I don’t think it’s fair that I can’t find a rich woman to support me. Or even a middle-class one.
I’d prefer she not be a butterface, but I suppose I could put a bag over her head, the way Rowdy Roddy Piper did the frog-faced girl in Hell Comes to Frogtown. Maybe I can’t have everything, so I’m willing to compromise a bit. Just a little bit. An itty-bitty tiny little bit.
Betty Friedan, who was not even a butterface but more like the Medusa’s ugly sister, had one job in her life as a third-rate Stalinist journalist when young, and got a rich man to support her when she was married to him.
They even lived in a mansion on the Hudson River in New York, and to live there doesn’t mean two or three million dollars. It means fifty or a hundred million dollars. They even had maids to do the housework. I’m willing to do the housework, so money can be saved on maids, as long, of course, it’s spent on me!
If a monster like Friedan can find a rich man to support her, why can’t I find a rich woman to support me? I’m smart and funny and kinda maybe sorta okay-looking, and I’m really good in bed unless that hooker was lying to me, so how come there’s not even one rich woman wanting to support me? Huh?
It’s not like us white guys can find high-paying jobs anymore, what with Affirmative Action and all, which means “white guys need not apply.” It’s okay if we’re coal miners or carpenters or cab drivers, but try to get a job with an M.S. in Economics like one of my friends, who taught for seven years simultaneously at two community colleges and drove like 40 miles a day and was never offered a full-time position because he was passed over for women and of all things, Africans. So of course he quit. I think he collects aluminum cans on the side of the road these days.
There’s a lot more women in college than men, so us white guys are being forced to the bottom economically by law, so how about cutting me a break and supporting me? I mean, what the heck do you expect me to do? Just die, maybe?
I could just never figure this out. I mean, aren’t men and women supposed to be totally equal these days? I meet all kinds of women who want to be doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, business executives, etc., yet they don’t even ask me out for a cup of coffee! I just don’t get it! Shouldn’t I have hundreds of women ask me out, like a dozen every week? Huh? Why isn’t it happening?
How come I’m supposed to be the one to make all the adjustments? It’s just not fair! I’m supposed to adjust to women having careers and all, so why can’t they adjust to me and support me? Hmmm? Why do they think it’s fair they should have access to easy high-paying jobs but get outraged if I think they should ask me out, ask me to marry them, and then should support me? What is this? They expect all the advantages of being a man and a woman and none of the responsibilities of either? Wahhh! Not fair!
Maybe there should be Affirmative Action for guys. Since according to leftists all of us are supposed to be equal, and there’s no human nature since we’re all just John Lockean blank slates, then by law woman should be forced to ask me out to make up for all those years men did it.
I suppose there could be undercover cops, and every time a man asked a woman out he’d be given a ticket with a stiff fine. Woman would have to keep a record of all the guys they asked out (let’s say two a week) and then every week report to the local office of the Federal Dating Affirmative Action Bureau and show their records to the bureaucrats there. More stiff fines! And re-education classes, too, for resentful recalcitrant women! Then of course boys would be taught in grade school only girls can ask them out. We all have to be equal! I agree with that sentiment, of course.
If the federal government is interfering so much into the relationships between the sexes in the economy, then it should interfere in romantic relationships, too. Everything is connected, you know. The economy, romance, looks.
For that matter, what does love have to do with it? It should all be about fairness. Fair and equality is what matters, nothing else!
Ultimately I suppose science can make all of use sexless identical clones, so all of us can be totally equal. Isn’t that what we really want?
It might be kinda weird at first, but I’m sure we’d get used to it.
This is a conversation I had recently with a woman.
Her: Why do men want to fix things when women just want to talk?
Me: The word is “vent,” not talk. If you go to a doctor or mechanic, do you want things fixed or to just talk?
Her: That’s different. This is a personal relationship.
Me: Venting is for your cats and girlfriends, not me. Do you realize how insane it drives a man to listen to a woman babble and he’s got this overwhelming compulsion to fix what’s wrong?
Her: No.
Me: Well, now you know.
Her: It irritates me men want to fix me.
Me: It if wasn’t for men there wouldn’t be any civilization.
Her: That’s not true!
Me: Oh, bullshit. Men created civilization and technology. Without men civilization would last until the next oil change, and a world of women would be living in grass huts.
Her: You’re terrible!
Me: No, I’m not, just truthful. Men, specifically white men, created about 95% of everything in the world. Without us, blacks would still be living In 20,000 B.C., Arabs would still be living in tents and buggering their goats and each other, and have no idea they were sitting on top of all that oil, and Asians would be in about the 12th Century and still using chopsticks.
Her: I had no idea you were so prejudiced!
Me (sighing): Prejudice means to prejudge. I try not to prejudge. People use that word without knowing what it means. It’s like “racism” and “sexism.” The words don’t mean anything. They’re words invented by Communists, anyway.
Her: You sound like a fascist!
Me: I’m no fascist. But you do sound like a fuzzy-minded liberal female. It’s why women have usually not been allowed to vote.
Her: You are so annoying! I am so mad at you!
Me: Excited, huh? Want to have sex?
Her: No! Right now I hate you!
Me: You'll get over it. Almost all women are ruled by their feelings instead of their brains. Besides, I think you love me more than you hate me.
Her: Okay, you're right. I mean yes.
Me: I'm almost always right. And with women “no’ usually means “yes.”
When I was 16 years old and at a girl’s house with a friend of mine, the girl we were visiting, who was 15 or 16 years old, informed us she was a witch. Even at that age I kept the poker face, otherwise my lip would have curled in contempt.
I had known her since grade school, and had never thought all that much of her, but now my opinion of her plummeted. There are no witches, no occult powers, nothing of that sort. Although it seems to be women who fall for this nonsense far more than men.
Pretty much the same thing happened about a year later. I was with the same guy, and we were with two girls in my car. I knew the one I was with, but did not know her friend, who started telling us the same thing about occult powers. She was maybe 17.
This time I told her these things didn’t exist, and she got hostile and defensive. The conversation ended at that.
I figured these silly adolescent girls were saying these things for attention, or for other ego reasons, mostly about the belief they can learn to control and change things and themselves and others (these days these girls would most probably call themselves Wiccans). None of them had any talent that I knew about, or were particular intelligent. So maybe they convinced themselves they were witches so they’d think there was something special about themselves, rather than having any actual accomplishments.
A few years ago I ran across a woman, this time in her 40s, who told me she had been a witch and there really were occult powers. Same thing; my opinion of her plummeted. Even if ‘adult,’ she was still a silly adolescent girl.
When the Puritans came to America, they went through a witch-hysteria. Contrary to the myth, they never burned any witches, but they hanged 35 of them, all innocent.
Later, when the persecutors regained their reason, they horrified at what they had done. Not surprisingly, some of the girls were silly adolescent females who claimed, yes, we’re witches!
Had I been a judge back then, I would have told them, “You are a silly, deluded adolescent girl looking for attention. There are no witches, and you are not a witch. Go home and grow up.”
God put the poontang on the silly one. And the word ‘hysteria,’ not surprisingly, comes from the Greek word for ‘womb.’
Thirty-five innocent people would not have gotten hanged in Puritan New England except for these delusions. What was done in Europe was a lot worse: hangings, torture, burnings. Thousands of them. To ferret out things that don’t exist.
Even today, people still go through hysterics and believe in witches. Some years ago there was a hysteria about children being sexually abused in a daycare center. There were allegations of human sacrifice in the basement. Witches and Black Masses!
People said kids “didn’t lie about such things,” which is nonsense. Little kids don’t know lies from truth, especially when they’re coached. Innocent people were imprisoned for years until finally released.
And who was overwhelmingly involved in this mass hysteria? Women.
Whenever you see mass hysteria, or the belief in any wide-ranging conspiracies by people falsely defined as ‘evil’, it’s always predicated on the belief in witches, no matter by what name you call them.
Groups are bad enough. Individual people can have brains. Groups never do. And the most hysterical and brainless of groups are women.
Since when enough women get together, they screw up everything they get involved in, my conclusion is that when enough women get involved in religion they'll try to impose bizarre feminist pagan nonsense on it. Maybe that's why St. Paul wrote: "I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly."
I once caught my four-year-old nephew stealing change out of a cup in my car. When he saw me walk out of the house he turned and ran. He made it about ten feet before he fell down. Then he jumped up, pointed at me and yelled, "You made me fall down!" I just smiled. I used to steal change, too. And cookies.
What my nephew did is called projection. It's the first psychological defense children engage in. It's the first one adults use, too. Most don't even know they're doing it.
Projection is when people blame their problems on other people. Sometimes it's called scapegoating. The late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck called scapegoating "the genesis of evil" in the world. He's right.
Whatever word is used, they mean the same thing: I'm good and and you're bad. Because you're bad, you're the cause of my problems, so you must be insulted, mocked, humiliated, denigrated, devalued, ostracized, and at worst, killed.
I see projection all the time among what I call the Lost Boys of the Manosphere. They're the ones who think Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Sigmas, Omegas really exist.
