I Should Have Been a Cop - For a While

I've pointed out before I consider myself a working-class intellectual, although I am no longer working-class. But I was raised that way. Both my parents were high-school dropouts who later got their GEDs.

I consider myself to have common sense, a sense of humor, and compassion.

So imagine my surprise when some years ago I started reading some of Joseph Wambaugh's novels about his years as a police officer in Los Angeles. Wambaugh wrote the best police officers were working-class, with common sense, a sense of humor, and compassion.

In other words, someone with an IQ with 125 is probably going to make a pretty bad police officer. The average police officer IQ is about 107, I think, which is the minimum IQ it takes to get a civilized society off of the ground and functioning.

I've never hated cops and have found that people who don't much like them - especially the more boneheaded "libertarians" who think society doesn't need them - live in small, safe towns. Unlike me who was raised with a bunch of psycho criminals.

Some people need to be removed from society. Punishment sure as hell doesn't work and "rehabilitation," rarely. The purpose of prison is to remove chronic criminals from society. Personally I don't care if they give criminals whores and drugs (by the way, sex and drugs are easy to get in prisons - it's just sex with men. As for drugs marijuana is easy to get because it calms people down.). Just as long as these people are removed from non-criminal society.

I have found stereotypes about people are true. After all, they wouldn't be sterotypes if there wasn't truth to them. Promiscuous, diseased, drug-ridden homosexuals...yep. Impulsive, low-IQ blacks...yep. Nerdy, boring Asians...yep. Alcoholics who act as if they're possessed by demons and you can smell the booze coming out of their pores? You bet. Hookers with hearts of gold? That, well, no.

I have never met a police officer who was a liberal. When you have as much experience in life as I have, you wouldn't be a liberal, either.

I was the second-closest thing to being a police officer - I owned a taxi for five years. And there is no such thing as a liberal cab driver. We've just about seen it all (about a quarter of the time I felt like I was working vice).

Of course there are bad police officers. I'd estimate about ten percent, which of course is way too many.

But I'd like to see society function without a minimum of them.

"Team Woman" Does Not Exist

When I first encountered the concepts of the Manosphere I thought, "Who the hell came up with this nonsense?" It had to be someone with little experience with women.

"Team Woman"? It doesn't exist.

Many women hate other women. Most women even prefer to work for men, because most men try to be fair. Many women aren't fair and don't even know it.

Jung was right (and he wasn't the first to see it): women's biggest problem is that they think they are always right, and will never be happy until they give up that belief. And when you get that many women always thinking they are right they sure as hell aren't going to get along with each other.

I have worked with literally thousands of women. And I've found the things they say about other women is astonishing. I once as a joke put my fingers in my ears because of what I was hearing. "That cum dumpster, she gives blowjobs in the parking lot!" And this was going on and on and on and didn't stop.

If women got along with each other Camille Paglia wouldn't have said that if civilization was left in the hands of women we'd be living in grass huts. And P.J O'Rourke wouldn't have commented that without men civilization would last until the next oil change.

A woman I know told me she went to an all-girls high school. You know what she said about them? You don't? Does that word "catty" mean anything to you? Now imagine a whole society run by women. Ack! It'd be an envious, catty, backstabbing hell full of tastefully-decorated grass huts.

In fact, by the time I was 12 years old I understood that old joke: "What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?" "Nothing. She's been told twice already."

Arete Leading to Eudamonia

Those are concepts from the ancient Greeks. Arete means excellence and eudamonia means flourishing or well-being. Excellence leads to well-being. This has been noticed for thousands of years.

Or, as Charles Murray wrote in Human Accomplishment, "Exercising our realized capacities is, in the truest sense of the word, enjoyable.

I should also point out that the word "education" means "to draw out." That is, draw out what talents are already there. Our inborn capacities, which we then should develop to obtain our greatest flourishing and well-being.

To quote Murray again: "The things we enjoy most deeply are the things at which we are most expert."

Sometimes people show that talent at five years old. One of my old girlfriends told me when she was five years old she shinnied up a lamppost and straddled the top, waving to cars. When she grew up she innately had almost professional athletic talent. She used to beat the hell out of me at anything we did. I never won at miniature golf, for an example.

Let's try Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics: "Life is an activity, and each man exercises his favorite facilities upon the objects he loves most."

That leads us to the question of how the West became so rich. One of the main answers: Christianity. And a lot of that had to do with St. Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas wrote that human intelligence is a gift from God, and to apply human intelligence to understanding the world is pleasing to God. In other words, using all of your talents is a great thing - especially if you have a good time doing it.

This spirit of free inquiry is how the West developed science and technology and why we have such wealth that we are the envy of the world (and because of their envy is why so much of the Third World wants to bring us down).

Religions that have gone nowhere are the ones that prohibit inquiry and think the purpose of life is to avoid damnation, which generally involves sending money to frauds.

To quote Aristotle again: "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."

In other words - excellence. What used to be called "the good, the true and the beautiful."

I'll end again with a quote from Murray: "Human beings have been most magnificently productive and reached their highest cultural peaks in the times and places where humans have thought most deeply about their place in the universe and are convinced they have one."

"The Schizophrenic Left, the Confused Cuckservatives, and the Path to American Greatness"

This was written by Gregory Hood and is from American Renaissance.

Only we can contribute to a debate that baffles both Right and Left.

The Left is having a messaging problem. Presumptive Republican nominee Donald J. Trump has a simple slogan: Make America Great Again. But the Left can’t decide whether contemporary America is the fulfillment of all their hopes or a bastion of racism, sexism and transphobia.

A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton introduced her response to Donald Trump’s iconic red #MAGA hat: a blue hat with the slogan “America Is Already Great,” now available for sale at the official Democratic Party website. Mrs. Clinton has also been hammering away at the implicit message of national redemption Trump represents, claiming that “despite what you hear, we don’t need to make America great again. America has never stopped being great.”

But not everyone in the great Democratic Coalition of the Oppressed agrees. Krystal Lake, a black employee at Home Depot and avowed Sanders supporter, started wearing a hat to work saying “America Was Never Great.” She is getting death threats (something every open white advocate is already familiar with) as well as adoring media coverage (something we never experience). Papermag has declared Miss Lake their “hero” and she may have set herself up for a career in her field of “music, radio, social media or journalism.”

Still, the divide is a problem for the Left. After all, Barack Obama is the President of these states united, and telling everyone the country is an embarrassing disaster is hardly a winning message. Hillary Clinton can’t exactly run against the man she served as secretary of state. If America isn’t “great” now, why would another Democrat make it any better?

There’s a deeper issue. The Democratic Party depends on the anti-white fury generated by leftist identity politics to keep its disparate coalition together. However, a fundamental premise of the anti-white world view is that the United States, as a creation of European-Americans, is fundamentally oppressive. Its history, according to this view, is defined by white supremacy, racism, imperialism and the exploitation of “black bodies.” At Home Depot, “America Was Never Great” might raise eyebrows, but it’s the conventional wisdom at almost every American university.

Having fueled anti-American and anti-white rage for their own purposes, leftists have a hard time keeping their minority mascots on script when the cameras come out. For example, when Mexicans in the Southwest protest Donald Trump, they do so in the name of their own raza and fatherland, openly declaring their intention is to “Make America Brown Again” or “Make America Mexico Again.” The slogans are even on hats. Such inconvenient candor is a problem for a Democratic Party that needs to convince at least some patriotic Americans to support Hillary.

A columnist at The Root tried to square the circle by saying that while America has never been great, it’s “greater now than it ever has been.”

Damon Young, a contributing editor at Ebony and editor-in-chief of something called “VerySmartBrothas.com” writes:

There’s never been a time when the country was more closely aligned with the ambitions of its creation. When our government was better positioned to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of each of its citizens and not just straight, Christian men without much melanin.

Of course, you don’t have to be a “very smart brotha” but just an average white man to see the problem with this. The “ambitions of its creation” were set by the Founding Fathers, all of whom would be called “white supremacists” by today’s standards.

As Jared Taylor wrote in “What the Founders Really Thought About Race“:

Since early colonial times, and until just a few decades ago, virtually all whites believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races had different temperaments and abilities, and built markedly different societies. They believed that only people of European stock could maintain a society in which they would wish to live, and they strongly opposed miscegenation. For more than 300 years, therefore, American policy reflected a consensus on race that was the very opposite of what prevails today.

The best leftists can do is to promote a false view of American history in search of a “usable past.” In order to do so, they must direct the egalitarian ideals of the founding towards ends that would have shocked the Founders. And certain figures will either be retroactively co-opted as honorary non-whites (as in the Hamilton musical) or plucked from the margins of the American story and put in the center (as with Harriet Tubman).

