The U.S. conquered the place once in about a week and some Mexicans told us, "Don't leave! We want you to stay here and give us a better government!" The entire country is corrupt.
Instead of visiting the place, Trump should just buy it and remove most of the inhabitants and move Americans down there.
It'd be a hell of a lot better place than it is now.
I have a smallpox vaccination scar on my left bicep. I remember getting it. The reason it’s a scar is because I was scratched with a needle, and it left a small round scar when it healed. I remember the scab turned green.
I think I was about nine or ten but I’m not sure.
No one has those scars anymore because there is no more smallpox. A lot of people used to die from smallpox and if they didn’t die it left horrible huge pockmarks on their face. Google them and you can see the pictures.
Entire villages of American Indians were wiped out by smallpox because the Indians had no natural immunity at all to European diseases. The Indians would flee the infected villages, not even stopping to bury the dead.
Some years ago I was at the cemetery where my grandparents are buried. I encountered a children’s section in one corner where almost all of them had died of polio during the ‘50s. There were marbles stuck in the concrete grave markers and black-and-white pictures of the children.
I also remember drinking some sort of concoction to prevent polio. I also know an older woman who had polio as a child (she must be in her 70s by now). She said she spend seven years lying on her back and ended up in her 50’s in a wheelchair. Post-polio syndrome, she told me.
They used to put children in iron lungs (no one less than my age knows what they are) because they could barely breathe on their own. That’s what polio did to them.
One of my old girlfriends told me her aunt died at two years old of tetanus. Her father told her it was a horrible death (sometimes the spasms break bones). Of course there was no tetanus vaccine back then (had I been a doctor back then I would have told the parents I could end her suffering with a shot, which I suspect happened at times).
Smallpox, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, rabies – all gone.
I got what was called the DPT vaccine – diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus. Nasty diseases and all of them can kill you. The last one will kill you.
I remember reading in one of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s book how the whole family came down with diphtheria at the same time and all of them almost died. They couldn’t even get out of bed.
I did get measles (all three kinds, and according to my mother I was about six months old when I first got the measles), mumps and chicken pox (parents used to take their children and have them sleep overnight in the same bed with kids who had those diseases. That’s how I got the mumps. I also got mononucleosis but that was from a girl – that’s why it was called “the kissing disease.” And that one made me anemic and exhaused for a month.)
During World War I more people died world-wide from the flu than were killed in the war. Some people would be okay one day and dead the next. My grandfather missed that one but did get malaria in Panama while in the Army.
The only problem with vaccinations is that they aren’t perfect. There will always be a vanishingly small minority who are damaged or die from a reaction. But that is balanced by those who aren’t damaged or die and in fact are saved from those things. Or would you prefer we still have smallpox and polio?
This doesn’t mean I think every vaccination is necessary. The idea of vaccinating a baby as soon as it pops out of the womb is ridiculous. It was done to my niece’s baby and he turned yellow for two weeks.
Still, I don’t understand what I call Conspironuts. Vaccinations have been around for hundreds of years – and in one form or another, a thousand) and suddenly they’re part of a conspiracy? I mean, what the hell? How can anyone be that demented to believe that?
Unfortunately the “mind” of a Conspironut cannot be changed, just the way the mind of someone who believes in chemtrails cannot be changed.
There are always (and always has been) people out there who truly believe there is some vast, world-wide conspiracy (some going back several hundred years), whose only purpose is to Do Evil. And to conquer the world, like Pinky and the Brain.
I don’t understand these people at all. But then, I’m not a Conspironut.
"Among the ancient Scots women followed the army and cruelly mutilated the prisoners." - The Unknown History of Misandry
I have mentioned Thomas Berger’s wonderful novel about Indians, Little Big Man (it’s his most famous novel and was made into a movie in the late ‘60s starring Dustin Hoffman). Berger had done his homework about Indian culture, especially the Cheyenne.
Although Berger never came out and said it, his examples about torture were the women cutting their enemies’ bellies open and unwinding their guts. It was an example of “show, not tell.”
One of my posters made the comment that Indians used their women as torturers. That reminded me that when some prisoner is tortured for information women were not used to torture them.
Why? They enjoyed it too much.
That’s been my experience too. Some women – not all, of course – enjoy hurting people. They’re sadists, and they don’t even know it. Or rationalize it.
Again, why? Maybe because they’re big children. That’s been noticed by a lot of men throughout history.
Schopenhauer has a famous essay about women being big children. Lord Chesterfield wrote a famous letter to his son about it.
Children’s brains aren’t anywhere near being mature. And sometimes they can be very sadistic (I can remember, when I was a little kid, one friend who would stick firecrackers in a frog’s mouth and blow them up).
Little kids – at least some of them – can be very sadistic. And obviously they enjoy it. It reminds me of a comment supposedly by John Locke – “The evil man is the child grown strong.”
I’ve even known “adult” women who were sadistic. They never knew it, of course. They also rationalized it, of course.
For that matter, aren’t most of the complaints in the Manosphere about women being sadistic?
Men may kill, but women torture.
In high school I can’t remember meeting any women like that, except one time. I was 16, and didn’t make the connection.
We were allowed to leave the campus to eat lunch. On the way back to class – and I had some school books in my hand – I was standing on the street corner waiting for the light to change.
A woman driving a car gave me a dirty look, reached over and locked her door. I guess she thought because I had hair past my shoulders (the style at the time) I was going to jump in her car, kidnap her and rape her. But when it comes right down to it I have no idea why she did what she did.
I just ignored her. She was probably hoping for some reaction from me. She didn’t get it.
That is the only time in my life something like that has happened, which is why I remember it.
Years later I realized she was middle-aged, unattractive and pudgy. Married? I have no idea. Divorced? I have no idea. But she appeared to be in her late 30s – the perfect age for pudgy unattractive divorced/never married women to go completely crazy.
Since then, I’ve met more than one unattractive woman who thinks men are going to harass or rape her. These days, it’s become a cliché (I once met one who told people I had made a pass at her, which was a complete fantasy).
But when I was in college I started to figure it out – all of them were unattractive. In college I found they were always pudgy, with bad bodies (and even if they lost weight they’d never have good bodies), and thick-features. And somehow they seemed to think they deserved guys way out of their league.
Years later I began to run across another kind – divorced or never married. Spinsters. They were always scrawny. Not only hostile, but liars and back-stabbers.
Now that I understood. “I’m not married or divorced! It’s men’s fault!!!! So I’ll try to get revenge!”
And none of them were very smart.
Hostile, unattractive, dumb.
