"Sir Gawain And The Green Knight: The Wages And Power Of Justice"

There is a reason I am such a great supporter of the old myths, which entertain and educate at the same time. This were originally Celtic myths, but after a while Christianity influenced them, such as the following.

By the way, "virtue" means "powers of men." And you're better off reading and understanding myths than taking ridiculous classes in psychology or whatever.

This is from Quintus Curtis.

Of all the old Arthurian legends, I think I like this one the best.

There is an undeniable strangeness, a bewitching weirdness, to the legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight that makes it linger in the memory long after the act of reading is done.

I read an article the other day by my friend Aurelius Moner which referenced this old tale. We come from different traditions and backgrounds, but I respect him as a learned and sincere man. It made me think about a few aspects of the story that I wanted to give some extended treatment.

Of course it is laden with symbolism. Of course it was originally meant to clothe in Christian symbolism the moral lessons needed to tame the savage hearts of the heathen North.

And of course it is a parable. But of what? Of many things, naturally. But most of it deals with the idea of the wages of justice.

The wages of justice.

For justice is never free, you know. There is always some price that must be paid for it. Goodness and virtue are all well and good, but there is some investment of energy–some expenditure of energy–that must take place before we can have It. It, meaning Justice.

Energy equals mass, as Einstein tells us. Well, I say that energy also equals Justice. E=mJ squared, or something of that sort.

Consider the tale first. It is a pretty little tale, but with dark overtones, as there always are with these old Nordic legends.

We do not know the original author. As we shouldn’t. Such tales should emerge starkly anonymous from the swirling mists of time that have cloaked the bogs and heath of the British Isles.

In Camelot, Arthur and his knights are dining merrily. Into this little party walks the huge figure of the Green Knight, representing Fate, or Nature, or perhaps both. He has an axe in one hand a bough in the other. He challenges any man present to accept his offer: they may strike him as hard as they wish, and in return, in one years’ time, he will be able to return the favor at a meeting in a “Green Chapel.”

So we have a test of strength, a test of physical and moral will.

No one wants to accept. Everyone is alarmed by this huge, green figure. Finally young Gawain accepts the offer. With one blow, he separates the Green Knight’s head from his body.

And then the Green Knight picks up his head, dripping with gore, reminds Gawain of his promise to meet him in one years’ time. And then he is gone.

Nearly one year later, Gawain sets out on his journey to the Green Chapel. Everyone believes he is headed for certain death. He does too. And yet he goes anyway. He has given his word. And not to honor his word would be a fatal, irredeemable disgrace to his liege and brother knights.

Gawain comes upon a castle, in which three people reside: the lord of the manor, Bertilak de Hautdesert, his beautiful wife, and a shriveled old woman. Bertilak treats Gawain courteously, in the best chivalric tradition. But his wife tries to seduce Gawain, and he rebuffs her advances several times.

In frustration she gives Gawain a special girdle as a gift, an ornament of braided green and gold silk. Gawain accepts this, but does not tell Bertilak.

Then Gawain departs to the Green Chapel to meet his fate. And there is the Green Knight, in all his monstrous Greenness. He makes Gawain expose his neck, and toys with him a bit. But in the end he only leaves a small nick on his neck.

Through magic, he transforms himself into Bertilak, and informs Gawain that it was all just a test of Gawain’s fidelity, courage, and restraint. The old crone at the castle was a disguised Morgan Le Fay, the sorceress who had the power to work both good and evil.

And Gawain has passed the test.

Well, maybe not with an A+ grade. For he did accept some gift from the lady of the manor, and failed to tell Bertilak about it.

All men are mortal. All flesh is only flesh. And he can be forgiven for this lapse. The knights of Arthur’s entourage accept him at last.

Because justice has been done. Or, rather, it has been rendered.

Yes, the test of Gawain was about fidelity, courage, and the ability to act with restraint. But more than this, the tale is an admonition to justice. The rendering of that which is one’s due. Which is, after all, the essence of justice.

Of all the virtues, justice is perhaps the most difficult to cultivate. And this is why it is the most admired by the multitude.

To be just, a man must possess a certain seasoning. He must:

Be able to see problems from many different perspectives.

Be learned enough to read between the lines of complex issues.

Have such a depth of character that he is not afraid of being criticized for unpopular decisions.

Not be swayed by temporary emotions or passionate sentiments.

Not be swayed by the temptations of money, status, or power.

Is there any combination that is so rare?

Now we can see why justice is so highly valued as a quality in a person, and why it is so rare. It is not easy to do what needs to be done. It is never a simple matter. Everyone knows this, and this is why justice–the act of doing what needs to be done–is so rare and precious.

And why, when it is activated, it has the power to move mountains. A small amount of justice yields an incredible amount of energy.

E=mJ, squared.

I like how Plutarch states the issue (and can anyone ever outdo Plutarch in moral observations?) in his profound biography of Cato the Younger (Cato 44):

Indeed, more jealousy tends to attach to a reputation and belief in a person’s justice that brings one power and the confidence of ordinary people. They do not simply give a person honor as they do with the brave, nor admiration as they do with the wise, but they give real affection to the just and have belief and confidence in them.

Those who practice the other virtues sometimes inspire fear and sometimes distrust; and besides, people think that those others are outstanding through their natural gifts rather than through any exercise of will. Wisdom and bravery are explained respectively through a sort of acuteness and through mental strength, but it is open to any of us to become just as soon as we will it, and so one feels shame for unjust behavior as a vice for which there is no excuse.

This is well and truly said. People are the most impressed with the quality of justice because they perceive that it takes the most energy. The wages of justice are dear, but they go a long, long way. It is the most precious of all the virtues, and the one that inspires the most admiration.

It takes the greatest expenditure of effort, on a physical, moral, and emotional level.

E=mJ, squared.

Look at that equation I just wrote. Do you see something? I do. It is telling us that a little bit of justice can release a huge amount of energy. Think about that.

A little bit of justice is precious. Its power is nearly matchless.

It goes a long, long way.

"Even Women Didn’t Want To Give Women the Vote"

Some people should NOT be allowed to vote. Myself, I'd settle for women not being allowed to vote (it's amusing to watch them froth at the mouth when I tell them women voted Hitler in office. All the men voted against him).

Some days ago I listened to a woman with an M.S. tell me about all the experience the Hildebeast has. It was clear she knew nothing about politics. She has no business getting anywhere near a voting booth.

When it comes to political science and economics, most women are way in over their heads.

If the Hildebeast ever becomes President, it will be women who did it. Fortunately the economy is so bad that many younger women are not voting for the Beast. Trump's supporters are all over the socio-economic map, not just "angry white men," which is something only the Talking Heads/Chattering Classes believe.

This article was written by Cynthia Crossen.

“It seems to me,” Jeannette Gilder wrote in 1894, “that it’s a bigger feather in a woman’s cap — a brighter jewel in her crown — to be the mother of George Washington than to be a member of Congress from the 32nd District.”

Ms. Gilder was arguing that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. In her essay, “Why I Am Opposed to Women Suffrage,” Ms. Gilder insisted that women belonged in the home, where they could exert more political influence by nurturing sons, fathers and brothers than they could ever command with a single ballot.

“Politics is too public, too wearing and too unfitted to the nature of women,” Ms. Gilder concluded. “It is my opinion that letting women vote would loose the wheels of purgatory.”

Until 1920, women — along with paupers, felons and so-called idiots — couldn’t vote in federal elections. At the time, it was believed that women simply couldn’t be trusted to take the long, objective view. “The female vote ... is always more impulsive and less subject to reason, and almost devoid of the sense of responsibility,” wrote Francis Parkman, a historian and antisuffragist.

Women, who were believed to be “too frail for rough usage,” were also beleaguered by their household responsibilities, to the point where many seemed to hover on the verge of constant breakdowns. “The instability of the female mind is beyond the comprehension of the majority of men,” declared Edith Melvin, a Concord, Mass., antisuffragist.

Not surprisingly, many men agreed that females should not vote. One of their biggest fears was that women would outlaw drinking, and various breweries supported antisuffrage political candidates. The men’s antisuffrage movement even went so far as to produce bogus statistics: “If women achieve the feministic idea and live as men do,” wrote a male doctor who opposed female suffrage, “they would incur the risk of 25% more insanity than they have now.” But tens of thousands of women also enlisted in the war against women voting, claiming that it was a slippery slope from the ballot box to depravation. If women got the vote, they would have to serve in the army and on juries. There would be fewer children but more divorce. Men would become less chivalrous and reverent of womanhood. Women would take up men’s occupations, and men would take up women’s occupations; the result, according to an antisuffrage booster, would be a “race of masculine women and effeminate men and the mating of these would result in the procreation of a race of degenerates.”

And if women did run for office, wouldn’t they invariably win? When all women can vote, wrote Goldwin Smith, “as the women slightly outnumber the men, and many men, sailors or men employed on railways or itinerants, could not go to the poll, the woman’s vote would preponderate, and government would be more female than male.”

Here the antisuffragists couldn’t have been more wrong. Of the 535 members of the 108th Congress, only 73, or less than 14%, are women. All but six of America’s 50 governors are men.

The Antis, as the antisuffragists were known, were mostly wealthy, native-born, Republican and Protestant, according to Jane Jerome Camhi, author of Women Against Women a history of American antisuffragism. “They leaped midstream into the battle,” Ms. Camhi writes, “adopting all the techniques they were so eager for womankind to avoid, including campaigning and even lobbying.” However, the Antis drew the line at voting against the vote; they urged a boycott of the polls.