Of those who really think they exist, here is what happens (I predicted this): the insecure ones are going to insist they are Alphas/Sigmas. Anyone who disagrees with these silly terms is going to be insulted as an Omega, Gamma, Beta. It's happened to me.
I'll repeat again: that's what scapegoating/projection is. I am good and you are bad. I will idealize myself and devalue you.
It's based on our inborn narcissism: either idealized or devalued. Grandiosity covering up insecurity. Those who claim they are Alpha/Sigma and scapegoat those who disagree with those terms are themselves terrified that they are the Gammas, Betas and Omegas of the world. They're projecting their own "badness" onto other people. Onto men, and onto women.
They are using grandiosity to cover up their feelings of humiliation and insecurity.
If you want to use those terms, every man is simultaneously an Alpha, a Beta, a Gamma, a Sigma, and an Omega. That's what I am, as is every man.
The Manosphere is a needed, in fact inevitable, reaction to the evils of feminism, which itself tries to humiliate and devalue men. And in fact has. But it's making a detour into some bad places.
Some of those in the Manosphere are doing the same thing to women that women have done to them: you are loveless, greedy, rationalizing, gold-digging whores with no self-awareness whatsoever, and you are the cause of my and society's problems. You can't devalue women much more than that. They're devaluing women and blaming their problems on them so they can make themselves feel better ("I am an Alpha! I am a Sigma! You're a gold-digger and a whore!").
These Manosphere concepts are the mirror image of feminist concepts such "patriarchy," "oppression," "sexism," "lookism," ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They're just as deluded and just as dangerous.
The ancient Greeks, even though at times utter shitheads, were terrifyingly intelligent. They understood what Hubris is: thinking way too much of yourself until you lose your sense of what's right and wrong. They understood the opposite of it: Sophrosyne, or understanding yourself and realistically assessing yourself and your strengths and weaknesses. Often it's described as "Nothing in excess" and "Know thyself."
And you know what? Almost all the people in the Manosphere know of the concepts of Alpha, Beta, etc. but don't have a clue about Hubris and Sophrosyne. They don't have a clue as to what they are really doing.
The human race possesses a lot of knowledge but not much wisdom. It's always been like that. And what little wisdom we do we often ignore, because we think we know so much. It’s what comes from self-delusion and arrogance, the two main flaws that create the blind leading the blind.
Much of that wisdom is contained in mythology, the often painfully distilled experiences of the joys and horrors inherent in being human, in the form of stories that entertain and educate.
We’re in the process of forgetting those stories. We’re already regretting it.
At one time in the not-so-distant past, Americans knew their Greco-Roman myths, because they were aware these stories were one of the foundations of Western culture. These days, with these stories so unknown, many Americans don’t even know where they came from.
Let’s use, for an example. Hermes. Hermes was the original name of the Greek god, although most people today know him by his Roman name, Mercury.
Hermes was, paradoxically, the patron of both merchants and thieves. Some might argue merchants are thieves, but it’s not that simple.
None of the Greek gods were simple. They were as complex and contradictory as people, which isn’t surprising, considering that while the Greeks gods don’t exist, people certainly do. The Greek gods are just illustrations (or archetypes) of kinds of people and their relationships.
Hermes, in his not-so-admirable aspects, although likeable and charming, was a liar and a thief. What does that tell us? Although someone may be charming (which means "to cast a spell") it doesn't mean he is a moral person -- think of the charming, likeable rogue Bill Clinton.
Hermes did something very note-worthy and very disturbing -- he broke Ares (Roman: Mars) out of a bronze vessel he had been imprisoned in for a year.
Ares, the Greek god of war, was a coward, a whiner, and a mass slaughterer who loved death and destruction (two of his offspring were named Panic and Terror). He was also incompetent, as war-lovers are always incompetent -- Saddam Hussein, for a good example, ordered his generals to capture hundreds of American soldiers and tie them to the front of Iraqi tanks.
Hermes, in his better aspects, was the protector of merchants. Zeus, law-giver and enforcer of oaths, who ruled not only through force but also through wisdom and justice, ordered Hermes to clean up his act and not only protect merchants, but also travelers. He was also charged with promoting trade and negotiating treaties.
The story of Hermes is a profound myth. There is a saying by Bastiat (and it's a mighty important one): "If goods do not cross borders, armies will."
Hermes, when a liar and a thief - and when he protected thieves - unleases war on the world. In other words, when there is no just, fair, free-market trade, war is very likely to erupt.
When there is just, fair, free-market trade, Ares ends up bottled for years. When merchants and traders are liars and thieves, Ares is let loose to walk to and fro up and down in the world.
Unfortunately the United States does not have just, fair free-market trade. It has instead globalization -- managed trade -- which enriches a vanishingly small minority at the expense of everyone else.
Many "merchants" have turned into liars and thieves, and the court intellectuals who support them (and banksters) haven't turned into liars -- they always have been liars, in addition to being whores.
The United States considers itself to be Zeus -- the fair and just lawgiver imposing order on the world. Since the West is Christian -- even if nominally -- the United States perceives itself as the indispensible nation, the shining city on the hill, chosen by God.
Yet Zeus punished blindness and arrogance -- what the Greeks called Hubris. It was always followed by Nemesis.
For that matter, Pride, (the worst sin in Christianity and the same as Hubris) is always followed by some kind of destruction: "Pride goes before a fall, and a haughy spirit before destruction."
The ancient Greeks believed in prophecy. (Apollo, the first person Hermes stole from and lied to) was among his many talents the god of prophecy.
It's no wonder the Greeks believed in prediction. The future -- if you have some understanding of human nature -- isn't that hard to foresee.
The international merchants of today (I call them Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations), with their stealing and lying, are going to again unleash Ares. As to whether or not this unleashing will be in the U.S. or without, that remains to be to seen. Perhaps, it will be both inside and outside.
But he will be unleashed, in one degree or another, as lying, stealing and Hubris always does.
Feminism was born not of the oppression of women by a non-existent patriarchy, but from the boredom of left-wing women, which they blamed on a quite-real capitalism.
It was “capitalism” (in my opinion, misnamed) that freed women from a lifetime of cleaning, sweeping, laundry, sewing, cooking, canning and the rest of the day-long drudgery involved with keeping a home. It also freed them from unwanted, sometimes dangerous and occasionally fatal pregnancies.
The fruits of political and economic liberty resulted in the burdensome necessities of life not being eliminated, but greatly eased. After that advancement, with life being so much easier, the next step should be the improvement of minds and lives. That was the problem: what to do with the challenge of all that leisure.
Unfortunately, when it comes to leftists, this material abundance results, as it always does with them, in spiritual poverty. I not believe there could be a Marquis de Sade or a Herod when men spent their days hunting game to survive; only “aristocrats” who never had to work a day in their lives could turn into bored leftists who whiled their days away with sex and drugs and partying.
Boredom, quite correctly, was considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins: ennui, to be exact. That is, being unable to find meaning, importance and community in your life.
The word “sin” comes from the word “hamartia” and is derived from archery; it means “to miss the mark.” Those who cannot find true meaning, importance and community in their lives have missed the target.
Since no one can live without meaning, importance and community, leftists, since they almost always reject traditional religion, end up worshiping themselves. Only in leftism can Man be considered a god.
Bored by the advancements and leisure generated by political and economic liberty, and at a loss what to do with their lives, leftists misinterpreted these things as oppression. Bored people always feel oppressed, and being the first defense of people is to blame their problems on others, they looked around and decided that “capitalism” and “patriarchy” were to blame.
Leftist critics did diagnose the problem, but not only was the diagnosis terribly skewed, the cure was deadly: the destruction of society and the (impossible) remaking of human nature so they men and women would be exactly equal. Only then, they claimed, could “patriarchy” and “capitalism” be overthrown and destroyed.
In a perverted and limited sense, these critics were correct: these material advancements were generated by men (specifically white men), which was misnamed “patriarchy,” and also by science and political and economic liberty – misnamed “capitalism.”
The Stalinist Betty Friedan, one of the founders of Sixties feminism, wrote in The Feminine Mystique there was a problem that “had no name.” The problem did have a name: that missing of the mark known as ennui. Friedan, not at all surprisingly, was an atheist who was married to an extremely wealthy man and lived a life of luxury in a mansion on the Hudson River in New York. The housework was done by maids.
She was another bored, wealthy, self-appointed aristocrat without a religion, one whose suitcase once fell open at an airport and spilled her sex toys on the floor.
Her leftist “religion” promoted the elevation of women, the denigration of men, and the hoped-for destruction of “patriarchy” and “capitalism,” to be replaced with primitive tribal matriarchal equality and fraternity
One way to overcome women’s “oppression” was for them to enter into men’s occupations. This didn’t mean entry into any hot, dirty, dangerous jobs: it meant entry into the much easier, highly-paid ones, a path smoothed by Affirmative Action (“white men need not apply”).
It also meant the denigration of motherhood and marriage. Gloria Steinem throughout her life never had a good thing to say about romance and marriage, even though they were the most importance things in her personal life, and she never practiced what she preached to other women.