As I’ve mentioned, I’ve never seen a Shit Test in my life. If they did exist, who cares if a dumb, hostile, unattractive, pudgy women shit tests you?
As for women who are interested in you, they encourage you.
I’ve never seen an exception to any of those.
I used this quote at the beginning of my last article: “Every state begins with violence, and (if it becomes secure) mellows into liberty.” It was from Will Durant’s The Lessons of History.
It’s pretty much a trope these days about how “we took the Indians’ land.” To which I respond, “So what? It’s the history of the world. If you can’t defend it, someone will take it from you.”
When I was about 16 I ran across the novel Little Big Man, by Thomas Berger. I thoroughly enjoyed it and read it many times.
I remember thinking, “It’s just a novel, but I wonder how much of the history is true?”
It was about some of the Western Indian tribes, and it turned out Berger did his homework.
One scene I remember in particular is Berger writing about how such Indians would catch an enemy and “unwind his guts.” Indians did things like that. Years later I read an article about how they caught one man, unwound his guts, nailed them to a tree, and made him walk around the tree until his guts unwound completely and he died.
Indians were notorious for things like that, which is why the Declaration of Independence refers to them as "the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
They did such things as take the babies of other tribes and bash their brains out on rocks. Swinging them by their feet.
By the way, all tribes of whatever race did such things, so saying things about what Europeans did is meaningless. I’m well aware of what primitive and savage European tribes did, such as roasting fat babies for food or raping dying women. Savages are called savages for a reason – and I’m glad they’re gone.
I’ve pointed out before when Europeans came to North America they found a mostly empty, incredibly rich land sparely populated by about a million Indians.
I’ve had people tell me there were 20 million Indians here, which is ridiculous. Primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, some of which occasionally grew some corn, can’t support 20 million people, even with a continent this size.
I was raised near Cahokia Mounds in Illinois (I've walked up those stairs on Monks Mound more than once), which had been the largest Indian village in North America – and when Americans discovered it is was already completely empty. All that’s left is a bunch of burial mounds, some of them huge. No one’s quite sure why they deserted the place. And the whole area is still as fertile as can be.
Most of the Indians died from European diseases to which they had no immunity. Smallpox wiped out entire villages. Only a few thousand on each side were killed in combat. And Americans didn’t so much want to wipe them out as turn them into white Christians, which didn’t work. Changing other people’s cultures never works.
As for Mexico, the Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of people from the tribes they had conquered, and those subjugated tribes supported Cortez when he destroyed the Aztecs. Apparently they were quite tired of having their hearts ripped out while they were still alive.
Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto is very accurate about that, and about how it stopped completely when Europeans landed, bringing Christianity with them.
I don’t exactly understand why some people idealize savages, since they weren’t Rousseau’s Noble Savages. All such primitive tribes are horrors more than anything else. You should read the Old Testament sometime, about how those primitive savage tribes left no one alive, not even the children and animals.
When countries become rich and powerful and safe, suddenly certain people long for a more primitive life. They ignore the loss of dentistry and anesthesia and surgery.
The history of the world has been that when one tribe runs into another, the result historically has been genocide. Which is why it’s obvious there is no such thing as “multiculturalism,” and the more Third World savages we import the more they are going to rape and steal and murder us, until we return the favor and deport or kill them.
And that has been the history of the world.
“Every state begins with violence, and (if it becomes secure) mellows into liberty.” – Will Durant, The Lessons of History
But power doesn’t always intoxicate and immunity doesn’t always corrupt. Just 99.9% of the time.
The Founding Fathers, who knew their history, knew about the lust for money and power and the many imperfections of man, which is why we have the separation of powers in our government. They wanted to dilute those powers until it was weak and inefficient. After all, society and government are not the same thing, and the bigger and stronger the government, the weaker society and culture.
Yet, there is one man in 50 million who can handle power, even absolute power with no accountability to anyone. He isn’t intoxicated by it and isn’t corrupted by it.
Not surprisingly these men have been of a philosophical nature. Think Marcus Aurelius, not surprisingly a Stoic, who ended up dying leading his troops into battle.
Another one, not well-known at all because he wasn’t Western, was Akbar the Great. He never even learned to read or write, but was probably the greatest of Eastern rulers.
Of Mongol/Turkish ancestry, he was once called “one of the wisest, most humane and most cultured of all the kings known to history,” although he came from murderous barbarian beginnings and once at 14 cut off a prisoner’s head with one stroke of his scimitar.
He was, at that time in India, the ruler of the most powerful empire then known.
Even though he was raised Muslim, he gave it up and accepted all religions, and enjoyed talking for hours to their scholars. As for his library it had 24,000 volumes in it.
He yearned to be a philosopher, as philosophers yearn to be emperors – and only sages need not live by human law since it is already written in their hearts.
He once said, "Although I am the master of so vast a kingdom, and all the appliances of government are at my hand, yet since true greatness consists in doing the will of God, my mind is not at ease in this diversity of sects and creeds; and apart from this outward pomp of circumstance, with what satisfaction, in this despondency, can I undertake the sway of empire? I await the coming of some discreet man of principle who will resolve the difficulties of my conscience. . . . discourses in philosophy have such a charm for me that they distract me from all else, and I forcibly restrain myself from listening to them lest the necessary duties of the hour should be neglected."
Even on his deathbed he refused to reconvert to Islam.
The U.S. at its beginning had a few men similar to Akbar – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. But after that? Monsters like Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson.
I’ve always been stuck by Dubya Shrub’s claim that Jesus was his favorite “philosopher” and that he should have been dictator. What a downhill toboggan slide in character!
Benjamin Franklin once made a comment about the avarice and love of power among rulers, which, again, is why the Founding Fathers tried to split up the powers of government. They didn’t want big government in the slightest.
As far as I know it was the Greek historian Polybius who first wrote about the separation of powers. After all, the Roman Cicero. After that, Baron Montesquieu, who came up with the concept of an independent judiciary.
In other words it took thousands of years to culminate in the concepts upon which the United States was founded. To me that’s astonishing. Thousands of years! And the first written records are from Sumeria!
And about the only reason it worked is because North America was, as I have written, a mostly empty, incredibly rich Great Frontier, one protected by two vast oceans.
That combination of circumstances is amazing to the point of being impossible. But for all the problems we have I’m certainly glad it happened.
“Oppressive government is fiercer than a tiger.” – Confucius
”In their effects on the individual’s freedom to pursue happiness, the creation of prosperous and free societies is the greatest accomplishment is the greatest of all achievements by humans on behalf of other humans.” - Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment
I don’t trust the polls at all. They’re anti-Trump and pro-Hildebeast. They’re done by liberals, and liberals always lie.
