The State Against Men, Women and Their Relationships

Forty-nine percent of the men and women in the United States are not married. This is an all-time high – or perhaps I mean low. I wouldn’t be surprised if it hits 50% or even a little higher. This is a bad development. When I write “bad,” I do mean bad. There is no good to it. None whatsoever, contrary to the hallucinations of the fuzzy-minded chattering classes, who are – let’s face it – worse than worthless. They’re dangerous.

While there are always a certain number of people who do not want to be married and have children, I can’t imagine it being 49% of the population. Why so many?

Ultimately, it’s because of the interference of the State in the relationships between men and women. When the State interferes in what is none of its business, it always damages and sometimes destroys. This is the same story over and over, throughout history, and the stupid never learn until it is too late. Then, unfortunately, sometimes they take the smart down with them.

When the government goes beyond protecting life, liberty and property, then it turns into what philosophers and economists from Franz Oppenheimer to Ludwig von Mises to Albert Jay Nock have called “the State.” Being based on coercion and force and not persuasion and freedom, the State always damages or destroys. It never heals or creates.

As Oppenheimer wrote, "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. . . . I … call one's own labor and the … exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the ‘economic means’ for the satisfaction of need while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the ‘political means.’ . . . The State is an organization of the political means."

The Political Means of the State is based on coercion, stealing, murder and lies, and the Economic Means is based persuasion, liberty and the free market. They are mutually exclusive, and the biggest problem is the average dim-witted Sheeple not only can’t tell the difference, they think the Political Means is a good thing, especially when it comes to welfare/warfare.

John Locke, the English philosopher, wrote the function of government was to protect “life, liberty and property.” His phrase made it into the Declaration of Independence as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” “Pursuit of happiness” is better translated as “well-being” or, best, “flourishing.” It’s a translation of the Greek word eudemonia, and you get it through arête, or excellence.

Gaining happiness and satisfaction is through fulfilling all your talents, and as the philosopher Brand Blanshard has written, you do the most for yourself and society by developing yourself to the best of your abilities (Spinoza, hundreds of years before, said essentially the same thing). You can only do that by having the liberty to do so – which means free from the destructive meddling of the State.

Damaging and destroying is what forty-plus years of the immensely destructive influence of leftist/lesbian feminism, enshrined in law, have done – it has benefited educated high-IQ women but damaged similar men. And it has led women to believe all their problems are caused by men and society, rather than their own personal shortcomings.

Let’s break all this down by categories. Men will always dominate in dirty, dangerous professions. They will always be the coal miners, the oil rig workers, the garbage men, the loggers. Women will never be in these professions; in fact they don’t want to be in them. They want cushy highly-paid indoor jobs.

These men in those dirty and dangerous professions can usually find women in their class to marry them. So this is not much of a problem, except these men are never going to be acceptable to almost all educated high-IQ women (the reason I say “high-IQ” is because I don’t use the description “smart’ – because they’re not).

Men will also always dominate in STEM – science, technology, engineering, math. In these fields there will be a very small minority of women, but overwhelmingly, say 98%, it will be men. This shortage of women is not due to “discrimination” or “prejudice” or “oppression” – men’s and women’s brains are wired differently.

For that matter, men in general are also better at concentrating on one thing, which is why they can spend 20 years studying a caterpillar’s left eyebrow. Women in general are better at multitasking. This is why I cannot drive a car, hold a conversation and listen to the radio simultaneously. The radio has to go off.

I can, however, tell you in (sometimes excruciating) detail the relationship between the Federal Reserve Bank, inflation, the deficit, and the “crowding out” effect on private investment due to Treasury bonds and T-Bills.

But let’s get back to the STEM guys. They might have problems finding wives. Dilbert comes to mind, who as an engineer had chronic problems finding a girlfriend. As far as I know, Wally never had one. (Yeah, I know they’re cartoons, but so what? Art imitates life.)

The men talented enough to do STEM are never going to make women swoon. A lot of them are, painfully and unfairly, tagged as nerds/geeks/dorks. Even though these are the men who overwhelmingly create the technology that advances society, they receive little or no credit or gratitude for this. Instead, sometimes, they get insults and degradation.

A lot of these men are not going to be acceptable to many educated women. Oops – I mean “educated.” Or maybe I should say “schooled” women, because I don’t want to insult true education, a lot of which doesn’t happen in school.

Curiously enough, the indispensible men are the least popular, and the most irrelevant, childish and disturbed – musicians, actors, athletes – are the most popular (I am reminded of what the actor William Macy said: “No one became an actor because he had a good childhood”). To me, it’s sometimes amazing the human race has even survived.

I mentioned the law currently benefits educated women over educated men. These women, who are now lawyers, CEOs, CPAs, MBAs, doctors, veterinarians, etc., generally (but of course not always) want to marry men who are in the same socioeconomic class they are – if not higher.

They want men who are taller, who make as much money if not more, who are as good-looking if not better-looking, and who also want to marry them, have children, be loyal…and also support their wives’ careers. These women want all the advantages of men and women and none of the responsibilities.