But the suffragists, who had cut their teeth on two other sweeping social issues - abolition and temperance — were persistent and noisy. In 1869, Wyoming became the first state to give women the vote in statewide elections. By the end of 1913, 11 other states had done so. Women won the right to vote in school elections in more than 20 states, but in Chicago in 1894, only about a tenth of the eligible women registered.

“Why didn’t women register?” Lilian Bell, a suffrage leader, asked rhetorically. “Simply because woman is a contrary beast. If she is denied a thing, why that is the very thing she will have. But if you say, you might as well have this, then she will not accept it under any circumstances.”

The Antis didn’t necessarily think men were doing such a bang-up job running the country. “But if women simply go and cast their votes with the men, equal suffrage means no more than adding one quart of muddy water to another quart of muddy water,” wrote Priscilla Leonard in 1897. “You get two quarts, but it’s the same kind of water.”

The suffragists were almost derailed by World War I, when they were accused of being pacifists, and therefore disloyal. The first woman to serve in the U.S. Congress — Jeannette Rankin, elected from Montana in 1916 - was both a suffragist and an antiwar activist.

In 1917, Ms. Rankin voted against declaring war on Germany. “You can no more win a war,” she said, “than you can win an earthquake.” Ms. Rankin was defeated in 1918, but not before drafting and lobbying for a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote.

Nietzsche, Lust and Slaughter

In Greek mythology Ares, the cruel god of war, is married to Aphrodite, the goddess of love. War and love! Lust and slaughter! The two go together; they are inextricably bound.

The ancient Greeks may have been complete shitheads but they were terrifying intelligent, and understood human nature a lot more than the naifs of today.

I once read an article by one of the Lost Boys of the Manosphere, in which he claimed Dionysus was an “alpha” (Apollo was the “beta”) . He knew nothing about what Dionysus was really about (and Apollo, for that matter). In reality Dionysus was a fertility god, which meant he was a god of slaughter and human sacrifice, which always go together. Nietzsche understood this.

Scapegoating, as the late M. Scott Peck so accurately noted, is the genesis of human evil. And human sacrifice.

I occasionally get the semi¬-clueless telling me Europeans have changed “genetically” (what the hell is that supposed to mean?) and so are going to fall to Islam. They do not know Europe is no longer Christian except in name only, and when they rise up Muslims will be slaughtered or if lucky only expelled. But it will be in a pagan Dionysian frenzy.

If it was still Christian Muslims would have never been allowed in.

Let’s take Donald Trump and the Republican party. The party sees him as a mortal threat – as a monster – so they want to sacrifice him to save themselves, to be reborn. They’re worshiping Dionysus – the fertility god! In a minor way you can see the whole sequence (I’ve had one rather stupid man tell me at work Trump is evil and going to be assassinated – someone kill the monster to save us!).

And the fact the Republican (and Democratic) parties need to be destroyed? Oh no! We’re innocent!

You can see the whole sequence in the sacrifice of Jesus – one “criminal” must be sacrificed to save the people!

This is written by Douglas Wilson and it is about Rene Girard, who spent his life studying scapegoating, and whom I have written about a few times.

If we have learned one thing from Girard, it should have been how the human race is capable of hiding things from ourselves, and we do it like Poe’s purloined letter — we hide things in plain sight, and then obstinately refuse to look at it, not matter what. When we are occasionally given a seer who does what his title implies—that is, he sees — we honor and praise him into the middle of next week, but we stare stupidly at what he is trying to articulate. According to Girard, one of the great seers of the last several centuries was Nietzsche. This does not make him a good man — he was quite the opposite, but he saw what he was doing. This does not make him a great man across the board either — he was something of a pencil neck. But he was a mousy little man who saw, and who tried to embrace the ramifications of what he saw. The end result wasn’t pretty. As Girard put it, "Genius and insanity lend each other a hand until the last instant, giving the lie to the orthodox thesis that disconnects the two."

What did Nietzsche see? He saw the uniqueness of the Christian faith, and he saw all forms of paganism arrayed against that Christian faith. In Nietzsche’s words, "Dionysius versus the ‘Crucified’: there you have the antithesis." That is right; there is the antithesis. Nietzsche saw the two teams, and picked the wrong one, but he correctly identified the color of the uniforms, and (for the most part) the nature of the two teams. This is absolutely correct — and once you have antithesis, you choose up sides. Ya pays your money, and ya takes yer choice.

A number of times we have pointed to the tendency of mythologizers to draw a veil over what they have done, and to pretend, quite primly, that they haven’t done it. Nietzsche doesn’t do this at all.

"Nietzsche did not turn the Dionysian into something idyllic and inconsequential. He was too honest to dissimulate the disturbing sides, the ugly sides of the Dionysian . . . Nietzsche clearly saw that pagan mythology, like pagan ritual, centers on the killing of victims or on their expulsion."

In short, the biblical faith consistently takes the side of victim, and Nietzsche knew that paganism required victims. It was a requirement he embraced. In doing this, he was rejected the urbane and oh so educated approach which lumped the Christian faith in with all other forms of religion and myth.

"This point was made in almost all great works of religious anthropology between 1850 and World War. Even today, it remains the hidden basis and principal argument, at least potentially, for what has become a popular cliché regarding the many religions of mankind. All of them are ‘more or less alike’."

In his great work Orthodoxy, Chesterton identifies this same error and has a great deal of fun with it. The thing that makes the Christian faith distinct is that which makes all the difference.

Nietzsche rejected the "for public consumption" forms of paganism. He was not a PR guy for violence (like Heidegger). Heidegger gave us a kinder, gentler Nietzsche , but Nietzsche did not sugar coat it. He knew what he was embracing.

"Every time Dionysus appears, a victim is dismembered and often devoured by his or her many murderers. The god can be the victim and he can also be the chief murderer. He can be victimized and he can be a victimizer . . . It is inconceivable that Jesus could become the instigator of some ‘holy lynching.’"

And so Nietzsche has no use for the lying dismissals of modernity.

"At the very height of the great syncretic mishmash of modernity, Nietzsche drew attention to the irreconcilable opposition between a mythological vision grounded in the perspective of the victimizers and a biblical inspiration that from the beginning tends to side with the victims."

Now there is one place where Nietzsche (necessarily) misses it. Like Wormwood in The Screwtape Letters he cannot get his mind around the Christian sympathy for the victim. He sees (as few others do) the stark and undeniable fact of it, but he then tries to reduce it to a craven and servile thing. This is the meaning of ressentiment, the "interiorization of weakened vengeance." Nietzsche assumes that the only way to take the side of the victim is to adopt a slave mentality, one that strikes back but only when it is safe to do so, which it rarely is. In short, Nietzsche knows nothing of the grace of God; he does not know the meaning of faith, hope, and love. But he does know that they are unalterably opposed to everything that he desires.

Nietzsche is no halfway atheist. He does not come around with any patronizing nonsense about the human race "outgrowing" a need for religion. Nietzsche wrote, not of the passive death of God, but of the murder of God. Girard makes much of this, rightly. Many, with pretended detachment, speak of the "death of God."

"Since the late eighteenth century, from Jean Paul to Victor Hugo and beyond, pronouncements regarding the death of God have multiplied with each passing year, and belated prophets are now forming what is probably the largest crowd ever gathered in our intellectual history. What everybody has been announcing, of course, is that the biblical god is dying of old age. It is a more or less natural death in other words."

Like a group of detestable relatives gathering for the reading of a despised but wealthy aunt, they are cheering inwardly, but have solemn and grave faces in order to keep up appearances. This is where Nietzsche is so bracing. His contempt is open.

"Instead of that gradual fading away of God, with no particular violence or drama, Nietzsche see the disappearance of God as a horrible murder in which every man is involved: ‘We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers’."

Nietzsche again: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him . . . Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent?"

Girard points out the unmistakable reference here to the founding murder, the need for atonement, followed by the immediate need to pretend that atonement was unnecessary.

"The references to the blood, and to the knife, and to the wiping of the blood, forcefully take us back to the first announcement of the madmen. God did not die a natural death; he was collectively killed."

Nietzsche is aware of the murder that mythological minds insist on hiding from themselves. "This deed is still more distant from them that the most distant stars — and yet they have done it themselves."

"When Nietzsche shifted from the death of God to his murder, he must have felt, as we all feel, the sudden enormous increase in the symbolical power at his disposal."

It is undeniably there. Nietzsche, unlike many philosophers, reads like a prophet. He is a crazed prophet, as many prophets have been, and he was an awful man. We as Christians can benefit from reading from him, but only in the sense that Wellington benefited from studying Napoleon.

One last comment — Nietzsche is rightly credited as the father of the postmodern turn, but the postmodernists don’t understand him any more than the early modernists did. Allow me to reapply an observation of Girard’s.

"Perfectly respectable scholars, men who would not touch my own collective murder with a ten-foot pole, quote Nietzsche’s text in preference to any other, but their comments betray no awareness of the murder theme. They never seem to notice the strange little twist that makes this text different from all others, even though it is this difference that determines their preference."

Those who appeal to Nietzsche, whether they know it or not (and they almost never do), are appealing to the gods of blood. It is Dionysus or the Crucified. And Dionysus is not just the god of the endless party — sex, drugs, and rock and roll. He is also the god of random dismemberment. In the sixties, we were urged many times (in a Dionysian vein) to "make love, not war." It turns out that the slogan actually means "make love and war." The most notable example of this unholy marriage is the carnage of abortion, a carnage that is peculiarly Dionysian. Lust and blood lust are not separable. But what can be separated is the venting of the blood lust and the willingness of the spattered participants to see what they have done, and are doing. But Nietzsche saw, and Nietzsche approved of what he saw.