There are probably tens of millions of voters who have never voted before but now will vote for Trump. And included in these people are those like me who haven’t voted for 20 years because there wasn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between any of the candidates.
Then you have to take in account all those unenthusiastic Hildebeast voters who aren’t going out on Election Day.
I remember the howls about how Reagan was senile and a warmonger. I was just a little kid but I remember the TV commercials during the Johnson/Goldwater election how Goldwater was going to start a nuclear war!!!!! Does that sound familiar today?
Trump has bypassed the Mainstream Media and I’m loving it. Not that I take the Talking Heads/Chattering Classes seriously. I never have.
The Hildebeast keeps shooting herself in the foot. She was dumb enough to mention the Alt Right, apparently not realizing there is no such thing as bad publicity. There are now a bunch of people now Googling it and saying, “Hey, that doesn’t sound bad at all.”
It’d be funny if the alcoholic, brain-damaged, epileptic Hildebeast did become President and had to have her handlers roll her around in a wheelchair, praying she doesn’t crap her Depends in public.
And what are they going to do if she kicks the bucket in office? Prop up her corpse and have a ventriloquist imitate her? That’d remind me of the “Family Guy” episode where Stewie was unconscious for three days due to brain damage and his brother and sister were using him as a puppet to try to fool their parents.
Win or lose Trump has changed the Republic Party – and there is no going back. Now we need to someone to destroy the Democrats.
Oh, I forgot – that’s what Hillary Clinton is busy doing.
When I was about 21 years old I read a book by Walter Prescott Webb called The Great Frontier. In it he pointed out that when Europeans moved to North America they found an incredibly rich continent barely peopled. It was a Great Frontier and it had a profound effect on the people who moved here to get away from the crushing burden of Europe. In many ways it was what created the American character.
Unfortunately those kinds of Great Frontiers are gone, until we invent Stargates and people the Galaxy. Too bad Warp Drive doesn’t exist, because the original “Star Trek” was about those Great Frontiers of the future (and I think that’s why it was so popular. Along with having sex with beautiful green-skinned women).
When I was 12 I desperately wanted to live on the Enterprise.
There are still frontiers, although no one is going to be moving to the bottom of the sea or Antarctica. There are still frontiers of the intellect and imagination, but those are only for certain people, and those people are not the average ones.
I suppose someday we might be able to terraform Mars. Who knows? But if we could some people would be there like a shot. Bye bye Earth! See ya! (the writer Peter Beagle once said that if Middle Earth existed he, too, would be there “like a shot”).
This comes from all that science fiction I read in my early teens. If you’re susceptible to it (and I was) it expands your mind and it never goes back to the original shape.
When I was about 12 or 13 I read a novel by the late Poul Anderson called Brain Wave. In it he postulated that the Earth had been in an IQ-suppressing field for a few hundred thousand years, and then one day it pops out.
Everyone’s IQ shoots up to about 400. Of course he spends the rest of the novel imaging what the effect would be on the entire population. But what he wrote about it is that allofasudden there were all these new frontiers opening up because of our super-duper brains. Interstellar travel, for one.
Anderson was notorious about writing such stories. What if we had wings and hollow bones and could fly? What if we could live in the sea like dolphins? What he wrote was always about being More than Human.
Sooner or later we’re going to take control of our evolution. So what are we going to do with it? Create people who can fly? Or live in the sea? They’d be new frontiers.
Some people are always seeking new frontiers. Again, mostly these days they are of intellect and imagination. That’s why I’ve always been so intrigued by people such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, both of whom mostly lived in their imaginations (honestly, what else can Hawking do?). Both were seeking new frontiers.
There is something – curiosity, seeking a better life, the intellect and imagination I mentioned – that in some people is always seeking these new frontiers. And it’s a good thing, too, because otherwise we’d be permanently stuck in about 20,000 BC. Which would make us Less than Human.
I have many times gotten comments how “things have changed since you were younger.”
Guess what? They haven’t.
When I was in high school I found girls were having sex at 13, 14, 15. And I graduated in 1974. My 5’6” father told me the same thing when he was in high school – and that was about 1950. He told me about things he did that I never did. Like hanging out in whorehouses when he was 13, getting a tattoo while drunk when 14, three and four of his friends having sex with one girl when he was 16 (which happened in my high school), pulling a faggot out of a canal at 17 while his friends were trying to beat him to death (and finally did, and the three served seven years for it while my father walked), and waking up in the hospital at 17 after a bus hit him and finding his best friend dead and that he was addicted to morphine when he woke up after being in a coma for two weeks (he also ended up with metal plates in his head, an arm and a leg).
Then after all this, things returned to “normal” – and if my father had died (as did three of his eight siblings – of cancer, drowning, and rheumatic heart disease) I would have never been born.
None of these girls were having sex with “alphas,” which, as I have pointed out before, don’t exist (all the men I know who devote their lives to seducing women have been liars and cowards and ruined their lives through becoming degraded). That’s why I refer to Vox Day, Roosh and Roissy as con men and liars. And none of them can tell me anything that I don’t already know.
Women have sex with guys they find attractive and since most women are pretty irrational, there is no telling who they like and for what reason (and women’s clothes don’t fall off because of “Game).
I know a woman who was attracted to a man in a bar who was wearing a ridiculous stovepipe hat – and she ended up marrying him and having three kids. I also know another woman who was attracted to a man because she liked the way he danced. She also married him, found out he was an alcoholic, and once found him drunk and pissing in their bedroom closet. “Alphas,” indeed.
By the way, when I was 20 I met a dim-bulb 17-year-old who was joining the Army because he had gotten three girls pregnant – two of them sisters and the other their cousin. His IQ appeared to be about 93 and before I talked to him I thought he was retarded because of how he looked. This was about 1976.
When I got older and started reading history, I wasn’t surprised to find things go in cycles. As I have mentioned, societies are born in Stoicism and die in Epicureanism. But even in Stoicism there are sex and drugs sex and rock-roll – and this goes back to the beginnings of recorded history. Which is Sumeria.
The entire history of humanity has been people destroying themselves through hedonism (very much a vice of the “elites”) versus those who oppose it – religion and most philosophers. And it goes in cycles.
I have found if you want to understand people just about all you need to know is the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly Virtues. That takes care of understanding about 99% of what people do.
Not “Alpha Fux and Beta Bux,” not “hypergamy,” not “the Dark Triad” (which is actually vainglory) not Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Delta/Omega. And not Evolutionary Psychology, which isn’t a science, certainly not a theory and not even a hypothesis because none of it can be tested in the slightest (ideas about feminism, atheism, materialism and evolution have been around for thousands of years).
