Friday, August 1, 2014

"Signs and Symbols Rule the World"

Confucius said that, and he said it a long time ago.

Here are two examples: Red Pill and Blue Bill. The Red Pill is a symbol of "waking up." The Blue Pill is a symbol of "staying asleep." They're inexact, but that's not the point.

The point is that people fight viciously over symbols and what they represent. And the ones who win end up having an enormous influence on society. In fact, they win the Culture War. At least for a while.

For example: what is a gun a symbol of? To a leftist, a symbol of children being killed. A symbol of evil. To a libertarian or conservative, it's a symbol of freedom and decreases in crimes.

I've posted this before:

What is it a symbol of? Originally it was a symbol of good luck and well-being. Now it's a symbol of evil and genocide. Incidentally, the reason horseshoes are supposed to be upward is to hold the good luck in.

Each group tries to define the symbols of an opposing group as evil. Democrats try to define the Republican elephant as a symbol of evil, and the Republicans do the same to the Democratic donkey.

I've mentioned this before, but Transfer is "a technique used in propaganda and advertising. Also known as association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response, which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. Often highly visual, this technique often utilizes symbols (for example, the Swastika used in Nazi Germany, originally a symbol for health and prosperity) superimposed over other visual images. An example of common use of this technique in the United States is for the President to be filmed or photographed in front of the country's flag. Another technique used is celebrity endorsements."

The ones who win the Symbol, Propaganda and Advertising Wars also win the Culture Wars.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Women Are the Best Material to Build a Totalitarian Society

"And what excellent material are women for building a totalitarian society! Their capacity for blind faith, self-sacrifice, leader worship and snooping makes them ideal true believers. What a picture: an elite of intellectuals served and guarded by an army of amazons." - Eric Hoffer, Working and Thinking on the Waterfront.


"I'm a half-breed POS Commie and boy are you a bunch of imbeciles!"

Let's be more specific. Many women are of totalitarian/fascist nature, their self-sacrifice is for bad causes, they worship terrible leaders and they snoop on innocent people. In other words, they lack discernment and often can't tell right from wrong.

Not only should 90% of woman not be allowed to vote, single or divorced women should be allowed to vote at all. Ever.

Every Date I Ever Had Was A Catastrophe

I have a friend who is about 5'6". He's told him some astonishing things that happened to him in college (I met him in college when we were both 20). Women who insulted him about his height. Ones who stood him up on dates. Ones who left in the middle of dates. Ones who couldn't hide the looks of disappointment when they first saw him.

He's never had a good date in his life. Yet, still, he's a romantic, as most men are. He just doesn't date anymore. He goes from woman to woman, and if they give him any shit he's gone.

Every date I ever had in college was a catastrophe. So I quit, years ago.

The women expected me to ask them out, pay their way - the whole ritual. Yet, not once, did I get any gratitude or appreciation. I gave and got nothing in return. Not even a "thank you." So the hell with them.

I maybe had four dates. That was enough. Instead I just started asking them to my apartment or house and jumping on them. That's all they had to offer.

I see the same thing today. It's why you get the PUA and the MGTOW phenomena (which is nothing new). Women's value to men has declined precipitously. The women don't understand that, since many women blame all their problems on men.

By the way, many PUAs are PUAs because their romantic feelings didn't work out, so what they do now is essentially revenge, which is an attempt to replace feelings of humiliation with pride. I've seen it more than once. And if you want read a famous account of this, try Casanova's Memoirs. His one and only dumped him for another man, and he spent the rest of his life seducing women.

In college I used to wonder how men and women ever got together, got married and had kids. Most of the women sat like bumps on a log and expected Prince Charming to just show up and charm them. I just jumped on them. Most didn't resist.

The women acted like this was a shortage of acceptable men and a surplus of creeps. And yet they never learned to look in the mirror. In reality there was a surplus of overweight stupid women and a decided shortage of friendly approachable women.

