Power is the Horse That Evil Rides

“The fear of humiliation appears to be one of the most powerful motivators in individual and collective human behavior.” ~ Donald Klein

There is no light on human nature more pitiless and perceptive and accurate than mythology. Through hundreds if not thousands of years all the dross was burned away, leaving some very acute observations about human nature.

Unfortunately mythology is not taught in schools or the churches or by parents. Too bad, since there is wisdom in the stories, wisdom that doesn’t exist at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, places that produce “the Best and Brightest” now busy destroying the United States.

The ancient Greeks outlined this sequence: Koros to Hubris to Ate to Nemesis. They argued about what exactly each word meant. Scholars still argue today.

I’ve heard Koros described as a kind of greed -- and had those ancient Greeks been Christian, they would have called it one of the Seven Deadly Sins. I’ve also heard Koros described as what happens to people of unsound character when they gain great wealth and power (meaning, more than anything else, political power, which ultimately is the power to “legally” kill people).

Examples (which are another name for stories) work best. I consider George Bush, who started two unnecessary wars, to have an unsound character. An ex-alcoholic who was never treated for it (which makes him a dry drunk), who is apparently brain-damaged by that alcoholism, with rumors of past heavy cocaine use, who never had a legitimate private-sector job in his life, who was (is?) on psychiatric medication, who believes he is a Christian who is “saved”…and he became President.

To use just our last three Presidents (Obama, Bush and Clinton) as examples, they are portraits of what Friedrich Hayek meant when he wrote his famous article, “Why the Worst Get on Top.” It’s also why the Founding Fathers were opposed to the leftist delusion of “democracy” – again, the worst get on top.

A man or woman, a weakling of unstable character, who gains great wealth and political power, then next suffers from Hubris -- another name for the towering, grandiose Pride that afflicted Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost. Hubris is arrogance, moral blindness, wanton violence, which creates in the afflicted the ability to cruelly and brutally humiliate people without any qualms – the way Herod and Caligula did. They always rationalize as a necessary thing how even the innocent suffer terribly, which is why there exists the ironic observation (which both Jesus and Aesop noticed) that all tyrants call themselves benefactors.

The Greeks, with their usual intelligence and perspicacity, banned representations of brutal public humiliation from their theater as obscene – and the original definition of obscene meant something that should not be shown in public.

Not so surprisingly, the root words of “obscene” and “humiliation” both mean “dirt” – to treat someone as dirt. Humiliation also means “to mortify,” which means to “make dead,” not necessarily physically dead, but worse, dead in psyche, as in the walking dead – zombie or vampire, which is how those whose souls have been murdered by vicious humiliations describe themselves.

I am reminded of the sociologist C. Wright Mills when he wrote about what he called “crackpot realists” -- fools who are convinced they know what they are doing but don’t, and instead destroy in their attempts to save. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (and currently Van Jones) are fine specimens of that.

Seeing wrong as right is Ate -- madness. When a politician starts unnecessary wars in which they become even richer (again, the greed of Koros), in which tens of thousands of innocent people are killed and many more impoverished, and the instigators claim they had the “time of their lives” (as both Bush and Clinton said), that is Ate.

Bush was far more arrogant than Clinton or Obama (he was, after all, referred to as Smirk). The more arrogance one shows, the more it is covering up feelings of humiliation. As the psychiatrist James Gilligan so perceptively wrote, “The most dangerous men in the world are the ones who are afraid they are wimps.”

It has been noticed for many years by many people that bullies cover up their cowardice with braggadocio – arrogance on top hiding their feelings of humiliation. When such people gain political power millions can die because of their attempts to replace shame with pride (Hitler had one testicle, Stalin had badly pocked skin, fused toes on one foot and a withered arm, and LBJ escalated in Vietnam because he was afraid his critics would consider him “chicken” if he didn’t).

Now we come to Nemesis. Nemesis is the goddess of fate and retribution. You can use many other names: revenge, vengeance and retaliation, payback…perhaps even justice. (As an aside, the Greeks called justice Dike, and it exists because of the criminal acts created by Hubris.)

I find it significant that Nemesis means “fate.” That means cause-and-effect, although I believe it is more accurate to define it as a cybernetic system, specifically a positive feedback system: humiliation leads to revenge, then those who are the objects of revenge seek revenge in turn, and so in, an escalating spiral of death and destruction.

Humiliation doesn’t always have to lead to revenge, if the object of humiliation can maintain his or her innocence, as in such stories as “Cinderella” and the first Harry Potter novel (in both cases they are stories that illustrate the saying, “Living well is the best revenge”).

But when it comes to groups of people – ethnic groups, religions, nations – immunity to feelings of humiliation can never be maintained and revenge will always happen. Mobs cannot think, only feel; they never follow principles, only leaders, and they always fall for propaganda that portrays them as innocent victims and their attackers as evil, subhuman monsters bent on death and destruction.

Osama bin Laden said the Islamic countries in the Middle East had been humiliated by the U.S. for 80 years, and that the revenge of 9-11 was “a copy” of what the U.S. had done. Then the U.S. sought revenge for the humiliation of 9-11, and now those the American government is killing in Iraq and Afghanistan are getting their revenge by killing our soldiers in return. Those who are blinded by political fanaticism cannot see this (because they perceive all political problems as Good versus Evil), and as long as they are deluded, they never will be able to see the truth of things.

In a nutshell, when you brutally humiliate people and make them suffer cruelly, and don’t even know you’re doing it, and instead of relieving their suffering you see it as something good and necessary, you’re going to be pretty damned surprised when the people you are oppressing and exploiting and killing rise up and kill you back. You’ll be outraged and consider it ingratitude; they’ll consider it justice.

When unsound people (meaning about 98% of all politicians) get political power, they always seek to expand it. This is why the State throughout history has always expanded its power, always at the expense of people and society.

There have been quite a few people throughout history (Marcus Aurelius for one) who have been able to handle political power. Unfortunately, Clinton, Bush and now Obama don’t belong to that admirable group. Those who consciously seek political power are avaricious, self-deluded weaklings and can never handle it properly. As Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I prefer the sayings, “Power intoxicates and immunity corrupts,” and “Power is the horse that evil rides.”

As Dostoevsky put it in The House of the Dead, "Tyranny...finally develops into a disease. The habit can...coarsen the very best man to the level of a beast. Blood and power intoxicate...the return to human dignity, to repentance, to regeneration, becomes almost impossible."

The opposite of Hubris is humility, or what the Greeks called Sophrosyne. It can be described as “Nothing in excess” and “Know thyself,” meaning having a clear understanding of your character, your strengths and limitations. It means treating people with respect, not brutalizing and humiliating them, and when it comes to relations with other countries, to, as our Founding Fathers advised, trade with them but otherwise leave them alone.

Unfortunately, if you flunk history (which so far has always happened), you have to go through the whole mess again. The U.S., which has the whole of history before it, is ignoring all its successful lessons and is instead repeating all its failures.

I Was a Teenage TV Antenna

When I was a child and a teenager the TVs were a lot different than the ones today. For one thing it took four people to move one because they were full of vacuum tubes, and all were supposed to look like furniture, so the exterior was made of wood. My mother used to wax ours with Lemon Pledge. She would also put decorations on top, like a bowl of wax fruit – apples and a banana.

Another thing is that for years TVs were black-and-white, so when color arrived, many of the programs were still in black-and-white. Some were in color, so when a color program was going to come on, our new color TV would announce, “In Living Color.”

The picture would also roll, so there was a horizontal knob to turn that would make it stop rolling. There was also a vertical knob but that was almost never used. And when the programs stopped at about midnight there would be a picture of an Indian all night.

Then there was the problem with the reception. TVs, which were supposed to be furniture, all looked ridiculous with rabbit ears on top. Some people opted for the cost of an outdoor antenna, which were usually about 20 feet tall and which today I still see in rural areas, along with aboveground septic tanks and outdoor clotheslines.

