Saturday, February 28, 2015

You're Still in the Matrix

All you "Red Pill" types out there - don't you realize that when Neo took the Red Pill he only had powers in the Matrix? That's the reason I never use the term "Red Pill." Those who claim they've taken it are still in the Matrix.

When you take the Manosphere Red Pill you're exchanging one Matrix for another.

This isn't original with me. It's an old concept. We're don't know reality directly. We only know it through our brain/senses. "The map is not the terrain." The models of reality in our heads are not reality itself.

Since we cannot perceive reality directly, all of us are in Matrix.

The Red Pill, "hypergamy," "Alpha/Beta/Whatever," "Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks," Evo-Psych...these are simplistic concepts in our heads some use to explain reality. None of them are reality itself.

Of course, some concepts work better than others. The philosophy of much of the Manosphere - that which I listed above - is not workable. Some understand that. You know why? Nihilistic and hedonistic is never workable. That's ancient wisdom from thousands of years ago.

I at least know I'm in the Matrix. That itself is a great measure of freedom.

Repairman Bob





The cliché – and there is truth to it, as there is truth to all clichés – is that men fix, women vent. That causes problems, as most everyone finds out. Women vent to men and men want to fix the problem.

I tell women, if you want to vent, talk to your girlfriends. You don’t go to a doctor or dentist to vent: you want your problems fixed. I don’t want to hear you babble unless you want the problem fixed.

Some men turn off women’s babbling. All they hear is a hum in the background. I knew one guy whose wife babbled around the kitchen while he was reading the paper. He had no idea what she was ever saying, but one day she stopped talking and he looked up and said, “Is there something wrong?” because the background noise had stopped. But if you had asked him what she had said, he wouldn’t have had a clue.

When people ask me want I do for a living, I tell them I fix things. I get some odd looks. But if you think about it, all jobs are about fixing things. Or, at least, most of them.

F. Paul Wilson has a series of novels about a character he calls Repairmen Jack. Jack fixes things when the people cannot go to the police. I sometimes tell people since I fix things, I call myself Repairmen Bob.

Sometimes the desire to fix things can be a compulsion. I once saw a cat fall down a sewer drain opening and spent half a hour figuring out how to get him out (I ended up pulling him up with a piece of wire after I took the manhole cover off).

When I can’t fix things it drives me nuts. Many years I couldn’t get the water pump off of my car and was cursing mightily. Then I looked up and saw my mother standing on the porch with her mouth open. What was coming out of me was “($*%*!@#$%^!!!!!”

Men are the ones who invented civilization and technology. I figure one of the reasons is because they want to fix things. It’s hot? Let’s make it cooler. It’s cold? Let’s make it warmer. You’re sick? Let’s make you well.

If people spent all their time venting, we’d still be living in caves.

Benjamin Shapiro, Manly Man!

"Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously." - G.K. Chesterton

I am amazed at the number of the mentally ill, of cowards, of traitors, who gain influence. It always takes the media, which ceased being useful or truthful decades ago.

I wrote this perhaps ten years ago.


It must be hard being Benjamin Shapiro. Standing in front of a full-length mirror in a jockstrap, making tuff faces, wondering why you're 21 and have twelvish biceps, being puzzled over why the babes don't swoon over your bitchin' violin playing...and then every damned time, without fail, your shriveled pair makes your strap plop down around your ankles. Honestly, what's a boy to do?

Dry your eyes, I suppose, gaze with admiration and longing upon your Alexander poster of a buff Brad Pitt, hitch up a pair of tighty-whities (the ones with the special "Frank 'n' Beans" codpiece designed to avoid those embarrassing and sometimes not-so-surreptitious public glances), slip your feet into your penny loafers, and thence to the keyboard, trying hopelessly to get that testosterone level to, well, low-low-low-normal at least.

I know that's a hard task, what with the genetically determined wimpification and all, but Benjie does give it the old kindergarten try. Recently he's tried to get the glands to chug out the manly hormones by attacking Pat Buchanan in an execrable column he wrote at the even more execrable WorldNetDaily, a site that used to be pretty good, until publisher Joseph Farah looked down one day and noticed his pair had shriveled up on him, too.

I don't agree with everything Pat Buchanan writes, but I do know he is an honorable man. Shapiro is neither honorable, nor a man. What he is, then? He's...wait a minute...what's that sound I hear? Oh, yeah, there it is: "Buk, buk, buk." That's the squawk of the Chickenhawk, that species that will not fight under any circumstances but instead stands on the sidelines yelling, "Throw the ball there. Okay, now throw it over here."

Benjie's one of those doing the yelling. He's also one of those who will never, ever get onto the field and into the game. That's what having a shriveled pair will do to you, along with shrieking, putting a glass on top of a spider wandering across the kitchen floor, then, with trembling girlish fingers, calling the exterminator.

Buchanan, who Benjie thinks is a naughty, naughty boy, caused him go all PMS when Buchanan wrote a column castigating blundering, war-mongering presidents from Wilson to FDR to Truman to Kennedy to Bush. He's also suggested we give foreign aid to Hamas. They are, after all, democratically elected (the only democracy in the Middle East, you know, hee hee).

Benjie had a hissy fit over Buchanan's column. What, not invade the Middle East to conquer it for Israel's sake, using as a smokescreen the rationalization of pounding democracy into the wogs, even if you have to rub out truckloads of them? Benjie ignores the wisdom of his betters, such as Jesus and Aesop, both of whom noticed that all tyrants call themselves benefactors. Instead, like every Chickenhawk, Benjie drools for war, as long as his eunuch-smooth complexion is never put at risk.

Here are some of the words a palpitating Benjie tapped out about Buchanan: "anti-Semitic...ignorant...anti-Semitic...moral blindness...anti-Semitic...myopic bigotry...anti-Semitic...wisdom and patriotism must be questioned...anti-Semitic...arrogance...anti-Semitic...laughable...anti-Semitic." Ooh, them's fighting words, pardner! Not that Benjie's going to do any fighting, except with his mouth, from behind his computer, from his parents' basement, huddling behind a locked door. Certainly not in Iraq, or Afghanistan...or for his homies in Israel.

Let's cut to the chase, here. Shapiro is a Zionist Jew, and a crazed and cowardly one at that. He puts Israel first. Buchanan is an American. He puts America first. It's as simple as that, once you get beyond the farrago of obscuring, hate-filled verbiage that Shapiro spewed. He may pretend he's a patriot, but that's true only if you define patriotism not as the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the first.

If you think it isn't that simple, Shapiro once wrote a bizarre column, again for WorldNetDaily, in which he hooted, and hooted loudly, for genocide. Hey, wait a minute once again! Isn't genocide what the Nazis did to some Jews...and some Christians...and some homosexuals...and some Gypsies...and some Masons? Or is there good genocide, and not-so-good genocide? In Benjie-world, in a word, yep!

Once you get past Bela Kun Benjie's duplicitous words, what he writes boils down to this: "Kill them. Kill them all, and kill all their kids, too!" He tells us the story of Jewish holiday Purim, in which ancient Jews, during a two-day period, killed "75,000 Jew haters" throughout the Persian Empire, "800 in the capital [sic] city of Shushan alone."

Like, brrr! All 75,000 of them were "Jew haters"? Even the infants? (The relevant quote reads, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.") Wow! Even better, Benjie describes this little tiff as "God's hand...revealed though...the actions of men." Neat! I'll say this, though: it doesn't sound like a Kodak moment to me, not when you're skewering some kid on a stick. Still, I must say, it is way-cool that Benjie has personal knowledge of God's hand and who He's smacking with it.

Benjie refers to all "Jew haters" as the Biblical "Amalek," and tells us it "refers to a real, physical nation. Jews are enjoined to kill descendants of that nation." Benjie defines a Jew hater as...well, anyone he defines as a Jew hater. To him, Buchanan is a Jew-hater, ergo, he is an Amalekite, ergo, he should be killed. And his kids, too! Hey, ain't it a hate crime to say such things? Or even to think them?

If you want to do an interesting thought-experiment with Benjie's piece, replace "Jew" with "Nazi" and "anti-Semite" with Jew. You'll find that Benjie's twisted soul is no different than the most goose-stepping of Nazi's. At least the Nazis had nifty uniforms, ones I suspect Benjie pines for in a quasi-homoerotic kind of way. (By the way, the by-his-own-admission-virginal Talibenjie wrote a book about the evil of pornography, most ironic indeed since Jews dominate the industry both as performers and producers. Basment-dweller underahieverus is so obsessed with porn I suspect he spends a lot of time downstairs exercising his wrist, and I don't mean typing.)

The fact he's never had any puddy (if indeed he really is interested in it) raises an interesting question: could it be related to his lust for mass murder, as long, of course, as he's the one doing the lusting and other people are doing the mass murdering? If so, then do all virginal violin-playing wimps have obscene fantasies of mass murder, destruction and theft? I wonder what name there is for such a sin? Could it be....Satan?!

