Monday, March 30, 2015
If this had happened a few thousand years ago it would have been impossible to support that many kids, so I'm positive all of the kids except one would have been human-sacrificed to whatever pagan god was believed in. You know - rolling the kids into the fire in Moloch's stone belly.
These days, however....it'd be leftists wanting to off these kids. After all, they act as if abortion is a sacrament and now they're calling for the euthanasia of the old, the sick and the deformed. And if we have too many newborns? Well, call it post-abortion.
The value of children would drop tremendously due to oversupply. Leftists could use that as an excuse to cull tem - "overpopulation," you know.
Leftists ultimately desire the destruction of everything, so thank God women don't have that many kids.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
What Gilligan found, in every case, was that the perpetrators suffered from unbearable feelings of humiliation, which they attempted to erase by killing people. He found many of them had fantasies of going out in what they considered "a blaze of glory," taking as many people with them as they could.
He said if you wanted to understand why people murdered, then look at the story of Cain and Abel. Feelings of humiliation followed by revenge. Murder.
As for trying to shove these people in boxes of "Beta rage" and "Omega rage," go right ahead. You're wasting your time, and you'll never understand why this guy did what he did.
You're better off understanding what Hubris is (the Greeks considered it a form of grandiose insanity, in which the sufferer cannot tell the difference between right and wrong). The Bible calls it Pride. And what follows them? Nemesis...destruction.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
I knew nothing about white-collar until I graduated college, and when I found out about it I was not impressed. Jobs weren't really about what you know, but who you knew. Connections. The Old Boy's Network really does exist.
I couldn't stand the politics and backstabbing. A lot of these people were not adults but children.
You didn't even get promotions based on competence. It was on who liked you. It was astonishing.
I found first-rate people hire first-raters. Most of the bosses I worked for were second-raters, who hired third-raters, who hired fourth-raters. I have seen catastrophes because of this.
I would never hire an MBA. My experience has been many aren't even worthless. They're dangerous.
Bill Gates dropped out of college, as did Stephen Jobs. Henry Ford was an auto mechanic. Andrew Carnegie didn't go to college, either.
To this day I still get along better with blue-collar men. And don't think they're stupid. They're not, not even close.
Many college degrees are worthless. Education degrees? Ugh.
If I had my way, people would start at the bottom and work their way up, like Jimmy Olson, cub reporter (my father started out as a cub carpenter).
I cannot recommend college anymore, unless it's a real degree like engineering. You're better off getting a six-month certification in computers or being an auto mechanic or a plumber. The days of getting a degree and a good job and working your way up? They've been gone for a long time.
I've said this before; wages stopped going up in January, 1974. This means you're on your own. And believe me, that's not such a bad thing, because it means you're free to do as you please. For good or bad.
These people don't even know what Omegas are. I've mentioned I was raised with some really Bad Boys, not the pretend ones of the Manosphere. We called them what they were - white trash. They dropped out of high school or barely graduated, made their living at crime (especially selling drugs), were drug abusers and alcoholics. They were in an out of prison. They were generally murdered or died of drug overdoses. The women they got were trash like themselves and they were never "Alphas," even though they were Bad Boys. That's another Manosphere hallucination, that these lowlifes are Alphas and get all the women.
Sometimes I hear them referred to a Dalits, a word out of India which refers to their version of white trash, even if they aren't white.
These people are the scourge of society.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
One thing I noticed about them is that none of them were all that smart, yet, paradoxically, they were arrogant. They thought they were smarter than others, that they could get away with anything, and they would never get caught.
I knew one guy who thought he could consistently rip off people on drug deals. Stupid? Yes. Also arrogant. He ended up dead and dumped in the stockyards in hope the pigs would eat him and leave no evidence.
Another thought he could go after any women who took his fancy. He ended up blown off his Harley. The shooter got life in prison.
I've seen this stupidity and arrogance over and over and over. The ancient Greeks called it hubris and the Bible refers to it as Pride. Hubris as in "followed by Nemesis." The same applies to that Biblical Pride.
All of these guys, to use Manosphere terms, were "insanely confident." Notice the "insanely" part. That's what they were. Insane - and now dead or in prison.
The opposite of that Hubris/Pride is humility, as the Greek concept of Sophrosyne, which means to know your strengths and weaknesses. Because, after all, no one is perfect. In fact, not even close, for all of us.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Yet it's even worse.
Later in the myth it's stated that Eve's desire "shall be for her husband." What does that mean?
Here I'll mention there are old sayings to the effect that not only are all translators liars, but they are actually traitors.
That comment has been interpreted to mean woman's desire shall be for home, husband and children, and that's true. It's been interpreted to mean women want to rule men, and that is often true, too.
It's been interpreted to mean women want everything men have - and that's true, too.
Let's apply the aforementioned envy to this comment. Out of envy women want everything men already have - then they end up destroying it. That want what men have, and if they can't have it, they'll destroy it. That's what envy does - "If I can't have it and enjoy it, then neither can you or anyone else."
To be precise, only leftist women are like this. After that, leftism is based on destroying everything, and since feminism is leftist, it wants to destroy men. In fact, everything, in the vain hope something better will arise from the ashes. That will never happen.
It's also why leftists - and feminists - are for all practical purposes insane.
Women are the ones who brought evil into the world. How did they do it? Because men are weak and they let women manipulate them into doing it.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
The Manosphere is in many ways the mirror image of feminism, and in many ways uses the same tactics.
There are other signs. This article illustrates some of them. It's from CNsNews and was written by Penny Starr.
Calling it “The Great Crossover,” a report by academics and social activists shows that for the first time in history the median age of American women having babies is lower than the median age of marriage – 25.7 and 26.5, respectively.
These “dramatic changes in childbearing,” the report states, results in dramatic statistics about American children. Among them, 48 percent of first births are by unwed mothers, and by age 30 two-thirds of American women have had a child, typically out of wedlock.
Kay Hymowitz, an author of the report and a William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said at an event to release the report on Wednesday at the Brookings Institution, that it reflects how the view of what marriage is about has changed.
This includes young adults who say marriage and children “are two separate things,” Hymowitz said.
The overall consensus of the report, with data in part gleaned from the U.S. Census Bureau is that Americans are postponing marriage to their late 20s and 30s, putting that separation in place.
“Culturally, young adults have increasingly come to see marriage as a ‘capstone’ rather than a ‘cornerstone’ – that is, something they do after they have all their ducks in a row, rather than a foundation for launching into adulthood and parenthood,” the report states.
The report cites two reasons – middle class American men having difficulty finding stable employment that allows them to support a family and “a less understood” reason about the disconnect between marriage and childbearing.
The report states that the “good news” of delayed marriage is that women can more easily have successful careers, and research shows that divorce rates are lower for later marriages.
The “troubling” new trend, the report states, is “The Great Crossover” where delayed marriage does not necessarily mean delayed motherhood.
The report, compiled by The National Marriage Project at University of Virginia, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and The Relate Institute, also examines why the “private” decision to become a parent ahead of a marriage commitment – when done by such a large a portion of the population – has consequences for society at large.
“Researchers now view family instability as one of the greatest risks to children’s well being,” the report states. “Yet unmarried adults, including single 20-somethings who make up about half of unmarried parents, are by definition unsettled.
Further, the report states: “Most researchers agree that on average, whether because of instability or absent fathers or both, children of unmarried mothers have poorer outcomes than children growing up with their married parents.”
While a panel discussion on the report included some commentary on how religious beliefs have influenced the institution of marriage and Americans’ view of it, the report is void of any connection between morality and marriage trends and does not mention religion, churches or God.
Patrick Fagan, senior fellow and director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute at the Family Research Council, told CNSNews.com that the prevailing social ethos in today’s culture that “anything goes” results in a disconnect between this kind of data and its moral implications.
“The social science data reflects the reality,” Fagan said. “So we have a contrast between the reality and the moral discourse about the reality.
“We can look at the numbers, but we can’t discuss the principles behind them,” Fagan said. “Even though they may be glaring at us, we cannot talk about them.”
The report concludes that “too many young adults are drifting unintentionally into parenthood before they have a plan or a partner who enable them to give their children the life and family they deserve,” but it stops sort of universal support for marriage.
“To be clear,” the final paragraph of the report states, “as noted above, we believe that marriage is not for everyone, be they 20-something or some other age.