These self-appointed elites, the vanguard of a hoped-for New Society, gained meaning to their lives – and importance and community – by trying to destroy the existing social order. It must be heady to think you have that kind of god-like power, and to get that kind of money and attention.
It is a sad fact of life there are people who get meaning to their lives by trying to destroy a society they hate, however incorrectly, as being little more than crushing and oppressive.
The intended goal of these people is a complete equality between men and women. Unfortunately, they never take this belief to its logical conclusion: if men and women were totally equal, they would be totally identical and interchangeable.
Men and women have to be totally alike, in the way two nickels or two quarters are alike. We’d have to be hermaphrodites, or totally sexless, with babies grown in jars. We’d be much like ants or termites, I suppose. Or worse, amoeba.
Since such equality is impossible, society would instead form along the lines of what Hans Prinzhorn called “the tyranny of a clique in the name of the equality of all.”
It is, of course, supposed to be leftists who are the wealthy and political powerful clique, and the mass of people who should have “equality” forced on them, whether or not they want it. They just need their consciousness raised by their betters.
The eternal delusion of the leftist is for people to be checkers that can be moved around, or perhaps just mud that can be shoveled into whatever shape rulers want. Only the intellectually and morally superior know what is good for the unwashed masses.
Their Nietzschean Will to Power is cloaked by the belief in their own humanitarianism – the humanitarian with a guillotine, as Isabel Patterson noticed.
This desire to remake people and societies is how leftists find meaning and importance in their lives. Perhaps it does make them feel God-like - the intoxication of believing you are omnipotent. It certainly a religion to them, as Arthur Koestler clearly documented in his book about those disillusioned by Communism, The God Who Failed.
If feminists did succeed in imposing their beliefs on society (which can only be done by the force of the State, being their beliefs run opposite to human nature) what kind of world would we have?
Since men, specifically white men, are responsible for modern civilization, if feminists were in charge of civilization we would, as Camille Paglia so correctly noted, be living in grass huts. Or, as the humorist P.J. O’Rourke once wrote, without men civilization would last until the next oil change.
Men have created civilization; women are the ones who made it comfortable. Many men, left to themselves, live like utter slobs. Some would wear their underwear until it fell off.
One ironic way to deal with leftists is to exile all of them to an island, where they would find rapidly their ideas of how society should be run won’t work.
Of course, they would blame their problems on the residue of the false consciousness inculcated in them by their former society. Perhaps in a few hundred years, I’m sure they’d say, – or maybe a few thousand – would all those bad ideas finally be eradicated.
Perhaps if they were denied the comforts of science and technology, and had to spend their lives eking out a living (so much for Rousseau and his Noble Savage), could they be neutralized. They certainly wouldn’t be bored anymore.
They might even end up like some of the blacks in Africa who, after running the white man out, begged him to come back.
People, unfortunately, are not that hard to mislead. Just keep repeating the same propaganda over and over: white men and capitalism bad; everything that is not those two things, good
Today, through the media and schools, people are being inundated with ideas that don’t, and won’t, work. Not that leftists will ever believe this, except for the few who successfully graduate from the School of Hard Knocks.
Leftist ideas, manifested in society, always blow things up. I doubt anyone will be bored by that process – just pained. “May you live in interesting times,” goes the ominous old Chinese curse.
Leftists, not merely misunderstanding human nature but not understanding it at all, have failed at their attempts to cure society, at defining the relationships between men women, at finding the truth. Instead they have opted for simplistic, narcissistic – and wrong – answers. It’s a shame for all involved.
One of my friends has an undergraduate degree in Education (and was a teacher), then got a M.S. in Economics (and taught as a graduate assistant), so he applied for a position at a local community college. He was convinced he would get the job since he was more than qualified for it.
He didn’t get it. Instead, it was given to a woman. I told him the reason he did not get the job was because of Affirmative Action, which means “White Men Need Not Apply.”
When he sat in on this woman’s class, he was shocked to see that she made mistakes on the blackboard. “She didn’t really understand the material,” he told me. And she had (read: was given) an M.S. in Economics.
When he investigated, he found she was a newly-minted M.S., with no teaching experience whatsoever. The job should have been his, but he realized he was passed over because he was a white male – even though the woman was unqualified for her position.
The problems continued. He moved out of state and finally got a job at a community college teaching economics. The position was part-time, with no benefits. He figured sooner or later he’d be offered a full-time position.
After seven years he was never offered one, even though his student evaluations were always very good. He again ran across another unqualified woman who had a full-time position. “She couldn’t figure out how to do the math on the blackboard,” he told me.
Bizarrely, there was an African teaching at this college, which was in the Southwest. Students would go into my friend’s office and ask if he was teaching a certain class next semester, because they wanted to avoid the African, who, they told him, was a terrible teacher.
When I asked my friend if this African was incompetent, he said, “Yes.” Apparently this buffoon’s idea of teaching was to tell the students to read the entire micro- or macro-economics textbook (Intro to Micro/Macro are the beginning economics classes).
After seven years he just gave up, realizing he was never going to get a full-time position anywhere. Fortunately he inherited enough money to not exactly retire, but he did buy for cash a three-bedroom condo in the foothills of the local mountains. These days he works part-time at a local bowling alley as a mechanic.
“I worked my butt off,” he told me, “and what did I get?”
As he was moving out of his apartment into his condo, he met a man from California moving into his complex. He said he had taught economics for eleven years in California and was never offered a full-time position. Finally he left the state.
That's not the only story I've heard about Affirmative Action. One man, with an M.A., who had been an officer in the Army, told me that when the promotion list came out there were eight white woman, one black woman, and one "Hispanic" woman. He and all the other white men, he realized, did not stand a chance of getting promoted.
How about another one? A friend of mine loves the law. He inquired about being a law professor and was told by the dean, "Forget it. You don't stand a chance because you're white."
One of the main problems with Affirmative Action is that it promotes the unqualified and keeps the qualified under-employed or unemployed. It wasn’t supposed to be like this, but how things are supposed to be and how they turn are usually not the same thing – especially when the government gets involved.
Another problem with AA is the contempt that men end up feeling towards unqualified women (or unqualified anyone). This contempt is intensified when men have to carry the burden created by the unqualified who have been promoted beyond their level of competence.
What I have found is these men are now moving into being self-employed. Who wants to work for anyone when you are not being given the raises and promotions you deserve, and instead have to work for the inept, and worse, do their work for them?
Some years ago I read an article by a retired professor who wrote that there would be a reaction to qualified man being shut out of academia and their jobs being given to unqualified minorities. He's right, and one of those reactions is the Manosphere. It is, however, just the tip of the iceberg.
In the long run this abuse of men (and it is abuse) will only damage society. Men created both civilization and technology. Specifically, white men created them. As Camille Paglia commented, if civilization had been left in the hands of women, we’d still be living in grass huts.
As Charles Murray (and many others before and after him) demonstrated in his Human Accomplishment, European men and their descendents throughout the world have created about 98% of everything.
This is not, contrary to the hallucinations of leftists. because of "patriarchy" and "oppression" and "sexism." It is because men and woman have different brains.
I've met some women who were gleeful about these things. Every one of them lacks the imagination and critical and analytical ability to see what a society without men's contributions would be like. It wouldn't be worth living in.
I believe Affirmative Action - and leftism itself - is based on the envy of white men. The terrible thing about envy is that the envier with bring down those they envy, even if they destroy themselves. And that is what is happening.
Civilization is already going backwards, not technologically but morally. Envy is rampant, along what always goes along with it - hate and devaluation. This is what invariably what happens when the government exceeds its proper bounds – as in the case of Affirmative Action, which is government-enforced.
In fact, ultimately all governments turn leftist, which means they try to make everyone equal (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his Leftism Revisited, said one of the purposes of Leftism was "the overthrow of the Father.") It never works, and unfortunately destroys everything in its attempt to do so.
Most women are not feminists. Most women have been infected by feminist ideas, though.
I once had a girlfriend who told me she was smarter than me and could beat me up. I just smiled. When I asked her if she had ever been in a fight, she said no.
I knew she was afraid of insects. Once she put a glass on top of a spider in the kitchen and left it there three days.
Then we had a cicada infestation. I had been through one before. It was amazing. It was estimated there was a few trillion of these things - shrieking, buzzing, dive-bombing you by the dozens. They're hideous but totally harmless.
She'd pull her hood over her head, wave a flyswatter in front of her face, and run from her car to the house, going "Oh! Oh! Oh! Bob! Bob! Oh! Oh!" She was truly frightened of cicadas, and I don't know why. They're scary-looking, but that's all they are.
During the cicada infestation I had my six-year-old niece with me. A cicada flew in the car. She let out a shriek that hurt my ears. "It's going to bite me! It's going sting me! I'm scared of it!" I had to pull over and shoo it away. (She also told me if she was in the military and was yelled at, "I would cry.")
At least my girlfriend didn't shriek.
When I was a teenager and living at home, some dachshund got hit by a car and was lying in the street in front of my house.
