up with the War between the States.

People should start at the bottom and work their way up. Like Jimmy Olson, cub reporter in the old Superman series. My father, who was a high-school dropout and became a general contractor, started as a cub carpenters. Beginners were really called that - cubs.

People want to associate with people like themselves. Smart with smart. So I expect, with these decentralized networks, that the U.S. in going to split into a few or more nations, and one of them will be mostly composed of the smartest people. Now as to where this will be, I don't yet know.

Monday, November 24, 2014

James Burke, Then Steven Johnson. But First It Was "I, Pencil"

Everything is an interconnected web and no one is charge of it. Which makes Marxists and other statists pretty much insane.

Since everything is that web, we abstract from it "cause-and-effect" and sometimes in pretty simplistic ways.

Steven Johnson is best-known today for tracing historical connections. Gutenberg allowed everyone to read books. Then next, since most people then were far-sighted came glasses, which allowed close reading. So, books lead to glasses, which only happened because of the invention of glass.

Before Johnson there was James Burke, with his book and TV series, Connections - a '70s version of Johnson.

But before either one was Leonard Read's "I, Pencil."


I am a lead pencil—the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write.

Writing is both my vocation and my avocation; that's all I do.

You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with, my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery—more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious attitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, the wise G. K. Chesterton observed, "We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders."

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that's too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.

Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.

Pick me up and look me over. What do you see? Not much meets the eye—there's some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser.

Innumerable Antecedents

Just as you cannot trace your family tree back very far, so is it impossible for me to name and explain all my antecedents. But I would like to suggest enough of them to impress upon you the richness and complexity of my background.

My family tree begins with what in fact is a tree, a cedar of straight grain that grows in Northern California and Oregon. Now contemplate all the saws and trucks and rope and the countless other gear used in harvesting and carting the cedar logs to the railroad siding. Think of all the persons and the numberless skills that went into their fabrication: the mining of ore, the making of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors; the growing of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to heavy and strong rope; the logging camps with their beds and mess halls, the cookery and the raising of all the foods. Why, untold thousands of persons had a hand in every cup of coffee the loggers drink!

The logs are shipped to a mill in San Leandro, California. Can you imagine the individuals who make flat cars and rails and railroad engines and who construct and install the communication systems incidental thereto? These legions are among my antecedents.

Consider the millwork in San Leandro. The cedar logs are cut into small, pencil-length slats less than one-fourth of an inch in thickness. These are kiln dried and then tinted for the same reason women put rouge on their faces. People prefer that I look pretty, not a pallid white. The slats are waxed and kiln dried again. How many skills went into the making of the tint and the kilns, into supplying the heat, the light and power, the belts, motors, and all the other things a mill requires? Sweepers in the mill among my ancestors? Yes, and included are the men who poured the concrete for the dam of a Pacific Gas & Electric Company hydroplant which supplies the mill's power!

Don't overlook the ancestors present and distant who have a hand in transporting sixty carloads of slats across the nation.

Once in the pencil factory—$4,000,000 in machinery and building, all capital accumulated by thrifty and saving parents of mine—each slat is given eight grooves by a complex machine, after which another machine lays leads in every other slat, applies glue, and places another slat atop—a lead sandwich, so to speak. Seven brothers and I are mechanically carved from this "wood-clinched" sandwich.

My "lead" itself—it contains no lead at all—is complex. The graphite is mined in Ceylon. Consider these miners and those who make their many tools and the makers of the paper sacks in which the graphite is shipped and those who make the string that ties the sacks and those who put them aboard ships and those who make the ships. Even the lighthouse keepers along the way assisted in my birth—and the harbor pilots.

The graphite is mixed with clay from Mississippi in which ammonium hydroxide is used in the refining process. Then wetting agents are added such as sulfonated tallow—animal fats chemically reacted with sulfuric acid. After passing through numerous machines, the mixture finally appears as endless extrusions—as from a sausage grinder-cut to size, dried, and baked for several hours at 1,850 degrees Fahrenheit. To increase their strength and smoothness the leads are then treated with a hot mixture which includes candelilla wax from Mexico, paraffin wax, and hydrogenated natural fats.

