Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Free Trade is Only Possible Between Equals

My hometown had three steel mills. Two are closed down permanently and the third isn’t doing too well. Why? Because of cheap Chinese steel dumped in the U.S., sometimes through Vietnam to avoid the minuscule U.S. tariffs (my hometown has also gone from 50,000 to 30,000 people).

These were high-paying jobs that disappeared with the steel mills – these guys retired at $75,000 a year. And that was with a high-school diploma.

Why is there any Chinese steel here at all? We have enough capacity to take care of all of our own needs.

Why is it that no one complains about trade with Canada? Because except for some minor cultural differences there is no difference between an American and a Canadian. We’re equal, so trade benefits both of us. Both are rich countries.

Yet nearly everyone complains about trade with Mexico and certainly with China. Why? Because Mexico has a GNP that is four percent of the U.S. and the mean IQ is 87. We’re not equal and never will be. And since Mexico is perpetually poor it will never have a growing economy that lifts all boats. It will always be dependent on the U.S. for jobs. Only Mexico benefits from trade with the U.S. – but not the U.S (if only we had another Canada south of us!).

China is a bit different of a story. The Chinese are not stupid but never did much of anything with their wealth and smarts. Like the Russians they’re stealing all they can from us because neither can produce the intellectual capital itself. The country is not equal to the U.S. no matter how much the Chinese delude themselves China is “the Middle Kingdom” – the middle of the world.

I recently read an article about a scientific and technology company in southern Missouri that was doing so well that it had an office in London. They were naïve enough to hire a Chinese couple, who stole $10,000,000 and fled to China.

Today, and for the foreseeable future, it’s the United States that is the middle of the world, because we are so far ahead of the rest of the world in innovation and scientific and technological advancement that they will never catch up with us.

No one also cares about trade with Europe because again except for cultural difference there is no difference between a European and an American. Again, we’re equal.

When you have trade between unequals only the poorer country benefits. Except for what I call Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations. They benefit, and hugely. But no one in the richer country benefits except for some lower prices – which is far less important than having a high-paying job.

Globalism, which is going the way of the Dodo (Brexit was a warning shot) has benefitted no one but the uber-wealthy.

It’s either free trade between equals or managed trade between unequals.

And if super-rich are so smart why could they not see the backlash that was inevitable? Perhaps they’re not nearly as smart as they think they are.

Free trade between equals is disruptive, as innovation is always disruptive. Those who want managed trade don’t want competition and disruption, not of their wealth, not of their power. If they disrupt everyone else’s lives, as long as more money accrues to them – they have never shown the slightest concern about that.

Like the steel mills in my hometown.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Why I Didn’t Watch the Debates

I don’t like politics and I don’t consider it entertainment.

I didn’t watch the debates because it’s not going to change my mind.

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politician and whatever she says has nothing to do with what she’s going to do. I’d trust her about as far as I can throw her epileptic ass.

As for Trump I already knew what he was going to say.

And I’m supposed to spend an hour and a half – if not more – watching these two debate?

I already knew what each candidate’s supporters were going – “Mine won!” “No, mine won!”

Politics is so easy to figure out. There is only black and white, without any shades of grey.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Murdering the Father

"When women and gays get access to the institution, it's no longer prestigious." - the Anti-Gnostic

"When an organization becomes feminized, focus shifts from the efficient production of goods and services to the establishment of rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable." - Uncle Elmer

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his magnum opus, Leftism Revisited, described leftism as "the overthrow of the Father." In other words, leftism is feminine.

So let's start with some basics: all societies are patriarchal. There have been no matriarchies. If there were in the past, they'd be leftist and immediately collapse.

Yet all societies and governments ultimately collapse. All societies ultimately become leftist and collapse. Patriarchies commit suicide. Why?

I think it is a misguided sense of fair play. Trying to "be fair" to women. Yet women, if there are too many in a field, always destroy it. Men, trying to be fair to women, allow them in enter fields in which they are not qualified, and so they destroy everything, including societies. (Additionally, when women take over a field, men leave. In other words, "empowering" women is the same thing as slowly destroying society.)

In leftism everyone is supposed to be equal, except, of course, for the rulers.

There is a way out of this, which of course will outrage feminists and leftists. Women have to be kept out of certain fields. No one is equal. The only way anyone can be equal is if they are identical, they way two nickels or two pennies are identical and therefore equal.

I have found the best way to keep women out a place is to smoke cigars. I have seen them enter a cigar store with cigars being smoked, cough, then turn around and walk out.

Even if there was a matriarchy it would still a hidden patriarchy, since men created everything in the world. Women ultimately have the choice of marrying a man or the State. There is nothing else available to them. Since men created everything, society would collapse without their accomplishments, and women would be living in grass huts.