“We recognize that not all parents can or should get married,” the report states, while adding that the “decoupling” of marriage and childbearing is “deeply worrisome.”
The solution? More government programs “to help 20-something men and women figure out new ways to put the baby carriage after marriage.”
“Government is incompetent in social policy,” Fagan said. “That is very clear.
“The competence lies within the family, within the church and within the school,” Fagan said. “They are the three people-forming institutions.”
Friday, March 13, 2015
I have pointed out before that back in college it seemed no one dated, not that men didn't want to, but the girls had too high standards, sat there like lumps, and when men asked them out it was often, "I have a boyfriend back home," which was a lie. And when a guy they wanted didn't want them, they went into a rage.
This article is from CNSNews and was written by Barbara Hollingsworth.
Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”
She pointed out that there’s “no data” to back up the common assertion that a lack of jobs during and after the Great Recession is the primary reason so many young men have been reluctant to tie the knot. “The problem with marriage was long before that,” she pointed out.
After decades of feminism, Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.
“And I know the feminists just yell and scream if you say anything like this, but time was, girls set the cultural morays, the standards, the parameters for intimate activity. The girls were the ones that set those boundaries. And now it’s the guys who do,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.
“And it’s doubly terrible because the colleges now are predominantly female. So you have some – up to 60 percent of the student bodies are female. And almost all of them are more than 50 percent female. And so the ratio [of] male/female is out of sync.
“And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance. They don’t date. The girls, I have talked to numerous young women, lament the fact that they don’t have the opportunity to dress up and go out for an event.”
Young women who adhere to a moral code and refuse to participate in the “hook up” culture are now considered social misfits, Crouse pointed out. And they face even more daunting odds of finding a husband than their promiscuous sisters.
“It’s really interesting, because Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker wrote their book, “Premarital Sex in America,” what, three, four years ago. And even then, they were very concerned about the fact that young women today are not as likely to get married. And their prospects, if they are not sexually promiscuous, are really low because the guys, if they can sleep around, they’re not interested in going with the girls who don’t put out.
“The ones who are very serious get married early. And that leaves the majority of the girls, then, by the time they’re 25 and into their first jobs, the pickings are very, very slim for them. And Mark Regnerus was very, very clear that the quote ‘good girls’ are the ones who are at risk now in terms of not being able to get married.”
According to 2014 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 7.9 million opposite sex couples in the U.S. live together but are not married. A 2014 study by Johns Hopkins University also found that 57 percent of children born to women aged 26 to 31 are out of wedlock.
Crouse says the decline in marriage and a corresponding rise in cohabitation is happening despite at least a decade of research demonstrating the societal benefits of two-parent families.
“Even researchers from the left are coming out very strongly for the family and for marriage, and saying the two-parent family is necessary for children to do their best," she told CNSNews.com. "It’s not just good for them, it’s the very best. It’s the gold standard. It’s essential for children to reach their potential. And that has to be communicated in the popular culture."
According to “projections based on census data, when today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share (25%) is likely to have never been married,” Pew Research noted in a 2014 study documenting the decline of marriage in the U.S.
But men are not entirely to blame for the steep decline in marriage, Crouse pointed out. “A lot of women fear marriage. While feminism is a spent force, the ultimate consequences of that philosophy is a whole generation of women who don’t want any man to tell them what to do, and don’t really understand the give and take that is necessary for a marriage relationship.”
However, the box office success of movies like American Sniper, which features a very masculine Navy SEAL, is an indication that women still respond to strong men, she said.
CNSNews.com asked Crouse if that means the cultural pendulum has finally swung back in the male direction after decades of feminism.
“That’s not certain yet,” she replied. “There’ still a lot of anti-male stuff out there.”
Feminism has largely achieved its goal of equality in the workplace, so the movement has “lost relevance” for young women who are now earning more college and professional degrees than men, she pointed out. However, feminism’s effects on the culture – including the historically low marriage rate - will linger for some time to come, she noted.
“Feminism was supposed to bring women happiness,” Crouse said. “But the research shows that women today are much more unhappy then they have been in the past. They’ve ended up with far more opportunities, but their personal happiness is way down.”
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
What women have liberated themselves from (and men let them do it) is love, health, happiness, fulfillment, children, home, and husband.
About 30 years ago I told a retired man: "Women expect all the advantages of being a man and a woman but want none of the responsibilities." He responded, "Yes, that's true," and the woman in the car said nothing.
Now it's got even worse. About five years ago a woman I know told me, "Men don't want to accept my career" but when I jokingly asked her to make me a sandwich she threw a fit. She didn't see the irony.
Women have liberated themselves from their traditional roles but expected men to keep to theirs. Did it not ever occur to them that men ultimately would liberate themselves from theirs. And now that men are doing so, women are shocked! Shocked!
When women were liberated (and men let them do it) from their traditional roles of supporters and nurturers, wives and mothers, did it not occur to them that men would liberate themselves from their roles as providers and protectors?
Especially since they get no gratitude or appreciation for doing do.
That's the big thing - no respect, no gratitude, no appreciation. Just "accept my career but don't expect me to make you a sandwich."
Har har! Let's see them change their own flat tires!
Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others. – Marcus Tullius Cicero
I did meet some in college - but not the way you think.
Starting in college I'd met some women on whom men went MGTOW - at least according to the women. There were two kinds - the unattractive (generally thick-featured), pudgy, unpleasant women. The kind who expected to get men out of their league, and were in a rage they didn't. The men they wanted had gone MGOW on them - and no wonder.
These women were full of hate and anger - and took it out on men, since they blamed their problems on men.
The other kind were middle-aged, never-married, divorced women who never had or had lost home and husband. Since they had hit the Wall and lost male attention, they again were full of hate and anger.
Women hit the Wall a lot harder and faster than men, although some women pretend this isn't true.
It wasn't so much that men had really gone MGTOW on them, but these women perceived that they had.
There are some men I know who really have gone MGTOW. They tend to be former PUAs, who, never liking women in the first place, finally quit having much to do with them. Once the got to be middle-aged, their contempt for women turned into disgust, so they withdrew.
I am reminded of the actor Omar Sharif, who said he's essentially given up on women and become an expert at bridge.
There is such a thing as too much experience with women. You end up running into a lot of terrible ones.
Then there are the ones today who consciously have gone MGTOW. This appears to be a new phenomenon. A fair number of women today are so unpleasant - and don't even know it - that some men have consciously decided not so much to not have anything to do with them, but not to get married. After all, it is a raw deal.
They see no reason to court them, or pay their way on dates - any of the things men have traditionally done. They have no intention of getting serious with them. There is too much to lose.
These types of MGTOWs are a response to the women created by feminism. The women deserted have gone hysterical - that's what the lack of home, husband and children have done to them. "Career" is a poor substitute for those things.
Even the churches have jumped in on the act, telling men to "man up." And nitwits like William Bennett, too.
None of them appears to have any clue what they problem is.
Feminism wouldn't exist if it wasn't supported by the government and media. And the only reason they do it is because they are leftist. And leftism is based on hate and destroying - which is what the are doing to men and women and the relationships between them.
None of this can last, of course. But things are going to get worse before they get better.
The bizarre thing about all of this is that in many ways we have a world of abundance and peace - depending on where you live, of course. And every day, it could get better (that fact it is so good, and life so easy, is why some make up problems such as "microaggressions").
Yet there are some who are doing their damnedest to ruin all of it. Just remember what they old saying tells us - "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
"Women don’t build, invent or produce anything of real economic, social or political value BUT WE SHOVE HUMANS OUT OUR VAGINAS, and that is the most important contribution of all. So pay me, motherfuckers"
Some women, of course, are going to claim women created all kinds of great things. Some have - one out of millions. These are called outliers.
Now what would happen if children were raised by great fathers and great mothers?
This article is from Judgybitch.
In How To Be A Woman, Caitlin Moran notes, with refreshing honesty, that women really have not created or invented very much throughout history. Her theory is that we’ve been held down too long, and whew! That is exhausting. Nice try.
Here’s what we have created: OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. And for some reason, the effort it takes to create another human being and then do a decent job raising him or her to adulthood is not even considered work! We’re supposed to do that shit for free, and then accept the theory that WE DON’T CREATE ANYTHING.
What the everloving fuck is up with that shit?