Occasionally I look up women I knew in college. It's disturbing the number who are not married and have no children. Instead I see horses and cats (both are major red flags). And many are hostile to men. And my God have I seen that!

I did know a few women who had Girl Game. Friendly and approachable. They mowed the guys down (I was one for one of them). The rest, unfriendly and unapproachable.

And this was decades ago. It appears to be worse now.

Men have an instinct to be protectors and providers. Now it's being thrown in our faces. It was thrown in our faces when I was in college.

Men are supposed to be protectors and women are supposed to be nurturers. And if they are not nurturers, then they become destroyers. So now I'm seeing many women who are destroyers. I started to see it in college.

Men and women are supposed to be a team...that's not happening so much anymore.

Strangely, I never saw this in high school (I had my first "real" when I had just turned 18 - and it, of course, a catastrophe). Just when I got to college and started running across women who deluded themselves they were getting an "education" - mostly as "teachers."

And the fat women I see today! My God! Overweight, deluding themselves they are "educated," hostile, blaming their problems on men, expecting much and having little to offer...

No wonder the marriage rate is hovering right above 50% and soon might go below. No wonder we're at below replacement rate when it comes to children.

The guys I talk to say "women aren't women anymore." What they mean, mostly, is that they aren't feminine. Just hostile, overweight, entitled. blaming their problems on men...expecting much and offering little...very little.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Without Self-Consciousness There is No Right or Wrong

Myths are correctly defined as the distilled wisdom of the human race, made into stories that entertain and educate.

One of those myths is the story of the Garden of Eden. There are at least four interpretations: evil is brought into the world by people blaming their problems on other people; women's greatest sin is envy, and men's is listening to envious women; shame comes before guilt, and without self-consciousness there isn't the ability to tell right from wrong.("And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.'")

The latter raises some disturbing questions. Animals have no self-consciousness (and insects sure as hell don't) so they violate everyone's "life, liberty and property" just to stay alive. And the only thing they "understand" is violence and often death (such as squashing bugs).

Apply this to humans and you realize there are no "natural rights." They are just ideas in our heads we impose on reality. It doesn't mean they are bad ideas; on the contrary they are good ideas.

Now apply to concept to a modern argument: illegal immigration.

There are people who claim "borders don't exist." They're correct: they don't exist because they are ideas in our heads we impose on reality. And ultimately they are defended by violence or the threat of violence.

The same applies to "property lines" and indeed property itself. They don't exist. They are ideas in our heads we impose on reality, and they only reason they exist is because ultimately we can defend them through violence or the threat of it.

I often run into open-borders loons who are continually running their mouths that "borders don't exist." Yet they claim property and property lines ("property borders") do exist). They engage in every mental gyration to support their beliefs...which can't be supported.

And of course they have no problems with illegal immigrants flooding the country but they have no intention of letting these people camp in their front yards and move into their houses. Because, you know, "property."

But if these illegals were to take the property from these open-borders nuts...the only way they can keep their "property" is through violence or the threat of it. In such a situation it comes down to "might makes right." And that is a very nasty way to live, which is why some ideas are better than others. Lots better than others.

Even the idea of your body being your "property" is based on ideas in our heads, again imposed on reality. If someone turns you into a slave - and if you can't prevent it - then you are their "property."

Because of this truth, the more illegal Third World immigrants we have, the more violations of "property" - including life and liberty - we are going to experience.

"In the Absence of Fathers"

I've pointed out before that one of the reasons for initiation rites for boys - which generally started at 12 - is to pull boys away from the mother and introduce them to the world of men. We don't have that anymore.

The author of this piece also puts out one of the reasons is to overcome infantile grandiosity. It reminds me of when my six-year-old nephew (who essentially has a childish, often not there, father) once said to me: "You're not the boss of me." To which I replied, "I am the boss of you. You know why? Because I'm a grown-up man and you're a little boy. And if you want to grown up the right way, one of the things to do is listen to me and watch what I do."