Two little girls came out with a bucket and shovel and put the dachshund in the bucket. Then they were going to bury him in the field. When the dachshund flopped out of the bucket the girls shrieked, turn and ran.
Sorry, but I couldn't stop laughing.
I don't think it's a good idea for many women in the military to be in combat. I know the Israelis put women in combat but took them right out. When people tell me it's a good idea I always think about cicadas and wiener dogs.
I know a woman who decided to become a single mother. She treated her son as friend and confidant. When he was 18 she decided to leave the state, essentially deserting him. Fortunately he was already self-supporting. Making pizzas.
She once called him at 2 am from over a thousand miles away, sobbing because her new "boyfriend" had hit her.
He has recently been grinding his teeth at night until he shattered a molar.
He never talks about his mother.
She is a monster.
"Monster" comes from the same word as "demonstrate." A monster is a demonstration of something bad. So when I say single mothers are monsters I am not incorrect. Their kids have a decided tendency to live wretched existences, thanks to the selfishness of the mothers.
Here are some statistics about children raised by single mothers, i.e. children without fathers.
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
85% of all youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
49% of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers.
Would you like to know some famous fatherless men?
Billy the Kid.
Saddam Hussein.
Sirhan Sirhan.
Adolph Hitler.
Jack the Ripper.
Lee Harvey Oswald.
John Wilkes Booth.
Jeffrey Dahmer.
Charles Manson.
Also please note the word "bastard" has two meanings: a fatherless boy and a cruel, heartless man.
Single mothers are an example of the mythological Terrible Mother, who is destroying - and sometimes seductive. Single mothers often treat their sons as friends and confidants - emotional sponges. That is an example of seducing their sons and putting them in a predicament they should never be in.
In years past pregnant single women faced such opprobrium they were sent away to have their babies in secret, which were then given to a married couple or else to an orphanage. The children turned out better than if raised by a single mother, none of whom even now are economically self-supporting.
These day, rather than marrying the father, they marry the State and live on welfare. If none of those, they are at best they are parasites on their parents. Their children are the ones who suffer, and suffer terribly.
We cannot to back to the days of that social disapproval. So we have to go forward and try something else. For one thing, we can cut off welfare to single mothers. People respond to economic incentives.
With no money available, the number of single mothers having babies will go down. And it will go down a lot.
I don't care if someone believes in religion or not. What's it to me, as long as they leave me alone?
There are religious people out there who do bother me and other people (usually by knocking on my door), but the most annoying people I've ever met are atheists.
They always have to bring up the fact they are atheists. No one asks, but they feel compelled to tell you, right out of the blue. They always mock Christianity but never any other religion.
Some years ago I was standing by my car waiting for a tow truck when my neighbor, whom I barely knew, pulled up next to me and within minutes was telling me he didn't need religion and didn't understand why people built churches. I estimated he was at least 65 year old.
He also felt compelled to mock his niece about her beliefs.
Atheists are compelled to breathlessly inform you that the days of the week were named after pagan gods, such as Thursday being "Thor's Day" - as if no one else in the world knows that. Or that the bunnies and chicks of Easter are originally a pagan holiday. It's as if they believe they have all this secret knowledge that they must give to the ignorant and unenlightened, to show them what ignorant fools they are.
Since they are atheists, they automatically believe in "science," but they never have any idea what science is. If fact, science is their God, especially the God of Evolution, which they believe explains everything.
I have yet to meet an atheist who understood the theory of evolution, or any alternatives to Darwinism, such as endosymbiotic theory. All they think they know is Darwinism.
They don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, they don't know what the null hypothesis is, and they don't know what Type I and Type II Errors are. They don't know even basic statistics, and God forbid they blow up their brains on regression analysis. When it comes to understanding science, they are complete ignoramuses. ("Empiricism? Rationalism? What are those?")
Even though they don't know it, they don't believe in science, but scientism. I define scientism as the belief science explains everything, from the beginning to the end. This is something they take on faith, which means scientism is a religion. Science is not a religion. Scientism is.
Now when you call what they believe a religion, they get hysterical, because to them all religion is False and their definition of science is True.
These people are religious fanatics and don't even know it. Politically they tend to be either leftist-libertarians or just plain leftists. (Richard Dawkins, a fraud in the same mold as the now-disgraced Stephen Jay Gould, did say he was a socialist and once wrote astrologers should be prosecuted.)
Science is not a thing but a process. It's a method. At its best it's always refining itself, and it's entirely possible that something believed as absolute truth can be completely overthrown, the way the Theory of Relativity overthrew the reigning paradigm. It's entirely possible the same thing may happen to the Theory of Evolution.
Most people want to believe in something larger than themselves unless they are narcissists or psychopaths, which means they worship themselves. That's why atheists worship scientism.
If what scietism fails (say the theory of evolution is overthrown), atheists will suffer terrible cognitive dissonance. When fanatics find out their comforting beliefs, which give meaning and purpose to their lives, turn out to be false, it causes them great pain. It causes me great amusement.
"Great men are almost always bad men," wrote Lord Acton. From their badness you can learn much about the flaws inherent in the mass of people. Disease is as instructive as health, since it tells people to flee the former and seek the latter. Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, many people can't tell the difference between the two, and in fact see disease as health, unholiness as holiness, war as peace, ignorance as strength.
One of those great but bad men was Adolf Hitler, who has been described as "half genius, half insane." He clearly had a profound understanding of human nature, and the cesspool known as politics, in order to get to the position he did. Knowing what he said, and how he achieved what he did, warns people to be on guard against other amoral, power-crazed individuals like him.
One thing Hitler said was, "To be a leader means to be able to move masses." This is not a good thing, contrary to those who think it might be. There is nothing good about it at all. It means one charismatic man, or a very small group of calculating but reasonable-sounding people, can move millions of gullible people. ("The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all." ~ Tacitus)
Thomas Sowell, understanding all of this, wrote, "Most wars are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances."
Americans are just as gullible and prone to being conned as everyone else in the world. You'd think a country founded on liberty and distrust of the government wouldn't make a cult out of such statists as Lincoln or FDR or Kennedy, or Mr. Hope-and-Change-but-I'm-Really-Just-a-Half-Breed-Continuation-of-Bush, but it has happened. Much of the creation of these cults has been done by people who should know better -- historians and the clergy, both of whom should know how foolish the mass of people are, and how one bad man can move them, usually right over a cliff.
"Only force rules. Force is the first law" is something else Hitler wrote. There are only two ways to get what you want: honestly (the Economic Means of the free market) or dishonestly (the Political Means of force and fraud). Hitler is talking strictly about the Political Means -- lying and murder and theft and war. Only a consummate and completely amoral politician could make such a statement, and only somebody completely deluded could think that any society that is based on force and fraud can survive.
Richard Maybury, author of such books as Whatever Happened to Justice? and Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? points out that no society can survive unless it follow what he calls the Two Laws: "Do all that you have agreed to do" and "Do not encroach on other persons or their property." In a nutshell, do not engage in fraud or force. Do not engage in the Political Means.
While most people understand individuals cannot engage in force and fraud, they believe governments can engage in the Political Means with no untoward effects. They lack even the acumen of the pirate in St. Augustine 's City of God : "Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor."
The end result of the Political Means, when practiced by governments, is war, and as Ludwig von Mises noticed, "Economically considered, war and revolution are always bad business." That's an understatement. A bit more vivid is something else he wrote: "The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments."
Everything that Hitler wrote showed an understanding of the gullibility and imperfection of human nature, of peoples' desire to belong to a group (the basis of fascism), their equally strong desire to find a (supposedly hostile and insane) enemy on which to blame their problems, and the belief in force and fraud as the final arbiters: "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth"; "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think"; "Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills."
In a sense, these great but bad men are practitioners of Black Magic, who cast spells, through the use of words, to charm the susceptible masses into believing Bad is Good -- into believing it is acceptable, indeed necessary, for governments to eternally engage in force and fraud, otherwise evil will overwhelm them. Their evil, as evil almost always does, especially politically, disguises itself as good; Black Magic masquerades as White Magic. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn understood this when he wrote, "Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence."
The cancers currently infesting the U.S. administration have apparently taken a few pages out of Hitler's writings, and are trying to put them into effect. They are a vanishing small group of amoral and power-mad people, using words as charms, attempting to con the mass of unthinking people into believing they have an insane, evil, and implacable enemy who is out to utterly destroy them. The torrent of words they pour out boils down to basically one thing: might makes right.
"Might makes right." No society has ever survived believing that. It may be the year 2013 AD, but with their belief in magic and their susceptibility to being ensorcelled by charms and spells, people might as well be stuck in 2013 BC.
"...a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand." - H.L. Mencken.
Here's the difference:
"A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it."
A theory is what I sometimes called a "model." It is a description of reality. It is not reality. It is a map, not the terrain. It's related to a philosophical problem known as "concepts and their referents." Exactly how do the concepts in our heads refer to reality?
The closer our concepts, i.e., our theories, conform to reality, they better they work. We should always try to refine them to make them work better. The model, "Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and living because I'll float like a soap bubble" does not conform to reality and is a very bad model.
