How a Woman Can Be Incredibly Popular with Men and Have Hundreds Ask You Out

I've read articles that say all that attractive women have to do is sit there and men will ask them out. Not always.

My last year and a half in college I lived in a studio attached to a house with 12 girls in it. The girls ranged from beautiful to...the opposite.

The beautiful one once told me seven guys asked her out one weekend. It wasn't only because she was beautiful; she was also friendly. Three of the girls were quite attractive but two were never asked out and the other one was asked out once. They basically sat there like bumps on a log and expected Prince Charming to wander in and sweep them off their feet. They weren't friendly and they were bores.

I was also mystified at the number of girls in class who weren't friendly at all. I got the distinct impression they very much overestimated their attractiveness. Later they turned into the kind who whined about, "Where have all the good guys gone?" I tell them: right where you left them, back in your 20's.

Those sites who claim that all guys want the most beautiful women don't have a clue. A woman who is beautiful and has nothing else...about three times in bed and you can't wait until you to dump her. That's personal experience.

After much experience and thought about this I have come to several conclusions as to how women can be popular with men.

And no, it doesn’t have anything to do with sports. Men don’t expect women to like football or baseball or any other kind of sport.

One thing that does work is to like guns. An old girlfriend of mine once wrote an article for a very popular site admitting she’d had never fired a gun but wanted to. She got over 300 emails from guys wanting to teach her to shoot.

A lot of women get fuzzy-minded about firearms. I know one who, when her teenage son bought a BB gun at a garage sale, frothed and called the police to take it away. The police should have laughed at her and told her to grow up. Best of all is if you own a firearm and know how to use it.

A fair number of women are natural socialists/fascists. They’re wrong. They not only don’t have a side to their story; they don’t even have a story. Universal health care is Commie care and does not work in any country in the world, contrary to liberal lies and delusions. If you’re a women who is a natural socialist give it up. If you don’t you’re trying to destroy society.

It helps to know a little bit about cars, like how to put the oil in. At the least, learn how to check the fluids – the oil, the antifreeze, the brake fluid, the power-steering fluid. Any guy will be very impressed.

I’ve always been amazed at the number of women who mope around expecting a guy to ask them out. It won’t kill you to ask him if he’d like to get a cup of coffee. Otherwise, you might end up with your fifth choice instead of your first one. If that happens, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I’ve known several women who ended up alone – no home, no husband, no children. Others ended with possibly worse. How? They ended up with the wrong guy. The way-wrong guy - because they ended up with their fifth choice instead of their first one.

It helps to know how to cook, or at least make a good sammich.

Actually it might just boil down to five things: friendliness, guns, cars, coffee, sammiches. You can't go wrong with that.

I Don't Know, and I'm Just Fine With It

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn." - Alvin Toffler

There are many jokes about their only being two kinds of people in the world. My favorite one is "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't."

But in some ways, there really are only two kinds of people. There are the fanatics who are convinced they know the truth and whose minds are closed up tighter than clams, and those who say, "I don't know."

I am the latter. Oftentimes I say "I don't know," and I am just fine with that.

Often, the fanatics are without humor, and cannot tolerate criticism, even if the criticism has poked fatal holes in their beliefs. That's what happens when you think you know the truth. The heretics must be purged!

I always keep in mind that the ideas in our head are not reality. The map (the ideas in our heads) is not the territory (reality out there). Those maps in our heads are never totally accurate, and can always be refined and made better, and sometimes overthrown.

Science, ideally, understands its theories are never totally accurate, are always provisional, and should always be under scrutiny. And when someone appeals to science as some sort of omnipotent and infallible god, that person does not understand science. It's called "scientism" and it's really a religion.

When people say, "I know the truth and how dare you disagree with me!" they are doing this to cover up their own fear and feelings of insecurity. Being convinced you know the truth is quite comforting, since to them the alternative is chaos - in their own weak minds.

I, on the other hand, look at things as a kind of wonder. It's not that I have the truth, but instead am amazed. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

When people are convinced they know the truth they want to shut down all debate, but without debate and contrary opinions all advancement comes to a screeching halt.

I expect the average semi-retard, who doesn't think much, to not have a particularly open mind. Unfortunately, those who are the cognitive "elite" often put stupid ideas in their minds. The semi-retards, since they really can't think, can only memorize and imitate. That can be a good thing - and it can be a very bad thing.

Unfortunately, many of the "elite" these days are irresponsible with their ideas.

Actually, you can say there are another two kinds in the world: the establishment and the opposition. But then, for all practical purpose, the first are the fanatics and the second say, at their best, "I don't know, so let's go find out."

"There are always two parties, the party of the Past and the party of the Future: the Establishment and the Movement. At times the resistance is reanimated, the schism runs under the world and appears in Literature, Philosophy, Church, State and social customs." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Eternal Lure of Mommy

"Those who begin worshiping power soon worship evil." - C.S. Lewis

Many women have a decided tilt toward being natural socialists/fascists. I would not go so far as to say all women, but I wouldn't be surprised if in various degrees it was 80% of them.

To be accurate, there are men who exhibit these traits. The late drunken fat slob/murderer Teddy Kennedy was one of them, as are whackos like Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. Yes, I know...but Hillary is not a woman.

As for Barak Obama, he is not only a socialist/fascist; he is a stupid one. To him, everything is magic. Abracadabra! Wealth is just there! Jobs are just there!

I'm sure that people in the past noticed this tendency in women to be natural socialists/fascists. Hence, I believe it is the main reason 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. Even then it should be ruled 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 big problem with this is that people remain children instead of growing up.

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, "It’s your fault! 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, 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 what they consider the unwashed masses.

A world without envy, without violence, without anxiety. Sure does sound good, doesn't it? It actually 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 go. 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."

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. To destroy them as men.

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.

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.

Polygamous Societies Bring Crime, Violence and Poverty

“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become.”- Guatama Buddha

"For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he" - Proverbs 23:7

I've had people tell me polygamy is coming to the U.S. and sooner or later will be made legal. Supposedly women are "hypergamous" and want "Alphas" and hate "Betas" and would rather share an "Alpha" than even touch a "Beta." And because of this, the top 20% of men (or whatever percentage) would get all the women, leaving nothing for the dopes. To that, too: nope. Additionally,supposedly all women are involuntarily attracted to the richest, best-looking men. Again, nope.

Only the young and inexperienced believe life is that simple.

Many people lack critical and analytic ability and since they lack them, they are reduced to imitating other people's ideas, for good or bad. Those ideas get inside their heads and then they can't get them out. They really believe they're true. As you think, so you become.

I realized long ago (like when I was 21) polygamous societies would be catastrophes and could only be enforced by the power of the State, because they are not natural. People have an instinct for monogamy (some races more than others, apparently - the successful ones are monogamous).

When you look at polygamous societies - say Africa or the Islamic Middle East - where polygamy is institutionalized - would you want to live there? Of course not. Even many of the inhabitants don't want to live there - that's why half the world wants to move to the U.S.

Researcher have found that polygamous marriage in a culture leads to higher levels of crime, violence, poverty, and gender inequality. It's because the intrasexual competition for wives. Monogamy creates far fewer social problems than polygamy.

Concerning studies of monogamous and polygamous cultures: "Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny," says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.

"The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny -- wealthy, powerful men -- were best positioned to reject it," says Henrich, lead author of the study that was recently published in the journal "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society." "Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies."

The most comprehensive studies have found significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. These crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives. These studies have also found monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict.

To me these things are just common sense. Yet apparently for some, it's not. For some, it's thinking outside the box to understand these things.

Here's something else that comes from thinking outside the box: polyandry is one woman with more than one man. That, in many cases, is what we have today. Many women marry the State (one "man") and then marry an actual, corporeal man (and sometimes engage in serial monogamy). This happens because of the interference of the State, just as polygamy only happens because of the interference of the State in society.

So even if women want "Alphas" (who are cuckolds but can't seem to figure it out) they still marry the State through Affirmative Action ("White Men Need Not Apply") and various forms of welfare. So polygamy is not coming - we already have a form of polyandry that is enshrined in law. Many cannot see this because they have the wrong ideas in their heads and cannot get around them.

We can see the effects of polyandry - deluded single mothers who believe they can make it on their own, their children who turn into "failure to launch" adults, the destruction of marriage...do I need to go on? The problems are obvious and everyone know what they are. They are about the same as exist in polygamous cultures. And again, both polygamy and polyandry only exist when the State interferes in society and the relationships between men and women. And the results, of course, are catastrophes.

Perhaps what we really have is a depressing combination of monogamy, polygamy and polyandry...the future is going to be interesting indeed.