This is the main reason I do not consider myself a feminist. I am not joining any team that thinks my life’s work A) isn’t work and B) some sort of treason against all women. Hey, Simone de Beauvoir? Fuck you with your “no woman should be authorized to stay home and raise children” bullshit. Who the fuck are you, bitch? Oh yeah, a childless spinster chasing a married man around the globe. Thanks for your input, slag.
Princess Pointless has a very sick little munchkin and she left her job to care for him. She regularly does 72 hours shifts at his bedside! 72 hours! And guess what she gets paid to do that work? ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING! Where is the sisterhood now? Where are all the politically aware feminists in arms? Where are the PAY ME MOTHERFUCKER protesters? Where are the politicians and leaders and activists?
Feminism has thrown women like me and Princess Pointless under the bus and our children, too. Worse, feminists throw their OWN children under the bus by choosing a career over family. And what do they spend that money on? Walk into any supermarket and look at the products. Look at them carefully. 95% of the shit you can buy at any WalMart or Tesco is fucking rubbish aimed at assuaging the guilty consciences of women who get up every day and leave the baby at the day orphanage while they go off to their “job” which is incredibly unlikely to involve A) curing cancer, B) creating technologies that improve the world or C) anything useful at all.
Yeah my kid spends 60 hours a week in institutional care while I plan strategies for marketing nail polish! Yay for me! What a great contribution.
The truth is that women don’t give a fuck about other women. There are no women rallying around me and the Princess. It’s the men in our lives who care. Who value us. Who pay the bills. Who love us for what we CREATE and PRODUCE and who are prepared to pay for that.
Feminist? Not a fucking chance. Not until I hear the voices of a million women screaming for our contributions to humanity to be acknowledged, respected, admired and PAID FOR! And what are those contributions to humanity. Oh nothing, except for HUMAN BEINGS.
I first noticed this when I was a teenager in my hometown, which has about 40,000 people. The police at that time were not hampered by a lot of PC laws. They also did a lot of "informal" policing, like pulling us over and dumping out our beer and wine in front of us. Anything else they found they dumped out of the baggies and scattered to the four winds. That was a lot of money lost when you worked at McDonald's or a bowling alley. Then they told us, "First warning. Next time, we take you home and tell your parents." That did it; we realized there are things you do in public – and things you do in private. All of us grew up to be chemists and lawyers and newspaper editors.
We found consequences were immediate. No arrests, no being taken in, no going to trial three months later. However, the third time always resulted in an arrest. These were very, very rare, and always the dumb kids who usually ended up being criminals anyway. And in high school, didn't everyone know who the bad kids were without anyone telling them?
At that time the streets in my hometown were safe to walk at any time of night. Even today, they still are. And the cops haven't changed, except now most of them (including the police chief) are ones I went to high school with.
Once, several years ago, as I was getting into my car, some gangbanger wannabe, who had obviously wandered in from out of town and had no idea whatsoever what city he was in, tried to strongarm me in a parking lot. I chased him around the lot for 15 to 20 seconds in my Caprice. It was pretty amusing to watch him jump out of the way. Then I got the cops, who couldn't find him.
They did have me look at mugshots. He wasn't among them, which meant he had never been arrested in my town. If I had identified him, he would have been taken in, knocked around, and told, "If we ever catch you in this town again, next time we won't be so nice."
The cop who I found was one I have known since kindergarten. He doesn't remember that I and another kid launched a wooden block across the room and bloodied his forehead. For the best, probably.
When I told him I had chased this guy around the lot with my car, he didn't even blink an eye. He did comment, "If I had been you, I would have beat the fuck out of him." Which was a way of saying, "If you had hurt him, and claimed self-defense, nothing would have happened to you."
He, and the police chief, and all the rest of the cops, were raised in my hometown, and still live there. The citizens know who they are, and they know the citizens. It was the same in high school. The police used to give me rides when they saw me hitchhiking.
Yet, years later, when I moved seven miles away, to a city with half-a-million people, it was as if I had moved to a different world. The police force was ten times bigger, but not even one-quarter as good.
The cops didn't know the citizens. They didn't walk foot-patrols. They were more interested in running speed-traps, conning themselves they were doing real police work, and filling city coffers. And probably worst of all, they ignored minor crimes.
I used to live in an apartment a few years ago. One morning, as I was leaving for work, I heard a screeching sound from across the street. When I looked in the direction of the sound, I saw a car make a U-turn, go up on the curb, and crash headfirst into a tree.
So, of course, I stopped to watch, wondering what was going on. And out of this car pops a 250-pound brontosapien of a woman, who starts shrieking in my direction and heading towards me. Hey, lady, what did I do to you?
Then I noticed she was heading toward some guy on the sidewalk, whom I had not noticed at first. He weighed about 125 pounds, and was so skinny I wondered how his pants stayed up because he had no butt. He was into that pants-half-way-down-the-ass thing.
Since she was obviously going to smush this guy, he runs up by my door, with her in hot pursuit. "Hey, look," I tell both of them, "This is private property, so get off or I'm going to call the police."
It was like I wasn't even there. I might as well have been talking to two cats fighting. Then, right in front of me, they start swapping punches! Only they were missing each other by two feet. It reminded me of the scene in the movie, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World where Terry Thomas and Milton Berle get into a ten-minute fight and can't damage each other. In one scene Berle is swinging mightily at Thomas and missing him by a foot. Step-swing-oof! Step-swing-oof!
I was looking at Antwon and LaShonda imitating Milton Berle and Terry Thomas! That's when I began to get The Twilight Zone feeling.
Since they weren't listening to me, my next thought was to run upstairs, get my bat and smack 'em. It's aluminum, which makes a pleasant melodious bonging sound on the head. Wood makes an unpleasant cracking sound and has a tendency to fracture. I'm sure this would have amused an elderly couple driving by. ("Oh look, Herm, that guy is beating that fat negro lady and that skinny negro man with a baseball bat." "Maybe we should call the police, Mabel." Both look at each other for a second and burst into, "HAHAHAHA!")
Then, before I have a chance to do anything else, this guy runs inside the front door of my apartment building and locks it. He's locked me out of my own apartment building. By this time I'm starting to get a little angry.
What does he do next? Through the glass in the door I see him throw up a bunch of half-digested hotdogs. Who eats hotdogs for breakfast?
That's it; now I'm mad! "I'm calling the police!" I yell at them. I unlock the door, and the hell if she spins this guy around like a cheerleader's baton! I don't care!
He darts out and around the building with Buffalo Gal after him. Apparently he hops the fence into my back yard, because several seconds later here she comes around to the front again, unable to get up enough speed to plow the fence down.
Chug-chug-chug she goes by me and around the other side to where the entrance to my backyard is. Then upstairs I go to dial 911. "Do they live there?" the retard on the other end asks me. "No," I tell her, "she crashed her car into a tree, they're fighting in my frontyard, and he PUKED HOTDOGS ALL OVER MY LANDING!!"
"We'll send somebody there," she tells me. Oh, really, is that so? Thank you so very much. I head out my door and run into my neighbor across the hall. "I called 911," I tell her. "So did I," she tells me.
Then I'm out in the frontyard, and here comes twigboy with his bisonic girlfriend following him across the frontyard again and then into the neighbor's yard, then back into mine, all the while yelling and screaming at each other. I have no idea what they're shrieking. It's all in Ebonics.
"GET OUT OF HERE!!!" I yell again. No response; I've moved from The Twilight Zone straight into Outer Limits. "The Zanti Misfits," that's it! They're aliens sent here to torture me to madness!
Then they're in the frontyard swapping punches again! And still missing each other!
Where's that cop? Back upstairs I go – avoiding the hotdogs – and I dial 911 again. "Please send some cops out here," I beg. "They're on their way," the double-plus retard promises me. Back in the hall I run across my neighbor again. "I called 911 again," I tell her. "So did I," she responds. Four calls!
Out in the frontyard I find both these heinous beasts are gone. But when I look down the street, I see the Blob From Hell sitting in her car around the corner, probably waiting for a chance to mow down her scrawny boyfriend's nonexistent butt.
Then a police car rolls up. No lights, no siren, nothing. Just kind of casually rolls up. And who gets out? Some fat female cop! She blobs her way up to me. By this time my neighbor is in the front yard.
"...and...and then...crash...puke...fight...fat...ugly...stupid," I babble, then point to the car, as does my neighbor. What does the car do? It starts and pulls away! "Go get 'em!" I yell.