I wonder what's going to happen to Benjie in the years to come? On the one hand, I suspect he might turn into a more rabid version of Norman "Poddy" Podhoretz, who I'm sure wants to forget a little '60's episode in which he ignored what every mirror told him, put the make on Jackie Kennedy, and then got flicked away like a booger on her finger with the comment, "Mr. Podhoretz, just who do you think you are?"

That last comment also applies to Benjie: Just who does he think he is? Obviously, a 21-year-old who's smarter than Buchanan, the Founding Fathers, and the wisdom of the world. Why? Well, just cuz. Just cuz Americans are supposed to expend blood and treasure defending Israel. Just cuz Benjie says so, without exactly coming out and admitting what is really is -- an Israel-firster, as opposed to an America-firster.

On the other hand, he might turn into Betty Friedan, who recently gave up the ghost, thereby losing her title as the Ugliest Woman in the World. Betty had a Poddy-moment in her life, too, when her overstuffed suitcase burst at an airport, spilling, ahem, "marital aids" onto the floor. I'm sure she needed them, because I can't imagine who would have -- urp -- done her. At least with his eyes open.

Benjie might not go either way. Lookswise, he's a cross between a wimpier version of the necrophilic serial-killer Ted Bundy and the crypto-gay comic-book character, Prince Namor of Atlantis. With that kind of pedigree, and having almost no sense whatsoever in his pointy little inbred head, I suspect he'll crash and burn early, turn into the Zionist version of a bag lady, then spend the rest of his life walking the streets, muttering to himself, "Amalekites...it's their fault...damned Amalekites...shoulda killed their dogs, too."

He's a born coward, a bayonetter of the wounded and helpless, a born sadistic torturer of puppies and kitties, and a born wannabe murderer (one with no balls), with a head full of tangled, sputtering, shorted-out brain-wiring, just like Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove, who went all a-twitter over imaginary subversives who wanted to "sap and impurify all our precious bodily fluids."

For that matter, WorldNetDaily has a lot of brain-sputters, too, for running a genocide-promoting nutcase, one who thinks God gave him the right to kill Pat Buchanan and his kids. And -- most probably -- his dog, too.

.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Lil' Pod, Hideously Inbred Nerd

Another coward, traitor and buffoon I wrote about years ago.


Poor John Podhoretz -- oafish, repulsive, cowardly, backstabbing, boring, a picker-of-his-nose-in-public -- and so dull-witted he couldn't cut soft butter with his forehead. Then there's the Matrix plug in the back of his Foul and Most Foreign Peanut-Shaped Pinhead (F&MFP-SP), the one feeding him the most hallucinogenic of Philip K. Dick novels -- the never-written one in which a brilliant, adventureous Poddy is a cross between Dr. Benton Quest and Race Bannon. If that plug ever falls out, reality will come crashing in on Lil' Pod, and he will see himself in all his grotesque, inbred, Betty Friedanesque glory -- a high-speed DNA collision between Elmer Fudd and Beldar Conehead.

That plug is apparently pumping all sorts of anti-American ideas into Lil' Pod's F&MFS-HP, such as the one that Americans want to import millions of Mexicans who fly the American flag upside-down on a pole and put the Mexican flag above it. It's Lil' Pod who's upside down, a position I've heard described as "cranio-rectal inversion." If it's permanent, it will surely improve his looks. It certainly won't hurt his brains.

Lil'Pod is the Quasimodoesque offspring of the original Poddy, Norman the Now-Senile. Senile Poddy's main claim to fame (excluding all his shameless self-promotion) was putting the make on Jackie Kennedy back in the '60's, then crawling away like a dung beetle after she skewered him with the icy eyeball and contempuously asked him, "Just who do you think you are, Mr. Podhoretz?" Somebody who never looked in a mirror, apparently, or else he didn't believe what they all told him -- that here was a man, no matter what his age, who always looked like an old geezer who should have a stogie in his mouth, wear boxer shorts, and back up his Cadillac on the interstate because he missed his exit.

Lil' Pod's well on his way to his father's decayed state, and suffers from the same malady: the delusion that people should listen to his opinion, even though he's as ignorant as my pug dog, whose underpowered brains can't tell the difference between a hot dog and a cat turd. In a recent article Lil' Pod (I suspect that nickname applies in more ways than one) whirled his pom-poms in support of totally open borders, claiming it's a good thing for the U.S. because he sees "a vibrant, dynamic, extraordinarily strong and extraordinarily stable country that has dealt successfully with far more pressing domestic problems without losing a beat."

See what I mean about that plug in his head? Frosty Wooldridge has a clearer view of what's really going: "Why are we allowing millions of diseased, non-assimilating, poverty-stricken revolutionaries and agitators and criminals, who despise us with a passion and who clearly have every intent of destroying our Republican form of government, into this country? What madness is this?"

Yes, Lil' Pod, it is madness, one that can, and has, destroyed countries. His sputtering synapses apparently can't comprehend this simple fact.

While Lil Pod's father occasionally made sense when he was younger, such as pointing out that the media portrayal of poor, downtrodden blacks was the exact opposite of their predatory behavior experienced by those in the real world, Lil Pod's accomplishments consist of little more than answering the most obscure of trivia questions on Jeopardy about "The Seinfeld Show."

That's an example of a mind that memorizes every tiny little twig and misses the entire forest.

Just how enormous is Lil Pod's self-delusion, that he does not know what he is? At the Washington Times the column he wrote for it was read out loud, for its laughter-inducing qualities, in a ritual called Podenfreude. For a long time he was referred to as "John P. Normanson," as in "John Podhoretz, Norman's son."

That's just pathetic. And now he completely dismisses as fantasies concerns about the increase in crime, disease, and reduction in wages brought by illegal immigrants, ones who are automatically criminals by being here illegally. He also claims the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, is responsible for "a great deal of the advances made in the 20th century by immigrant children." Apparently he thinks all those 89-IQ Mexican grape pickers are working on Ph.Ds in Molecular Biology in their spare time, or that their children are. . .children who are confused about which flag belongs in what country.

No, Lil' Pod, the critics are not living in a fantasy world. You are. As a leftist, you, like all leftists, don't merely misunderstand human nature; you don't understand it at all. The real world is one you don't want to deal with. One you can't deal with.

What would happen if Lil' Pod's delusional recommendations were put into effect, nation-wide? The result would be catastrophic. Would Lil' Pod say he was wrong and accept responsibility? Of course not. He would blame the problems on someone else, claiming his recommendations were not followed. Even if they were, to the letter.

Such are the wages of self-deception.

If Lil' Pod ever ended up in a field picking crops, he's throw his hands up to heaven, sit down, burst into tears, and wail, "I can't do this work! My butt's too big!" Then he'd wipe his eyes, go home, ignore his minaturized genitalia, and dream a little dream of being a Vikingesque marauder.

Come on, let's be honest here. Lil' Pod is a hideously inbred nerd, the offspring of two grotesque Troksyites -- Midge Dector and the already-mentioned Norman Podhoretz. Such ghastly inbreeding has made Lil' Pod an utter incompetent whose opinion is irrelevant on any issue. Perhaps he might go away some day. Perhaps. Or perhaps he'll just hang around forever like crabgrass and turn into the Fidel Castro of obnoxious stupidity -- a dildo-headed, beady-eyed little dork.

Were he not the son of Norman, he'd spend his life watching TV game shows, yelling at the screen, "I know that answer!" and dreaming of being the center square on Hollywood Squares. And probably having nightmares in which the audience laughed at him when the late Paul Lynde made double entendres he didn't understand, while he sat there like an organ-grinder's puzzled monkey who knows something is wrong, but hasn't quite realized someone has stolen his little red cap.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

The Truth About Net Neutrality

The Demented Philip Roth

Some years ago (over ten) I read Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. I knew that Roth was a twisted, demented, inbred little coward and traitor who has been in and out of mental institutions his entire life, but this book was too much.

I published this article at that time, but I thought I would repost it. If you haven't read this novel, don't buy it. Get it at the library.


I don't know how the churlish and ignoble Philip Roth remains upright, the way his moral compass is spinning so madly. The author, who made his name with the more-than-a-little-semi-pornographic Portnoy's Complaint, which titillated a 12-year-old me and my classmates so much the teacher confiscated the book, has now with his last novel (I hope), The Plot Against America, used this farrago of vitriol to spin himself right into a place where good is evil, and evil, good.

I'll wager that George Orwell would have seen Roth's book as an example of Lies are Truth, Ignorance is Strength and War is Peace (and in Roth's case, Cowardice is Bravery). The novel is odious, libelous and just plain disgusting -- especially the grotesque and sickening comments about a murdered baby. Maybe we need a neologism: "libelodious." More cheerful is the idea of using Roth's name, as in "He Rothed him," meaning "a truly dishonest and reprehensible man told blatant and transparent lies about a good man."

The man libeled is Charles Lindbergh, who was about as close to a true hero as America produced in the 20th century. Roth libels him as a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Semite, and a crypto-Nazi just waiting, faster than an eyeblink, to turn into the hillbilly version of Hitler.

Roth also libels America, which he apparently believes is always on the verge of toppling into a kinder, gentler Nazi Germany. Actually, he libels everything west of New York City as a horrifying, undifferentiated mass of drooling, gap-toothed, tobacco-juice-spittin', banjo-playing, five-year-old-girl chasin' troglodytes jes' awaitin' to lynch Jews from the nearest tree.

