Wednesday, April 30, 2014

""Shit Tests' Are For Shit"

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error." John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859


There is a new blog over there on your right side: Another Androsphere Blog.

The author, as I do, does not believe in "shit tests." It is a concept created by amateurs, not scientists, and is based on "Evo-Psych," which isn't a science and is closer to fairy tales. I can come up with Evo-Psych explanations by the dozens.

I've read more than once it takes five years for a person to change their mind when confronted with the truth. That's a shame, because it really slows down progress. They suffer that oh-so-painful cognitive dissonance and desperately try to hold on to their outmoded worldview with insults and excuses.

There are those who memorize, and there are those who think. I don't see much overlap.


"Man creates and woman destroys. These characteristics are demonstrated in everyday life. Firstly look at stable male-headed families, secondly look at chaotic single-mother families, or businesses headed by women, or even women in the army; destruction, entropy is what women excel at. It's part of their nature, to degrade, to debase, to destroy. This is not a value judgement, I'm not saying that women are inherently evil and stand in direct opposition to goodness. This is an observation, like saying that rocks fall down hill because of gravity, or biological material decays because entropy. Entropy, death, has it's uses (like a burning forest fire that clears out the dead wood), but only as a servant to life, to goodness (or call it what you will; if entropy/death ruled over life then we'd never be able to evolve, to progress either genetically as a species, or memetically as a culture. Quite frankly, if Entropy ruled 'over' Life, then we'd all be in the shit!

"So what are Shit Tests supposed to be?

"Click here for the PUA definition. According to the PUAs who coined the term they are an evolutionary tool used by women to determine the fitness of male partners for purposes of reproduction. Basically if a man fails a shit test by a woman then he WON'T be allowed to breed with that woman. Now this concept has two obvious problems:

"1 - Women DO NOT choose the best sexual partners to breed with. Ask yourself this: do women fantasize over genetically mediocre pop-stars or genetically superior (both in body and brains) astronauts? Clearly Pop Stars are more popular (hence the term 'pop') than astronauts. I'm pretty sure that astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong didn't had as many groupies as pop stars Mick Jagger, or Robbie Williams.

"Now you may say that 'Women choose pop stars because they follow the herds choice' in which case I must ask 'How do women then determine what fitness is?'. If they are incapable of determining fitness, if they are reliant on the views of others to determine what fitness is, the views of other women, who are in turn dependent on views of other women, then how can women use Shit Tests as a tool for choosing a fit mate? It's not possible, because women are unable to determine what fitness is in the first place. In short: Women don't know what fitness is, so they cannot construct a test to determine who a fit mate is.

"2 - Women's general behaviour towards other women shows that Shit Tests are not just used against men whom they want to breed with: there is lots of catty behaviour, 'bitching', sarcasm, all of which are exactly like the behaviour described in Shit Tests. Does this mean that women are Shit Testing other women? That they really want to get some hard-core lesbo action? That they want to wack-in a double-ended dildo and go at it like the proverbial rabbits? No, of course it doesn't. Women don't Shit Test other women to determine if they are genetically 'Fit' partners, because you can't produce offspring with a woman and a woman; you need a man and a woman to have children. So you see that women’s behaviour towards other women demonstrates that Shit Tests are nothing to do with Genetic Fitness at all.

"If you think that all the activities, behavioural traits, of women are good all of the time including the behaviour that is seen as Shit Testing, then you are simply mistaken, and are going to suffer because of it. You’ll suffer because you'll end up perceiving negative female behaviour as something positive, and that's definitely no good thing.

"Instead of seeing the various types of female behaviour as 'a good thing' see them as a bad thing, and be prepared to deal with them accordingly. Simon Sheppard has an excellent list of female behaviours at his www.heretical.com site which is an excellent list of behavioural traits."

20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horror Stories

Years ago I read the shortest science-fiction story ever published: "The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door." It was titled, "Knock" and was written by Frederic Brown.

These aren't really short stories...but they're funny.

One of the more intriguing things about humor is that it can be analyzed. You take two unrelated concepts and find a connection between them. When people see that connection, they laugh. (Creativity operates on the same principles - finding connections between unrelated things.)

They is from a site called Sunny Skyz.


"Ever since I was a little kid I've loved sharing ghost stories around a campfire which is probably why I love watching horror movies. And every single time I finish watching one, well, a good one... I kick myself for not picking out a comedy instead.

"Someone on reddit asked the question, 'What is the best horror story you can come up with in two sentences?' I honestly didn't think it was possible to give me chills from such a limited amount of words...

"1. I woke up to hear knocking on glass. At first, I thought it was the window until I heard it come from the mirror again.

"2. The last thing I saw was my alarm clock flashing 12:07 before she pushed her long rotting nails through my chest, her other hand muffling my screams. I sat bolt upright, relieved it was only a dream, but as I saw my alarm clock read 12:06, I heard my closet door creak open.

"3.Growing up with cats and dogs, I got used to the sounds of scratching at my door while I slept. Now that I live alone, it is much more unsettling.

"4. In all of the time that I've lived alone in this house, I swear to God I've closed more doors than I've opened.

"5. A girl heard her mom yell her name from downstairs, so she got up and started to head down. As she got to the stairs, her mom pulled her into her room and said 'I heard that, too.'

"6. She asked why I was breathing so heavily. I wasn't.

"7. My wife woke me up last night to tell me there was an intruder in our house. She was murdered by an intruder 2 years ago.

"8. I awoke to the sound of the baby monitor crackling with a voice comforting my firstborn child. As I adjusted to a new position, my arm brushed against my wife, sleeping next to me.

"9. I always thought my cat had a staring problem - she always seemed fixated on my face. Until one day, when I realized that she was always looking just behind me.

"10. There's nothing like the laughter of a baby. Unless it's 1 a.m. and you're home alone.

"11. I was having a pleasant dream when what sounded like hammering woke me. After that, I could barely hear the muffled sound of dirt covering the coffin over my own screams.

12. "'I can't sleep,' she whispered, crawling into bed with me. I woke up cold, clutching the dress she was buried in.

"13. I begin tucking him into bed and he tells me, 'Daddy, check for monsters under my bed.' I look underneath for his amusement and see him, another him, under the bed, staring back at me quivering and whispering, 'Daddy, there's somebody on my bed.'

"14. You get home, tired after a long day's work and ready for a relaxing night alone. You reach for the light switch, but another hand is already there.

"15. I can't move, breathe, speak or hear and it's so dark all the time. If I knew it would be this lonely, I would have been cremated instead.

"16. She went upstairs to check on her sleeping toddler. The window was open and the bed was empty."

"17. Don't be scared of the monsters, just look for them. Look to your left, to your right, under your bed, behind your dresser, in your closet but never look up, she hates being seen.

"18. My daughter won't stop crying and screaming in the middle of the night. I visit her grave and ask her to stop, but it doesn't help.

"19. After working a hard day, I came home to see my girlfriend cradling our child. I didn't know which was more frightening, seeing my dead girlfriend and stillborn child, or knowing that someone broke into my apartment to place them there.

"20. There was a picture in my phone of me sleeping. I live alone."

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

The State As A Moloch Machine

"The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies...." ~ Henry David Thoreau

"All machines are amplifiers" ~ Cooper's Law


I have never been a big fan of Metropolis but there is something fascinating about it. Notice the scene above. What's it saying? That the State is a Machine, a Moloch-Machine, and it will eat people as sacrifices.

And if the State is a Machine, then what are people? Replaceable, disposable cogs. So the bigger and more powerful the States gets, the more people are reduced to cogs. Organic cogs, but still cogs.

There is an old theme in literature that got started during the Industrial Revolution: the Machine State versus the Natural State. It was related to the myth of the Garden of Eden: Unconsciousness/Innocence/Natural State versus Self-Consciousness/Experience/Machine State.

This theme is everywhere. The Machine is everywhere.

As for machines being amplifiers, that, too, is true. Machines are amoral; we can use them for good or bad. They amplify our natural abilities - for good and bad.

That theme being everywhere? The Eloi versus the Morlocks in The Time Machine. The Machine in The Matrix. The Borg in Star Trek. The Elephant Man. Darth Vader, "more machine than man."

So the big question is: How can you tell if machines are being used for good or bad purposes?

The simplest answer: if it's for bad purposes you're being sacrificed to them. In other words, you're being sacrificed to the Machine State, i.e. the State as Moloch. Or let's put it this way: the State as Satan. And like Satan, the State wants absolute power over everyone.

When machinery of whatever kind is appropriated by the State it will quickly be used for evil purposes. And people are just supposed to be disposable, replaceable cogs.

Think THX 1138.

And it was George Lucas who later created Darth Vader.

I also find it interesting the Machine State is almost always underground. Hidden. The Morlocks. Logan's Run. THX 1138. Metropolis. A prison, Hell, the totalitarian State, the Eye of Sauron, very hard to escape.