All Politicians Have Sex, Money and Drug Problems

I had a friend, 86 years old (and who was on a B-17 bomber crew in Europe in WWII), who spent his career as a political consultant. It was he who told me many years ago that all politicians have sex, money and drug problems. He said he's met one honest politician in his life. Yes - one!

In the recent past both John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were serial adulterers. Johnson was notorious for renting whores of every race.

I sometimes tell people if you want to disprove the theory of evolution look at the the degradation of Presidents from George Washington to Barark Obama. Or Barry Soetero. Or whatever his real name is.

Currently I use both of the corrupt Clintons as an example (for the matter, think about how big of trouble the Democrats are in - a Jew socialist who never had an steady job until he was 40 versus a drunken carpet-muncher and pathological liar who rode on her rapist husband's coat tails to fame and fortune).

"Sex, Money and Drugs." Sounds like a Warren Zevon song, doesn't it? Too bad he never wrote it and put it on the same CD as "Lawyers, Guns and Money."

The Founding Fathers considered politics to be the highest calling, a career for honest, patriotic men who wanted to serve their country and be statesmen. Think of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Still, they knew their history and the perils involved - the de-evolution of the statesmen into those despicable, greedy, power-mad creatures known as politicians - whose claims of wanting to bring people together always turns them into enemies of each other.

Recently the creepy-looking Ted Cruz, who looks like a cross between Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, tried to fuck over Donald Trump, and got fucked over in return. One of Trump's aides exposed the fact that the hypocritical Cruz has had at least five extramaritial affairs (what is wrong with these women, to crawl in bed with Cruz?).

I'll bet that Trump knows just about everything about every lowlife politician out there. For God's sake he's got eight billion dollars! Imagine his intelligence network! I'd hire the best private investigators and detectives available - and triple their salaries. Pocket change to Trump!

I'll bet he knows the name of every dyke pussy that the Hildebeast has licked, every woman that Bill Clinton has raped, how much meth and man ass the half-breed homo who pretends to be our President has snorted.

There is an old saying, "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." I'm sure Trump didn't turn his father's 250 million dollars into eight billion dollars by being a nice guy who didn't deal with a lot of organized crime wiseguys (and it cracks me up that the fraud "Roissy" thinks Trump reads his adolescent site and thinks Trump should hire him, I suppose to learn how to be an "alpha." To which I laugh: BWAHAHA!!!)

I'll bet Trump's going to wait until the election gets going, and then allofasudden some really bad things are going to come out about the Hildebeast. That monster needs to be destroyed.

The reason J. Edgar Hoover stayed as head of the FBI for so long is because he had files on every politician - sex, drugs and money! And they knew it, which is why they left him alone and never tried to force him out.

I don't even particularly like Donald Trump. But that doesn't matter at all, because I understand him. There is something about him that says "raised on the wrong side of the tracks," which he wasn't, but which I was (it's why I know so much of the Manosphere is a joke, full of naifs). Trump's father bore a resemblance to some '50s semi-thug with a DA (duck's ass haircut, for the ignorant).

You'd think I'd be cynical, but I'm not. I am a bit of a Stoic, though. The whole world is a tragicomedy, and I accept all of it, for good and bad. And mostly, I just smile at it.

I hope Trump has significant files on every dirtbag in Congress (which is basically all of them). I know I would. And I would do the dirty on everyone who crossed me, and let them know ahead of time not to fuck with me.

I figure most politicians are narcissists or psychopaths, which means they demonstrate what is called the Toxic Trio of denial, self-delusion and blame. All you have to do is look at the hysterical treatment of Trump by the Republican party. Their attitude is "It's his fault! We have to stop him!" instead of asking, "What terrible things have we done to the people of the United States to drive them away from us and toward Trump?"

But then, the first defense of all groups (and all people for that matter) is to find someone to blame their problems on. To use them as a scapegoat. And that is why the Republican party (and the Democratic party, too) needs to be destroyed. Both are refusing to admit what they have done to the United States and have no intention fixing the problems.

This has been a fun campaign so far. The most fun in politics I have ever seen. And when Trump becomes President, he's going to be even more fun.

If only Warren Zevon was still around. I do miss him.

Well, Which Is It? Black-Run America or Zionist Occupied Government?

"Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead." - Old saying.

Is it Black-Run America, or Zionist Occupied Government?

And if it is one or the other, why is Trump going to be the next President when both are horrified by him?

Because he's Israeli-Occupied Territory! And "controlled opposition," too! And part of the Illuminati/Mason/British bankers cabal! And controlled by the Clintons because he's a plant!

I call them "Conspironuts" - the same people who are still trying to prove that Lyndon Johnson and/or George Bush and/or Castro or the CIA - and God knows who else - conspired to kill the incompetent John F. Kennedy 55 years ago. And will not give it up.

It's the same people who think 9-11 was a "false flag" (their favorite word) pulled off by Jews, or the Bush family - and then all the conspirators just vanished without a trace. And after 15 years without a scrap of evidence they still won't give it up. All they can do is chant, over and over, "It's been proven! It's been proven!"

People have believed in impossible conspiracies for thousands of years. There is a comment in Isaiah in the Old Testament - "Say not, this is a conspiracy."

I sometimes wonder why people believe in this childishness. To convince themselves how smart they are to figure these things out? To find someone to blame their problems on?

And what sort of sad world do these people live in, when they think everything is a conspiracy? Ones that go back hundreds of years into the past?

It reminds me of one of the best satires ever - The President's Analyst in which James Coburn's character goes temporarily crazy because people really are out to get him! Worst of all, there really is a worldwide conspiracy - by the telephone company, of all things - to take over the world. Shades of "Pinky and the Brain"!

One conspiracy I heard for a long time is that the moon landings were a hoax shot on a stage. Some Conspironut accused Buzz Aldrin to his face of being in on the hoax - and rightfully got punched by the astronaut, who had risked his life going to the moon and back.

One of the most demented was when the homosexual pederast Jim Garrison, who apparently had a crush on John Kennedy, charged a bunch of innocent men with his murder - and the jury in a flash found them not-guilty. That's what happens when Conspironuts gain political power.

I have a friend of mine, who is about 86 years old (and was on a B-17 bomber crew in Europe in WII) who spent his life as political consultant. He told me every politician he has known, except for one honest man, had sex, money and drug problems. Think of both Clintons.

You know what? Let's say all these conspiracies are true, and all of them were proved. It wouldn't mean a goddamn thing, and nothing would change.

Of course, the conspironuts would find something else to obsess over with their confused brains. They always do.

Getting Interested in Girls and Feeling Gratitude

I started getting interested in girls when I was 12. I didn't expect those feelings at all. About the only thing my father told me was the facts of life when I was 11, which didn't make sense since I didn't yet have those feelings. "I'm supposed to put what where?" I remember thinking.

I didn't have anything physical to do with girls until I was 15 and I noticed some very odd things. They never showed any interest in me (what is now called "indictors of interest" but I found what I had to do is just jump on them - and they never said no.

Even then I thought, "There is something wrong here." Is this the way it is supposed to be? Just jump on them in the back of a car? What kind of a basis for a relationship is that?

I finally asked my father about this and wanted to know if that was the way things always were. He said that when he was my age they showed interest. They showed it, and then he asked them out. He said they acted grateful, appreciative.

He actually told me he had a Little Black Book with the names of a dozen girls in it, along with their phone numbers. Before he told me that I thought those books were just a myth. I've never knew anyone, even those mythical "alphas," who had such a book (and don't say something stupid such as storing numbers on cell phones today instead of a book).

I remember thinking, "Now that makes sense." Show interest, get asked out, show some gratitude. Damn, how simple!

It reminds me of something Meister Eckhart wrote (and which I have quoted several times): "If the only prayer you ever say is 'thank you,' it will be enough." I can't remember who once said, "The purpose of life is appreciation" (which I understand - to be able to appreciate everything - then you would feel really alive. And I do remember it was Joseph Campbell who wrote that what everyone wants is to feel alive.

It was a bit different in college, but not all that much. Some women did show interest in me, but that was just about it. Still didn't act grateful at all.

Now I'll change the subject, sort of, for a minute. I've owned several dogs, and all of acted grateful to me (I doubt it was really gratitude, though. It just seemed like it.) "Food, sleep with the owner! Petting! Going for a walk! Park! Play! He's been gone for five minutes and now he's back! Oh boy oh boy oh boy!"

Maybe that's why they're called "man's best friend."

I've mentioned before my last year-and-a-half in college I've lived in a studio apartment attached to a houseful of girls - 10 or 11 of them, I think.

It was an eye-opening experience. Two of the women were friendly and acted like they liked me. The rest, who ranged from attractive to sort of unattractive, always sat there like bumps on a log and expected guys to ask them out. Some guys actually did, and then blew the guys off if they asked for a second date.

I could never figure out why they even asked them out for a first date. The normal sequence of things had de-evolved into bump-on¬-log, somehow get asked out, show no gratitude, reject him, then get hostile and envious and resentful because the man who met their 300-point checklist never showed up, so they ended up with a cat because their ovaries had shriveled up.

I remember thinking, "How the hell are people supposed to find someone to marry?"

In other words, I just about predicted the collapse of marrige today. And this was in 1982, the year before I graduated. And it all came from living next to a house of girls for a year and a half. How often does a man experience something like that?

It wasn't until college I met girls who had what you might call "girl game." I remember one in particular who would show a great deal of interest in guys, then flirt with them and then they asked her out. She just mowed them down, including me.