The focus of evil in Rothworld is Kentucky, a place which to him takes up 90% of Flyover Land. I get the impression Roth truly believes that if he was to ever leave Brooklyn, everyone west of it would have eyes about an inch apart, and drag their knuckles on the ground when they weren't picking their noses, farting in church or hitching their crotches up in public. I guess he believes Kentucky is the breeding chamber for those hundreds of millions of Morlocks overrunning America.

The Plot Against America is actually an excruciatingly bad science-fiction novel, of a sub-genre called "alternate history." Roth should have stayed with his specialty, "autobiographical pornography written by a dirty-minded neurotic Jew who cruelly verbally abused his ex-wife and her daughter, was a drug addict, and checked himself into and out of mental institutions."

In Plot, Charles Lindbergh beats FDR for the nomination in 1940, and becomes President. Now would have happened if this eminently sane event had come to pass? Lindbergh, a true patriot who was an anti-interventionist in the mold of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, would have kept the U.S. out of World War II. There would have been peace, Roth forbid.

Instead,in Roth's confabulations, Lindbergh instantly turns a compliant America into the Hillbilly Reich, the inhabitants of which immediately start whoopin' and yeehawin' because they don't have to send their sons to die in another European war, and instead let their anti-Semitic bloodlust, which Roth thinks is in their DNA, take control of their 70 IQ heads.

Roth will have none of this peace-mongering. He writes of FDR, who really was a semi-fascist and pro-Communist, as a great President unfortunately voted out of office by people who should have been grateful he was going to get them disassembled as cannon fodder by the hundreds of thousands.

He also cheers Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson as great presidents. Apparently, Roth has no education at all.

As for FDR, he maneuvered the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor by cutting off their oil and sending the Flying Tigers against them in China. There is substantial evidence he knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked -- indeed, he moved the fleet there from the safety of California -- and wanted war with Japan so Stalin (whom he called "Uncle Joe") wouldn't have to fight a two-front war against the Germans and Japanese. If Roth knows about any of this, I'm sure he doesn't believe it. Or if he does believe it, perhaps he agrees with it.

Lindbergh, who was a fine writer and speaker, is portrayed as having even less ability to speak than the stumble-tongued George Bush. He starts a program with the improbable name of "Just Folks," in which Jewish city boys are sent into the country to be Nazified. One of Roth's relatives returns from this hillbilly Dante's Inferno with a taste for ham and bacon, the Devil's Food, which, Roth, gasping in horror, claims destroys his ability to draw and also makes him enjoy picking tobacco and milking cows. Another is forced to move to Kentucky by the federal government, and almost instantly becomes so retarded he can do little more than intone, "Do you like cookies and milk? I like cookies and milk."

Still another, a mother, is murdered -- it's hard to write this with a straight face -- "alongside a potato field" in the Hell-on-Earth know as -- brr!-- Paducah, Kentucky! Leaving her poor son with no parents at all!

Roth also spends an entire chapter on his cousin, who lost part of his leg in the war. He spends that chapter writing in exquisite detail of his cousin's swollen, oozing, scabby, and -- to Roth's oh-so-delicate little-girl sensibilities -- horrifying stump (this is when he's not telling us about his cousin's masturbatory spraying of semen all over the place as he watches little girls though a basement window). The chapter title? Not surprisingly, "The Stump."

Roth is not only terrified of the Midwest, which in his twisted, demented little brain starts one millimeter west of the Hudson River, he also swoons in horror at Catholicism, with its "witchy" nuns and "mortician-like" priests.

And, I'll have to admit, I've never read a novel in which all those Catholic Nazi hillbillies infesting Kentucky join the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party, then break out the kerosene-soaked crosses they've been hiding in their basements, which they hurl at anyone who they think looks like a Jew.

There are even anti-Semitic riots in St. Louis, a place in which I have lived, and where the only semi-riots occurred when the German consulate hung a Nazi flag outside their window, and the gathered crowd got so upset the police had to be called. But Roth does not know these things, having created history out of his pointy little head.

The novel is preposterous and surreal to the point of hilarity. Anti-Jewish pogroms in Cleveland? What next, death camps run by the Simpsons, with Lisa as She-Wolf of the SS?

I won't give the ending away, except to say that a cackling Roth gets to engage in his version of genocide against all those inbred 'Tuckians. I'll also say he has gotten the truth backwards and upside down, and in doing so has written a truly repellent anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-human novel, one of the worst I have ever read. If he's got the ability, the man should be ashamed of himself.

At the end of his career Roth shows himself to be as he started it -- paranoid, hate-filled, envious, narcissistic, utterly self-absorbed and utterly self-deluded. As a novelist he will be forgotten. As a decent and honorable man, he never was one.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Leftism is Based on the Murder of the Father

"A man who won’t believe in God will believe in anything." - G.K. Chesteron

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his magnum opus, Leftism Revisited, made the assertion the leftism was based on the "murder of the Father" and the attempt to overthrow him out of envy.

You can do a lot with that comment. Leftism is almost always materialistic and atheistic. And of course, God is traditionally male.

Feminism is leftist...and oftentimes atheistic (or paganistic). And is based on hatred of men, hatred of "patriarchy," the hatred of any idea of God the Father.

I have for over 20 years thought leftism was based on hate, which they project onto their enemies. It's why they talk about "hatred" so much. It's their hatred, projected on others. One of its tactics is to portray themselves as victims, when in reality they are the victimizers.

Leftism is feminine, specifically the Bad Feminine. The same applies to feminism. Want an example of the Bad Feminine? Try Lilith, Adam's first wife, who murdered babies and ate men.

Leftism is never about equality. It's about power. The power, ultimately, to destroy the Father, and men. It's one of the reasons why women should be kept out of positions of authority in politics and most especially the Church, otherwise we'd end up worshiping some Goddess (and witches)...who will end up being Moloch (like sacrificing babies).

Leftist's ideas have never worked and they are working less and less every day.

"College Girl Debt Bubble"

The only thing I have to say is that he's right about women being short-term thinkers. That's what happens when you are ruled by your feelings, as most women are.

Perhaps I should also point out they look at the surface of things and can't see what's underneath. That's a lack of analytical ability.

"Birds of a “bad” feather flock together: The Dark Triad and mate choice"

If you want to see what happens to men who get involved with Dark Triad women, check out A Shrink4Men.

I've pointed out before that those advising you that women like the "Dark Triad," "insanely confident men" and "Alphas" are giving you very bad advice.

If you act like that, such people with those traits will gravitate toward you and kick your ass. Birds of a feather really do flock together.

Know where I first heard the phrase "Birds of a feather flock together"? From Aesop. Common sense from thousands of years ago.

I was raised with such people. Those admiring these crazies weren't. Don't pretend to be something that you are not.

This abstract is from Science Direct.


Previous research on the Dark Triad traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) has focused solely on the role the Dark Triad traits played in mate choice of actors. The current study (N = 336) extends this by manipulating the apparent levels of Dark Triad traits in targets and correlating mate choice in these targets with individual differences in the Dark Triad traits in actors. As expected, both sexes preferred partners low in the Dark Triad traits for long-term mating, while those high in these traits were preferred for one-night stands. However, women high in psychopathy considered the Dark Triad traits in potential male partners more physically attractive and desirable for an one-night stand, as well as a potential husband. Men who were high on psychopathy were likewise attracted to psychopathy in potential mothers. Our findings are discussed from an evolutionary personality paradigm.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

When Things Get Just a Little Bit Tough, Females Run Straight to a Man

"Regulate the Dating Market"

I once wrote an article (which I must look up) in which the government decided everyone had to be equal so women had to, by law, ask out a certain number of men or face fines or jail time. Imagine the outcry from women, which proves they don't want equality, not really.

This article is from the Foundation for Economic Education and was written by Julian Adorney


This year’s Valentine’s Day was disastrous — not just for me, but for many ex-couples. But as I sat there on Sunday nursing my broken heart, I realized what’s wrong with romance today: not enough regulation.

The United States government has wisely chosen to regulate most other aspects of life, from what wage you are allowed to work for to what medicines a patient is allowed to buy over the counter. Voluntary interactions are all well and good, but the bottom line is that people have to be protected from themselves. The trade-off between liberty and security exists not only in privacy and foreign policy: we must strike a similar balance in the arena of love.

I propose the creation of a new government organization, the Committee to Assure Romantic Equity (CARE), to bring an end to the current Wild West of romance. Three powerful sets of regulations would bring much-needed stability to the chaos of dating.

1. Who’s allowed to date?

Just as professionals — from hair-braiders to interior decorators — must be licensed, so too the government must step in to license daters.

Right now, the dating market is overrun with shoddy specimens. Sleazy men buy women drinks and sleep with them on the first date. Immoral women cheat on their loving boyfriends. Many people lack the discretion to choose good partners for themselves, and their poor decisions can bring out the worst in people. Never mind that they sometimes have children.