These are people who have never read the Bible (the Old Testament is not for children), or Marcus Aurelius, or St. Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, or My Secret Life, or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure - the latter two of which are nonstop orgies.
Or the insane Marquis de Sade, who was probably the founder of Leftism (and who gave his name to sadism, as in sexual sadism).
It’s amusing how those who really believe in the concepts of the Manosphere try to shove everything in their tiny non-existent boxes. And ignore it when life pops right out of them. And then double down.
When I was in high school all we did on weekends is party, drink, smoke dope, and end up in the backseat with various girls. I saw cocaine just one time. Heroin, never (that was a black thing). But hashish with opium, LSD and mescaline? All over the place.
By the way, in Robin Buss’ translation of The Count of Monte Cristo Edmond Dantes would pass the time on long coach rides by eating a ball of opium and hashish. And criminals were executed by bashing them in the head with a mallet, then cutting their throats and having their abdomen stepped on so the blood spurted out of their cut throats. History has always been about things like this.
Now heroin can be found everywhere and addicts are dropping like flies. So, obviously, society is becoming more hedonistic. Which is doubleplusungood.
I actually got the tail end of the Sixties – and I assume everyone knows what that was like.
So don’t pretend that things have changed and that I haven’t been around a lot. Because things haven’t changed because human nature doesn’t change and I have been around a lot.
Ever heard the phrases "A house built on sand" and "By your fruits you will know them"?
I run across some truly bizarre stuff in the Manosphere, like Alpha/Beta, which has nothing to do with humans, yet some people have spun this nonsense into huge tangled webs that gets further and further away from reality the more complex they get.
And if you want to talk about primate Alphas, just remember they murder infants and are cannibals.
The only time "Alphas" exist as "top dog" is in prison (zoos) and among tame, neotized dogs - human-bred dogs that never grow up and in some ways are always puppies.
This is from the site io9 and was written by Lauren David.
Why everything you know about wolf packs is wrong.
"The alpha wolf is a figure that looms large in our imagination. The notion of a supreme pack leader who fought his way to dominance and reigns superior to the other wolves in his pack informs both our fiction and is how many people understand wolf behavior. But the alpha wolf doesn't exist—at least not in the wild.
"Although the notions of 'alpha wolf' and 'alpha dog' seem thoroughly ingrained in our language, the idea of the alpha comes from Rudolph Schenkel, an animal behaviorist who, in 1947, published the then-groundbreaking paper 'Expressions Studies on Wolves.' During the 1930s and 1940s, Schenkel studied captive wolves in Switzerland's Zoo Basel, attempting to identify a 'sociology of the wolf.'
"In his research, Schenkel identified two primary wolves in a pack: a male 'lead wolf' and a female 'bitch.' He described them as 'first in the pack group.' He also noted 'violent rivalries' between individual members of the packs:
A bitch and a dog as top animals carry through their rank order and as single individuals of the society, they form a pair. Between them there is no question of status and argument concerning rank, even though small fictions of another type (jealousy) are not uncommon. By incessant control and repression of all types of competition (within the same sex), both of these 'α animals' defend their social position.
"Thus, the alpha wolf was born. Throughout his paper, Schenkel also draws frequent parallels between wolves and domestic dogs, often following his conclusions with anecdotes about our household canines. The implication is clear: wolves live in packs in which individual members vie for dominance and dogs, their domestic brethren, must be very similar indeed.
"A key problem with Schenkel's wolf studies is that, while they represented the first close study of wolves, they didn't involve any study of wolves in the wild. Schenkel studied two packs of wolves living in captivity, but his studies remained the primary resource on wolf behavior for decades. Later researchers, would perform their own studies on captive wolves, and published similar findings on dominance-subordinant and leader-follower relationships within captive wolf packs. And the notion of the 'alpha wolf' was reinforced, in large part, by wildlife biologist L. David Mech's 1970 book The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species.
"Mech spent several years during the 1960s studying wolves in Michigan's Isle Royale National Park as part of his PhD thesis work. Mech's book echoed Schenkel's notions of 'alpha wolves' and competition-based pack hierarchies. Readers of Mech's book were led to believe that dominance played a key role in the lupine social order, and that wolves were naturally inclined to dominate one another. And Mech's book became a hit; it was republished in paperback in 1981 and remains in print (much to Mech's chagrin) to this day. It popularized a lot of our modern ideas about wolves, including competition-based hierarchies. Although Mech has since renounced the notion of the 'alpha wolf,' he admits that if you've heard the term, it's likely thanks to his book.
"In more recent years, animal behaviorists, including Mech, have spent more and more time studying wolves in the wild, and the behaviors they have observed has been different from those observed by Schenkel and other watchers of zoo-bound wolves. In 1999, Mech's paper 'Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs' was published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology. The paper is considered by many to be a turning point in understanding the structure of wolf packs.
"'The concept of the alpha wolf as a 'top dog' ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots,' Mech writes in the 1999 paper, 'is particularly misleading.' Mech notes that earlier papers, such as M.W. Fox's 'Socio-ecological implications of individual differences in wolf litters: a developmental and evolutionary perspective,' published in Behaviour in 1971, examined the potential of individual cubs to become alphas, implying that the wolves would someday live in packs in which some would become alphas and others would be subordinate pack members. However, Mech explains, his studies of wild wolves have found that wolves live in families: two parents along with their younger cubs. Wolves do not have an innate sense of rank; they are not born leaders or born followers. The 'alphas' are simply what we would call in any other social group 'parents.' The offspring follow the parents as naturally as they would in any other species. No one has 'won' a role as leader of the pack; the parents may assert dominance over the offspring by virtue of being the parents.
"While the captive wolf studies saw unrelated adults living together in captivity, related, rather than unrelated, wolves travel together in the wild. Younger wolves do not overthrow the 'alpha' to become the leader of the pack; as wolf pups grow older, they are dispersed from their parents' packs, pair off with other dispersed wolves, have pups, and thus form packs of their owns.
"This doesn't mean that wolves don't display social dominance, however. When a recent piece purporting to dispel the 'myth' of canine dominance appeared on Psychology Today, ethologist Marc Bekoff quickly stepped in. Wolves (and other animals, including humans), display social dominance, he notes; it just isn't always easy to boil dominant behavior down to simple explanations. Dominant behavior and dominance relationships can be highly situational, and can vary greatly from individual to individual even within the same species. It's not the entire concept of wolves displaying social dominance that was dispelled, just the simple hierarchical pack structure. In response to the same piece, Mech pointed to a 2010 article he published detailing his observance of an adult gray wolf repeatedly pinning and straddling a male pack mate over the course of six and a half minutes. 'We interpreted this behavior as an extreme example of an adult wolf harassing a maturing offspring, perhaps in prelude to the offspring's dispersal.'