I remember marveling at her, and again how simple it was.

Later on I began to think about envy and gratitude. The observation runs back to Aesop that you can feel envy or gratitude, but not both. Apparently these women who didn't show any gratitude instead showed envy. It's either one or the another, or perhaps, feel nothing at all.

And that has been my experience.

Two of the girls in the house did show some interest in me, which took me a few months to realize it because of the bump-on-a-log attitude. Because I wasn't interested in them they began to hate me. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," you know.

I also noticed, again starting in college, that some men were absolutely unpopular with women. Today you'd call them MGTOW but it wasn't something they did on purpose. Some of them used drugs and played video games or watched TV all the time. I knew one guy who said he sat on his bed on a Friday night and watched TV until he fell asleep. A living hell, I thought.

And it was because they were unpopular with women, to the point women would abuse them out of the blue. One told me a woman left in the middle of a date "leaving me sitting there with my bowling ball."

No wonder there's a word to describe this behavior these days. And it's gotten worse.

I began to notice hateful girls when I was 12. Now I run across hateful women all the time, and most of them are middle-aged, divorced, lost what few looks they ever had, pudgy - and trying to get revenge on just about every man they encounter.

I'll say it again - "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Even if the scorning exists only in their mind.

Feminism, as I've mentioned before, is leftist, and leftism is based on envy- "I'll destroy you even if I destroy myself!"

Since women no longer show any gratitude for men inventing everything in the world, and providing and protecting them, instead it's thrown in our faces. "It's not good enough! I want more!" And it never ends.

They act like these men aren't good enough for them, except perhaps Brad Pitt or George Clooney, which means they put a remarkably high value on their mediocre selves.

Both the Greeks and Hebrew knew of women's envious and rebellious nature (think of Eve and Pandora). That is problem. And society - meaning men - is letting them act like this, to everyone's detriment.

Of course none of this will last. It'll have to change, of course. Which means the laws have to be changed. I have no idea when, though. But change it will.

Until then, you'll see women with shopping carts full of Fancy Feast - dinner for their surrogate children Mittens and Boo Boo.

"Wars of Blood and Faith"

This was written by Jamie Glazov and is from Frontpage magazine.

Most people have close to zero understanding of history. Muslims are not going to take over Europe and America, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. It's not going to happen. Bet on it.

FP: Ralph Peters, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Peters: Always a pleasure. I always enjoy Frontpage's readiness to be intelligently provocative.

FP: Well thank you sir.

So what inspired you to write this book?

Peters: It's an accumulation. Over the past few years, we've all learned a great deal. On one hand, the concepts I argued for in the Army over a dozen years ago, such as the need to prepare for asymmetrical conflicts, urban combat and confrontations between religions, have stood the test of time; still, there are always fresh nuances and new insights for those willing to be open-minded. On the other hand, I was wrong about some things: for example, hoping against hope, I thought there was at least a slight chance that Arabs could build a functioning, if imperfect, democracy--and the Middle East is so wretched that change is essential--yet, we've all learned the hard way that Arab societies are incompetent to build even the most half-baked rule-of-law democracy. So...Wars Of Blood And Faith represents the further development of the thinking I've been doing for a few decades now, but it also represents an evolution in that thought based upon recent first-hand experiences in Iraq, Israel (during the war), Africa and elsewhere.

There are two sorts of "thinkers" out there that repel me: Those who change their positions every other day and have no consistency or integrity (or first-hand experience of what they're writing about), and, at the other extreme, academics who spend their entire lives defending their dissertations in the face of overwhelming evidence that they were wrong. My goal is to get it right--and I'm proud of my record over the years--but also to have the integrity to admit it when I get it wrong, for example when I believed that the Bush administration was really willing to fight to win in Iraq--which it hasn't been.

Live and learn. And be honest about it. The new book looks in-depth at our military's challenges, the threats to our security, and the dangers associated with globalization (Tom Friedman, bless him, gets it almost exactly wrong). And, I hope, the book's fun to read. Sometimes, in this grotesque and bloody world, you just have to shake your head and laugh.

FP: What are your thoughts on the role religion plays in wars of religion – and the denial that appears to exist on this issue in our national debate?

Peters: It's amazing, isn't it? The book takes on this issue at length. In Washington, both Dems and Republicans continue to insist--against tidal waves of evidence to the contrary--that religion has nothing to do with religious wars. When I brief the D.C. crowd, I tell them that it pays to listen to what your enemy says now and then. And our enemies have declared uncompromising religious war on us. We don't have to like it. And this isn't a religious war from our side (at least, not yet). But our deadliest enemies truly believe that they are on a mission from their God to kill us. And they're out to prove it. Yet, the Washington crowd keeps trying to explain everything in term of 20th-century sociology, economics or American misdeeds. Well, sorry, folks. All those factors may matter, but they're secondary to the fanatical faith of the terrorists and other assorted murderers we face. If religion isn't really a factor, where are the Western atheist suicide bombers?

The problem is that the Washington crowd is secular from start to finish. Even those who go to a church or synagogue every week have been so thoroughly secularized intellectually by their educations and the circles in which they live their professional and personal lives that they have no sense of the power of unbridled faith, of the spectacular power of revelation, of the suddenness of conversion--or even of the basic human need for something greater than the self in which to believe. We mock al Qaeda for clinging to the past, but Washington is equally desperate to hold fast to the last century's secular interpretation of all human actions.

We face enemies who want to please their God with blood sacrifices. And we just want to please the lawyers.

FP: One of your main themes is that The Age of Ideology is over. Can you talk a bit about that?

Peters: Absolutely. It ties in to the last question, and it really is central to my thinking about the wars we face today and will face in the coming decades. From 1789 until 1991, humanity took a bizarre detour from history's highway. For two centuries, egomaniacs, such as Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Trotsky, Nkrumah and their ilk, convinced themselves that they and they alone could sit down and design a better system for human social, economic and political organization than the mass of humanity could do on its own. Even more incredibly, they were able to convince hundreds of millions of human beings that they were on to something. Mass delusion, at its worst. And, of course, when individual human beings didn't measure up to the system, the system responded with Auschwitz and Buchenwald, the GuLag and Mao's Cultural Revolution, the horror of North Korea and no end of shattered economies, starving masses and self-perpetuating brutality. That was the Age of Ideology, folks.

As an aside, democracy is not an ideology. It's a technique matured over centuries--of the people, by the people and for the people--that functions well in societies with a taste for justice and decency, but which produces disappointing results in tribal or otherwise traditionally factionalized societies. I believe wholeheartedly in the supreme greatness of democracy--but I have to face the fact now that some societies, such as Iraq's, lack the moral bearings to make democracy as we know it work.

Anyway, the Age of Ideology is over. Done. Finished. Kaput. And thank God. But the bad news is that it only means we've returned to the human mainstream, to wars of blood and belief, fought over ethnic and religious issues. These are the default identities over which human beings have slaughtered each other since the days of myth. And the wars tend to be bloody and uncompromising.

Again, our enemies want to exterminate us. We want to reason with them. They kill as many of the innocent as they can--while we court-martial our soldiers for every mistake. Which brings us back to the problem of a political elite--on both sides of the aisle--that no longer feels obliged to serve in uniform, that is utterly out of touch with the average man and woman, which takes polls more seriously than religion, and which believes that all of the world's problems can be solved through negotiations. Well, good luck.

The United States of America will pull through. But we're going to pay an awful price along the way, thanks to the willful naivety, selfishness, self-absorption and cowardice of our political "elite."

FP: What are the lessons so far of both Iraq and Israel's war with Hezbollah?

Peters: If you're not willing to out-kill your enemies, you lose. Period.

FP: Ok. Sounds clear enough to me.

What are the roots of the terror being perpetrated against us?

Peters: The utter failure of Islamic civilization between Morocco and Pakistan. The Islamic world's values, traditions, structures and practices are thoroughly uncompetitive in the 21st century (and already were in the last century). All that they hold dear holds them back. Islamists and their sympathizers are humiliated by their self-wrought failures, angry at our success, sick with jealousy, and desperately in need of a hot date. The greater Middle East is one vast psycho-ward. And no, I'm not being flippant or exaggerating--the region's Muslim societies are mentally and morally diseased.

Hatred is satisfying. Revenge (even against the innocent) is gratifying. And death is a release from the miseries of a failed existence. As a result--as I've remarked over the years--we face ruthless killers who regard death as a promotion. But, of course, our leaders assure us that religion has nothing to do with any of this.

FP: What are your thoughts on Obama wanting to attack Pakistan? That is after all where the terrorists are lurking.

Peters: It's a classic example of the fateful mix of hubris and naivety on Capitol Hill. Mr. Obama has yet to supply any details, so let me help him out: Sure, we can invade Pakistan. Of course, we'll need a draft to round up enough troops. And we'll have to kill, as a minimum, a few hundred thousand Pathan tribesmen and their families, and we'll have to remain as an occupier for many years. Oh, and Pakistan's got nuclear weapons and it's already torn by civil strife. But no worries there for good, old Barak--who was too important to serve in the military himself (military service is just for chumps like me or for those who are, as John Kerry pointed out, so stupid they're stuck in Iraq).

Now, I'm all for targeted air strikes and special ops raids in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan where al Qaeda has been re-grouping. But, hey, I've actually been there. It's some of the toughest terrain in the world, and the mountain ranges are vast. A classic military invasion isn't the answer. So, if Obama wants to invade, I'd just like to hear the details of his plan. Of course, he hasn't got one. He's just blowing smoke. He knows less about military matters than I do about neurosurgery. The difference between us is that he's convinced he's qualified to operate.