Yet the racial truth of America cannot be denied. The Constitution was written by white men. The country’s institutions were built by white men. The territory was settled by white men, its wealth generated by white men, its victories won by white men, its glories from the skyline of New York to the conquest of the moon achieved by white men. In any honest history of America, non-whites are irrelevant, enemies, or details. Until the last white person is eliminated from America, there will always be, as Barack Obama likes to say, “so much more work to do” when it comes to divorcing the story of America from its founding stock. But as the white majority disappears, the high standard of living, reasonably efficient administration, and economic and military power produced by that population will disappear too.

Contra Ta-Nehisi Coates and silly myths of “white privilege,” European-Americans do not benefit from the presence of other races. Much of American history, and certainly the bulk of American life, is about the struggle to secure enough resources to live away from them. The big lie of American race relations is that we need minorities. We don’t need them and would be much better off on our own. They are the ones who need us; many of them need us very badly.

The work of white dispossession can continue only if most European-Americans continue to cooperate. We have to be convinced that America itself is still somehow the same country even as the population is utterly transformed. European-Americans must also be convinced that it is their resistance to dispossession that endangers the Republic, not the endless power grabs of the anti-white Left. And those self-described conservatives who further this mission of betraying the cause of their people are the ones we call “cuckservatives.”

One specimen of this breed recently emerged at RealClearPolitics. Mark Salter is former chief of staff for John McCain, and like his former boss, has criticized his party’s presumptive nominee. Dismayed by the harshness with which he was, in turn, criticized, he is nostalgic for an earlier time when political disagreement could be gentle and respectful. Mr. Salter wrote:

"My grandfather was a staunch Republican. His closest friend for 30 years was a loyal Democrat. They never once voted for the same presidential candidate . . .

"They recognized the same local, national and international problems, and I doubt they disagreed too often about the best approaches to solving those problems. Although they preferred the leadership of politicians in opposing parties, they believed that problem-solving in a free society was an all-hands-on-deck business. That’s what patriotism meant to them, every citizen contributing to making the country better.

"The notion that one party should get to decide everything would have been strange to them. The idea that you wouldn’t have friendships or meaningful relationships with people whose politics differed from yours would have struck them as ridiculous."

Needless to say, Mr. Salter cannot bring himself to understand that the the spirit of all hands on deck has been crushed to death by the very America he is helping to bring about. His earlier, idyllic America was 90 percent white. As Mr. Salter admits: “Although their friendships weren’t confined to one socio-economic class, neither my grandfather nor his friend would have had relationships on an equal footing with African-Americans or Latinos. I can’t remember ever meeting a Jewish friend of my grandfather’s.” What he wants is an egalitarian, patriotic America with high social trust and a sense of a common good. Plus racial diversity.

That’s impossible. As we know, diversity destroys social capital. Desegregation ruined community institutions such as parks, pools, and public schools. Mr. Salter laments that:

We’ve come to define ourselves more than ever by our politics. We segregate ourselves socially by politics. We get our news about politics from partisans. We’re entertained by the like-minded. We’re developing our own vocabularies. Americans with opposite political views are not just becoming more antagonistic to each other. We’re becoming strangers to each other.

This should be no surprise. As the late Lee Kwan Yew said: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

American politics are becoming more polarized because they are becoming racialized. In the 2014 election, despite the GOP’s best efforts, the Republicans moved closer than ever to becoming the “white” party, or to what Peter Brimelow calls the “Generic American Party.” Meanwhile, the Democrats are relying on ever more outlandish anti-white posturing to hold their disparate coalition together.

Media bias is not blinding us to some common interest. “Americans”–whatever that term even means now–have no common interest. And as the government of the United States increasingly becomes a vast machine for transferring the wealth of whites to non-whites, patriotic sentiment for European-Americans becomes yet another expression of pathological altruism.

Both cuckservatives and Democrats make the same mistake. They think what is good about America–however they define it–can be preserved without the people who made it possible. Those who claim “America Was Never Great” still benefit from a standard of living created by the productivity and charity of whites on whom they depend even as they rage against them. More moderate Democrats believe they can convince white Americans to support them despite the anti-white rage the party promotes. And cuckservatives continue to delude themselves that a Third World America will have any use for them.

Only racially aware whites have anything to contribute to this debate. They know that America was great because of the core European-American population that created its institutions. They know that it can be great again if whites reclaim their leadership and again become the overwhelming majority. Otherwise, everything that made America great will vanish with the people who created it. It’s not about the color of your hat or even the color of your skin. It’s about the far deeper heritage and power we share as sons and daughters of Europe who, if we will it, can Make America Great Again.

Leftism is About Murdering the Father

Erik von Kuenelt-Leddihn, who wrote the must-have book, Leftism Revisited, claimed that leftism is about the "murder of the Father." That's "father" with a capital F, as in the archetypal Father.

And when you murder the Father, what is left? The Mother, specfically the Bad Mother. Mythologically, the Terrible Mother. You know - feminism.

All this nonsense about going into whatever bathroom you want? Would this even be under consideration if women weren't allowed to vote? If Obama wasn't a homosexual?

Feminism is leftist, and therefore about destroying the Father. And since the Father created everything in the world, including civilization, leftism is about destroying civilization.

The archetypal Father is a protector and provider. That is why He created civilization. Of course, these days, those things are being taken away from Him, and everyone is paying for it. (Affirmative Action, for an example, means "White Men Need Not Apply)".

"Our first work must be the annihilation of everything as it now exists," wrote Mikhail Bakunin.

Why? Because leftists consider people to be children, ones with plastic personalities that can be molded like Play Doh. And if you just kill enough people, as Bakunin suggested, then a brand-new society will pop up.

This leftist Utopia will never happen, although leftists never learn.

Leftism is inherently narcissistic. Everything is either all-good or all-bad. This is why leftists consider those who disagree with them not merely mistaken but evil. And being evil it's okay to kill them, since once they're gone only the good will be left.

This is why leftists always blame their problems on other people, and why so many woman blame their problems on men ("It's someone else's fault, not mine!").

Leftism is based on envy and hate (as is narcissism) so leftism is a mental illness.

Kuenelt-Leddihn wrote that sooner or later the right has to "knock the heads of the Left." That means "terminate with extreme prejudice." It's been the history of the world.

Personally I'm not looking forward to this.

But it is what invariably happens when the Father (patriarchy) is overthrown.

Women as Reproductive Bottlenecks

My neighbor across the street breeds bulldogs, and the female recently gave birth to six puppies. The father had been dead five years, but his sperm had been frozen. God knows how many puppies he's fathered.

That got me thinking about women as reproductive bottlenecks. A woman can perhaps have 15 babies in her life (my father's mother had nine), but a man can impregnate thousands of women.

I don't consider this bottleneck a good thing. For one thing, r-selected retards can outbreed us K-selected smartyguys.

Society got around this in the past by killing the more criminal r-selected (yay for one less Michael Brown!) and also parents had a say to whom their kids married, to make sure they didn't end up with male or female Michael Browns.

No matter, that bottleneck has caused horrendous problems. Let's put it this way: great men such as Adam Smith and Isaac Newton never reproduced. But as for the retarded (think Idiocracy), the world is being flooded with them.

I used to read a lot of science fiction in my early teens, not because it made me imaginative, but because I was imaginative and thus drawn to it. But I remember reading Brave New World and the babies in test tubes (try the TV series, Space: Above and Beyond for vat-grown babies).

Right now human sperm and eggs are being frozen, and then sometimes implanted in surrogate mothers.

It's a way beyond that bottleneck.

What's next? Artificial wombs? It's coming. You know it is.

What will this do to the value of women? Their value sexually is close to zero, at least for men who can get women. If men can get designer babies grown in artificial wombs, with the eggs of whatever woman they choose (and I'm sure those special eggs would cost a lot of money), then who needs the average woman?

Sex cheap, the bottleneck bypassed, making women's reproductive value cheap...the only thing left that makes women worthwhile is love. And what is to be done with that?

Brave New World, indeed.

"We're Germs, Kid. We're Going to Kill You."

One of my friends and I occasionally discuss our perceptions this is not the same country we grew up in. And it's not like we're old fogies; we're not old, or fogies, whatever a fogie is. But it doesn't seem to be that much fun for kids today, compared to when we were out wreaking havoc.

We don't see the kids doing the things we used to do -- dirtclod or snowball fights, King-of-the-Hill, wrestling with each other, racing downhill on bikes as fast as possible. Or riding our bikes ten miles from home without telling anyone. A lot of kids today appear to be inside, addicted to video games (I know a kid who gets on his tablet as soon as he gets up). That's not such a good thing.

Most of the things we did as kids were risky, but risk had a lot to do with making it fun. It was a controlled (and at that age, a mostly mild) risk, but it was still a risk.