The World of the Psychopath

I've pointed out before that those who support the Dark Triad as something good don't know what it is and how it manifests itself in reality as compared to their delusions. Just as bad, they're using those concepts to cover up their own insecure masculinity - the feeling of being humiliated wimps.

Such people cannot change their minds no matter how many times they are proven wrong. As Leo Tolstoy wrote: "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

This article was written by Judith Ohikuare and is from the Atlantic.

I think it would be a good idea to click on the link because there are some very interesting scans of a psychopath's brain.

Becoming a narcissist/psychopath is created by the intersection of genetic vulnerability and child abuse. Men are far more prone to becoming violent psychopaths than women. Since our society - including schools - are set up to abuse/humiliate boys - I expect the coming generation to have a lot more psychopaths. Especially with all those single mothers, who are automatically child abusers. Then there is the fact there are very few good jobs left.

We live in interesting times (which is an old Chinese curse) and they are going to get more interesting.

"In 2005, James Fallon's life started to resemble the plot of a well-honed joke or big-screen thriller: A neuroscientist is working in his laboratory one day when he thinks he has stumbled upon a big mistake. He is researching Alzheimer's and using his healthy family members' brain scans as a control, while simultaneously reviewing the fMRIs of murderous psychopaths for a side project. It appears, though, that one of the killers' scans has been shuffled into the wrong batch.

"The scans are anonymously labeled, so the researcher has a technician break the code to identify the individual in his family, and place his or her scan in its proper place. When he sees the results, however, Fallon immediately orders the technician to double check the code. But no mistake has been made: The brain scan that mirrors those of the psychopaths is his own.

"After discovering that he had the brain of a psychopath, Fallon delved into his family tree and spoke with experts, colleagues, relatives, and friends to see if his behavior matched up with the imaging in front of him. He not only learned that few people were surprised at the outcome, but that the boundary separating him from dangerous criminals was less determinate than he presumed. Fallon wrote about his research and findings in the book The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey Into the Dark Side of the Brain, and we spoke about the idea of nature versus nurture, and what—if anything—can be done for people whose biology might betray their behavior.

"One of the first things you talk about in your book is the often unrealistic or ridiculous ways that psychopaths are portrayed in film and television. Why did you decide to share your story and risk being lumped in with all of that?

"'I'm a basic neuroscientist—stem cells, growth factors, imaging genetics—that sort of thing. When I found out about my scan, I kind of let it go after I saw that the rest of my family's were quite normal. I was worried about Alzheimer’s, especially along my wife’s side, and we were concerned about our kids and grandkids. Then my lab was busy doing gene discovery for schizophrenia and Alzheimer's and launching a biotech start-up from our research on adult stem cells. We won an award and I was so involved with other things that I didn't actually look at my results for a couple of years.'

"'This personal experience really had me look into a field that I was only tangentially related to, and burnished into my mind the importance of genes and the environment on a molecular level. For specific genes, those interactions can really explain behavior. And what is hidden under my personal story is a discussion about the effect of bullying, abuse, and street violence on kids.'

"You used to believe that people were roughly 80 percent the result of genetics, and 20 percent the result of their environment. How did this discovery cause a shift in your thinking?

"'I went into this with the bias of a scientist who believed, for many years, that genetics were very, very dominant in who people are—that your genes would tell you who you were going to be. It's not that I no longer think that biology, which includes genetics, is a major determinant; I just never knew how profoundly an early environment could affect somebody.'

"'While I was writing this book, my mother started to tell me more things about myself. She said she had never told me or my father how weird I was at certain points in my youth, even though I was a happy-go-lucky kind of kid. And as I was growing up, people all throughout my life said I could be some kind of gang leader or Mafioso don because of certain behavior. Some parents forbade their children from hanging out with me. They'd wonder how I turned out so well—a family guy, successful, professional, never been to jail and all that.'

"'I asked everybody that I knew, including psychiatrists and geneticists that have known me for a long time, and knew my bad behavior, what they thought. They went through very specific things that I had done over the years and said, 'That’s psychopathic.' I asked them why they didn’t tell me and they said, 'We did tell you. We've all been telling you.' I argued that they had called me 'crazy,' and they all said, 'No. We said you're psychopathic.'

"'I found out that I happened to have a series of genetic alleles, 'warrior genes,' that had to do with serotonin and were thought to be at risk for aggression, violence, and low emotional and interpersonal empathy—if you're raised in an abusive environment. But if you're raised in a very positive environment, that can have the effect of offsetting the negative effects of some of the other genes.'

"'I had some geneticists and psychiatrists who didn't know me examine me independently, and look at the whole series of disorders I've had throughout my life. None of them have been severe; I’ve had the mild form of things like anxiety disorder and OCD, but it lined up with my genetics.'

"'The scientists said, 'For one, you might never have been born.' My mother had miscarried several times and there probably were some genetic errors. They also said that if I hadn’t been treated so well, I probably wouldn’t have made it out of being a teenager. I would have committed suicide or have gotten killed, because I would have been a violent guy.'

"How did you react to hearing all of this?

"'I said, 'Well, I don't care.' And they said, 'That proves that you have a fair dose of psychopathy.' Scientists don't like to be wrong, and I’m narcissistic so I hate to be wrong, but when the answer is there before you, you have to suck it up, admit it, and move on. I couldn't.'

"'Because I need these buzzes, I get into dangerous situations.'

"I started reacting with narcissism, saying, 'Okay, I bet I can beat this. Watch me and I'll be better.' Then I realized my own narcissism was driving that response. If you knew me, you'd probably say, 'Oh, he's a fun guy'–or maybe, 'He's a big-mouth and a blowhard narcissist'—but I also think you'd say, 'All in all, he's interesting, and smart, and okay.' But here's the thing—the closer to me you are, the worse it gets. Even though I have a number of very good friends, they have all ultimately told me over the past two years when I asked them—and they were consistent even though they hadn’t talked to each other—that I do things that are quite irresponsible. It’s not like I say, Go get into trouble. I say, Jump in the water with me.'

"What's an example of that, and how do you come back from hurting someone in that way?

'For me, because I need these buzzes, I get into dangerous situations. Years ago, when I worked at the University of Nairobi Hospital, a few doctors had told me about AIDS in the region as well as the Marburg virus. They said a guy had come in who was bleeding out of his nose and ears, and that he had been up in the Elgon, in the Kitum Caves. I thought, 'Oh, that’s where the elephants go,' and I knew I had to visit. I would have gone alone, but my brother was there. I told him it was an epic trek to where the old matriarch elephants went to retrieve minerals in the caves, but I didn't mention anything else.'

"'When we got there, there was a lot of rebel activity on the mountain, so there was nobody in the park except for one guard. So we just went in. There were all these rare animals and it was tremendous, but also, this guy had died from Marburg after being here, and nobody knew exactly how he’d gotten it. I knew his path and followed it to see where he camped.'

"'That night, we wrapped ourselves around a fire because there were lions and all these other animals. We were jumping around and waving sticks on fire at the animals in the absolute dark. My brother was going crazy and I joked, 'I have to put my head inside of yours because I have a family and you don’t, so if a lion comes and bites one of our necks, it’s gotta be you.'

"'Again, I was joking around, but it was a real danger. The next day, we walked into the Kitum Caves and you could see where rocks had been knocked over by the elephants. There was also the smell of all of this animal dung—and that’s where the guy got the Marburg; scientists didn't know whether it was the dung or the bats.'

"'You really start thinking about what a machine it means we are—what it means that some of us don't need those feelings, while some of us need them so much. It destroys the romantic fabric of society, in a way.'

"'A bit later, my brother read an article in "The New Yorker" about Marburg, which inspired the movie Outbreak. He asked me if I knew about it. I said, 'Yeah. Wasn’t it exciting? Nobody gets to do this trip.' And he called me names and said, 'Not exciting enough. We could've gotten Marburg; we could have gotten killed every two seconds.' All of my brothers have a lot of machismo and brio; you’ve got to be a tough guy in our family. But deep inside, I don't think that my brother fundamentally trusts me after that. And why should he, right? To me, it was nothing.'

"'After all of this research, I started to think of this experience as an opportunity to do something good out of being kind of a jerk my entire life. Instead of trying to fundamentally change—because it’s very difficult to change anything—I wanted to use what could be considered faults, like narcissism, to an advantage; to do something good.'

What has that involved?

"'I started with simple things of how I interact with my wife, my sister, and my mother. Even though they’ve always been close to me, I don't treat them all that well. I treat strangers pretty well—really well, and people tend to like me when they meet me—but I treat my family the same way, like they're just somebody at a bar. I treat them well, but I don't treat them in a special way. That’s the big problem.'

"'I asked them this—it's not something a person will tell you spontaneously—but they said, 'I give you everything. I give you all this love and you really don’t give it back.' They all said it, and that sure bothered me. So I wanted to see if I could change. I don't believe it, but I'm going to try.'