To remedy this situation, any dating hopeful should have to submit an application to CARE. A licensing system should be set up whereby applicants pay for classes in order to certify both their good-heartedness and their ability to treat a partner well. In order to enforce this system, CARE agents would inspect couples, fining or jailing any individual engaged in dating without a CARE permit.

This wise step will remove the riff-raff from the dating market and ensure that good, kind individuals are never lured into romances they’ll regret. And if a few people find themselves forcibly removed from the dating pool, so what? They probably weren’t great partners to begin with.

2. Dating tickets

It is self-evident by now that free markets aren’t qualified to distribute scarce natural resources. Unregulated capitalism causes intense inequality.

Today, some men and women have four or five dates per week. Others may suffer dry spells lasting months. Further, those individuals who go on many dates have an opportunity to hone their skills, making them more attractive and ensuring even more dates in the future, while those who haven’t had a date in months simply languish. Their skills deteriorate, making them less and less attractive.

Such a situation is unequal and unfair. It highlights how unfettered markets create a rich-get-richer environment in which a lucky few rise to the top while the majority suffers. It proves that returns to love capital happen only at the top of the distribution, or as Thomas Piketty might summarize this theory: “r > l” where “r” is the rate of return on love capital and “l” is the rate of love growth for the rest of us.

To remedy this situation, every man and woman should be forced to submit to CARE the number of dates he or she has planned each week. If someone has more than four, one of those dates should be randomly reassigned to a person who hasn’t been on a date in a month or more. This system will ensure a more even distribution of dates, in which each man and woman gets a fair share. (Apps like Tinder and OKCupid will have to be replaced by a single-payer CARE app.)

3. Breakups

Some people — not to name names — plan a beautiful weekend getaway for Valentine’s Day, only to be dumped without warning because we’re “too political.” This situation isn’t just immoral; it ought to be illegal!

The government already regulates who can be fired from a job and under what circumstances. We realize, for example, the tragic consequences of a woman losing her sole means of income, so we take steps to protect employees.

But is losing love any less traumatic? Heartbreak can lead to pain, misery, and even death. With this fact in mind, I propose a few common-sense restrictions on breaking up with a significant other.

Each man or woman preparing to let a partner go should have to fill out several forms showing due cause. No one should have to fear being dumped for trifling reasons such as “too much” political activism. With the guidance of CARE, relationships will be sustained that should be sustained — even as those that have a justifiable reason to end will be allowed to do so.

Similarly, we as a society should no longer tolerate breakups that give no warning. A person seeking to break up with a significant other should have to fill out a written complaint, notify his or her partner, and wait two weeks before the breakup. This notice will give the injured party time to adjust to the new status quo.

What about freedom?

Some naysayers complain that this new CARE will limit our freedom. But freedom is not the only value. We have to consider the greater good.

Freedom is tolerable when exercised in ways that serve society, but its excesses must be curbed to prevent its exercise in antisocial ways. Good, decent people need some security in the romance market. If that means a little less independence for everyone else, so be it. Those who demand unfettered freedom are simply apologists for the heartbreak status quo.

Monday, February 23, 2015

How I Always Picked Up Girls

Short post.

The word "recognize" means "to look twice."

Whenever a woman looked at me twice I almost always approached her. My success rate was quite good - like 80%.

However, I almost always had something witty to say.

The last time, she was far too young. But I leaned toward her and said, "Women always look at me, but that was 30 years ago." And she burst out laughing. She was about 19.

Another time I told her, "Whenever women get involved with me their lives always get better." Another laugh.

If you can make her laugh, you're in.

Not "Dread Game, not "insanely confident Alphas," none of that silliness.

That's how you do it.

"Alphas" as Gammas

I've written before of a few guys I know who devoted their lives to being Pick-Up Artists. All of them, not surprisingly, ruined their lives, except for a few who quit early.

Again, none of them were "Alphas." If anything, they hated women. Any man who lies to and tries to manipulate women and uses them as Narcissistic Supply to fill the void where his character used to be...does not like women.

If you want to use that ridiculous sociosexual Greek alphabet soup, these guys were "Gammas," except they were popular with women.

Here's the definition of Gamma: "The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there... sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects."

The ones I know, who did end up getting involved long-term with women, had these women pretty much run their lives. They went from hating and trying to manipulate them to putting them on a pedestal. These guys just happened to be attractive. Otherwise, in terms of character, they were close to being pure Gamma.

Notice that "Gammas" either hate women or put them on pedestals. That's what narcissism is: grandiose or devalued. The PUAs I knew were good-looking and charming (the 20% "Alpha" part) but the other 80% was pure "Gamma."

Everyone has a grandiose and devalued self. If we didn't have a devalued self then no one would be susceptible to shame and humiliation.

In fact, my experience with this "sociosexual hierarchy" is that it's close to being worthless.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Eight-Year-Olds Obsessed With Porn

“We are what we repeatedly do.” – Aristotle

I define pornography as when you turn the other person into a thing to be degraded for your power and pleasure.

I had a man tell me recently he and his wife had found their eight-year-old nephew had bookmarked 106 porn sites. The bookmarks were erased and an adult filter was enacted.

The kid thew a fit and tried to get around the filter, but couldn't do it. His parents had a long talk with him. He didn't say much and had no explanation as to why he did what he did. Personally I consider him a little odd although he appears to be very intelligent.

I wonder what kind of permanent changes his brain might suffer?

Now when I was a kid just about all we had was Playboy. And I wasn't really interested in about such things until I was 12.

We used to find pornographic magazines on the side of the road or along the railroad tracks by my house, but after looking at them ("What exactly are they doing here?") we threw them away.

I never saw a pornographic movie until my first day of the senior year in high school, when we went to some guy's house and he set up a 16 mm projector and showed us some b&w films. It got boring real fast.

But now we have the internet and porn is everywhere.When I was a kid it was always hidden and not public.

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

There are those in the Manosphere who complain about the great availability of porn and the bad effect it's having. They apparently have a point.

Porn had been around for thousands of year but now we are being inundated with it. It does make me wonder what happens to children raised with the stuff. I don't think it will be a good thing.

Men's pornography is visual but women's pornography are romance novels. The first time I told a woman that she threw a seizure. She just refused to believe it.

Chris Hedges, who is mostly known as anti-war writer, is extremely anti-porn. I think he goes too far but here is a long article he wrote about his beliefs.

Click HERE.

By the way, I have known for a long time where the sadistic Manosphere delusions about women being loveless disloyal hypergamous whores seeking "cash and prizes" leads. No place good.

Friday, February 20, 2015

"Herbivore Man vs. Dried Fish Woman"

What women do, men respond to, and what women do, men respond to. So simple, so profound, and in many cases, so little understood.

I consider it to be a cybernetic feedback system.

Since feminism is leftist, it believes people's personalities are infinitely plastic. And since they have no understanding whatsoever of human nature, when their plans don't work out, they only thing they can do is double-down, no matter how much destruction they wreak.

Manginas and Man-Jawed Monstrosities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the cultural destroyer Hannah Rosin (who is unattractive and looks masculine) and her soft, somewhat effeminate husband David Plotz (why did she not take his name)?

Who's the man here - and who's the woman?

We used to call guys like this pussies. Not literally, of course, but in the way they look and act. More charitably, I've heard them called Manboobs.

Again, what's going on here? Chemicals? Something going wrong in the womb? Inbreeding and microevolution (as in the case of the repulsive Rosin/Plotz couple)?

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

That's scary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, the more masculine women there are, and feminine men, the faster everything goes backwards. Honestly - do you really want Rosin and Plotz to have kids? If this is some kind of inbreeding, this is one of the last things society needs.

Now that's something to think about.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Dipshits Who Think They Understand Economics

I've always been amused at the spergs who are convinced they understand economics but do not.

I keep encountering people who are obsessed with the minimum wage and who think if it is raised it will destroy the economy. (By the way, I've owned businesses in which I worked 60 hours a week but still couldn't hire anyone, so I know what minimum wages do).

Yet these OCD types don't understand the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank some 100 years ago the dollar has lost about 98% of its value through inflation. It got especially bad when Nixon went off the gold standard in '71, which means there were no brake on inflation at all. And Alan Greenspan, who was the worst head of the Fed ever, has really done a number on the value of the dollar.

They don't understand corporations are creations of the State and have the legal status of persons, and that the purpose of them is to use the power of the State to exploit everyone.

They don't understand the economy has at least doubled since 1980 but none of that increase went to workers.

They don't know wages peaked in January 1973 and have been flat and declining since then. And you can blame every bit of that on interference by government in the economy.

They don't understand the mean IQ is 100 and these people are not going to be retrained for high-paying jobs - which don't exist.

They don't understand that if wages had continued to rise as they had during the '50s, the average salary would be close to $100,000 a year.

They don't know that Wal-Mart and McDonalds are two of the biggest tax-money whores in the U.S. What both corporations do is called "privatizing the benefits and socializing the costs." They make the money and the taxpayers pay for medical and food cards and Section 8 housing.

They don't know massive immigration has lowered wages.

They know none of these things. All they know is the minimum wage.