Here's an example: when I was a kid, there were no such things as bike helmets. Do I see helmets as a bad thing? Mostly I don't, but in some ways, I do. I've never known a kid to hurt his brains by not wearing a helmet. I'm sure it's happened, very rarely, but is it worth it when you can't get on your bike without worrying, "I have to put my helmet on so I'll be a vanishing fraction safer"?

Here's another, more interesting example from when I wasn't a kid, but about 21: my car starting spinning on the highway after I hit an unseen patch of black ice hidden by the night. I spun around, went off the road and rolled a few times, and came to rest with the car on its side. I remember the motor was still running and the headlights still on. I wasn't afraid the entire time, even though I could have gotten killed, just in a state of disbelief.

In that state everything dropped into slow-motion, and my perception grew very acute. After the car was lying on its side, I opened the door like a tank hatch, got out, and went "Woo hoo!" Everything was very bright and clear and intense. In a way, it was one of the most fun things that ever happened to me. The thrill was beyond description, and from that accident I learned why guys jump out of airplanes and engage in other extreme risk taking. It's some of the most fun play there is.

Is life supposed to be about being safe and bored all the time? Always feeling anxious and thinking, well, I'd better worry about doing this irrelevant thing, or that meaningless thing, so I'll be just a teeny-tiny bit safer? As compared to never giving it a thought? Which is more fun? Thinking the whole world is out to get you, or thinking it's a place where you can have a lot of fun?

I still drive all the time, and never worry about getting into an accident.

The problem, really, is thinking the whole world is an unsafe place, out to get you. I am reminded of cartoonist Gahan Wilson's Nuts book about young kids. One of the cartoons in particular sticks in my mind: a little boy, in bed with the sheets pulled up below his chin and a look of terror on his face. Why? Because many little oozy monsters are crawling up his sheets, grinning as they tell him, "We're germs, kid. We're going to kill you."

When I was a teenager we rode horses and mini-bikes, swam in lakes, sailed our goofy Sea Snark styrofoam sailboat, jumped off of cliffs into rivers. Nothing bad happened, no one drowned, or even came close. The most unusual thing we did is inflate one of those inner-tubes off of an 18-wheeler, then six or seven of us would stand on it in the middle of the lake and rock it back and forth until it upended. Only once was I was on the low end, and had every one fall on top of me. I remember I was so far down under the surface people were kicking me in the head. When I surfaced, everyone had concerned looks on their faces, because it took so long for me to come up. But I wasn't in danger, even that far down.

Not once as a teenager do I remember thinking, "Maybe I shouldn't swim in this lake. . .I could drown. . .maybe I shouldn't ride this mini-bike. . .I could fall off and cut my knee." The latter I did do; even today I have a three-stitch scar on my left knee. So what? Scars are permanent souvenirs.

What would life be like if all the fun and excitement and risk and adventure was sucked right out of it, in the name of safety? Would it be worth living, if the ability to play was eradicated? And doesn't play always involve some risk? All animals play, not only when young but when adult. In their case, it always involves teeth and claws. Would they ever stop playing because of the possibility of a scratch? You already know the answer: no.

One image I often have is that I'm looking at an attempt to return us to the womb. That's even more regressive than being a swaddled baby in a crib. There is no fun or adventure or excitement or risk in the womb. There's also no intelligence either. It sounds like an attempt to return us to the Garden of Eden, and contrary to the conventional wisdom, I would find it a heck of a boring place.

Here's what I wonder: is the desire for play and excitement and adventure in any way related to intelligence, the desire to learn, the desire to explore, to invent? Are they the natural outcomes of freedom and liberty? Seems so to me. And if you take away risk and fun and adventure, what happens to those good qualities of exploration and innovation? I think they go away, for the most part. After, hasn't it been the free countries that have produced just about everything in the world?

Who's behind this attempt to make the world out of Nerf? Politically, it's liberals. But what's liberalism? Isn't it just Mommy by another name? And don't Mommies want to make the world all safe 'n' snug, even though they don't understand they're taking all the fun out of everything? And maybe removing our brains, too?

It's not Daddies who're trying to rid the world of BB guns, and attempting to put little boys on Ritalin because they're acting like little boys and not little girls. It's Mommies who are trying this. And, to his everlasting shame, Daddies are letting Mommies do this.

Fred Reed has the perfect comment about this kind of Mommy: "censorious, moralizing, self-pitying, endlessly instructive, and so achingly tedious that men find themselves thinking of moldy bath sponges."

Maybe those boys on Ritalin just need to go outside and have some rough-and-tumble play for a few hours instead of being forced to sit motionless at desks, which little girls can do far more easily than little boys.

Another image I have is that of Star Trek's the Borg. The components of the Borg are completely safe womb-to-tomb, always taken care of -- and they have no excitement, no adventure, no fun, and no consciousness or intelligence. And it's completely in character that the Borg Cube (which is just a huge womb flying through space) is ruled by a Queen, one who is motherly and concerned for the welfare of her little worker drones. To me, her most frightening and eye-opening saying was when she commented: "Why do you resist us? We only wish to improve the quality of your lives."

The welfare state is Mommy. And the bigger her welfare state, the more play will decline and with it our intelligence, and along with it will go innovation, and fun, and excitement, and adventure. What a life, if you can call it a life. People will go from playing chess to checkers, then finally have problems with "Go Fish."

Does play, even if it involves risk, actually stimulate our brains? Does it serve a deeper, more profound function than simple recreation? Is it necessary throughout our lives, especially as a baby and a teenager? Are all societies damaged when Mommy takes over, because our brains go plop right out of our heads? Myself, I think so.

Meaningless High School

When I was in high school my life consisted mainly of four things: high school, family, partying, and science-fiction. The first two were close to meaningless, and the last two meant a lot. In fact, they were pretty much the focus of my high school life.

It took me years to figure out what the answer was to that puzzle of why the first two meant so little and the last two so much. I didn't have a bad family life. It was just that, like a lot of kids then and now, family just didn't mean that much (I'm sure I would have realized just how much it meant if I didn't have it). Finally, I realized the answer was pretty simple: it had to do with meaning. The first two had little meaning to me; the last two a great deal. Everything has to have meaning, or it's not really worth doing or having.

For the last few decades there has been a lot of controversy among many people about the break-up of families. They have a point, and it's an important one. But when families are intact, there is something else little noticed but very important. As Ortega y Gassett has written, "People do not live together merely to be together. They live together to do something together."

Because of the way American life has evolved (in large part due to the interference of the State), there was no place for most teenagers when I was growing up, in society or the family. It's no different today. Teenagers have been marginalized for a long time, including in the family, even if it's not purposely done. Lots of teenager's lives don't have much purpose or meaning, even in their families. There is no true sense of community. That, I realized, was one of the main problems.

Several years ago I was in Memphis, sitting in a mall on a Friday night with a woman I know, waiting for a movie to start. I watched the same kids circle the mall, widdershins. That's all they were doing. I especially remember two girls, dressed like Goths, who I saw four times as they circled, before we left for the movie. That was the meaning and purpose of a lot of their life for these teenage girls. Walking in circles around the mall on a Friday night.

Not long after being in Memphis I was in Chicago, in another mall on Saturday morning. I saw the same behavior among teenagers I saw in Memphis.

It wasn't always like what I saw. The only book by Laura Ingalls Wilder I've read is Farmer Boy, her biography of the life of her husband, Almanzo Wilder, when he was ten years old and growing up on a farm. I was surprised by his life, which wasn't all that long ago -- in the 1860's.

Almanzo had a place and a purpose in the family, and an important one. The functioning of the farm was very much dependent on him, and Almanzo didn't mind at all. He enjoyed it a great deal. How many teenagers today can say the same? How many today just live with their families, but don't truly feel part of them? As for school -- ugh.

There was something very interesting about Almanzo's life. He hated school passionately and apparently only attended a few months at the most in his entire life. Yet he grew up intelligent and well-read.

He also remembered nearly everything that happened to him when he was young. I remember little, mostly because I spent most of my time in school, and it was the same meaningless thing day after day. I couldn't tell one day from the other. I have few memories from in-between the ages of seven and 10. I'm not the only one.

So, school, too, is a major part of the problem with teenagers today. Many have little purpose or meaning in their families, and even less in school. Unfortunately, to borrow a phrase from John Taylor Gatto, the purpose of government factory schools is indoctrination. That's why it puzzled me at first why family and school didn't mean that much to me. I especially had no place, or meaning, or purpose, in school. Indoctrination is not education, and it's always boring and never has any meaning.

Almanzo had an important place in the family, but no place in school. That's why he hated it. School meant nothing to him, and it bored him. It isn't any different today.