"As research on wolves, both captive and wild, continues, we develop a more complex, nuanced picture of wolf behavior. But the easy notion of the 'alpha wolf' still persists. Certainly in entertainment it has made for some nice stories; plenty of books and movies center around the notion of wolf—and werewolf—ranks. However, the outmoded idea of the 'alpha wolf' still has some legs in a real-world area: dog training.
"Just as, more than six decades ago, Schenkel extrapolated his wolf studies and applied them to domestic dogs, so too have many carried the notion of the 'alpha wolf' over to dog training. Certainly, just as parent wolves hold dominance over their cubs and human parents hold dominance over their children, owners hold dominance over their dogs. Until my pup gets himself a credit card and a pair of opposable thumbs (and stops dissolving into delighted wiggles every time I tell him what a good little man he is), I'm pretty much the boss in our relationship. But some trainers take the idea of pack rank to the extreme; dog owners are given a laundry list of rules of how to maintain alpha status in all aspects of their relationship: Don't let your dog walk through the door before you do. Don't let her win a game of tug. Don't let him eat before you do. Some (famous) trainers even encourage acts of physical dominance that can be dangerous for lay people to execute. Much of this is a legacy of those old wolf studies, suggesting that we're in constant competition with our dogs for that pack leader position.
"But, you might ask, mightn't domestic dogs behave much like wolves in captivity? Despite being members of the same species, wolves (even human-reared wolves) are behaviorally distinct from domestic dogs, especially when it comes to human beings. Take the famous experiment in which human-socialized wolves and domestic dogs are both presented with a cage with food inside. The food is placed inside a cage in a way that makes it impossible for either wolf or dog to retrieve it. The wolves will inevitably keep working at the cage, trying to puzzle out a way to remove the food. The dogs, after a few seconds of struggle, will look to a human as if to say, 'Hey, buddy, a little help here?' Even if the hierarchical ranks were some innate part of lupine psychology, dogs have behaviors all their own.
"Canine ethology is actually a very rich area of study. Researchers like Karen B. London and Alexandra Horowitz constantly contribute to our understanding of the domestic dog, and researchers like Mech (who has an updated book, Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation) continue to expand our knowledge of wild wolves. And perhaps someday, our popular culture will more closely resemble our modern behavioral science rather than the results of outdated research."
Tiberius Gracchus was a Roman who was around before Jesus was even born. He was speaking to those oppressed by their government (Rome, which rose because Greece destroyed itself).
By the way, Gracchus took land from the thieving wealthy and gave it to homeless, impoverished Roman soldiers.
Trump is just a symptom of a pretty bad societal disease that has gone on since the dawn of recorded history and I’m sure before then (so was Jesus, for that matter, not that I’m comparing Trump to Jesus), although the idiotic Talking Heads think Trump is the disease itself. You know – because Hitler!!!!!!! (I’m sure if Jesus was around today he’d also be Hitler!!!!!!!!)
I am an amateur historian, which means I have read a lot of professional historians far more knowledgeable than I am (the study of history can make you cynical, although, fortunately, it’s hasn’t exactly worked in my case).
What anyone who studies history has found is that history repeats. It’s the same story over and over. The kakistocracy gathers all the wealth to itself though gaining control of the government and then crushes everyone. It’s the oldest con game there is. And then…
“So the services [rendered by the] aristocracy did not save it when it monopolized privilege and power too narrowly, when it oppressed the people with selfish and myopic exploitation, when it retarded the growth of the nation by a blind addiction to ancestral ways, when it consumed the men and resources of the state in the lordly sport of dynastic or territorial wars. Then the excluded banded together in wild revolt; the new rich combined with the poor against obstruction and stagnation; the guillotine cut off a thousand noble heads; and democracy took its turn in the misgovernment of mankind.”
Will Durant wrote that a long time ago.
That has been the history of the world without exception. Every historian, ever, has written the exact same thing about his culture. And since the Founding Fathers knew their history they tried to found a totally new country that avoided those old problems. It worked for a while and in some ways still does.
This oppression-of-everyone-by-the-degraded-elites is a huge problem with the U.S. today. Wars that never stop and have accomplished nothing except consume men and wealth, degraded exploiting political “aristocracies,” high-paying jobs and the middle class disappearing and becoming impoverished, all to enrich the politically connected even more…all of these things have happened over and over and over through all of recorded history.
We are repeating the mistakes of Greece and Rome and every civilization that has fallen!
And what has then happened is that the excluded rise up and overthrows their oppressors. Usually this has included baking them alive in ovens, chopping off their heads, dismembering them, shooting them and their children or hanging them from lamp posts by their ankles. Revenge is a bitch.
Fortunately we don’t do those things. We just elect new people. And thank God for that because otherwise we’d have civil war.
I’ve had people tell me the sooner it collapses the better. Nope, unless they want violence in the streets, massive shortages of food and power, and like some of the countries in South America, even no toilet paper!
“We conclude that the concentration of wealth is…periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution. In this view all economic history is the slow heartbeat of the social organism, a vast systole and diastole of concentrating wealth and compulsive recirculation.” – Will Durant
"Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a wilful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses." - Richard K. Morgan
The farther you look back into history, the farther you can see into the future.
I have a minor in Philosophy, and about the only things I remember are a class in Buddhism and a class in Greek philosophy, which also meant Greek history. And pretty much all our intellectual ideas came out of Greece – about 2500 years ago.
The Greeks discussed everything and they figured out solutions for every problem people have. Even our country was founded on what some of the Greeks thought – and some of their intellectual Roman descendants, such as Cicero.
Epicurus was not an Epicurean, not in the degraded modern sense as someone who devotes his life to pleasure. But much of the Manosphere, as it stands today, is Epicurean in the degraded sense. One only needs to read the sites of the foul Roissy and Roosh. Both of whom are degraded (I suspect Roissy is a Jew, and there is a good reason Christianity overwhelmed Judaism, just the way Stoicism always beats Epicureanism).
Epicurus thought the purpose of philosophy was to free men from fear, although the modern degraded ones think its purpose is to free men from all responsibility.
I recently pointed out that the more ridiculous ideas in the Manosphere will never last and will be transformed by the Alt Right, which is in many ways Stoic (and what most people perceive as “Stoic” is not what it originally was). Although “Alt Right” is its current name or sooner or later it might get another one.