He didn't say a word, but after that we got along just fine. In fact, when I'm not there he says he misses me.

Without fathers and "patriarchy" women's socialist/fascist nature takes over them, and little boys grow up not knowing how to be a man, so they fall into violent gangs and their violent initiation rites.

Either that, or they'll be so confused they'll think they're fags.

This article is from First Things and was written (in 1995) by David Gutmann.


"The radical feminists are using the O. J. Simpson tragedy to trash their usual suspects: 'patriarchal' men. Stimulated-perhaps overstimulated-by the fallen hero’s case, Mariah Burton Nelson for one has gotten a good deal of media ink for charging that the patriarchal sports world 'trains men to hate women.' Though Simpson was the son of an abandoning father rather than a patriarch, his misogynistic violence is nevertheless blamed on the woman-hating culture that supposedly breeds in exclusively masculine redoubts: certain combat units, college fraternities, and ballplayers’ locker rooms.

"But even as the gender feminists accuse patriarchal men of the appetite for violence against women, they themselves, in their usual imperious fashion, want to have it all, including the right to hold, simultaneously, two mutually incompatible moral and political positions. On the one hand, they are justifiably outraged by the evidence of increasing domestic violence against women, but on the other hand they are utterly committed to bringing about, within the American family, and under the antiviolence banner, the conditions that underwrite and even guarantee male violence.

"The feminists aver that the male tendency to violence is not innate, not a law of human nature, but a mutable product of our social nurture: it is a breakdown product of patriarchy (particularly white, Western patriarchy) and can be blunted and overcome only by implicit gynocracy, or by androgynous parenting arrangements-fathers and mothers as clones of one another. To this great end, the female presence must be injected into all the festering compost heaps of patriarchy and gynophobia: women must be enrolled in combat units, female reporters must have free access to men’s locker rooms, and fraternities must either be disbanded or degendered. The 'empowerment' of women and the concomitant disempowerment of men is the only cure for noxious patriarchy and the antiwoman violence that it presumably sponsors.

"They don’t get it. After decades of exposure to the social and psychological disasters, particularly those afflicting our inner cities, that have accompanied the deconstruction of American fatherhood, the gender feminists still don’t get it. Though they insist that such cannot be the case, it becomes increasingly clear that the mayhem inflicted by violent men on women (and on other men, and on society as a whole) has its roots not in conventional patriarchy, but in the increasingly matriarchal nature of the American family. Ever since Philip Wylie wrote his angry text on American "Momism" back in the thirties, various astute commentators, including a number of women, have been telling us that American children, and especially boys, need more patriarchy-in the best sense of that term-and not more 'empowered' matriarchs. These children particularly need fathers who are different from their estimable mothers in equally admirable ways: tough without being macho brutes, stern without being petty tyrants, and yes, affectionate-but on the whole, less nurturing than their wives.

"I can write these heresies without fear of reprisal from the politically correct: I resigned long ago from the American Psychological Association, and at my age I no longer worry about building a career. It is, of course, not enough to be outrageous; unfashionable views must be bolstered by evidence, including a brief review of the young boy’s psychological development in the two-parent nuclear family. We should consider the basic requirements for 'good enough' masculine development, as well as the predictably bad consequences-for example, the strong likelihood of male violence against women-when certain bottom-line requirements are violated.

"Thus, as we consider the new uniparental or bi-maternal parenting (for example: 'Murphy Brown'/single mother households or lesbian couples) we have to evaluate not only the well-being, freedom, and rights of those engaged in these unorthodox arrangements, but also the developmental requirements of the children that they presume to raise. What is good for General Motors is not necessarily good for the country; and what feels good to new-style or homosexual mothers is not on that account necessarily good for their kids. Mother Nature may be female, but she is not, in the current sense of that term, a feminist. She does not accredit parenting arrangements that flout her laws, even if they are promoted-in thunder-by a self-anointed Sisterhood.