My cedar receives six coats of lacquer. Do you know all the ingredients of lacquer? Who would think that the growers of castor beans and the refiners of castor oil are a part of it? They are. Why, even the processes by which the lacquer is made a beautiful yellow involve the skills of more persons than one can enumerate!

Observe the labeling. That's a film formed by applying heat to carbon black mixed with resins. How do you make resins and what, pray, is carbon black?

My bit of metal—the ferrule—is brass. Think of all the persons who mine zinc and copper and those who have the skills to make shiny sheet brass from these products of nature. Those black rings on my ferrule are black nickel. What is black nickel and how is it applied? The complete story of why the center of my ferrule has no black nickel on it would take pages to explain.

Then there's my crowning glory, inelegantly referred to in the trade as "the plug," the part man uses to erase the errors he makes with me. An ingredient called "factice" is what does the erasing. It is a rubber-like product made by reacting rape-seed oil from the Dutch East Indies with sulfur chloride. Rubber, contrary to the common notion, is only for binding purposes. Then, too, there are numerous vulcanizing and accelerating agents. The pumice comes from Italy; and the pigment which gives "the plug" its color is cadmium sulfide.

No One Knows

Does anyone wish to challenge my earlier assertion that no single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me?

Actually, millions of human beings have had a hand in my creation, no one of whom even knows more than a very few of the others. Now, you may say that I go too far in relating the picker of a coffee berry in far off Brazil and food growers elsewhere to my creation; that this is an extreme position. I shall stand by my claim. There isn't a single person in all these millions, including the president of the pencil company, who contributes more than a tiny, infinitesimal bit of know-how. From the standpoint of know-how the only difference between the miner of graphite in Ceylon and the logger in Oregon is in the type of know-how. Neither the miner nor the logger can be dispensed with, any more than can the chemist at the factory or the worker in the oil field—paraffin being a by-product of petroleum.

Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me. Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade. Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items.

No Master Mind

There is a fact still more astounding: the absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work. This is the mystery to which I earlier referred.

It has been said that "only God can make a tree." Why do we agree with this? Isn't it because we realize that we ourselves could not make one? Indeed, can we even describe a tree? We cannot, except in superficial terms. We can say, for instance, that a certain molecular configuration manifests itself as a tree. But what mind is there among men that could even record, let alone direct, the constant changes in molecules that transpire in the life span of a tree? Such a feat is utterly unthinkable!

I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles: a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles which manifest themselves in Nature an even more extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies—millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human master-minding! Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree.

The above is what I meant when writing, "If you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing." For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand—that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive masterminding—then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith.

Once government has had a monopoly of a creative activity such, for instance, as the delivery of the mails, most individuals will believe that the mails could not be efficiently delivered by men acting freely. And here is the reason: Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn't know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation's mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil. Now, in the absence of faith in free people—in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity—the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that mail can be delivered only by governmental "master-minding."

Testimony Galore

If I, Pencil, were the only item that could offer testimony on what men and women can accomplish when free to try, then those with little faith would have a fair case. However, there is testimony galore; it's all about us and on every hand. Mail delivery is exceedingly simple when compared, for instance, to the making of an automobile or a calculating machine or a grain combine or a milling machine or to tens of thousands of other things. Delivery? Why, in this area where men have been left free to try, they deliver the human voice around the world in less than one second; they deliver an event visually and in motion to any person's home when it is happening; they deliver 150 passengers from Seattle to Baltimore in less than four hours; they deliver gas from Texas to one's range or furnace in New York at unbelievably low rates and without subsidy; they deliver each four pounds of oil from the Persian Gulf to our Eastern Seaboard—halfway around the world—for less money than the government charges for delivering a one-ounce letter across the street!

The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

"Techno-Utopianism Can’t Deliver Techno-Utopia"

Contrary to the hallucinations of anarchists, who are self-deluded leftists, we will always have government. The problem is that it always grows too big and turns into a monster.

I figure if government had not gotten out of control, we'd be more advanced by at least 2000 years, if not more. Social capital is always destroyed by government, and social capital is as fragile as hell.