But some run. They don't want to be turned into soulless cogs.

Machines are supposed to make our lives easier. They are meant to serve us, not we them. Because when we serve them then we end up being sacrificed to them.

Machines are supposed to make us more free. I'd rather have a washing machine than spend hours a day beating my clothes on a rock in a stream.

Or as the mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote: "Man should not be in the service of society, society should be in the service of man. When man is in the service of society, you have a monster state, and that's what is threatening the world at this minute....Certainly Star Wars has a valid mythological perspective. It shows the state as a machine and asks, 'Is the machine going to crush humanity or serve humanity?' Humanity comes not from the machine but from the heart."

Speaking of the heart, Metropolis had a wise comment how to make sure machines serve us and not us them: "The mediator between head and hands must be the heart!"

The State does not want us to have a heart. That is, courage and love and freedom. And meaningful play, for that matter. It just wants us to be obedient slaves, ready and willing to sacrifice ourselves to the Machine.


"The conflict between the central power of the political State, and the whole set of functions and authorities contained in church, family, guild and local community has been, I believe, the main source of those dislocations of social structure and the uprootings of status which lie behind the problem of community in our age." - Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community

There Is Nothing New Under The Sun - Especially The Retards

Actually there probably is - new scientific advances, things like that. But human nature doesn't change.

Sorry, but I have to laugh at a lot of the "Manosphere." It truly is ridiculous. Be an Alpha! Don't be a Beta! Chicks did Alphas! Chicks get 'gina tingles from the Dark Triad! Neg 'em! Alpha Fux and Beta Bucks! Hypergamy! Fake it until you make it! Chicks love insanely confident men! Peacocking!

Did these guys have fathers? Were they all raised by single mothers? They don't know shit!

I had mentioned recently that when I was a kid I would read magazines and see ads in the back for books on how to pick up girls. The biggest seller of these kinds of books was written by Eric Weber - in 1970.

I picked this article up from The New York Village Voice and was written by Alan Scherstuhl.


"Your Crap Archivist brings you the finest in forgotten and bewildering crap culled from basements, thrift stores, estate sales and flea markets. He does this for one reason: Knowledge is power.

How to Pick Up Girls!

"Author: Eric Weber
"Publisher: Symphony Press, New York
"Date: 1970
"Discovered at: Goodwill
"The Cover Promises: Much that the book fails to back up.

"Representative Quotes:

"Page 21: 'The point of this story is not that the girl was 'bad' or 'fast' or 'avant garde.' All it indicates is that normal, healthy young chicks like sex. Want sex. And, most important, will be glad to have sex with you if you only ask them.'

"Page 85: 'March in a peace demonstration. Even if you're for war. I've heard countless stories of guys who have picked up fantastic broads in peace demonstrations.'

"In his introduction to this 'foolproof guide to meeting women,' author Eric Weber -- a horn-dog Sherpa to the brave new world of 1970s promiscuity -- describes what he considers a familiar situation. You're a guy, walking down the street, and you see this girl:

"'Someone so absolutely stunning, so downright sexy, you actually find yourself running to catch up with her . . . For an instant you even consider rape.'

"Please, if you feel qualms about the term 'feminist,' consider how much that movement has accomplished: just a couple decades back, at the end of the idealistic '60s, there was nothing uncommon about men like Weber insisting that women were asking for it. 'Why do you think so many of them have completely stopped wearing bras and panties?' he asks. Then he pants:

"'They're showing you their breasts and behinds to stimulate you. To make you want to go to bed with them. To get you to caress and fondle their lovely behinds and soft warm breasts.'

"So, by comparison, with Weber, Maxim is Susan Faludi.

"Fortunately, if you've studied Weber's system, you recognize that force isn't necessary. Instead, you've been hipped to a world-changing secret that gets a full chapter here: 'Women Get Horny.' Weber writes, 'Next time you're wondering whether to try to pick up a certain girl, remember: It may be a long time since she's been to bed with a man. She might be horny. Very horny. Right at that very moment.'

"In the event that she's not horny, you still have a shot. Just follow Weber's vague system, which he lays out in a series of short, chatty chapters packed with unbelievable anecdotes about 'knockers that about knocked me off my seat.'

"As far as I can tell, his system has four steps.

"First, be sexy.

"'Try on some of the new wild clothes. Bell bottoms and English boots and wide ties. Wear a body shirt or dungarees or a groovy vest. . . Think sexy. Think, I am a virile male animal.'

"And be yourself.

"'If you aren't the wittiest guy in the room, don't try to be Jerry Lewis.'

"Then swoon and lie.

"'The woman you're approaching must be made to feel you're head over heels in love with her . . . Half the time you want to pick up a girl it's because she's got a set of breasts that make you dizzy. Or the face of a movie star. Or the hips of a belly dancer. Not because she has some magnetic inner quality. Or whatever the hell it is she wants you to flip over. But you can't let them know that.'

"And don't expect any of this to work!

"'The author of a book on how to pick up girls was rejected more times than he can remember. And he lived to talk about it.' Worse, he even admits, 'Before I started work on this book I never came close to approaching a strange woman. I was sure if I did I'd get bopped on the head with a pocketbook.'

"Highlight:

"All of the following comes straight from Weber's chapter 'Fifty Great Opening Lines':

"How do you cook a leg of lamb? (You've spotted a pretty chick in your grocery store.)

"Who's your dentist? (You want to know how she came by such beautiful white teeth.)

"Where did you get that marvelous coat? (Tell her you work for a clothing company and think her coat is absolutely terrific.)

"Fantastic book! Have you got to the part where the butler murders himself? (The sexy girl sitting next to you on the bus is reading a book you've just finished. Or even a book you've never heard of.)

"I'll bet your name is Lisa. (To you, she looks like a Lisa. Pretty and sexy.)

"I love you. (To be used half in jest at parties and in singles bars.)

"I'm writing a book on picking up and I'd like to ask you a few questions. (I found this to be the picking up line of them all!)'"

Monday, April 28, 2014

Only Chodes Use Pre-Programmed Pickup Lines

There is a rather amusing site, run by a semi-ignoramus, who gets his fame and fortune by listing pick-up lines to use on girls.

He mentioned one ridiculous one about how you should say (here I paraphrase), "I didn't know Santa Claus existed, but here you are." That's horrible.

I laughed. It reminded me of some famous lines: "Did it hurt when you fell from Heaven?" or a variant: "Heaven must be missing an angel, because here you are down here." Those are terrible.

When I was a kid there were advertisements in the back of magazines, "How to Pick Up Girls" and "How to Talk to Girls." Even at 11 or 12, I was thinking, "What the hell?"


How to get into the panties of 25 beautiful girls by using cool pickup lines!

The same thing exists today, only it's online.

When I was in college (perhaps 21) my girlfriend, I, and a friend and another girl were sitting in a room. The girl asked me what pickup lines I would use. I told her I didn't use pickup lines, but if I did I would say to her, "I looked at you and had a spontaneous physical reaction." She got a big grin and said, "Now that would work."

Not babbling some nonsense about Santa Claus and angels.

Again, in college I was in the library with a friend when some guy walked up to girl and asked "What's the story, morning glory?" My friend asked, "Are you serious?" to which the guy answered defensively,"It's the only way I know to talk to the chicks." Perhaps he should have ordered one of those books.

I have few very talents. One is that I happen to be funny. It appears to be natural. I could have been a standup comedian except I'm too lazy. As Sam Kinnison once said, "If you don't have talent or preparation for whatever you want to do, you will not be successful in anything."

But I do know this: if you don't have natural talent you're just going to make a fool out of yourself.

I was sitting in a coffee shop with a woman I know when my head turned of its own volition and I found a girl about 21 looking at me. I leaned forward and said in a conspiratorial tone, "Don't worry, women always look at me, but that was 25 years ago." She looked flustered and smiled.

The woman I was with said, "Are you flirting with her?" No, I answered, I'm just using my indiscriminate charm.

Or the woman next door whom I told, "When women get involved with me their lives get better."

She laughed and said, "God, you're arrogant."

"No," I told her, "just confident and funny."

If you want to memorize cheesy "negs" and use them on attractive women, I encourage you to do so. I enjoy seeing these guys get looks like they're a centipede crawling up a woman's arm. Perhaps you might want to try it at the local Starbucks!

Spontaneously is how you do it. Not programmed.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

"Shit Tests," Sure, Whatever

There is a friend of mine, married, good job he likes (how rare that is these days), two kids, nice house - the middle-class American dream, now dying.

He told me in college he met a woman he realized could be the One (incidentally there is more than one One for every guy out there). After about two days he realized he was getting very interested in her.

He told me, "I felt like I had known her for a long time." He even told her that, to which she responded, "Well, we haven't known each other a long time. We're strangers."