My dad only got the rabbit ears, which weren’t all the good. Sometimes they worked fairly well…and other times they didn’t.

When the reception was bad I became the human antenna. My father, who would not move from his recliner, would make me stand by the TV and manipulate the rabbit ears until the reception was clear.

Okay, it’s fine,” he’d say. “Now let go.”

I’d let go and the reception would go all fuzzy, since by grabbing the antenna I became a bigger antenna.

“YOU MOVED THE ANTENNA!” he’d scream at me.

“No, I didn’t,” I told him, “When I grab the rabbit ears I become the antenna. When I let go the picture gets fuzzy.”

“NO YOU MOVED IT!!”

So I’d have to stand there for ten minutes, moving the rabbit ears millimeter by millimeter, letting go, moving them again, until finally the picture was clear.

On top of all this aggravation, I was also the remote control. “Go change the channel,” my father would order me.

“Why can’t you change it?”

“DON’T SMARTMOUTH ME I BROUGHT YOU INTO THIS WORLD AND I CAN TAKE YOU OUT OF IT!!”

The TVs in those days had rotary dials. So to piss off my father I would spin the dial, brrrip.

“DON’T DO THAT YOU’LL BREAK IT! TURN IT SLOW!!”

Click, click, click, click.

“IF YOU BREAK IT YOU’LL PAY FOR IT!!”

“With what? My dollar a week allowance?”

“DON’T SMARTASS ME I’LL BEAT YOU LIKE A RUG!!”

“I thought you were going to kill me. You know, you brought me into this world, blah blah blah.”

“GET OUT OF HERE GET OUT OF HERE RIGHT NOW!!!”

“Okay, fine!”

“I HOPE YOUR KIDS TREAT YOU THE WAY YOU TREAT ME!!”

All parents say that. It’s as common as kids wondering if they were adopted, thinking, “These people really CAN’T be my parents!”

On top of all this, there were only six channels altogether. Three national and three local, although one of them was PBS, which was boring and no one watched except when it had National Geographic specials with naked women.

It may sound like an arid wasteland to you, but it wasn't. There wasn't anything better at that time, so you can't miss what you don't have. Besides, some of those programs are now considered classics.

Still,I much prefer the TVs of today. I do miss those rabbit ears, though. I also wish I had kept ours, along with my Secret Sam Attaché Spy Briefcase.

The Withdrawal of Chivalry From All Women

A few years ago I had a woman tell me, "Men are responsible for all that problems in the world." This was in 2010, not 1968, and she wasn't a man-hating lesbian, just a spinster without husband, home and children, which is why she blamed all her problems on men.

I told her, "No, sweetheart, you've got it exactly backwards. Women ruin everything they get involved in, and men have created culture, civilization and technology."

I had engaged in one of those Gedankenexperiments (thought experiments) that many people think Einstein invented (he just popularized the concept in the U.S.) and had come to some, let's say, rather interesting conclusions. Those conclusions left the aforementioned woman speechless. (I had actually expected her to go all female-hysterical on me.)

Let's imagine if all men withdraw all chivalry from all women. Now of course we have to define chivalry. Let's use a really broad definition: everything that men do, wittingly or unwittingly, to protect and support women.

Using that definition, if all chivalry was withdrawn, what would happen?

Women's lives would completely collapse.

Men created civilization. They created culture. They created technology. If they withdrew all those things from women, women would be, to quote Camille Paglia, reduced to living in grass huts. Or, as humorist P.J. O'Rourke wrote, without men, civilization would last until the next oil change.

Carl Jung thought that men were biologically and universally the natural 'culture makers' – more objective, better leaders, more rational, and more independent. He believed that women were biologically and universally the 'relaters,' who were better at caring for others, knowing their feelings and emotions, and valuing relationships. He also said, "Man cannot stand a meaningless life," so you might want to watch happens when meaning, importance and community are taken out of men's lives - because that is what the purpose of feminism is.

Some women, of course, have added to civilization, culture and technology. But they are a handful. Of course, leftists (all of whom are self-deluded mental cases) will say the lack of contribution was due to thousands of years of oppression. (If leftism can be defined in one sentence, it's this: "It's your fault, not mine!")

The reason so few women have added to society is because they overwhelmingly don't have the ability. This is why men dominate (and always have, and always will) in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math). Men (specifically white men) are responsible for creating discovering about 98% of everything in history.

What do women bring to the table? Their wombs. The ability to have children. And that, ultimately, is why men protect them. No women, no children.

These days, women control their reproduction (thanks to male scientists). They can get divorced and take a man's children and half his income (thanks to laws passed by men). They have access to easy, high-paying jobs because of Affirmative Action (which means "White Men Need Not Apply"). They can get abortions any time they want for any reason.

I consider all of those things to be "chivalrous," although it's a perversion of true chivalry. A chivalrous man was originally an armed knight of generally high economic and social status, who was willing to do violence to protect the weak and helpless. And as the poster know as Dalrock wrote, "An act of kindness or deference by such a man to someone weaker or lower in status to him is gracious in nature because of the real and immediate ability he possessed to do otherwise."

Unfortunately the modern perversion of "chivalry" has backfired, and in a big way. Men have actually cut their own throats. And as for women in combat, that's not going to happen. What it means in women in the back with easy jobs, and lots of undeserved promotions and raises while men, as always, die or are horribly wounded. Just as they do in dirty, dangerous jobs that women don't want to do.

Many women expect to be treated as a man's equal - except they don't. They still want men to be chivalrous. If men on a sinking ship pushed women out of the way, women would be outraged and horrified about all these terrible men shirking their obligations to die for women they don't even know. They would all kinds of articles about how they are entitled to this. They want these men to be gracious, if you define "gracious" as meaning "I could kick your ass but I choose to help you instead." It's gotten to the point where some men are saying, "I owe you nothing."

I am reminded of what is called "The Three Laws of RoMANtics:

1. A manbot may not injure a woman being or, through inaction, allow a woman being to come to harm.

2. A manbot must obey any orders given to it by woman beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A manbot may protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Many years ago I told a woman, "Women want all the advantages of being a man and a woman and none of the responsibilities of either." She said nothing because she had no answer.

I believe women's greatest fear is to be deserted. And the withdrawal of chivalry is, to them, being deserted. On some level they must know that without the contributions and support of men, they're reduced to poverty and destitution. Their lives would be Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short.

Their lives would be horrible. That's one of the reasons they get so bitter without husband, home and children. They think it's their due, along with easy, high-paying, indoor jobs.

Anything women have gotten involved in (because men let them) they destroy. Men gave them the vote, and they have consistently voted socialist. They dominate in education and now we have little boys stuffed with dangerous psychiatric drugs such as Ritalin because they act like boys and not girls. Bring a squirt-gun to school and you could end up in jail (those cops should be ashamed of themselves).

Instead of gratitude toward men there is bitterness, anger and sometimes hate. These are the fruits of feminism: "As you sow, so you shall reap." These are the logical consequences of leftist/lesbian feminism.

You can't be happy unless you feel gratitude. As Meister Eckhardt wrote, "If the only prayer you ever say in your entire life is thank you, it will be enough."

I had mentioned that without meaning, importance and community in life (Eckhardt's "thank you") you won't have much of a life. Women are not appreciating and saying "thank you" to men anymore and in response men are withdrawing their chivalry from women. Men are returning the resentment and contempt directed at them for the last 40 years.

I'd like to see it taught in school that men created culture and civilization and technology. That might happen someday, but it's not going to be anytime soon, not with "Women's Studies" and other worthless classes and degrees.

Ultimately men are responsible for feminism, because of a misguided sense of fair play. Because of a misguided sense of chivalry. In other words, they don't want to be gracious anymore, and instead want to hurt women.

A few years ago I saw a woman try to change a tire with the wrong tools. She would have never gotten that tire off. So I changed it for her.

I will do longer do that. These days, she's on her own. And in one ways than one.