This is from the site Henry Dampier and was written by him.


In the U.S., people tend to either have either a Utopian or an apocalyptic outlook, with little in between.

I prefer to stay away from stupid pronouncements that the ‘truth is somewhere in the middle,’ but in this case, we do have to go between two positions which are absurd to make intelligent statements about the future of technology. Technological advance is not an inevitable, magic process which is predictable v

If you’ve worked at all in any field involving the development of a new technology, you know that it’s an incredible amount of work to get anything functioning in a way that’s actually useful to customers when they’re capable of supporting the improved way of doing things. Sustainable technological advance is much less about developing a great invention and more about developing a great invention at the time during which all the sub-components can be assembled in a timely and efficient fashion.

The contemporary progressive mentality towards technological advancement tends to be that it’s an inevitable process: it’s this idea that no matter how terrible the management of the government is, geniuses in lab coats will develop new technology, often with government money, regardless of whatever happens in the rest of society.

Nassim Taleb dismantled this view in Antifragile, but although the book has been widely read, its insights have not been broadly shared, in part because our written media has stopped being book driven, and is now more driven by television. Additionally, because Taleb took a nuanced view towards Silicon Valley culture, and because Silicon Valley workers rarely read anything that’s not published by O’Reilly or some other technical manual publisher, its criticisms were not widely discussed.

It took hundreds of years before many of the inventions of Leonardo da Vinci became even feasible at the prototype level. The reason for this is just that the materials involved were all too expensive or unavailable, or otherwise unfeasible due to better practical alternatives being available at the time. This is also the case for countless inventions today, many of which are entirely reliant on improved conditions outside the control of the team developing the new technology. . Leonardo died in 1519, but the tank only became widely used during World War I.

You can teach a robot to dance, but that doesn’t make it useful

You can make a dancing, agile robot, but until it has a miniature battery which is also affordable, it’s merely an expensive branding stunt, no different from an Animatronic figure at the Epcot Center. The big cord attached the dancing machine is what makes for the problem: the limiting factor is the battery, much more than the flexibility of the robo-legs.

There is this popular notion that any contemporary problems that we face, like unbearable long-term government obligations, can be overcome by technological advance. The trouble is that technological advance only becomes useful at the applied level when social conditions can support it. There are millions of prototypes that would represent a meaningful advance over current technologies. Many of those are not possible to implement until the world as a whole is wealthy enough to support it.

Part of the reason for the gun-shy attitude towards criticizing the government is that many of the investors who focus on technological innovation are reliant on deploying government pension money into their funds. It’s politically difficult for an investor to simultaneously put to work the savings of government workers and to decry the innovation-squashing policies supported by the same workers who are paying his management fees. Further, the government can and does retaliate against companies that don’t tow the Progressive line.

You can’t create durable technological advance if you’re serving a broader society of decreasing overall quality. The quality of the society is what makes technological advance feasible, more so than the genius, who will often come up with useful designs hundreds of years before his time. The genius is critical, but his ideas are mostly inapplicable without the accumulation of social capital.

Technology is feasible when you have a large proportion of the people in a civilization working towards highly productive purposes. It isn’t feasible when most of the people in the civilization are moochers. Innovation stops being sustainable when the feedstock, which is a hard-working population of law-abiding people, begins to diminish.

Although do-gooders like Bill Gates hope that Africans and low-caste southeast Asians will fill the gap posed by diminishing Northeast Asians and Whites, history and biology suggest that this is a vain effort.

The ‘inevitable’ mindset leads people who would otherwise be taking a leading position to lean back as it regards to critical issues, because they just assume that a future invention will deliver them from their duties. They use the inevitability excuse as a reason to disengage from civic life, or instead to incompetently flail at the disconnected strings of democratic maneuvering, which is much worse.

Doomers have the wrong attitude

On the other side of the spectrum, you have people who believe that technology has run its course, and that there are no possible future inventions, and that we should all accept diminished expectations in light of this realization.