"Let us begin with one of Mother Nature’s clear ordinances, a developmental imperative that is recognized, in both ritual and common practice, by all successful human societies. It is this: in order to mature as distinct individuals and as future fathers, at some culturally recognized point boys have to separate, in the psychological sense, from their mothers - whose biological destiny they do not share. Men’s work is done on the communal periphery; thus, before they can become creatures of the perimeter, and long before they can begin to think of themselves as reliable parents, boys have to free themselves from the sense that they are extensions of the mother - that they are no more than their mothers’ home-hugging little sons.

"At the proper season, patriarchal fathers-fathers, that is, who are different from admirable mothers in their own impressive ways-play a unique role in fostering their sons’ psychological migration away from the Magna Mater and towards some worthy role on the periphery. The competent father, seemingly adequate to all challenges (very much including provocations from his son), stands forth in the son’s eyes as enviable but also admirable: a pillar of strength. As such, he spreads an umbrella of security under which the son can temporarily shelter, even as he slowly declares himself to be a distinct person, separate from the mother. Thus the father whose special, 'patriarchal' virtues distinguish him from the mother becomes at the proper season what the psychoanalysts call a 'transitional object': standing apart from the mother, he provides a secure way station on the son’s psychological voyage away from her, and allows that risky evolution to go forward.

"Traditional societies typically organize rights of passage, ordeals of one sort or another, to mark the boy’s passage from the status of 'mother’s son' to that of 'father’s son.' The ordeal, whether it entails penile sub-incision with cowrie shells, or being responsible at age thirteen for the day’s Torah portion, is usually managed by the community’s collective fathers, who closely monitor the candidate for signs of weakness. If the boy breaks and cries under the ordeal, then he is still his mother’s son, not ready to join the male collectivity of fathers and age-mates of the community’s perimeter. But if he endures with some grace the punishment that the fathers mete out, then he has earned the right to be their son, the apprentice who will some day inherit their special powers. Under that sign, he can continue the process of individuation, and separate from the father-just as he had earlier on separated from the mother-to become finally his own man.

"Besides sponsoring the boy’s symbolic rebirth as a father’s son, 'patriarchal' dramas of this sort also sponsor the boy’s growing mastery over his violent drives-the destructive impulses that place him, early in life, in opposition to the father and the father’s law. Despite their many faults, patriarchal fathers are the best means that our species has devised for managing a very grave threat to any organized social life: male-particularly young male-violence. Our streets have been 'Beirut- ized' by violence from sons without fathers, and without superegos.

"The fathers’ role in bringing civilization in the form of the superego to their sons has been clarified by many psychoanalysts, the leading students of what is known as the 'Oedipal' track in child development. In their narrative, little boys, charged up with untested illusions of omnipotence, are driven early on to challenge the prerogatives and possessions of the father. If they come up against true patriarchs, fathers who are neither antagonized nor intimidated by their small sons’ enmity, these same little boys are quickly (and with real relief on their part) introduced to some basic propositions of the masculine reality principle: "You are not big, powerful, and supremely competent; instead, you are small, puny, and completely unready. However, matters can change; and if you pay him proper respect, your father will help you escape from your unfortunate condition."

"Thus, when the small sons of patriarchal fathers realize-however grudgingly-that they cannot win the father’s prerogatives and powers by force, they are ready to receive another bulletin from reality: "If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em." Young sons give up infantile fantasies of coopting the father’s powers by violence in favor of a disciplined filial apprenticeship. From then on, a boy’s self-esteem will be based increasingly on experiences of real mastery, rather than on hectic fantasies of omnipotence.