More American Than Most Americans

I am not for the immigration of low-IQ Third Worlders who mooch and destroy...but we need more immigrants like this guy.

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.

Belonging to an Alien Species

"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."- Thoreau

Ever since I was 12 years old I have felt like I belonged to a different species. I've always felt human... well, mostly...but with maybe, oh, I don't know - some sort of unusual DNA, perhaps like in The Island of Dr. Moreau.. That would explain things.

I probably felt this way when little, not that I really remember, what with every day in school being exactly the same, but my report cards (which I have saved) often had comments on them about how I was daydreaming, not paying attention, and not turning in my homework. School bored me. I wasn't "a good fit." Round pegs in square holes never are, even if you pound 'em real good.

Although the diagnosis did not exist during that time (just yelling), I would have been determined to have Attention Deficit Disorder without hyperactivity (why is there no Excruciatingly Boring Teacher Disorder?). These days, that means Ritalin, a drug related to cocaine. And in the past the diagnosis was often "Minimal Brain Dysfunction," even though researchers couldn't open your brain and look in there. One of my college girlfriends got that one, and oddly (I'm being ironic), she home-schooled her chillun.

Ritalin! Drugs for a normal condition! Or else, hey, let's try "brain damage"! Who woulda thunk it?

By the time I was 12 my IQ was 126, which is in the 95th percentile. Later, when I took the Myers-Briggs (MBTI), and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, I found I was an INTJ: Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging. That's about one percent of the population.

The INTJ is often called the "Rational Mastermind," which to me sounds like one of Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Barsoom" novels. It's also known as the "System Builder." In my case, both are true, and my strongest traits are imagination, followed by reason. I can put both together if I concentrate long enough, and I don't even need drugs. That leads to creativity, or if strong enough, genius, which I've read defined as "a zigzag lightning in the brain that others have not." You think and imagine long enough, concentrate long enough, and boom! - fireball. Little, big, and everything in-between.

Even later, when I took the Aspie-quiz, which estimates the degree of Asperger's, I scored 122 out of 200 for Aspergers, and 92 out of 200 for non-Aspergers. Mixed - fortunately. It could have been a lot worse, like maybe institutionalized worse! Ack! No, wait, I was institutionalized - public school!

As a kid I was imaginative, and somewhat creative and artistic and weird, although never to myself, just the Muggles. I found that my imagination, logical and rational, allowed me to start with a premise and try different paths to see where they lead. Sometimes I would get so absorbed in thought my imaginary world would be more real than the "real" world - and I put quotes to highlight the fact that imagination is a real world.

How in the world did I end up like this? By the way, those of you who think they are "different" or "unusual," which many people say to claim they are "special" or even better than others, generally don't know what you are talking about. To be different is not what you think it is. It has its benefits, but it is also a tremendous burden that can crush you. William Blake, the artist and poet, once wrote about being born "with a different face." I know what he means.

Most kids with "ADD" are boys with blond hair and blue eyes. Such things as autism and Asperger's are concentrated among the red-haired, especially males. This is strange, isn't it?

There is a theory which explains this; whether it is true or not, I don't know. Some think that red and blond hair - and there are there blonds and redheads in my family, including me - originated with the Neanderthals. In short, I have Alley Oop genes.

Supposedly this accounts in large part for the way I am. Or as Thom Hartmann put it, people like me are Hunters in a Farmer's World. Even if these theories are not completely true (and I think there is much truth in all of them), I still find it instructive to the extent to which misfits will go to understand why they are misfits. I guarantee you the guy who wrote the article about Neanderthals is a misfit, and very much so.

Unfortunately, the public schools are not set up for misfits. They're set up, if anything, to produce a standardized product, like Lego blocks, or zombies, or curdled milk.

If you don't fit in, school will try to hammer you on the top of your head so you do fit. Some people don't hammer so well. I was one of them. I always felt like they were calling down the Firestorm of Conformity on me, followed by being run over by Garbage Truck of Boredom, which then backed up and ran me over again.

One of those who also didn't hammer so well was Robert Frost, the poet, who was dropped from school for daydreaming. What was he doing? Composing poems? If so, he turned out to be pretty good at it.

Frank Lloyd Wright, the architect, would get so lost in thought his uncle had to yell at him to get him back. Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and author of The Wealth of Nations, would go for walks at night and get so absorbed in thinking he once fell into a ditch. I've come close to that myself.

Nikola Tesla had such a strong imagination he could design a machine in his head and run it there to see if it worked or not. He didn't find it necessary to build it out there, in "reality."

In his autobiography My Inventions, he wrote, “Every night (and sometimes during the day), when alone, I would start out on my journeys - see new places, cities and countries - live there, meet people and make friendships and acquaintances and, however unbelievable, it is a fact that they were just as dear to me as those in actual life and not a bit less intense in their manifestations.

"This I did constantly until I was about seventeen when my thoughts turned seriously to invention. Then I observed to my delight that I could visualize with the greatest facility. I needed no models, drawings or experiments. I could picture them all as real in my mind.”

One of Thomas Edison's teachers told people he was "addled" and it wouldn't be worthwhile to keep him in school. Whenever I think of this great inventor I am reminded of a comment by David Yarian: "Imagination generates hope - or more exactly, unleashes creative powers to transform reality into something beyond that which is currently visible."

Albert Einstein noted, perceptively, "I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." This is a guy who rode a light beam, in his mind, to see what happened. How many people can do that?

Some have claimed that Einstein (and Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Newton) had Asperger's. Whether or not this is true, the fact remains that gifted children manifest symptoms of Asperger's, although there are some substantial differences that make the first "gifted" and the second "disordered." Myself, I consider "not gifted" and "disordered" to be the same thing.

In school, imaginative kids are accused - and I repeat, "accused," as if they're guilty of something, and not even with a trial - of daydreaming and not paying attention. That is exactly right. They're off building worlds in their heads. Pretty nifty ones, too, I can tell you.

Our schools are very good at identifying certain talented students, although they are not talents I'm interested in. Athletes especially, for one. Ambitious (but unimaginative, and excruciatingly boring) students who make good grades, for another. But kids who are imaginative? There is no place for them, except maybe in the hall or the principal's office, never mind the fact it's the imaginative ones who create, discover and invent. In fact, the first is a prerequisite for the last three. As for athletes and students who make good grades because they are good at rote memorization...like I said, I personally have no use for either of them, so go away, you bore me.

Why this animus against imagination? I've never understood it. It's not like they ever did anything to teachers except ignore them. But it exists. I suspect those who rebuke the imaginative feel they may not be able to function in the "real" world, or that being imaginative is unhealthy, that it will produce more Marquis de Sades or more serial killers or people who can't work in Dilbertized cubicles.

As long as what is imagined is positive and healthy, I guarantee them, they are wrong. And how can anyone use their imagination positively and healthily in a class full of kids, sitting in rows in desks?

The combination of reason, or thought, and imagination is what has created just about everything there is. As Francisco Goya put it, "Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters; united with it, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels."

Education is supposed to be about identifying a student's strengths and talents and developing them. It's not about pouring knowledge into some tabula rasa empty bucket, but lighting a fire in the brain. The march/sit/march of school is not conducive to lighting any kind of fire - especially not that zigzag lightning kind of fire.

Or, as William Marts put it, "A tremendous amount of good has manifested into this world from the positive imaginations we have that may start early in our youth."

I often wonder how many people have been lost because of the school system? Not everyone is so strong, or such a genius, that they can overcome the Harrison Bergeron handicaps placed on them at an early age.

People should go to school with their own kind, like fish with fish and fowl with fowl. You don't find fish up in the air with birds (not in this world), and you shouldn't find smart imaginative kids with dumb literal-minded ones. In real life, people associate with those they have common interests with. Forcing together kids who do not wish to be together isn't "socialization," it isn't "education"; if anything, it's just plain ol' trauma.