Now we come to the hypotheses of the Manosphere, specifically the ideas of Alpha/Beta/Gamma,Sigma, Omega.
The naive believe these ideas really exist, i.e, the describe reality perfectly. (Actually, they think they are reality.) There is no such thing. No idea describes reality perfectly and no idea is reality. These theories are always open to refinement. What I call the Lost Boys of the Manosphere don't know this, because the don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, between dialectic and rhetoric.
The ideas of the Manosphere are closer to hypothesizes than theories. They haven't been subjected to rigorous testing, although their supporters think they have. When it comes to ideas that are not hard sciences, one way of testing them is to criticize the flaws in them. Then the supporters have to successfully answer the flaws that have been noticed. They can't.
In answering, they have to use what Aristotle called "rhetoric" (emotion-based argument) as opposed to "dialectic" (reason-based argument). Which means they have no argument at all, even though they think what they believe cannot be proven false.
Here's an example: there are no Alphas. I've been told they are mass murderers, alcoholics, serial killers, unemployed drug addicts who live off of women, loveless, conscienceless psychopaths, and guys who devote their lives to seducing women. There are so many definitions that the word is worthless.
All of them aren't worth discussing except those who seduce women. The word for them, based on thousands of years of experience, is "cad." I have known several: every one of them has been a coward who has ruined his life in varying degrees. Unless they change. Sometimes they do.
The only kind of "Alpha" can be considered a true Alpha is a patriarch, i.e., a self-confident, competent man who is in charge of his own life and that of his family. He embodies the Four Cardinal Virtues: bravery, self-control, prudence, justice. The Romans called these men pater familias, and it was enforced by law. It no longer is, to the detriment of men, women and society.
This means there are two kinds of "Alphas" and both are the exact opposite of the other. That's why the word is worthless, and "Alphas" don't exist.
I've never run across anyone supporting the Manosphere concepts of "Alphas" who was able to defend it successfully. Mostly they engage in ad hominem attacks, such as "Cunt motherfucker Alphas do exist!" That's rhetoric, not dialectic.
I had one defender of the Manosphere tell me these concepts were discovered, just the way subatomic particles were discovered. This is stupidity of the most embarrassing kind. People thousands of years ago did not have the advanced technology to discover subatomic particles, but they did have the brains to observe and understand human nature. That is the difference between what is now considered a "hard" science and a "soft science."
By the way, Greek, Indian and Buddhist philosophers did discover atoms, by the virtue of rational thought. Keep subdividing matter and what do you come up with? "Atom" comes from the Greek word "atomos," which means "not divisible," although they are. The Buddhists thought atoms flashed in and out of existence, which is closer to reality. As I said, keep refining your concepts, or you'll never get to the truth.
When people believe anything and are incapable of accepting and answering criticisms of it, those people are imitative without the ability to analyze. What they believe gives them meaning and purpose to their lives, and don't want any refinement of their beliefs. That makes what they believe closer to a cult than anything else.
When men claim they are "Alphas" (which not surprisingly have not existed for the past several thousand years) it is an attempt to cover up feelings of humiliation and insecurity with grandiosity.
As Dr. Helen writes: "[The] new world order is a place where men are discriminated against, forced into a hostile environment in school and later in college, and held in contempt by society. Maybe there is no incentive to grow up anymore. It used to be that being a grown-up, responsible man was rewarded with respect, power and deference. Now, not so much."
What Dr. Helen wrote is why men's feelings of humiliation and insecurity were created by feminism, enshrined in law. That is why the Manosphere is a reaction to feminism. It doesn't mean all the ideas in the Manosphere are correct. Some of those ideas aren't merely wrong. They're dangerous.
A little more than ten years ago I turned off what the late, great offbeat genius (is there any other kind?) Arch Oboler called "the Twonky" (he was also the same guy who made the first 3-D movie, 1952's rousing Bwana Devil, which was about lions eating railroad workers. Hey, if some doofi try to build a railroad through my backyard, they'll find out what "Jose Greco de la Muerte" -- flamenco dancers of death -- really are.*
Okay, I didn't turn it off completely. I just turned off the bad stuff, which is about 99% of it. Modern TV gives a distorted view of life, sort of like reading H.P. Lovecraft while you have a fever. I mean, who in their right mind takes TV seriously?
I found I didn't miss television. Who wants to put distorted views into their brains? What good can that possibly do? I'm still trying to get out all the gunk put in mine by the public schools. Distortions are lies. If the truth is supposed to set us free, what do distortions and lies do to us? Enslave us?
What little TV I do watch tends to be cartoons, especially the old Looney Tunes I was raised on as a kid. The stuff today on Saturday morning is just horrible. Whatever happened to Tutor Turtle and Mr. Wizard? Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman? Fractured Fairy Tales? No wonder Japanese anime is so popular, or cartoons like The Simpsons, Spongebob Squarepants and South Park. At least none of them tell me if I don't carpool the icecaps will melt.
Of all of the ones I watched as a kid, the Looney Tunes of the late, great Chuck Jones were my favorite. I even liked them better than Bullwinkle the Moose, and that miniature Rocketeer, Rocket Jet Squirrel.
Of all the Looney Toons characters, I hold the most fondness for Marvin the Martian. Mostly it's because, like him, I have short legs that move in a blur when I run, but, like him, I don't go anywhere. The only kids I could outrun in middle high were the fat kids and the really doofy, pocket-protector-wearing, briefcase-toting ones that tripped over their own feet in the hallway. He's probably a billionaire today.
Besides the legs, I've always liked Marvin because he's a perfect example of what Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote in Leftism Revisited: "Madness is often a combination of cold reason and [imaginative] fantasy severed from all reality."
Marvin is perfectly rational, but he's also insane. He's a megalomaniac who wants to conquer the Earth, and like all megalomaniacs, he has no conscience. Anyone who gets in his way and makes him "very angry" runs the risk of wafting away in the breeze after being returned to his original atomic elements, courtesy of Marvin's disintegrator raygun, which is almost as big as he is.
In modern psychological terms, Marvin suffers from a psychotic or schizoid disorder. Dr. George Burden, somewhat humorously but still totally seriously, claims Marvin has a delusional disorder of the grandiose type. In the psychiatrist's Bible, DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), this would be diagnostic code 297.1.
I am a believer in what Alfred North Whitehead wrote: "Fundamental progress has to do with the reinterpretation of basic ideas." People in the past were as smart as we are. Maybe smarter. They just thought in a different context. They didn't have DSM-IV, but they knew a nut when they saw one.
Since Marvin is deluded, remorseless, grandiose and wants to conquer the world, what mythological archetypes does he fit? For one, he fits the Greek myth of Narcissus, from which came the modern disorder known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In a sentence, a narcissist is someone grandiose who sees others as things.
NPD, however, is just a mild version of the much, much worse Anti-Social Personality Disorder, commonly known today as a psychopath. Psychopaths have no conscience whatsoever and see everyone as things. Murderers and serial killers are psychopaths. To the Greeks, Ares, the cowardly and conscienceless God of War would probably fit the modern definition of a psychopath. Ares would fit Marvin, because Marvin, too, is a God of War.
The disorders, to the Greeks, would run from Narcissus to Ares. From the least to the worse. Since both suffer from grandiosity, they also suffer from what the Greeks called Hubris, which can be defined as an overwhelming lack of concern for the rights of others. All grandiose people lack concern for the rights of others.
The Greeks saw the sequence as Koros (stability) to Hubris (arrogance) to Ate (madness) to Nemesis (destruction). This sequence is why Narcissus stared at his reflection in a pool of water until he died, and why Ares is such a klutz - he never wins.
If we move to the Christian tradition, what do we find? For one, the quote from the Bible, "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." This is exactly the same observation the Greeks made. "Pride" and "haughty spirit" are best translated as "grandiosity."
This Koros-Hubris-Ate-Nemesis sequence is why Marvin never wins. I find this funny. There is more wisdom in a child's cartoon than in a whole department of Ph.Ds from Yale and Harvard! People who try to conquer the world never win! Did Brain (of Pinky and the Brain) ever conquer the world? Ha! Simon bar Sinister from the old Underdogshow? Nope. Any of James Bond's villains? Uh uh. Dr. Evil? afraid not (in a telling scene in one movie, a globe of the world whacks Dr. Evil right in his nuts).
How can the people who create children's cartoons, and write pop novels about secret agents (like Ian Fleming), know so much? And be so right? And why do the people with the Ph.Ds and the books - the "best and the brightest" - know so little and be so consistently wrong?
What's going on here? To whom am I supposed to listen? Bugs Bunny, or the shambling, twitchy nerds of the Political Science department at Yale? The way things are looking, I think the world would be better off paying attention to Bugs! What is this - an example of the Biblical saying about those who think they are first shall actually be the last? And those who are last will really be first? Ignore the intellectual Pharisees of our time and instead watch cartoons?