This is one of the reasons I think Trump will win. In some ways he comes across as a Stoic (at least compared to the brain-damaged, drug-addled, alcoholic, degraded Bush and Clinton crime clans). He certainly uses some Stoic ideas (“making America great again” is the same thing as freeing the people from fear), which resonates with the American people.
For that matter, “conservatives” (the real ones) are far more Stoic than liberals, all of whom are Epicureans. That’s the real divide between them, although today I hear discussions about the modern equivalents of K and r reproductive strategies.
What we’re dealing with here, ultimately, is ethics – what is the good life? (Not surprisingly, the Stoics influenced early Christianity). And not surprisingly, our degraded “elites” barely have any ethics, unless one wants to consider love of money and political power ethical.
The good life certainly isn’t devoting your life to sex and women as “plates” (the ancient Greeks – and Christianity even today – realizes that those who devote their lives to physical pleasure always become degraded. This I have seen more than once).
The ancient Stoics clearly saw the basic problem of their age – the collapse of the theological basis of morality. They tried to fix it by bridging the gap between philosophy and religion. It sort of worked, for a while. Then, ultimately, Christianity showed up and transformed everything.
Our degraded Epicurean “elites” – all of who have money, drug and sex problems – no longer believe in religion. That’s for the unwashed masses. Hence Brak Yomama’s comment about people in Flyover Land clinging to “their guns and religion.”
Possibly the oldest problem in the world is class warfare – when the greedy and power-mad grain control of the government and crush everyone else. This never lasts and sooner or later this kakistocracy is always overthrown. Sometimes they lose their heads or end up hanging upside down by their heels from a lamp post.
As that modern saying tells us, history may not repeat but it does rhyme. And no great nation is ever conquered until it has destroyed itself. We’re not anywhere near there yet but our “elites” are doing their best to bring it on.
If you dare to question whether Hillary Clinton is physically ill, her dutiful media maidservants will smear you as mentally ill.
It matters not how many times she falls, how many speeches she interrupts with uncontrolled coughing, how many memory lapses she has in mid-sentence, how many times she cackles loudly and inappropriately, or how many apparent seizures she has while cameras roll and fawning reporters flinch. She’s not sick; you’re sick for even noticing.
“The right-wing smear machine is working at warp speed to convince the nation that Hillary Clinton has brain damage,” ululates Heather Digby Parton over at left-wing remote-controlled Clinton mouthpiece Salon.com. Sounding curiously more hysterical than the people she’s trying to depict as hysterical, she mentions “mudslinging” and “rumor mongering” emerging from the subhuman slime of right-wing “fever swamps.” Parton singles out the Alt-Right as having “gone completely over the edge with this craziness” in trying to misrepresent the former Madame Secretary as “a brain-damaged invalid.”
At the eternally punishable Wonkette, Evan Hurst casts his righteous thunderbolts of disapproval down upon “the fever swamps of the wingnut internet” where deluded Neanderthals fixate upon the discredited and debunked conspiracy theories generated solely by “Trump’s obsession with his opponent’s energy and health.”
“I am not a doctor, but this I know: Hillary Clinton is one sick bitch.” US News bemoans “a slew of conservative or conspiracy-theory themed sites” crammed with “Hillary-phobes” whose sick minds lead them to suspect without any solid evidence that Hillary Clinton may be sick.
Not to be done by her fawning minions in the realm of egregious gaslighting, HillaryClinton.com screams that “Trump Pushes Deranged Conspiracy About Clinton’s Health To Distract From Tax Return Questions.” Desperately changing the subject, it accuses Trump of “desperately changing the subject” away from the issue of his tax returns.
But that’s a separate subject. The subject at hand is whether Hillary is likely to croak anytime soon…or poop her diapers during a White House press conference…or suffer a temporary stroke and accidentally launch a nuclear war.
Clinton’s site mentions “fabricated documents” and “lies” and a “baseless narrative” and “tin foil hats” and “conspiracy peddlers” and “absurd and debunked claims” in a transparent attempt to make anyone besides Hillary Clinton look like the craziest person on Earth.
As far as I can tell, there are far more questions being asked about Clinton’s health than there are “claims” being made. One notable exception involves a series of documents purportedly from Clinton’s personal physician claiming that she suffered from “memory loss” and “blacking out” and “uncontrollable twitching.” These documents were apparently forged.
Otherwise, here are some unanswered questions about Clinton’s potential illnesses that will get you labeled mentally ill merely for asking them:
WHY DOES SHE FALL SO MUCH?
She fell in 2009 and broke her elbow. She fell while boarding a plane in 2011. In 2012, she fainted, fell, and suffered a concussion that left a blood clot on her brain. Earlier this year, either she fell and was helped to her feet by bodyguards, or Ol’ Muffin Ass had trouble scaling a small flight of wooden stairs by herself. Last week she appeared to stumble after introducing Joseph Biden in that Basset Hound bark she has while giving campaign speeches.
WHY DOES SHE COUGH SO MUCH?
It makes her look unhealthy. Extremely unhealthy. It’s as if she’s ready to hock out her esophagus like a big bloody loogie. All that cringeworthy hacking and gagging and throat-clearing and water-sipping and choking leads a curious mind to wander through cognitive meadows that allow the possibility that Hillary Clinton has a lung tumor the size of a football.
WHAT’S WITH THAT PSYCHOTIC CACKLE OF HERS?
The woman whose cold womb Bill Clinton once saw fit to impregnate has perhaps the most sadistic and inappropriate witch-like laugh mine ears hath ever heard. If that’s not a sign of severe neurological damage, I will have to presume she is possessed by Satan.
WHY SHOULDN’T WE BE CONCERNED THAT A 2011 CONCUSSION LEFT HER WITH A BLOOD CLOT ON HER BRAIN?
And it wasn’t her first blood clot, either—she had deep vein thrombosis in her leg in 1998. But after she fainted and fell in 2012, her philandering hubby Bill says his one-time sex partner suffered “a terrible concussion that required six months of very serious work to get over.” Hillary was diagnosed with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis—a blood clot in a vein between her skull and brain. She took blood thinners to dissolve the clot and still apparently takes them.
Although her campaign is now trying to dismiss the brain clot as no big whoop, back in 2012 ABC News said it was potentially life threatening. It quoted a physician who specialized in head injuries:
Imagine this vein, where all the cerebral spinal fluid inside the head and spine no longer flows through this area. You get a big back up and that itself could cause a stroke. In the long-term…the venous system can’t get the blood out of the brain. It’s like a Lincoln Tunnel back up.
IF THE BLOOD CLOT DIDN’T GIVE HER BRAIN DAMAGE, WHY DOES SHE ACT SO BRAIN-DAMAGED?