If imaginative kids were encouraged to follow their interests, I believe we would have more polymaths, more inventions, more discoveries. Imagination strengthens your creative abilities. It is a great power that can change your life, and the world. This would not only benefit such people, but also society.

After all, imagination is the only known thing that travels faster than the speed of light - it can zip through space and time in a flash. Let's see any valedictorian do that!

“Deviation is necessary for progress to happen.”

An Einsteinian Thought Experiment About Sex-Segregated Schools

Let's do a little Einsteinian gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) here. It requires a little bit of logic, a little bit of imagination, and a little bit of understanding of human nature. So, here we go:

Let's imagine sex-segregated schools. I don't mean elementary or middle school or high school. I mean college.

What do you think would happen?

Come one, you KNOW what would happen!

The women, overwhelmingly, would gravitate to worthless degrees - English, teaching, Human Resources, Women's Studies. And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Not every woman, of course, but the vast majority of them. I'd estimate at least 90%.

There would be some women who'd get degrees in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) but it wouldn't be many. Of course there would also be men who'd get degrees in English, teaching, etc. But at least 90% of the STEM degrees (and probably more) would be men.

Not so incidentally, how many of these women in STEM wouldn't be running to guys to help them?

I remember reading James Michener's novel, Caravans, some years ago. I believe he wrote it in the '50s. Yet even then, he wrote about the graduates of women's college: good in English, mediocre in philosophy, clueless in math.

I graduated from a university that was the largest producers of teachers in a very large state. I never met a smart woman in the Education program (Education majors have the lowest IQ of all college majors). I did know one man who was an Education major, and even he thought the women were stupid. He also left the field and got an M.S. in Economics.

Speaking of incompetence, ask yourself when the last time it wasn't a woman in Human Resources? Then ask yourself if her position couldn't eliminated and if would make any difference?

When I graduated college I met quite a few women teachers and women principals. I was astonished at their incompetence. Of course, they never knew they were incompetent. The incompetent never do.

Since nearly all the degrees women get are worthless, this means these women are parasites on men. Ask yourself this: if they weren't, why are they covered by Affirmative Action (which, by the way, means "White Men Need Not Apply)"?

Again, not all women would get worthless degrees, just as not all women are beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. I have met several women who were very good at their jobs. I've met many more who weren't only worthless at their jobs, they were a danger to society.

I have worked for women, almost of whom were incompetent. Their idea of working was to hold meetings, talk, and drink coffee. The places were way top-heavy in the "management" department. And way overpaid, too. The workers, both male and female, did all the work.

Of course, none of this can last. Things will get so bad they have to change. Of course, change only happens when the folly becomes intolerable. That's how folly works.

Of course, when things go bad and women can't find jobs with their silly degrees, they will do as they always do...blame their problems on men.

The Only Way For a Woman 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. He understood women. Men were masters and women were slaves. Now, she understood it, too. And she was happy.

And they lived happily ever after.

Well, for the most part.

Why Women Who Own Cats Are EVIL

The animal people own is an expression of their personality. For example, almost every pit-bill owner I’ve known as had an attitude problem and a low IQ – just like the dogs.

I, on the other hand, am a pug person. Pugs are playful, funny, and an exceptionally affectionate breed. The only way in which they do not mirror their owners is that they’re aren’t the smartest dogs. In fact, “pug” and “intelligent” is an oxymoron.

It’s pretty much become a cliché that a single or divorced middle-aged woman without children, and with more than one cat, is a red flag -- the woman is someone for a man to stay away from. Why?

Because the cat is an expression of her personality – EVIL!!!!

Cats are cruel, narcissistic, selfish, inconsiderate little monsters who torture and eat helpless little things. Guess what? So are the female owners of these heinous beasts!

Even one cat is a red flag. Two and you’d better run away as fast as you can. You’ll save your soul from being eaten.

A cat is a walking personality disorder – “it’s not my fault; it’s yours!” Cats only pretend to be affectionate. In reality, they just want to use and abuse you. They believe you exist to serve them, just like Satan.

No one has ever claimed dogs are the servants of the Devil. But cats? Yes. Black cats? Evil! Witch’s familiars? Cats! The symbol of Halloween? Cats!

Do dogs climb trees and eat baby birds? No. Do cats? Yes!

Women with cats, without exception, are cruel, evil monsters who want nothing better than to slowly torture you to death! And heartily enjoy it while they’re doing it!

You have been warned.

"The Pursuit of Happiness" Doesn't Mean What Most People Think It Means

"People simply feel better about themselves when they’re good at something." - Stephen R. Covey

The phrase "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence is a mistranslation of the Greek word eudaimonia, which is better translated "well-being," or best of all, "human flourishing."

It is achieved by arete, which means "excellence." The Greeks thought human flourishing was achieved by excellence in your chosen field of endeavor. Sometimes the word "virtue" is used for arete, the correct translation of it being, "the powers of Man."

The question is raised: how do you achieve excellence?

Psychologists, sociologists and even economists have thought long and hard about how to achieve happiness. They have even done quite a few experiments.

They have come to some very interesting conclusions.

Money alone doesn't bring happiness and fullness and abundance. Once you make enough money so that you don't have to worry about money anymore (which is about $40,000 a year), there is no added happiness in making more money. Is Bill Gates the happiest man in the world? George Soros? Warren Buffet?

Plato supposedly wrote (it was probably one of his students) that arete was "The good composed of all goods; an ability which suffices for living well; perfection in respect of virtue; resources sufficient for a living creature."

So then, how does one gain well-being?

Meaning and purpose in life brings happiness. Autonomy. Community (which I've heard called "networking"). Meaning, autonomy and community brings happiness. Those things allow you to be as excellent as you can be in your chosen field.

Our schools, our jobs and in some ways our society, is set up to deny us our ability to achieve excellence (unless you are an athlete, and you have to be a really good one). Our schools are set up to produce a standardized product. What kid does not hate school? There is a reason for that.

You have to do what you are good at to achieve well-being and excellence. Some kids show their talent at an early age, sometimes at five years old. School is supposed to identify and develop those talents.

Gaining happiness and satisfaction is through fulfilling all your talents, and as the philosopher Brand Blanshard has said, "I'm inclined to think the person does the most for the world by being his own self in the fullest measure." (Spinoza, hundreds of years before, said essentially the same thing).

Putting into effect the Four Cardinal Virtues is a good thing, too. Justice and Courage sound like good things; Prudence and Temperance, don't, to many people.

Yet Prudence is correctly defined as "using reason to discover the laws that govern reality." It’s not just theoretical knowledge; it’s also practical knowledge - putting what you know into effect.

Let’s use economics and political science as an example. Someone who is prudent will discover and understand the economic and political laws that govern reality, and put them into effect.

Temperance means not letting the bad aspects of our personalities control us - greed, gluttony, envy, lust, pride, ennui.

School don't teach any of these qualities - not eudaimonia, not arete, not the Four Cardinal Virtues - because the public schools are so rigid, so bureaucratized, and so standardized that kids hate it (think Ferris Bueller's Day Off). We are supposed to be little more than cogs in a machine.

Many churches don't teach those qualities, either.

And now we come to work. When jobs are cubicleized (Dilbert and the cult classic Office Space) people end up hating their jobs. This is why so many people are trying to work for themselves.

The more the government grows and interferes in people's lives, the more bureaucratized and oppressed people's lives become (statism is the most dangerous religion in the world).

How can you be happy when you're a slave or an indentured servant?

The more the government grows, the less autonomy, the less meaning and importance there will be, and therefore the less well-being and flourishing and excellence in life people will experience. It'll get to the point people won't even know what those qualities are.

Yet some people want the government to grow because they think it can take care of them and provide "security." They are clueless as to the true nature of government run amok. But they will learn. They always learn, through the School of Hard Knocks.

The Founding Fathers, who had the whole of history before them, knew what they were doing in setting up an economically and politically free society. Only with those freedoms can you achieve excellence and abundance in life. That's why every society that is not politically and economically free is a Hell on earth, and why they always collapse. And the U.S is quickly getting there. And in some very importance ways, it already is there.