"'In order to do that, every time I started to do something, I had to think about it, look at it, and go: No. Don’t do the selfish thing or the self-serving thing. Step-by-step, that's what I’ve been doing for about a year and a half and they all like it. Their basic response is: We know you don’t really mean it, but we still like it.'

"'I told them, 'You’ve got to be kidding me. You accept this? It’s phony!' And they said, 'No, it’s okay. If you treat people better it means you care enough to try.' It blew me away then and still blows me away now.'

"But treating everyone the same isn't necessarily a bad thing, is it? Is it just that the people close to you want more from you?

"'Yes. They absolutely expect and demand more. It's a kind of cruelty, a kind of abuse, because you're not giving them that love. My wife to this day says it's hard to be with me at parties because I've got all these people around me, and I'll leave her or other people in the cold. She is not a selfish person, but I can see how it can really work on somebody.'

"'I gave a talk two years ago in India at the Mumbai LitFest on personality disorders and psychopathy, and we also had a historian from Oxford talk about violence against women in terms of the brain and social development. After it was over, a woman came up to me and asked if we could talk. She was a psychiatrist but also a science writer and said, 'You said that you live in a flat emotional world—that is, that you treat everybody the same. That’s Buddhist.' I don't know anything about Buddhism but she continued on and said, 'It's too bad that the people close to you are so disappointed in being close to you. Any learned Buddhist would think this was great.' I don't know what to do with that.'

"'Sometimes the truth is not just that it hurts, but that it's just so disappointing. You want to believe in romance and have romance in your life—even the most hardcore, cold intellectual wants the romantic notion. It kind of makes life worth living. But with these kinds of things, you really start thinking about what a machine it means we are—what it means that some of us don't need those feelings, while some of us need them so much. It destroys the romantic fabric of society in a way.'

"'So what I do, in this situation, is think: How do I treat the people in my life as if I'm their son, or their brother, or their husband? It's about going the extra mile for them so that they know I know this is the right thing to do. I know when the situation comes up, but my gut instinct is to do something selfish. Instead, I slow down and try to think about it. It's like dumb behavioral modification; there’s no finesse to this, but I said, well, why does there have to be finesse? I’m trying to treat it as a straightaway thing, when the situation comes up, to realize there’s a chance that I might be wrong, or reacting in a poor way, or without any sort of love—like a human.'

"A few years ago there was an article in 'The New York Times' called, 'Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath?' The subject was a boy named Michael whose family was concerned about him—he'd been diagnosed with several disorders and eventually deemed a possible psychopath by Dan Waschbusch, a researcher at Florida International University who studies 'callous unemotional children.' Dr. Waschbusch examines these children in hopes of finding possible treatment or rehabilitation. You mentioned earlier that you don't believe people can fundamentally change; what is your take on this research?'

"'In the 70's, when I was still a post-doc student and a young professor, I started working with some psychiatrists and neurologists who would tell me that they could identify a probable psychopath when he or she was only 2 or 3 years old. I asked them why they didn't tell the parents and they said, 'There's no way I’m going to tell anybody. First of all, you can't be sure; second of all, it could destroy the kid’s life; and third of all, the media and the whole family will be at your door with sticks and knives.' So, when Dr. Waschbusch came out two years ago, it was like, 'My god. He actually said it.' This was something that all psychiatrists and neurologists in the field knew—especially if they were pediatric psychologists and had the full trajectory of a kid's life. It can be recognized very, very early—certainly before 9-years-old—but by that time the question of how to un-ring the bell is a tough one.'

"'People may say, 'Oh, this very bad investment counselor was a psychopath'—but the essential difference in criminality between that and murder is something we all hate and we all fear.'

"'My bias is that even though I work in growth factors, plasticity, memory, and learning, I think the whole idea of plasticity in adults—or really after puberty—is so overblown. No one knows if the changes that have been shown are permanent and it doesn't count if it's only temporary. It's like the Mozart Effect—sure, there are studies saying there is plasticity in the brain using a sound stimulation or electrical stimulation, but talk to this person in a year or two. Has anything really changed? An entire cottage industry was made from playing Mozart to pregnant women's abdomens. That's how the idea of plasticity gets out of hand. I think people can change if they devote their whole life to the one thing and stop all the other parts of their life, but that's what people can't do. You can have behavioral plasticity and maybe change behavior with parallel brain circuitry, but the number of times this happens is really rare.'

"'So I really still doubt plasticity. I'm trying to do it by devoting myself to this one thing—to being a nice guy to the people that are close to me—but it's a sort of game that I’m playing with myself because I don't really believe it can be done, and it's a challenge.'

"In some ways, though, the stakes are different for you because you're not violent—and isn't that the concern? Relative to your own life, your attempts to change may positively impact your relationships with your friends, family, and colleagues. But in the case of possibly violent people, they may harm others.'

"'The jump from being a 'prosocial' psychopath or somebody on the edge who doesn't act out violently, to someone who really is a real, criminal predator is not clear. For me, I think I was protected because I was brought up in an upper-middle-class, educated environment with very supportive men and women in my family. So there may be a mass convergence of genetics and environment over a long period of time. But what would happen if I lost my family or lost my job; what would I then become? That's the test.'

"'For people who have the fundamental biology—the genetics, the brain patterns, and that early existence of trauma—first of all, if they're abused they're going to be pissed off and have a sense of revenge: I don't care what happens to the world because I'm getting even. But a real, primary psychopath doesn't need that. They're just predators who don’t need to be angry at all; they do these things because of some fundamental lack of connection with the human race, and with individuals, and so on.'

"'Someone who has money, and sex, and rock and roll, and everything they want may still be psychopathic—but they may just manipulate people, or use people, and not kill them. They may hurt others, but not in a violent way. Most people care about violence—that's the thing. People may say, 'Oh, this very bad investment counselor was a psychopath'—but the essential difference in criminality between that and murder is something we all hate and we all fear. It just isn't known if there is some ultimate trigger.'

"And though there isn't an absolute 'fix,' you talk about the importance of the 'fourth trimester'—the months following a baby's birth when bonding is key. What are other really crucial moments where you can see how someone may be at risk, or where this convergence of genetics and environment might be crucial for intervention, or at least identifying what is happening?

"'There are some critical periods in human development. For the epigenome, the first moment is the moment of conception. That is when the genetics are very vulnerable to methylation and, therefore, the effects of a harsh environment: the mother under stress, the mother taking drugs, alcohol, and things like that. The second greatest susceptibility is the moment of birth and, of course, there are the third and fourth trimesters. After that, there is a slow sort of susceptibility curve that goes down.'

"'The first two years of life are critical if you overlap them with the emergence of what are called complex adaptive behaviors. When children are born they have some natural kinds of genetic programming. For example, a kid will show certain kinds of fear—of certain people, then of strangers, then it’s acceptance of people—that’s complex-adaptive behavior at work in social interactions. But even laughing, and smiling, and making raspberry sounds are all complex-adaptive behaviors, and they will emerge automatically. You don't need to be taught these things.'

"'One idea is that over the first three years there are 350 very early complex adaptive behaviors that go in sequence, but if somehow you’re interrupted with a stressor, it will affect that particular behavior that’s emerging or just about to emerge. It could be at a year and half, 3 months, or 12 months. After that, the effects of environment really start to drop; by the time you start hitting puberty, you kind of get locked in. And during puberty your frontal lobe system does a switch.'

"'Before puberty, a lot of your brain–your frontal lobe and its connections—has to do with the orbital cortex, amygdala, and that lower half of the brain that controls emotional regulation. It is also the origin of people's natural sense of morality, when they learn regulation and the rules of the game, which are ethics. Before then, generally, a normal kid is very much living in a world of id—eating, drinking, some sexuality—but they’re also extremely moralistic. So, those are two things that are fighting each other those first years.'

"'Then, there’s a switch that occurs late in adolescence. For some people it could be 17, 18, 19, or 20-years-old. What happens is that the upper part of the brain, the frontal lobe and its connections, start to mature. That's a critical time because that’s usually when you see schizophrenia, some forms of depression, and those major psychiatric disorders emerge. For personality disorders it’s not really known when they will emerge because it’s very understudied. People will say, you can’t do anything about it, it’s locked in and there seems to be almost no treatment. Whereas, for things like depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, you can do something about it. There are drugs, or things you can do with brain stimulation and talk therapy, so that's where Big Pharma and the whole industry goes.'

"'You start to really see personality disorders emerge around puberty, but for some children who might be primary psychopaths—that is, they have all the genes and their brain sort of set in the third trimester—this can start emerging very early, around 2 or 3-years-old. That is why we have to have more trained eyes—because that is where this becomes important for society.'