Unfortunately for all, the law is now keeping men out of that socioeconomic class (Affirmative Action means “White Men Need Not Apply”). And this is why so many of these women are not married, and are not going to get married and have children – because they can’t lower their “standards.” These women are eradicating their entire genetic lines, to the consternation of many of them.

Their self-imposed inability to get married and have children has led to many women ending up as hostile, cat-owning, apartment-dwelling spinsters stuffed to the gills on psychiatric drugs – and I have seen more than one of these hysterical, irrational (actually demented) women. Several, in fact. They blame their self-created problems on innocent men.

I also mentioned the law benefits educated women. It does not benefit uneducated women, for example the ones who work in nursing homes for $9 an hour. Since they cannot live on that kind of money, the State gives them and their children food cards, subsidized housing, and medical cards. Now while they are benefited in those ways, they are not benefited by making a living wage.

These lower-class below-average-IQ women might get married – then divorced, then married again. They end up with two or three kids by different men, then living with one who isn’t the father of any of them. Often, in a trailer.

There is no reason for any of these women to stay married – or even get married -since for all practical purposes they can marry the State and be supported by the taxpayers. Not that they understand they are being supported by taxpayers. I’ve met ones who think the government has its own money. Or else they think “the rich” should be forced to share through taxation – and in their minds “the rich” is anyone who owns a house.

So what we have are women at the top of the socioeconomic scale, and at the bottom, who end up unmarried. The ones at the top claim they can’t find any acceptable men and therefore don’t have home, husband and children, and the ones at the bottom have no homes, no husbands, and too many kids, none of whom they can support.

Some clueless and selfish women will decide to have children on their own, without being married. There is a big problem with this, and all I will say is that the word “bastard” means a cruel heartless man…and a boy with a mother and no father.

There is also the added social and personal burden of men having no incentive to get married. The State can now take their kids from them and give them to the mothers if the couple gets divorced, and make the father support them and the mother. There is an overwhelming economic incentive for men to not get married and have children.

Now we turn to what has traditionally been considered the middle class. They are being destroyed – by the State.

Wages stopped going up in 1973, for several reasons. For one, Richard Nixon went off of the gold standard in 1971, allowing the thoroughly unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank (which is not federal, has no reserves and is not a bank) to destroy the dollar by inflating the paper money (sic) supply. Inflation, as always, transfers wealth from everyone to the wealthy, since the wealthy get the money first and can buy up everything.

Crushing government regulations – and massive growth in government (which now takes up about one-third of the economy) – also severely damaged growth rates. In the 1950s the growth rate was about 4% a year. Last year, it was a pathetic 2.25%. Had it remained at 4% for the past 50 years, the average salary would be $100,000 a year.

Hard to believe, isn’t it? Do the math and you’ll find out it’s true.

Let’s do an Einsteinian thought experiment. Imagine if men stopped doing the dangerous, dirty jobs. Imagine if they stopped doing the STEM jobs, too. What would happen?

There would be no civilization. Oh, I suppose there would be something that might pass as “civilization,” and although life might not be solitary, it would be poor, nasty, brutish and short. Imagine, for example, dying from a dental infection (some English philosopher, whose name escapes me, pointed out hundreds of years ago that “one-quarter of the misery in the world is caused by toothache”).

Men created civilization. I’ve pointed out this before: the humorist P.J. O’Rourke wrote, quite correctly, that without men civilization would last until the next oil change. And as Camille Paglia put it, without men, women would still be living in grass huts.

Many women will not believe that men created civilization (and technology), and will deny it by throwing hysterical self-righteous conniption fits. They don’t want reality intruding on the endless-loop Groovy Movie playing in their heads. They’ll quote that 40-plus years of leftist lies/propaganda about “patriarchy” and “oppression of women”….fantasies unhinged from reality. What I have to say about that nonsense is this: I expect women to become coal miners, loggers, oil rig workers…and engineers and mathematicians (“There hasn’t been enough time….we’re still oppressed…oppressive patriarchal society must be overthrown….”). I don’t expect a few token women to do these jobs, but enough to support society.

It’ll never happen.

Incidentally, it was Aristotle who made the distinction between “dialectic” and “rhetoric.” Dialectic is based on reasonable discussion and an attempt to discover the truth; rhetoric is based on emotion and logical fallacies. Almost all of the “intellectual” chattering classes – no surprise here – fall for rhetoric, lies and propaganda and are incapable of reasonable discussion (although they truly believe what they are doing is reasonable discussion). Their intellectual and moral incompetence is why they’ve gone far beyond the boundary of Worthless and deep into Dangerous Territory.

Too bad the State ever started meddling in the relationships between men and women. But then, meddle and destroy it what the State does.

The State should get out of what is none of its business. And it will, someday. When it does, everything it has damaged or destroyed will start to repair itself. It always takes a while, but it will happen. So if you want the bad things I’ve mentioned to get better, then remove the State and its destructive interference.

As I said, I won’t be surprised if the unmarried percentage rate reaches 50%. Will it get worse? I don’t know, but it if does, I don’t think it will get much worse. There is always that tipping point, and we are very close to it. When we reach it, things will change.