Why does she make such weird faces and space out in mid-sentence and refer to Donald Trump as her husband? If this isn’t a seizure, isn’t it at least evidence that she’s nuts? Why did Huma Abedin, her own personal Sapphic Sancho Panza, send an email to a colleague claiming that Hillary is “often confused”? If Clinton’s not brain-damaged, give that lady an Oscar!
WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE HOLE IN HER TONGUE?
Why is there a recessed hole on her tongue the width of a dime? Is it where her Council on Foreign Relations robot chip was implanted? Or is it where an especially severe oral herpes sore was removed? What about a cancer biopsy? Or an excised tumor? Or syphilitic glossitis? Or even the dreaded speckled erythroplakia? Whatever it is, I wish she’d keep her mouth shut.
MY DIAGNOSIS
I am not a doctor, but this I know: Hillary Clinton is one sick bitch.
I’ve been part of the Alt Right before it was called the Alt Right. Before the Internet even existed. In many ways since I was about 21. Maybe as far back as being 12 or 13.
For a while it was called “the Dark Enlightenment,” a ridiculous name and one I’m glad is mostly gone. Was it supposed to be the opposite of “the Enlightenment?” Which one? The rationalistic Scottish one that gave so much to the world?
The Alt Right was called by various names before that – paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism, etc. None of the names were quite accurate. Names never are – the name is never the thing, just the way the map is not the terrain.
I used to write about 15 years ago for LewRockwell.com, a “libertarian” site which has gone downhill in a big way. I got banned and my archives erased for pointing out some major American problems with blacks, Jews, Mexicans, etc. I wasn’t the only one banned and tossed down the Memory Hole.
Jimmy Cantrell was one and I believe another was Carole Ward. And I’m sure there have been others.
Now I’ve ended up writing about the Manosphere, which has some huge fatal flaws – which I’ve pointed out more than once. Such as the fact that the Greek alphabet soup of Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Sigma/Omega doesn’t exist, and if you truly believe in them then you have to believe in polygamy, which destroys cultures and is something that is not part of Western European and American culture, only African and Islamic cultures. And it will never make any headway in the West, contrary to the delusions of those who think it will (and if you think I’m wrong, just wait and see and you’ll find out I’m right – because Western culture is overwhelmingly a genetic thing).
Speaking of culture as genetic, I am of mostly Scots-Irish ancestry and know about that ethnic group and their attempts to get the hell away from governments, including fleeing all the way across the Atlantic and then fleeing from Appalachia into Tennessee and Kentucky and even into southern Illinois. It seems to be a genetic thing with them – and me. And that’s a lot of traveling to get away oppressive bureaucratic idiots.
In a sentence, the Manosphere promotes culture-destroying ideas and says they’re instead good, true and wholesome. What are these people – a bunch of New England Yankees? (There used to be a saying in the U.S., probably during the 1850s/1860s, that whatever problems the U.S. had were caused by Massachusetts “conquering the U.S.”).
I’ve also pointed out the fact that Roosh, Roissy and Vox Day are grifters (Roosh and Roissy are out-and-out liars and Roosh in a half-wit half-white obsessed with jerking off over white women). Now all of them are writing about the Alt Right. I knew it was going to happen before they did and started trying to run their con game again.
But if they’re going to claim they’re part of the Alt Right they have to give up the Manosphere delusions of Alpha/Beta “Dark Triad” blah blah blah.
Because the Alt Right doesn’t support those adolescent beliefs (James Bond is second-rate fiction, not a role model).
Since none of them want to give up the attention and money they’ll slowly change the definitions of Alpha/Beta/Omega and then stop talking about the psychopathic “Dark Triad” as something that makes women’s clothes fall off. Or that woman are “hypergamous” whores who only seek “cash and prizes” (have these imitative morons ever had an original thought in their lives?).
Many years ago I read some of Frenchman’s Arthur Gobineau’s books from the 1850s (“The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races With Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence in the Civil and Political History of Mankind”).
He pointed out the backwardness and poverty of Africans and Muslims – the low IQs (although he never used “IQ,” since the term didn’t exist then), the animalistic impulsiveness, the lack of civilization and culture.
So don’t think the concepts of the Alt Right are anything new. They’re not. And as I’ve pointed out several times the concepts of the Manophere are nothing new and were dismissed as nonsense hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Read the Bible sometime if you want an example.
There is an old saying: “Whites create, Asians copy, and blacks sing and dance.”
That in a sentence that is what the Alt Right is about. And why so many of the deludedleft (one word) are hysterical about the “racism” of the Alt Right. And how it’s full of old, angry, poor, lower-class, stupid white men – the ones the media convinced are Trump’s main supporters.
Fortunately the truth is never racist.
I’m not some sort of loon who believes in ZOG or Black Run America. Those are the delusions of what I call Conspironuts. Blaming all your problems on other people (who the Conspironuts actually think are superior to them) is something minorities and the inbred do.
But there are problems with Jews (otherwise they wouldn’t have been expelled over 100 times), there are problems with blacks, with Mexicans, with Muslims.
This land for us and their land for them.
And these problems wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for multiculturalism, which is one of those deluded leftist beliefs.
All of this makes the Alt Right part of the right wing – hence the name. It’s an alternative to the sickly, dying version of “conservatism” that exists – the kind the corrupt left-wing Bush crime family supports.
And I guarantee you that Trump, no matter what he says, supports the concepts of the Alt Right – otherwise he wouldn’t be so popular and the media wouldn’t hate him so much.
Trump is clearly a nationalist, and nationalism is part of the Alt Right.
The Alt Right is pretty much what the U.S. was founded upon. Only in those days it was considered just obvious common sense.
None of this means I hate the groups I just mentioned. I don’t. But what am I supposed to think about blacks who can’t make it in the U.S. and have become wards of the State? About Jews who have, as I just mentioned, been expelled over 100 times and always for the same reasons – stealing, lying, cowardice, spying, treason. About Mexicans who have their own country, can’t make it a success and instead climb fences and dig tunnels to make it into the U.S.? Or Muslims who rape women and children?
Ignoring the truth won’t make it go away.
And isn’t the Alt Right about telling the truth, no matter where it leads? The Left sure isn’t about that.
"A government retains its sway over a great number of citizens, far less by the voluntary and rational consent of the multitude, than by that instinctive, and, to a certain extent, involuntary agreement, which results from similarity of feelings and resemblances of opinions.” – Alexis de Tocqueville
John Adams called politics “the divine science” and a quotation of Cicero (who greatly influenced the Founding Fathers) was often quoted: “For there really is no occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the august function of the gods than that of the founding of States or preserving those already in existence.” Now compare that to George Bush (aka “Dubya Shrub”) who called the Constitution “just a goddamn piece of paper” and suggested he should be dictator. Or Barry Yomama, who apparently can’t stand the fact this homo half-breed got what few brains he has from his white half, specifically his POS sex pervert mother.