"'A primary psychopath won't necessarily be dangerous, but if we can see that in a kid, we can tell parents to look for certain kinds of behavior. And if those behaviors emerge, we can safely discuss, protecting the privacy of that family and of the kid, how to have the child interact with a nurse practitioner or a trained professional. At that point, we can say: Make sure this kid is never bullied in school; keep them away from street violence, on and on.'

"'You can't just take genetics and tell if someone's a criminal or a psychopath.'

"'A lot of kids, most kids, get bullied and they may get pissed off, but that doesn’t create a personality disorder. But there are 20 percent of kids who are really susceptible and they may ultimately be triggered for a personality disorder in puberty. If we know these children can be helped by making sure that they aren't abused or abandoned—because you've got to get there really early—well, then, that would be important to do. I don't mean to preach.'

"Well, go into the idea of preaching a little. You make a kind of grandiose statement at the beginning of your book that research into psychopaths, even with all of the privacy concerns, could have great implications for things from parenting to World Peace. What does that mean?

"'It means, for example, that if you have to go to war, and sometimes you probably have to go to war—I'm not talking about a belligerent country starting war or fomenting discord, but if you have to go to war and to engage infantry—you do not send 18-year-olds into it, because their brains aren't set. They don’t know how to adjudicate what's happening emotionally and hormonally with the intellectualization of it. When you're 20, 25, it’s a different matter because things gel a little more. Our emotions don't get away from us as much in terms of what is happening. Other factors, sociological ones like what soldiers return to, are also important, but we're not going to get rid of war any time soon, so we might as well engage in a way that does the least amount of damage.'

"In terms of legal action, you've been used as a researcher for court cases—not to determine guilt or innocence, but for sentencing. Do you think there’s a moral boundary for that since we don’t have enough knowledge on this field yet to determine guilt or innocence?

"'We don't have enough research. You can't just take genetics—even though I'm a big proponent of it—or imaging, and tell if someone's a criminal or a psychopath. If you put together all that information, you could explain a lot of behavior and causality and early abuse—but we don't know enough.'

"'So, when I get a case to look at, first of all, I don't accept money—and it's not because I'm a nice guy. It's because I think I'd be biased. I don't accept any payment and I don't want to know who the person is.We all try to create a story or narrative, and I'm just as weak as anybody. I'll tell the defense attorney, or public defender, or whoever it is to just send me scans, maybe with normal scans to try to throw me off, and then I'll look at them and discuss what the traits of the person might be based on the lack of activity in certain areas or not.'

"'I can usually say, 'Oh, this person might have a language problem,' or 'This person might have trouble with impulsivity.' After all of that analysis is there, we can look at their traits and see what they've done.'

"We've talked a lot about how to support a child that might be psychopathic, but what if the parent is the one whose brain resembles that of a psychopath? For example, what was it like for you to form attachments with your own children?

"'During the time when our kids were the most vulnerable, they remember a magical time with me. In talking about this, our three oldest children have said they thought I was the warm one who was always around and always interacting with them, and they don't understand how I could say that I was cold to them. But my wife and I were 21 when we got married. Things started changing for me when I was about 19 or 20-years-old, and it was really in my late 20s when the kids were older and took care of themselves more, that I took on a lot of these psychopathic qualities—though early on I clearly had some. My actual behavior didn't go south until later on, and I think my wife's stability kept things together.'

"'Some people have this psychopathy or are almost psychopaths, and they get into trouble and go right to jail and end up in the prison system as 18-year-olds. It's awful because they get unlucky and they don't have enough impulse control to pull it back at the last instant. So, what is that edge where somebody's got these traits, and they are impulsive? What puts one guy on a pathway to becoming an attorney or successful in general, and the other one has life in prison? We just have to find out what that edge is. I think we will have parameters to work with, but it's not the same for everybody.'"

Now This is What a "Feminist" Should be Like

While the debate about women getting the vote was ongoing, the more intelligent and perceptive women did not want women to get the vote. They said it was far more important to raise children to grow up to be smart, creative, happy, successful adults.

It turned out they were right.

Now we have enough women thinking marriage and children are a trap, and instead think they should devote their lives to their make-work "careers." Then when they want to get married and have babies, sometimes at age 30 or later, they wonder where all "the good men" have gone. And instead of taking responsibilities for their choices, they blame their problems on men.

When I hear that mantra of "Where are all the good men?" I tell them, right where you left them: back in your 20's.

Thomas Edison was one of those almost indispensable geniuses. Had he not existed we wouldn't be as far along as we are. And who helped create him? His mother.

We don't all that many mothers like her anymore. Some want to farm their children out to the State. Others do it because they have to, because they have to work. The whole thing is a mess, and sooner or later it's going to collapse slowly. It's happening right now.

I don't have any idea who wrote this article, but it was from here.

"Those familiar with the life of Thomas Edison remember the story of how he left school. Edison didn't do well in school. He particularly disliked math and had difficulty sitting still and paying attention. He constantly drifted in and out of daydreams. He was impulsive, and his persistent questioning and inability to be quiet and wait for instructions exasperated the strict teachers. One day, the schoolmaster, Reverend G. B. Engle, belittled young Thomas Edison as being 'addled.' Young Thomas was so outraged, he walked out of school and stormed home (something that could get a student arrested today). He complained to his concerned mother about his treatment, and the next day, she accompanied him to speak to the schoolmaster. But the meeting didn't go well. The reverend stuck by his remark and claimed that her son could not and would not learn. The petite, normally mild-mannered mother had some choice words for the reverend for that remark. That day, she stormed out of school with him and decided that she would educate herself. And, though nobody knew it at the time, this was the beginning of Thomas Edison's life of accomplishment.

"The Edison family wasn't a wealthy family. Though not destitute, they were a working-class family who had to stretch their budget. And they weren't people of means. The former Nancy Elliott had been an accomplished teacher for a short time, but she wasn't a professor or anyone of title.

"But the loving and devoted mother was more than up to the task. In raising her child, she found that he had an amazing ability for reasoning and comprehension. And she felt that he had something inside himself that his detractors (often including his father) were just missing. She vowed that she use her own abilities and understanding of him to bring out the best her bright but unusual son could be.

"In her briefly observing the school at work, she disliked what she saw. Although the school was church-run, its structure adhered closely to the new, Prussian created public schools (then called common schools) that had been introduced to the nation. The way that all the lessons were forced on the students particularly appalled her.

"As a result of his mother's choice to sacrifice her own time and schedule to teach her child, he wound up being better educated than most American children of his time (and of present days, as well). There were two factors in that. First of all, Nancy Edison was a more devoted, concerned, and dedicated teacher than anyone else could possibly been. But just as important, she had the creativity and flexibility to try out unorthodox approaches to instructing her son, even when it was at odds with the traditional schooling approach. Matthew Josephson, author of a very good Edison biography, wrote, 'Her son had the impression she kept him home, as he said, partly 'because she lived his very presence.' She taught him not only the three R's, but 'the love and purpose of learning...she implanted in his mind the love of learning.' It adds, 'In this case, the remarkable mother gave the boy sympathetic understanding that bred confidence. She avoided forcing or prodding and made an effort to engage his interest by reading him works of good literature and history that she had learned to love--and she was said to have been a fine reader...While immature and ill-disciplined in some respects, had was advanced in others and soon became a very rapid reader.' As Dr. Lucy Jo Palladino points out, "She made a deliberate decision to define her son by his strengths, not his weaknesses.'

"The key moment was when Nancy Edison introduced her son to the book School of Natural Philosophy, by R. G. Parker. The young boy was captivated by the book, which taught how to perform chemistry experiments at home. He proceeded to perform every experiment in the book. She then bought him, The Dictionary of Science, and soon science became Thomas Edison's passion. And this is how it was begun.

"Edison later recalled, 'My mother was the making of me. She understood me; she let me follow my bent. She was so true, so sure of me, and I felt I had some one to live for, some one I must not disappoint.'

"In this case, the hand that rocked the cradle changed the world."

Trying to Kill the Eccentrics

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

A man I met a few months ago told me recently, "You're crazy, aren't you?" I've heard that before, one than once. It mystifies me, because I consider myself to be relatively sane and many other people deluded and asleep.

A fair number of people considered me weird when I was a kid.

I recently read an article about the relationship between eccentricity and creativity. It turns out there is one, and it's not a slight one, either. It's a big one.

Let's take Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway. (His father was Jack Kamen, an illustrator for "Mad, Weird Science" and other EC Comics publications.)

He has a whole slew of other inventions (440 patents), and is an eccentric man. He wears denim all the time. He lives on an island, which he says has seceded and which he calls North Dumpling. He issues his own currency in units of pi, which bears the likeness of Kamen. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s are the Ministers of Ice Cream, while other others hold such titles as Minister of Brunch and Minister of Nepotism.