The Only Way for a Women to be Truly Happy

“You horrid beast!” she cried, beating impotently on his muscular hairy chest with her tiny fists. “You, cruel, evil, lecherous, violent…male! You're the cause of all the problems in the world!”

“Shut up, wench!” he snarled and began to ravage her.

“Oh oh!” she cried in ecstasy, her clothes falling off. “I love you -- you, you – manly man!” She had finally, after decades of searching, found true happiness.

He grinned wolfishly. He understood women. Men were masters and women were slaves. Now, she understood it, too. And she was happy.

The Permanent Cure for Babbling Women

Woman: Babble babble babble babble.

Man: Can you please not do that?

Woman: Babble babble babble babble.

Man: You’re being very disrespectful and violating my boundaries.

Woman: Babble babble babble babble.

Man: You’re going to force my hand.

Woman: Babble babble babble babble.

Man: Okay, you asked for it.

Women: Babble babble babble babb -- oops!

WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP

Woman: Wah! You spanked me!

Man: Yes I did. Are you going to be quiet now?

Woman: *Sniff* Yes.

Man: Good. Now fix me a sandwich, get me a beer, then draw a hot bath for me.

Woman: Okay.

Man: Ah….peace and quiet…blessed relief!

THE END (or is it THE BEGINNING?!?!)

Patriots, Sheeple,Traitors

Roughly but still accurately, I divide people into three groups: patriots, sheeple, traitors.

When a country has been around long enough, the traitors take over the government. That has what has happened to America. They comprise politicians, corporations, banks, and churches that support the government and its policies. They use the power of the State for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.

The sheeple are the mass of people who don’t particularly know what’s going on. Sometimes they think they do, but don’t, not really. They often tend to think the people in the government know what they’re doing.

The patriots are always the opposition party: they oppose those in power and their exploitative policies.

What I’ve outlined is a variation of elite theory: the only politics worth examining is the relationships between the Elites (the term is neutral) and the Masses. The people who study these relationships are usually known as Machiavellians, since Machiavelli founded the discipline with the publication of “The Prince.”

However, what he noticed is not original with him. You can find his observations in Aesop and most especially in the Bible, specifically the Gospels.

In those days there were the Traitors: the Romans and the rich, politically-connected Jewish elites who were their go-betweens in Palestine; the Sheeple, who were the mass of men; and then the Patriots (who are always the opposition party) who was exemplified by Jesus.

There is a lot you can learn about human nature from the Bible.

While proper government is a good and necessary thing, the State, if anything exemplifies the Seven Deadly Sins: excessive pride, greed, murder, theft, etc. Anyone who supports those things, though the power of the State, belongs to the Traitors, be they politicians, corporate executives, or religious leaders.

Those who are opposed to the policies of the State, when they are used to support murder, theft, greed, lying, etc., are the Patriots.

A World of Man-Hating Dykes

Let’s do a thought experiment and imagine a world of nothing but feminists. Since feminism was mostly founded by man-hating lesbians, let’s make that world one of ugly man-hating bull dykes with crew cuts, hostile looks, tattoos, and hairy legs and armpits.

The science fiction writer Norman Spinrad, back in 1979, wrote a satire, A World Between, about what he called “the Pink and Blue War,” a war between the Femocrats and the Transcendental Scientists.

In Spinrad’s world, the Femocrats were not surprisingly lesbians who kept a few broke-dick males around, apparently in cages, for breeding purposes. They wanted to take over every world and impose their lifestyle. For that matter, so do the male Transcendental Scientists, who consider most women irrational and ruled by their feelings, and themselves to be utterly rational (and oh were they a bore).

One of the reasons I like science fiction is that is does all the heavy mental and imaginative lifting for me. There have been other science-fictional worlds without men. Keith Laumer wrote a funny one called “The War with the Yukks” (the Yukks being men) and John Wyndham wrote a serious one called “Consider Her Ways.”

To do our thought experiment, we’ll have to ignore the fact a world of man-hating lesbians could not exist. In fact, a world of women could not exist, just as a world of men could not exist. As the humorist P.J. O’Rourke pointed out, without men civilization would last until the next oil change (I once saw two women pour a quart of oil down the carburetor of a VW Bug, another one try to start her car by hitting the battery posts with a hammer, and still another who thought oil was supposed to be added only when the red oil light came on).

Men, specifically white men, have been responsible for discovering/creating about 97% of everything in the world.

A world of lesbians, with no men, would be running on the fumes of the scientific achievements of men. If they ever learned to reproduce without men, it would be men who achieved that, not them.

In all of recorded history, if there has been one lesbian who has achieved anything except complaining how men are oppressing women, I don’t know what it is. Even though the late Medusoid Betty Friedan and the still-alive-but-addled Gloria Steinem was/is not lesbian, what have they done except run their mouths and tell naïve women want to do (even though neither women followed their own beliefs)?