P.S. I know a man who made $53,000 last year. The feds took out $9000 - and said he owes another $126. And people wonder why they're struggling economically.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Why I am for the Importation of Hot Foreign Women

I once had a Filipina tell me her idea of play was cooking and cleaning and knitting. I thought, hmmm.

When I was in college I knew guys who were utterly unpopular with women - they spent weekends sitting in their rooms watching TV. They weren't creeps. They just weren't popular.

Yet at the same time I knew women who had no dates because they sat there like bumps on a log and expected Prince Charming to appear out of nowhere and sweep them off their feet. And they were creeps - unpleasant, entitled young women.

I wondered more than once how men and women were supposed to meet each other, get married and have kids. I was mystified by it in college, though not in high school, which was a lot different than college.

I sometimes had this fantasy of feminine foreign women, from Asia and certain parts of Europe and South America, being imported into my college. Several thousand. What would happen?

The American girls would have seizures. All the guys they ignored would suddenly have girlfriends - and those entitled, bump-on-log girls would end up ignored. Even though they didn't want these guys they still didn't want other women to have them. Some sort of envy, obviously. They'd have hissy fits and insult and try to ostracize men who preferred foreign women.

Can you imagine them competing against a woman who can cook? And who likes to keep the place clean? And knit you a cap (which is what this Filipina did for me)?

I once had a woman tell me Asian women were supposed to walk behind men. Now just how unpopular and hostile do you think this woman was?

It's all basic economics, you know.

With excess women men's value goes up. Plus the most unpleasant American women are crowded out of the market. Think of a sort of reverse Gresham's Law: "Good women drive out the bad."

Of course, if this did happen, American women would throw hysterical seizures and demand the government deport these women and never allow anymore in. "Even if we don't want these men no other women should be allowed to have them! They should just be alone and unhappy and like it!"

I've never investigated it, but I'll bet there are women throwing conniption fits about these foreign-bride sites, claiming the women are being exploited by creepy (read lonely) men who have given up on American women, and yet at the same time, they're claiming these foreign women are mercenaries seeking only a green card. Apparently in these women's minds there is no good whatsoever about these foreign women.

Now if you were to import a bunch of foreign men, many American women would claim they're better than American men. Weird.

Actually I'd like to see one foreign woman imported for each overweight, hysterical, unpleasant American woman deported. It'll never happen, but it would be fun wouldn't it?

"You've Got the Curves to Supply my Demand!"

The title is my favorite one.

Monday, February 16, 2015

The Long, Slow Collapse

I wonder about Peak Oil - many claim it doesn't exist. I do know that oil is too valuable to be burned up. But that's for another time.

But Sandman does have some important points.

I do think we have going to have a long, slow collapse. The make-work jobs so many women have will go away. What will they do, then? Have to attach themselves to men, as women always do when things get a little bit hard.

I have mentioned this a few times before - wages stopped going up in January, 1974. Since then, wages have been in a long, slow collapse. Technology, fortunately, is getting better. But marriage has also been in a long, slow collapse. Money and marriage in collapse. What else? The importation of Third Worlders - that is a collapse of civilization, too. A long, slow one since '65.

If I can't predict anything else, I will predict if things get worse and worse, women will always attach themselves to a man. So what's going to happen to all these fat ugly women?

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Craig Hicks - Militant Atheist Leftist Mass Murderer

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger.

The leftist Craig Hicks murdered three innocent Muslims. Imagine that! Who woulda thunk it?

The 20th Century was the century of mass-murdering atheist leftism - Hitler, Stalin, Pot Pot, Mao Tse Tung. It's been estimated up to 200 million died.

I've met atheists who claimed they were libertarians. Nope. They were actually leftist-libertarians, which means they were leftists. All of them were for open borders, which is leftist in that it thinks everyone is equal, including 70 IQ Africans with those who created advanced technological societies. So let us import every anti-American dipshit in the world.

And every damn one of them believed in evolution, no matter how many holes in are current theories. In fact, they thought they were experts on it.

Atheism, equality, evolution, leftism - I've never seen an exception to that.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn claimed leftism got its start with the Marquis de Sade, who considered people to be on par with insects. He makes a very strong case for it in his magnum opus, Leftism Revisited.

Why do people fall for leftism when its track record is slaughter and destruction? Leftism promises equality and security and the elimination of envy. But it never delivers. And your basic imperfect dumbass falls for it, over and over.

Democracy is always leftist (leftism is also feminine, for that matter).

So what we have now in the U.S. is democracy and feminism (of course they go together). Evolutionary theory full of holes - and the retarded in the Manosphere thinking Evo-Psych is a real science. Atheism and scientism.

It's not really hard to see where this is going to lead. As Russell Kirk wrote, Chaos and Old Night.

"Amid the NYPD’s Work Stoppage, New York City Sets Record, 11 Days in a Row with No Murders"

"Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money" - Thomas Hobbes

I know a German woman who was raised in a fairly small town in Germany (most of the towns are really quite close) who told me she saw a police car about once every six months. There was no crime.

Lack of crime is associated with a civilized society, not more police. Actually, the more police, the more crime, since they harass people for non-crimes and some of them are criminals themselves.

I'd fire 90% of the police, disarm the rest, keep the detectives, arm the citizens, throw out the Third Worlders - and crime would drop 90%.

This is from The Free Thought Project.com


New York, NY — The NYPD hasn’t had to call on its homicide team in 11 days — this is the longest stretch ever in the history of the department.

The irony here is that the NYPD has been involved in a work stoppage since the end of December.

Early numbers obtained by the New York Post showed certain arrest levels to be staggeringly low:

Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent, from 10,069 to 587, during that time frame.

Summonses for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent — from 4,831 to 300.

Even parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent, from 14,699 to 1,241.

Drug arrests by cops assigned to the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau — which are part of the overall number — dropped by 84 percent, from 382 to 63.

A report put out by the Citizens Budget Commission last month showed a drastic decline in the amount of traffic tickets written.

The CBC’s report made evident that the main purpose of police is revenue generation. The report showed that last month the stoppage proved to cost the city $10 million a week in lost revenue from petty traffic citations alone. Despite the lack of revenue collection, the city failed to collapse into chaos.

This stoppage has helped to show the people of the United States that most of the “policing” done in the US, is little more than revenue generation.

Drug offenses, parking violations, and traffic citations are not so much crimes, as they are streams of revenue for the city. They are also the reason for the majority of police harassment within particular communities; harassment that is being proven entirely unnecessary.

Imagine a police force that acted more like firefighters or EMTs. Firefighters don’t have to go door to door looking for fires, in order to be effective. EMTs, just like firefighters wait for a call before reacting and their services are oft proven invaluable contrary to that of police work.

Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, ostensibly unaware of the work stoppage, anticipated that it would end last month. However, we have yet to see the numbers confirming this claim.

It would be irresponsible to assume a 100 percent correlation between the work stoppage of the NYPD and the murder rate. Often, factors such as cold and snow can play a large role in reducing the levels of crime in an area.

However, this record, coupled with a reduction in the amount of people being shaken down by the NYPD, is certainly noteworthy.

Noteworthy, but apparently not MSM worthy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio certainly didn’t miss his chance to try to cozy back up to the thin blue line in his statement on Thursday.

“This extraordinary streak of safety over the past several days is testament to the hard work of the men and women of the NYPD, and further evidence that New York City is the safest big city in America,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s also proof we can bring police and the community closer together and keep crime down in our neighborhoods.”

Prior to this 11-day streak, there was already a drop in murders through February 8 as compared to the same period last year. The last reported homicide happened on the night of Super Bowl Sunday.

Whatever the cause or causes, humans not murdering other humans is truly an inspiring thing. Hopefully, this streak continues for #AllLives.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Our Animal Nature is to be Transcended

One of my posters, DeNihilist, left this comment:

"Bob, though the research on wolves was ultimately proven to be wrong within a wolf pack, it was/is true about wolves/dogs brought together from different packs. As was observed in the zoo setting or my own home, or even the neighbourhood before all dogs had to be contained, there were/are always fights amongst the dominant males/females to find order."

"As I observed in my childhood, within my pigeon coop, there was one dominant cock, who bred with the most fertile hen. Eventually age caught up with him, and his son beat the hell out of him one spring, then took over his mother as his mate, as she was still the most fertile hen."

He's right. When strange dogs are bought together, they'll jockey for position. How does this apply to humans? Think that left-wing monstrosity know as multiculturalism. For that matter, open borders. Strangers from different countries and societies will never, ultimately, get along with each other.

I've raised dogs. The puppies fit right in my family instantly and I never had a problem with them. The abused adults I'd had never quite fit in and were never normal. It took me up a year to get them to stop biting me, to the point they laid my skin open. That's the difference between humans raised together and those who weren't.

As for the pigeons....we have an animal nature. The purpose of civilized society is to transcend or repress the bad part. Animals don't operate by our morality. To them, murder, mutilation, and theft is normal (chimpanzees will rip out eyes and testicles). To uncivilized humans, murder, theft and disloyalty are normal. For us, we can have no civilization under those circumstances. We end up having to kill or imprison our most disorderly citizens.