To truly be fair to women - in the sense of the survival of society - means being "unfair" to them, in the sense of keeping them out of fields which is not their ken.

There will always be that tension between patriarchy and the destroying feminine, i.e. leftism. You can have liberty or equality, but you can't have both at the same time.

In a sentence, when women get hysterical and shriek, men should not listen to them.

"Men are naturally the stronger and superior sex, so it follows that women can only do what men grant them." - Samseau

The Purpose of Women is Making Sandwiches and Babies

I sometimes (jokingly, sort of) tell women that their purpose is to make sandwiches and babies.

Often they laugh but sometimes they get hostile (some people have no sense of humor). Sometimes very hostile, especially with the comment about making sandwiches.

Sometimes they think they can read my mind and they think they know what I’m really like from my comment (I also tell people that only leftists and women think they can read people’s minds). You know – I’m a racist, fascist, sexist, ageist White Male (by the way, not only have I been called a fascist, I’ve been called a leftist and an ultra-conservative, and worse, both a Republican and a Democrat).

When I was 19 years old I once had a woman tell me that women were not the equal of men (I remember she was a nurse). That’s a comment I will never forget. She really thought women were the weaker vessel (by the way, they are, which is why you don’t see them working in steel mills and mines).

I’ve also had women tell me they should not have to work and should be supported by men.

I once had a woman claim I was sexually harassing her. It was a case where she had a crush on me and was upset because I wasn’t interested in her (Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, even if the whole thing is a complete fantasy in her head). I also had a friend of mine, very popular with women (one of those non-existent “Alpha” types that supposedly gets away with everything) who was fired by his boss because he wasn’t interested in her).

I used to work for this guy many years ago and even then he had a woman (again one he wasn’t interested in) tell his boss she was being sexually harassed by him. His boss, fortunately, didn’t take her seriously and thought she was a joke. Which she was, since I knew her.

I told him she had a crush on him (remembering what happened to me) and he said, “That’s what my father told me!” I told him his father was right.

The more authority is given to women they more they are going to screw things up. Even some women, the honest ones, know that.

All you have to do is look at Hillary Clinton.

I’ve mentioned before that Carl Jung said women’s greatest flaw was thinking they are always right and they wouldn’t be happy until they gave up that belief.

When someone thinks they are always right that means someone else has to be always wrong, which means they have to blame their problems on them. And that’s why so many women blame all their problems on men.

And who blames all their problems on others? Children. This means, logically, a lot of women are children (when I tell men that they have never disagreed with me).

I am reminded of that famous comment by Jack Nicholson’s character in As Good as It Gets: to understand women “think of a man and take away reason and accountability.”

I’ve had more than one man tell me his wife has “the good job,” which she got on Affirmative Action (which means “White Men Need Not Apply”) so he was reduced to delivering pizzas (I knew one man who made $44,000 in one year by working 55 hours a week delivering pizzas for that entire year, which he said was “very hard” (and it is a bullshit job).

I’ve heard women say “men are worthless,” mostly because they can’t find good jobs anymore. Do these women ever look in the mirror? Never.

Where is all of this going to lead? No place good. Let’s put it this way – they can get away without making sandwiches but most will go nuts without having babies.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can’t, Lie and Brag

I’ve pointed out before there are grifters in the Manosphere, the two most notorious being the greasy, unattractive half-white half-wit Roosh and the Jew Roissy (lying is apparently genetic among Jews).

Why would anyone in their right mind listen to non-Europeans who want to destroy American culture, which their ideologies (which are not new but ancient) lead to? Usually this kind of desire for destruction is based on the envy inherent in being inferior.

None of them are getting laid they way they say they are. As I’ve noticed in the title, those who can, do, and those who can’t, lie and brag.

I’ve met more than one guy who was always bragging how many women he laid, when he wasn’t laying any. I’ve first encountered these kinds of liars in high school when some guys (among them my friends) bragged, “Yeah, I fucked this girl, I fucked that girl” when they hadn’t).

When I was in high school (or perhaps middle school) I would see ads in magazines for a book titled, How to Pick Up Girls. Later in college I found out how much a full-page ad in a magazine cost, and I thought, “My God, this guy must have been raking in the bucks!”

So don’t think there is anything new in the Manosphere, just the way there is nothing new about a sucker being born every minute.

I’ve met more than one guy who has claimed – in fact bragged – he’s laid a lot of women. They always paid for whores, screwed ugly fat girls or sluts who’d fuck anyone with a working dick. Or weren’t getting laid at all.

That includes Roosh and Roissy.