Any country that offers more autonomy and freedom than the U.S. will kick our ass. The blind nationalists can deny that all they want ("The United State is the greatest country on earth, and if you don't believe that, leave!"), but they are fools, as big of fools as the leftists who hate this country and wish to see it destroyed.

"These virtues are formed in man by his doing the actions ... The good of man is a working of the soul in the way of excellence in a complete life." ― Aristotle

Mastery Trumps Money

The phrase, "the pursuit of happiness" is a mistranslation of the Greek "eudaimonia," which means "human flourishing." You get it through "arete," or excellence. And what is excellence? Mastery. Autonomy. Meaning. Purpose. Community.

But it's not money. After a certain point, money doesn't motivate at all.

The Mirroring of Love and Contempt

Even before these scientific studies, there was a concept known as "mirroring." In mirroring you see yourself in the way the other person treats you. If you can make them laugh and smile, you see yourself as a comedian in their reaction.

If people mirror good qualities back to you, that's a good thing, especially for children.

Now what if all you get mirrored to you is contempt and other bad qualities.....especially from a young age? What if you get it from schools, and media, and other people?

If it's bad enough, it can create humiliation followed by the desire for revenge. It reminds of a comment from William Blake, that violence is just love distorted ("I am drunk with unsatiated love, I must rush again to War...").

Feminism is Based on the Envy and Hatred of Men

The modern feminist movement can, I believe, be said to have been built on an impersonal, generalized envy..."-Joseph Epstein

Feminism, being leftist, is based on envy, as all leftism is based on envy. It is based on the envy of both sexes, of both women and men.

And, like all leftism, it can only be imposed by the force of the State. Of course it will never work, not in the long run, because, as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote in Leftism Revisited, "Leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature. They don't understand it at all."

Leftists, however, don't believe they are equal to others. Instead they believe they are intellectually and morally superior to the unwashed masses, and believe not only should they prescribe for them, but their prescriptions should have the force of law to back them up. Of course, these Anointed (as Thomas Sowell mocked them) don't believe they should follow their advice for others.

The original hard-care feminists were the oddest of oddballs: either man-hating lesbians or women who couldn't get, because of their ugliness and unpleasantness, a husband, a home and children. Therefore, they had to devalue women who wanted these things. And in many ways, it worked.

The also envied men, and since the main defense against envy is devaluation, they devalued men -- just as they had devalued women. For example, in the year 2011 I had two women tell me, "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world." (Both were middle-aged spinsters without husband, home and children.)

Envy is the ugliest and most destructive emotion in history. It is the only one of the Seven Deadly Sins that isn't any fun. It is if anything an attack on goodness itself.

I've always been such a low-envy person it took me years to realize what a problem envy is. Now I realize it is the worst problem ever.

The destructiveness of envy has been noticed in one of the most well-known myths in the Western world -- the story of the Garden of Eden.

When Adam and Eve are caught breaking the rules, Adam immediately claims he is innocent and devalues Eve by saying, "She made me do it." Eve claims she is innocent and says the serpent made her do it.

The serpent is a symbol of envy and hate, as John Milton well-noticed in Paradise Lost.

This myth tells us than when people claim they're innocent -- and are not -- their first defense is to blame their problems on someone else. That blame is usually based on envy.

Example: some months ago I was watching TV and saw three coeds from the University of Georgia savaging the men in college. They had nothing good to say about them (one said they showed up on dates "In a dirty t-shirt and holding a bag of condoms"). Of course, not one of them suggested women had a problem, too. Apparently it never even occurred to them.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Why were they doing this? In their minds, right or wrong, men were denying them what they wanted: ambitious men, who wanted to make a lot of money, and of course, good-looking and taller than they are. And would marry them, be faithful, and somehow support their "careers" and want children, too.

Because men were denying them what they thought they wanted, they envied men's power to make them happy and so had to devalue them. "I'm innocent here...you're the one with the problem." They project their problems on other people.

Never disturb the innocence of the self-righteous (I am reminded of the old saying: "Never come between a woman and her delusions"). You'll get nothing more than outrage.

In other words, what these three women on TV are doing is putting angel's wings on themselves and horns, a spaded tail and a pitchfork on men. That is not conducive to seeing things clearly.

Appreciation and gratitude? These girls don't even know what it means.

This blaming others for your problems -- projection -- is the first defense people engage in. What parent has not heard every child at one time or another claim, "You/he/she made me do it!"

The psychiatrists Melanie Klein and Joan Riviere wrote this about projection, "The first and the most fundamental of our insurances or safety measures against feelings of pain, of being attacked, or of helplessness --one from which so many others spring -- is that device we call projection. All painful and unpleasant sensations and feelings in the mind are by this device automatically relegated outside oneself...[W]e blame them on someone else. [Insofar] as such destructive forces are recognized in ourselves we claim that they have come there arbitrarily and by some external agency...[P]rojection is the baby's first reaction to pain and it probably remains the most spontaneous reaction in all of us to any painful feeling throughout our lives."

Another name for projection is "scapegoating." The French philosopher and theologian Rene Girard, author of Violence and the Sacred and Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, believes function of a scapegoat was to renew society, and another theologian, Walter Wink, agreed with him, calling it "the myth of redemptive violence," i.e., the world can be reborn through violence.

In other words, feminism believes society and women can be reborn by devaluing and scapegoating men. Ultimately, this means trying to turn men into women.

For the last several decades psychologists and other scholars who study envy have noticed there is a sequence: envy, followed by guilt, followed by reparations, followed by gratitude. And, as has been noticed for several hundred years, if not longer, without gratitude you cannot be happy.

One of the worst things about envy is that you want to destroy the people who make you happy, because of the power they have over you to make you happy ("biting the hand that feeds you"). That should ideally lead to guilt, which leads to reparations, which then leads to gratitude. To quote Meister Eckhart, "If the only prayer you said in your whole life was, 'thank you,' that would suffice."

The Catholic church noticed several hundred years ago that people were absolved of their guilt by confession and penance (the word "atonement" means "at-one-ment": to become one, i.e., whole again). In other words, guilt followed by reparation.

The ancient Greeks noticed it, too, which is why after Hercules went temporarily insane and slaughterd his family he had to do penance. That is, his twelve labors.

You can also see guilt followed by atonement in the movie, The Mission, where after Robert DeNiro murders his brother he has to drag his armor up a hill then devote his life to fighting the slavery he had until then supported.

Ideally, you get over your envy and instead are grateful to the person who can make you happy. As Carl Jung once said, you can have power or love, but not both.

In politics there are no shades of grey; everything is either black or white, good or bad. That is the nature of politics. So not only is it based on force, it is based on propaganda and setting people at each other's throats.

As John Mason Brown wrote, "Nowhere are prejudices more mistaken for truth, passion for reason, and invective for documentation than in politics. This is a realm, peopled only by villains or heroes, in which everything is black or white and gray is a forbidden color."

When everything is seen as all-good or all-bad, either innocent or guilty, envy and resentment is going to be ever-increasing, and as for gratitude and happiness, there will be less and less of it.

Circumcision and Sexual Dysfunction

We Honor the Servant But Have Forgotten the Gift

Our Collapsed Educational System Will DeBrain You

Nutrition and Mental Illness

When I was about 20 years old I read an article that pointed out that during WWII no wheat could make its way into northern Europe, and doctors found to their surprise the incidence of schizophrenia declined substantially.

Years later I found that “primitive” cultures world-wide fermented their grains, i.e., let them sit for two or three days (or longer) with cultured milk such as yogurt or kefir or buttermilk, or sometimes, apple-cider vinegar.

This fermentation destroyed gluten in the wheat, and increased the availability of other vitamins and minerals. For some people, the gluten and other chemicals in grains moves undigested into their bloodstream and hence to their brain – this is what is known as celiac disease or gluten insensitivity.