This is a defeatist mindset, even if it’s been a sensible mindset to hold for most of history. Part of why the Western world and the areas that have copied it have done so well in material terms relative to the historical standard of the hunter-gatherer is that it has rejected that mindset. Instead, we take the position that mankind can advance itself as far as it can go, and that the human mind is capable of breaking through many (but not an infinite number of) barriers placed by the natural world.

If the doomers are correct, it’s because everyone else has failed. But success is not possible if you don’t shuck the mentality that people who hold the mentality that civilization is inevitably doomed to collapse hold. To avoid collapse, you have to have a somewhat unrealistic, perhaps insane, attitude towards the feasibility of technological progress.

The two delusional outlooks feed into one another to create a dilemma that isn’t easily resolved. Both of them tend to sap motivation from people who might otherwise be able to work towards stop-gap solutions: the utopian will tell himself that the problems will solve themselves, and the doomer tells himself that the problems can’t be solved, so despair is a better choice.

To generate technological progress, civilization needs to be capable of supporting the the conditions that make it possible. No technological advance that’s implementable in a foreseeable time frame can replace the social preconditions for civilization.

Adolescents Pretending to be Adults

"The quality of the society is what makes technological advance feasible, more so than the genius, who will often come up with useful designs hundreds of years before his time. The genius is critical, but his ideas are mostly inapplicable without the accumulation of social capital." - Henry Dampier


I sometimes run various thoughts experiments. Some sort of societal collapse, for example. None of us could make it on our own. I'd need to get together with some of my friends to form a tribe.

I can think of four other guys, all of us smart, all of us competent in various ways. One, even though a college professor, likes to work with his hands, as I do. He rebuilt a friend's toilet. Most of us are proficient with weapons and some of us fish. I've cleaned fish and cooked them.

I was raised working-class, by a general contractor father. I can do basic plumbing and electrical and everything else needed to raise a house. My car hasn't been to the shop in years. I've built computers from scratch.

When I was 16 I experimented making wine by putting a bunch of grapes in a glass container and smashing them (the yeast in the air ferments them). Wasn't drinkable, but I've made sourdough bread the same way: water, flour and the yeast in the air ferments it.

I realized we wouldn't have any use for anyone who believes the Greek alphabet soup of the , infantile, narcissistic concepts of the grandiose Alpha and the devalued Beta/etc. My experience with these adolescents is that they are helpless in supporting themselves when things get a bit hard. I've never seen one with practical skills. Such is what happens with no fathers or weak ones who don't teach you anything.

We wouldn't have any use for those worthless "Dark Triad Alphas" and the "insanely confident" with no skills. Either they would leave or we would have to kill them. They'd be terrible burdens.

My friends and I could get society going again. Other men couldn't, and as for women, impossible.

Men try to accumulate social capital. Other men destroy it, and these days, most women.

As for women...just as soon as things got a little bit hard they'd have to attach themselves to a man, contrary to their hallucinations of Strong Independent Women. Here I again quote P.J. O'Rourke: without men civilization would last until the next oil change. Or, to paraphrase Camille Paglia, without men, women would still he living in grass huts.

Women try to blame their problems on men. I've seen this many times. And since feminism is leftist, it's narcissistic, hate-filled and sadistic (I've seen the same thing in the Manosphere).

Now if women bitched and moaned and whined and tried to be sadistic (feminism is the Dark Triad for women) what would happen? Women would act like that one time...and then kerpow! The back of a hand.

Guess what? It's been the history of the world.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Each Sex Seeks in the Other What It Lacks in Itself

I figured out a long time ago each sex seeks in the other what it lacks in itself. What you lack in yourself, when you find the person who has what you lack, you can fall in love with them.

I've pointed out before a lot of concepts in the Manosphere are close to gobbledegook. Women get the "tingles" for "Dark Triad Alphas," etc. And it's supposed to be based on the non-science of "Evo-Psych."

F. Roger Devlin has a far better understanding than some of the more prominent nitwits in the Manosphere. This article is from the site Counter Currents Publishing.

The Question of Female Masochism


“If He Doesn’t Hit You, He Doesn’t Love You.” So runs an African proverb. Or a Russian proverb, according to other sources. Or a Bolivian proverb, according to still others. Perhaps it is all three. A similar Latin American saying, “The more you hit me, the more I love you,” turns up over 100,000 hits on Google.