I’m sure there are a handful of man-hating atheistic nihilistic socialist/radical feminist New York lesbians who do fantasize about a world with no men. Valerie Solanis, who shot Andy Warhol, wrote tracts about how fetuses are originally female and went so far as to found SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men). She said men were a biological mistake and dreamed of a world in which women reproduced without them. But that was in the Sixties and Valerie died in an insane asylum.

Robert Sheckley in 1960 wrote a short story, “The Girls and Nugent Miller,” in which after a nuclear war there is apparently only one man left, a pacifist college professor who drove an ambulance on the front lines during a war.

He encounters a group of naïve young girls, under the domination of a brutal man-hating lesbian, who claims men are primitive violent brutes responsible for every problem in the world (which is exactly what the Femocrats claimed, so what we’re dealing with here is the most tiresome of clichés ), so she’ll learn to reproduce without men and drives Miller away with a spear and stones – after calling him a coward when she found he was a pacifist. She apparently had no clue she was hateful, violent and murder-minded – and Miller was the exact opposite.

Miller realizes he no longer can be a pacifist, and so picks up a club and heads back into camp to brain the dyke who tried to murder him. After that, the last line of the story tells us, the young women are in for a big surprise.

Perhaps such a feminist/dyke world would shudder at the idea of pregnancy, so babies might be grown in artificial wombs, as was done in Brave New World or the TV program, Space: Above and Beyond.

Contrary to the myth, many lesbian relationships are quite violent (for that matter, women are responsible for half of all domestic abuse, two-thirds of all child abuse—and little boys are twice as likely to be abused as little girls). So we’d have a violent world of tattooed crew-cut dykes growing female babies in artificial wombs. If you think the world is violent because of men (this is ignoring what women do) try a savage world of nothing but man-hating dykes. Without men to scapegoat, they’d turn on each other -- probably with a combination of fingernails and hob-nailed boots.

Yech! What an awful world. I’m not even sure man-hating lesbians would like such a world, especially since without men technological society would collapse. What would they live in? Grass huts, as Camille Paglia suggested? Caves, like in the movie, One Million Years B.C. or the novel The Clan of the Cave Bear?

Since there would be no men, who would these man-hating lesbians blame their problems on? Each other, of course. They would also say, “We need another thousand years to overcome the oppressive legacy of the evil patriarchy that oppressed us for thousands of years.” The first defense most people engage in is to blame their problems on other people. It never works.

The world of which I write is an extreme one, a reductio ad absurdum, actually. There could be imaginary ones not as bad as the one I outlined. I could imagine one is which there are nothing but lipstick lesbians. The variations are endless.

But what all have in common is this: none of them could ever exist, because without men, there is no advancement, and in fact, no civilization.

How do Men and Women Ever Get Married?

About a month ago (as I write this) I read a comment, I believe by a man, who observed that he was astonished than men and women ever got together.

That jogged my memory about a time in college. I lived in a studio apartment attached to a two-story house with 11 or 12 girls in it. I lived there for a year and a half, so I had plenty of time to observe these women, all of whom were about 20 years old, give or take a few years.

I noticed something interesting: the few girls who were popular always talked to guys and showed they were interested in them. The girls who were not popular sat there like bumps on logs.

One of the log-bumps had one date in that year-and-a-half, and when he called for a second date she turned him down.

Another log-bump had no dates, but one guy did spend the night, since I heard them through my wall. He left in the morning and never came back.

One of the popular girls, one Thursday night I was sitting in her room, just passing the time. For some reason, and to this day I do not know why, I asked her how many guys had asked her out for the weekend.

“Seven,” she told me. I was speechless for a few seconds, then I asked her which one she was going out with. She told me the one she liked the best.

I thought, here is a friendly woman who did like guys, talked to them and was interested in what they had to say. And she had seven guys ask her out.

The other two girls – one date in a year-and-a-half for one, no dates for the other, just some guy who spend the night and never came back. And they never showed any friendliness toward guys, just the attitude they were supposed to sit there saying nothing and guys were supposed to approach them.

I sat in my classes, always in the back row, watching students. I never saw anyone talk to anyone else in any way that showed any kind of romantic interest. Not once did I see a girl smile at a guy. I remember thinking, how do these people think they are going to meet someone and get married?

Occasionally a guy would talk briefly to a girl, but she never responded with more than a few words.

One woman I know, who was very popular with guys, told me she had been asked by the other girls why she was so popular. She told me she couldn’t believe the question.

“All you have to do is be friendly and talk to them,” she told them. Apparently this simple concept had never occurred to any of them.

Probably the strangest thing about this time in college is that there were many more women than men, so you’d think the women would be competing for the men. I never saw it. What I saw, over and over, were girls by themselves on Friday and Saturday nights.

How did I know they were alone? Because I delivered pizzas for a year-and-a-half, including to the girls’ dorms, and was just amazed that all of them were there by themselves. Not hundreds. Thousands.

I suppose if I was to have asked them why they were alone, they might have responded, “There are no guys here,” an odd response at a university with about 9,000 guys.