Obviously, in northern Europe, they had forgotten how to ferment their grains, thus the rise in schizophrenia.

No one should have undigested food in their bloodstream. It causes allergies. For those susceptible, it affects their brain and causes schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression and other mental and emotional disturbances – including psychosis.

Not too long ago I had to get the MRR vaccine. I had a reaction, not to the vaccine, which comprises dead viruses, but to the egg yoke the vaccines are grown upon. This undigested protein in my blood made me mildly ill for about 24 hours. Actually, I felt like shit.

Now imagine someone who eats grains every day, and does not know they have some form of gluten insensitivity, and so suffer from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anxiety or depression because of the effect of undigested food upon their brain.

I have read cases on the internet of people who merely by quitting all grains within a few weeks quit the psychiatric medication they had been taking for 20 years for their bipolar disorder.

Personally, I don’t eat grains except for soured oatmeal, which I let sit for two days with some yogurt in it. All it does is give to the oatmeal a pleasantly sour taste.

If I was a doctor and encountered someone with a mental/emotional “disease” the first thing I would do is take them off of all grains, and that includes the gluten that is in so much of our canned goods. Check this out, and you’ll find it is true.

The second thing I would do if I was a doctor is check the Vitamin D level in their blood. Vitamin D is not a vitamin, but a hormone, and the lack of it is implicated in a dozen diseases.

I knew a woman whose husband was just fine when they lived in Houston. When they moved to Alaska he developed late-onset paranoid schizophrenia. She knew it was caused by the lack of sunlight. Sunlight not only causes our skin to produce Vitamin D but also stimulates our pineal gland though our eyes.

The third thing I would if I was a doctor is send the patient to a dentist and pull every mental filling out of their teeth. Our acupuncture meridians are minute DC electrical currents, and they end on every one of our teeth.

These currents can be checked with a EDS (Electro-Dermal Screening) machine or with an EAV (Electro-Acupuncture According to Voll) machine. Both units are essentially the same.

These currents are our most essential (and primitive) healing system, and acupuncture points are booster stations, which is why acupuncture needles, placed in those points, increases the healing current.

Metal fillings (which consist of more than one metal) are tiny batteries placed permanently in our mouths, and being bathed in saliva can profoundly upset those currents. I had one dentist tell me he saw six cases of cancer out of seven spontaneously remit about he took his patients’ fillings out. He also told me 80% of them got better just by taking out their fillings.

The next step is that I would check for cavitations – infected bone – in the wisdom tooth area. They are very common, caused by dentists who pull wisdom teeth and don’t grind out the ligaments, and it goes without saying that infected bone can do nothing except cause disease, including mental/emotional disturbances.

I personally knew one woman who had an infected root canal removed, and the next day was off of her anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, and anti-psychotic “medicine.” She was not only suffering from anxiety and depression, but “disorganized thoughts,” thus the anti-psychotic medication.

Let’s see…removal of grains, Vitamin D, cleaning up dental problems. What else would I do if I was a doctor?

I’d do a hair analysis to check the mineral balance in the body, so I could see what minerals the patient was short, or if they had excess heavy metals in their body (such as mercury from metal fillings). That takes care of nutrition.

I knew one woman who saw seven doctors because of her heart palpitations (the last one told her to see a psychiatrist), until finally the last one discovered her numerous metal fillings had caused mercury poisoning, which in her case affected her heart.

Nutrition, quitting grains, checking for Vitamin D, cleaning up dental problems. I believe those four things might just take care of about 90% of the problems my patients had.

That’s if I was a doctor, of course. Which I’m not.

Waking Up to Her Every Morning for the Rest of Your Life

Blaming someone else for your problems - even when they are innocent - is the first defense people use. It's part and parcel of denial, which is refusing to see that the accused people are innocent. Denial is the result of self-deception, because you have to deceive yourself first before you deny something to someone else.

For years I've been hearing that men "don't want to commit." I find that more than a little odd since two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. Most of them happen in middle-age.

The only thing I can conclude from these statistics is that while women want to get married, they don't want to stay married. Then of course when they want to get divorced, they have to blame it on the man. Then they have to deceive themselves it's not their fault. Then they deny it's their fault to other people.

In other words, women are generally the first to demand commitment and then generally the first to try to get out of it.

The excuses and rationalizations women use are legion and I don't have to recount them here. But what it ultimately comes down to is that they are bored with being married, although they use such words as "trapped."

But when they get divorced they'll still want the kids and to get money from their ex-husbands.

Society in the past reduced these problems to the minimum. First, it was hard to get a divorce. Second, no-fault divorce did not exist. Third, the children were almost always given to the father. Returning to these things would be a good thing.

Oh, I forgot - as far as I'm concerned women who have children out of wedlock should have their babies taken from them. In the past such women who got pregnant were sent away to have the child, which was then adopted by a married couple or else sent to an orphanage (and almost all orphanages weren't bad places - I've known people raised in them).

By the way, the word "bastard" means a fatherless boy and a cruel, heartless man. I'm not even going to bother to explain the relationship.

I have for a long time thought women expect too much from marriage. The cliche' is that women seek Mr. Perfect (who does not exist) while if men find a woman who is 80% of what they want they are in Heaven.

Cliches' wouldn't be around unless there was some truth to them. So the idea that women have too high of standards has been around for a long time, otherwise there would not exists such stories as the Brothers Grimm tale, "King Roughbeard," which is about a princess who rejects all her suitors because none of them are good enough for her.

The only cure for her problem is to be humbled, and that is exactly what happens.

Men should pay a lot more attention to whom they marry. For that matter, women should pay a lot more attention, too. Her parents might want to explain there are no Mr. Perfects (and that she's not perfect, either) and explain the wisdom of the "King Roughbeard" tale to her.

Parents might want to also explain that many women are more ruled by their feelings than men, which means that many of them are not exactly rational (I am reminded of that scene in As Good as it Gets when Jack Nicholson's character says he understands women by thinking of a man and "taking away reason and accountability").

In fact, it's an excellent idea to interview a prospective mate. This is not as aside, but quite relevant: it's been found that when a man and a women have similar views on politics and pornography they stand a better chance of staying together. Having similar religious beliefs wouldn't hurt, either.

As cruel as it sounds, I don't think being in love justifies getting married. I knew a man who thought he had found the woman for him until an older man asked him if he'd be glad to wake up next to her every morning for the rest of his life. He suddenly realized he wasn't in love that much.

And of course love can, and does, die. Otherwise, there wouldn't be as much divorce as there is. And, of course, you have a duty to your future unborn children to make sure your mate would be a good father or mother.

I'll tell you one big red flag: she won't take your last name. That's the first red flag she's been brainwashed by 40 plus years of leftist/lesbian propaganda.

Contempt is the Biggest Predictor of Divorce

Psychologists who study relationships have found they can watch a 15-minute tape of a couple and predict divorce with a 95% accuracy rate. They can watch the tape with the sound off and look for micro-expressions of, first and foremost, contempt. The other three things they look for are defensiveness, stonewalling (emotional withdrawal), and criticism.

Watching five minutes of a tape gives a 90% accuracy rate of divorce. Three minutes gives an 80% accuracy rate.

I once interviewed a young couple who I knew the were going to get divorced. She was showing contempt toward him, criticizing him - and he was sitting there stone-faced. And she was doing this in public, in front of me. She was trying to humiliate and belittle him in front of me.

Many of these individual cases have nothing to do with feminism but feminism is based on the contempt for men. It seems to be getting worse today, with hallucinations about "The End of Men" and how guys are supposed to "man up" for women who aren't worth it.

It's all based on contempt for men, although it's disguised as demands for "fairness" and "justice." Badness always does disguise itself as good.

Feminism was always about some women devaluing men because of their envy of men. Contempt is one way to devalue them. It's also a good way to not have, or else destroy, a relationship with a man.

I've seen claims the Manosphere is not a response to feminism. It is. If men's lives were successful these days they wouldn't looking for advice from its leaders (some of whom give very bad advice).