Civilization sits on top of our animal nature. It's supposed to be about the minimum order to assure we have maximum freedom - and that comes, ultimately, not from government but from society. Yet, government always ends up destroying society. That's the rub, as always.

People, unfortunately, have contrary tendencies - they want to be free, and at the same time want to be a slave. You can't have it both ways.

The Promotion of Freedom

I have pointed out before the researcher who created and promoted the concepts of Alpha and Beta among wolves recanted and said he had been completely wrong. He had been studying wolves in prison, i.e. zoos. In the wild these hierarchies didn't exist and a wolf pack consisted of the parents (the misnamed "alpha couple") and their cubs.

That is why I pointed out "alphas" are parents, i.e. patriarchs. And under true freedom there is lots of marriage and kids. Since this country no longer has much freedom, marriage rates are collapsing, as is the birth of babies.

Where do you find strict hierarchies among humans? In unfree, nearly slave places - police (as in "police state"), the military, prisons, public schools (Stephen King said his first novel, Carrie, was about his high school).

In unfree societies slavery and involuntary servitude comes about through the agency of the State. As the State grows, freedom recedes.

One of the reasons this lack of freedom came about is through democracy. Democracy is feminine and leftist (all leftism is feminine - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn referred to it as "the overthrow of the Father").

So I concluded a long time ago the overwhelmingly majority of women do not want to be free - they prefer a non-existent "safety" over being free. Not surprisingly, they don't even know this. Which is why women must be kept out of politics.

This country was not founded as a democracy - the Founding Fathers to a man despised democracy and had the whole of recorded history before them to show that it lead to slavery and collapse.

So if democracy leads to slavery and collapse, when then is the best kind of government? In Europe things finally evolved to mature Christian constitutional monarchies. In other words, a patriarchy with a King and Queen as parents.

They were finally overthrown by leftists - and not one of these monarchies went down fighting. From that overthrow we got the left-wing, atheist 20th Century, and the deaths of perhaps up to 200 million people.

And all because the feminine overthrew Mom and Dad. And men let them do it.

Is it surprisingly that mythology - such as those about Eve and Pandora - claims women bought evil into the world?

The Manosphere is a response to feminism - a response to leftism. The bizarre thing about it is that the concepts of "Alpha" and "Beta" and the rest of the concepts - are based on strict, unfree hierarchies - which means they are partly leftist themselves. It's as if the Manosphere is a mirror image of leftist feminism. It's why sooner or later, as I pointed out before, most of the concepts of the Manosphere will just collapse. They're based on bad fantasies, not reality.

I have written before of the Machine State versus the Natural State, which are literary concepts created by the Industrial Revolution.

Leftism, with its leveling and identitarian properties, leads to the Machine State - everyone "equal" and interchangeable and therefore disposable cogs.

So I conclude that under the Natural State we have a small government, a constitutional monarchy, with a King and Queen. Things aren't perfect, and never will be, but I'd rather live under Nero than be gnawed to death by a million rats that is Democratic Man.

And it would be a lot more free and prosperous than what we have today.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Men Try to Manipulate Things and Women Try to Manipulate Men

"Ducking-stools are chairs formerly used for punishment of disorderly women, scolds, and dishonest tradesmen in England, Scotland, and elsewhere. The cucking-stool was a form of wyuen pine ("women's punishment")." - Wikipedia

Actually, men can manipulate women by lying to them and telling them what they want to hear. That's how successful PUAs work.

Generally, though, men prefer to manipulate things. For an example, I rarely take my cars to the shop since I can repair most of the things that go wrong myself.

I and one of my friends have had women claim we were sexually harassing them because we did not want to get involved with them. Remember: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

This article is from Angry Harry.

Men's brains are designed to spend their time figuring out how to get objects in the environment to do their bidding.

Women's brains are designed to spend their time figuring out how to get **men** to do their bidding.

Men manipulate the environment. Women manipulate men.

This is why, for example, men devote so much of their time to fiddling around with gadgets, solving problems and playing games, whereas women spend much of their time and money altering the way that they look and 'chatting about relationships'.

This is, of course, a sweeping generalisation. But from my own observations, it is a pretty good one!

Indeed, within 48 hours of being born, female babies are more likely to spend their time gawping at human faces while male babies tend to be attracted by just about everything else.

Even baby chimps prefer toys more appropriate for their gender.

And you cannot blame the 'patriarchy' for that!

Most men would be staggered if they understood the lengths to which women normally go in order to manipulate them. But they seem to be completely blind to it.

And the reason is that, for the most part, men are just not operating in the same realm.

And this, for example, explains why women are apt to get so uptight and make false accusations against men (e.g. 'date rape') when the relationship does not go according to their plan the following day.

They see such an event as a 'failure to manipulate the man successfully' and this goes right to the very core of their egos. Whereas the men involved in such situations were not usually thinking about 'meaningful' relationships at all.

(It is a bit like saying that somebody is hopeless when it comes to dealing with children. Saying this to a man is not likely to be quite as devastating to the ego as is saying this to a woman.)

Feminism and political correctness have hidden from view the truly manipulative natures of women.

Indeed, if you look closely at the details surrounding much of the inter-gender disharmony that takes place these days (e.g. domestic violence) you will usually see therein a woman who failed to get what she wanted out of the man involved - rather than the other way round.

For example, he whacks her not so much because he wants to control her, or because he wants to achieve something, but because she persists in going on and on and on and on about something that she wants. And in doing so, she is well-trained in the art of using the verbal knife in order to hurt him and to drive him crazy.

Indeed, if you study the court cases, it transpires that many men have killed their partners because they could no longer stand the sound of "her voice going on and on and on".

50 years ago, if a man slapped his wife, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN were usually of the view that she deserved it in some way. And the reason that they usually thought this was because they knew how easy it was for women to manipulate men and they also knew how hard it was to provoke normal men into assaulting women.

In fact, most societies - and religions - seem to have been aware of this for thousands of years. (Remember the ducking stool!)

In the west, however, the astonishing ability that women have to manipulate men has been hidden from view.

In the west, however, the astonishing ability that women have to manipulate men has been hidden from view. And so when there is some kind of inter-gender conflict taking place, the only focus is on the behavioural actions of the men involved. The women are purposely portrayed as passive dummies who are completely innocent. And yet nothing could be further from the truth.

When a man is watching a football match, he sees strategies, angles, tactics, formations, combinations etc to do with the game. A woman sees a group of men wasting their time, pointlessly kicking a spherical object around a field.

When a woman is watching a soap opera, however, she sees strategies, angles, tactics, formations, combinations etc to do with the manipulation of relationships. A man simply sees a story unfolding.

It is fundamental gender differences such as this that feminists and their politically-corrected drones have managed to hide to the detriment of us all.

"Charles Manson’s fiancée wanted to marry him for his corpse"

When I read that Charles Manson was going to marry a 26-year-old woman I figured she was a hybristophiliac who wanted to marry a famous criminal.

I knew that those in the Manosphere would twist it to fit their narrative: a "hypergamous" woman getting "tingles" for a "Dark Triad Alpha."

As usual, it turned out I was closer to the truth than they were. In point of fact, they were about as far from the truth as they could get.

I have for years thought Manson was a naive psychotic. He said he doesn't understand why he's in prison because he never killed anyone.

Manson is no "Alpha." He came from an incredibly dysfunctional family, as did all his followers. That was the problem. They formed some bizarre murderous "family."

Now it turns out Manson got played by this greedy, lazy woman (that's what "hypergamy" is - greed and laziness).

This is from the New York Post and was written by by Bill Sanderson.


This plot was too crazy even for Charles Manson.

Manson’s engagement to a woman 53 years his junior was part of a wild scheme of hers to profit by putting his body on public display after his death, says the author of an upcoming book.

Manson’s fiancée, 27-year-old Afton Elaine Burton, known as Star, sought to wed the convicted mastermind of the Sharon Tate murder and eight other slayings so that she could gain possession of his corpse, according to journalist Daniel Simone.

Burton and a pal, Craig Hammond, planned to lay out Manson’s remains in a glass crypt, Simone says. The pair figured their bizarre California version of Lenin’s Tomb would draw huge crowds and make big money.

But Manson, 80, does not want to marry Burton and has no interest in spending eternity displayed in a glass coffin, Simone told The Post. “He’s finally realized that he’s been played for a fool,” Simone said.

Another reason the madman balked at the plan is because he believes he is immortal. “He feels he will never die,” Simone said. “Therefore, he feels it’s a stupid idea to begin with.”

Manson’s and Burton’s marriage license expired Thursday. “They plan on renewing the license, and things will move forward in the coming months,” says a statement posted on Burton’s and Hammond’s website.

Burton and Hammond — who uses the nickname Gray Wolf — could not be reached for comment.

The wedding was postponed “due to an unexpected interruption in logistics,” the site says. Manson entered a prison medical facility for treatment of an infection about two months ago and cannot receive visitors, Simone said.

California prison officials would not comment on either Manson’s medical condition or his whereabouts.