The cop looks at the car like a dog watching a yo-yo. "That's a good girl!" I think. "Car! Chase!"
"Well, it looks like it's all over now," this got-in-on-lowered-standards oinker tells us. And people wonder why I hate Political Correctness! I gape at her. I look at my neighbor. She's also gaping at the cop.
Damaging city property, fighting, creating a nuisance, disorderly conduct, leaving the scene of a wreck, trespassing, PUKING UP HOTDOGS...and who knows what else! And what does this brainless cop tell us? "Well, it looks like it's all over now."
Then she gets in her police car and leaves. If someone had taken a picture of me, it would have been a classic: shoulders slumped, mouth hanging open in disbelief, one hand pointing limply at the now-disappeared perp in the car.
Then I think about the hotdogs. "I have to go to work," I tell my neighbor. "I'll clean it up," she tells me.
This is an example of horrible policing. It's not putting a stop to these kinds of crimes that lead to bigger, and worse, crimes. And guess what? In that neighborhood it wasn't particularly safe to walk around at night. Who woulda thunk it?
Monday, March 9, 2015
"By preventing a free market in education, a handful of social engineers - backed by the industries that profit from compulsory schooling: teacher colleges, textbook publishers, materials suppliers, et al. - has ensured that most of our children will not have an education, even though they may be thoroughly schooled." - John Taylor Gatto
I guess you could say I'm an autodidact.
I didn't learn a damn thing in public (meaning socialist) schools beyond the first grade. Readin', writin' and arithmetic. That was it. It wasn't about what Alfred Adler wrote: "Children should be prepared and motivated to make themselves the best human beings they are capable of becoming."
There was only one time I enjoyed school. I was in the gifted program the summer in-between the sixth and seventh grade. I took two classes, with about an hour in-between them, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
That was the summer I found my parent's old dictionary from the '50s and taught myself grammar from the back of it. I still have that dictionary.
Otherwise I never liked school. I didn't so much hate it as I was bored by it. I fell asleep in high school, and I wasn't the only student who did that. I did learn how to make a bong out of a coffee pot, though.
I decided I was mostly there to be babysat so my parents could work.
What I learned, I learned by myself. I don't even blame the teachers. They were caught in a bureaucratic mess and did the best they could.
I had maybe six classes in college that I learned anything in. It's astonishing how much time I wasted in school. Not just years. Decades.
In college, since I didn't want to waste the time and money taking any economics classes. I took proficiency tests for Introduction to Macroeconomics and Introduction to Microeconomics. I made an A and a B. The dean of the economics department came out and shook my hand and told me what I had done was almost impossible.
I didn't tell him all I did was read the books and study. (By the way, what was taught was the neoclassical/Keynesian synthesis, which means it was worthless.)
Schools have gotten a lot worse since I attended. Now they're drugging little boys with Ritalin. Oh my God. Psychiatric "medication" is associated with substantial increases in murder/suicide, and drug companies have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
The best times I ever had was when I was not in school. On weekends I used to roam for miles. I found stagnant ponds full not only of frog tadpoles but mudpuppy ones, which look like frog tadpoles but are about five times as big. I found wild bamboo. I found wild onions. I caught crawdads with a string and bread dough.
I bought home stray dogs. I rode horses and minibikes. I crashed everything I got on. I've got scars all over me, which I consider permanent souvenirs.
Speaking of wandering in the woods, I know one couple who gave up the whole work/consume lifestyle. They moved into a rural trailer. They homeschool their kids, which consists of walks in the woods while the mother or father explains what they encounter. Doing it by myself fascinated me, and I'm sure these kids aren't any different than me.
I once built a crystal radio kit out of a cardboard toilet roll with copper wire wrapped around it. Damn if it didn't work. Know how I learned to build it? From my Cub Scout handbook.
I'm not even going to talk about the things I did with fire and explosives. Let's just say I had a chemistry set.
These days, you really don't have to educate your kids by yourself. They'll educate themselves if you let them. Did you teach your sons to play video games? No. They taught themselves.
It's play they're engaging in.
Play is not exactly fun. It's serious and absorbing. And that's exactly what school is not.
When it comes right down to it, children always educate themselves. If children didn't have the inherent ability, they could never be educated no matter how hard adults tried. So school should be set up to be absorbing. But it's not. I don't think it can be. You spend too much time there.
It's been noticed as far back as the Greeks you can only ask a question if in some way the answer is already in you. I remember when I was 12 or 13 I read a story by Robert Sheckley in which he wrote about the same thing: you can't even ask a question unless you already know most of the answer.
Stuart Brown, who spends his time studying play, said it "shapes the brain, open the imagination and invigorates the soul." He's exactly right, and it's exactly what school does not do.
Because you don't do it, the schools won't. Chances are they'll destroy your kids.
That was my father's generation. Both my parents dropped out of high school, but later got their GEDs. My father became a general contractor and my mother was the admitting clerk in the night ER. I had a solid middle-class upbringing, and now how have inherited my parent's house and their two cars.
One of my friend's fathers, who was in the Navy during WWII ("the Navy was four years of my life wasted"), got an two-year technical degree, went to work for Sears...and got the steady raises, the middle-class home with a two-car detached garage...and all the rest (Sears is now owned by K-Mart).
I and my friends kept our end of the bargain, but the government didn't keep theirs. Inflation, war, taxes, exploding deficits, exploding government, exporting middle-class jobs, declining wages, importing Third World criminals. And lying about every bit of (I haven't believed a word the government told me since high school).
Wages stopped going up in January, 1974 and if they had continued to go up as they had during the '50s, the average yearly salary would be about $100,000. And the dollar has lost about 98% of its value the last century.
God, I hate liars.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
This means everyone must be equal - men identifying as women, women identifying as men, men or women identifying as "furries" - animals.
Betcha all these leftists didn't expect this.
The only way people can be equal is if they are identical, like dimes or nickels. That is impossible, not that leftists don't dream of this, always through advanced technology.
The closest I've seen where everyone is equal is the Borg on "Star Trek." Bees in a hive. Ants. But people? Only when technology is abused.
I can imagine a possible future - a science-fiction dystopia in which everyone looks alike, dresses alike, is identical - billions of Borg. It wouldn't be a Heaven - it would be Hell.
But then, all leftist visions are a Hell in reality.
I look at the Gospels not so much as religion but as good practical wisdom about people, their motivations, and their behavior.
There are at least four archetypes in the Gospels that applied not only then but also today. They are the State, the Mob, the Leaders, and the Scapegoat/Human Sacrifice. The leaders incite the mob into a frenzy, and both then call for the scapegoat/human to be sacrificed through the power of the state.
The Gospels tell us that the leaders of Jesus' time saw him as a threat, one whom they erroneously thought would bring the Romans to destroy their nation. They incited and united the mob against him by claiming he was a danger. He was then turned into a scapegoat and sacrificed by using the power of the Roman state — and the mob howled for his death.
Those four archetypes exist today, and unfortunately White men are the current scapegoats.
Notice I did not write “White people.” It’s White men, because there is a wedge being driven in-between White men and White women, and has been since the ‘60s. Not so long ago I talked to a woman, in her late 40s, who told me men were responsible for almost all the trouble in the world. She was, not at all surprisingly, unmarried and childless.
Where did she get this idea? From being inundated with it from the media all her life? Ya think that might have something to do with it?
There is also a wedge driven between blacks and Whites, and “Hispanics” (whatever they are) and Whites. The target is White men, and everyone who is honest knows this.
Why is he the target? I think a lot of it is envy, and again I turn to the Bible for the explanation.
I consider a fair amount of the Bible to be myth, and by myth I do not mean “untrue,” but instead universally true, applicable to everyone, through the telling of fictional stories, and through the use of metaphor, simile and allegory.
Let’s take the myth of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve get kicked out for breaking the rules, and when they’re caught, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent — which is a symbol of envy. Adam is telling Eve, “It’s your fault,” and Eve responds, “No, it’s the serpent’s fault.” In other words, Adam uses Eve as a scapegoat, and Eve uses the serpent.
And out the door they go, and human evil comes into the world.
There we have the explanation, and I believe it’s a true one. Almost all — probably not all, though — scapegoating is caused by envy. And people who are envious want to bring down those they envy — even if they destroy themselves in the process.