A lot of the Manosphere is based on men's envy of women and the attempt to reduce their power by devaluing them, Hence, all these articles about PUAs, (Pick-Up Artists) and "Game."

The Manosphere's attempt to devalue women also shows contempt for them. Yet this is portrayed as a good thing.

I once knew a 49-year-old spinster who had a cat because she didn't have a husband, children and a home. She told me "men are responsible for all the problems in the world" and that "I don't need a man in my life right now." She also said all the men she knew had baggage from past relationships and wouldn't accept her "career."

What she was showing was envy. She felt men had denied her husband, children and home. As as defense she devalued men to deny their power over her - and this involved her showing contempt for them.

I've met other women like this. Now what the the chance any of them will never have a solid relationship with a man? With their devaluation and contempt? And a red flag about the influence of feminism is men not accepting women's careers.

A fair number of women today are hostile and unpleasant. They don't even know it. Again, this is the influence of feminism.

In response, the Manosphere advises men to become immune to what women say. This actually is an old philosophy known as Stoicism, and it's also about bravery and self-control, which are two of the Four Cardinal Virtues. There is nothing new in the Manosphere, which readers don't know because they have no understanding of history.

St. Paul also said women were not to teach and to not talk back. Sound familiar?

A lot the advice from the Manosphere, being based on devaluing women and showing contempt for them, isn't going to improve men's lives. No more than feminism improved women's lives.

The opposite of contempt and envy is gratitude and appreciation. There are so many quotes about gratitude I suggest you look them up on the interest. But I will quote one from Thorton Wilder: "We can only be said to be alive in those moments when our hearts are conscious of our treasures."

These attempts at domination, control, and manipulation, based on contempt and envy and fear...they'll never give what people think they will.

A Guide to Avoiding Crazy Women

Some years ago I met a woman who was like no woman I had ever met before. I knew within about three hours there was something quite wrong with her, but I did not know exactly what. I ended up seeing her for a few weeks and in that time came to some conclusions.

After much thought, I was able to formulate Bob’s Guide to Avoiding Crazy Women.

The first red flag: if they start talking about how they were sexually abused when younger, stay away. I mean if they start talking about it within the first TEN MINUTES of meeting them.

That’s what this woman did, and I realized she was portraying herself as a victim. Then, not too long after the abuse stories, she told me that men are responsible for all (or maybe she said almost all) the problems in the world.

That’s the second red flag, because she was again portraying herself as a victim. When anyone – male or female – does this, they are full of hostility toward the other sex.

Since these people portray themselves as victims, they believe they’re always in the right, which means YOU are always in the wrong.

They have no sense of your boundaries, which they are always violating. On the other hand, they are excruciatingly sensitive to you violating their boundaries, to the point they imagine it when it’s not there.

She once told her she thought she was a stopgap to me, on my way to another woman. The idea had never occurred to me, and wasn’t true in the slightest. In fact, when I tried to protest, I couldn’t get a word in. Again, she was portraying herself as a victim – this time of me.

People like this are known as "character disorders." To them, it’s never their fault; it’s always your fault. They don’t even know they’re doing it, and if you point it out, it doesn’t register. That’s why therapy doesn’t work on these people.

They're narcissists of one kind or another: borderline, histrionic, or just plain old narcissist. They can be. unfortunately, very charming. They can make you feel special, which I've heard called "love bombing."

One of my friends got involved with a woman like this, because she hid what she was for a few months. It took him quite a while to get her out of his condo, and for a while ended up drinking a bottle of wine a night because of the stress. I told him he was an abused man. He had no answer for that.

Incidentally, most men who are abused by women don’t even know they’re being abused. It takes quite a while for the fact to penetrate.

Another bizarre thing about people like this is that they lack empathy, and don’t even know it. It’s why they wreak havoc in people’s lives, and especially in intimate relationships. It’s because your feelings don’t count. Again, they don’t do this on purpose – they don’t even know they’re doing it, and when it’s pointed out, still can’t realize it.

These people unfortunately can’t have real relationships, since other people exist only to serve them. In a phrase, they lack respect and consideration for others.

And without respect, trust and appreciation, you have no relationship worth anything.

The Evil Eye and the World on Fire

It didn't start with George Bush and the always-wrong neocon cowards and traitors (anything William Kristol says, the truth is the exact opposite). It's been going on for a while in the U.S.: the belief in exporting, by death and destruction, "liberty" and "democracy" to the rest of the world. This is the delusion of leftist utopians. And leftists, as as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn said so perceptively about all of them, "don't merely misunderstand human nature. They don't understand it at all."

One thing no one in Obama's bungling administration understands is the story of the Garden of Eden, which tells us evil is brought into the world through people blaming their problems on others because of envy. Adam blames Eve; Eve blames the serpent, a symbol of hate and envy.

Case in point: one of the reasons the World Trade Center was attacked was to draw the U.S. into a guerrilla war to drain us of blood and treasure until we leave the area (I never fell for the conspiracist "false flag" silliness).

The other reason was envy, to "bring us down." What better target, then, than the WTC? We are the strongest country in the world; the 22 Islamic countries have a combined economy less than that of Spain. Yet they were able to attack the symbols of our wealth and power - things they don't have.

They're giving us what throughout history has been called "the evil eye." Envy. Avoiding the Evil Eye is what liberalism is based upon. ("I will denigrate myself, my race, my sex and my culture so that you will not envy me. And here's some money, too, so you won't envy me about that, either"). For all practical purposes, leftists believe in Black Magic, a rather amusing concept considering how many of them think they're intellectually and morally superior to the unwashed masses.

Helmet Schoeck, in his magisterial Envy: a Theory of Social Behavior, defines envy as "a drive which lies at the core of man's life as a social being - [an] urge to compare oneself invidiously with others." Fear of other people's envy, he tells us, discourages innovation, effort, and achievement. It's why some places in the world have stagnated for thousands of years.

Obviously, the human race is in many ways still stuck in about One Million Years BC, except there's no Raquel Welch in a two-piece fur bikini. We still engage in Molochian human sacrifice, but now instead of rolling an infant or two into a fire-filled stone idol to placate the spirits, we now kill thousands of them and call it "collateral damage." The underlying psychology is still the same: we must sacrifice them or something Really Bad will happen to us.

The two world-wrecking diseases of the 20th century - Nazism and Communism - were based in large part on envy and the avoidance of it. Both, of course, were leftist. Both were based on human sacrifice to erase that envy. I suspect the sacrifices to Moloch were to assuage his envy - his Evil Eye. Schoeck agrees, writing the superstitious fear of arousing the envy of their gods is what has crippled many societies for millennia. Christianity and capitalism, he notes, has helped diminish envy through its belief in private property (which deflects envy from people into things) and in a God who would not maliciously envy or ridicule them. (This is one of the reasons why "pagans" who think we can bring back Norse gods are clueless.)

What then, will be the result of the administration's misguided, indeed blind, attempt to impose "liberty" and "democracy" on recalcitrant countries? Nothing good. In fact, only bad.

It's clear that Obama is more of a Commie that anything else, but even Bush was far more of a leftist than a rightist. No true conservative believes in revolution. They understand that society is but a fragile patina holding down a lot of unpleasant human nature. Destroying society by revolution will not bring out all that "liberty" and "democracy" hidden deep in their souls. Instead it will bring out envy, hatred, anger, and the desire for revenge. In other words, the exact opposite of what is expected -- the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Besides, no country the U.S. attacks is going to get liberty and democracy. They'll become colonies of the U.S., enforced by military bases on their land. Sure, we'll build some hospitals and schools, but what will happen is a minority of the politically connected will reap great wealth but the average person will get crumbs.

Amy Chua, in her book, World on Fire, points out the U.S.'s exporting of the idea of managed economies (the misnamed "democratic capitalism") has, in the countries that have adopted it, led to massive inequalities of wealth, with tiny minorities using the political process to enrich themselves and impoverish the majority.