When I was in high school, we formed our own little communities. The same thing happens today. We called them "cliques" back then. To a degree I found it amusing even at the time. For one thing, in the one I belonged to, we all dressed exactly the same, from head to feet. It was the uniform for our community. More than anything else, what I remember from high school is the group I belonged to, and how we dressed.

The only acceptable shoes were Hush Puppies (I don't even know if they exist these days). Dark socks. White sweat socks? Ack! "Greasers" wore them. I didn't even know what a greaser was. None of us did.

Pants? Blue jeans as long as they were Levi's. They had to have the welt down the outside, and be flares, which were sort of a modified bell-bottom. Shirts? I remember flannel shirts were okay in the winter, as long as they were worn with a blue pea coat. No button-up shirts with short sleeves. Pure Nerdsville. No hats were acceptable, either. Long hair was an imperative. Mine was down in-between my shoulder blades.

Sound silly? Not really. It was the uniform of our community. It was part of the ritual. And without ritual, community, meaning and importance, you'll get not much more than alienation.

As for the purpose and meaning of my group, there was exactly one: partying on the weekends. And I'll tell you what: I had a great time. I belonged to a true community, and all of us had a meaning and purpose. It was nothing that could last for life -- partying never does -- but for those few years, it was wonderful. When I told one of my friends stories of my teenage years he admitted years later he was envious of me, because his high-school years consisted of him and his best friend sitting in the basement eating popcorn and watching TV. While I was on an island with 500 people, partying around a bonfire.

The science-fiction, I knew even at the time, gave me what is commonly called "a sense of wonder." I traveled from one end of the universe to the other, from the beginning of time to the end. It was amazing stuff -- meaningful stuff, to me -- and to this day I still read it. Even in junior high and high school I knew it was a reaction against the boredom of both. I just drifted away in my imagination, which at the time was more vivid than life.

When the Harry Potter books came out and I saw they were so popular that kids dressed like him, I understood why. Harry also had no place in his family. It wasn't even his real family. He was an outsider, an outcast, a scapegoat. I think that's one of the reasons for the popularity of the books, because even many small kids realize they don't have any true place or meaning in their families. It wasn't until Harry went away to Hogwarts that he was given a place in his new family, and a meaning -- in his case, a very important meaning.

Is it any wonder those books are so popular?

I've come to the conclusion there is no hope for the public schools. They bore kids, they destroy their imaginations, they give them no meaning or purpose. I'd shut them down on the spot if I could. How many kids like school? Almost none. Doesn't that tell people something?

I was recently walking somewhere in the morning and encountered an eight-year-old boy walking to school. Do you like it? I asked him. No, I hate it, he told me. We sit in class and then the bell rings and then we sit in another class, he said.

Our school system came from Prussia, of all places, and its original purpose was to create soldiers who wouldn’t run away in battle. Education in the far past was about a bunch of kids sitting in a circle and participating with a mentor. That’s what the ancient Greeks did and they created a lot of educated people.

Why in the world do we need 12 years of schooling anyway? What exactly does it take 12 years to learn? And that doesn't include college and graduate and post-graduate work. Is all of this necessary? It isn't a good thing, of that I am convinced.

I read an article several years ago about a rather eccentric man who lived in a tent with his 12-year-old daughter. He taught her out of a set of old encyclopedias. When the police finally found them, investigators said the daughter was "unusually intelligent and knowledgeable."

She’d be in her early 20s now. I sometimes wonder what she’s doing.

I also recently met a mother who told me her highly intelligent 15-old year daughter was having such a terrible time in school she wanted to drop out and was staying home from school a lot because she was “sick.” She was on the verge of being expelled. I told her both my parents got GEDs and they were easy to get. I’ve never seen her since and I sometimes wonder what happened to the daughter.

I'm certainly not recommending living in a tent with your kid, only pointing out perhaps schools are only not necessary, maybe they are instead a obstacle to true education. Watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off sometime. It reminds me of a nightmare I sometimes have: it is the last day of high school and for some unknown but horrible reason I won't graduate and have to go another year. It is the only nightmare I have repeatedly.

It'd be better if a lot of kids started as apprentices at 12 years old. I've known several people who just simply could not finish high school. All of them later became successful in their field. One friend who lived next door to me when we were in high school dropped out and later became an airline pilot. None of them could find a place, a meaning and a purpose in schools they attended.

As for families, I do know one thing; the State is the cause of most of their problems. Interference by public schools, interference in the economy, destruction of neighborhoods and communities...all of these things are created and exacerbated by the State. Interference by the State takes away the meaning and purpose of people's lives, and tries to replace it with its meaning, which are generally bureaucracy, militarization, war and empire.

The State does a lot of bad things to people. Taking away a true meaning to their lives and replacing it with false one is one of the worst. Or, as Robert Nisbet put it in his The Quest for Community, "The conflict between the central power of the political State, and the whole set of functions and authorities contained in church, family, guild and local community has been, I believe, the main source of those dislocations of social structure and the uprootings of status which lie behind the problem of community in our age."

Oh, yes. Oh, yes, indeed.

Why the Mainstream Media is a Joke, Reason 217

"Trump is a misogynist."

What does that even mean? Trump hates women? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

The only people I know who hate women are serial killers who torture, kill and mutilate them. And rapists.

Speaking of rapists, Bill Clinton is a rapist. He's also a serial sexual predator, and he's married to a drunken lesbian. He not only can't keep his dick in his pants, he can't keep his cigar in his shirt pocket!

Does Bill hate women? It appears he certainly doesn't like them very much.

I've mentioned before there is a philosophical problem know as "concepts and their referents." How do the concepts in our head relate to reality? How do we know that a car and cat and dog refer to those things in reality? How do we know that a Great Dane and a chihuahua are both dogs? How does a dog know that a pug and a rottweiler are the same species that it is?

"Misogynist" is a left-wing word and doesn't refer to anything in reality. Certainly not Trump. Trump, no. Maybe he doesn't take women all that seriously, but then, what smart man does? Women are for making sandwiches and babies (the writer Edith Wharton said women are for "pleasure and procreation." Did that make her a "misogynist"?).

There are some truly ridiculous words out there. "Cis." "Transgender." Those things don't even exist.

And when words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom. Confucius said that, thousands of years ago.

Talk Issues Not Ideology, and Ridicule Your Opponents

That's what Trump is doing, and is it working! But the most famous (or perhaps infamous) individual to popularize these techniques was Saul Alinsky, in his notorious book, Rules for Radicals.

Alinsky, who died in '72, was a '60s radical who had been involved in community action since the '30s. So he had a lot of experience.

Has Trump read this book? Is that where he got his techniques from? It sure seems like it.

Rules for Radicals for those interested in such things, is a must-own.

Alinsky said "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon," and that is exactly what Trump is doing with his comments about "Low energy" Jeb!, and "Lyin' Ted" Cruz, and "Little Marco" Rubio. God knows what he's doing to do to the Hildebeast, who is a very rich target indeed.

Alinky said to talk issues, not ideology, and that is exactly what Trump is doing. Does he even have an ideology? He appears to be a nationalist and a populist, which aren't exactly ideologies.

His enemies are trying to ridicule him (the Hitler/Nazi meme) but it's not working. Because to the leftist everything and everybody is Hitler (of course to them the most evil man in history), so that insult has worn itself out. A long time ago.

So whatever insults and ridicule the left is coming up with is not working. Make fun of his '60s Bobby Rydell haircut? Good luck with that.

The Republicans, who are clueless, are babbling about how he is not "conservative," which is doubly funny considering the party is not conservative at all. Letting the Third World pour across the borders, exporting the middle class and crushing the world beneath the American empire is not in the slightest "conservative."

If I was the Hildebeast I'd be terrified to step on a stage with him. He's going to eviscerate her, and I'm looking forward to every second of it.

Alinsky also said to build organizations, not movements. There has been a perpetual argument about this. The Republican and Democratic parties (organizations) are sclerotic and need to be destroyed. Trump, I'm sure, has an organization. After all, he's worth eight to ten billion dollars, and did not get there by himself.

But Trump's tens of millions of supporters are not an organization - they're a movement. But to sustain their victories they'll have to become an organization.

I'm sure Trump understands all this.

No One Gives a Damn About Trump's Flaws

Donald Trump is certainly flawed. He's declared bankruptcy four times and is well-known for stiffing his subcontractors and suppliers (he pays them but waits until the last minute).

Guess what? No one cares. Because these things don't affect them.

The Mainstream Media/Talking Heads/Chattering Classes can attack Trump all they want, but it hasn't (and won't) do any good. For one thing, 80% of people are ruled by their feelings and therefore are not rational (that's Pareto's 80/20 Law, which has been proven over and over and over).

Muslims? No more immigration and kick out most of them (Poland, for example, has no Muslims and therefore no terrorism, and that's the end of that argument).