You know what he told her? "Sometimes our feelings are wrong, especially when they're not reciprocated by the other person." He told me he was stunned by what she said, because it came out of the blue and he was expecting the opposite answer.

Didn't she have any idea at all that she gave one of the worst answers possible?

He never saw her again. Not with that attitude.

You think that's one of those nonsensical concepts so prevalent in the "Manosphere" - "shit testing"?

He mentioned to me a few days ago she called him out of the blue, wanting to know what he was doing. He told her about his life. She was unmarried, no children, an apartment, a cat, a meaningless make-work "career." She clearly wanted to know if he was available. He's not.

I wonder how she felt? Disappointed? Full of hate and envy? Bitter? Perhaps feeling a bit like he felt?

(As an aside, in college it was "I have a boyfriend." Now it's "I don't have a boyfriend." Amusing, since the first is rejection and the second is an offer. Same woman, 20 years apart. Which reminds me - why is rejection and teasing supposed to both be a "shit test"? Can't these guys tell one from the other? Oh wait, of course they can't - shit tests don't exist.)

Some "shit test." What they do, if they exist, is drive men away. It drove him away, permanently, and he ended up with a better woman.

Here's another "shit test," which only exposed how dumb the woman was. And is.

In a casual date she started to defend "gay rights," and he pointed out that a substantial number of them were promiscuous, predatory, child-molesting drug addicts, with high incidences of murder and suicide - and that the portrayal of them on television was the exact opposite of their behavior in real life. That was it - she got hysterical and clearly considered him a raging bigot. Too much TV had warped her brains, not that she had much brains anyway, being a confused liberal ruled by her childish feelings.

Another "shit test"? Well, it drove him away. If she ends up with anybody, who's it going to be? Some liberal/wimp mangina? Sounds great.

I have mentioned this before, but once in college, when I was 21, I was sitting in a study room, sitting in a chair with a woman I vaguely knew sitting in a chair on my right side. A male student starting talking to her and was way too complimentary to her, told her how much he liked her. Even then I knew he was doing it all wrong. He was really pouring it on like I had never seen before and I was starting to get embarrassed for him.

After he left she sighed, "Thank God!" meaning Thank God he was gone. No one was around except us, so she obviously said it for my benefit. So what the heck was it? A shit test for me?

No, she was just an unpleasant woman (I didn't find her attractive at all) who just happened to be showing off for me. Did she expect me to agree with her? Instead I said something very nasty to her (she sure didn't expect that!) and she got up and left.

I have run across several nasty women in my life. None of them were "shit testing" me. They were just unpleasant women who were hostile to men because they weren't getting what they wanted.

Who in the world wants a nasty, unpleasant woman? For that matter, all the nasty, unpleasant women I've met have been overweight/unattractive/too old, not-married-and-blaming-all-their-problems-on-men. I've never seen a good-looking woman who was unpleasant. Not once.

This ridiculous concept is how some guys pretend they're "Alphas" when they are nothing of the sort. "Golly gee, she's shit-testing me! She must think I'm one of those superior Alphas with superior sperm and superior Alpha genes!"

The whole concept just needs to disappear.

"Testing for genetic fitness." Good Lord, what kind of rank amateur came up with that concept?

Saturday, April 26, 2014

The Ever-Present Warrior

Some people are born to be certain things. I've known singers who knew they were going to be singers at the age of five. I'm a natural-born comedian, much like a Pug dog, and even though I don't remember it, have been told by my relatives I used to crack them up at the age of five or six. I certainly remember being 13, by which time I was a class clown.

Some men are even born to be natural warriors, no matter how many deluded leftists think that banning squirt-guns will change human nature and make these guys grow up to be Hugh Grant-watching girlie-boys. Unfortunately, libertarians have pretty much ignored the natural-born warrior, and since they don't know about the problem, haven't thought about it and therefore don't have a clue what to do with these guys.

Mythology gives us a hint as to how to deal with them.

I pay quite a lot of attention to myths. If they weren't true, and didn't have universal wisdom in them, they wouldn't have lasted for thousands of years.

Let's take a look at the myth of Hercules. He certainly is a natural-born warrior--he strangled two snakes which attacked him while he was in his crib. Significantly, he's not only a protege of Athena, the goddess of wisdom and civilization, he's her half-brother. The point? Natural-born warriors are part of society, and we can't get rid of them, no more than we can get rid of singers or comedians.

Hercules was also tipped over a bit toward the insane side, since in a fit of rage he murdered his entire family. He then had to atone for his crimes with his Twelve Labors, feats which took many years. What does this mean? That natural-born warriors may not be the most stable people in the world? Or that when they murder the innocent in war, they must repent and atone for it? Or both?

Things get even more interesting when we find the Greek god of war, Ares, is the half-brother of Athena, meaning that war is part of society, and we can't get rid of it, either. We never have in the past. We can only reduce it as much as possible, which is certainly a reasonable goal.

Ares, who was a coward who delighted in murder and destruction, was hated by all the other gods (including his parents), but he was especially despised by Athena. Since she was the goddess of civilization, and he was the god of war, it is no wonder she hated him, since war and civilization are eternally at odds with each other.

Now here's an important question: Why was the warrior Hercules a follower of Athena and not Ares? Shouldn't it be the other way around? In the stories, Hercules often fought Ares, always beating him (but never killing him), just the way in the long run Society will always beat the State. Societies may survive; States never do. Hercules also rubbed out probably half of Ares' murderous offspring.

The myth is telling us these natural-born warriors must be accepted by society and used in some way against the State. These days, mythologically, Ares is the god of the State, and Athena should be the goddess of society.

Since the State tries to trick the masses into thinking it is not only the protector of Society, but indeed is Society, it is no wonder these Oliver North-types goes into State militaries, since they, like most people, can no longer tell the difference between the State and Society.

We'd be better off if in some ways we lived as we did in the past, when the King would take his Hercules warrior-types and go to war with another kingdom while leaving all the citizens alone. Personally, I'd like to see all the politicians fight each other with swords in an arena. I'd not only pay to watch it, I'd bring a couple of camcorders. I suspect most of the world would, too.

Instead, today we have standing militaries. The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of these standing armies. They wanted nothing to do with them, since all States are followers of Ares, no matter what they say. They then use the militaries, with its natural-born warriors, to advance its interests. Which are rarely--possibly never--the same as Societies'.

Stories about Hercules show up, however unwittingly, even today. I don't mean silly cartoons or silly movies. I mean excellent movies like 1986's The Mission. In it, Rodrigo Mendoza (played by Robert De Niro) is a slaver and murderer with an unstable, violent temper. Then, in a fit of rage, he murders his brother. To atone for his crime he drags his armor up a mountain. After that, he protects the people he had formerly murdered and enslaved. In the end, it costs him his life. Under the circumstances, he had no choice.

Mendoza was a natural-born warrior. At first he had been a follower of Ares and the State (the State which gave him license to be a murderer and slaver.) Then he repented and atoned for his crimes, became a Jesuit, and began to defend the Society he had once exploited and tried to destroy. He was a Hercules who, in the end, became a follower of Athena, not Ares.

We can see this Hercules myth (in part) in lesser movies like Rambo. In it, Rambo engaged not only in State-sponsored military killing, but murder. He never atoned for it; as a result, he came back to Society unable to cope. (The book, First Blood, by David Morrell, is a serious novel far superior to the movie and is in no way pulp-adventure. In it, Rambo--who had no first name--was far, far more disturbed than Stallone's portrayal.)

When I was in college, we were shown movies in class about "primitive" cultures in which two rival tribes would gather in opposing lines and throw spears and shoot arrows at each other. They were so far away there were very few injuries and rarely any deaths.

At the time, I thought the tribes were amusing. Yet, they never had real wars. Throwing spears from 100 feet way was their idea of war. When they were done, everyone went home and bound up their minor wounds.

Right now our Politically Correct Society is in a bind. On one hand, the liberals are trying to get rid of these warriors by frothing at the mouth about little boys playing with G.I. Joe. On the other hand, we cheer these men for joining State militaries and engaging in fantasies about "defending their country" and, worse, making "the ultimate sacrifice."

Both views are wrong. Leftists are not only wrong about human nature, they don't understand it at all. They're literally blind. And those who support the State and State militaries under the guise of "patriotism" are nearly as deluded, if not just outright scoundrels wrapping themselves in the flag while insisting others fight and die.

Society has to evolve methods to deal with these men; they can't be imposed from the top down. I am reminded of Thomas Berger's wonderful novel, Little Big Man, about the Cheyenne . They had two chiefs: a War Chief for battle and a Peace Chief otherwise. None of the people had to listen to them unless they wanted.

For them, the greatest, bravest feat in battle lay not in killing the enemy but taking coup, i.e., whacking him on the head with a small stick as they rode by. Perhaps we, too need mock battles, as did the tribes I watched. We seem to be evolving them, with something like paintball fights.