Simone and a collaborator, Heidi Jordan Ley, are seeking a publisher for their book, “The Retrial of Charles Manson.” Manson and other inmates at Corcoran State Prison in California are helping the project. The authors say they spoke with Manson regularly before his phone privileges were suspended two years ago. They also corresponded with Manson and his inmate friends by mail.

According to the authors, Burton and Hammond hatched their plan to display Manson’s corpse about two years ago.

Initially, the duo asked Manson to sign a document that would let them take his body when he dies.

“He didn’t give them a yes, he didn’t give them a no. He sort of strung them along,” Simone said. Burton and Hammond regularly brought Manson toiletries and other items. Stringing them along kept the goodies coming, Simone said.

When it became clear last year that the purportedly death-proof Manson would not green-light the plan, Burton and Hammond switched to the marriage idea, Simone says.

If Burton married Manson, the pair realized, California law would give her possession of Manson’s remains upon his death, Simone said.

Simone believes Manson never intended to marry Burton. “Manson never consented to the wedding in the first place and never will,” he said.

Another Simone book, “The Lufthansa Heist,” about a $6 million armed robbery at Kennedy Airport in 1978, is due out next month. He co-authored it with “Good­Fellas” mobster Henry Hill, who died in 2012.

The Sluts I've Known

My experience has been very few women are sluts, in the sense of having sex with many guys. Again I repeat these women were not attracted to "Alphas." They slept with any guy they found half-way attractive.

In the cases I was familiar with, they had problems with their fathers, and often broken families.

I've mentioned this before. When I was 21 and in college, a friend bought a girl to my house. He fell asleep on the couch and she immediately hit on me. I declined, since my friend was there.

Later, he mentioned she had told him her father had taken her on "fishing trips" that apparently included handjobs. And she was promiscuous as could be.

Before that, when I was 18 and sharing a three-bedroom apartment, a 19-year-old divorced girl came over and though the night went from room to room. Divorced at 19? I sometimes wonder about her family life.

I've also had three naked women jump in my bed. I know for a fact all of them had family problems, especially with their fathers. The last one turned out to be a drug addict and part-time blowjob whore. She told me the last time she saw her father he opened the door, threw some money at her and slammed the door shut.

Those are extreme examples, of course, but sometimes those extreme examples are indicative of widespread societal problems. I've mentioned before the word "monster" means "demonstration."

A "monster" is a demonstration and a warning of problems to come.

The same applies to PUAs. The ones I've known had problems with their families. Big problems. And all of them had drug problems.

So I conclude the more families fail to form, or break up, the more sluts and PUAs we are going to have.

Sunday, February 8, 2015

"A God Among MGTOW - Nikola Tesla"

Women either nurture or destroy.

The Truth About the Crusades in One Picture

Our high-yellow half-breed homo of a President almost makes me sick. He's doesn't know anything about history.

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Ouch

Wages stopped going up in January, 1973.

A Humorous Interlude

These guys are nuts.

"Russia’s Demographic Time Bomb"

Something I almost never see mentioned is, "Who is going to feed all these Third Worlders?" They cannot feed themselves.

Most people don't know it, but the only reason we have so many crops is because of nitrogen fertilizer, which is the creation of advanced technology. Without it, mass starvation by the hundreds of millions.

Africa cannot feed itself. With the whites leaving southern Africa, Africans have turned into clueless buffoons trying to grow food on farms. The same with the Middle East. Asia can, but it'll be rice. America can. Why should we feed our enemies?

If our population declines, so what? America was a better place with half the population. As for our enemies, without us to feed them, they'll die. We won't.

Americans aren't going to be replaced by Africans and Asians and South Americans. They can't even run their own Third World shitholes, which is why they try to leave and come here. And they'll destroy America and be at eternal war with each other, the way "Latins" are ethically cleansing blacks in the U.S.

For that matter, they're won't help us and instead want to destroy us.

This was written by Patrick J. Buchanan and is from The American Conservative.


In the last stanza of “The Battle of Blenheim,” Robert Southey writes:

‘But what good came of it at last?’ Quoth little Peterkin.
‘Why, that I cannot tell,’ said he; ‘But ’twas a famous victory.’

What did it really matter? The poet was asking of the triumph of the Duke of Marlborough—”Who this great fight did win.” What brings back this poem about the transience of glory and folly of war—during this week’s struggle over whose flag will fly over Crimea—is a wall chart that just arrived from the UN.

“World Population 2012″ projects the population growth, or decline, of every country and continent, between now and 2050. Most deeply involved in Crimea’s crisis are Russia and Ukraine. Yet, looking at the UN numbers, there seems an element of absurdity in this confrontation that could lead to a shooting war.

Between 2012 and 2050, Ukraine, war or no war, will lose one-fourth of its population. Eleven to twelve million Ukrainians will vanish from the earth, a figure far higher than the highest estimate of the death toll of the horrific Holodomor of 1932-33. Russia will lose 22 million people, with her population falling below 121 million. Every month between now and 2050, close to 50,000 Russians will disappear. Some demographers believe the UN numbers to be optimistic. Indeed, this writer has seen projections far more dire.

Those who warn that Vladimir Putin is trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union might explain how this is going to be done as Russia loses 22 million people, while the former Soviet republics of Central Asia—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan—together add 22 million people.

How often in history do nations with shrinking populations invade and annex those with surging populations?

When the UN was set up in 1945, Stalin wanted each of 15 Soviet republics given a seat in the General Assembly. He settled for three seats—for Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia, now Belarus. That was the core of the old Soviet Union. Yet, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine will lose together 35 million people by mid-century, a figure comparable to the human losses from four years of the Hitler-Stalin war and seven decades of Bolshevik rule.

Our War Party is demanding that we send military assistance and possibly troops to Poland, the Baltic republics and Rumania, and bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would mean America would fight Russia to defend them all, should another clash occur as in 2008 in Georgia and today in Crimea. Does this make sense—for any of us?

According to the UN, there are 6.3 million Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians. And these three Baltic republics will see their combined populations sink by one million by 2050. How would a NATO-Russia war over Estonia benefit Estonia?

In March 1939, Britain gave a war guarantee to Poland and, honoring it, declared war on Germany. That was the end of the British Empire. And how did the “Good War” work out for Poland? Her Jewish population of 3 million was largely annihilated, and, by some estimates, 3 million Catholic Poles perished. Poland then endured four decades of rule by Polish satraps of Soviet commissars. V-E Day brought something other than victory for the nation for whom Britain went to war. Today, Poland’s population is back to 38 million. But on the UN chart, Poland is on schedule to lose 4 million Poles by mid-century.

While our War Party debates where to draw the red line against Russia, the UN projects that the 10 countries on both sides of that line—Russia, Belarus, the Baltic republics, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria—will together lose 50 million people by mid-century, and another 50 million by the end of the century.

The fertility rate in these 10 countries is barely two-thirds of what is needed to maintain an existing population.

Remarkable. The century following the peaceful end of the Cold War and the liberation of the captive nations may witness population losses for Europe that exceed those of two world wars and rival those of the Black Death of the 14th century. European Man is an endangered species. European Man is dying out. By 2050, Russia, the fourth most populous nation in 1950, will be 15th, behind Egypt, and far behind Congo and Tanzania. The only Western nation in the top 14 will be the USA. But most Americans will then trace their ancestry to Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Since 1914, all the great European empires—British, French, German, Russian, Italian—have vanished. All the great armies and navies have melted away. All are being invaded and repopulated by African, Asian, and Middle Eastern peoples they once ruled. And almost all of the native-born populations of Europe are aging and dying and passing away.

“This is how the world ends,” said T.S. Eliot, “Not with a bang but a whimper.” Like Southey, he, too, may have got it right.

Friday, February 6, 2015

Women Hating Women

I can't remember the exact moment I realized just how envious many women are. I think it might have had something to do with two older women mentioning to me how they had been the objects of envy from some other women their entire lives.

One was in her late 50s and the other her early 60s. Both were strikingly attractive for their ages, although the latter one admitted she had undergone some minor plastic surgery.

They told me less attractive women had treated them with hate. They'd wouldn't even know these women, but they told me the hostility just oozed out of them.

Men appear to far less prone to this kind of envy that women. Men tend to admire and emulate men, just as wearing the sports jerseys of their favorite players. But you don't see men hating on George Clooney.

I once read a novel, Facial Justice, by L.P. Hartley. Pretty women had to get plastic surgery to make them less attractive and less attractive women got surgery to make them more attractive. All women were supposed to be of the same attractiveness.

Notice the novel about women and envy, not men and envy.

I sometimes what would happen if women did really run the world. What would less attractive women do? Turn into Diana Moon Glampers?

I consider liberalism and leftism to be based on feminine defects. After all, they are ultimately based on envy and leveling, and those are definitely female sins.

Judaism and Islam have always been the most feminine of religions - emotional, hysterical, irrational, backstabbing, envious, disloyal - and now this Bad Feminine has infected Christianity. This is a very bad thing all around. I wonder to where this will lead? It won't be a good place.

Women can't run the world, contrary to their Girrl Power Strong Independent Women delusions. And when things get a little bit tough, what do they do? Run straight to a man.