It is hardly a new idea that female sexuality has a masochistic component. Indeed, this seems to be part of the folk wisdom of the world; in other words, it corresponds the observations of many persons of both sexes across many generations. Yet it is not easy to find extended discussion of it. Within the past century, most writing on the subject has been beholden to the Freudian tradition, a circumstance that does not inspire confidence. A more hopeful sign may be the sizable feminist literature aimed at refuting “the myth of female masochism.” If nothing else, such literature is testimony to the enduring reality of the corresponding folk belief; no one writes polemics against things that have absolutely no basis in reality.

It is not hard to understand why persons of both sexes are reluctant to talk about female masochism. No one wants to appear to be condoning the abuse of women. A prime component of masculinity is the instinct to protect women. In the European tradition, this has given rise to the principle that “a gentlemen never strikes a lady.” Pushing gallantry to the point of silliness, as usual, Thomas Fleming writes in Chronicles that “there is something unmanly about beating women, unmanly and sickening.”

But what if there is something in at least some women that responds positively to male violence? The British anti-feminist “Angry Harry” shares this anecdote:

Emma Humphreys (a cause célèbre for feminists in the UK) had served some time in prison for killing her boyfriend. But, following vociferous claims from various wimmin’s groups that she had acted in self-defense against his violence, she was released.

When she was interviewed by the BBC on Radio 4 she had been out of prison only for ten days. And yet she admitted that she was already in another abusive relationship with a man who ‘slapped her about’ frequently.

Further, she stated that love and abuse were part and parcel of each other, and that you couldn’t have one without the other. “If he doesn’t hit you then he doesn’t love you.” [my emphasis]

The interview was cut short at this point with a very embarrassed female interviewer having to cover for the missing time.

Another example: Hollywood earns its profits by appealing to the fantasies of its audience, including women; if the product fails to strike the audience’s imagination, it flops. Some lessons about what female audiences like can be drawn from the early career of Clark Gable. The film that made him a star was A Free Soul (1931), in which he played a gangster who pushes Norma Shearer around to let her know who’s boss.

As a fan site puts it, previous male leads had been “suave and svelte, romantic and tender.” Gable’s character:

was supposed to be the villain, the evil corrupt criminal that you are supposed to root against–it’s Leslie Howard you are supposed to hope Norma ends up with–plain vanilla Leslie Howard. Well, the fans spoke and spoke loudly–the 1931 woman didn’t want plain vanilla and no longer wanted “powder puff” men with styled hair and ruffles on their shirts–they wanted a real man, a rough man, a man who was a bit dirty and not afraid to put them in their place.

Gable followed up this role with that of a sinister chauffeur who knocks Barbara Stanwyck out cold with one punch in Night Nurse. These were the last supporting roles he was ever to play. Bushels of fan mail began arriving at the studio. Some breathless women are said to have offered to let Gable hit them!

Or consider this real-life Hollywood story, quoted by Steven E. Rhoads in his valuable book Taking Sex Differences Seriously (New York: Encounter Books, 2005):

"Eddy Fisher and Debbie Reynolds both tell of a dinner party at their house where Mike Todd and Elizabeth Taylor started belting each other. Todd ended up dragging Taylor across the floor by her hair as she kicked and scratched. When Reynolds became alarmed and jumped on Todd’s back to get him to stop, Todd and Taylor both turned on her. According to Fisher, Taylor said, 'Oh Debbie . . . Don’t be such a Girl Scout. Really, Debbie, you’re so square.'"

Todd and Taylor were fighting in order to “make up” afterwards. It is not uncommon for wives to provoke their husbands into hitting them for precisely this reason.

Many of the “battered women” we are encouraged to sympathize with have a remarkable tendency to suffer from abuse at the hands of every man with whom they become involved. Tammy Wynette, the Country singer who gained fame with the song “Stand By Your Man,” was married to five men and left four of them (managing to die with her fifth marriage still intact). Most of her husbands are said to have abused her in some way, and teary-eyed retellings of her “tragic” life have been offered to the public.