What they really meant was, “There are no guys here I’d be interested in,” again an odd response with 9,000 available guys. Maybe they thought they’d just look at a guy and know he was the one – love at first sight? Price Charming, which means they thought they were princesses?

Since men usually approach women, women have to show themselves to be approachable. That’s what “friendly and smiling and interested” means. Again, in college, in classes, I never saw it.

I never saw it at parties, either. Just the log-bumps. Mostly I saw the log-bumps at nightclubs, too.

Oddly, I have noticed this attitude only among American women. With non-American women I have never seen it.

It’s one of the reasons white guys go out with Asian women (who are a lot friendlier and act more interested than almost all white American women), and of course many white women get hysterical about this, even though they themselves would not go out with this particular guy. It’s as if they’re saying, “Maybe I don’t want him, but no one else should, either.” This is some kind of weird envy or jealousy that I do not understand.

I know women who are in their 40s and 50s who are unmarried and childless, and are hostile toward men because of it. I wonder if it has never occurred to them they are in some way responsible for their predicament? Because they forgot how to smile?

Law First, Then Economics

Most people are never going to understand economics. For one thing, the mean average IQ is 100, so people with that IQ -- and those with less-than-average -- are never going to understand it.

I suspect to truly understand economics you have to have an IQ of at least 120, which is less than 10% of the population. Of those, some have no interest. Others have no character, and fall for Keynesianism.

Those who fall for Keynesianism believe they are so morally and intellectually superior they believe their economics models can run a country of 300 million people. Anyone who believes that is a loon (obviously, "intelligence" is no guarantee of character).

I tell people that those who have the least understanding of economics are Ph.D.s, and those who don't understand it at all are Ph.Ds. from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. I like to use the twitchy semi-autistic geek Paul Krugman as an example.

So how did this country become so rich, when so few people understand how economics really works?

Because of law. The law comes first, then economics comes second.

I don't mean complex law. I mean simple law, which originally was based on religion.

Richard Maybury, all of whose books I recommend, pointed out that all successful societies are based on two basic laws: "Do all that you have agreed to do" (which is the basis of contract law) and "Do not encroach on others or their property" (which is the basis of tort law).

Those two laws were originally religious laws. Let's take the Ten Commandments (which is the wrong translation -- it's really Ten Words or Ten Utterances). "Do not lie" really means "Do all that you have agreed to do" and "Do not murder" and "Do not steal" really means "Do not encroach on others or their property."

These laws are so simple that everyone understands them. People in fact instinctively understand, which means it's inborn in us. Try to be unfair to a small child and he will immediately protest.

And what is amazing about these simple laws is that when they are followed the free market springs up. In other words, freedom and liberty automatically leads to wealth. Conversely, the expansion of the State (the opposite of freedom and liberty) automatically leads to poverty and oppression.

Back during the days of the War of Independence economics was just getting started (Adam Smith didn't publish Wealth of Nations until 1776). Unfortunately, in some ways, it's gone way backwards.

But it was noticed that when those two simple laws were followed, material wealth followed. And it was based, of course, on people having a good character, i.e., not stealing, being honest, not murdering.

Economics does not exist by itself. It is connected to Political Science and Law and Religion (those who think we are going to get rid of religion, and liberty and freedom can survive without it, are deluding themselves).

By religion I do not mean modern-day whackjobs such as Christian Zionists or the "Washed in the blood of the lamb" frauds. I mean someone like Jonathan Mayhew, whose sermons during early America had a profound effect on the populace.

He pointed out in such sermons as "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers" that governments which don't follow the right laws are illegitimate, and no one has to follow them. Mayhew said people could obey their government’s law (England’s law), or their God’s law, but they couldn’t do both, because their government’s law violated God’s law.

John Adams said that Mayhew's sermon was actually the beginning of the American Revolution.

When's the last time you heard any minister say anything like that? I never have, not once in my entire life. In fact, I'm sure almost all ministers have never heard of Mayhew.

If people actually understood and followed the simple laws on which successful societies are based, even if they have average or below average IQs, then the study of economics can be left to those who are truly interested in it.

Didn't Know It, Don't Believe It, Agree with It

When I was a little kid I made friends with an elderly German man. Actually we started out as enemies, since his German Shepherd was barking at me from behind his fence, and I was so annoyed I was throwing gravel at him and trying to beat him with a branch. This man came out and yelled at me in a guttural German accent, which scared the daylights out of me. I thought he was some kind of escaped Nazi, and might make me stand with a live grenade on top of my head if he ever got his hands on me. While sporting a shaved head and a monocle, stroking the dueling scar on his cheek, smoking a gold-filtered cigarette, and evilly chuckling "Heh, heh, heh," of course.

Later, he forgave me for acting like Eric Cartman in "South Park," and I forgave him for looking like Gert Froebe in Goldfinger. He turned out to be a pretty nice guy. When I told him he looked like "that Goldfinger guy," the next time I was eating a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich in his house he looked at me and said, "Ach, Mr. Vallace, for wunce you are eggactly vhere I vish you to be," which vas vhat - I mean which was what Auric Goldfinger said to Bond once he got his mitts on him.