"Free trade" and "globalism"? Renegotiate those horrible anti-American deals to favor us.

Our interfering in the Middle East, which has done no good whatsover and has cost thousands of American lives and lost billions and billions of dollars? Pull out our troops.

Trump is the only candidate who's said these things, and that is why so many people are voting for him. They don't care about anything else about him.

The Republican party (and the Democrats for that matter) do not understand how angry Americans are. The only thing they'll understand is losing their elections, the way the senile anti-American John McClain is on the verge of losing his.

And that is why I want both parties destroyed, along with the Bush and Clinton crime families. It'd be good for America.

No, not good. Great!

A Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligence Failures

My rule of thumb is that whatever the government says, I believe the truth is the exact opposite. Like I was really going to believe anything said by the inbred alcoholic crackhead Duyba Shrub? Or by a half-breed faggot who changed his name?

When we were told Iraq was going to nuke us, or send Drones of Death across the Atlantic, I knew it was nonsense, for two reasons, the first often talked about, the second, almost never.

The first reason is that Iraq (which no longer exists) had an economy that is one percent of the U.S.'s. That's smaller than the economy of South Carolina. The country had a total yearly governmental budget of about one billion. They didn't have enough money to build "Weapons of Mass Destruction," unless you want to count some nerve gas, which has been around since World War I. It's not that potent for mass killing, anyway, and certainly isn't going to be lobbed thousands of miles across the ocean into the U.S.

The second reason, which you'll almost never hear talked about, is that in their book, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Richard Lyon and Tatu Vanhanen estimated that the mean average IQ in Iraq is 87. An IQ of 85, before these days of Political Correctness, was on the border of "dull normal" and what used to be called "moron," which was someone with an IQ of less than 85. Muhammed Ali, who had an IQ of 78, was called a "moron" by his best friends, and he admitted he could barely read and write.

Since IQs are distributed along a bell curve, it means half the people there have IQs of less than 87. It's not Lake Wobegone, where all the kids are above average.

That bell curve means on the far right side of there are a vanishing small group of people who have the ability to be engineers and physicists. They didn't even have enough tool-and-tie makers and machinists. And a country like this -- mostly sand -- was supposed to be the next Nazi Germany, only with nuclear weapons? And if we didn't "fight them over there, we'd have to fight them here"? No, I don't think so, especially since the U.S. had been blockading the country for ten years before we attacked them for the second time, impoverishing it even more, and spreading DU (depleted uranium) all over the place, permanently sickening many people and causing many deformed babies to be born.

Did our intelligence services take this poverty and lack of intelligence and education into account? No, of course not; it means thinking outside the box and being Politically Incorrect. So, because of this failure, we lost several thousand Americans and had tens of thousands wounded, some permanently, for an unnecessary war. And we have wasted billions upon billions of dollars. And only God knows how many Iraqis the U.S. has killed or permanently wounded.

The physicist Gregory Cochran has said, "I certainly knew that there was no theat. I knew for sure that they had no nuclear program, when 'nuclear program' is defined as actually doing anything -- breeding plutonium, separating isotopes, or building the required facilities."

Was Cochran listened to? Of course not. Politics trumps the truth.

Iraq was small, dirt-poor, and the people were 60% illiterate. The latter fact is something you never heard about in the mainstream press, just like you'll never hear about how the mean average IQ of 87. Or that the real GDP per capita of Iraq was $3,197, as compared to $28,605 for the United States.

It was Aristotle who first pointed out that to be a successful democracy, one necessary thing for a country is to have a large, solid middle class. When you have a country with a mean average IQ of 87, the people will never have a first-class economy and therefore will never develop a large middle class -- that's why Lyon's and Vanhanen's book is about the relationship of IQ and a nation's wealth.

Iraq , since it would never have a large, stable middle class, will never have a democracy, even if the attempt is made to impose it by force. So the U.S. is wasting time, money, lives and material, for a hopeless cause.

What will happen over there is the long run is that, sooner or later, another "strong man," another dictator like Saddam Hussein, will take over. And the place will be pretty much end up just as it was before we invaded it. That's the way it's been over there for the last few thousand years. Why should it be any different in the next few thousand?

The U.S. Government is Now a Criminal Organization

Darn if I can remember who said it - Thomas Aquinas? St. Augustine? - but it was something to the effect that one guy with a pirate ship is a criminal but if he has fleet of pirate ships he's a king or emperor.

Every study of history every done has shown that all governments are based on crime. Basically a band of ruffians got together, conquered some people and instead of stealing they called it taxation (and the criminals called themselves "royalty," which doesn't exist).

I guess when I was about 21 I became interested in economics, political science and history. I ran across such books as Franz Oppenheimer's The State Albert Jay Nock's Our Enemy, the State and suddenly I understood.

The Founding Fathers understood their history and tried to found a nation that avoided all the criminal State activity. It worked quite well for a long time and in many ways still works today,

The Founding Fathers founded a very small government that protects "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." When it goes beyond those minimum things then it turns into the State - which is a criminal organization.

We now have a government that sucks out astronomical amounts of wealth through taxes and uses it to support the meddling, murdering American Empire, inflates the money supply though the thoroughly unconstitutional "Federal Reserve Bank" so that now money is worth about 2% of what it was 100 years ago, destroys high-paying jobs through exporting them, has opened the borders to every anti-American 87-IQ Third World parasite lowlife out there...and all the rest.

Empires generally last about 250 years. We've beat that so far, and I'll be glad when the American Empire collapses and we have to come home. The rest of the world? I feel for their tragedy, but America first. Besides, the tragedy of the rest of the world is because they don't have political and economic liberty - and we can't do anything about that. We certainly can't impose it by death and destruction, like the U.S. government has been trying to do for a long time.

The U.S. is going to be around for a long, long time. People have finally wised up to what is happening to them, which accounts for the rise of Trump and Sanders (these rebellions against the Establishment are a good thing).

These days, rebellions against the Establishment are always a good thing.

Why I Hate Realpolitik

"Realpolitik" is looking at politics practically instead of as theory.

Example: Russia is nearly a catastrophe. The population is not replacing itself; suicide and alcoholism are rampant among men, and oil-based economy is in collapse.

Simultaneously China is starting to suffer some pretty bad economic problems itself. It is looking at all those resources in Siberia, which is part of Russia.

If we pulled our military out of the area -and Russia does not want us to do it - what would China do regarding Siberia? Try to take it over? Of course. Right now they are creeping in slowly like a turtle.

Realpolitik tells us we can't pull out military forces out of the area. On the other hand, I don't give a damn if Russia and China wipe each other off of the face of the Earth, so we should bring the American Empire home before it is forced home.

We're going to keep our forces over there. And that is why I hate Realpolitik and have for many, many years.

Innovation Is What Powers Advancement

Occasionally (more than occasionally) I'll read articles about how just about just everything has been invented and advancement has pretty much stopped. I always roll my eyes, which I do a lot.

People have been saying this for a long time, and they are always wrong.

Perhaps it's all that science fiction I read in my early teens. When you're suspectible to it (and I was) it stretches your brain and it never goes back to normal.

I keep up with science and technology and it's why I know that the supply of energy is going up and prices are dropping. Prices are going to keep dropping, too. One of the reasons is the advancements in nuclear reactors, which are getting smaller, safer and more powerful. Now they're coming up with stuff I've never heard of before. Molten salt reactors?

If nuclear reactors weren't safe (except for the idiot Russians and Japanese) we wouldn't have nuclear-powered subs.

I wouldn't be surprised if someday some sort of Stargate wasn't invented. And that would be cool, just about as cool if some sort of warp drive was invented.

Only time will tell.

The pessimists are always wrong. I can remember when Paul Ehrlich, who has never been right, was claiming the world was going to starve to death. Now we have more food than we know what to do with, and it's been given away at food panties. Food is easy to find.

Global warming! The ice caps melting! Bee genocide! It's all crap.

Innovation is never is never going to stop.

The Worst Sinking Ever Was the Wilhelm Gustoff

Always with the Nazis. Pure evil, you know.

Not exactly. The Russian Communists (Communism was originally called "Jewish Bolshevism") were much, much worse than the Nazis and killed tens of millions of more people.

And that brings me to the Wilhelm Gustloff, the worst single-ship disaster ever.

Everyone knows about the Titanic, but the Gustoff? Nope.

The Russian sub that sank the ship almost failed since a torpedo got stuck in a launch tube. The crew was able to clear it. As far as I'm concerned, too bad.

We saved the Communist regime with money and material and then they stabbed us in the back. Patton wanted to team up with the Germans and wipe out the Communists since he saw what was coming. We should have aided the Germans against the Communists of instead of aiding the Communists - which lead to Korea and Vietnam.