I do wonder how lomg these things will last. Obviously, until men get tired of it. They'd getting tired of it now. Maybe when the federal government starts to collapse. Then things can reorient themselves.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

A Quick Note on Being Burned to Death

When people are burned to death while alive they always curl up into the fetal position. If they're not in fetal position they were burned while dead.

This is how investigators tell if people were burned while alive or dead.

That ISIS burning of the pilot is fake. Standing up in a cage while on fire? I don't think so.

“The cheaper the punk, the gaudier the patter”

Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) said that in The Maltese Falcon, to Wilmer the Gunsel. "Gunsel" doesn't mean "gun man": it means passive homosexual, the one who gets it in the ass. Somehow it made it past the censors, who apparently didn't know what it meant.

I have seen this "big mouth on top with nothing to back it up" many times in my life, even before I was 12 years old. I see it a lot of this in the Manosphere, especially on certain sites, with guys bragging about how "alpha" they are. They're nothing of sort. They're pussies.

I ran whores out of my taxi for a year, many years ago. Many of the "alphas" they saw liked to be dominated and sometimes beaten by the women. I saw it with some of my PUA friends. Once some woman got their claws into them they were putty.

Years ago I figured out the problem. Everyone is imperfect. In Christianity it's called Original Sin. I consider it more narcissism than anything else, which is a grandiose self on top covering a devalued self. The more bragging and braggadocio on top, the more weakness is being covered up. It applies to everyone, no matter how much they claim it isn't true.

So the more bragging I hear about self-proclaimed "alphas" and their success with women, the less I believe it.

For that matter, the concept of "alpha" is the grandiose self and the concept of "beta" is the devalued self, onto which all weakness is projected. That's why, in the long run, those concepts will utterly collapse. They're adolescent, even childish.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Cowboys and Cops

Back when everyone in the world thought Americans were cowboys they loved us. Now they think we're cops and soldiers, and they hate us.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Zombies are Parasites

I'm not a fan of The Walking Dead but do I wonder why it is so popular.

As far as I know the whole zombie genre was started by Richard Matheson, with his novel I Am Legend. There has been three movie versions of it, one with Vincent Prince, one with Charlton Heston, and the last with Will Smith.

Art imitates life, or as Erza Pound wrote, "The artist is the antenna of the human race."

So what is this antenna telling us?

Zombies are parasites. And we have a lot of parasites today, ones who are in fact going to bring this country down. The poor are parasites on taxpayer money, but the real bloodsuckers are those one percent who are sucking the life out of the nation. What they both have in common are the government, and the government is out of control. So out of control that it can no longer be contained.

I used to read a lot of science fiction when I was 12 to 14. I ran across some scary stuff, such as A.E. van Vogt, who wrote a story called Discord in Scarlet in 1939. It was about a creature that planted eggs in people, and was obviously the basis of the movie, Alien.

Van Vogt said he based the story on a wasp that laid eggs in a certain spider. The wasp paralyzed the spider and as the eggs hatched they ate the spider.

I can't imagine The Walking Dead being popular in the '50s and '60s, not with Leave It To Beaver and Andy Griffith and Gilligan's Island. Or silly joke monsters like The Munsters or The Addams Family.

When did the TV portrays go bad? I'm not sure. I know that Breaking Bad was a huge hit but portrayals on TV had broke bad before then. Seventies, no. Eighties, no. X-Files, yes. It had parasite monsters, too. Kolchak in the '70s, which was an influence on The X-Files, but it was more goofy-fun that anything else.

This slide appears to have been a slow one, and I'm not quite sure when it started. But I do know that if we still have a good economy, and no parasite Third Worlders, and no bloated parasite government, the country wouldn't be breaking down, and we wouldn't have any of these TV programs.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

"The Angry Men of the Internet"

I don't have anything to add to this, except that I think men are more angry at the system than women, because the system encourages women's inherent childishness. It's from the site Relating to Men.


Jasmin Newman discusses her experiences with anger in men and the place of compassion and empathy before judgment.

Angry, aggressive, toxic, irritated, hateful. These are all words used to describe many of the men with whom I communicate on a daily basis. They are accused and judged as bitter and resentful, often being described as misogynistic and promoting violence against women, even though there is no basis for these accusations.

Women hating, violent and aggressive men – if I were the judgmental type, there would be a lot to fear about them, but I don’t.

I’m not naïve, ignorant, blind or uneducated. I am a coach, and my primary skill set is to ask poignant questions as a vehicle to hear the experiences and stories of men. I don’t ask questions so that I can give an opinion or to fix men’s problems. I ask questions so that they can find their voice to speak about their pain.

And then I listen.

You silently scream at everyone you know for help. “Tell me I’m not alone; tell me that life will one day be better, tell me that I matter and that I make a difference. Tell me that I’m loved, that someone, anyone please tell me you care about what I am going through.”

When you are in that place you hurt, you hurt so badly there really aren’t words to describe it. Your soul has been cut and it’s haemorrhaging. You don’t know how to stop it; you don’t know how to patch it up. Your entire existence, every single moment of every part of the day revolves around that hurt

When I first started speaking to men in my groups about anger it was something that I thought they shouldn’t have. I still believe to this day that we need to move on from anger to heal; however what I think about what they need for the future is irrelevant until such time as they are heard in the present.

I don’t walk their walk and I haven’t suffered what they have. I haven’t been falsely accused of violence, lost my house in a divorce settlement and I haven’t lost access to my children and nor have I had to fight to be heard, believed or accepted for who I am.

Listening to the stories of these men, I get a deep sense of the pain they have felt and the suffering they have experienced.

The stories men share with me are raw, unscripted and honest accounts of their experiences.

the quickest way to get rid of me was get an AVO. We’d been in an relationship for 15 years and worked together in hospitality for 12. I was thrown out with just my clothes. She’d even ripped off my bank account. I lost my job and my home. I used to support ‘White Ribbon’. Not any more I have tried to get help from various organisations to no avail. The system stinks. I’ve been out of work and on the dole for 22months. She hasn’t lost 10 cents.”


I’m going through this Parental Alienation nightmare. I see my kid now but the scars will take many years to heal. And the Child Support Agency won’t let me get on with my life. I’m also a single Dad to two teenage children, but because I’m male the CSA don’t care about my kids.”


I haven’t seen my son since he was born. He was born addicted to methadone from his mother and had to be put on a drip to sedate him. He is 8 months old and I’ve never held him.


My ex said that I abused her which was completely untrue. She was a drug addict and the court believed her over me. I pay child support and I have no access to my son. He might never know his grandparents before they pass away


When our daughter was eight months old we split up and she said “you have the have baby”. Nine years later she rang and said; “‘I’ve just realized that I have another child. Can I have her back?” So I invited her down to share custody. When she saw my new partner she punched me in the face. I went to the school to tell the older girls to catch the bus home to my place and she went crazy and sent the police to the school.


She ended up taking out an AVO on me. I swear on my life I never touched her. A policeman who knew the whole story said “I can’t help you but keep a diary”


I often hear the comment that angry men are weak and this to me completely defies any sensibility for their path. These men are strong, resilient and probably some of the most vulnerable. They are courageous beyond measure because they turn up day in and day out saying “enough is enough, I have to fight back”.

Anger is an outcome of a series of emotions, just like crying, or even laughter. It’s an expression of what is going on at a deeper level and that level is where I believe we need to be looking with compassion. No one needs to hear “why are you angry?” they need to know that you you are listening. No one wakes up one day and decides this is a good day to be angry.

When I hear men’s anger, compassion tells me that there is a story behind the emotion. My mind doesn’t stop at what it’s hearing, it questions what led them to this place. It’s often confronting to me to ask a man his story and not because I can’t handle what I hear, but because it’s a reminder of the stark realities of the world many men live in daily.

What I have for men is empathy and the ability to understand and share their pain. I see empathy as gift because the nature of it protects me from the judgmental opinions that debilitates a large part of clear and logical thinking in our society.

A client once said to me about the Mental Health System.


If you want to help men not suicide, they don’t need programs or assistance or money. Maybe later when they are actually better, but what they need is some fucking empathy. Just a simple voice in the middle of the night to say you’re not fucking alone.

And any councillors or mental health workers reading this when you talk about trying to minimise transference, you’re talking about minimising empathy, and we can bloody well tell. Trust without empathy is pointless, it’s like throwing a bag of gold as a life raft to a drowning man.

And he is right.

Empathy drives connection in people as it allows us to take on another’s perspective and to recognize their emotions. Judgment has no place in these conversations because the last thing the person in pain needs, is more judgment. They are already suffering and feeling alienated.

The ability to remove judgment from conversations is pivotal in listening to another point of view. When you take away your prejudice and bias and you open your mind to hearing what they need you to hear, not what you already believe to be true. This does not make everything you hear true, but it does give everything the possibility to be true, and that is all these men ask.

What angry men need is their fundamental need for connection to be realised. They need empathy and compassion for their suffering. They need to be listened to, empathised with and the only words we immediately need to say are “I hear you and you’re not alone.”

I don’t fear anger, what I fear is a world where people live in judgment before they consider listening empathetically to the voice of others.