These natural-born warriors are an extremely small minority, just like great singers or comedians. When they become enamored of the State, and join its militaries, horrendous problems can result. Therefore, they must be kept away from the State. These men must defend Society against the State, not the State against Society.

The libertarian view is that there should be no State, only Society. Since these men exist, and always will, Society has to learn how to deal with them and give them a place in it.

Feeling Sorry For The Foolish

I wrote this perhaps ten years ago and had forgotten about it, then it came up on the stats on my blog. Someone had found it and I had gotten 25 or so hits on it.


A little while ago got this email:

"You are a coward. If you have a problem with this call me at ..." then he listed his name, his position (supposedly) in the Special Forces, and his phone number.

His email was in response to my article, A Rush to War

Of course, I didn't call him. He's not going to change my mind, because I'm right. And I'm not going to change his, because he doesn't know he's wrong.

The only feeling I have when I get emails like his is sorrow. I feel sorry for the guy, because he is foolish. I suspect he is about 23 years old, and I know what he thinks before he tells me, even before he knows what he thinks.

The first thing he would want to know is if I was in the military. If I say it's none of his business, he'll assume I wasn't. If I say I was, he assume I didn't learn anything in it. He'll claim I'm a leftist, because he doesn't know the difference between left and right.

He's the kind of guy who really believes Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US, even though Iraq had an economy about the size of South Carolina, and we could have nuked the place so that it glowed for the next thousand years. He probably believes Hussein was behind 9/11, and was also involved in the Oklahoma City blast.

He believes we had the right to blockade Iraq for ten years, even though hundreds of thousands of people died, many of them babies and the elderly. He thinks we were attacked on 9/11 because we are Good, and those who attacked us are Evil, not because of our support of Israel no matter what it did to the Palestinians, or the genocidal blockade of Iraq, or because we had troops in Saudi Arabia, or because we for 50 years meddled in the Middle East and supported every dictator there no matter what horrible things they did to their citizens.

He's the kind of guy who believes the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to get the Japanese to surrender, because he doesn't know Japan had been trying to surrender for months, but their overtures were rejected. He's also for the fire-bombing of Dresden, even though he doesn't know why it was bombed.

This is the kind of guy who joined the military because he believes he is a patriot, and because he wants to defend his country. That's fine; I don't have any problems with that. But he does not know the US has some 750 military bases in three-quarters of the world, making us an empire. And all empires, without exception, have fallen. But he does not know that, and if he did, believes America will be the exception. It won't.

He's also the kind of guy who believes that America is the greatest force for good in the world today. And it is sad that he believes that, because it is not true. I wish it was, but it's not.

He was no idea that in the 20th century the US attacked and bombed:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999

I'm not including the 200,000 Filipinos and Filipinas whom the US murdered in the late 1800s when we invaded the Philippines.

How many of those countries attacked the US?

He does not know that Saddam Hussein was originally placed in power by the US, and was our ally, which is why we armed him in his war with Iran. The US did not give a damn how many Iraqis or Iranians were killed. In fact, the administration encouraged the deaths of both. The booger-eating Henry Kissinger commented, "Too bad they both can't lose."

World War I? He does not know that the US administration purposely got us into it by loading the passenger liner Lusitania with munitions. That's why it went down so fast when the Germans torpedoed it. He also does not know the German government ran full-page ads in the Eastern newspapers telling people to stay off of passenger ships. There was no reason whatsoever for the US to get involved in WWI.

World War II? WWII was a direct result of WWI. World War II would never have happened if the US hadn't gone along with the crushing reparations against Germany, allowing Hitler to rise to power. And the Great Depression - caused by State interference in the economy, not "capitalism" - also helped Hitler's rise. The Japanese wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor if the US hadn't cut off their oil and other imports, and sent the Flying Tigers against them in China, egging them into a pre-emptive strike against us. And the evidence is overwhelming that the Communist FDR--who called Stalin "Uncle Joe"--knew the Japanese were going to attack, and let it happen so Russia wouldn't have to fight a two-front war against the Germans and Japanese.

Korea? I don't remember Korea attacking us. I don't remember North Vietnam attacking us, either. And I certainly don't remember Panama attacking us.

Of course, he does not know any of these facts. Instead, he believes those attacks by the United States were for the Good of the World. They weren't.

The only thing that can change the mind of a man like this is what is called the School of Hard Knocks. It's what happened to so many soldiers in Vietnam, who went over there to Free the Oppressed and Impose Democracy, then later came back and realized the whole war was a scam, and all of those 58,000 Americans and 2.5 million to three million Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians died for nothing.

Maybe when he grows up he might change his mind. But right now--no, not a chance.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

The Empire in Space

Popular culture should never be ignored. Shakespeare during his day was popular culture. Today, he's considered the greatest writer in the English language.

These days, the two biggest media for popular culture are TV and the movies. As all art does, they reflect life. Sometimes, they predict it.

One little-known and underrated movie that fits this pattern is Soldier, starring the also underrated Kurt Russell. What makes this movie, which appears to be little more than Grade B action/adventure in space, so special?

It's about Empire, and the soldiers it uses to advance itself. This time, it's not just on Earth, but in far space. Since we've always had empires on earth, will we have them in space? Perhaps? Certainly?

The movie, which is set in a not-very-far future, portrays Russell as Sergeant Todd, a genetically engineered, nearly mute soldier. He can talk, but has little to say. I doubt he says 20 words in the film, although his learning what feelings are, portrayed through his expressions and body language, is poignant. Once, sitting alone around a fire, tears come to his eyes, probably for the first time in his life. Another time, asked what it's like to be a soldier, he can barely answer, "Fear. . .discipline."

There is a scene early in the movie in which a list of battles are scrolling in the background. One reads, "Tannhauser's Gate." This is an allusion to the movie, Blade Runner, which is about artificially created humans known as replicants. The implication is that Soldier, set even farther in the future than Blade Runner, also breeds artificial humans as soldiers. Sergeant Todd is one of them. Ominously, he is part of the "Adam Project" – creating the new man, one brutal, violent, conscienceless.

Raised from a child to be a merciless killing machine, Russell finds himself made obsolete when a new set of superior genetically-engineered soldiers shows up. After losing a battle to one of them, Caine (played by Jason Lee Scott), Todd is thought dead, and dumped with the garbage on a "waste disposal" planet.

There, he is found by a rag-tag group of marooned humans. At first accepted by them, Todd finds he has feelings buried in him he did not know were there. For the first time in his life, he has a family. The message is that a prerequisite for killing machines is to have no feelings or family.

As Todd heals, he starts to frighten everyone, and they ask him to leave. That is when he ends up around the fire with tears in his eyes. For the first time in his life, he has found a family and community, but terrifies them with his potential for violence. However, guilt forces the community to invite him back.

Meanwhile, the Empire is busy testing new weapons. Where does it decide to test them? On the waste disposal planet. The parallels to large powerful countries that attack smaller, weaker countries, and in doing so tests it new weapons, is clear.

This time, though, Todd has something worth fighting for.

This is not a perfect movie. Indeed, it's B-movie masquerading as an A one. The special effects are rather cheap; the battle tanks appear to be cars with hollow plywood shells around them. And without Russell, it wouldn't be worth seeing. But his journey from emotionless killer to a man who discovers family and community, is what makes the movie.

As mentioned, there are other messages hidden in this film. Empire always expands itself though the military; it will always attack the defenseless, trying out new weapons on them; and it wants its soldiers to be emotionless killing machines, without mercy or remorse. And if it can, it will use science to create them. And that is something to keep in mind – how far will the State go in altering humans to create what it wants in soldiers?

One major flaw in the movie's portrayal of Empire is that it does not point out it almost always uses as a justification for its depredations the excuse that it is being a benefactor to those attacked. All tyrants (and this has been noticed for thousands of years) call themselves benefactors.

The film is also about the lust for power, and how it degrades. The soldiers are not bad people; indeed in some ways they are admirable. Gary Busey, as a commander, especially illustrates this. He does care about his men. On the other hand, the political types are portrayed as utterly despicable, people only interested in power, unconcerned with whom they murder.

The movie, being essentially a high-class B-movie, is nothing new. It's derivative of Blade Runner, The Terminator, and First Blood, to mention three. But many of those who have seen it find it stays with them. It is not a great film, but it doesn't pretend to be. But for those who look, there are some very important messages here about the expansion of empire, and the eternal fight between Society and the State, and how the latter will always try to absorb, indeed destroy, the first.

"Women Should Be Taught Not To Murder Their Babies"

I have for many years thought that liberals can't think, just imitate and memorize bad ideas.

I was once told by a woman not too long ago, "Men should be taught not to rape." I did not ask, but suspected she also believed in "rape culture." (I once mentioned to a goofy-brained liberal woman that the only "rape culture" that existed was among blacks, and that about 36,000 white women a year were sexually assaulted by blacks and 0-10 black women by sexually assaulted by white men. That was a fun time.)