"I remind the reader of the central principle of male-female relations: women choose. They represent the supply; men represent the demand. If Tammy Wynette never took up with a man who failed to abuse her, there can be only one explanation: Tammy had a thing for nasty boys.

If you put a woman like this in a room with a dozen men, within five minutes she would be exclusively focused on the meanest, most domineering and brutal fellow in the room. Some women who had alcoholic fathers have a similar uncanny ability to detect the alcoholic in a room full of men, even if he is sober at the moment. “Women’s intuition” is a reality: it is an ability to pick up on tiny signals, slight nuances of facial expression that would go unnoticed by a man.

We are attracted to qualities in the opposite sex which our own sex lacks. For many women, this means an attraction to male brutality. Such women may claim to want a sensitive fellow who is in touch with his feelings, but this bears no relation to their behavior. What women say about men comes from their cerebral cortex; how they choose men depends upon their evolutionary more primitive limbic system. Even campus feminists choose arrogant jocks to “hook up” with, not male feminists in touch with their emotions. I have heard it suggested that the best reason not to strike a woman today is that you will never be able to get rid of her afterwards.

Why don’t such women simply tell their men that they find violence and dominance exciting? Perhaps it would destroy the fantasy to say “I’m in the mood, so could you please slap me around for a bit?” In most cases, the women are probably just behaving instinctively, not understanding their own motivations. In any case, it would obviously be useful for well-intentioned husbands to understand this aspect of women’s sexuality. It might prevent more serious violence and even save a few marriages.

The very first thing contemporary dating gurus teach men is not to be a “nice guy.” Nor is this aversion to “niceness” exclusive to feminine psychology: even men understand the pejorative connotations of the word innocuous.

Perhaps more important than piling up more examples to attest the phenomenon is giving a little thought to why female masochism occurs. Like other sex traits, it is an evolutionary adaptation. I am going to go way out on a limb and suggest that early hominid males may not have been quite so delicate as Tom Fleming, who becomes ill at the very thought of a woman being struck. African men are, by all accounts, pretty quick with their fists to this day. Gallantry is an achievement of civilization, not a part of our primitive nature.

Now, females in our “environment of evolutionary adaptation” were dependent on males for mating, protection, and access to resources. These males were bigger and stronger than females and could easily hurt them if angered or displeased. If our female ancestors had been delicate snowflakes unable to endure life with such brutes, we would not be here today. In other words, women adapted to male brutality, including occasional violence, learning how to get through or around it.

Think for a moment, men, how you would learn to behave if you were dependent for survival on an unpredictable and often violent creature larger and stronger than yourself. You would learn not simply to take what you wanted. You would learn to act when his back is turned, to use indirection, deception, manipulation. You would learn to conceal your true thoughts and keep Big Boy confused as to your true intentions. You would, in short, learn to act like a woman.

The battle of the sexes is a contest of force vs. cunning. Yes, civilized men learn to control their aggressive impulses and not beat women up every time they feel irritation with them. In the modern West, men have largely renounced the use of their natural weapon for controlling women, i.e., force. Have women renounced the use of their own weapons against men? Certainly we cannot expect women to shed millennial evolutionary adaptations automatically the instant men learn to behave.

Women’s basic strategy during courtship is still to keep suitors confused. Their primary method of getting what they want is still the indirect route through influencing their men. When they express aggression, it still usually takes the form of passive aggression. And they are still both more frequent and more effective liars than men.

To judge by self-help literature aimed at women, most conceive the task of finding a mate as one of figuring out “how to flatter, tease, dupe, and otherwise manipulate a man into marriage” (Rhoads, p. 120). Does it never occur to women that if they really were loyal, sincere, and feminine, men might not need to be duped into marrying them?

While I am not holding my breath for feminism to demand an end to feminine wiles, I think it possible for women to overcome the uglier side of their nature just as men learn to control their temper and instinct for aggression. Women who relied on trickery and deception in their dealings with the opposite sex used to be referred to pejoratively as “designing women”—an expression which has largely disappeared from our language.

In short, I would be more inclined to sympathize with all the campaigns opposing “violence against women” if they were coupled with their logical counterpart: opposing “fraud against men.”