Since Whites have been so powerful and successful throughout history — and I’ll be the first to admit they has done a lot of wrong things (as have all races and ethnic groups), they of course will be the target of the less successful, and therefore envious.
If there is one emotion that has caused more trouble in history than any other one, I’d pick envy. Whoever wrote the story of the Garden of Eden apparently felt the same way. And Helmut Schoeck, who wrote a famous book, simply titled. Envy, thought so, too.
Where you have envy you have resentment and hate and the desire for revenge, and when you have all of them, you have revolutionaries who wish to destroy. As Eugene Ionesco wrote about the envious, hate-filled, wannabe-world-destroyer Karl Marx: “[He] must have suffered a secret wound to his pride, as did all those who want revolutions. It is this secret wound he hides, consciously or not.”
That “secret wound” was his envy — in his case of aristocrats, who were the only people he respected. And envy is probably the hardest emotion for anyone to admit. Marx never admitted it, or any of his immensely destructive followers.
There is another Biblical myth that is relevant — that of Cain and Abel, the first recorded murder. Cain slays Abel out of jealousy and envy, because Abel had something Cain wanted — for God to accept his offering. It was a murder born out of rivalry and vengeance.
The main weapons — propaganda — the envious use to bring down the envied are the attempts to instill guilt and shame. Tellingly, child researchers believe children feel shame before guilt, which is also illustrated in the story of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve don’t feel guilty about being naked; they feel ashamed.
The fact that shame becomes before guilt makes it a more primitive, powerful and more effective weapon. Saul Alinsky (perhaps unwittingly) noticed this is his Rules for Radicals, when he wrote the first weapon to use is ridicule.
Adam and Eve don’t feel shame until they become self-conscious. That’s important too, because these attempts to instill shame and guilt will not be successful until the scapegoat incorporates them into his self and becomes self-conscious about them.
If these attempts to instill shame and guilt work, the scapegoat will in fact participate in his own destruction, and even go so far as to pass laws against himself. In other words, he’ll commit cultural suicide.
Whites throughout history are supposed to have been the perpetual victimizer of the innocent (as the resentful, envious and vengeance-minded Susan Sontag so infamously claimed, “The White race is the cancer of human history”). Now White men have become the victims, but they still claimed to be the victimizers.
Whenever you have scapegoating, the scapegoat has to be determined to be not only guilty, but evil. Then he has to be destroyed or expelled.
White men have now become the victims, but that fact is denied — people’s eyes are averted from the truth. Even today, I still run across the terms “White privilege” and even “patriarchy,” neither of which I have ever seen.
What is happening these days is the belief in group guilt, a thing which does not exist. So now we have an entire innocent group considered to be guilty and evil, and scapegoated. And the scapegoat, I repeat, has to be destroyed or expelled.
I believe the whole sequence of this scapegoating starts with belief in a Golden Age in the far past. If it never existed, then create one. Call it Atlzan, or Afrocentrism, or Ice People and Sun People. What George Orwell wrote is true: he who controls the present, controls the past. And whoever controls the present, controls the future.
Claim this Golden Age no longer exists, not through any fault of your own, but because of someone evil, usually engaged in a conspiracy. These evil people become the scapegoat that must be eliminated.
An example of this belief in a (mostly nonexistent) Golden Age are Arab Muslims who blame every one of their problems on Israel, and who believe if it is destroyed, their Golden Age will magically return. How? Somehow.
The French philosopher and theologian Rene Girard, author of Violence and the Sacred and Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, writes there are two functions to the scapegoat: to unite society, and renew it through the destruction of the scapegoat. By focusing on White men as the scapegoat, aggrieved minorities are united in blaming their problems on them.
Girard’s believes societies, especially in their beginnings, were subject to plagues of rivalry and vengeance (the introduction of murder into the world by Cain and Abel). In fact, he considered these perpetually escalating cycles of vengeance, retaliation and murder to be the original cultural disease. Original Sin, if you will.
Societies always found a way to treat this disease — the use of a scapegoat. At some time, sometimes spontaneously and always irrationally, mob violence erupts against some person or group. They are accused of the worst crimes imaginable, crimes that by their enormity have caused the terrible plight the community now experiences. They are then, in one way or another, lynched.
Girard noticed that in myths there is always a “founding murder” on which societies are based. As an example, the killing of Jesus was the founding murder of Christianity. The difference with this murder, Girard writes, is that it was the first time in history the murder was told from the point of view of the scapegoat.
As such, Girard believes Christianity finally broke the function of the scapegoat (and also introduced repentance and atonement). Unfortunately, since American society these days is more pagan than Christian (no matter what people claim) the scapegoating mechanism is back in place — and White men are now supposed to be the founding murder for societies based on the non-existent Golden Ages, ones created by envious, revenge-minded anti-American “intellectuals.”
Those who are lusting for the destruction of White men and their culture are convinced they are innocent and oppressed, so there will be no repentance and atonement. In a nutshell, they have no conscience.
You’d think the tens of millions of illegal aliens the United States has allowed in, in their search for a better life, would be grateful. Unfortunately, mobs (in this case “ethnic tribes” might be a more accurate word) always respond with envy and resentment and never gratitude. They always believe they are entitled to handouts from their “oppressors.”
Girard identified the founding principle of societies as “Satan,” since that term mirrors Jesus’ description of “the Prince of this world,” who was motivated by envy and hubris and was “a liar and a murderer from the first.” (Martin Luther, in a similar vein, referred to the world as “the Devil’s Inn.”)
By sacrificing his life to expose and then overthrow this kingdom built on lies, envy, hubris and violence, Girard believed Jesus introduced the world to a new world built on repentance and atonement for sins (actually hamartia — literally “missing the mark”) instead of the catharsis of scapegoating, and love of God and neighbor instead of war. It’s not working all that well today.
Identifying a scapegoat allows envious groups to unite, these days through the creation of a false, idealized history, then after blaming all of their ills on the scapegoat they try to get him to disarm himself through the use of shame and guilt, and then after his expulsion or destruction through the use of political power, they believe once they are the majority their Golden Ages will return.
The only way the scapegoat can be successfully attacked is through political power, that is, the State. This means passing laws that give special rights to anyone, or especially any group, is the worst possible thing that can be done. It is, again, cultural suicide.
All propaganda is ultimately based on scapegoating, on splitting things into a narcissistic “all good” and “all bad.” The all-good is idealized (the non-existent Golden Ages) while the all-bad is devalued as evil, and determined to be the cause of all problems.
Girard, however, considers propaganda to be a parody of scapegoating, because, as he claims, “There is no such thing as conscious scapegoating,” and those who use propaganda are conscious of what they are doing.
When people are aware they are the objects of the envy, hate, resentment and revenge of the envious, when they are aware of what’s being done to them, that is the first step to becoming immune to the propaganda, and refusing to feel guilt and shame.
To the ancient Greeks Dionysus was the Mob (I am reminded of the Biblical scene in which the demons say “My name is Legion [sometimes translated as “Mob”] for there are many of us”). And the followers of Dionysus, in their riots, murdered, dismembered, and sometimes devoured their scapegoats. That is a warning for today.
Mobs don’t always necessarily act on their own, spontaneously. They usually have leaders, to excite them, to justify their beliefs and actions. This means those aggrieved minorities attacking White men and their culture have intellectuals who are leading the mobs. Those intellectual leaders are the ones who are truly the enemy.
Mass Man — the mob — has no intelligence and is incapable of reason. This herd, which is motivated by the most primitive of feelings, can be easily manipulated, and is in fact little more than sheep led by wolves.
Today these enemies are in the government, the media, the universities, and business. They are prime examples of the old saying that cultures usually don’t collapse from attacks from without, but from within.
What will happen if these envious minorities ever gain enough political power? That result is foretold by an old German proverb: “No sword cuts more brutally than a peasant who becomes a lord.”
As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote in Leftism Revisited, “In the last two hundred years, the exploitation of envy — its mobilization among the masses — coupled with the denigration of individuals, but more frequently of classes, races, nations, or religious communities, has been the key to political success.”
Before I go on, I will again point out that leftism is about "the destruction of the Father." It is also based on the belief that people are completely plastic and can be molded into whatever the leftist believes. Leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature. They don't understand it at all. And they are the Children of Darkness, not the Children of Light.
The article is originally from the site The Unknown History of Misandry.