She relates the story of how her wealthy Chinese aunt in the Philippines was knifed to death by her chauffeur. The police shrugged. So did the witnesses. This is obviously a case of envy of the poor toward the rich. Similar things have been happening in Indonesia, Russia, Sierra Leone, Bolivia - and in the Middle East.

The idea the U.S. can somehow by violence change entire cultures is itself a belief in a type of White Magic to counter the Black Magic and the Evil Eye. Those in the U.S. government are so deluded I don't know what else to call their beliefs except Magic: we will zap them with our White Magic to wipe out their Black Magic. We wave our magic wand. . .chango-presto, they become like us. The envy and the Evil Eye disappears; human nature is transformed!

White Magic, Black Magic, the Evil Eye. . .all hidden under a farrago of obscuring verbiage. Added to this atavistic mess are Presidents believe they are gods...or maybe just Priest-Kings. We appear to be stuck in a third-rate fantasy novel, one in which a well-meaning but dim-witted Priest-King, unduly influenced by his calculating advisers, has been conned into thinking murder and destruction is White Magic, the use of which will put a permanent end to the cunning and malicious dragon threatening the kingdom with his Black Magic and Evil Eye.

C.S.Lewis and Tolkien this isn't. It's not even Harry Potter.

There is a cure, however. That cure is the real free market and real liberty. The Greeks wisely noticed that admiration was the benevolent form of envy. Under a managed economy there will always the small wealthy minority and the exploited masses. As such, there will always be hate, envy and the desire for vengeance that will have to be kept down by violence.

Under the real free market, anyone can easily improve his position. Admiration and emulation are more likely than envy. Envy will always be with us, but it can be minimized. Social forces will either minimize it or transform it into admiration.

Unfortunately, the Iraqis and the Afghans aren't going to get real liberty and the real free market. Ever. They'll get the managed economy, the small wealthy minority and the exploited and repressed masses. They'll also develop envy, the hate and the desire for revenge. It'll be directed toward the wealthy minority, and, of course, us.

The U.S. is now more hated and envied than it is admired. It wasn't that way in the past. But then, in the past we weren't interfering in the world the way we are now, crashing around like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla. Were we to cease interfering, and instead be a beacon to the world instead of an Empire, that envy would be again transformed into admiration. The hatred, the anger and the desire for envy would turn into emulation.

Had the people in the past few administrations had any understanding of human nature (and all crackpots, they do not), our current problems could be avoided. Since they do not, we are looking at a few more decades of warfare and political propaganda. There is no "light is at the end of the tunnel." There is, instead, as Chua wrote, only a fire.

Envy is Destroying the World - That's Means You're Going Down, Sucker

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill

Here's my two cents on women in the military.

Feminism is based on the envy of men. That envy is unwarranted, but it's still there.

Feminism is also leftist, and leftism is based on envy.

The envious will destroy those they envy, even if they destroy themselves. That is why envy is the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins. It's also the only one that isn't any fun.

Feminists supporting women in the military isn't about women being the equal to men in combat. It's about destroying men. Everything else is just self-delusion among feminists and their Mangina supporters. As Bertrand Russell said, envy is one of the most potent causes of unhappiness; not only is the envious person rendered unhappy by his envy, but "they also wish to inflict misfortune on others."

The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Liddihn, who everyone should read, said leftism (being feminine) was based on "hatred of the Father." (He also said, "Leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature. They don't understand it at all.")

I've thought for years that women are far more hateful and envious than men. And more ruled by their feelings. And far more self-deluded.

Everything in which there are far more women than men, they have destroyed. Just look at the educational system.

Women won't be able to totally destroy the military. They don't have the physical ability to be SEALs or Rangers or Green Berets. Instead, they'll be stuck in the back in support roles. And, of course, they'll be given promotions and raises they don't deserve.

The military won't be destroyed, but by God it'll creak and groan and stagger.

And I guarantee you, women are still going to expect chivalry from men. "I'll pretend I'm your equal, except that I'm really not, so when push comes to shove I expect you to carry me even if you and a bunch of other guys get killed."

As for putting women in combat, what the fuck is wrong with men who support that? I know leftist feminists don't give a damn if other women are killed or horribly maimed. Leftism is based on hate, including of other, better-looking women.

It's all about making themselves feel good and dragging men down. That's why Thomas Sowell mocked these people as "the Anointed."

Leftism always destroys societies and cultures. Ask yourself this: name one leftist society that has survived. You can't.

Men have a misguided sense of fairness. They even listen to stupid, destructive leftist men and women. And ultimately, we're the ones who pay for it.

And pay, and pay, and pay.

"The wicked envy and hate; it is their way of admiring." -Victor Hugo

Manginas and Man-Jawed Monstrosities

Several years ago I saw a very unusual woman walking down the sidewalk. She was tall, strutting, had tattoos, and her shoulders were broader than her hips. Not a little broader. A lot.

I immediately knew several things about her: below-average intelligence, drug user - and slut. She had blank eyes and no intelligence or character showed in her face. She knew enough to strut, though - that's why my eye was drawn to her. Then I saw the rest.

That was the first time I had ever noticed a woman whose shoulders were that much broader than her hips. Since I started noticing it, I have seen quite a few of these women.

Something is wrong here, and I do not know what. Women are not supposed to have their shoulders that much broader than their hips. That's what you see on men.

I have no sure explanation for this. I have some hypotheses. Something went wrong in the womb? All the chemicals in the environment? I have some clues. At least I think I do.

One thing I do know about these women: none I have met have ever been intelligent. Some lack character. Many are promiscuous. They're not creators of anything. Whatever they touch, they damage, sometimes destroy.

Then on the male side I've been seeing what are called Manginas. I never saw any of these guys in high school or college. But for the past several years I've been seeing them. They look soft, mostly in the face. They look physically weak. And they support feminism, sometimes rabidly. (For some reason they remind me of rabbits.)

The explanation is that these guys want get laid, but that hasn't been my experience. Many times these guys don't have much of a sex drive. They play video games a lot.

They're pussies. Not literally, of course, but in the way they look and act. More charitably, I've heard them called Manboobs.

Again, what's going on here? Chemicals? Something going wrong in the womb?

One thing I do know: none of this started until after feminism. Modern feminism has been around for about 40 years, and many of these guys and girls are in their 20s. So, apparently, some 20 years after feminism started going, there are physical changes in men and women.

That's scary.

Does this mean an ideology can physically screw up your body and brain? I have a very hard time believing that. About the only thing Communism did was turn people into drunks, but I never saw it turn boys into girls and girls into boys.

Is there some sort of weird Fetal Programming going on here? If so, these kids are being permanently warped in the womb, and then their perversions are activated and intensified by the dominant ideology. In other words, while you might be born with a tendency to be a Mangina, you'll only be one if society encourages it. The same with the Man-Jawed Monstrosities.

Fetal Programming is the belief that avoiding toxins, eating correctly and avoiding stress while pregnant can actually 'program' the fetus to be healthier than normal. This 'programming' can last into adulthood. And not just a little healthier. A lot healthier.

Probably we don't have one problem here...we have several. Stress is a big one. And I remember reading researchers found because of the stress of war pregnant women gave birth to more homosexual males. Interesting, hmm?

However, if this change is true (for whatever reason), it means feminism is self-limiting. These masculine girls and feminine boys aren't going to reproduce, which means they'll die off.

I could be completely wrong about these physical changes. Maybe I just never noticed them before.

But then, on the other hand, maybe I'm not. One thing I do know: the word "monster" is related to the word "demonstration." It's means a monster is a demonstration of something to come. Often, something worse.

What 'worse' could it be? Men create and maintain civilization and culture. Women don't do it. A rare one can, but overwhelmingly, no. When in power they destroy - think Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem.

In other words, the more masculine women there are, and feminine men, the faster everything goes backwards.

Now that's something to think about.