Another interesting aspect of campaigns against domestic abuse to consider is: Why now? Are men behaving more violently today than they used to? There seems to be no evidence for this. As early as 2000, Massachusetts District Court Judge Milton H. Raphaelson declared that there exists “not an epidemic of domestic violence, but an epidemic of hysteria about domestic violence.” Insofar as there is any real problem of women being brutalized in Western countries, it mainly involves recent non-Western immigrant populations, a fact systematically ignored or concealed by feminists.

Popular concerns are often weirdly unrelated to actual circumstances. It was only in the 1960s, after the percentage of Americans failing to complete secondary school had been falling for decades and had reached an historic low, that Americans discovered the problem of “high school dropouts.” Political and economic conditions in France steadily improved in the decades leading up to the French Revolution; as Tocqueville explained, expectations rose faster than conditions could improve, so more humane government was accompanied by growing dissatisfaction over “despotism.” A similar process may underlie contemporary hysteria over “intimate partner violence.”

Many have commented on the “irony” that the most pampered women in history are the ones complaining most about oppression. Perhaps we should consider whether this does not represent an irony but a direct causal relation: whether modern woman complains of her lot because—rather than in spite of—its being so favorable.

Writer Jack Donovan has made an ethological argument in favor of such an interpretation. Bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees, are physically not very different from other chimps, but they are now classed as a separate species because of radical differences in their behavior. Bonobo males are not very aggressive. They compete less for status than do male chimps, and they do not compete at all for mates. Sex is promiscuous, and males are not possessive. Homosexual mating is common. All parenting is done by mothers. Female bonds are stronger and more enduring than male bonds. In short, bonobo society is a feminist paradise.

Chimpanzee behavior is the opposite of bonobo behavior in almost every respect. Male chimps form hierarchical gangs and compete constantly for status and access to females. They are violent and territorial, forming alliances both to defend their own territory and raid that of other chimpanzee bands. They kill stray males from other bands when the opportunity presents itself. They push females around, and females are expected to display submission to males. Homosexuality is uncommon among them. Chimpanzee social behavior is a feminist’s worst nightmare.

Evolutionary theory would lead us to look for a difference in the living environments of bonobos and chimps to which their radically different behavior could represent adaptations. And the primatologists have found such a difference: chimps must compete with other species, especially gorillas, for food. The bonobos live in a food-rich, gorilla-free environment where the living is easy. It is this lack of competitors which makes violence, hierarchy, competition, and male bonding unnecessary for bonobos.

Western man is like a chimp who has done his job too well. Having defeated nearly all his dangerous competitors, he finds himself without much of a function in a prosperous society that no longer needs to be defended. It is only to be expected that his women are going to start bitching that he needs to learn to act more like a bonobo. Feminism is a byproduct of peace and prosperity, not a response to patriarchy and oppression.

Some contemporary female behavior, such as that catalogued by Michelle Langley, seems more akin to sadism than to masochism. But this does not necessarily contradict what we have written: sadism is merely the opposite face of masochism. I would suggest that female sadism might be expected to emerge in a society where men refuse to or are prevented from displaying dominance. A society-wide failure of men to take charge of women is likely to produce a great deal of conscious or unconscious sexual frustration in women which may express itself as sadism.

Is the Violence Against Women Act an attempt to get back at men for their failure to put women in their place? Surely women would rather have Clark Gable than take out more restraining orders, force men to take more anger management classes, enjoy more absurd police-state protections from men who are increasingly wimpy anyway.

I do not know if frustrated masochistic instincts cause sadism in women—it is just my hunch. What I do feel confident in stating is that female masochism is a critically important subject which neither feminist denial nor the sanctimonious gallantry of Christian traditionalists should dissuade us from investigating.

"Alphas" Get Away with Everything!

Sure they do. People who believe that have never experienced it; they read it somewhere, or else think that SNL with Tom Brady is reality (just the way James Bond/Derek Flin/Matt Helm/Travis McGee is reality).

I'll use the example of Matt Taylor, he of the Ph.D. in Physics and the Gunner Girls shirt. He clearly weighs over 200 pounds, appears to be a weightlifter, is all sleeved out, is bearded and good-looking. Everything screams Alpha! Alpha! Alpha!