Quote: “... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people’s needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all.” — Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
Linda Gordon later became a history professor at NYU specializing, not surprisingly, in the history of the family, affording her the opportunity to make a significant contribution to creating a tendentious distorted, censored, version of the narrative of the history of the family, a narrative created collectively by a large number of like-minded marxist feminists filtered through ideological tunnel-vision theory of fundamentalist “social constructionism” which is now mistaken for the definitive and objective account of the topic.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
For male serial killers it is about sex and power, which the Greeks called Hubris - which almost ways contained an element of sexual pleasure. It's a bit different for women.
There is an old saying: "Never fuck anyone crazier than you are." Excellent advice.
This is from Research Digest and was written by Christian Jarrett.
There is a mistaken cultural assumption, say Marissa Harrison and her colleagues, that women are, by their nature, incapable of being serial killers – defined here as murderers of three or more victims, spaced out with at least a week between killings.
This misconception, the psychologists warn, is a "deadly mistake". They point out that one in six serial killers are female. Their crimes tend to go undetected for longer than their male counterparts, likely in part because "our culture is in denial of women's proclivity for aggression."
Harrison and her team have profiled 64 US female serial killers active between the years 1821 to 2008. The researchers used the murderpedia.org website to identify these killers and they verified the cases they found using reputable news sources.
The female serial killers had murdered between them at least 331 victims (making an average of 6 victims each). Their victims are of both sexes, but disproportionately male. The women had an average of age of 32 at the time of their first killing, and poisoning was the most common method. However, between them, the women used a range of murderous techniques, as the researchers explained:
"Contrary to preconceived notions about women being incapable of these extreme crimes, the women in our study poisoned, smothered, burned, choked, shot, bludgeoned, and shot newborns, children, elderly, and ill people as well as healthy adults; most often those who knew and likely trusted them."
Many of the homicidal women had stereotypically female professions, including being nurses and baby-sitters. They tended to be above average in physical attractiveness, which may have helped to engender trust in their victims.
As to motives, the most common was "hedonistic", a category in forensic psychology that refers to killing for financial gain, lust or thrill, with nearly half the sample fitting this category. The next most common motive was "power-seeking", which includes killing people in one's care.
The researchers urge caution regarding the factors that contributed to these women becoming serial killers. Apart from anything else, the historical records are incomplete and the absence of information does not mean that a given factor was not contributory. Nonetheless, Harrison and her team highlight several noticeable patterns in the data: a greater proportion of the women, as compared with the general population, had: a history of having been physically or sexually abused; drug or alcohol problems; and a diagnosis or signs of mental illness.
Quotes from some of the killers hint at their psychopathological thinking:
"They [the children] bothered me, so I decided to kill them."
"I like to attend funerals. I'm happy when someone is dying."
"That is my ambition, to have killed more people – more helpless people – than any man or woman who has ever lived."
A striking contrast with male serial killers is the relative absence of sexual violence and deviance. Two exceptions were a female serial killer who was a rapist, and another who reportedly barked like a dog during sex. But overall, the researchers highlighted how the women in their study primarily killed for resources, while their male counterparts kill for sex. This follows evolutionary theory, Harrison and her co-authors explained, in the sense that men are said to be motivated more by seeking multiple sexual opportunities, while women are motivated to find a committed partner with sufficient resources. "However," they added, "although an evolutionary framework can offer understanding, we stress that these heinous acts are a vicious extension of unconscious drives and are not therefore 'normal' or 'excused' ... ".
The new analysis points to a worrying trend: a 150 per cent increase in the number of reported cases of female serial killers since 1975. This study has obvious limitations, most obviously the reliance on historical records and news reports, and its exclusive focus on US killers. However, it makes a valuable contribution to a neglected topic.
The researchers concluded: "Increasing our understanding of serial killers may minimise the number of victims potentially lost in the future while maximising the effectiveness of interventions to prevent vulnerable individuals from taking a killing path."
I've written about this before - the Magic White Man. A lot of this has to do with the hate and envy of white men, who created nearly everything in the world, contrary to the protestations of others.
I sometimes wonder what it's like to belong to all those groups who can't do much of anything, when they look at the history of white European Christian culture, and what it has produced. They must be eaten alive with envy and hate. And with envy you attack and denigrate.
For those who say to me: "What have you done, white man?" Answer: not a whole lot. I'm not that talented. But you know what? I haven't taken my car to the shop for three years, since I fix it myself. I taught myself computer coding. I figure out things most cannot. I repair whatever goes wrong with my house. I can't sing or dance, but what I do is enough for me. I also know how dependent I am on what came before me. And that is why I am grateful, not envious.
I've run across those who hope for the elimination of white people. What do they think is going to happen? That all the wealth created by us will just stay there for them to enjoy? No, it'll disappear, and they'll be shocked beyond belief.
Some year ago I read an article about some blacks in south Africa, who tried to farm. It didn't work out at all, so they demanded white farmers help them farm. Not show them how to do it, but do the farming.
Soon, I expect the blacks in south Africa and "Zimbabwe" to beg the white man to move back, after everything collapses to 2000 BC.
Envy is the worst problem in the world. In fact, all of leftism is based on the envy and the impossible attempt to eliminate it. Feminism is too, for that matter, with the attacks on a nonexistent "patriarchy."
To me the problems caused by envy are just as clear as can be, perhaps because I have been the subject of so many envious attacks. For the past 30 years it's been by pudgy divorced, never-married hate-filled women who never had/lost home, husband, and children. I appear to be happy and they just can't stand that.
That's something that really sets off the envious - they can't stand for anyone to be happy (Anonymous Conservative has often written about this).
This country is not going to be "multicultural" for long. It'll fracture - white and Asians on top (Asians lack creativity and even they whine about it), Mexicans in the middle, blacks on the bottom. And envy flying around everywhere, creating all kinds of horrible problems.
Of course the PC media will never talk about this. When they do, it'll be when they can't avoid it anymore.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
At least this guy won't be committing any more crimes.
This was written by Bob Flanagan and is from here.
An L.A. gang member, Florencio Conchuza Gonzalez, who is part of the infamous Ms-13 gang, also called Mara Salvatrucha, has turned blind after getting his eye balls tattooed to celebrate his 17th anniversary.
The young man that is originally from El Salvador and came illegally into the country when he was only 8 years old has lived in the streets for as long as he remembers until he became a member of the MS-13 family only three years ago. The 17-year old man who has been captured on video camera this week fleeing from a convenient store after an armed burglary with accomplices admitted his crimes to police officers, hoping they would fix his eyes in exchange for the information.
The young man gave himself up after going blind from his tattoos, hoping local police officers would help him get his eyesight back, recalls Officer Simons of the Los Angeles Police Department.Police officer Juan Simons says he was shocked to see the young man willfully come inside the police station and admit all his crimes to him. “He just started crying and told us he would tell us anything we wanted as long as we would bring him back his vision” recalls the police officer. “I reassured him we would do the best we could and called an ambulance immediately as his eyes were bleeding and were so swollen they looked like they were going to come out of his eye sockets” he admits, still visibly shaken.
If it is highly likely that the criminal will lose both use of his eyes and should stay at the intensive care unit until his court sentence, the information he has given police officers could lead to many arrests, believe experts. “He has given us, in only a short time, a comprehensive list of drug and weapon resell points, gang leader names and even names of possible corrupt officers within our own forces, which need to be authenticated” admits a spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department.
The 17-year old man who has been captured on video camera this week fleeing from a convenient store after an armed burglary with accomplices admitted his crimes to police officers, hoping they would fix his eyes in exchange for the information.
This is from Angry Harry.
£5700 For A Day
The NHS paid one doctor £5,700 for a day’s work under a system which sees hospitals squander millions on agency medics to stand in at understaffed hospitals.
The huge problems facing the NHS, and us, are significantly exacerbated because of the push to get more women to become doctors.
But being a doctor is an important job. It also requires huge expense for training; in terms of both time and money.
Perhaps, therefore, instead of listening to those man-hating feminists, who perpetually, and vociferously, blame men for the fact that women were denied important jobs in the past, we should take note that the three main reasons that women were 'denied' such jobs in the past were as follows.
1. Those jobs were important - for all of us.
2. Women did not want to do them.
3. Women would not have been much good at doing them - in comparison to men - because they kept quitting!
As such, it was quite right that men were favoured in the past for such jobs.