"The boy concedes his own omnipotence to his father; and through the intervention of his father, gives his potentially antisocial aggression a positive, pro-social sign. In effect, the boy’s aggression follows the general line of masculine evolution: as he becomes a 'father’s son' and moves his sights beyond the mother’s home, his aggressive potentialities track with him, and find new targets. From now on, his enemies will not be found in his own house or significant community, but will come to him from the outside, from beyond the periphery. Fathers’ sons can be very good killers, but not of their kin, or their neighbors. Mothers’ sons by contrast are indiscriminate: they are murderously aggressive within the home as well as outside of it-they are apt to abuse their aging relatives, their wives, and their children. But while the admittedly square and even priggish sons of patriarchal fathers may grow up to patronize the women of their house and town, they very rarely assault them. Instead, they are protective (sometimes overly protective) of their mothers, wives, girlfriends, and daughters: when killing is involved, they kill the men who come from the outside to hurt their women and children.

"In short, the boy comes out of the Oedipal engagement with a built-in internal presence: the superego, the sometimes harsh inner monitor that will not let him hurt-or even think of hurting-those whom he either loves or should love. But restriction is not the whole story. Via the superego the father’s son also gains an internal (and therefore trustworthy) sense of resource: so long as he acts in the service of his community, and against the enemies of his loved ones, he will have access to his own vital energies, his own iron rations of the psyche. Now he can make and fill his own bottles; he is, in the psychological sense, weaned. Thus assured, the boy is ready to slip the psychic umbilicus and graduate from 'mother’s son' to 'father’s son.' It does not much matter whether this transition is accomplished informally within the home, or formally, via rites of passage, in the larger society; in either case, the son is launched, under the father’s aegis, on the journey away from the mother and into maturity.

"This is not an ideal outcome-after all, as the feminists remind us, the father’s son is still quite capable of violence against foreign women- but considering the usual alternatives it is about the best that we can expect. But what of the boys who grow up under the ambiguous familial conditions that are rapidly replacing normal patriarchy? What is the fate of sons who grow up without a father, or with a father who is little more than an androgynous, often ineffectual, clone of the mother?

"One consequence is clear: in the absence of a compelling father, the mother’s presence fills not only the outer domestic frame, but also her son’s interior psychic space. These boys-the offspring of single women, lesbian couples, or devalued 'pops'-will not, in the proper season, attain psychological distance from their mothers. But children without fathers will usually find alternative, though less trustworthy ways to cut the golden cord. Boys who cannot achieve psychological distance from their mothers fall back instead on unreliable substitutes: physical distance and social distance.

"Physical distance they achieve by flight: from the mother’s home to the streets, to the fighting gangs that rule them and, at the end of the day, to the all-male fraternity of the penitentiary. Social distance they achieve by moving out of the mother’s cultural world, and off her scale of values; unable finally to split from the mother, they provoke her-through criminality, addiction, sexual exploitation, and physical violence against women within the domestic space-into throwing them out of her decent house. Finally, they turn to booze and drugs to get the transient soothing, the comfort that they can no longer take (or expect) from their mother’s hand. Through such desperate means, fatherless sons demonstrate-to the world, to their mothers, and to themselves-that they are Men. Finally, by their physical and verbal assaults on women they try to kill off the unrelinquished 'woman' - the psychic after-image of the mother-within themselves.

"In its essence, this could be the story of O. J. Simpson, whose case is being litigated as I write. Simpson is certainly not a typical product of misogynist patriarchy, taught by his seniors and locker-room companions to bash women. Quite the contrary: at age forty-seven, he seems to be the prototypical 'mother’s son,' now wrecked by the troublesome passage into midlife. We have been studying casualties of his sort-black and white, rich and poor- in my clinical service for middle-aged and older adults for the past fifteen years.

"Despite his celebrity O. J.’s history is in no way atypical of the syndrome. for starters, the father, known in the neighborhood as "Sweet Jimmy" Simpson, was hardly your stereotypical patriarch. Instead, he was a reported homosexual, who apparently left O. J.’s mother for a man when his son was three years old, and who died, probably of AIDS, in 1986. Left alone, O. J.’s tough and devoted mother overcomes daunting odds to raise him. Nevertheless, as a teenager he predictably splits from her into the world of gangs and dope. Far from being corrupted by patriarchy, he is rescued by a celebrated black man: hearing that a potentially great athlete is screwing up, Willie Mays shows O. J. the exciting world that could be his. Thus sponsored by a 'father figure,' O. J. finds a route away from the mother’s world that does not lead through the dangerous streets. He accepts the patriarchal discipline of coaches and locker rooms, goes on to win the Heisman Trophy, and becomes the legendary 'Juice.'