Adam Smith, he of The Wealth of Nations, was also considered eccentric. He would go for long walks at night, thinking and imagining, and once fell into a ditch. He was comically absent-minded and often talked to himself.

What almost all of the "geniuses" have in common is that they are introverted, intelligent, imaginative - and somewhat schizoid. They were round pegs in square holes. Were. And are.

Of course these people never fit in public schools. While some people (and it tends to be the highlight of their lives, like Hank Hill and Al Bundy) enjoyed public schools, those who advance society tend to be the ones who society tries to reject.

"One striking feature of people who are at the healthier end of the schizoid spectrum is their great capacity for creativity. Perhaps that capacity to disregard convention is adaptive for creative pursuits," writes Barry Gilbert, MD. "The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who made many creative contributions to his field, is said to have been schizoid. The British psychoanalyst Harry Guntrip and American psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan have both written movingly about their growing understanding of their own schizoid nature."

These kind of people are better off being raised with mentors, and being home-schooled.

Thomas Edison was home-schooled, having been thrown out of public school. So was Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane. Ditto Theodore Roosevelt, Agatha Christie, Florence Nightingale, Pearl Buck, Alexander Graham Bell, Louisa May Alcott, Mozart, and Robert Frost.

I consider the public schools to be brain-washing factories. It works on a lot of people. Others, it doesn't work at all and instead attempts to unwittingly destroy them.

For one thing, these days, these kids are considered so disruptive they are given psychiatric drugs to chemically lobotomize them. I wonder what would have happened to thr people listed above if they had been forced to stay in public school and had their brains even more warped with drugs?

That what I mean by trying to kill the eccentrics.

I know a 16-year-old girl who can no longer tolerate high school. She skips all the time. She is bright, imaginative, creative, and introverted. She tells me school is boring, she doesn't like the kids (most of whom she considers loud and stupid) and in the state she lives in the police can arrest the parents if their kids miss enough school.

When I asked her, "School is unbearably boring, right? You don't like most of the kids? It has no meaning, importance and community?" she looked shocked. "Someone understands!" I told her she was not alone and to think about dropping out and getting a GED, then going to college. She's already taken the SAT and scored in the top five percent.

Today, I think the vast majority of kids who grow up happy, healthy and whole are going to be the ones home-schooled. The public schools are now catastrophes for the smart and creative. Maybe they always have been.

Partying with Giant Evil Gods Would be a Fun Weekend

"We are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the infliction of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it."- Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

The human race, in general, is not such a great thing ("My name is Mob, for there are many of us"). I certainly don't believe in the myth of Noah as literal, but I do understand the lesson: humans got so disgusting God offed them and rebooted the human race.

One of the more repulsive things people do is murder, mutilate and dismember and then justify and rationalize it as something good. Take human sacrifice, which is ancient. By ancient I don't mean it happened long ago. I mean it started thousands of years ago, if not longer, and still goes on today.

We may think the Aztecs were primitive and insane when they cuts the hearts out of children, slaves and captured warriors and rolled their corpses down the stairs of their pyramids, but modern man is a lot worse than they were.

These sacrifices were done by rulers, priests and certain classes of warriors...just like today.

Today we have mass, total war, which is human sacrifice, but we call it necessary. We say our soldiers (always young) make the "ultimate sacrifice." Their parents even sacrifice them, and are proud of it. But what they are sacrificed to? Think about that.

Human sacrifice is about murdering people for what is considered the greater good. It's based on sacrifices to keep "evil" at bay so it doesn't destroy society. That's pretty much what it's about, in one sentence. And it's a fertility rite, to save/renew society.

Has it worked? No. If it worked, we wouldn't have to do it anymore. And if we have to do it, don't pretend it's good, and don't pretend it isn't anything but human sacrifice.

The reason the Aztecs sacrificed people is so the sun wouldn't stop in the sky and so the crops would grow. That's why in Mel Gibson's Apocalypto it showed scenes of dying corn. "If we offer blood to the gods they will be satisfied and our crops will grow again."

We think the same thing even today, but we are worse. We sacrifice our young in war (and sometimes they are willing sacrifices, which shows how deluded they are) and these sacrifices are to save/renew society. The Insane Evil Homocidal Monsters on the other side of the world are drooling with their desire to kill us, so we have to sacrifice our young to kill those monsters and to save/renew society. And sacrifice the young of the Evil Monsters, too. Pregnant women? Children? Babies? Collateral damage. And all to save/renew.

Save/renew what? Democracy? Democracy isn't just doomed: it is doom itself. Our fascist/socialist society, where one percent of the people own over one-third of the wealth? What we are really sacrificing to is the false idol of Moloch. The Golden Calf. Corporations. Money and power. Freedom? I don't think so.

The Greeks understood this, which is why they made Dionysus a fertility god, one of rioting and dismemberment. Look at how many people who have parties when the U.S. kills some Evil Genius on the other side of the world. The Greeks knew a lot more about the truth than we do.

This introduction is because of a movie I recently saw. The Cabin in the Woods. Less than halfway through I figured out what was going on...since I've read a lot of H.P. Lovecraft.

In the movie, which is set in the modern day, the Ancient Evil Gods really do exist, and every year five young people are chosen to be murdered in horrible bloody ways, so the AEGs will stay asleep under the earth.

It's telling that the "scientists" who set the kids up and are monitoring the whole thing, are partying in the control room. Remember? Dionysus is a fertility god, the one of partying, death and dismemberment. Again, the Greeks knew. And again, more than we know.

And, perhaps, their watching everything on a monitor might be a dig at our being desensitized by TV and video games. And if you read descriptions of the gladiators in Rome, those who watched them didn't feel the fighters were quite human. It was the Roman's version of TV.

Partying, death and dismemberment, human sacrifice of the young and innocent (sacrifices are always innocent, hence the jokes about throwing virgins into volcanoes)...that's what this movie is about.

The movie is funny/horrible. And, tellingly, the only one of the young people who rapidly figures out what is going on illustrates the archetype of the Wise Fool...and in society the ones who quickly see through the ruses are considered Fools by most of society...but in the long-run they are the Wise Ones. (At the beginning, he even says, "I see farther than they do," meaning those who uncritically support society. He also suggests society has turned into a Machine and tells his friends, "You will come to see things my way.")

There is a curious, symbolic scene in the movie where a man is skewered by a unicorn. The unicorn is a symbol of purity and innocence, and the fact that it turns into a murderous monster means the purity and innocence of humanity is gone, corrupted, and cannot be regained.

These teenagers are murdered in the most humiliating ways possible, and in public - on TV screens watched by many. That makes sense, because to humiliate people in public was the original definition of Hubris. Which is followed by Nemesis - revenge.

Human sacrifice isn't going to end anytime soon. The people who support it, who are sleepwalkers, don't even see it as human sacrifice. I'm sure the Aztecs didn't, either.

“There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping towards the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.” - the Roman historian Diodorus

The Militarization of the Police

About 20 years ago in my hometown the police quietly and at night pulled up about 50 marijuana plants from a woman's backyard. They bagged them and disposed of them however the police dispose of such things.

The next morning an outraged elderly woman called the police and complained some hooligans had sneaked on her property the night before and pulled up every one of her okra plants. And then absconded with them!

The police were embarrassed, but came clean and admitted their mistake. They compensated her for her plants, the newspapers had a good laugh, and the whole thing was forgotten.

According to Google, marijuana and okra bear a strong resemblance to each other.

I assume the police were sending a message to whomever they thought was the grower: we know who you are, so quit what you are doing, or next time you will get in big trouble. Call if a friendly warning.

That common sense among the police is evaporating.

Now imagine how that raid might have gone down today: cops dressed in ninja-suits, with machine guns, crashing through the woman's doors and windows in a pre-dawn raid, throwing concussion grenades throughout the house and macing and tazering and cuffing the poor old lady after tossing her on her floor from her wheelchair, and shooting her incontinent Pomeranian as a potential threat. And maybe shooting her, too, if she didn't die from a stroke or heart attack.

My, how things have changed in 20 years. Officer Friendly has turned into the Gestapo pointing a submachine gun into the face of little kids. How can a man like that live with himself? The only way is if he rationalizes and deludes himself that what he did is honorable. Which it isn't, in no way. Obviously, self-delusion knows no bounds.

What the heck has happened here? Whatever happened to Mayberry and Andy and Barney asking for permission to put his one bullet in his revolver? How has the line between the police and the military become so blurred? Or better yet, degraded and eroded? There must be an explanation.