So, the next time that you hear the usual wailing about women being 'denied' important jobs in the past, I suggest that you respond with the following words.
"And quite right too! We would probably also be better off if we 'denied' them those jobs in the future."
That'd shut 'em up!
I generally use the Seven Deadly Sins to explain things (which in written form have been around for thousands of years). Using them, "hypergamy" as be defined as Lust, Laziness and Greed. All are based, ultimately on Pride/Hubris...the mother all sins and the worst of all.
It's not a good thing at all, and you don't need "evo-pysch" fantasies to explain it.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Back in the early 1950's the science-fiction writer A.E. van Vogt conceived of what he called "The Violent Male." In essence it was the man who thinks he is always right and can tolerate no dissent. This type of man, although they may think the human race is no better than an animal or insect, always think of themselves as gods.
He mentioned such people as Stalin and Hitler as some of the worst examples. They were capable of such destruction because they gained political power.
Colin Wilson picked up on van Vogt's idea, wrote a novel about it called The Killer, and mentioned the concept in some of his other books.
Both van Vogt and Wilson are correct in what they noticed, yet I would find it odd had these types of men have not been noticed for thousands of years. I believe they have.
As far back as the Old Testament these kinds of men were afflicted with Pride, as in "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Not surprisingly both van Vogt and Wilson noticed these men tended to destroy not only themselves but many others.
The ancient Greeks also noticed the character of these men. They considered them afflicted with Hubris -- the god of arrogance, lack of restraint, insolence and wanton violence, which is followed by Nemesis, the goddess of fate and revenge.
Wilson writes of these men: "Essential here is that the 'Right Man' must always have his way and is afraid of losing face above all ('How dare you talk to me this way?'): anything that might be an indication of his infallibility or erroneous ways, something that he can never admit."
"Losing face" means these men are motivated not by guilt (of which they have little if any) but instead by shame. And shame and humilation, as the psychiatrist James Gilligan has noticed, is what motivates murderers -- as is shown in one of the oldest stories in the West: that of Cain and Abel.
The Violent Man is always a scapegoater: i.e., he always blames his problems on someone else. He projects his own problems on them; they are the cause of his discomfort. And as M. Scott Peck noticed, "Scapegoating is the genesis of human evil."
Every political ideology that I am familiar with is based on splitting things into all-good or all-bad, on scapegoating, on the belief in always being right. Whether it is Marxism or Nazism or Republians and Democrats, it is all based on avoiding shame and humiliation and destroying those who oppose its "rightness."
Not surprisingly, this is one of the reasons why politics will never solves any problems, not when we see yourself as absolutely right and your opponents as evil.
As Gary Gibson writes, "Politics...thrives by amplifying divisions, creating social friction within and war without."
Unfortunately, these days, long after van Vogt wrote his book, we're getting women like this.
This is so good I have to reblog it.
There is an old saying I've quoted many times - "The map is not the territory." It was created by Alfred Korzybski.
The ideas (maps or models) in our heads are not reality. It's the reason I do not care about evolutionary theory - it means nothing to me until science can turn one species into another. "The proof is in the eating of the pudding."
It's also why I dismiss Alpha/Beta/etc. and the rest of those Manosphere concepts, which I have eviscerated more than once.
It's also why I dismiss IQ idiots like Paul Krugman, whose mind is unhinged from reality because he thinks the concepts in his head are reality. He suffers from Hubris and will not - can not - change his mind.
People who think the map is the territory do insane things - over and over and over.
This article was written by Henry Dampier and is from his site by the same name.
The Ludic Fallacy
Nassim Taleb introduced the term ‘ludic fallacy’ in Black Swan. You may think that you know the contents of the book from the press coverage even if you haven’t read it, but my suggestion would be to read it even if you think you know what it’s about — the coverage tends to be misleading.
If you have the book, you can flip to chapter nine and review it before you read the rest of this post.
The ludic fallacy is mistaking a model, especially a model of human behavior, for the real world. It’s partly intended as a caution against using game theory, economic theories resting on faulty assumptions of humanity (‘homo economicus’), and other artificial environments.
Taleb contrasts two characters: Fat Tony and Dr. John.
Basically, Fat Tony always looks for an angle and never expects fair competition. Dr. John expects the world to conform to the models that he has picked up through his studies, and anticipates that the world is fair, much like a game of chess in which both sides start out with almost perfect symmetry.
Dr. John thinks that his plan will work. Tony expects to be punched in the face and instead trusts more in his ad hoc assessments and empirical experience.
Taleb writes “A nerd is simply someone who thinks exceedingly inside the box.” America elevates these nerds into high positions because America is a place that produces boxes upon boxes upon boxes upon standardized boxes, and does its best to mold its territory into a series of rationalized, predictable boxes. Yet nature dislikes being confined to such boxes and strains against them, despite the nerd’s attempts to eliminate unpredictability.
Even in highly managed environments, like the casino Taleb uses in this chapter, can be struck by difficult-to-predict catastrophes — the largest loss incurred by the casino in question, of $100 million, happened when Roy of ‘Siegfried & Roy’ was mauled by his white tiger, despite decades of placid behavior by the great cat. The casino was robust against card-counters and cheaters, but vulnerable against a shock from an unforeseen angle.
The desire to make the world predictable can blind people to reality:
It is why we Platonify, liking known schemas and well-organized knowledge — to the point of blindness to reality. It is why we fall for the problem of induction, why we confirm. It is why those who “study” and fare well in school have a tendency to be suckers for the ludic fallacy.
Taleb suggests that you denarrate — disconnect from media, including blogs, in part to train yourself to spot “the difference between the sensational and the empirical.”
He expands on the concept in Antifragile, particularly in Chapter 16, when he compares the ‘ecological and the ludic.’ Football is a game. War is not a game. But people often try to draw lessons from football to apply to domains like war and business. Similarly, business is governed by laws, but war usually operates under an entirely different set of laws which may or may not be enforceable.
From p. 241:
It is not well advertised that there is no evidence that abilities in chess lead to better reasoning off the chessboard— even those who play blind chess games with an entire cohort can’t remember things outside the board better than a regular person.
Provided we have the right type of rigor, we need randomness, mess, adventures, uncertainty, self-discovery, near-traumatic episodes, all these things that make life worth living, compared to the structured, fake, and ineffective life of an empty-suit CEO with a preset schedule and an alarm clock.
The way to gain an advantage over nerds is to just take advantage of their predictability.
If you know the model that they’re operating under, you can generally predict how they will blunder, and then position yourself to gain an advantage as they stumble. They can’t handle volatility because it breaks their mental models, which makes them panic. A sucker punch sends them scrambling to try to make their world predictable, solid, and box-like again.
The progressive project primarily works by conflating their models for the underlying world. Their priests believe that by changing the models, they can change the underlying reality. Because so many of the people who most fervently believe in the writ of progress live almost entirely in a model world rather than the real one (hence the Starbucks full of people staring into screens), they tend to be oblivious to changes in the natural world.
So, the focus ought to be on what can be done to de-Platonify life, rather than launching endless new counter-models against the ones who insist that everything can be rationalized.
When I was a kid I wanted to be James Coburn . As I've written before, there are models, mirrors and mentors. Coburn was a model for me (I strongly advise you to watch his The President's Analyst, a near-perfect film). Then there was Sean Connery.
I would have also liked to have met them and have them to be mentors to me. James Coburn as a mentor - a father figure. Just imagine that.
And what do we have today? I can't think of one in the movies. And TV? The Big Bang Theory? Jesus Christ.
Captain Kink and Spock - where did you guys go?
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
I have found that asking women to make me a sandwich is a good way to judge their character. I've asked women to make me sandwiches and some have thrown fits. Others quite willingly do so, and in fact enjoy it.
The last one who threw a fit is unmarried, never will be, and not is not only without husband, is also without children and home. Just an apartment and a high-paying make-work "career." She is not happy.
The shortest and best description I have encountered about the difference between men and women is the Taoist one: "Yang protects Yin and Yin nurtures Yang." Women are supposed to nurture and support men,
I once met a married woman, decades ago, who told me when her husband got home from his blue-collar job, she had a hot bath waiting for him and a hot dinner. She told me she enjoyed doing this.
I also know a woman who told me her idea of play is to cook, clean and knit. And she's far from stupid.