Now Russia is in collapse in all ways, which is what is also happening to Communist China. They're probably going to end up in a huge war not too far off - and all because we aided Russia against Germany.

In those days there were smart Americas saying, "Stay out of the war! Don't aid Russia!" They were ignored by the cretins in the government.

The biggest single-ship disaster in history took place on a freezing night in January 1945, when Russian torpedoes hit and sank the German cruise ship “Wilhelm Gustloff.” The liner was unarmed and unescorted, and carrying thousands of German women and children rushing to the coast of East Prussia in an attempt to escape by sea the approaching Red Army. Nine thousand people died that night, six times more than in the “Titanic” and nine times more than in the “Lusitania.” Many of those on board were wounded German soldiers who never had a chance. Twelve hundred people survived, including 100 children.

Only one book has been written about the tragedy, by an Englishman, and even that sank without a trace. Some of the survivors are still alive, and because of the publication of a novel by Gunter Grass, they suddenly find themselves in the news. The consensus is that all this years after the event, they still have nightmares remembering the screams of the children, or the looks of resignation on the faces of the wounded on deck. In the closing days of the war, the victims of the sea tragedy were largely ignored, just as those old men, women and children, 70,000-plus, who were incinerated in Dresden, a city of absolutely no military importance, were.

Germany’s literary elite and historians ignored the victims of the “Wilhelm,” just as they largely ignored innocent German sufferers of the war. In fact, it was seen as politically incorrect to portray any German as victim long before the term was popularized. No longer. Gunter Grass, a left-winger and Nobel Prize winner, published a novel, In Retrogression, that deals with the forcible removal of nearly seven million Germans from lands in East Prussia and the Sudetenland, which had been settled by their ancestors during the Middle Ages.

Grass, who wrote The Tin Drum more than 40 years ago, an account of the rise of Nazism in Danzig, has now broken the wall of silence. The irony is that the expulsion of Germans from the eastern territories was one of the greatest taboos of postwar history, while the left, led by Gunter Grass, emphasized only German remorse. Better late than never, as they say, although it cannot be much comfort to those still alive.

The reason these forcible evictions and massacres – 1.7 million German prisoners of war died or were murdered in the Soviet Union alone, whereas close to three million civilians died immediately following the German surrender – have not gone down in history as major crimes against humanity is obvious. Set against the horrors of Auschwitz and Treblinka, they sort of pale by comparison. But a crime is a crime, and a German mother cries as bitterly as a Jewish one, or a Palestinian for that matter.

“Der Spiegel” recently ran stories of human tragedy concerning the sinking of the “Wilhelm Gustloff.” It related the story of a boy who was born in the ship’s hospital one day before the liner went down. His mother had been fleeing homeward in an attempt to find her fiance before giving birth. After the three torpedoes hit the ship, she ran on deck, holding her baby tightly. The infant was covered in a green jacket and cap. As she struggled to hold onto a rope ladder leading to a lifeboat, a soldier took the baby and told her, "Once in the boat I’ll pass it down to you." But a wave swept the lifeboat away.

But this one has a happy ending. When a rescue ship, “Lion,” picked her up, a stranger handed her a bundle. The one-day-old boy was safe and sound, but she never found out what happened to the soldier.

In Grass’ novel, the heroine is based on this woman. Grass, now 74, has apparently seen the light and wants to commemorate those Germans who died as a result of Allied bombing and in the mass flight from the east.

Which brings me to the point I wish to make. Those who died in the “Wilhelm” and during the bombing died while there was a war on. The later and far larger expulsions took place after the Potsdam agreement, after the war in Europe was over. Hundreds of thousands were raped, murdered and robbed, without a single American, British or French protest. The Germans, in fact, had become the new “untermenschen.” Nobody has ever atoned for these dead, and no one has ever publicly regretted their fate. Acknowledging these sins now simply serves the consciences of those who tried so hard in the past to keep the victims as invisible as possible.

So I have an idea. As the list of sacred days mounts up, why not add one more: a memorial day for the millions of victims of that festival of slaughter by the Red Army. And it can coincide with the memorial day for all the victims of communism in Russia, China and throughout the world. March 5 would be appropriate, the day Joe Stalin croaked. One thing is for sure. I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

I Consider Myself a Working-Class Intellectual

Both my parents were high-school dropouts, although they later got their GEDs. Which in those days did them no good whatsoever. Both were blue-collar. My father was a general contractor and my mother worked the night shirt in the local ER.

I was raised in a blue-collar (but middle-class) city. Many of the boys I went to high school with went straight to the steel mill, starting in those days at about $25,000 a year. By the time they retired they were making $75,000 a year. Which today would be about $100,000 a year. With a high school diploma.

And this was back when gas was 35 cents a gallon and a middle-class house cost $20,000. You could even live fairly well on minimum wage.

Because of the way I was raised (even though I graduated college) I far more understand the blue-collar mentality than I do those who went to Harvard and Yale (I have met them and have never been impressed).

In other words, I was born with a high general intelligence and graduated college, but in many ways I have a blue-collar mentality.

In fact, in many ways I still look blue-collar - a shaved head and a goatee (I've been told once than once, "Gee, Walter White").

Because of all of this, I understand the appeal of Trump. And it's why I pay no attention to self-anointed intellectuals - the kind you see on TV and who write newspaper columns (are these sumbitches ever right except in the stopped-clock sense?).

These blue-collar people are not intellectuals and many of them have probably never read a book in their lives (incidentally when I was 12 or 13 adults would come into my room at home and ask me, "Have you really read all those books?" - a library of maybe 100 books, mostly paperbacks).

But these people are not stupid. They know the difference between piss and lemonade, and that both parties have been pissing on them and telling them it's lemonade, and they know when they're being screwed, which has happened to them major¬-time, especially in the last 40 years (I'm going to repeat again wages stopped going up in January of 1974).

My hometown for many years had 50,000 people. Now it has 30,000, which is a loss of 40% if its population. The steel mill, the biggest employer in town, is close to being out of business because of the anti-American fraud of "globalization." There are probably a hundred empty middle-class houses.

Is it any wonder these people are pissed off?

The "elites" don't give a goddamn about these people. They consider them genetically stupid and inbred and only good for cannon fodder.

Since I believe nothing the media or the government or academia say, I don't believe for an instant that the contest between Trump and the Hildebeast to going to be close, or she will beat Trump. He'll wipe her out, and the "elites" will be utterly stunned, not understanding at all how it happened.

I've mentioned before Trump is what I consider an example of Steam Engine Time. That means there are several other Trumps out there (younger ones) just waiting for their turn to save this country.

The Clinton dynasty is over, as is the Bush one (I thoroughly enjoyed the "white Hispanic" and traitor) Jeb! being bent over and buttfucked on national TV).

Let's put it this way: Trump has grown sons.

"The Need for Parallel Infrastructures and Shadow “Governments” of an Ad Hoc Nature"

This is from Al Finn Next Level.

Rigid, corrupt, government monoliths such as those of the U.S., the EU, Japan, China, etc. have certainly outlived most of their usefulness. But the best way to peacefully dismantle such monstrosities is do do so by stealth replacement.

Each department, bureau, ministry, and agency of these unholy conglomerates purportedly serves a nominal infrastructural purpose. By sorting out useful “infrastructure” from destructive infrastructure, intelligent and innovative private agencies should be able to devise parallel methods of meeting genuine societal infrastructure needs. Beginning slowly and on a small scale, such parallel infrastructures (and ad hoc shadow governments) can provide a proof of concept which can be widely copied where the opportunities arise.

The concept needs further development, but it should be easy for intelligent and experienced persons of competence to see how the new paradigm of private, non-governmental disruptive innovation might be applied to the slow dismantling of government itself.

Note: A proliferation of cooperating — but also competing — startup ecologies and parallel infrastructures of a robustly resilient and anti-fragile nature, suggests that even as nation states collapse and disintegrate for reasons of demography, economics, disease, war, or natural disaster, a significant residue of expertise and competence will remain largely intact.

Such a complex interactive system of internetworked networks of competence provides humans with the best opportunity for not only survival, but an abundant expansion into the inner and outer worlds of existence.

The concept is certainly threatening to established power hierarchies. But for the rest of us — which means almost everyone on the planet — it offers hope.

The Hell with the Talking Heads/Chattering Classes

I have a degree in Journalism. Specifically, Mass Communications with a concentration in Journalism. I wish I hadn't gotten it. Even in college I was surprised with the stupidity, ignorance and arrogance of the average journalist. I didn't think most of them were like that. Turns out they were - and still are.

We used to refer to those who read the news on TV as "meat puppets."

Newspapers are dropping like flies, left and right. I predicted it 30 years ago. The three newspapers I worked on are now out of business. They were run by morons.