Now let's take ancient wisdom and its modern reinterpretations and apply it to today. One of the main threats to the U.S. and the world today are war-mongering politicians (which is most of them). They think the U.S. can conquer the world...like Marvin, like Brain, like Simon, like Hitler, like Stalin...uh oh. True wisdom tells us they are crackpots -- modern-day Satans hurtling toward the cliff. Bye bye! See ya! As long as you go by yourself, it'll be a much better world!
They suffer from grandiosity, self-deception, cowardice and lack of remorse. They fit perfectly the archetypes of Satan and Ares. Since they are clowns, they also are a bunch of Marvin the Martians, threatening the world with disintegrator rays. But they will lose. Ancient wisdom is against them, 100 percent.
Go up against the truth, and you'll lose every time.
So whenever you see babbling idiot of a politician or an "intellectual" on TV, see through the veneer to the truth of what these fools really are...buffoonish cartoon characters who are so dumb they can get outsmarted by a rabbit. A rabbit who knew a nut when he saw one. Unfortunately, a lot of people can't make the same claim.
*They're giant tsetse flies that in the film The In-Laws would carry children off into the sunset in their beaks.
Many women have a tendency to be natural socialists. I would not go so far as to say all women, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 90% of them.
To be accurate, there are men who are natural socialists. Teddy Kennedy was one of them, as are Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. Yes, I know...but Hillary is not a woman.
I'm sure that people in the past noticed this tendency in women. Hence, it is possibly the main reason that women have traditionally been denied the vote. When feminine socialism moves into the political (the political being defined as the attempt to rule others by force), it can do little more than destroy any society in which it becomes dominant -- and it especially destroys men through its attempt to turn them into little boys or babies. We need do no more than look any further than the Mommy State as it exists in America today.
Notice that I wrote, "moves into the political." I've come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as a good leftism (and the feminine socialism of the Mommy State is pure leftism). This leftism belongs in one place only: the home. And even then it should be balanced by the father.
Friedrich Hayek, among others, has written that socialism is an attempt to take familial/tribal values and impose them on society. It's an attempt to make society "one big family." One of the biggest problems with this is that citizens remain children instead of growing up.
And what is one of the things that children do? They blame their problems on everyone else. Blaming everyone else for all your problems is one of the main characteristics not only of children, but of immature adults.
These days, this "blame everyone else" attitude has infected society in general: "It's the gun manufacturers' fault I shot someone...it's fast-food restaurants' fault I'm fat...it's tobacco companies' fault I have lung cancer...it's McDonald's fault I spilled hot coffee in my lap."
This is what happens when "family" values are imposed by force on society: many "adults" still have a great deal of child in them, always pointing their fingers at someone else and crying, "You made me do it!"
I understand the desire to impose family values on society. Ideally, it would be a society without envy, without violence, and without anxiety. It's why leftists always want everyone to "share," even though this kind of sharing in any society can be imposed only by force. It's also why they are for gun control -- little kids cannot be allowed to play with dangerous things. This desire for force, for power over others, is why leftists are so enamored of the idol of the State.
Leftists believe if everyone is totally equal through sharing, then there would be no envy. Unfortunately, it is not possible for everyone to be totally equal. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out in Leftism Revisited, the only way people can be totally equal is if they are totally identical. Two quarters are totally equal because they are identical. The same does not apply to people and never will.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn has also written about leftism as "the attempt to overthrow the father," and uses as an example the "patriarchal" monarchies of Europe, which were overthrown by leftists, thereby ushering in the genocide of the 20th century. He pointed out that not one monarchy went down fighting.
If people are supposed to be children under leftism, who are supposed to be the parents? Those who plan and run societies, of course. These are the kind of people that Thomas Sowell mocked as "the Anointed." They are the people who believe that they are so intellectually and morally superior to everyone else it gives them the right to impose their vision on the unwashed masses.
A world without envy, without violence, without anxiety. Sure sounds good, doesn’t it? It does exist in one place: the womb. It is a place to which we cannot return.
I suspect this eternal lure of the Mommy State is, more than anything else, an attempt to return to the womb. It's an attempt to avoid not only envy, violence, and anxiety, but self-consciousness. After all, babies in the womb are unconscious. And in that unconsciousness, there is no envy, no violence, no anxiety. Just the safe, blissful oceanic feeling of being one with Mommy.
Most political scientists appear to be clueless about this desire to return to the womb, but good artists certainly aren't. In 1953 the writer Philip Jose' Farmer wrote a truly creepy story called -- yes, you guessed it--"Mother."
In it, an explorer on an alien planet ends up being trapped inside one of the planet's female inhabitants. She is little more than a gigantic immovable womb, in which everything he needs is given to him. At first he tries desperately to escape, but as time goes by, he gives up. And finally, when the Mother opens her "door" to allow him to leave...he won't. He has returned to the bliss of the womb, escaping all the problems of the world. Of course, he gives up his self-consciousness.
This story not only describes the baby in the womb, but the way children relate to adults: what they want is just supposed to, somehow, "be there." Unfortunately, it's the way a lot of "adults" relate to the Mommy State. What they want is also just supposed to "be there." High-paying jobs should just "be there." Cheap, plentiful gasoline should just "be there." Universal health-care should just “be there.”
The scariest of the leftist mother/wombs is "Star Trek's” the Borg. The Borg cube is essentially a gigantic womb flying through space. The members of the Borg are equal and identical. They feel no pain, no envy, no anxiety. They are unconscious in the womb of the Borg cube.
In a stroke of genius, the creators of the Borg have as the ruler not a King, but a Queen. A mother. In the movie, it's played by Alice Krige, who portrays the Queen with equal combinations of regality, sensuousness and motherliness. It's truly frightening combination, because she is both repulsive and desirable. As is the Borg womb.
For men, this return to the womb means to cease to be men. This, unfortunately, is one of the functions of (leftist) feminism -- to literally make them children, even babies.
At the risk of coming across as a crackpot Freudian, feminism is the desire to castrate men, to return them to being little mama's boys or babies always dependent on the Mommy State. Leftism is ultimately an attempt to return everyone to being that original, unconscious fetus -- a return to the womb -- like Garden of Eden, a place in which Adam and Eve were, like babies, utterly safe and unconscious of evil.
In literature the Borg Queen fits the archetype known as the Temptress. In the book, Myths and Motifs in Literature, the Temptress is described as follows: "Women seen as destroyer created many taboos as to where and when females might appear within the tribal territory, what foods they might touch, what relations they might have with men. But male fantasies about women were equally matched by her erotic attractiveness...women who were seductive and beautiful, but who would bring about the destruction of those they ensnared." This is a nearly perfect description of the Borg Queen. It’s also a description of the goddess Kali, half of whose arms give. The other half of them kill.
We certainly shouldn't return to silly tribal taboos about who can go where and who can eat what, but it should be kept in mind that that myth about the "feminine as destroyer" is an accurate description of what happens when feminine-socialist leftism moves into the political: it superficially appears to be attractive, but in the end it only destroys. Socialism is always the eternal Temptress: an unattainable womb that is eternally seductive, eternally destructive.
"Nowhere are prejudices more mistaken for truth, passion for reason, and invective for documentation than in politics. That is a realm, peopled only by villains or heroes, in which everything is black or white and gray is a forbidden color." - John Mason Brown
If there is any good at all about politics, it makes things so extreme they're easy to understand, compared to much more complex things which can take a great deal of analysis in order to make any sense of them.
Let's take the mythological Terrible Mother, that hate-filled, envious, power-mad monster who wishes to destroy men. Today, she is embodied in feminism, which wishes to destroy men out of envy and hate.
Feminism is leftist, just as true conservatism (I repeat true conservatism) is rightist and masculine. In fact, leftism is inherently feminine - although I'll add it is the bad feminine, i.e., the Terrible Mother.
The Good Feminine exists, but can only exist because of the Good Father. With the loss of the Good Father the Terrible Mother pops up and always tries to destroy. (In other words, we need pater familias).
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his Leftism Revisited, described leftism as attempting to "overthrow the Father." He also commented that leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature; they don't understand it at all.
The feminine principle operates by feeling, just as the masculine principle operates by reason. Leftists always operate on feeling, although they think they operate on reason, which they do not. To them, truth is what they feel is the truth.
Worse, leftists are narcissistic, which is defined as seeing everything as all-good or all-bad, with nothing in-between. Narcissists always think they are right, project their problems on other people, and see those they disagree with not as mistaken, but evil.
Even though the term "narcissistic" didn't exist in the any of the mythological stories of the Terrible Mother, it does now, and it is a good word.
The Terrible Mother, both personally and politically, operates on feelings, not reason; thinks she is always right and those who disagree with her are evil, and blames her problems on others. (Jung said women's worst flaw was thinking she is always right.) The Terrible Mother is a malignant narcissist.
Sounds familiar? Sure does, doesn't it? It's every leftist who ever existed. All of them are narcissistic, which means they are about four-years-old emotionally.
As for that subset of the Manosphere known as PUAs/"Alphas" (the Cad variety) the "Dark Triad," theses are the characteristics of the Terrible Father, and those who think these are good things are fools. The Terrible Father only destroys, just as the Terrible Mother only destroys.