"Pace Ms. Mariah Burton Nelson, Simpson’s violent urges towards women do not really bloom until he retires from football, when he quits the locker room. Having lost the masculine cosmetic of the sports world-the fatherly coaches, the male allies, of the NFL-Simpson (like many of our midlife patients) is then probably threatened anew by his unsundered ties to the mother within, and to her feminine exemplars in the outside world. Once again he is in danger of becoming a 'Mama’s boy.' Having lost the 'patriarchal' or sportsman’s route away from the feminine, he seems to fall back on his last-ditch, emergency buffers: behaving much like a threatened teenager, he interposes physical and social distance between himself and the dangerous women. Thus he divorces two wives, he is certainly violent towards Nicole Simpson, and driven by his pathological jealousy-the usual fears of a man insecure about his masculinity-he may have killed her. The troubles of a poorly fathered son can afflict not only his childhood and adolescence, but his later years as well.

"Most reasonable adult human beings-including the fathers that I have interviewed in peasant societies around the world-are quite aware of the psychological need for patriarchy along the lines that I have described. It is only news to the gender feminists, who have ruled out the very idea of an essential human nature. Thus, the Murphy Browns of this world can for a while demonstrate their independence by having babies out of wedlock, raising them without fathers while holding down taxing professional jobs. They can play the narcissistic game of having it all: career, independence from exploitative men, and babies.

"But while the parental imperative can be temporarily violated, the transgressors eventually run afoul of the most stringent rule in nature: that of unintended and often catastrophic consequences. Thus, even as these new-wave mothers congratulate themselves on their own boldness and 'growth,' their sons, and eventually they themselves, will be at risk. The child-rearing revolutions that, in the name of women’s liberation from patriarchy, diminish the fathers lead paradoxically but inevitably to the loss of women’s freedom that results from desperate male violence.

"Loud blasts from the trumpets of ideology temporarily drown out the muted but insistent voice of the reality principle, but nature denied eventually returns, usually in its most primitive forms. 'Take Back the Night' protests will neither repair the damage nor reverse the social entropy that causes it. A measure of patriarchy in the home is, paradoxically, the major guarantor of democracy in our public life. We may still have a choice: either recognize the special grace and status of the father within the family, or eventually suffer-and probably in this order-criminal anarchy, then the Police State, and finally the iron rule of Big Brother over our domestic and public affairs.

"History's Little-Known Naval Disasters"

What American does not know of the Titanic and the fact Leonardo DiCaprio went down with it? Yet there were lots worse naval disasters, - which, not surprisingly were done during war.

I've been struck for years how some people's lives are so empty they have to fill it with what the Bible calls "the lust of the eyes" - war as a spectator sport. War reporter Chris Hedges once wrote a book, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.

Yet these chickenhawks never join the military, and if somehow they did, they'd be the first to collapse.

This is from the IHR site.


"Many of those who view 'Titanic,' the new blockbuster motion picture, may leave the movie theater believing that the April 15, 1912, sinking of the great British liner, with the loss of 1,523 men, women and children, was history's greatest maritime disaster.

"The 'Wilhelm Gustloff,' which served before as a luxury liner, was overloaded with desperate civilian refugees when it was struck on January 30, 1945, with the loss of at least 5,400 lives.

"Others may perhaps think of the British passenger liner Lusitania, which sank on May 7, 1915, after being hit by a German submarine torpedo, taking 1,198 lives.

"But these disasters are dwarfed by the sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff, the General Steuben and the Goya, three German ships crowded with evacuated refugees and wounded soldiers that were struck by Soviet submarines during the final months of the Second World War.