I had one good boss (who left the field a long time ago). The rest? Incompetents.

Newspapers never tell the truth. They're afraid of losing their advertising, which is what supports them. People on the internet don't care. Only the bigger sites have major advertising.

I make about a thousand dollars a year off of the internet. I don't need it. It's gas and cigars and dog food. And because of that I can say what want on my blog.

Many journalists think they are smarter, more knowledgeable and more moral than the average inbred Flyover Land troglodyte, whom to them are just expendable cannon fodder (I've known more than one guy killed - including one I went to high school with and was killed as a helicopter pilot during the invasion of Grenada - or horribly mangled in combat, including one paralyzed from the neck down at age 19. And for what? Nothing.).

I should have paid more attention to Nixon and Watergate, but I was what? 15? 16? I didn't care (a political 16-year-old can't be right in the head). But it turns out the press just hated Nixon. They always hated him and were orgasmic when they brought him down and he had to resign. They never considered him a legitimate President anyway. That fact that the dumbass inbred troglodytes did just proved to them how they shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway and should instead be ruled by the Self-Anointed.

The media hates Trump, and if he wins (and I think he will) the media is going to spend the next four years trying to bring him down in any way they can (Pauline Kael once wrote she didn't understand Nixon being elected because all her East Coast leftwing friends were voting for McGovern).

I'm sure Trump fully understands this hatred of him by the media.

Hillary Clinton, who truly is a corrupt monster, doesn't get a fraction of the criticism Trump gets from the media. The media would rather have her be President, which is why they are saying she is way ahead in the polls and will slaughter Trump in the election.

Personally I think Trump will mangle her, the way Nixon took 49 states to McGovern's one.

I am not the slightest bit concerned with what any well-known economist or Talking Head thinks about Trump. I put my opinion above theirs. I always have.

George Will? Paul Krugman? Thomas Sowell? John McCain? For all practical purposes all of them are now doddering senile old fools. I don't care what any of them think about Trump or anything else. Why should anyone else?

Who cares that both Bushes refused to endorse Trump and instead endorsed Clinton? Do they really think anyone cares what they think, especially after that inbred idiot Dubya Shrub invaded two innocent countries and is a war criminal responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? What sort of complete fantasy world do these morons live in?

When did journalists get this ignorant and stupid? When they were required to get college degrees instead of working their way up like Jimmy Olsen, cub reporter? When they got on TV, which I'm sure went straight to their heads? Perhaps both?

Rush Limbaugh, who isn't stupid and actually understands the appeal of Trump, never even graduated college. What good is college at all for someone who wants to be a newspaperman? It isn't, in the slightest.

They should start at the bottom and work their way up. It should be like that for all jobs.

The media and academia babbles about Trump's economic policies. WTF? Wages stopped going up in January, 1974. Our government has allowed businesses to send all our wealth and knowledge to China, allowing them to arm themselves against us. And now the government is spending hundreds of billions trying to contain them???

The "elites" don't know what they what they doing. And Trump is going to make things worse? Exactly how?

All of this is based on my decades of experience with these morons.

Ant-Like Feminist Societies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping and Tending the Garden

I tell people just about all I need is a library, a dog, and a garden - probably one with an enclosed wall.

In the story of the Garden of Eden, Adam (which means "Man") is told to "tend and keep" the Garden. The word "keep" (shamar) also means "guard."

This one sentence tells humanity how to treat the world: we are to keep and tend it – guard it – as if it is a garden. There are a few simple rules that can be deduced from that sentence.

The first is that we are to turn the world into a garden. The second is that a garden is private property; it is something that is owned by a person. Since all people are enjoined to treat their property as a garden, then they should legally prohibited from polluting someone else’s garden. Those two things – private property and the enforcement of property rights – would plunge pollution to the bare minimum. Since "Adam" means "Man" and not "State," we can deduce Man is to own everything, and the State, nothing.

This millennia-old sentence about people "keeping and tending" the Garden, and not the State, would not have lasted all these years unless there is universal truth to it. History has shown that when the State owns property, it’s really owned by a large group of people, always distant from the property, always at odds with each other, each trying to use political force to coerce others into doing what they want, no matter how asinine and illogical it is. Then we end up with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Possibly even worse, those who believe in the State are almost always leftists, who believe humans are a blight on the Earth and shouldn’t touch it. This is impossible, unless the human race was to disappear from the Earth, which is something the more crazed of leftists want.

A perfect example of this not-knowing were the forest fires out west several years ago.. They were caused by logging companies not being allowed to clear out decades of underbrush, since liberal environmentalists thought this cleaning – which in reality is tending and keeping the garden – would damage the environment. Since the companies couldn’t do this cleaning, nature took the course it always does: it burned everything up, including the animals that couldn’t escape.

If those forests had been privately owned, they would have been kept and tended much better. Private property always gets better care than property owned by the State. If people don’t take care of it, they can’t make a profit from it, and have to sell it to others with more sense. The free market, coupled with private property and legally enforced property rights, puts property into the most competent hands.

This stand in opposition to "democracy" and the State, which invariably puts the worst and most poorly educated people into office. Then they look puzzled and scratch their heads when their ill-advised policies cause entire forests to burn down.

Another problem with all property not being privately owned is what is called "the tragedy of the commons." This is what has happened with the oceans. Since no one owns them, everyone tries to exploit them. It’s the attitude, "If I don’t get my share first, then someone else will beat me to it, and I will get nothing." This is just human nature, and all the laws in the world will not change it.

A lot of pollution in the U.S. was originally caused by the fact that courts did not enforce property rights. People did sue companies for fouling their property, and were told by the courts, "Sorry, but this company is creating jobs, and those jobs are more important than your property being damaged." Had the courts originally enforced property rights, pollution would have been a fraction of what it turned into. Even though this sentence isn’t in the Bible, it should be: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

There are, obviously, different kinds of gardens. Some are more tame, some are more wild. I am originally from Illinois, which is quite correctly called "The Prairie State." I’ve been all over it and most of it is as flat as the top of Frankenstein’s head. About the only good thing I can say about it is that it’s not as bad as Kansas.

Because of this flatness, most of Illinois has been turned into farmland. It’s been turned into a tame garden. On the other hand, Kansas turns into eastern Colorado, and eastern Colorado turns into the Rockies. And the Rockies are a wild garden. There is not much Man can do with these kinds of wild gardens. And people need both tame and wild gardens. It’d be a boring country if all of it looked like Illinois. It’d be unlivable if all it looked like the Rockies.

What we have today is a mishmash of conflicting laws. And to paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon’s most famous saying, 90% of them are nonsense, which means we can just throw them out. They’re not helping, only hindering. We’d all be better off if people – and the law – just paid attention to that one little sentence about Gardens.

"If whites disappeared from America..."

This is from the Irish Savant.

Day 1, Morning: The bIacks wake up, but sense that something is wrong. There is no radio and no T.V. Electrical power is partially gone. Venturing out into the world, they notice almost no traffic, no police, no airplanes... almost total silence. Realizing this, they immediately begin to loot. Gun stores and liquor stores are among the first to be emptied out. It’s a free for all. Windows are broken, cars are stolen from garages and parking lots. By the afternoon, most valuables in stores and private homes have been stolen.

By the end of the First Week: Electrical power is all but gone. Phone service is sporadic. Working bIacks are beginning to understand the nightmare. But no one listens to them; they are "Uncle Tom's", who have always appreciated life in America. Black gangs are beginning to rob, rape and murder at an even higher rate than before. There is no government, no order. There is nothing to stop them. It is a great big party. Look, we always said life would be great once YT gone.

By the end of the First Month: Looting and anarchy continue. Law abiding blacks have to defend their houses from looters. War begins among black gangs as they battle for territory and vanishing resources. There is no longer any electricity, and most fresh food has spoiled. Fires are widespread from looting, and very few know how to put them out. There is no more tap water.

By The End Of The Third Month: Canned food can still be found but fresh water, milk, bread and produce are non-existent. Gasoline becomes scarce. No television or radio. Garbage and sanitation services are gone, and diseases begin to spread. Rats multiply. Some hospitals are still running but with almost no trained staff. A few law-abiding blacks try to restore order and resort to a shoot on sight policy.

By The End Of The First Year: Starvation is rampant. Food becomes the most valuable thing in the "New Black America." Trees are cut down for firewood. Many die from cold. Most infants do not survive, as medical care becomes non-existent. A few blacks hoard all the food for themselves by the use of force (just like Africa today.) There is no light at night, except from wood fires. Blacks begin to reorganize by tribes. Gangs rule the city. Travel is almost impossible, except on horseback, and gangs frequently murder travelers. Youth engage in dueling, to prove their manhood. Nomads now roam from destroyed town-to-town looking for food. All farm animals have been slaughtered.