Let's put it this way: who advances and who destroys? Darth Vader or Obi-Wan Kenobi? (By the way, "Vader" means father in Dutch. It's been claimed his name means "Dark Death Father" - which is exactly what I thought when I first saw the movie when I was 21).
Both the Terrible Mother and the Terrible Father are about power, domination, manipulation and control. About sadism.
I try to make things as simple as possible at the beginning, then you can move on to more complex things. That is why I have been interested in mythology for so many years. Myths last because all the dross has been burned away over a thousand or more years, and what you are left with are short, entertaining stories about the universals of human nature.
"He either idealizes his objects or devalues them. At any given time, the objects are either all good or all bad. The bad attributes are always projected, displaced, or otherwise externalized. The good ones are internalized in order to support the inflated ("grandiose") self-concepts of the narcissist and his grandiose fantasies and to avoid the pain of deflation and disillusionment." - Sam Vaknin
There is a part of me that sees the U.S. as "Homer America." As in "Homer Simpson." There is precedence for this name change: Saudi Arabia is named after the tribe which conquered the other local tribes and then named the whole place – originally Arabia – after themselves. This is exactly the same as if I conquered the U.S., called it "Wallace America," then renamed my relatives and myself as "royalty" and gave ourselves titles like "prince" and "princess." Although Homer America is a much better place to live than Saudi Arabia. And Wallace America would be the best place to live of all.
Homer is a particularly American archetype, just as Doug and Bob McKenzie could only be a Canadian one. I don't see anything similar to the Homer in Greek mythology, but he does exist in the Christian tradition, as a modern-day Adam (which means "Man").
Homer is good-natured, but stupid, ignorant, loud and obnoxious. He means well, but fouls up everything he does. He blames his problems on others, but every once in a while he has moments of self-awareness in which he realizes he is his worst enemy. His worst sin appears to be that of Intellectual Sloth (eyes rolled up toward cranium: "Brain, I know that you and I don't get along very well..."). If you were to take a million Americans, boil them down, then take the concentrate and morph it into a cartoon character, you'd have Homer. That is why he is such a uniquely American archetype. I think this is why he is so popular: the Homer in all of us resonates with the Homer onscreen.
Homer has his moments, but overall he is not likeable. He's not evil, just stupid (which reminds me of the comment by Napoleon: "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"). Homer is funny in fantasy, but like a lot of things which are funny while unreal, he'd be a horror in real life. Laughing at him allows us to defuse the fact he is a catastrophic symbol of ourselves.
Homer fits the archetype of Adam because he unconsciously blames his problems on other people. This is what Adam did when he blamed Eve for his transgressions. Homer, however, in his brief periods of self-awareness (always heralded by the now-classic "Doh!"), realizes he is at fault. He goes from an unconscious scapegoating to a conscious acceptance of self-responsibility, however transient.
This moving from unconscious scapegoating to conscious acceptance of self-responsibility is why I believe the story of the Garden of Eden to be the most powerful of all. The psychiatrist M. Scott Peck quite correctly called scapegoating "the genesis of human evil." And Homer, proving him right, has an almost irresistible impulse to blame his problems on everyone but himself.
I've often wondered if Adam had only gone, "Doh!" and accepted responsibility instead of blaming Eve (and had Eve not blamed the Serpent), then God might have said, "Well, okay, you can stay." In some versions of the story, Adam and Eve's scapegoating, and their denial of their responsibility, is what gets them kicked out of the Garden.
Since each of us has an Inner Homer, we are imperfect. In traditional religious terms, we are "fallen." Since everyone in The Simpsons is imperfect, the program can be considered in some ways to be a "true" conservative show, since true conservatives know that no one is perfect. This, of course, includes everyone in the government, which is why Chief Wiggins made the classic comment: "I didn't say the government couldn't hurt you. I said it couldn't protect you."
Since the program is very tolerant of everyone (and their foibles), it's also quite libertarian. Libertarian conservative, you could say. Except for Lisa, who in her youth and foolishness is a liberal. She's probably an example of that old saying, "He who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart, and if not a conservative at 40, no head."
Did the creators of Homer know what they were doing when they projected an aspect of the national psyche into this character? I have no idea. Like many artists, they tend to be, as Ezra Pound commented, "the antenna of the race." They can often see how things are (and are going to be) more clearly than most people, even if they can't explain how they know it.
Since Homer is a projection of our selves, he is Mass Man. The mean average IQ is 100, which is about what Homer's appears to be. And the more Americans you gather into a group, the closer the IQ drops to 100. This is one of the reasons I think the Essence of One Million Americans is Homer. Whenever you see some fat, yelling, shirtless, body-painted drunk at a sports event, you're seeing the Doh! made Flesh.
One problem for America is that this concentrated Homer archetype is what votes. Hence, Homer America. This is why democracy doesn't work, and why we get the politicians we do. Homer is definitely not part of Albert Jay Nock's aristocratic and educated Remnant. For that matter, neither are politicians.
Unfortunately, the bigger the group of politicians, the more they become Homerized, just like the average citizens. This is a great example of why government should be as small as possible. The bigger it gets, the more Homeresque it gets.
The rest of the world, sadly, tends to see the U.S. as Homer: big, good-natured, somewhat stupid and ignorant, loud and obnoxious, meaning well, but screwing up everything it gets involved in. And every once in a while, the U.S. has its moments of lucidity in which it realizes what it's doing.
The U.S. and the average American weren't like this in the recent past. TV fathers like Homer didn't exist until the '90s. In the '50s and '60s they were Ward Cleaver and Andy Taylor. And the U.S. was a lot more respected by foreigners than it is now.
If the Simpsons had been on the air in the '50s and '60s, would it have survived? I doubt it. It's too insulting to most people. The closest to the Simpsons was the Flintstones, and Fred wasn't a couch-potato quasi-drunk like Homer.
As funny as The Simpsons is, it certainly is quite a drop for the U.S. and fathers to go from Andy Taylor to Homer.
What Homer may show is that the greatest sin of Americans is Intellectual Sloth. This makes a great deal of sense, they are consisting stumbling into all kinds of world catastrophes. A lot of Americans are afflicted with Intellectual Sloth of Homerian proportions.
What has caused this change? I'm not exactly sure, but I suspect the precipitous decline in education has something to do with it. This is why it is significant that Homer is ignorant and his worst sin is that of Intellectual Sloth.
Homer shows us at least four things: people are imperfect; they no longer understand (if they ever did) the death and destruction that unconscious scapegoating can lead to; that democracy is an awful form of government; and that the public schools should be closed down. The idea of Homer's hometown of Springfield growing like the Blob until it encompasses the U.S. is not a pleasant thought, no more than the idea of public schooling engulfing the country is pleasant.
Homer can be considered a warning to America: this is what we have become. And while he's been defanged by being turned into a cartoon, when he moves into reality, catastrophes happen. I shudder to think of the US being run by Homer.
I hereby declare myself King of America. And all my new subjects had better take me seriously, otherwise I’ll quit and let the Democrats and Republicans back into power. And no one in his or her right mind wants that, right? Personally, I’d rather get a nice paper-cut on my lip with some lemon juice poured on it.
As both the late Catholic anarchist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, have noted, a constitutional monarchy is far superior to any other form of government (it’s not perfect; it’s just the least of all the evils. No, that’s not true; the least evil would be no State at all, but I have serious doubts about that ever happening.)
Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote the relationship between a monarch and his citizens is much like that between fathers and children, and Hoppe has made persuasive arguments that since kings in a sense "own" the country, they’ll take better long-term care of it than a democracy, which invariably looks no further than the next election.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn, quoting Rivarol, had this to say about the difference between monarchy and democracy, "...a monarch can be a Nero or a Marcus Aurelius, the people collectively can be a Nero, but they can never, ever, be a Marcus Aurelius" (my view is that the population may expand, but intelligence is a constant). He also wrote, in Leftism Revisited, "Outside of Switzerland, there has never been a republic that did not become a monarchy. Only the ignorant, the insular, or provincial can consider a republic or democracy – both antique forms of government – ‘modern,’ or a monarchy ‘obsolete.’"
Hoppe writes this about democracy: " ...democracy has been the fountainhead of every form of socialism: of (European) democratic socialism and (American) liberalism and neo-conservatism as well as of international (Soviet) socialism, (Italian) fascism, and national (Nazi) socialism."
He has this to say about monarchs: "...a king, because he ‘owns’ the monopoly [the country] and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on ‘his’ territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock."
Concerning the lying weasels who run democratic governments, he writes, "the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government."
Friedrich Hayek noticed the same thing in chapter ten ("Why the Worst Get on Top") in his 1944 masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom, when he wrote that "the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful" in any society that sees government as the answer to society’s problems. "Seeing the government as the answer to society’s problems" is one of the best one-sentence definitions of democracy I’ve run across.
Unfortunately, democracy is the worst form of government there is. One hundred million to two hundred million people were sacrificed in the "Age of Democracy" known as the 20th century.