So I decided to have some fun with this foolish woman. Here is what I said:

"Women should be taught not to murder their babies."

I knew what the response would be, and I got it:

"Abortion is none of your business!"

Me: "I didn't say abortion, did I?"

Here is where her brains froze, so I pressed on: "Ninety-eight percent of newborns who are murdered in their first week of life are murdered by women...by their mothers."

I got the Denial of Reality that is one of the main characteristics of liberals

"I don't believe that!"

"That's because liberals are like the Cowardly Lion. If you say, 'I wish! I wish!' long and hard enough you think reality changes. If you don't believe what I said, Google it. You're not my kid and I didn't take you to raise. You can do it on your own. You're all grown up, aren't you?"

According to the Center for Disease Control: "Among homicides during the first week of life, 82.6 percent occurred on the day of birth, 9.2 percent on the second day, and 8.2 percent during the remainder of the week...infant homicide [is] probably under-reported."

There is more weirdness involved: "The second highest peak in risk for infant homicide occurs during the eighth week of life and may be due to a caregiver's reaction to an infant's persistent crying. Infant crying duration peaks at six to eight weeks of age."

Don't cry, babies! Your mother just might rub you out!

On a related note, when you look at the distilled wisdom of the human race - folk tales - you'll find children/young women who are the objects of attempted murder by women (in their case, unrelated woman). Take a look at "Hansel and Gretel" ..."Cinderella"..."Sleeping Beauty." In the last two stories, the cruelty was done out of envy.

Now why is it we never hear about any of this? We hear about how women are supposed to be underpaid compared to men (they're not), and this and that and ban bossy, but not a peep about what women do to their infants.

I have always considered women worse than men. Think the myths about Eve and Pandora.

Liberals would rather live in their silly fantasy worlds where they are innocent and self-righteous and everyone else is guilty and evil.

Men in the past never allowed women to vote, because they understood what they would do to society. That is, destroy it. Like annihilating the next generation.

One other thing - you're more likely to be murdered in your first few weeks of life than for the rest of your life. After all, babies can't fight back.

Monday, April 21, 2014

80% Play and 20% Serious

“But when you're in front of an audience and you make them laugh at a new idea, you're guiding the whole being for the moment. No one is ever more him/herself than when they really laugh. Their defenses are down. It's very Zen-like, that moment. They are completely open, completely themselves when that message hits the brain and the laugh begins. That's when new ideas can be implanted. If a new idea slips in at that moment, it has a chance to grow.” ― George Carlin, Last Words


That's Pareto's 80/20 Law.

I tell people I'm 80% play and 20% serious (and that 20% can be very serious indeed).

I tell them the reason I don't take most things seriously is that they aren't serious things. Even if most people think they're serious, in reality they're not.

Let's put it this way: I once had a woman tell me, "You are a man on the outside and a little boy on the inside." I just laughed.

In point of fact, I try to base my life on dogs. What do dogs do? Eat, sleep - and play. As Henry Ward Beecher said, "The dog is the god of frolic."

I recently told a woman, "If you want to understand me, pretend I'm a pug."

I also recently told a woman, "When women are with me their lives always get better." She just laughed and said, "God, you're arrogant!" No, just confident and funny.

I do know enough about humor to know that it's based on taking two unrelated things and finding a connection between them. That's the Aha! moment. And it's also based to trying to see everything as new. (The same applies to creativity.)

If there is any downside, it's that people think I'm strange. I've been called "strange," "weird" and "crazy" more than once. I just smile. I consider such people to be Muggles.

When I got around in reading the Bible in my teens I was shocked at what Jesus did. Here was a guy who went to parties, who ate and drank. And what is at parties? Dancing and singing. I thought, I'll be darned. Here was a guy who partied - ate and drank and probably sang and danced. And he had a great sense of humor. Boy, did my church lie to me.

God save us from people who have no sense of humor.

"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children." - Luke 7.34

"Levi also gave a great entertainment at his house in honor of Jesus..." - Luke 5.29

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Why "Economics" is BS

As far as I'm concerned, most people can't think, even if they have high IQs, even if they have advanced degrees. Here's an example:

First, I am not arguing for or against the minimum wage. I know all the arguments pro and con. But the most ridiculous one, that is completely unhinged from reality, is that the minimum wage prevents the young from getting jobs so they can gain experience and knowledge and get a higher-paying job.

These days, that's a joke. Those jobs don't exist anymore. The idea of Jimmy Olsen, Cub Reporter, working his way up from the bottom, died a long time ago.

I've seen many people stuck at some fast food place, and that is as far as they are going to go. They don't "gain experience and knowledge" so they can get a better job. Those higher-paying jobs don't exist anymore. If these people think they are going to work their way up from flipping burgers to district manager, think again.

These days you have to get a college degree (most of which are worthless) or technical school (which isn't worthless) to get a good job. If you have a job as a security guard, exactly where are you going to go with it? Again, fast food worker? Janitor? Working in a nursing home?

My experience has been most jobs are not particularly skilled. I used to work for MBAs from Harvard and Yale. They were jokes. Their jobs were not "skilled." They belonged to the Old Boys' Club (and yes, it does exist). And if you don't belong to it, you're screwed. Either you're in with the In Crowd, or you're out and get little.

It's not what you know, it's who you know.

The median IQ in the U.S. is 100. That's means half the people in this country have IQs of 100 or less. They're not going to work their way up to anything.

And obviously, flooding the country with 85-to-89 IQ Third Worlders isn't going to help. They've going to stay at the bottom - forever.

My parents, who were high school dropouts (although they later got their GEDs) did just fine. He was a general contractor (he once told me, "I could not do today what I did then") and my mother worked as a night admitting clerk at the local ER. Today she'd have to be a nurse - these days, a four-year-degree, with a bunch of worthless classes such as algebra (I've seen women drop out of various programs because they could not pass classes they did not need).

I estimated my parents' IQs at 105 to 107. I shudder to think if I had been born today to parents without decent jobs, because court "economists" cheer exporting good jobs and importing criminal trash.

Now it's all degrees and certifications - you know, in lieu of all the "knowledge and experience" that's supposed to open all those "high-paying jobs" to you.

I used to walk my dog in a local park. Every morning there were the same 6-to-8 Hispanic kids sitting under a tree. They were 16 to 18 years old, and clearly dropouts. I thought, why not? What jobs await them with or without high school diplomas?

Nothing, that's what.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

My First-Aid Kit

This is what I have in my first-aid kit:

Marijuana. Doctors didn’t want marijuana made illegal, because it has so many medicinal uses. It is a pain-killer, a muscle relaxer (it was used for women giving birth), helps with insomnia, and increases appetite. That’s a lot of uses for one herb.

I once hurt my back so badly I couldn't sleep. I went to a friend's house and he gave me a piece the size of a pea. We smoked it, I went home, and by the time I got there, my back had loosened enough I fell asleep with no problems. I woke up the next morning and was fine.

Tea Tree Oil. It’s an antiseptic and promotes healing. One of my friends stepped on a nail. The doctor told him it wouldn’t heal and it wanted to ream it out. My friend declined. I had him put tea tree oil on it and it started to heal. The doctor told him, “I don’t know what you are doing, but keep doing it.” It healed completely with no scarring. I’ve seen people use it for toenail fungus and for gum disease.

Black Pepper. Believe it or not, but if you put black pepper on a cut it will stop bleeding.

Lavender Oil. Lavender oil is good for minor burns and promotes healing. It makes you smell good, too.

Clove oil. I once cracked a molar that had a large filling in it. Since it was in the evening, I couldn’t get to the dentist. I rubbed clove oil on the gum and the pain went away. Unfortunately, it only last half-an-hour before I had to reapply it, but it was bliss for that 30 minutes.

Peppermint/Ginger tea. This is a good one for digestive problems and an upset stomach.

Acupuncture pressure points. The main one, and it’s pretty much the only one I use, is located in the web between your thumb and first finger. You have to dig to find it, and when you do, it will hurt when you knead it. It’s pretty much a pain-killer. The first time I used it on a woman her headache and her cramps went away in about a minute.

I have found the above covers about 90% of medical problems that most people suffer from, that don’t require an ER visit – which these days costs about $500.

Friday, April 18, 2014

It's a Much Better Society When All the "Alphas" Are Dead

“...manipulated his power, wealth, and position in the entertainment industry to sexually abuse and exploit the underage Plaintiff through the use of drugs, alcohol, threats, and inducements which resulted in Plaintiff suffering catastrophic psychological and emotional injuries.” - Court documents about Bryan Singer

"...the state simply removed from the population via execution the most violent members of society. took them right out of the gene pool and largely stopped them from reproducing." - HBD Chick

"...the primate alpha male is a child abuser, a murderer and a rapist: he violates some of the most basic taboos of every human culture." -"Eddy"

"I have long suspected that early humans worked out that they'd be better off with without alphas and systematically massacred them." - "Eddy"

"If we have any genetic alphas, I would be inclined to look among the the psychopaths to find them." - "Eddy"


I pointed out before I don't believe in all this comic book Alpha/Beta nonsense. For one thing, no can define "Alpha." Everyone has their own definition, which means the concept is meaningless. The accepted definition is that of a insecure, weak-minded narcissist or psychopath, and the evidence is pretty conclusive these kinds of people were correctly killed in the past because they were so much trouble.

"Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status."

That definition is almost the clinical description of a narcissist/psychopath.

I never use the word "Alpha," and if I had to define it, it's being the best you can be. That's the way the Greeks defined it over 2500 years ago: excellence in life leading to well-being.

Most politicians are psychopathic. In fact, the world appears to be run by psychopaths - because we don't kill them. After all, what can you do with the evil except kill them?

This article, which was written by Tex Arcane and is from his site The Vault, is about the exposure of the predatory homosexual/pederast/pedophile Bryan Singer (contrary to the media myth, homosexuals are not "gay": many of them are promiscuous, disease-ridden drug abusers who prefer 12-year-old boys.)

In this article Arcane speaks of drowning child molesters, and letting the child stand on them. This is revenge/justice after humiliation. What I have written about as Hubris followed by Nemesis. Hubris originally meant to humiliate someone (often in public) and often had a sexual connotation.

Nemesis/Revenge/justice is an attempt to replace shame with pride, and is an attempt to make the victim "whole" (which comes from the same word as "healthy.")

Nowadays we have such concepts as "therapy," which I suppose works in some cases, but I think the "Teutonics" had a better concept.


"What happens at Bryan Singer's house on the weekend"

"I figured out the biological game theory of all this a long time ago.

"It starts with basic sociopath. Then you figure in the low investment strategy of sex with children in terms of energy required to find and sustain relationships. There is a much better ratio of return for a person who simply is not as interested in love, closeness and mammalian family the way a real person would be. The child predator is pursuing a gigantic arc of efficiency that starts and begins with the fact their insides are a virtual vacuum in there.

"You also consider the reward to their personalities which essentially revolves around dominance, cruelty and inhuman lack of empathy. The child is the ideal victim and also represents the lowest risk in order to fulfill these wicked, innate impulses at the same time they gratify their sex drives. All things considered, being a child molester is secondary to the fact that deep in the root of their beings they were born monstrous, horribly twisted abominations. All these other behaviors tend to flow out of that in terms of the path of least resistance to their development in life. The child sex is just genetic expression for the person they were born as.

"Even as a good tree does not produce bad fruit, so a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.

"It is not that having sex with children is a 'sickness' that otherwise spoils what would be a healthy human being. They are in fact poisonous and toxic right down through their biology to the cellular level. If it doesn't express itself as dominance and humiliation of children with a sexual component it would most assuredly express itself in another fashion that would be just as bad. This is why child predators are always found associated with other things that don't seem related, including murder, torture, kidnapping, forgery and embezzling.

"The Teutonics in Europe knew there was not a cure for this and that is why they administered the only cure that works, which was drowning them in public while other men held them down, then permitting the child they had offended to walk out into the river and stand on their shoulders when they were dead. Over the course of thousands of years, this emerged from trial and error as the best way to handle these horrible, depraved bastards and to put them and their crimes behind you in the past so you could get on with your lives.

"If you compare the Teutonics with their matching roles of fathers in the Middle East, you can see the real gulf between the two peoples is and has been enormous for thousands upon thousands of years. After the ritual of drowning the child molester, all the people in the village would treat the boy or girl involved as though it had never happened and the girl would be assumed to be a chaste virgin on her wedding night. Nobody would speak of it again and the boy would be treated as no less a man when he came of age. Think of the Middle East where the girl is punished by stoning her to death in an open pit and even the man who did the deed is invited to throw a stone of his own at the young girl he has caught and deflowered by force. Compare this to all those tales you have heard of these brutal, heartless Viking barbarian peoples of Europe in the old days and then ask yourself which group of people would really have the deepest compassion and love of their own children and would show it in their actions. I would say that Christ was right - you really do know people by their fruits."

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Waking Up To Her Every Morning For The Rest Of Your Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

"20 Identifiable Traits of a Female Narcissist"

This was written by Susan Walsh and is from her site. I've heard her referred to as "Aunt Giggles" yet she does have many good articles about relationships on her site - something that is missing in the more popular sites in the "Manosphere."

I have run across narcissistic women. They do overrate their attractiveness. Even the skanks do it. They overdress. They imagine criticism when it's not there. They become hysterical when they think they are devalued and will try to destroy that person's life. They're fives who think they deserve 10s when it comes to men. They blame all their problems on other people, especially men. When they become middle-aged their lives collapse.

I've seen several women in their late 50s who put on their make-up with a paint roller and spent a lot of money on clothes. The worst I ever saw was a woman in her middle 70s who wore a miniskirt and go-go boots, like it was 1966. And this was more like 2007 (she also knifed her wealthy husband to death, put a nick on her arm, hid in the closet - and somehow got away with it).

People sometimes try to tell me narcissists have high "self-esteem." No, they don't. They have a fake, superficial charm and self-confidence covering up the gaping void that is their Self. The same applies to those who think they understand the "Dark Triad." Fake, superficial charm and self-confidence disguising crushing feelings of security and humiliation. That's what it really is.


"In the discussion following a recent post about one woman’s iPhone infidelity, Mike asked:

"Just curious, you had the post on this is what good guys look like and red flags for bad guys, I’d be interested if you have a comparable list on how to identify the red flags for bad girls who are likely to behave like the woman here.

"That’s a fair question, and as I’ve been thinking it over I’ve found that applying the same standards women use doesn’t really work. Women are attracted to men for a whole host of reasons, and struggle with the question of how to read a guy’s intentions. We don’t want to have sex too soon and lose his respect, but we don’t want to hold out so long that he seeks satisfaction elsewhere. For women, it’s critical to observe a man’s character over a period of time to assess his willingness to enter into a committed relationship.

"Character is very important in women too, but men are primarily drawn to women via physical attraction. Their interest in a woman is immediate upon seeing her, and she may wield considerable power over him based on her sexual attractiveness. Women are generally willing to enter relationships, but men worry about finding out down the road that a woman was not who he thought. How can a man verify a woman’s character quickly, so that he doesn’t get caught up in a relationship with a woman who is unlikely to be monogamous over the long-term?

"If a man avoids one thing in a woman, he will increase his chances of long-term happiness a thousand fold:

Female Narcissism

"It used to be that the word narcissist wasn’t thrown around lightly. We saved it for sociopaths and historical figures like Machiavelli and Napoleon. Female examples were rare, and generally found in fiction: Rebecca of the Daphne Du Maurier novel, Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond in the 1950 film Sunset Boulevard. In its worst form it is a diagnosable personality disorder (NPD), and historically, 75% of those diagnosed with NPD have been male. However, researchers who have recently studied narcissistic personality traits in the American population say it’s an epidemic, increasing just as fast as obesity since the 1980s, and that much of the growth comes from women. Twenge and Campbell, authors of The Narcissism Epidemic, studied 37,000 college students (2006) in an effort to understand modern levels of self-involvement:

"1. In 1982, just 15% of college kids scored high on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, but that number has risen to 25%, largely due to a greater number of narcissistic women.

"2. In the 1950s, just 12% of respondents agreed with the statement, 'I am an important person.' By the 1980s, 80% felt special.

"3. In 1967, 45% of American students felt that 'Being well off is an important life goal.' By 2004, 74% agreed with that statement.

"4. Nearly 10% of 20-somethings are thought to have NPD, and it’s estimated that 26% of people now in their twenties will have developed NPD by the age of 65.

Women narcissists often are diagnosed with the subset Histrionic Personality Disorder:

"A personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotionality and attention-seeking, including an excessive need for approval and inappropriate seductiveness, usually beginning in early adulthood. These individuals are lively, dramatic, enthusiastic, and flirtatious.

"They may be inappropriately sexually provocative, express strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and be easily influenced by others. Associated features may include egocentrism, self-indulgence, continuous longing for appreciation, feelings that are easily hurt, and persistent manipulative behavior to achieve their own needs.

"Female narcissists focus more heavily on physical appearance that male narcissists. They often overestimate their own attractiveness, and focus on displaying or flaunting physical attributes. Scientists think there may be a link between narcissism and anorexia or bulimia.

"In summary, female narcissists see their lives as a running feature film with them in the lead, receiving accolades at all times. Women narcissists in their 30s and 40s who are unhappily single will generally blame their unpartnered state on being too independent, feisty, strong-minded, intimidating and intelligent for most men. They have little self-awareness.

"What Caused the Narcissism Epidemic?