Anyone who looks like Roosh isn’t getting all of these hot white girls no matter how much he uses his non-exist “Game” (I’d like to see his greasy ass try his “Game” on Angelina Jolie or some famous model). His sex life probably mostly consists of jerking off over pictures of beautiful white girls he can’t get and has never had.

He reminds me of those black guys I’ve met who were proud of getting a obese white skank that no white man would be seen in public with.

The same with Roissy and his obsessions with goyim shiksas.

As for Vox Day (who’s obsessed with Gammas because he is one), he’s just as naïve as hell with him thinking psychopaths are popular with women. He clearly has no idea what a psychopath is.

I once briefly (like for about ten seconds) met a woman who was about two days later murdered (strangled) by a serial killer named Dale Anderson (all serial killers are sociopaths/psychopaths) who also murdered about six women over the years, including a pregnant woman. He wasn’t executed, just got life in prison.

What’s with all this lying? Mostly for attention and the demented amusement at putting a con over on people. And money, too, although none of them are getting rich. But hey, if you can at least make a decent living putting one over on people, why not? That is, you’re lacking in a conscience.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

The Child of Plenty and Poverty

The ancient Greeks were shitheads in many ways but they were scarily intelligent. One of those who was scarily smart was Plato, who once opined that love was the “child of plenty and poverty.”

By that, as Jerome Levin wrote, Plato meant we have just enough to know we’re missing something (because if it didn’t have it at all we would never miss it, like not missing sight if born blind), and so we seek to supplement our lack “by merging with the beloved, who has them in superfluity – or at least so we hope.”

In other words, everyone has “holes” in their character, and we hope the beloved can fill those holes. That appears to be one of those permanent imperfections in the human race.

We long for something which completes us. To the religious, like St. Augustine (who was the first in the West to suggest this in his autobiography) we seek God to complete us and make us whole (which comes from the same root word as “holy” and “hale”).

The first time I fell in love I was 18, and it happened within minutes – or maybe within a minute. As soon as did, I knew exactly what it was. How did I know that when it had never happened before? I could only conclude I knew what it was because it had happened before only I was a baby and didn’t remember it. I was sure it had something to do with my mother and father, as it does with everyone.

It seemed to be something old and yet something new. Years later I remembered that old saying, “Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue.”

The feeling toward this woman started with an immense and overwhelming feeling of jealousy. She only worked about three blocks from me (I was working nights, as she was), and I wanted to run over there is make sure she was at work and not with some guy. But I didn’t.

For that matter, how did I know it was jealousy when I had never felt it before? Same thing – I was remembering the feeling from being an infant. How else could I have immediately identified the feeling?

With the second woman it started not with jealousy but a searing envy, which is odd because I am not envious at all, and had never felt it before. But I knew exactly what it was, so I again figured I was remembering it from being a baby (and there are a lot of researchers who agree with me on these things).

Why would I be envious? Because she had something I wanted. And I wanted it badly. It really did feel like there was a big hole in me and only she could fill it. Intellectually I knew this was stupid but my emotions were telling me something completely the opposite.

I wanted to make her good qualities part of me because I felt like I was lacking in those qualities.

With the third woman it was again the envy. But no jealousy, just the way with the second there was no jealousy. In fact, after the first one I’ve never felt jealousy again.

I shake my head at the Manosphere, as I have written many times. It knows nothing of love, jealousy and envy – or gratitude. It has nothing to say about these things, except to tell you that you’re supposed to have a lot of “plates” and how to “spin” them. Which, as I’ve written more than once is an excellent way to wreck your life because it is closer to nihilism than anything else.

I suppose there are some people out there who don’t have that many holes in them. For them I guess love is really more based on gratitude then envy.

What I have found, though, is that if you find someone like you, cut from the same cloth (associative mating), that even if there is envy at first – and if you trust them and they you – you give up that feeling of envy and instead come to gratitude and thankfulness.

In fact, the late psychiatrist Melanie Klein once wrote a very famous book called Envy and Gratitude, about how if you can work through the envy it turns into gratitude.

It’s painfully obvious that feminism, being leftist, is based on the envy of men, and therefore there is no gratitude in it. Women, even though they don’t know it, are cutting their own throats.

For that matter, there is a lot of envy of women in the Manosphere – and therefore no gratitude. That’s why feminists put down men and the Manosphere puts down women as loveless hypergamous whores only interested in “cash and prizes” (the people telling you these things are clueless fools).

The Manosphere is the mirror image of feminism – grandiosity (as in those non-existent “alphas”), envy, devaluation, no gratitude.

Women have a lot be grateful for when it comes to all that men have done for them. But these days, what do men have to be grateful to women?

And that is going to hurt both men and women.

There is an old saying by Hegel: “The owl of Minerva flies only at night.” It means wisdom only comes only after a lot of strife. We only learn after the fact.