Many men and women today have lost their way. The government has a lot of do with it. Feminism (which is leftist) could have never taken root without the State enforcing it. Because "equal."
If the government had stayed out of interfering in relationships, things would be a hell of a lot better. Man could still be providers and protectors and women could be supporters and nurturers.
My experience has been women are far more lost than men.
Monday, March 2, 2015
I wrote this a few months after the creation of the Nazi-esque "Department of Homeland Security." I knew where this anti-American organization could lead.
The year: 2084.
The place: any city in the USA.
Characters: Father, Daughter, Baby, Fido and a Few Shadowy Characters.
Father parks his 1986 Yugo at a curb and exits the vehicle with Daughter, Baby, and Fido the Chihuahua.
Police Officer (emerging from the shadows. He is a clone, as are all the police are in 2084. He has a narrow head and squinty lop-sided eyes and bears strong resemblance to the inbred George Bush): Hold it right there!
Father: What? What did I do?
Officer: I have to search all of you and the car for a bomb! It's a new Global UN law passed this morning.
Father: I haven't heard a thing about it.
Officer: That's not my problem. I have a job to do and orders to follow.
Father: Orders to follow, huh? (He places his left forefinger under his nose, shoots out his right arm at a 45% angle, and goosesteps in circles.) Sieg Heil! Actung! Verboten!
Father: Hitler? Nazis? Stormtroopers?
Father: Forget it. I'm a comedian practicing a comedy routine.
A police van screeches around a corner. It stops and four police officers jump out. They remove the tires from the Yugo, place the car on concrete blocks, put the tires in the van and screech away.
Father: What was that about?
Officer: We have to search your tires for bombs.
Father: Those are brand-new tires! They might even have rubber in them! It took me a year to save for them! The economy's been bad for 80 years, you know, what with the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and all those other places I can't remember! I think you guys just stole my tires!
Officer: Complain to the government.
Father: This is outrageous!
Officer: I'm just keeping the country safe. (He squints at Baby.) There could be a bomb in that baby!
Officer: I have to check. (He grabs Baby and prys open its mouth.) You got a bomb in there?
Baby: Gaga googoo.
Officer (upending Baby and shaking it up and down): Cough it up!
Officer: I guess you're okay. (Hands Baby back to Father.)
Baby (glaring at Officer): Pfffttt!
Baby: Gaga googoo!
Officer (squinting at Fido): There could be a bomb in that dog!
Father: It's a Chihuahua!
Officer: Plenty of room for a bomb. He needs a body-cavity search!
Father: You people are lunatics! You're all demented!
Daughter: Daddy!! Look at what the bad man is doing to Fido!
Father (placing his hands over Daughter's eyes): Don't look, honey!
Fido: (eyes bugging out like poached eggs) Yeow!!
Officer: Dang! (shakes hand) He's stuck!
Fido: (bouncing up and down like a Yo-Yo) Urk! Urk! Urk!
Officer (shaking hand harder) There he goes! (Fido does a somersault through the air and lands in Daughter's arms.)
Fido (glaring at the Officer): Grrr! GRRR! GRRR!!
A man walks by wearing a three-foot tall turban. There is a loud ticking sound coming from it.
Father: Did you see that? I think he's got a bomb in his turban!
Officer: Since when are you a trained police officer?
The man rounds the corner. Seconds later there is a gigantic explosion. An axle with two tires on it lands in the street.
Father: Look! Two tires! Can I have them?
Officer: Don't get smart.
Father: Can we go now?
Officer: I guess. You better watch yourself. And the dog, too. He better watch...or you...er...you know what I mean.
Father, Daughter, Baby and Fido cross the street. Fido is walking upright on his front paws like a circus acrobat.
Fido: Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!
All step onto the curb across the street. An Officer appears from the shadows.
Officer: Stop right there!
Father: Now what?
Officer: I have to search all of you for bombs!
Father: The guy across the street just searched us!
Officer: He's Homeland Security for the south side of the street! I'm Homeland Security for the north side!
Father (putting hands on head): It's a madhouse!
Father: Charleton Heston? Planet of the Apes?
Father: Forget it. I'm a comedian practicing a comedy routine.
Officer: Whatever (squinting eyes). The dog's first!
Officer: What the -- yikes! Oh no! Wait, stop! Help! Mommy! Daddy! HELLLPPPP!!!!
Father: Wow! I didn't know he could do that!
Daughter: Yay for Fido!
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Let’s take, for example, the Book of Proverbs. There are seven detestable things listed.
• A proud look
• A lying tongue
• Hands that shed innocent blood
• A heart that devises wicked plots
• Feet that are swift to run into mischief
• A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
• Him that soweth discord among brethren
These traits can be translated into hubris, lying and murder. “Wicked plots” can mean anything bad, be it murder, lies, theft, as can all the rest.
The Bible is in many ways “conservative,” in the sense of its depiction of people as inherently imperfect and flawed. Not surprisingly, all the better writers portray people as greatly flawed, be they Shakespeare or Conrad or Dostoevsky. As I mentioned, even the modern-day popular ones, such as Stephen King, portray people as very flawed.
The worst writers, such as Karl Marx (and what he wrote is fiction) portray people as not limited and flawed, as being potential gods, as them being capable of creating a utopia on earth.
It’s clear that many people fall for the belief there can be a Heaven on earth, otherwise so many people would not for fallen for Marx, or Stalin, or Hitler, with their beliefs that once you get rid of the bad people, only goodness will remain.
I’ve heard these people who promise Heaven on earth referred to as ‘the Children of Darkness,” and the problem with them is that they are far more clever than the Children of Light. If they weren’t cleverer than the Children of Light, they wouldn’t be far more able to manipulate and con people.
The problem is that people are flawed, in fact sleepwalkers, because if they weren’t, so many of them would not fall for the promises of the Children of Darkness. And what the Children of Darkness promise is far more than what the Children of Light promise. Far, far more, and that is the problem.
The promises of the Children of Darkness include not only utopia on earth, but getting rid of evil, which of course is an inherent part of utopia. When David Frum and Richard Perle wrote a book called An End to Evil, they immediately identified themselves as Children of Darkness, most especially since their “end to evil” involved long-term war.
I have come to the conclusion that the mass of people are sheep, they are asleep, they fall for the outrageous promises of the Children of Darkness, with their promises of utopia and an end to evil. It’s as if they’re children who never grew up, and look to leaders for them to worship, ones who believe will take them of their every need.
They want to return to the Garden of Eden, ignoring the fact there is a cherubim with a flaming sword barring their way back. That fact is also some of the good practical wisdom in the Bible.
I've pointed out before I have a hard time taking much of the Manosphere seriously. For one thing, the concepts are simple-minded, although its supporters think they're not.
Simple-minded concepts, as Communism and Objectivism, are easy to understand. The narcissistic concepts of the Manosphere are easy to understand. Men good, women bad. That's why it's the mirror image of feminism.
I've probably taken too many philosophy classes in college. There is an old concept in philosophy called Naive Realism, which is the belief we perceive reality directly. We don't, although today some philosophers and psychologists still argue that we do.
The ancient Greeks (and the Buddists, for that matter) subdivided matter, which is why the Greeks came up with the word "atom." The Buddhists were a bit more sophisticated and argued these "atoms" flashed into and out of existence. Science has confirmed these things - yet we cannot directly perceive atoms. Reality is about 99.999% "empty" - just a bunch of subatomic particles whirling so fast they appear solid.
Yet we cannot directly perceive atoms and subatomic particles, except then we use billion-dollar machines.
Naive realism argues everything is solid, just the way in the past it argued the sun went around the Earth. That's what it appears like, doesn't it?
We cannot directly perceive Alphas and Betas and Gammas, "hypergamy," etc. Some looked at the behavior and came up with concepts to explain them. In other words, we impose the concepts in our heads (the ideas) on reality, to explain it. These ideas are never 100% accurate.
Yet there are those who think these ideas are 100% accurate. I'll give some examples - the ludicrous "The Rational Male." Vox Day when he ceases to write about science fiction. Roissy, clearly a liar.
All of them have ideas in their heads, which they think is the Absolute Truth, which they impose on reality and think is 100% accurate. None of them have never written of any philosophical concepts such as Realism and Idealism. I doubt they know what they are.
Everyone does this, this imposition of ideas to explain reality. I do it. You do it.
But at least I know I do it.