"As John Ries points out in his essay in the Fall 1992 Journal, "History's Greatest Naval Disasters," more lives were lost in the case of each of these vessels than in the sinkings of either the Lusitania or the Titanic.

"The first of these German ships to go down was the Wilhelm Gustloff, a 25,000-ton converted luxury liner that had been serving as a hospital ship. When it left the Baltic harbor of Gydnia (Gotenhafen) on January 30, 1945, it was jammed with nearly 5,000 refugees, mostly women and children, and 1,600 military servicemen. At shortly after nine o'clock in the evening, it was struck by three torpedoes from Soviet submarine S-13. Convoy vessels were able to rescue only about 900 from the sub-freezing Baltic waters. At least 5,400 perished.

"The 'General Steuben' was overloaded with wounded soldiers and refugees when it was sunk on February 10, 1945, with a loss of 3,500 lives. By comparison, 1,523 lives were lost in the 1912 sinking of the 'Titanic.'

"Eleven days later, shortly after midnight on February 10, the General Steuben sank with a loss of 3,500 lives, making this the third worst maritime disaster in history. The same Soviet submarine that had attacked the Gustloff, and in almost the same location, sank the Steuben with two torpedoes. Crammed with as many as 5,000 wounded soldiers and refugees, the converted passenger liner sank in just seven minutes.

"The sinking of the Goya on April 16, 1945, just three weeks before the end of the war in Europe, is acknowledged as almost certainly the greatest maritime disaster, in terms of lives lost, of all time. The converted 5,230-ton transport ship had set out from Hela near Danzig (Gdansk) with its human cargo of some 7,000 refugees and wounded soldiers.

"Just a few minutes before midnight, the Soviet submarine L-3 fired two torpedoes at the Goya, which found their marks amidship and stern. Almost immediately the ship broke in half, her masts crashing down upon the passengers crowding the decks. Before anyone could escape from the holds, the onrushing sea quickly drowned out the anguished screams of the refugees below. The vessel sank in just four minutes, resulting in the loss of nearly 7,000 lives. There were only 183 survivors.

"Concluding his essay on this chapter of history, Ries wrote:

"The 'Goya'...was attacked by Soviet submarine L-3 on April 16, 1945, taking almost 7,000 lives. This little-known sinking is the greatest naval disaster in history.

"Although little known, the sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff and the Goya -- with a combined loss of more than 12,000 lives -- remain the greatest maritime catastrophes of all time. Moreover, the deliberate and unnecessary killing of thousands of innocent civilian refugees and helpless wounded men aboard the Gustloff, the Steuben and the Goya -- as well as many other smaller and lesser known vessels -- is unquestionably one of the great atrocities of the Second World War.

"Lesser known but also worthy of note is the sinking of the German battleship Bismarck on May 27, 1941. Following intense attack in the Atlantic from British planes and four major British warships, it went under with the loss of some 2,200 men.

Even more tragic is the case of the Cap Arcona, a 27,650-ton converted German passenger ship packed with evacuated concentration camp inmates. On May 3, 1945, just a week before the end of the war, it was sunk by fire from a British fighter-bomber as it was moored in L├╝beck harbor. Some 5,000 persons, nearly all of them inmates, lost their lives. Only about 500 could be rescued.

"A similar fate befell the Thielbek, a German ship likewise packed with 2,800 inmates who were being evacuated from the Neuengamme concentration camp. Succumbing to intense fire from British war planes, it sank on May 3, 1945, with the loss of all on board."

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The Manosphere is a Reaction to Women's Abuse of Men

"At the age of 30, Samantha Hess is a professional cuddler. For $60 an hour, she'll intimately snuggle with strangers of all types...about 90% of her clients are men" - Maggie Zhang

I didn't play by society's rules when I was a teenager and in college. I played by my social group's rules, though: we drank, we got high, we partied, we cruised, we picked up girls and got them in the backseat (basically I just grabbed them, and they never said no or protested).