In the Queen's English, the guy's a wanker.

FP: “Eurabia” is a true nightmare scenario, correct?

Peters: No. Malthusian linear projections never fulfill themselves (and hysteria is never productive). But, beyond that, the notion that Europe, the continent that's exported more death and destruction than any other, is going to just shuffle wimpily to its doom is crazy. The Europeans have been playing pacifist dress-up while we protected them, but, sufficiently threatened, they'll revert to their historical pattern--which is to over-react. Europe's Muslims may prove to be the real endangered species; after all, Europe's history of dealing with rejected minorities veers between genocide and, for the lucky, ethnic cleansing. For me, the question isn't whether Muslims will take over Europe, but whether Europe will simply expel them or kill any number of them first. Sound far-fetched? How would the Holocaust have sounded to an educated German (or Brit, or American) in 1932? Europe is a killer continent. When the chips are down, it will kill again.

Meanwhile, Europe's Muslims are behaving so stupidly that their folly can't be measured with any tools at our disposal. Even as British pols pander to radical clerics, the average Brit has had enough of coddling mullahs who preach the destruction of all non-Muslims (and closing the pubs). In mid-July, in Germany, the major organizations representing the millions of Turkish residents refused to come to a conference held by the chancellor to address integration. The Turkish leaders demanded--demanded--that the German parliament first rescind a new immigration law that would have prevented Turks from importing child-brides, isolating them as virtual prisoners and beating them to death. Oh, and the Germans also wanted new immigrants to have a vocabulary of 300 German words upon arrival--just enough to say, "Help, husband killing me." No self-respecting Turk was going to stand for that.

You get the point. Europe has never had a model for integrating non-white immigrants, and they don't really want one. Meanwhile, from Denmark to Marseilles, Muslim residents make outrageous demands that only anger the average voter. Eurabia? You have a better chance of finding honest lobbyists in Washington than you do of seeing the crescent over the spires of Notre Dame.

FP: Ralph Peters, it was a pleasure and privilege to speak with you.

Peters: Y'all just keep on poking the system in the eye. It needs it. And Frontpage does a great job.

Dingbat Girl Brains

A lot of women have what I call "dingbat girl brains." Not all women have them, but enough to make me realize it's why they traditionally have not been allowed to vote.

I met one several days ago, who was pontificating on why Hillary Clinton should be President and not the horrible Donald Trump.

I didn't give her a hard time, but I teased her a few times. She just looked at me and didn't respond.

"Are you talking about our next President?" I asked her. Looked at me, but no response.

"Trump is a liar? And Hillary Clinton's not?" Again, a look but no response.

This woman is not stupid..sort of. She's about 45, has an MS in Geography, and owes $70,000 in student loans which she will never pay off. And just wait until the government starts taking it our of her social security, which it will . I have seen it.

I know a man who is losing $200 a month out of his $750 to pay off his students loans - which he will never do.

I sometimes tell women purpose of women is to make sandwiches and babies. It'd be a better world than them getting involved in politics.

By the way, this woman is a single mother with a 19-year-old son. The son dropped out of high school, doesn't have job or a driver's license, and is on psychiatric medication. No surprise there.

I tell people that if Trump chooses the right Vice President, say Jim Webb (whom I would vote for over Trump), we'll have 16 years to be this country back on track. That's plenty of time.

And it will be 16 years of driving leftists crazy. And that will be the best fun of all.

THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON

I'm amused when people tell me Muslims are going to take over Europe, etc. Actually, I laugh, because no one makes war like Europeans. The same with America. Taken over by wetbacks? And other jokes? Har har.

Learn some history, people.

This is from Rudyard Kipling, who was a great man.

It was not part of their blood, It came to them very late, With long arrears to make good, When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved, They were icy -- willing to wait Till every count should be proved, Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low. Their eyes were level and straight. There was neither sign nor show When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd. It was not taught by the state. No man spoke it aloud When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred. It will not swiftly abate. Through the chilled years ahead, When Time shall count from the date That the Saxon began to hate.

Attack of the Mommy Monster

I was at a gas station recently and was chatting with the clerk when she informed me it was now illegal to smoke in your car if there were children in it. I informed her that when I was a kid people smoked in the theater and at fast food restaurants. But not anymore, obviously.

My experience - and that of many others - is that enough women are of a socialist/fascist nature that it's obvious. And they're basically scared of everything that entails the slightest risk. They put "safety" above everything.

This means today we live in what in many ways a Mommy State.

We´re children to be scolded, smacked, ordered around. Wear your seat belt, lose weight, be nice to everyone, you can't buy a supersize soda because we made it illegal! It´s worse than annoying. It can drive you batty. It´s like being in kindergarten all your life, or being forced to sit at the kiddie table during Thanksgiving when you´re 35 years old.

I am also reminded of Bizarro World, where the cars have square wheels. Things there do go, but they don´t go very well. They don´t go very far, either, before they break down. There´s a lesson in that.

There´s truth to the theory about Mommy. I don´t think it goes far enough, though. Mommy is now insane. These days we´re supposed to not think bad thoughts. Orwell called this "thought crime." God forbid one of those thoughts slips out. You could end up in the pillory.

I know leftists/liberals who feel real, actual pain from words, to the point they want those words - those thoughts - illegal,

Now, we´ve got kids expelled from school for bringing nail clippers or aspirin. Little boys can´t draw pictures of tanks or airplanes. Point a finger and say "bang" and you might be arrested. A five-year-old boy giving a five-year-old girl a kiss on the cheek will end up in therapy for sexual harassment.

The loons at the airports confiscate cigarette lighters and Medal of Honors (got points on it, you know). I am comforted by the fact terrorists won´t hijack the plane by lighting up a Bic and threatening to hurl a Medal of Honor like a shuriken.

I've pointed out before the word "monster" comes from the same word as "demonstrate." It also means "a warning."

Monsters always attack the same thing. They attack good, wanting to conquer or destroy it. They attack people, and by extension, society. As the government grows and turns into a monster, it´s always people who get hurt. They´re lucky if they just start acting like children. If they´re less lucky they start to go nuts. It´s something that Czeslaw Milosz noticed in his book, The Captive Mind: totalitarianism drives people crazy.

Some go crazy, some lie to everyone, others withdraw into themselves. What they really are they keep hidden, on the inside (isn't that what "Political Correctness" really means?). They show a false face to everyone, never knowing whom they can trust. It´s always what happens when people are twisted by the politically-correct lies in their culture,

When you get monsters you always get people fighting against them. That's what they whole Manosphere is about: a reaction against monsters. Feminism, Which is leftist (actually leftism is a femine ideology).

Leftism (and therefore feminism) is a monster. Look at what it's created is its history. Nothing good, always bad.

Many people, if not most, as just as tired as can be of Political Correctness. It partly explains the rise of Trump, who is not Politically Correct. (By the way, Hillary Clinton is a monster. So what does that make the Politically-Incorrect Trump? A Hero? Some people think he is.)

We´re not going to have jackboots in America. We´ve got Mommy, meddling, suffocating, irritating, enraging, always petty, always here, always there, always everywhere.

Half the People in this Country Have IQs of 100 or Less

There are what? 300 million people in this country? That means about 150 million people have IQs of 100 or less. It used to be there were plenty of high-paying jobs for these people. Not anymore!

Now they are working minimum-wage jobs. I've seen it many times, including people in their 60s working in warehouses because they can't afford to retire and 35-year-olds who can't find anything else. Generally these people have voted Democrat, but for the last 40 years the Democrat party has been crapping all over this country. So have the Republicans.

The mean IQ is even lower, once you take into account the mean IQ of 89 for Mexicans, about 70 for African immigrants, and about 90 for Muslim immigrants, who have brought nothing but rape and murder (has everyone forgotten the over 3000 Americans murdered in one day by Muslims on 9-11?).

White women (and children, for that matter), are being raped left and right in Europe by inbred, low-IQ Muslim immigrants), which is why Europeans are beating and burning out immigrants, which is a prelude to the genocide of Muslims (people have been telling me Europeans have turned into pussies, the naivete of which makes me laugh).

Now a lot of these people, except for most immigrants, are voting for Trump. The Republican party, instead of wondering what they have done so terribly wrong that is driving people to Trump, are blaming everything on Trump, as if he's using some kind of Jedi Mind Tricks on those disgusting inbred Neanderthals in Flyover Land - who should just flop over and die.

I've again starting watching Sunday morning political programs, after having been driven away decades ago by the stupidity and ignorance of the Chattering Classes/Talking Heads - who are paid 100 times what they're worth. Which is pretty much nothing, except for their entertainment value. Sometimes, stupid can be funny, like the guy I read about who swallowed a fish to entertain his drunken friends and choked to death on it when it got stuck in his throat.

The Chattering Classes/Talking Heads are still clueless, blaming Trump's rise on "lower-class white men." Insulting them. And they are the 107-IQ people who built this country - not Mexicans, not Asians, not Arabs. White men.

It takes a lot of people with IQs of 107 to get a civilization going. God knows how many studies I've seen about that. And that is why America is America and not Africa, not the Middle East.

By the way, both of my parents were high school dropouts but later got their GEDs. I suspect their IQs were about 107 (I realized at 12 I was smarter than both my parents). My father was a general contractor who built houses for people (which is why I can build a house, which I learned starting at 12) and my mother was the night admitting ER clerk at the local hospital.

They were both solidly middle class. By the way, my late father once told me that if he tried to do today what he achieved when younger, "I couldn't do it." That's because both parties have nearly destroyed the working-class economy. So what are these people supposed to do now? Oh, I've already said it - they're supposed to die. To be replaced by their inferiors, from countries which for all practical purposes don't have cultures?