By The End Of Five Years: Nearly two thirds of the blacks are dead. The life span is down to about 35 years, as it is in many black countries in Africa today. The U.S. has become Africa, only worse, for there are no white men to organize aid and feed them.

Am I right or wrong?

PS: This material sent to me by reader James Lord. I'm told it's been on Stormfront and been around for nearly ten years.

Why Women Shouldn't be Allowed to Vote or Drive or Shop by Themselves

So Those Sumbitch Bushes Have Endorsed Hillary

Why does this not surprise me? The Bushes aren't even Texan. They're wealthy Connecticut Yankees pretending to be Texans. They went to elite East Coast colleges, for God's sake.

Those on the East Coast refer to everything in-between the East and West Coasts as Flyover Land, and it is inhabited by inbred troglodyte cannon fodder. So they died for Shrub's wars? Too bad. Their lives don't mean anything anyway.

Both parties are leftists. The Republicans are kinda the right wing, and the Democrats are definitely the left wing. And that is why I want both parties utterly destroyed - before they destroy us. Which the are trying their damnedest to do.

The Stumblebums Are Gone

Both Cruz and Kasich have dropped out, finally realizing they never stood a chance. Why did they stay in so long, trying to stop Trump?

As far as I know it was Caroll Quiqley who created the concept of the Deep State, in his seminal book, Tragedy and Hope. The Deep State is that collection of bureaucrats, bankers, the military/industrial complex and Big Business, that actually runs the country. Politicians are mostly their puppets.

These are the people, who live on the coasts, who consider everyone in Flyover Land to be cannon fodder ("Soldiers are stupid animals," as the Jew war criminal Henry Kissinger said).

Some politicians want to be part of the Deep State. Barry Soetero, for example, never had a job in his life but has been a puppet of the Deep State and certainly wants to be part of it. That's why such people end up getting paid a zillion dollars for a speech.

Bill Clinton was actually a student of Quigley's and I'm sure he certainly understands what Quiqley taught.

Cruz and Kasich certainly support the Deep State.

Trump appears to be a traitor to his own class which means he is a patriot. I think he really does love this country.

It reminds me of a song by the Kinks called "Victoria," which was about England's Queen Victoria. "I am poor but I am free...for this land I would die." They remind me of Trump's blue collar/working class supporters.

Cruz and Kasich wanted business as usual - all that Deep State destructiveness. People see through the problem even they've never heard of the Deep State. That's why they've been voting for Trump and Sanders.

The next ten years are going to be interesting. The American Empire is finally collapsing. If we have any sense we'll jump ahead of the game and bring it home before it collapses and save a lot of blood and treasure. Out with the Third World vermin investing this country. Get the economy back online.

These are not hard things to do. The people want it. Apparently Trump wants it. The Establishment does not, but the Establishment always falls.

And thank God for that.

"The Mask Comes Off: Putrefaction Most Foul"

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers." - Carrol Quigley

This is from Unz and was written by Fred Reed.

I love it: Donald Trump’s campaign reveals the establishment for what it is, a swamp of corruption as fetid as those of Latin America. It is better entertainment than Vaudeville. The frantic scramble to rig the primaries, change the rules, and thwart the voters–anything to defend their cozy entanglement of political tapeworms–makes absurd any pretense of democracy.

This morning in the Drudge Report: “Trump Highest Number of Republican Voters in History.” Who do the Republicans want to get rid of? Trump.

On the same page a poll reports Trump tied with Hillary nationally. Who do the Republicans want to get rid of? Guess.

It’s wonderful. The GOP is looking for someone that Hillary can beat. She would squash Kasich or Cruz like stepping on bugs. Trump might actually win. This the Republicans strive to avoid. What could make more sense?

But it does make sense. The Republicans try desperately to ditch the only Republican candidate who could win the Presidency because…Hillary is one of them. Because, as every sentient being has by now noticed, the Republicans and Democrats are members of the same corrupt club of blood-sucking parasites, the action arm of the corporations, Wall Street, the Israeli lobby, and those who want the US to control the world at any cost–except, of course, to them. They are panicked at the rise of someone who might put first the interests of America. Better Hillary, a fellow parasite, than Trump, who isn’t.

The latest skulduggery is the Virginia governor’s allowing convicted felons to vote. The obvious intention is to increase the black vote for Hillary. In Chicago, the dead vote. In Virginia, the killers. This sort of thing of course explains the support for Trump.

Will the two parties succeed in blocking the Donald? Might they even resort to the Martin Luther King solution? My powers of political prognostication would be under zero if they could figure out how to get there. If the felony vote and delegate-tampering bring Trump to the convention with only 1236 delegates, and the Republicans broker-in some sad-sack compliant loser, well, the mask will be definitively, openly, for all time off. Welcome to Paraguay.

Which would be only another step in the country’s race toward the Third World.

What would the public do if Trump were robbed of the nomination? What could the public do? There might be protests, mass demonstrations in the streets, but so what? The Insiders’ Club would just wait them out. Once a society realizes that it has no power over its rulers, it lapses into resignation. Republicans do not loot malls or burn cities, and would soon go home. But all the world would see that the Americans have no recourse, that the Insiders do as they please. Welcome to China.

But the mask would be forever off. Very, very off.

If the Republicans deep-six Trump, and Hillary runs against Kasich, or or Cruz, or some other derelict, what then? Our choices will be not to vote, which will make no difference, to vote for either of the party candidates, which will make no difference, or to vote for Trump if he runs as a third party, which will make no difference. But at least we will have seen under the log, the squishy pale creatures scurrying. They will keep their grip on the country, but the world will know them for what they are.

And America for what it is: Corrupt to the roots of its teeth. The corruption is adroitly hidden, yes, or disguised as something else. Yet it is there. Consider the subprime disaster. To believe that it was an accident, or a cyclical downturn, or other artifact of econobabble, one has to believe that bankers, realtors, and Wall Street do not understand mortgages, credit, or defaults. You have to believe that officials of the Treasury, who slide back and forth between Wall Street and government like the motion of the tides, had no idea what was going on.

At the top, America is as corrupt as Mexico but American corruption is far more efficient. Among the white middle class, the rot is less. But within the clubhouse of insiders, at the level of the anointed, of the Adelsons and Epsteins and Clintons and Bushes, there is putrefaction most foul.

It is cleverly done, and seldom involves anything so sordid as open bribery. Yet the results are everywhere. Men who knew exactly what they were doing engineered the student-loan bubble. Yet it is legal, like so many scams. Huge military contracts for things not needed, the near-control of Mid-Eastern policy by Israel, poor medical care at high prices, the deliberate gutting of American industry so that corporations can enrich themselves in China–all of this is legal. You pay Congress and it makes legal anything you want.

Credit cards, which intentionally lure people into going deeply in debt and paying usurious interest rates, are legal. Big Pharma paid Congress to rule that Medicare cannot negotiate the price of drugs, opening a sluice to the Treasury. Corruption, but legal.

Under the rule of the Insiders Club, medical care is a fecund source of legal graft. Example: I once needed eye drops from Bausch and Lomb called Muro, which amounted to hypertonic salt water. A bottle of 1.8 (I think it was) ounces cost $23 in Washington, $19 in Winchester, Virginia. Exactly the same product in Mexico, $6. Price-fixing, but where and by whom? What Congressmen were paid to make it legal, or not look into it too closely, or at all?

Welcome to Guatemala.

Corruption has come to be the purpose of government, and the Club battens on it. You want to see the political equivalent of a public latrine in Uganda? Try HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I promise that you will be horrified by the diversion of funds and lining of pockets.

You ask, Fred, why do you say this? Are you a student of HUD? No. I know nothing of HUD. I know much of government. HUD is an outfit with over thirty billion a year to spend, completely unwatched. Have you ever seen a newspaper story about HUD? I guarantee that it is dominated by the sacred ethnic groups who milk it like a prize Guernsey, and by big companies getting sweetheart contracts.

Or try Commerce, or Education, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Congress.

It is to preserve these overflowing rice bowls that we have elections without substance between candidates without a difference. Hillary is just Jeb Bush in a dress, Biden a universally applicable cipher, Cruz a compliant applicant for membership in the club. Since the parties collude in avoiding issues that people care about, the contest becomes a popularity contest of the sort found in middle school. Whoever wins, the Insiders win.

Of course Trump also is a billionaire,but he is a turncoat, a class traitor, the Benedict Arnold of billionaires. He addresses the issues that the Insiders want to remain unaddressed. He is indeed dangerous. He threatens the endless (immensely profitable) wars, the endless (immensely profitable) shipping of American jobs to China, the endless (immensely profitable) importation of cheap Mexican labor. He threatens the sacred rice bowls.

It is why he must be stopped.