He also told me the last kid who tormented his dog was rewarded with a trip to his basement, wherein was contained a table with straps and a laser (again, ala Goldfinger. I asked him he minded if I took my younger sister down there, since I saw an opportunity to put a permanent end to her hitting me with everything she could lay her hands on, including her steel-wheeled outdoor rollerskates. He responded it wouldn't be wise, since Mad German Scientists could make my lasered-in-half sister grow a new half, therely giving me twin sisters. I decided this was not such a good idea.

Years later, when I screwed up my courage, I asked him how in the world the death camps happened in Germany. This is what he told me, "Most of us did not know anything about it, because everything was censored and we could not travel freely. Some of us heard rumors, but did not believe them. A few said, even if the rumors were true, it was regrettable but necessary, because those people were enemies of Germany and would destroy us. Most Americans don't know it, but Hitler was barely elected, and it was due to what you call leftists." Gee, he wasn't anything like the subhuman, mass-murdering monsters that the contemptible Steven Spielberg tried to portray the Germans as in the dishonest piece of propaganda known as Saving Private Ryan.

When I supposedly grew up, I decided this attitude among people was a law of human nature. I call it the "Didn't Know It, Don't Believe It, Agree With It" law. It's a variation of the Three Monkey's Law: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil.

Example: when I tell people the longest war the U.S. was involved in was in the Philippines, and that we killed 200,000 to 300,000 innocent men, women and children, when all they were trying to do is free themselves from foreign domination, the response I get is, "I didn't know that." Sometimes it's "I don't believe that." Rarely, it's "Well, I'm sure it was regrettable, but maybe it was necessary" (which is just a way of saying, "I agree with it").

Now if I turn it around and say, "How would you feel if foreigners came here and slaughtered 300,000 of us because we wouldn't submit to their conquering and ruling us?" then you can actually see the little lightbulb clicking on above their heads. I've decided that's another law of human nature: it's hard to put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Although you should always do it. Anyone who dismisses the importance of understanding your enemy's mind is a complete fool.

When I tell people that our sanctions in Iraq may have killed up to one-and-one-half million people, mostly elderly people and, children and infants, I get the "Didn't Don't Agree" response a lot of the time. When I point out the U.S. military specifically bombed water and sewer treatment plants in Iraq and Serbia, which are war crimes in violation of the Geneva Contention, again it's "DDA."

I have decided this attitude is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Specifically it's Sloth. Mental Sloth. Physical Sloth is Little League compared to Mental Sloth. People tell me I'm physically lazy because one of my purposes in life is to acheive a sublime state of physical slothdom, in which I rarely have to leave the couch and can use remote controls to have robots do all the work (ala' Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles), but that kind of laziness is nothing compared to those who look at pictures of deformed Iraqi babies (caused by our depleted-uranium weapons) and say, "Hey, our weapons didn't cause that," or, "It's regrettable but necessary."

Again, to turn it around, how would they feel if it was done to us? Is it any wonder so many people in the world absolutely hate the U.S. government? My experience with a lot of foreigners is that they like Americans personally (we're so lovable, you know) but despise and fear the U.S. government. Hmm...now that I think about it they sound like the average American!

Some people seem to think we should never, ever let the Germans forget what the Nazis did, even though the average German was innocent and most of the guilty are dead. Yes, we should punish the innocent all through the ages.

I sometimes wonder what was happen if America fell in the future and all the countries the U.S. government tortured through the years could write our history books and be responsible for our education. They would attempt to make Americans never, ever forget what the USG did, just the way American liberals today pretend those alive today were somewhere responsible for slavery and should never forget it (let's conveniently forget there were black slave-ship captains and that freed American blacks owned other blacks as slaves). There is a lot of pleasure and self-righteousness, I guess, in always feeling sorry for yourself and thinking you are permanently a victim. Apparently this is another law of human nature.

I always look to the Roman Empire as a example of Republic to Empire to Hey, What the Hell Happened? I'm sure the average Roman citizen in those days was just like the average American citizen today. They went about their everyday business, mostly ignoring or trusting in their govenments (another law of human nature), then the next thing they know things have collapsed and the Vandals are carting off their women and their gold.

This kind of destruction always follows from being Slothful. And that, too, is a law of human nature. My Gert Froebeish friend found that our the hard way, no matter how nice of a guy he was. We, too, may find it out the same hard way.

The Most Worthless - No, Dangerous! -- Degree

Economics.

Economics is not just a worthless degree. It's downright dangerous.

One of my friends has a Ph.D. in Economics. He considers his colleagues to be clueless, semi-autistic loons. He now knows Ph.D.s are worthless...Master's degrees are worthless...Bachelor's degrees are worthless...even introductory classes are worthless.

Parenthetically, he told me students would come to his office and ask if he was teaching a certain class the next semester. No, he told them. Why?

Because I don't want to take the idiot African who got in on lowered standards, or the woman who makes math mistakes on the blackboard, they told him

I understand, but sorry....I'm not teaching the class next semester.