And you know something? I was as grateful as could for all of it. That's why I understand the saying, "Enough is as good as a feast."

We did lots of things I knew were illegal, but so what? Some of my friends were way beyond what I would do, like riding around in a car smoking a bong while knowing perfectly well the cops could get them.

I guess things are different today. Specifically, women's abuse of men, their claiming it isn't abuse and if it is, men deserve it. Hell, if this attitude didn't exist, the Manosphere wouldn't exist.

I was never mean to girls or fell for that Manosphere bullshit about how girls like guys who exhibit the Dark Triad or were "insanely confident." That's just a load of crap.

And yet still I got girls. And as I have said before, in high school I looked like Garth Algar. But I was never ruled by trying to get pussy, and because I wasn't, I had two naked women jump in my bed when I was in college - and things that were close to it.

I didn't "respect" girls and I wasn't "nice" to them. No one told me I was supposed to act like that, and if anyone had I would have thought they were trying to con me.

It makes makes no sense to me to be too nice to people, because there are certain people who will just walk all over you if you act like that.

Once when we were 16, some friends and I were in McDonalds (which at the time was walk-in with no tables, drive-ins or benches outside) when some drunk girl I knew from school was rubbing my back and pressing up against me. I had several such things happen to me. It seemed normal - and, of course, fun.

And I definitely remember being 13 and wrestling with one of my 12-year-old sister's overly-developed 12-year-old friends - and I clearly remember thinking, "OHMIGOD!!!"

Several days ago I read an article about Elliot Rodger, in which some man got some girls to get Elliot down and tickle him. Apparently that was the first time he seemed normal.

Many women had made comments or blogged about how Rodger thought he was "owned sex." Retards didn't get it at all.

I suspect one of his main problems if that he was ostracized and had no one touched him at all. For decades.

I've mentioned before I knew guys in college who were utterly unpopular and spent their weekends alone in their rooms watching TV, in loneliness and isolation and rejection. None of them were right in their heads. They had very little connection to anything. No meaning, no importance, no community. No respect, no validation, no appreciation, no gratitude. Just hope things would get better when they were older.

By the way, confidence comes from external validation (the word "recognize" means "to look twice" and the German "achtung" means "respect, attention."). The other person is a mirror and you see yourself in how they treat you.

I see a lot of hostility in the Manosphere toward women. I understand it, but is isn't normal. Of course, you can certainly expect that reaction if women aren't acting the way they should - abusing men, ignoring them and ostracizing them, lacking gratitude and appreciation, expecting everything but giving little in return, hallucinating "patriarchy" and "oppression."

And the Manosphere does seem to be obsessed with sex, which means many are not getting much - or any. That's not normal, either. And the first time I read the word "incel," I thought, what the hell is that? When I found out what was, I thought, "Oh."

I figure it just doesn't mean "involuntary celibate." It means "ignored, ostracized, not touched because many girls consider me repulsive."

That, I suspect, was one of Rodger's problems, and after decades he went nuts.

When I was in college I had to read a book called Touching, by "Ashley Montague." It was an eye-opener. I already knew about Harry Harlow's experiments with monkeys:

Then there is what it known as Attachment Disorder: "Attachment disorder is a broad term intended to describe disorders of mood, behavior, and social relationships arising from a failure to form normal attachments."

A lot of guys have this, hence the Men Going Their Owny Way or the PUAs. All of it is due to women abusing men and justifying it, so men are "divorcing" women and becoming unattached from them - if they were ever attached to them in the first place.

Apparently many women can't see into the future, not to the extent men can. Unattached men, ostracized and disrespected, ignored and insulted...now where do you think that's going to lead in the long run?

"This professional cuddler is a manifestation of a social pathology brought on by recent changes in human culture. Technology is one of them. Also, the atomization of our culture encourages us to remain single and isolated from the physical touch of others. This trend doesn’t end well." - the Private Man