Could it have anything to do with the War on [Insert Whatever]? Whenever people say, "There ought to be a law" what they're saying, even though they rarely understand it, is that ultimately the police should be allowed to stick a gun in someone's face – or even kill them – to make them follow the law, no matter how stupid or immoral that law is. "Declaring war" on whatever is currently illegal means militarizing the police and demonizing lawbreakers. Unfortunately, that demonizing always slops over onto whatever innocent citizen who happens to get into the way. Everyone becomes guilty, no trial involved.

War always creates an "us versus them" mentality, always among soldiers, and now among the police, when we pretend government can declare "war" on domestic "problems." That's the price we are always going to pay with, "There ought to be a law": the "lawbreakers" are always the bad guys deserving of death, even if that "bad guy" is merely smoking a joint to overcome the nausea of chemotherapy.

Of course, brutality always follows this dehumanization. "The War on Drugs," or on obesity, or tobacco, or firearms, always involves dehumanizing the target. It's an unavoidable part of human nature.

Do we really want to create police who dehumanize and demonize the public? That's the path to creating better killers, not better police. When's the last time they were referred to as "peace officers"? And since when have "peace officers" been issued fully automatic M-16s? And bayonets?

This dehumanization and demonization will always happen when the line between the military and police disappear.

The problem has been going on for longer than it appears. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Killing: the Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, writes there is a powerful, innate resistance to the taking of human life. He claims in World War II, only one in five soldiers fired their rifles.

By the time of Vietnam, he says, this percentage had been raised to the point where only five percent didn't fire their weapons. Perhaps this is a good thing from a military point of view (and I'd argue this is debatable), but in the long run it is terrible for society.

This change was created by desensitizing soldiers to killing, by teaching them the enemy is not human, by teaching them to not think but instead follow orders without question. When the police become militarized, and are trained with modern military techniques, they're being taught the same thing: those defined as "perps" are not human. That's how a grown man can stick a machine gun in the face of a six-year-old boy. He's not thinking; he's just "following orders." And perhaps most of the time, people like that are sadists who enjoy the power. Perhaps they are even psychopaths.

Writes Grossman, "We are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the infliction of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it."

Militarizing the police, and the attendant dehumanization and demonization of the public, and "there ought to be a law," is not the path to a better society. It is the path to the public being the enemy, including those who say, "there ought to be a law" (and how shocked they will be when it comes their turn to be brutalized!). It is, ultimately, the path to tyranny.

Single Gender Worlds

Probably the first single-gender world I encountered in science fiction was the second story in Eric Frank Russell's three-part novel, The Great Explosion. It was an all-male world, and even though Russell never came out and said it, they were clearly homosexual, since they did nothing except lift weights and were obsessed with body-building and "pure" food (and there is a lot of homosexuality in the narcissistic body-building community.)

Science fiction has dealt with single-gender worlds many times. Sometimes these worlds are portrayed as utopias and sometimes as dystopias. When the men write about single-gender worlds without men the worlds are never the best worlds.

When mannish socialist-lesbians like Joanna Russ wrote about female-only worlds they tried to write them as blissful agrarian societies (apparently even she understood science, technology, engineering and math were not women's strong suits).

(Incidentally, the best-known homosexual in science fiction is Samuel R. Delany, who quite rapidly devolved into writing science-fiction's version of gay BDSM.)

In fact back in the 70's some lesbians did try the woman-only societies. They didn't work too well and the few members left are old grandmother-looking types. Not surprisingly, they only wanted men to visit occasionally...to fix broken things.

What you will find, over and over in these fictions, is that feminism/lesbianism, as always, is based on the hatred of men, while the men prefer societies in which men and women get along.

Personally I find these fictional feminist utopias to be horrors and the females in them to be monsters.

This article is from Wikipedia:

"A relatively common motif in speculative fiction is the existence of single gender worlds or single-sex societies. These fictional societies have long been one of the primary ways to explore implications of gender and gender-differences in science fiction and fantasy. In the fictional setting, these societies often arise due to elimination of one gender through war or natural disasters and disease. The societies may be portrayed as utopian – particularly in feminist texts – or dystopian, as seen in pulp tales of oppressive matriarchies.

"Female-only worlds

"There is a long tradition of female-only places in literature and mythology, starting with the Amazons and continuing into some examples of feminist utopias. In speculative fiction, female-only worlds have been imagined to come about, among other approaches, by the action of disease that wipes out men, along with the development of technological or mystical method that allow female parthenogenic reproduction. The resulting society is often shown to be utopian by feminist writers. Several influential feminist utopias of this sort were written in the 1970s; the most often studied examples include Joanna Russ's The Female Man, Suzy McKee Charnas's Walk to the End of the World and Motherlines, and Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time. Utopias imagined by male authors have generally included equality between sexes, rather than separation. Female-only societies may be seen as an extreme type of a biased sex-ratio, another common SF theme.

"Such worlds have been portrayed most often by lesbian or feminist authors; their use of female-only worlds allows the exploration of female independence and freedom from patriarchy. The societies may not necessarily be lesbian, or sexual at all — a famous early sexless example being Herland (1915) by Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

"Some lesbian separatist authors have used female-only societies to additionally posit that all women would be lesbians if having no possibility of sexual interaction with men, as in Ammonite (1993) by Nicola Griffith. The enormously influential The Female Man (1975) and "When It Changed" (1972) by Joanna Russ portrayed a peaceful agrarian society of lesbians who resent the later intrusion of men, and a world in which women plan a genocidal war against men, implying that the utopian lesbian society is the result of this war.

"During the pulp era, matriarchal dystopias were relatively common, in which female-only or female-controlled societies were shown unfavourably. In John Wyndham's "Consider Her Ways" (1956), male rule is shown as being repressive of women, but freedom from patriarchy is only possible in an authoritarian caste-based female-only society. Poul Anderson's "Virgin Planet" depicted a world where five castaway women found a way of reproducing asexually — but the daughter is an exact copy of the mother, with the result that eventually the planet has a large population composed entirely of 'copies' of the original five. Among them, males are considered mythical creatures — and a man who lands on the planet after centuries of isolation finds it difficult to prove that he is one.

"James Tiptree Jr., a woman writing secretly under a male pseudonym, explored the sexual impulse and gender as two of her main themes; in her award-winning "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?" (collected in Her Smoke Rose Up Forever), she presents a female-only society after the extinction of men from disease. The society lacks stereotypically 'male' problems such as war and crime, but is stagnant. The women reproduce via cloning and consider men to be comical.

"Male-only worlds

"Men-only societies are much less common than women-only societies. Joanna Russ suggests this is because men do not feel oppressed, and therefore imagining a world free of women does not imply an increase in freedom and is not as attractive.

"Some examples include:

"Ethan of Athos by Lois Bujold, inspired by the real world male-only religious society of Mount Athos, shows a world in which men have isolated their planet from the rest of civilization to avoid the 'corrupting' effect of women. Children are grown in uterine replicators, using ova derived from tissue cultures; the novel's plot is driven by the declining fertility of these cultures.

"A. Bertram Chandler's A Spartan Planet features the men-only planet Sparta which is dedicated to the values of militarism loosely modeled upon the ancient Greek city state of Sparta.

"Cordwainer Smith's short story "The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal" portrays a society in which all of the women have died out.

"Genderless or hermaphroditic worlds

"Some other fictional worlds feature societies in which everyone has more than one gender, or none, or can change gender. For example:

"Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness (1969) depicts a world in which individuals are neither 'male' nor 'female' but can have both male and female sexual organs and reproductive abilities, making them in some senses intersexual. Similar patterns exist in Greg Egan's novel Schild's Ladder and his novella "Oceanic" or in Storm Constantine's book series Wraeththu about an oogamous magical race that arose from mutant human beings.

"John Varley, who also came to prominence in the 1970s, also often writes on gender-related themes. In his "Eight Worlds" suite of stories (many collected in The John Varley Reader) and novels, for example, humanity has achieved the ability to change sex at a whim. Homophobia is shown to initially inhibit uptake of this technology, as it engenders drastic changes in relationships, with homosexual sex becoming an acceptable option for all.

In the "Culture" series of novels and stories by Iain M. Banks, humans can and do relatively easily (and reversibly) change sex.

Gender segregation

"Segregation of genders is another relatively common trope of speculative fiction — physical separation can result in societies that are essentially single-gender, although the majority of such works focus on the reunification of the genders, or otherwise on links that remain between them, as with Sheri S. Tepper's The Gate to Women's Country, David Brin's Glory Season and Carol Emshwiller's "Boys". Even an episode of Duckman tried this.

"Sometimes the segregation is social, and men and women interact to a limited extent. For example, when overpopulation drives the world away from heterosexuality in Charles Beaumont's short story "The Crooked Man" (1955), first published in "Playboy", homosexuals oppress the heterosexual minority and relationships between men and women are made unlawful.