You can learn all the economics you need to know by reading a few books. One of them is Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson," which was written in the 1940s.

Another is Murray Rothbard's "What Has the Government Done to Our Money?"

Those two books will give you 90% of what you need to know.

I proficienced Intro to Macro and Intro to Micro. I'll be damned before I spend a thousand dollars to take two bullshit classes when I could proficiency them.

The dean of the economics department came out and shook my hand. "This is nearly impossible," he told me.

I didn't tell him it wasn't hard. I just read the textbooks (Keynesian baloney) and thought about the concepts until I understood them.

The most public economists, such as Paul Krugman, don't know what they are talking about. In other words, they don't understand economics!

Such people are what I refer to as "high-IQ idiots." They think because they have advanced degrees, that somehow confers on them the ability to manage a multi-trillion dollar economy comprising 300 million people. And they really believe they can do it.

Anyone who believes that is a nut.

If these fake economists actually knew what they were talking about, the U.S. wouldn't be in the economic shape it is in. And has been in for the last three years, with no signs of getting better. Or even abating.

Wages would have stopped going up in 1973. For the matter, the average wage today is lower than it was in 1959.

Economics and political science should be one degree -- Political Economy. Even better, it should include basic law (Natural Law, that is), some ethics, and some religion. Then it should be called Political Philosophy.

One man who understands this is Richard Maybury, who knows that law comes first, followed by economics. The average person is never going to understand economics. But they can understand basic law, such as "Don't steal" and "Keep your word" (which, by the way, is where the religion comes in).

Those two laws created the free market.

On the other hand, the point-and sputter morons from Harvard, Yale and Princeton will continue to scratch whatever passes for their brains and wonder why their Looneytunes theories aren't working.

Because you don't know what you're talking about, that's why.

The Average Wage Should be $90,000 a Year

Wages stopped going up in 1973. Actually, they peaked in January, 1973. Had they continued to go up as they should have, the average wage would be about $90,000 a year.

What happened?

First, immigration policies were liberalized in 1965, allowing millions of 85 IQ immigrants into the U.S. This did not add productive capacity to the country; it damaged it severely.

Second, Richard Nixon went off of the gold standard in 1971, allowing the thoroughly unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank to inflate without any brakes, since the paper dollar was completely unhooked from gold.

By the way, the Federal Reserve Bank is not federal, had no reserves, and is not a bank. It is a legal counterfeiter that has seized control of our money supply, allowing it to print money to its heart's content.

The Constitution clearly states only gold and silver can be money. For that matter, it forbids "Bills of Credit" (another name for "paper money").

Contrary to the delusions of the half-educated and quarter-witted, the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

Things didn't get all that bad with inflation until Alan Greenspan (whom I've heard described as the "biggest asshole in the universe") became head of the Fed and spent 20 years destroying the dollar. Bernanke is completing the task.

One of the things inflation does is transfer money from everyone to the wealthy, since the wealthy get the inflated money first and can buy everything first.

I've heard the super-rich referred to as the "extractive elites" and that's exactly what they are. Today they are commonly referred to as the 1% that exploits the 99%. It's an oversimplification, but not that much.

When these extractive elites are not punished, as they are not being punished today, that is a sign the country is on its way to collapse.

Another thing that happened about 1974 is the oil crisis, caused by the oil nations in the Mideast conspiring against us for supporting Israel.

Unbelievable. We cut our throats supporting a country that slaughtered our sailers during its attack on the Liberty.

Since those days, we have sent trillions of dollars to our enemies in the Mideast for their oil. That money should have stayed here and added to our productive capacity, resulting in higher wages.

Back in the '50s the annual growth rate was about 4% a year. Now we are down to an anemic 2.25%. This loss of productivity is due to government crushing the economy with inflation, regulations, destructive laws, etc.

Had we maintained a '50s growth rate of 4% that alone would have made the average salary about $90,000 year. Take away the rest of the crushing burdens, and I've seen some economists estimate it would be about $100,000 a year.

We've also sent trillions of dollars to our enemies in China, hollowing out our industry. Those who think this is a good thing do not understand basic economics.

What all of this means is that if someone cannot make a decent living these days, it is not their fault, no matter what the chattering classes say. Certainly many intelligent people can make a good living -- those with IQs of about 120, which is less than ten percent of the population.

The average IQ is 100. People with such IQs aren't even going to be high school graduates. They are going to be janitors with welfare benefits.

I do not believe some sort of collapse is all that far away. All you have to do is look what is happening with those in this country who have reverted to barbarism.

This is not the same country it used to be. Not even close.

Bill Bryson has written a book, The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid, about his growing up in Des Moines, Iowa during the '50s. I didn't recognize the country he wrote about. It didn't merely sound wonderful -- it was wonderful. And, again, this was when the growth rate was 4%.

For that matter, think about what California was during the early '60s. Annette and Frankie and and beach parties, followed by the Beach Boys and their hot rods. The state used to be the American Dream.

Now it's the American nightmare. Everyone who can afford it is leaving the state. And we've got Paris Hilton and Britney Spears instead of Frankie and Annette..