"There is far less social pressure to demonstrate character than in past generations. Daughters who once would have been disciplined for spoiled behavior are now allowed to dictate the dinner menu, or veto a family move.

"The self-esteem movement, which was intended to create happy, friendly children, produced a generation of kids who filled their rooms with 'Participant' trophies and congratulated themselves for showing up. In fact, Twenge and Campbell found that 30% of students felt that they should get good grades just for attending class. Indeed, grade inflation at the country’s best universities is a serious problem, and Cornell West was rumored to have regularly given all A’s in his course at Harvard.

"During the 1960s, the core American value of individualism began to morph into self-admiration. The human potential movement stressed introspection and self-improvement, intending self-actualization. However, the concept of self-esteem became a shortcut to the hard work of real personal change.

"During the 70S and 80s, Americans became obsessed with celebrity culture, and eating disorders skyrocketed.

"Today, social media breeds narcissism by constantly encouraging women to post flattering photos, and create online profiles that stress their uniqueness. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all require self-promotion, bringing out the narcissist in us. Reality shows promote the most ordinary, unimpressive people as special, and we follow their dysfunctional lives with fascination.

"As Twenge and Campbell point out, when I was growing up, it was normal to hear the following kinds of remarks from parents:

"'Who do you think you are?'

"'Just wait until your father gets home!'

"'Because I said so, that’s why.'

"My generation became parents and flipped the script. We justified our decisions at great length when our children disagreed with us. We gave up our own interests to spend hours building Lego structures with our kids or ensuring that our little soccer player got all the development she would need to get recruited to play in college someday. Psychologists used to believe that narcissism resulted from emotional damage in childhood at the hands of cold, neglectful parents. However, the data has never supported that theory, and now it’s widely accepted that narcissism grows from inflated feedback. American parents want super-achieving children, and we’ve insisted we have them, even if we have to create the fiction. Instead, we’ve created a generation of Special Little Snowflakes.

"Hooking Up And Narcissism

"Twenge and Campbell believe that hookups, FWBs and other no-strings relationships are a manifestation of the narcissism epidemic. Hooking up is considered a selfish act, in that it is about self-satisfaction rather than generosity toward another person. When couples do commit to a relationship, they often continue to wrestle for the upper hand, and relationships are often characterized by lack of emotion, antisocial attitudes and an emphasis on physical appearance. In addition, parents pressure their children to achieve, claiming that 'love can wait.' That adds to the appeal, at least in the short-term, of no-strings sexual relationships.

“'It changes what is normal behavior in dating,' says Campbell, referring to the hookup culture among youth that has left modern-day parents wringing their hands. According to Campbell and Twenge, the rise of the hookup culture and narcissism rates had a convergent evolution—a link they see as significant. “'One of the hallmarks of a narcissist is short-term relationships that don’t require a lot of emotional investment,' says Campbell. Adds Twenge: 'The current trend right now, especially among younger people, is that ‘I’m going to focus on myself, not on forging an emotionally close relationship.’

"Hannah Seligson’s article Do Narcissists Have Better Sex? for The Daily Beast makes another observation:

"In fact, narcissism, even in small doses, has shifted courtship into a high-stakes relationship culture. Now that people think more highly of themselves, expectations of what a relationship should be like have skyrocketed into the realm of superlatives. Twentysomethings not only expect to waltz into high-level career positions right out of college, they also expect partners who have the moral fortitude of Nelson Mandela, the comedic timing of Stephen Colbert, the abs of Hugh Jackman, and the hair of Patrick Dempsey.

"How to Identify a Female Narcissist

Physical Appearance

"She dresses provocatively, flaunting sexually suggestive body parts.

"She focuses attention on makeup and hair, even for the most mundane tasks or events.

"She is overly confident about her looks. Research shows that narcissists are no more attractive than other people, but they believe they are much better looking than other women.

"She places high value on brand names, and feels entitled to wear 'the best.' She frequently purchases new clothing, and does not distinguish between wants and needs.

"She is more likely to have plastic surgery, most commonly breast augmentation.

"She enjoys being photographed, and often asks others to snap her picture. She enthusiastically shares the best pics of herself on Facebook or other social media sites. She will sometimes invest in a professional photographer for a portrait that she uses on Facebook or for online dating.

"Personality/Character

"She insists on being the center of attention, and is often the most charming person in the room. Narcissists are very outgoing and excel at marketing themselves.

"She often seeks favorable treatment, and automatic compliance. She believes that she is special, and that she deserves fame, fortune, success and happiness.

"She is highly materialistic.

"She is prone to envy, though she presents as supremely confident. She seeks opportunities to undermine others, and enjoys sharing confidences about how the two of you are better than others.

"She is convinced that others are envious and jealous of her, and often uses this excuse for her lack of real, intimate friendships. When her friends enjoy successes of their own, she finds ways to punish them by downplaying their achievements.

"She lacks empathy, and even common courtesy at times. She puts others down, including you. She does not hesitate to exploit others.

"She is very competitive.

"She believes that she is intellectually superior to her peers.

"She blames others for problems. Narcissists don’t believe that they make mistakes, and lack the ability to process shame.

"She displays a haughty attitude when she lets her guard down or is confronted. She will act impatient, arrogant and condescending. She will often excuse her own shortcomings by claiming that others are pressuring her or expecting too much of her.

"She is dishonest and often lies to get what she wants. She will never admit this.

"She is 'psycho:' She engages in risky behaviors, has an addictive personality, and is prone to aggressive behavior when rejected. (Note: This is most common with Histrionic Personality Disorder.)

"She is unpredictable in her moods and actions. You have trouble figuring out what she wants and where you stand.

"She is capable of short-term regret, and will apologize profusely if backed into a corner. However, she will quickly rationalize her behavior and return to narcissistic patterns.

"A woman doesn’t need to have all 20 of these traits to make a lousy relationship partner. If you can check off even a few of these characteristics, you should head for the hills at 60 mph. The six traits related to physical appearance should be apparent immediately, or within a short time of meeting.

"Narcissistic personality traits can be difficult to detect at first. Narcissists always make a strong showing right out of the gate, and it takes time for them to reveal their negative qualities. They will only do so when feeling threatened or that they are not receiving 'their due' in some way.

"Based on the women of all ages I have known in my life, I think 10% is an accurate estimate of the number of narcissists in the female population. That’s a lot of women who could make you miserable if you’re not careful.

"Please don’t date one. I beg you not to fall in love with one. And never, ever marry one."

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Hunchback of the Isle of Lesbos

A thrown shoe exposes her true, perverted, evil self.

The Highland Clearances, Cliven Bundy, and an Armed Populace

On the Scottish side of my family we are descended from Borderers, also known as Reivers. I also know about the Highland Clearances, which is when the government stole the land and evicted the people, killing quite a quite a few.

History always repeats itself, and what happened in the Clearances is now happening in the U.S. Think Cliven Bundy, who is apparently the last rancher in Nevada. The government is trying to steal his land...apparently to give its use to the Chinese (thanks Harry Reid).

This article in from Wikipedia.


"The Highland Clearances (Scottish Gaelic: Fuadach nan GĂ idheal, the 'expulsion of the Gael') was the forced displacement of a significant number of people in the Scottish Highlands during the 18th and 19th centuries, as a result of an agricultural revolution that resulted in enclosures, largely carried out by hereditary aristocratic landowners. A Highland Clearance has been defined as “an enforced simultaneous eviction of all families living in a given area such as an entire glen”.

"The clearances are particularly notorious as a result of the brutality of many evictions at short notice (year-by-year tenants had almost no protection under Scots law), and the abruptness of the change from the traditional clan system in which reciprocal obligations between the population and their leaders were well-recognized. The cumulative effect of the Clearances devastated the cultural landscape of Scotland in a way that did not happen in other areas of Britain; the effect of the Clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture.

"The Clearances resulted in significant emigration of Highlanders to the sea coast, the Scottish Lowlands and further afield to North America and Australasia, where today are found considerably more descendants of Highlanders than in Scotland itself.

The Clearances were a complex series of events occurring over a period of more than a hundred years.

"The enclosures in rural England in the British Agricultural Revolution started much earlier, during the Tudor period, and similar developments in Scotland have lately been called the Lowland Clearances by historians such as Tom Devine. But in the Highlands the impact on a Goidelic (Scottish Gaelic)-speaking semi-feudal culture that included the fulfilment of obligations of a chief to his clan, led to vocal campaigning and a lingering bitterness among the descendants of those forced to emigrate or to remain in crofting townships on very small areas of poor farming land.