"List of works

"Female worlds

"Houston, Houston, Do You Read?

"The Female Man

"When It Changed

"Herland

"Consider Her Ways"

"Ammonite

"The Cleft

"Male worlds

"Ethan of Athos

"The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal"

"Genderless or hermaphroditic worlds

"Wraeththu

"Venus Plus X

"The Left Hand of Darkness"

Feminist Ant-Like Societies

I've pointed out before I used to read a lot of science fiction in my early to middle teens - probably from right before 12 to about 15. The stuff really stretches the brains of those susceptible to it, and I certainly was.

Many writers have referred to it as a psychedelic drug, and I do understand that.

Terence McKenna, who wasn't a science fiction writer but a very creative loon, had this to say: "Science fiction I really consider a proto-psychedelic drug, because what science fiction does is it gives permission to imagine." And Arthur C.Clarke said, "I regard science fiction as the entry drug into the psychedelic world."

I always liked it because it did the mental heavy lifting for me. I was able to take advantage of other's experience and imagining.

Some of what I read was the depiction of feminist societies, ones without men. In every case these societies were ant-like, lacking in the ability to discover/create/innovate - even repair. They were regimented, and contrary to the leftist/feminine myth of "equality," hierarchical.

In some of the stories the author had to assume women could keep an advanced technological society going (otherwise it would be a short-short story and not a novel) but in the long run they always collapsed. And in some of the more humorous stories what the women mostly needed was a good rogering.

Since in some of these stories men were considered to be the cause of every trouble, they were essentially human sacrifices. Then after that, Utopia was supposed to be ushered in. Only it never happened.

Of course when lesbians were introduced they wanted all men dead. I reminded of Valerie Solanas, who shot Andy Warhol and founded SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men). She thought men were a biological mistake and wanted them eradicated. Not all that surprisingly, she died in an insane asylum. She, too, projected all problems onto men and wanted them sacrificed.

The first time I heard about human sacrifice was Moloch in the Old Testament, which you still see today in films.

That clip is an example of the Moloch of the Machine State. In the Machine State everything is regimented and controlled, people are not people but interchangeable and disposable cogs and they are easily sacrificed to keep the Machine running.

This kind of mass human sacrifice only happens in controlled, regimented, machine-like societies societies. Think Mel Gibson's Apocalypto.

Today men are supposed to be willing human sacrifices to the Moloch of feminism, which is merely part of that monster known as leftism. This kind of human sacrifice is done to save/renew the world. It's a fertility rite, as shown in Shirley Jackson's famous short story, "The Lottery."

Men are supposed to be human sacrifices though guilt and shame, i.e. self-loathing. Of course, the best kind of sacrifices are the willing ones. They're supposed to do this is save/renew the world. When they're gone or transformed into non-men, then it'll be a better world! In the hallucinations of hate-filled leftists.

What we are dealing with in these novels is a mismatch of power, especially political power. And when women gain too much power, they use it to destroy men. As Samuel Johnson said, "Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little."

Why do women want to do this? I'm not sure, but I do know that Carl Jung said that women's greatest flaw is to think they are always right. He said it's something they must overcome to be happy.

I'd say it has something to do with our inborn narcissism, and most women appear to be far more narcissistic than men.

What I do know is that when someone thinks they are always right, then they become self-righteous and think the other person is always wrong, therefore they must be human sacrificed as the cause of all troubles. And that is exactly what feminism and indeed leftism want to do: destroy "the enemy."

Of course, there will never be a matriarchy, because it would collapse immediately. What might survive for a little while is men doing the invent/discover/repair jobs and women having make-work jobs, which is what we have today to some degree. That ain't going to last much longer.

There will never be, as Eric Charles Maine wrote, a World Without Men. That's why it's science fiction. And the lesson is that without men, women destroy themselves.

Maid Cafes

How does she keep her balance on those things?

Over here I suppose Hooters might be similar and perhaps the old-time Bunnies from the Playboy Clubs (are they still even around?) but apparently so many women are unfeminine these days that Maid Cafes are becoming common. And they now exist in America? Will wonders ever cease?

Of course the more bisonic women will become hysterical about these places, claiming...who knows what? Patriarchy? Oppression? Sexism? Landwhales of whatever size and spinsters of whatever age will try to have these places shut down. (I think the French maid uniforms would give them hysterical hissy fits for being "degrading" and "pornographic.") Outrage, self-righteousness and hurt feelings trump all.

Here, I suppose the men might drink a beer and smoke a cigar and not have to argue with a woman. Ah, bliss! Even if for a little while.

I find some of the services a little odd, such as the spoon-feeding, but I suppose it just shows how many men are lacking any kind of attention from women, and go to an extreme when they get it.

When I was growing up my mother at least made dinner. Apparently a lot of women today can't even cook at all.

I owned a taxi for a few years and ran around several hookers (all the drivers did). Some of the men paid for the girls to come over and watch movies, or go on dates, and just sit and talk. Sort of a portable maid cafe.

All of these guys were unpopular with women and couldn't find anyone.

As I've pointed out before, in myth (which is the distilled wisdom of the human race) women are either nurturers or destroyers. If they don't nurture then they destroy. Since so many today are destroyers these guys are having to pay to get some nurturing. In some ways it appears they've turned into babies to get it - and that makes me wonder if they didn't get what they needed as babies and young children.

This is from Wikipedia.

"Maid cafés (メイド喫茶 / メイドカフェ Meido kissa / Meido kafe) are a subcategory of cosplay restaurants found predominantly in Japan. In these cafés, waitresses dressed in maid costumes act as servants, and treat customers as masters (and mistresses) in a private home, rather than as café patrons. The first permanent maid café, "Cure Maid Café," was established in Akihabara, Tokyo, Japan in March 2001, but maid cafés are becoming increasingly popular. As they have done so, the increased competition has made some use unusual tactics in order to attract customers. They have also expanded overseas to countries like China, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, France, Mexico, Canada and the United States.

"The maid costume varies from café to café but most are based upon the costume of French maids, often composed of a dress, a petticoat, a pinafore, a matching hair accessory (such as a frill or a bow), and stockings. Sometimes, employees wear animal ears with their outfits to add more appeal.

"Waitresses in maid cafés are often chosen on the basis of their appearance; most are young, attractive and innocent-looking women.

"Some maid cafés also have cross-dressing males as maids.

Clientele

"Maid cafés were originally designed primarily to cater to the fantasies of male otaku, fans of anime, manga, and video games. The image of the maid is one that has been popularized and fetishized in many manga and anime series, as well as in gal games. Important to the otaku attraction to maid cafés is the Japanese concept of moe, which generally describes a love for anime, manga or video game characters. More specifically, moe refers to adoration for young or innocent-looking female characters. People who have moe (especially a specific subcategory known as maid moe) are therefore attracted to an establishment in which they can interact with real-life manifestations (both physically and in demeanor) of the fictional maid characters that they have fetishized.

"Today, the maid café phenomenon attracts more than just male otaku, but also couples, tourists, and women.

"Most maid cafés offer menus similar to those of more typical cafés. Customers can order coffee, other beverages, and a wide variety of entrées and desserts. However, in maid cafés, waitresses will often decorate a customer’s order with cute designs at his or her table. Syrup can be used to decorate desserts, and omelette rice (オムライス Omu-raisu), a popular entrée, is typically decorated using ketchup. This service adds to the image of the waitress as an innocent but pampering maid.

Rituals, etiquette and additional services

"There are many rituals and additional services offered at many maid cafés. Maids greet customers with 'Welcome home, Master (Mistress)' (お帰りなさいませ、ご主人様！ Okaerinasaimase, goshujinsama) and offer them wipe towels and menus. Maids will also kneel by the table to stir cream and sugar into a customer's coffee, and some cafés even offer spoon-feeding services to customers. Increasingly, maid cafés offer grooming services, such as ear cleanings and leg, arm, and back massages (provided the customer remains fully clothed), for an additional fee. Customers can also sometimes pay to play card or video games with maids.

"Customers are also expected to follow basic rules when patronizing a maid café. One Tokyo maid café recently published a list of ten rules that customers should follow in a maid café. For example, customers should not touch a maid's body, ask for a maid's personal contact information, or otherwise invade her personal privacy (by stalking). One common rule in a maid café is that photographs of maids or the café interior are forbidden. However, customers usually have the option of paying an extra fee in order to get his or her photograph taken with a maid. The maid will then hand-decorate the photograph for the customer."

Sex and the High Command

I used to read a lot of science fiction from 12 to 14 (I'll be the first to admit it's mostly for adolescents, which is not an insult), and I've read some pretty awful stuff. One of them was John Boyd's novel, Sex and the High Command, which I've heard described as "cheerful/inane." I guess it was supposed to be a satire, but even now I'm not sure.