This downhill side cannot continue. There will be an economic collapse, as has always happened in the past. The only question is when.

Hostile Spinsters on Psychiatric Drugs

I have recently expended all several of my brain cells (admittedly they are very large brain cells) on the problems of spinsters. Why? Because there are a lot and there are going to be more. "More" as in "every day." (Forty-nine percent of all people in the U.S. are unmarried and soon it will be 50%.)

I used to define these kinds of women as "hostile and bitter middle-aged women, on psychiatric drugs, who blame all their problems on men because they don't have home, husband and children, so they con themselves with their pathetic 'careers,' the money from which they spend on clothes and make-up to cover up the fact they've lost their looks, and also on cats which are substitute children because their ovaries have shriveled up."

Incidentally,the New Oxford American Dictionary says, "...spinster cannot be used to mean simply ‘unmarried woman’; it is now always a derogatory term, referring or alluding to a stereotype of an older woman who is unmarried, childless, prissy, and repressed."

Then I realized the word "spinster" is one word that pretty much takes the place of my paragraph-long defintion.

I have met several spinsters in the past, and even then knew their problems were basically with men, but I didn't connect their disturbed characters with the word "spinsters."

The ones who are really outrageous always stay in your mind.

About four years ago I had a rescue pug. During the summer I shaved his fur to within a millimeter of his skin, and when I took him in my van I always kept a gallon of ice-cold water with a bowl on the floor, had ice-cold A/C (so cold it was painful) and when I parked I kept the windows down and parked in the shade. I never left him in the van more than about eight minutes.

Any dog can handle a bit of heat, even 95 dgrees, for several minutes with no problems. If they couldn't handle it, they would have died out a long time ago.

For that matter, the only time a dog is in heat-distress is when they start drooling.

I left Mickey in my van for about seven minutes while I had to go inside a hospital. When I came out I noticed the driver's door to my van was ajar. That puzzled me, because I could have sworn I had shut it completely.

Turns out I had.

About 15 feet from my driver's door was a woman, clearly in her 40's, with wrap-around sunglasses (always bad) and a cell-phone in her hand. She appeared to be glaring at me.

I had some red flags, but I had no idea what was going on. I learned.

As I opened my door she said, "Is this your van?"

I thought, what a dumb question. Did she think I was going to get in the van and see if my key fit so I could steal it?

"Yes," I said, puzzled.

"I called the police because you left your dog in there."

This days I would have said, "Your problem is that your a scrawny unattractive spinster with no home, husband and children, and you will never have them. And getting off of the psych meds would help, too." Then I would have smiled, got in my van and drove away.

Instead I told her, "The police will do nothing." And they wouldn't. They get calls like this all the time and take their time getting there because they know 99.999999% of these calls are not legitimate and they know the people will be gone when they get there.

Then I told her she knew nothing about me or my dog (which she didn't) and she should mind her own business (which she should have).

Of course she contined to run her mouth ("Wait until the police get here, blah blah blah"). What did she think they were going to do? Arrest me? Take my dog? Tow my van? What they would do never occured to her. Her mind was too fuzzy and she couldn't see that far into the future.

I forgot what else got said, but I finally called her a fucking stupid cunt.

That got her (you never find the truth until you push the envelope). Her eyebrows shot up, her mouth popped open, and she took a step back. Then she screamed at me, "You're no gentlemen! You're not married!"

Bingo. She was right; I am no gentleman. Especially with hostile and bitter women. What made her think any man would be a gentleman with a woman like that?

What really stuck me was the comment, "You're not married!" (Was the first thing she did was to check my left hand?) That proved she had men problems, and that's what the whole scene was about. She wasn't married, had never had been, or was divorced. And being middle-aged, scrawny, with a permanently hostile look on her face, is there any wonder she was alone?

At that time I had defined her with my long definition that I used before. Now, I just call them "spinsters."

One thing that spinsters do, besides oozing hostility and bitterness, is stick their noses into things they know nothing about, and then get self-righteous about it - which is a pretty good definition of "prissy." There is, after all, nothing like self-righteousness to prove your superiority without having to exactly do anything to prove your superiority.

They also misperceive everything, the way this woman completely misperceived the situation with my dog and me. I think the psychiatric drugs (I can't call it "medication") is what makes them misperceive things.

So here is one way to identify a spinster: middle-aged, hostile, self-righteous, scrawny, tries to cover getting old with clothes and make-up, blames her problems on men, on psychiatric drugs. When you see a woman like this, red flag! Red flag! Run away!

I've also noticed the drugs make them cry out in their sleep. Nightmares, I guess. They also say one thing one time and the exact opposite another. And see nothing incongruous about it. And they lack self-awareness of their problems. I suspect the drugs have a lot to do with that, too. It's not like someone is supposed to be on psychiatric drugs for decades.

And I'll bet if they cops showed up, the self-appointed pug rescuer gave them my license plate number. Which I'm sure they threw away.

I never heard a thing from them.

By the way, the reason my door was ajar is because she got in my van. Even though the windows were completely down.