Trump isn't the cause. He is a symptom of what is wrong with both parties, which they refuse to admit. Instead they are trying to stop Trump, trying to overturn what the majority of people want, claiming Trump will be a catastrophe. As if both parties haven't been for 40 years?

Wages stopped going up in January of 1974. You can blame that 100% on the government. (If they had continued rising as they had in the '50s, it be about $100,000 a year).

None of these people are going to be retrained for high-paying jobs which for them are not there. They've been exported to the Third World.

I've mentioned before I come from a middle class town that in 1974 had 50,000 people. Now it has 30,000 and there are a hundred empty middle class homes. The steel mill, which is the main employer in the city, is on the verge of going under.

Everyone there used to vote Democrat. Now all I hear is talk of voting for Trump.

None of those 100-IQ people are stupid. They're not intellectuals, but they know that shit is not ice cream, which is what both parties have been telling them.

What we will end up with is whites on top, Mexicans in the middle and blacks on the bottom - and good luck trying to change the genetics of that! And none of them will vote for the good of the country, but instead the good of their religion, race or ethnic group, at the expense of the country.

It's got to the point it's us versus them. And that is why I want both treasonous parties utterly destroyed.

And I'm cheering it on.

Jim Webb as Trump's VP

I think Trump should choose Jim Webb as his V.P.

If he chooses a woman leftists will say, "He's still a woman-hater! And trying to con people he's not!" And of he chooses a man they'll howl, "Why didn't he choose a woman!" So Trump can't win with a woman.

Here is Webb's lengthy Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb

"Nature Hath Given Women So Much Power the Law Wisely Gives Them Little"

"I think of a man and take away reason and accountability." - an observation on women from As Good As It Gets

Samuel Johnson wrote that comment about women and the law several hundred years ago. It's just an more modern observation made thousands of years ago by the Greeks (Pandora) and the Hebrews (Eve): when women get out of their proper sphere (mostly children and home) they fuck up everything. Women bring evil into the world and men's problem is that they let them do it.

The problem, really, is the law gives women too much power (women don't believe that, though: they still think they are "oppressed").

Changing four laws would take care of a lot of our problems.

One: women should not be allowed to vote. Men have noticed for thousands of years that women are ruled by their feelings and don't even know it. Since they are ruled by their feelings, aren't rational, and ultimately are scared of everything, they want the law to impose fascism/socialism/Nerf World on everything. Which makes it a really bizarre world.

And, of coure, you need to look no further than the monstrous Hildebeast and Nancy Pelosi to see what Godawful politicians they make.

Two: get rid of no-fault divorce. Women instigate about 70% of divorces and a lot of times they are unhappy they did so. I've seen the results: anger, hate and a desire to wreak vengeance on men ("Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" even if they did the scorning).

Three: in a divorce the children a ways go to the father or to an adoptive couple. Women are incapable to raising children by themselves - even though they are convinced they can - so should never be allowed to raise children by themselves.

Four: men should always be hired over women I've lost track of the times I've seen marginally -competent or incompetent minorities hired over men. In other words, no more Affirmative Action, which means "white men need not apply."

I'll give just one example out of the many I know: one man I know, who wanted to be a law professor, was told by the Dean he should no chance whatsoever because he was white. Don't even try, he was told.

Those four things used to be the law of the land many years. Until the '50s, until leftists started to overthrow them in the '60s.

Of course, these laws will come back, especially if our society collapses (which ain't going to happen totally, but in some ways in it's in collapse or has collapsed - see marriage for an example).

Four laws! Four simple laws.

People respond to laws. We've just about lost an entire generation of women, who have turned back into children. It's going to take an entire generation to turn them back into adults.

"If you couldn't fuck them there would a bounty on them." a friend of mine.

"Donald Trump, Middle American Radicals, And The Next Step"

This was written by Hubert Collins and is from Social Matter.

Another one who understands the importance of Sam Francis.

He's wrong about Trump just appealing to Middle American radicals. He appeals to those high-income types who've forced to train their Third World replacements. I know people who have an M.S in History and Economics who've never been hired because Affirmative Action means "White men need not apply." (I've seen a lot of that, and they're all going to vote for Trump.) You'd be amazed at the number of white men I know who've been passed over for hire and instead watched marginally competent or incompetent minorities get the job.

All of these people are going to vote for Trump, which is why he is going to be President.

Trump, Trump, Trump. The man has survived a summer-long media obsession and now a rival nominee, who every insider figured had a great shot at winning the show. In March, columnists rhetorically asked if Scott Walker was unstoppable. In June, they claimed none would be able to overtake him in the all-important state of Iowa; and come July they sang the same tune. August saw the same publications proudly carry point-and-stutter features about the apparently ludicrous things Donald Trump had ever said alongside Hunter S. Thompson imitation essays about spending a weekend in a Trump hotel, reading Trump books. By September, the chirping typists of Conservatism Inc. were heralding the apparently soon-to-be-victorious Ben Carson in a shockingly ill-advised attempt to find a more suitable outsider for the base to support.

And this all excludes the endless clucking of left-wing writers signalling to the world that they are virtuous by virtue of their hatred and distaste for the latest Republican candidate.

Despite a whole Indian Summer of hatred, dismissal, mockery, and inept maneuvering at the hands of the entire media and political establishment, Trump still sits pretty at the top of the polls, and has for months now. Everyone and their TV-handler said he would be the Michele Bachmann of 2016, but, as it turns out, Trump has a solid base that supports him and can comfortably Tweet condescending condolences to his rivals as they end their campaigns.

So what explains it? Who keeps Trump polling at 20 to 30 percent? The only way to survive the media blitz that Trump has endured is to have followers that will not quit. Not even money (which Trump, of course, has) can keep you alive these days. Hillary Clinton has money enough to beat the band, but just can’t keep up with those dedicated socialists who have been waiting for decades to have a candidate like Bernie Sanders come their way—nor can her money save her from the perpetual barrage of attacks from every wing of the “conservative” media empire.

Trump, much to the chagrin of our elites, has a devoted cadré in much the same way Senator Sanders does, and that is the key to his success. His unfaltering fans are what the late Sam Francis called “Middle American Radicals” (MARs) and, purposefully or not, Trump is speaking straight to them. MARs are the White, middle and lower class, mildly-educated citizens, who live by-and-large between the Appalachian and Rocky mountain ranges. These were the folks who fueled George Wallace in the ‘60s and ‘70s, Ronald Reagan in the ‘70s and ‘80s, Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot in the ‘90s, and the Tea Party in the age of Obama. As the timeline shows, MARs are not a “generation,” but an economic and cultural “class” of people who are not about to go away.

Of moderate economic means, they have always been supportive of parts of the welfare state, particularly Social Security and Medicare. However, they have a hostility for the parasitic, largely non-White underclass that takes in the benefits of welfare, food stamps, and the like, while being unhindered in their drug use, petty crime, and unique ability to degrade once decent schools and neighborhoods into unrecognizable Third World slums. In tandem with that comes a hostility for the wealthy, decadent, and rootless “Davos men” of the American upper class. Finding them to be an elite with values dissimilar and even at odds with theirs, and unimpressed with their worship of Mammon, MARs generally favor progressive taxation, worker’s unions, and trade restrictions like tariffs.

They are the middle class Americans of middle America who perceive that they are being cheated out of their rightful economic comfort and cultural heritage by an unholy alliance of a greedy and immoral upper class, and a greedy and immoral lumpen class. The racial dynamics to this are obvious. And I trust, dear reader, that you can put together why the MARs of today back Trump. For a lengthier treatment on the MARs, I cannot recommend strongly enough the work of the late Sam Francis, particularly his collection of essays Middle American Radicals, but also Beautiful Losers and Shots Fired. For a more analytic look into the MARs support for Donald Trump, the mainstream National Journal actually has a recent, and brilliant, essay on the matter.

And it is that essay that presents us all with the elephant in the room. The author, John Judis, asks:

“But can he [Trump] succeed where Wal­lace, Perot, and Buchanan fell short? Can a MARS can­did­ate ac­tu­ally win the White House? One hesitates at this point to of­fer any pre­dic­tions, but my sus­pi­cion is that Trump will fail like the oth­ers. There is, of course, his volat­ile per­sona, which seems likely to cause self-in­flic­ted wounds (just as Perot’s did in 1992). But the big­ger lim­it­ing factor for Trump is that there are only a certain num­ber of MARS in the coun­try: They con­sti­tute maybe 20 per­cent of the over­all elect­or­ate and 30 to 35 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans. That was enough to al­low Trump to lead a crowded GOP field. But as the field nar­rows, he will have dif­fi­culty main­tain­ing his lead un­less he can ex­pand his ap­peal bey­ond the MARS. And it will be hard to do that without threat­en­ing his base of sup­port.”

While I wish I had a comforting response to that, I do not. While Ronald Reagan did pull off a surprise win in 1980, he was a far weaker defender of MAR interests than the other three who never carried the day, and as we all now know, the share of the White vote that Reagan carried won’t cut it these days. As Judis succinctly outlines, MARs have enough power for an extended, anti-establishment run—dare I say, enough energy for a long-standing troll? But that’s about it.