If you’ll look at history, you’ll find that King George III’s abuses of the American colonies were but a small fraction of what the – yech, blech, I can barely bring myself to say it – "federal" government does to the citizens today. We’d be far better off if the entire modern Black Thing just disappeared and George, as loopy as he was, was still king.
My first action will to be to close down most of the government. Since the average serf – I mean American – is paying about 40% of his or her income to the government, out goes the IRS. No more tax-forms! People will pay no more than two percent of their income to the government.
Department of "Education" – gone! All public schools are immediately closed down. All schools are now private. No more special interest groups mauling each other, trying by the force of law to impose their curriculum on students. Unfortunately, I’ll have to be a little harsh here and fire every leftist in every college. And every economics, history, law and political-science professor who doesn’t teach anything but the free market and political liberty. Alan Dershowitz can stand on a soapbox in a park and howl to his heart’s content (in England they call these kinds of people, quite correctly, "nutters").
Since all government will be a fraction of its current size, most judges can hit the streets and get honest jobs, instead of transferring citizen’s wealth into the State’s pocket (Thomas Hobbes correctly noted, "Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money").
Any lawyer or judge who doesn’t understand the concept of Natural Law (what used to be called "the common law"), and doesn’t realize that law is discovered and not invented, is obviously unfit for the profession.
Department of Energy – poof! The mud flats in Alaska are now open to exploration. And anywhere else in this country. If anyone is worried about pollution, companies will by law not be allowed to pollute anyone’s property. That’s what the law was supposed to do in the first place, but rarely did. It almost always looked the other way when businesses polluted people’s property. Said it was to protect people’s jobs, which were more important than other people's private property (never mind the fact that without private property there are very few jobs).
More nuclear power plants will be built. If people don’t like that, then the unleashing of the free market will create all kinds of wonderful alternative ways to create energy. Maybe billions of squirrels on treadmills.
All the troops we have in 144 countries – home they come! All political connections with other countries are now severed. If private businesses want to trade with foreign countries, fine. No more foreign aid, which almost always goes to the rulers anyway. Which they then used to oppress and murder their own impoverished citizens.
All welfare is immediately ended. That doesn't mean the "poor" but it does mean the lazy. Most especially it means the corporate pigs sticking their snouts into the public trough. All the private charities that will spring up to make the lazy support themselves. No more subsidizing unmarried teenage girls to pop fatherless babies onto the public dole. If they can’t support them, then open the orphanages back up. They did a fine job in the past.
All gun control laws are now repealed. Anyone can carry a weapon, concealed or unconcealed, in public. If people want to own Tommy guns, wonderful. They’re stupid weapons, anyway. You can’t hit anything with them. Shotguns are much better (machine guns make holes; shotguns make craters, or will even remove your head completely. So guess which one is legal now, and which one isn’t?)
All drug laws are now repealed. No more sending billions to narco-terrorists in foreign countries. No more wasting billions fruitlessly trying to stop drugs from getting into the country.
And no conscription, either, ever again. Waste all my valuable citizens in worthless foreign wars? Hey, they’ve got better things to do, like invent things and advance society.
Obama will immediately be charged with treason and/or war crimes, as will Tom Daschle, Chuck Schumer, Janet Reno, Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz will never work in any government agency again. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will be parachuted into Africa. Okay, maybe I’m exceeding my authority, but cut me a little slack, will you? Even kings aren’t perfect.
>p>
All illegals are now immediately deported. All Third World immigration is cut off except for the most educated or intelligent (hey, it’s my country, and I want the best, not the worst). Since the Republican and Democratic Party no longer exists, they can’t attempt to import the entire Third World into the U.S. in order to keep themselves in power, even if it will turn the entire nation into the Balkans. Not that they ever cared in the slightest.
The airports are completely privatized! No more waiting in lines longer than football fields. No more pathetic – no, worthless!--attempts at security. If passengers and pilots want to carry pistols with frangible ammo onto the plane, that’s up to the airlines. If they want to fire Muslims wearing diapers on their heads, great! (If the Mideast is their "Holy Land," then it should be Paradise to live in. So why are they here, and in Europe?)
All anti-discrimination laws are repealed (I’ll have to admit, it’s been a hoot watching airport "security" disrespect Americans with blond or red hair and blue or green eyes while Arabs loaded bombs, uh, I mean suitcases, into the luggage compartments of planes, or else inspected carry-ons to make sure weapons were, oops, I mean weren’t, allowed on. Such are the wonders of federal anti-discrimination laws.)
All ridiculous rules and regulations hobbling the free market are now eliminated. The gold standard is reinstated. Inflation will cease to exist. Without inflation, the business cycle will disappear. No more recessions, and certainly no more depressions.
All "federal" lands will become private. I might just give them away (and certainly not to the rich). In fact, all land will be privately owned, and none will be owned by any government. That includes all streets. So the meter dweebs can get real jobs.
As annoying as the liberals and fascist/socialist war-mongering armchair-general neocons in the media are, I’ll still allow complete freedom of the press. However, since all liberals and necons are wusses, I will cork all of them on the arm and make them cry like girls.
If anyone is abused by what little government is left, he or she can appeal to me directly. And believe me, I’ll almost always favor the citizen. Then I’ll go to the government official and kick him in his rearend. Just like Eric Cartmann in "South Park."
Can anyone imagining any of this happening under any democracy? Nope. Not even in the next 50 years. How about a republic? Fat chance, since Lincoln started the destruction of it. See how great it is to have a King, even if he is a little eccentric?
That’s enough for my first day as King. Then I’ll take a break and act the way royalty is supposed to act: gamble, drink, wear a tux and bowtie, try to look as mysterious and cool as Sean Connery when he played James Bond, fool around with the royal floozies, and wave to the crowds from my ducal Chevy Cavalier. But first, I have to find a gold cigarette case.
Hey, it’s a hard job, but I’m more than willing to stay with it.
One of my friends taught in an elite Mexican high-school for two years. He told me some things I did know: there are the uber-rich, almost no middle-class and a bunch of poor people. He also told me some things I did not know: there are the rich, and then there are what he called the "Mexican rich." Billions of dollars rich.
He said he knew a teenage girl who never wore the same clothes to school twice. The students were all chauffeured to school by armed guards (to prevent kidnappings). The schools had armed guards outside. These were people who had houses in Mexico, Vail and the south of France, and they thought nothing of flying out of the country for a weekend jaunt.
I call this Corporate Apartheid: super-rich, poor and nothing in-between. And guns and gates to protect the former from the latter. I also refer to corporations as Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations.
Corporate Apartheid is now established in America. When one percent of the people own about 40% of the wealth, that's Corporate Apartheid.
Why do I use the word "corporate"? Because corporations are the exact opposite of the free market. Corporations have the legal status of persons, and their purpose is to concentrate wealth and power in their hands, at the expense of everyone. That is exactly what has happened, and is happening. Wal-Mart, for example, makes more money yearly than the GDP of many nations.
Contrary to the myth, the War of Independence wasn't caused by tax hikes. It was caused by a tax rebate from the Crown to the East India Company, in order to drive out of business their small American competitors. A rebate of millions of pounds.
The East India Company at that time was the biggest transnational corporation in the world. In other words, the war was caused by a Cosmodemonic Transnational Corporation, which puts money and power above human life.
It's the same thing as if Wal-Mart or McDonalds caused a world war to make a few bucks more.
The first movie that I remember that was about the deleterious effect of Cosmodemonic Transnational Corporations was Rollerball, in which the entire world is run by corporations.
Everyone is taken care of womb-to-tomb, but they have no rights and live lives of sex, drugs and ennui. James Caan, who is the best-known Rollerball champ, ends up having the love of his life taken from him and given to a corporate executive, while he's given corporation-issued whores.
The people in the movies are just cogs in the Machine State, which is exactly what corporations want. The way I see it, corporations want to turn us into the Borg. ("Why do you resist us?" complains the Borg Queen, "We only want to improve the quality of your lives.")
The second movie I remember about Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations is Blade Runner, which is even more horrifying that Rollerball.
The Tyrell Corporation, which is not just international, but interstellar, creates artificial humans (called Replicants) to do dangerous off-world work. They are not considered human, which is why one police officer calls them "skinjobs."
There is, of course, the uber-rich and the poor. There was no middle-class shown at all in the movie.
The middle-class only exists under the free market. When you don't have the free market, you have the superduper rich and the poverty-stricken.
When people vote for the government to take care of them, they're actually cutting their own throats: they're voting, ultimately, to be ruled by the unholy monster that is the joining of Corporation and State. And ultimately, they are the same thing: the Corporate State.
Do you know how Mussolini defined fascism? "Corporatism." If there were no corporations, money would start flowing down to the middle-class again.
None of this will last, contrary to the paranoids who think our future is going to be a 1984 boot-on-our-heads-forever. Things always change.
The problem, of course, is what badness these changes will bring.
If the mass of people had any sense (they don't and never will) they'd rise up and march on D.C. with torches and pitchforks. Someday they might, but it won't happen until things get really bad.
Until then, the people who can see what is coming will be what they always are: prophets without honor in their own hometowns and among their relatives and families.