And yet he was brutally assaulted by psycho feminists and tiny-balled manginas. But - but - nothing is supposed to happen to them! They're immune from all attacks!

Why was he attacked? More than anything else, because of envy, which is the defining characteristic of leftism/feminism/manginaism.

I don't care how supposedly "Alpha" a guy is, some people are going to want to bring him down. Women aren't going to get "tingles" and fall out of their clothes because of "hypergamy" and their seeking of "Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks." Instead they'll want to bring these guys down, often because of "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," which makes more sense than the rest of the aforementioned concepts put together.

Every guy I've known who was really popular with women, in the PUA sense, was a douchebag coward. The reason they "got away" with so much is that every one of them ran when confronted. They never stood up and defended themselves or the women, who were just pussy and narcissistic supply to them, and therefore interchangeable.

I've mentioned before, if you really want to understand people (who mostly are not that complicated) you'd be better off memorizing and understanding the Seven Cardinal Virtues and Seven Cardinal. Then apply them to Manosphere concepts and see where it leads.

Friday, November 21, 2014

The Imposition of Unwanted Selves

When people try to impose an unwanted self on someone else, that person often responds with shame. When Matt Taylor, he of the Ph.D. in Physics and the Gunner Girls bowling shirt, was viciously attacked over that shirt, he responded by tearing up on TV. That's feelings of shame and humiliation.

People also respond with depression, guilt, anxiety and anger. I generally respond with anger and attack. It works for me, because the attackers are never rational and cannot be reasoned with.

Everyone is subject to these attempts. Many people are herd animals - sheep. And when someone tries to wander outside the herd, that person becomes a scapegoat and can be brutally attacked.

It's because the hater is imposing his problems on the hated. Which is why I often wonder: ask yourself who is hated, who the hater is, and why they hate?

It's also why I point out the scapegoat is a predictor of the future. At the age of six I was once hit several times in the stomach by an pudgy, unattractive spinster of a teacher. Why did that say about her? That's pretty obvious. She hated boys who didn't do exactly what she wanted. I doubt she would have attacked a girl like that.

What did it say about me? I was ignoring her - not doing what she wanted - and she responded by projecting her own hate and anger on me and attacking me. I was the scapegoat on whom she projected her problems.

I, for example, have been told a have a tiny little dick, that I live in my parents' basement (I do, but I own my late parents' home), that I'm no gentleman and not married, that I'm terrified of "strong, independent women"....blah, blah, blah.

This hate, directed towards me and many others, is an attempt to shame me - and them.

I wasn't shamed by what the teacher did. I was stunned, and later when my first-grade teacher asked what happened, then I started crying.

This has happened to me my entire life. I have always been off the reservation all my life, and have subject to these attacks as long as I can remember.

One thing I have concluded is that the smarter you are, the more of these attacks you will get. Intelligence is envied, so the smart must be brought down. Not surprisingly, Helmut Schoeck wrote a rather thick book, Envy, about the subject.

When I was 16 years old I was walking to a party two neighborhoods over and passed a girl I went to school with. She was walking her dog. I thought, I'm going to a party and she's walking a dog? On a Saturday night?

She was chunky and unattractive, and as I was walking toward her she gave me a look of close to pure terror. Intuitively I knew why: she was afraid I was going to say something mean to her. Years later I realized she thought I was going to impose an unwanted self on her, one that probably been imposed for years by being ignored by guys and never asked to parties.

There is a concept know as "mirroring." It's when you see yourself in how others treat you. Now imagine someone raised their entire lives in schools that mock and denigrate them, treat them with contempt, in families that do the same, with a media that does it...how will those people grow up?

Shamed, humiliated, guilty, depressed, anxious, angry. That's how.

When people are humiliated they often to the extreme opposite extreme and develop a grandiose self. It's a very fragile self they use to cover up their feelings of humiliation.

I see it all the time, which is why I believe, and have believed for years, there are a lot of shamed, guilty, anxious, angry people out there, trying to cover it up with bluff and braggadocio.