So the question becomes: how to move past MARs? I say this as someone who holds MARs in high esteem, and, to at least some extent, am one. But the MARs are not now, nor have they ever been, enough of a social base to take political power or even meaningfully change the loathsome anti-culture we all stew in. The fantasy of a MAR coup d’état has been in circulation for decades now, but high hopes are invariably dashed along with wasted resources. The hope that George Wallace or Ross Perot would keep both mainstream candidates from having enough electoral votes to win, forcing Democrat and Republican alike to negotiate, never happened. Pat Buchanan’s 2000 third-party bid for president garnered him with less than one half of one percent of the vote. Even the arguable MAR victories, Ronald Reagan and the Tea Party, failed to make a meaningful change in the way things are.

Sam Francis, who was more-or-less the Marx of MARs — their champion, their theorizer, their commentator—never managed to find a Lenin that could put together a vanguard on behalf of his chosen class. While many consider that quest, finding a Lenin, to be the order of the day, I am of a different mind. More than tiny bands of revolutionaries who manage to seize the helms of a nation, and more than single classes banging their heads against an electoral wall until victory comes, the world we inhabit seems most often changed when classes forge alliances with each other.

The coming together of business interests and the forces behind the New Left are what brought us to our current curious epoch of corporate egalitarianism. The alliances of labor unions and poor agriculturalists led to massive power seizures for both across the Midwest and West in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. After WWII, what we today recognize as Conservatism, Inc. won election after presidential election by bringing together businessmen, faithful Christians, and anti-Communists. A list of examples could go on and on.

Without an ally, MARs are just a dispossessed band of folks attending Donald Trump rallies.

But where should they look? To those Urban Elves we love to mock? The new class rising from the tech world?

And how?

How Could Trump Not Be Predicted?

I've pointed out before that the late Sam Francis predicted the rise of a Trump-like nationalist/populist figure. How could Trump not be predicted? I guess the historically and economically ignorant were too busy predicting catastrophes - Trump is Hitler! America is Germany! Oh no!!!! Catastrophe!!!

There is something about some people that always wants to see catastrophes. Why some are like this I do not know. Are they full of that much hate and desire for destruction? Sounds Satanic to me.

All the neocon traitors said they'll stampede over to the Hildebeast to support her. Who cares! Good riddance! Most of them belong in prison for what they've done to this country. They're all Israeli-occupied territory anyway.

Others too predicted the rise of such a figure, but Francis was the best-known.

When anyone predicts catastrophes, I quit listening. All have been wrong.

Tom Wolfe, he of The Bonfire of the Vanities (who is an example of Ezra Pound's observation "The artist is the antenna of the human race") has been a hell of a lot better predicting things than a buffoon of an economist such as Paul Krugman, who for all practical purpose is always wrong.

Wolfe said the United States has the stability of a couch. He's right. And now we are in the process of overthowing the current order without violence. A few punches thrown by childish leftists in Chicago? With no broken noses? Har har! Some catastrophes!

We are not Europeans and attempts to pretend Nazism or fascism or other European diseases apply to us are ridiculous.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, whom I've mentioned God knows how many times (and who was Austrian) said he put the average American far above the average European. I do, too.

The dumbest person I know is a Ukrainian Jew who emigrated here at 14. He thinks he knows everything about this country but knows nothing. And he's....European! And Europe is "nations of eternal war."

After listening to that left-wing clown I understand why Europe had so many wars. And he would just love to suck the Hildebeast's dick - he thinks she's some kind of goddess who will bring Utopia to the United States.

This country went through the War between the States, in which the 620,000 killed translates today to about five million killed. And yet we survived and grew.

My father was a little kid during the Great Depression and told me if you had some money or a job it wasn't that hard (the problem was finding a job). He lived on a farm in the Midwest and remembers apples costing a nickel (prices always drop during a depression).

And the U.S. survived that and then grew.

Even if Trump loses (which I very much doubt) he's the result of a sea-change among American voters. There will be another like him.

The rest of the politicians (all of whom are cowards and can be easily pushed around by voters) will ultimately vote to save their jobs and as such will do what the voters want - no more Third World trash destroying my country! No more outsourcing good jobs! No more wars for 15 years and things only getting worse in the Mideast! No more of the U.S. being ranked 13th in the world for happiness!

People are not voting for Trump. They're voting against the establishment - against the traitors.

No, We Are Not Germany, or Russia, or France, or the Roman Empire

I consistently get people trying to compare the U.S. to Germany or the Roman Empire. Of course we have similarities to them, because all trouble follows the same route in one way or another in every society.

And no, we are not going to collapse, the way the French did during the French Revolution, or Germany under the Nazis, or the Roman Empire. Even they got back on their feet. (We also did not have the Treaty of Versailles to contend with.)

This is America.

Do these people want this county to collapse? What kind of insanity is that? Do they not understand what kind of double-plus-ungood hell would be unleased if we did have an utter collapse?

I've been hearing "collapse! collapse!" since I was 12 years old. And that was in '68, when I watched on TV murders, kidnappings and bombings by leftists. Riots! Vietnam! And they think this minor-minor-minor crap in Chicago is serious stuff? Har har! It's nothing!

Leftists have always been idiots.

I remember an idiot like Paul Ehrlich claiming the battle to feed humanity was over and we were going to starve by the hundreds of million. He was utterly wrong.

In fact, every one of those morons predicting collapse has been utterly wrong. Peak oil! Global warming! Global cooling! The icecaps melting! Bee genocide! Artificial Intelligence going all Skynet on us and wiping us out!

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

We do have problems. We always have problems because people are imperfect. It's inherent in us.

And, no, Trump is not a presage of Hitler (always with the Hitler!) He's a nationalist and a populist, and while he may not work out as President, if he's telling the truth he'll be good for the country, unlike the Hildebeast, who is a continuation of Yomama, just the way Yomama is a half-breed continuation of that inbred retard George Bush.

And no, Trump is not "Israeli-occupied territory" or "controlled opposition" (the belief in impossible conspiracies is the worst of American diseases).

So give it up! It's going to be a long time before this country makes it to Hell - if ever.

"Is the Spectre of Trump (And Sam Francis) Haunting Davos?"

This is from VDARE and written by Patrick J. Buchanan.

I keep running across articles saying no one predicted the rise of Trump, and I keep telling them it is not true. The late Sam Francis predicted the rise of a Trump-like figure.

The article starts here.

The lights are burning late in Davos tonight.

At the World Economic Forum, keynoter Joe Biden warned global elites that the unraveling of the middle class in America and Europe has provided “fertile terrain for reactionary politicians, demagogues peddling xenophobia, anti-immigration, nationalist, isolationist views.”

Evidence of a nationalist backlash, said Biden, may be seen in the third parties arising across Europe, and in the U.S. primaries.

But set aside Joe’s slurs–demagogues, xenophobia.

Who really belongs in the dock here? Who caused this crisis of political legitimacy now gripping the nations of the West?

Was it Donald Trump, who gives voice to the anger of those who believe themselves to have been betrayed? Or the elites who betrayed them?

Can that crowd at Davos not understand that it is despised because it is seen as having subordinated the interests of the nations and people in whose name it presumes to speak, to advance an agenda that serves, first and foremost, its own naked self-interest?

The political and economic elites of Davos have grow rich, fat and powerful by setting aside patriotism and sacrificing their countries on the altars of globalization and a New World Order.

No more astute essay has been written this political season than that of Michael Brendan Dougherty in “This Week,” where he describes how, 20 years ago, my late friend Sam Francis predicted it all.

In Chronicles, in 1996, Francis, a paleoconservative and proud son of the South, wrote:

“[S]ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interest and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better.”[From Household to Nation, March 1996 ]

What we saw through a glass darkly then, we now see face to face.

Is not Trump the personification of the populist-nationalist revolt Francis predicted?

And was it not presidents and Congresses of both parties who mired us in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, and negotiated the trade deals that have gutted American industry?

The bleeding of factories and manufacturing jobs abroad has produced the demoralization and decline of our middle class, along with the wage stagnation and shrinking participation in the labor force.

Is Trump responsible for that? Is Socialist Bernie Sanders, who voted against all those trade deals?

If not, who did this to us?

Was it not the Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats?

Americans never supported mass immigration.

It was against their will that scores of millions, here legally and illegally, almost all from Third World countries, whose masses have never been fully assimilated into any western nation, have poured into the USA.

Who voted for that?

Religious, racial, cultural diversity has put an end to the “bad” old America we grew up in, as we evolve into the “universal nation” of Ben Wattenberg, who once rhapsodized, “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”

James Burnham, the ex-Trotskyite and Cold War geostrategist whose work Francis admired, called liberalism “the ideology of Western suicide.”

If the West embraces, internalizes and operates on the principles of liberalism, Burnham wrote, the West with meet an early death.

Among the dogmas of liberalism is the unproven assumption that peoples of all nationalities, tribes, cultures, creeds can coexist happily in nations, especially in a “creedal” nation like the USA, which has no ethnic core but rather is built upon ideas.

A corollary is that “diversity,” a new America and new Europe where all nations are multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual, is the future of the west and the model for mankind.

Yet, large and growing minorities in every country of Europe, and now in America, believe that not only is this proposition absurd, the end result could be national suicide.

And when one considers the millions who are flocking to Trump and Sanders, it is hard to believe that the establishments of the two parties, even if they defeat these challengers, can return to same old interventionist, trade, immigration and war policies.

For Trump is not the last of the populist-nationalists.

Given his success, other Republicans will emulate him. Already, other candidates are incorporating his message. The day Francis predicted was coming appears to have arrived.

Angela Merkel may have been Time‘s Person of the Year in 2015, but she will be lucky to survive in office in 2017, if she does not stop the invasion from Africa and the Middle East.