Changes in clan leadership

"From the late 16th century, laws required clan leaders to appear in Edinburgh regularly to provide bonds for the conduct of anyone in their territory. This created a tendency among chiefs to see themselves as landlords, rather than leaders of men. The lesser clan-gentry increasingly took up droving, taking cattle along the old unpaved drove roads to sell in the Lowlands. This brought wealth and land ownership within the clan, though the Highlands continued to be overpopulated and poor. Crofters became a source of virtually free labour to their landlords, being forced to work long hours in activities such as harvesting and processing of kelp, an activity that reached its peak in the West Highlands between 1750 and 1815.

"The Jacobite Risings brought repeated British government efforts to curb the clans, culminating after the 1746 Battle of Culloden with brutal repression. The Act of Proscription of 1746 incorporating the Dress Act required all swords to be surrendered to the government and prohibited the wearing of tartans and kilts. The Tenures Abolition Act 1660 ended the feudal bond of military service, and the Heritable Jurisdictions Act removed the virtually sovereign power the chiefs held over their clan. The extent of enforcement of the prohibitions varied and related to a clan's support of the government during the rebellion, but overall led to the destruction of the traditional clan system and of the supportive social structures of small agricultural townships.

"From about 1725, in the aftermath of the first Jacobite Rising, Highlanders had begun immigrating to the Americas in increasing numbers. The Disarming Act of 1746 and the Clan Act made ineffectual attempts to subdue the Scottish Highlands, and eventually troops were sent in. Government garrisons were built or extended in the Great Glen at Fort William, Kiliwhimin (later renamed Fort Augustus) and Fort George, Inverness, as well as barracks at Ruthven, Bernera and Inversnaid, linked to the south by the 'Wade roads' (constructed for Major-General George Wade). These had the effect of limiting organisational travel[clarification needed] and choking off news[citation needed]; and further isolated the clans. Nevertheless, conditions remained unsettled for the whole decade.

Economic "improvements"

"What became known as the Clearances were regarded by the landlords as necessary improvements. They are thought to have been begun by Admiral John Ross of Balnagowan Castle in 1762. MacLeod of MacLeod (the chief of MacLeod) began experimental work on Skye in 1732. Chiefs engaged Lowland, or sometimes English, factors with expertise in more profitable sheep farming, and they 'encouraged', sometimes forcibly, the population to move off suitable land.

"To landlords, 'improvement' and 'clearance' did not necessarily mean depopulation. At least until the 1820s, when there were steep falls in the price of kelp, landlords wanted to create pools of cheap or virtually free labour, supplied by families subsisting in new crofting townships. Kelp collection and processing was a very profitable way of using this labour, and landlords petitioned successfully for legislation designed to stop emigration, leading to the Passenger Vessels Act 1803. Attitudes changed during the 1820s and, for many landlords, the potato famine which began in 1846 became another reason for encouraging or forcing emigration and depopulation.

"Yet a century earlier, before the beginning of the Clearances, there were examples of clan chiefs responding to these emerging problems before Culloden. Michael Lynch notes that:

"'If there was a clash within the [ Jacobites and Hanoverians who fought at Culloden ] between a supposedly backward-looking Highland society and a 'progressive', capitalist Lowland economy, it was not a clear-cut one. Cameron of Lochiel, who fought for Charles, was as much a representative of a new capitalist attitude to Highland estate management as was the house of Argyll, ever the mainstay of support for the Hanoverian regime.'

"Clan land had become the private property of individual landlords. Nevertheless, many of those landlords also struggled against harsh economic realities. 'Much of the drama and tragedy of the Highlands is told in the negotiations between financially racked landlords and their creditors, agents and trustees...The best of intentions were never enough amid the more populous and improvement-driven world of the mid-century Highlands.'

"The government gave financial aid for roads and bridges to assist the new sheep-based agriculture and trade.

Year of the Sheep

"Another wave of mass emigration came in 1792, known to Gaelic speaking Highlanders as the Bliadhna nan Caorach ('Year of the Sheep'). In 1792 tenant farmers from Strathrusdale led a protest by driving over 6,000 sheep off the land surrounding Ardross. This action, commonly referred to as the 'Ross-shire Sheep Riot', was dealt with at the highest levels in government; the Home Secretary Henry Dundas became involved. The Black Watch was mobilised; it halted the drive and brought the ringleaders to trial. They were found guilty, but later escaped custody and disappeared.

"The people were accommodated in poor crofts or small farms in coastal areas where farming could not sustain the population, and they were expected to take up fishing. In the village of Badbea in Caithness the conditions were so harsh that, while the women worked, they had to tether their livestock and even their children to rocks or posts to prevent them being blown over the cliffs. Others were put directly onto emigration ships.

Dawson and Farber note that 'although the landlords did not target people for ethnic or religious reasons, the effect of the Clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture, which was dispersed along with the people that fled.' and Protestants were the majority both of the Highland population generally and of those Cleared. Nevertheless, anti-Catholic sentiment (along with famine, poverty and rising rents) was a contributory factor in some Clearances.)

Second phase of the Clearances

"It was only in the early 19th century that the second, more brutal phase of the Clearances began; this was well before the visit by George IV in 1822, when Lowlanders set aside their previous distrust and hatred of the Highlanders and identified with them as national symbols.

"Most notorious are the examples of landlords trying to exploit changing economic circumstances to their financial advantage by clearing uneconomical tenants from their land, making room for more profitable uses such as sheep, deer forests or tourism. Two of the best documented such clearances are those from the land of the Duchess of Sutherland carried out by her factor Patrick Sellar, and the Glencalvie clearances which were witnessed and documented by a London Times reporter.

"In 1807 Elizabeth Gordon, 19th Countess of Sutherland, touring her inheritance with her husband Lord Stafford (later Duke of Sutherland), wrote that 'he is seized as much as I am with the rage of improvements, and we both turn our attention with the greatest of energy to turnips'. As well as turning land over to sheep farming, Stafford planned to invest in creating a coal-pit, salt pans, brick and tile works and herring fisheries. That year his agents began the evictions, and 90 families were forced to leave their crops in the ground and move their cattle, furniture and timbers to the land they were offered 20 miles (32 km) away on the coast, living in the open until they had built themselves new houses. This plan has been described as a 'typical example... of social engineering which met neither the hopes of the benefactors nor the needs of the beneficiaries, but produced social disaster.'

"The Sutherlands' first Commissioner, William Young, arrived in 1809, and soon engaged Patrick Sellar as his factor, who pressed ahead with the process while acquiring sheep farming estates for himself. The Sutherlands were responsible for brutal clearances between 1811 and 1820. Sellar threw people out in person if they showed any reluctance to go, and burned down their crofts to make sure they never came back. Evictions of 2,000 families in one day were not uncommon. Many starved and froze to death where their homes had once been. The Duchess of Sutherland, on seeing the starving tenants on her husband's estate, remarked in a letter to a friend in England, 'Scotch people are of happier constitution and do not fatten like the larger breed of animals.'

"Donald McLeod, a Sutherland crofter, wrote about the events he witnessed: 'The consternation and confusion were extreme. Little or no time was given for the removal of persons or property; the people striving to remove the sick and the helpless before the fire should reach them; next, struggling to save the most valuable of their effects. The cries of the women and children, the roaring of the affrighted cattle, hunted at the same time by the yelling dogs of the shepherds amid the smoke and fire, altogether presented a scene that completely baffles description — it required to be seen to be believed.

"'A dense cloud of smoke enveloped the whole country by day, and even extended far out to sea. At night an awfully grand but terrific scene presented itself — all the houses in an extensive district in flames at once. I myself ascended a height about eleven o'clock in the evening, and counted two hundred and fifty blazing houses, many of the owners of which I personally knew, but whose present condition — whether in or out of the flames — I could not tell. The conflagration lasted six days, till the whole of the dwellings were reduced to ashes or smoking ruins. During one of these days a boat actually lost her way in the dense smoke as she approached the shore, but at night was enabled to reach a landing-place by the lurid light of the flames.'

"Accounts like those of McLeod and General David Stewart of Garth brought widespread condemnation. Two old people evicted at Sellar's orders were too ill to go far. He left them exposed to the chill northern air and they died. He was acquitted on a charge of manslaughter, but the Duchess wrote: 'The more I hear and see of Sellar the more I am convinced that he is not to be trusted more than he is at present. He is so exceedingly greedy and harsh with the people, there are very heavy complaints against him from Strathnaver.' In due course Sellar was dismissed from his post.

"Elsewhere, the flamboyant Alexander Ranaldson MacDonell of Glengarry portrayed himself as the last genuine specimen of the true Highland chief while his tenants (almost all Catholic) were subjected to a relentless process of eviction. He abandoned his disbanded regiment; its Catholic chaplain, (later Bishop) Alexander Macdonell led the men and their families to settle in Glengarry County, eastern Ontario, Canada. The area was a major destination for Highland emigrants in the 18th century and early 19th century, and Gaelic was the native tongue of the settlement. In respect for their ancestors' Scottish culture, the county hosts the annual Glengarry Highland Games, one of the biggest Highland Games gatherings of its kind outside Scotland."