It's rather goofy and really not worth reading, but Boyd did illustrate some profound truths about men and women. One of them was that feminism is based on the hate of men, which Boyd knew when he wrote this novel in 1968.

Here's the goofy plot:

One Dr. Henrietta Carey (sound dyke-like to you?) perfects an orgasm-inducing parthenogenesis drug called "Vita-Lerp" and colloquially called a "V-bomb." As a result, women flock to the FEM party — "Freedom, Equality, and Motherhood," supporting Carey for President. Men, not surprisingly, are to be eliminated as superfluous.

As an aside, I had a friend once tell me that if "you couldn't fuck women, and if they couldn't have babies, there would be a bounty on them." Now that would be the plot of a very creepy novel.

I'm not going to go into any detail about Sex and the High Command because it really is a bad novel. I read it one time and never again. For one thing, almost the entire book is dialogue.

Suffice it to say that in the end men are eliminated and the main male character in the book ends up stuffed in a museum - the last man on earth, so he ends up as an exhibit.

There have been a lot of stories in science fiction about the Battle of the Sexes. Some of them point out that when women want "equality" it doesn't stop there but ends up with the rule of women and the destruction of men. But then, as Ezra Pound noted, "The artist is the antennae of the human race." That's the message of Boyd's novel.

There are other, better novels about these problems. One of them is Norman Spinrad's A World Between, which is about the Pink and Blue War. Again, in it, feminism is based on the hatred of men.

What you find, over and over in these novels and short stories, is that feminism is based on the hatred of men. Keith Laumer, in one of his many goofy, funny short stories (such as "The War with the Yukks") pointed out the war (Yukks being men, of course) was started by an "idiotic feminist movement somewhere."

One of the best of the novels is Charles Eric Maine's World without Men. This is a description of it from The Men's Right Initiative:

"Charles Eric Maine’s saw it coming. His 1958 novel World without Men never received the praise and literary fame of George Orwell’s 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, but Maine's book may have been a better indicator of things to come. Maine saw in the nascent feminism of his day (the immediate postwar period) as a dehumanizing and destructive force, that would lead to totalitarianism. Feminism deformed society in unnatural ways. Maine also grasped that feminism – the dogmatic delusion that women are morally and intellectually superior to men – derived its fundamental premises from hatred of men. He grasped that feminism entailed the end of dimorphism (the male and female gender) and also entailed a total rejection of all morality."

I had forgotten about this novel until I read Ex-Army's take on it. Now this one is worth reading and I highly recommend it.

Comic Books and the Loss of Chivalry

There is a local coffee house I frequent. The last time I was there the woman who took our order – who appeared to be about 25 – also made our drinks. I didn’t see anyone else behind the counter.

“Are you the only one working here?” I asked. In response she put her hands akimbo on her hips and turned her head sideways. I started laughing.

“What are you, Superman?” I asked.

“Supergirl,” she answered.

I crossed my wrists at my chest and said, “You look more like you’ve got the Wonder Woman thing going.”

“Well,” she answered. “She did have the uniform and bracelets.”

Then something struck me. “You read comic books,” I said.

“I certainly do,” she answered. That’s why she knew about Superman putting his hands on his hips and turning his head sideways. And that Wonder Woman had bracelets. She didn't mention anything about her golden lasso, though.

That encounter got me thinking. I was never that much of a Superman fan – I much preferred Commando Cody flying around with that jetpack on his back and blasting evildoers with his .45 – but he and Superman and all the rest of the comic book heroes were chivalrous. That’s why they were superheroes – at core knights with superpowers.

But not so much anymore. Superman has now given up his U.S. citizenship and is supposedly a citizen of the world – a demented, indeed perverted, fantasy if there ever was one. Whatever happened to Truth, Justice and the American Way?

Chivalry is a Western invention. Or should I say discovery? It came from Christianity and is based on the better warrior virtues (which means it’s not based on murdering innocents and calling them “collateral damage”). It’s about protecting the weak and helpless, and about righting wrongs and punishing evildoers.

All comic book heroes were originally chivalrous, be they Superman or Batman or the Phantom or the Green Hornet or the Rocketeer (who is the modern-day version of Commando Cody). Before them it was King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

I originally learned about chivalry from Edgar Rice Burroughs, specifically his novel, A Fighting Man of Mars, which I encountered when I was 12. (You can argue that ERB wrote novels, not comic books, but I’d respond that his novels, as wonderful as they are, are actually comic books that happen to not have drawings, although some of the cover artists, such as the late Frank Frazetta, did comics.)

Some of the superheroes were more of knights errant than not. Batman, for one, who was a bit of a psychological mess. But he still tried to be a chivalrous knight.

We’ve lost the chivalrous ideal. Organizations where young boys can learn the basics, such as the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, are now considered by the “elites” to be embarrassing. That’s one of the reasons, among many, why our “elites” are anti-American traitors.

The military no longer teaches chivalry, not when soldiers are just cannon fodder to be used up by our treacherous and cowardly elites to advance the destined-to-collapse American empire. The last time the military was half-way chivalrous was during the War between the States. The syphilitic brain-damaged homosexual Lincoln and the insane alcoholic Sherman put a permanent end to that.

It’s too bad the South didn’t win. I’d take Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson over any Northern general every time. (I find it interesting the South evolved from Celtic warrior culture, while the North was dominated by greasy merchants who put money-making above everything – just as we have today with what I call Cosmodemonic Transnational Corporations.)

People are imitative animals, as Thomas Jefferson noticed. It’s how we learn, as he also noticed. When boys and girls have poor models, mentors and mirrors, they’re going imitate degraded values and grow up confused. It’s not hard to see that today, what with chivalry and Christianity both on life support.

Feminism, which has founded by man-hating females and then taken over by envious man-hating, hairy-legged lesbians, certainly hasn’t helped. Leftists think human nature doesn’t exist and people aren’t much more than Lockean blank slates. That is why feminists, even today, are trying to turn little boys into little girls, usually with Ritalin.

If I had my way I’d close down the public schools. These days it’d be impossible to teach Edgar Rice Burroughs in them (he wasn’t taught when I was in school). And the Greek myths. And the Brothers Grimm. And Rudyard Kipling and H. Rider Haggard. As for comic books? God forbid. The deluded and self-righteous would wax wroth and froth at the mouth.

When it comes to boys, I’d teach them how to read with the stories in comic books. I’d teach them Edgar Rice Burroughs starting when they were six. I’d guarantee you they’d Hoover those stories right up. They’d learn what chivalry really is – and they’d be better for it (I never heard the word “chivalry” mentioned in school or even college).

Teaching boys means more male teachers. Some women have enough sense to let boys be boys. Most women teachers don’t, though. I’ve met enough of them to know that many of them shouldn’t be teachers. Education degrees, no matter how advanced, are worthless.

Men have lost their way. They’re finding it again, fortunately. It’s a healthy reaction to the evils of feminism, which, being leftist, has damaged and destroyed everything it touched. Including the characters of many men.

I had mentioned three words – mentor, model, mirror. A mentor is obvious. Boys and girl need mentors. These days, even a fair number of parents are not mentors, since they leave it up to the schools to do their jobs. And what a job many schools do!

A model is someone you model yourself after. A mirror is someone who reflects back to you. A bad mirror will humiliate and abuse a child. Children will see that and then they become what they behold. A good mirror builds children up.

Boys today lack mentors. They lack models – decent models, at least. I see a noticeable number of boys who are “aspiring rap artists,” which is worse than merely embarrassing - it's downright retarded. It can be dangerous. And guess what kind of lowlifes these boys took for their role models? And since people are educated by imitation…

The mirrors for boys in schools today are mostly terrible ones. We all know what is reflected back to boys, and what attitudes are directed at them.

Incidentally, I’ve seen children, especially boys, dress up as Harry Potter. He’s a model for kids to imitate. When my nephew was little he was such a huge fan of BraveStarr he had his mother make him a costume of him that he wore for Halloween.

Unfortunately, if private schools imitate public schools, they aren’t going to be any better than the public ones. But, in the long run, competition improves everything. Including the schools.

And someday, maybe, just maybe, boys might come out of school knowing who John Carter is. And Woola the loyal Martian hound dog. And Barsoom. And Tarzan (who was created by Burroughs). And all the whole pantheon of chivalrous comic book heroes.

Hi! I'm Woola the Martian Hound Dog and I'm the best part of the movie!

It even works for girls, as in the case of my nerdette friend who was such a fan of Supergirl and Wonder Woman. It might even help stop young girls from falling for the destructive and dangerous delusion of feminism.

Fortunately, in the long run, people and society will straighten themselves out. The pendulum always swings back.