Yet Joe Biden’s dismissal that it is reactionaries who oppose what the progressives of Davos believe is not entirely wrong. For as Georges Bernanos wrote, when Europe was caught between Bolshevism and fascism:

To be a reactionary means simply to be alive, because only a corpse does not react any more–against the maggots teeming on it.

Wanting to Fuse with the Ideal

"Projective identification is a phantasy of projecting the whole, or a part of, oneself into another object, taking possession of it, and attributing to the object one's own characteristics. The motives for projective identification are varied, like the wish to possess an ideal object and fuse with it; or getting into the bad object to attack or take over its assumed power; and many others; in particular it abolishes separateness." - Melanie Klein

I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about projection, which is the basis of scapegoating: projecting your problems on other people and then wanting to kill them, thinking your problems will go away (it's the basis of human sacrifice).

I've also written about fusing with the object, such as people wanting to fuse with a crowd or nation. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote about this a lot in Leftism Revisited, which is a book every thoughtful person should own.

"Projective identification" (which Kuehnelt-Leddidn wrote about) is a bit different that merely your own problems onto someone else. The "identification" is the different part.

Let's take comics, for example. The appeal of superheros is to incorporate them into yourself. That's not a bad thing.

Now let's take the Manophere. I tend to be a critic of it because there is a lot of adolescent nonsense in it. All those wannabe-"Alphas" are projectively identifying with the concept, i.e. trying to incorporate it into themselves.

The only thing I can conclude is that they didn't have much (if any) of a father and were raised by clueless women (I have seen this a lot in the last few decades.

Women delude themselves they can raise boys, claiming most have turned out fine (they haven't). Their claim is a logical fallacy known as compostion, which is thinking that if some turned out okay, then all did (assuming the part proves the whole).

My father was a bit of an idiot but he was always there. And he told me things at 12 that apparently some men don't learn until their 30s and 40s. I certainly identified with the good aspects of him and rejected the bad parts.

But the good parts far outweighed the bad parts.

The concept of an "alpha" never existed when I was a kid. In fact, we would have considered it a comic-book concept, like James Bond, or silly films like the Matt Helm ones with Dean Martin, or like the Flint films with James Coburn.

The "beta" is projecting all the bad aspects. I've run across some truly stupid beliefs. "Alphas" are valuable and "betas" are of no value. There is "alpha" and "beta" sperm and genes. Intelligence is a "beta" trait. Dionysus is an "alpha" and Apollo is a "beta."

They pulled these concepts straight out of their asses.

It appears the more projective identification exists, the more scapegoating exists. What comic book or superhero movie doesn't have a an all-bad villain onto which all problems are projected? Good cannot exist without evil. Creepy thought, but it's been noticed for thousands of years.

It's why I only identified with superheros as a child. I certainly don't these days. Just about the only people I identified with, starting when I was 12, were polymaths, probably because I can see a little bit of it in me. I know that if I was about three times as much as I am, I'd be one.

But I have never identified with ridiculous concepts such as "alpha" and "beta" and the "Dark Triad" as a good thing. They're childish concepts, only worthy of comic books.

People who truly believe in these things will never have any gratitude, just envy. And that is why Melanie Klein's most famous book is Envy and Gratitude. How can you have any gratitude to women when you consider them money-hungry whores?

A lot of the Manosphere is based on envy, just the way feminism/leftism is based on envy. In many ways it's the mirror image of feminism, and has incorporated the tactics of denigrating women as loveless hypergamous whores who are only good for sex. The Manosphere wants to bring down women, just the way certain leftist/feminist women are actively trying to bring down and destroy men.

It's why in the long run both feminism and the worst concepts of the Manosphere will fail. They appeal to the worst aspects of human nature.

Planet of Doofuses

If I had the power, I'd rename the earth, "Doofus World." Now that I think about it, I do have the power, but it's only in my imagination, so the name change will stay there and no place else.

I wonder if the plural of "doofus" is "doofuses" or "doofi"? I like "doofuses" myself; it sounds more accurate. And what exactly is the correct definition of "doofus"? To me it means "semi-likeable moron." It's what you call someone who is an amiable klutz. You look at them and shake your head.

I'd like to rename the earth "Doofus" because the whole world is full of semi-likeable morons. Mostly. Unfortunately I'm included, although I like to think I'm a lovable semi-moron. It could be worse. I could be one of those retarded monkey-people running the elevators in Brave New World. Although if I had to be a monkey, I'd rather be one of the flying ones in The Wizard of Oz, even if I had to dress like a bellhop.

If the world wasn't full of imperfect semi-likeable morons, it wouldn't be in the shape it's in, with one step back for every two steps forward. It wouldn't be in the shape it's always been in. Religion is right: people are imperfect. Fallen.

One of the reason people are doofuses is because they follow the wrong people. I could quote Dostoevsky or Shakespeare to buttress my argument, but I won't. As is my wont, I'll use cartoons as an example, since I spend more time watching them than reading Shakespeare.

There is an archetype in cartoons I call the "would-be world conqueror." Examples? Marvin the Martian. Brain, of “Pinky and the Brains” fame. Simon bar Sinister from the old “Underdog” show.

Here's where things get scary. All of them have what I call an "amiable but stupid sidekick." Marvin has his robot dog. Brain has Pinky. And Simon has Cad, who can do little more than say, "Duh...okay, boss!"

On the other hand, heroes almost never have sidekicks, and when they do, they're not stupid. Did Underdog have a sidekick? Superman? Batman had Robin, but Robin never said, "Duh...okay, boss!"

The problem with the would-be world conquerors is grandiosity and hubris, which are the same thing and, in my opinion, the worst of the inborn imperfections in humanity. These conquerors always want to be God, like Satan did. And they always want to be worshipped, like Satan did. All you have to do is look at real-life nutcases like Herod or Nero or Caligula. Caligula went so far in his nuthood as to declare himself a god.

Not all that long ago we got rid of a president who claimed God had chosen him, and that He talked to him. The difference between his imperfections and those rulers who were much worse is not one of kind, but only of degree. Grandiosity and hubris are a slippery slope, and those afflicted with them almost never know it.

What do these cartoon characters tell us? Something really very disturbing. Anyone who wants to conquer the world is never going to have a shortage of misguided - indeed self-deluded - people to follow them. It's not a case of one Brain and one Pinky; it's one Brain and several hundred thousand, if not millions, of Pinkys.

Or, as Robert Higgs so eloquently put it: "An adequate answer might fill a volume, but some elements of that answer can be sketched briefly. The essential components are autocratic government, favorably disposed mass culture, public ignorance and misplaced trust, compliant mass media and political exploitation for personal and institutional advantage."

Many people may not take cartoons seriously, but I do. Cartoons are just modern-day myths; good ones are just as accurate as any ancient myth, because they tell the same stories and same truths, just dressed in modern clothes. Marvin the Martian is just an animated version of Ares, the Greek God of War. Brain, in his own way, is just as loony as Satan.

If you think it isn't true that wackos who wants to conquer the world will never have a shortage of goofballs to follow them, ask yourself how many people said "no thanks" to Hitler and Stalin? More German and Russian soldiers died at the Battle of Stalingrad than all of America's wars combined. Had I been there, I would have snuck away. If I could. I wouldn't die for Brain or Marvin the Martian, or any demented human acting like them.

The real heroes never have doofus sidekicks because they don't want anyone slavishly obeying them. Only people who desire to conquer want slaves. The real heroes, whether in cartoons, or old myths, or in real life, want people to be free, and to be responsible for themselves. Even it if means not wearing a seatbelt.

When Superman said he was defending, "Truth, justice and the American way," he wasn't asking for anyone to say, "Duh...okay, boss!" to him or anyone else.

Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his book, Leftism Revisited, understood what knuckleheads many people are. He also understood why an earth full of doofuses follow the people who lead them to their deaths. The reason, he wrote, is because the "Children of Darkness are more clever than the Children of Light" (the proper definition of "clever" is not a good thing).

What Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote is true. Many people are more liable to follow someone evil than someone good, as long as those who are evil "hide from the light" and pretend to be good. That's why the Children of Darkness are more clever than the Children of Light. Because evil always disguises itself as good. Worse, it appears better than good, because it promises so much more.

Marvin's dog, and Pinky, and Cad, are a bunch of sleepwalking dimbulbs who can't tell the difference between good and evil. All three are just symbols of the human race in general. Amiable but stupid. Semi-likeable morons. Doofuses.

The heroes, the Children of Light, always demand that people take responsibility for themselves. The Children of Darkness always tell people it's not their fault; it's someone else's. And when those supposedly at fault are gotten rid of, then peace and justice will reign. It never happens, though, because the fault lies in ourselves.

The Children of Darkness - not only in the past, but now - promise glory and grandiosity and political power over the kingdoms of the world. It always ends up in death and destruction, as hubris always does. One of the reasons - maybe the main one - is that ultimately the Children of Darkness are incompetent. Nemesis is always the penalty for hubris. Brain and Simon and Marvin always fail. Brain usually conks his head and staggers around dazed. Marvin sometimes even disintegrated himself, although, like Ares, he was always resurrected.

What lessons from all of the above can we find for today? Well. . .we have people in all political administrations who "hide from the light" and not tell people the truth. They always try to conquer a large chunk of the world, and promise honor and glory and safety. Yet, in the long run, they always fail.

Even something as simple as children's cartoons are telling us these would-be world conquerors are bound to fail. Not at all surprisingly, as the plans of these conquerer-wannabees unravel, they always, in their self-delusion and hubris, can't admit it to anyone, including themselves. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of Pinkys and Cads who still haven't opened their eyes. Until they do, they will remain doofuses.