How did this happen?
Democracy, apparently, has gone too far. The Founding Fathers only wanted property owners to vote, and certainly not women and blacks. They wanted only the most intelligent and thoughtful to vote.
These days, everyone can vote, even if their IQ is 85.
This country was founded as a republic and not a democracy. The Founding Fathers despised democracy since they knew their history and knew that it always collapsed and was usually replaced by tyranny – a dictator.
They also despised what Thomas Jefferson called the “artificial aristocracies” of birth and money. Such people were considered soft, effeminate and weak. After all, look at the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Obamas (Benjamin Franklin said such people were motivated by “ambition and avarice; the love of power and love of money”).
They wanted to keep public salaries low to discourage these people. As Franklin wrote, “Place before such men a post of honor, that at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.”
What’s going on these days can’t last. It’s gotten so bad people are voting for a reality-show star - who I actually think will make a fine President. But still, he’s no Washington or Jefferson.
If Washington or Jefferson showed up today I seriously doubt they’d stand a chance of ever being elected. Too smart and knowledgeable, most probably.
Fortunately the U.S. has the stability of a couch. But even couches can be tipped over, if enough energetic idiots are working at it.
And we certainly don’t need to be importing couch-tipping morons.
They did look miserable. I thought, “No only no more McDonald's, no more girls, just sheep.”
Now, on the contrary, the Bush crime family didn’t deport anyone. But they did put some of the bin Laden family on a plane to send them out of the U.S. Why? Because the Bush crime family was financially involved with the bin Ladens, just the way, during WWII, they were financially involved with the Nazis.
The love of money, as St. Paul suggested, just might the root of all evil.
I realized then the Bush crime family were globalists, meaning they were (and are) were left-wing anti-Americans.
I’ve said this before: as Erik von Kuehelt-Leddihn wrote, “Leftists don’t merely misunderstand human nature. They don’t understand it at all.”
I knew the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn’t work and instead make things worse. And what I and many other people predicted happened. Things are much worse over there, and aren’t going to get any better until we completely pull out and let them murder each over their camel girlfriends until another strongman dictator like Saddam Hussein arises. The one we should have left in power.
It’s because the Bushes and the neocons, being leftists, didn’t understand human nature at all.
I knew that Bush and the anti-American neocons (most of whom are Jews) infesting the administration honestly thought they could turn sand kaffirs into white people and impose American values. That, of course, is impossible, no matter how many of them we kill.
It’s also why neither the Bushes nor Barry Yomama hasn’t cut off immigration or deported anymore. After all, to the leftist mind everyone is the same, equal and interchangeable. Why, since they believe the U.S. in “a proposition nation” anyone who moves here picks up American values and becomes an American, no matter how low their IQ or how anti-American their religion or culture.
Many people have been conned into thinking the Bush crime family are “conservative.” Har har! They’re RINOs, all of them – “Republican in Name Only.”
They’ve just as bad as the Clintons, and in fact dry drunk ex-cokehead Dubya Shrub once said he considered the Hildebeast “my sister.” Why did that not surprise me?
I’ve pointed out before Daddy Bush and Dubya Shrub belong in prison for life. That sounds about right for traitors, although I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep if they followed Julius Rosenberg to the chair for their treason.
There is an old but true saying: “Laws are for niggers and poor white trash.”
I’ve written this before: even if Trump doesn’t become President he has put an end to the political aspirations of the Bush crime family. It’s all over for Jeb! (who, not surprisingly like the not-too-bright inbred pseudo-aristocrat that he is, was arrested for drugs when he was much younger).
The history of the world has been class warfare. This class warfare goes back to the earliest known civilization, Sumeria, and it’s one of the conflicts that brought the Greeks down. I hope it doesn’t bring down ours.
Vermin like the Bushes and Clintons and Obamas are as common as, well, vermin. I am disgusted by all of them.
It’s because, ultimately, women do what they’re told to do.
Decades ago, the late Stalinist monster Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique which was about how housewives were bored and should take up careers. It was the fault of men, of course.
Lots of housewives were bored, but it never occurred to Friedan that feminism is the result of peace and prosperity (created by the technology and ideas of men) and not “patriarchy” and “oppression.”
Women fell for Friedan’s nonsense by the millions – and look at the result. Women did want they were told to do.
When I was 17 years old I meet a man who told me “the feminine is the emotional, the passive and the dependent.” That’s been my experience.
Women are generally ruled by their feelings and not their reason – and it’s why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
It reminds me of what Jack Nicholson’s character said in As Good As It Gets about why he understood women so well: “I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.”
Women today are about as unhappy as they have ever been and the number of them I know on psychiatric medication is close to astronomical.
Women are trying to imitate men – and they’re doing it badly. “I want a career, then I want home and husband and babies!” They’re doing what they’re told to do, only it’s not working out. So of course they’re doubling down – and of course it’s still men’s fault.
It’s not surprising that Schopenhauer and Lord Chesterfield suggested that women were just big children. What else were they supposed to think about goofy creatures who imitate men and when it doesn’t work out blame their problems on those very same men?
I’ve pointed out before the reason we had our First War of Independence is that not only were we oppressed by the British Crown, but that they had imported their decadent elites into our middle-class country.
For the matter, our Second War of Independence (the War between the States, or the War for Southern Independence) was not about slavery, but the elites in the North trying to economically and politically exploit the South.
Or as Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, the elites in Europe wanted “luxury, indolence, amusement, and pleasure.” You can see that in our own political elites, such as the Bushes and Clintons, who, being parasites, live, as all parasites live, on the blood of others.
Only the middle class counts. Without it, this country would be far reduced from what it is, to the point it would be unrecognizable.
Today we have our economic and political elites trying to exploit the masses. Hence the rise of Trump, who is part of the elite but has apparently turned “traitor” to them, meaning he’s putting the country above his own class. It’s happened before.
Not all “elites” are decadent. The political ones always are, but the natural aristocracies aren’t.
Thomas Jefferson divided the elites into the “natural” ones and the “artificial” ones, the latter being based on “birth and blood.”
Most people can see through both the Clintons and Bushes, but I’ve seen people who can see through the Bushes but not the Clintons, and others who can see though the Clintons but not the Bushes.
It’s astonishing the delusions of some people, but then, ultimately, the whole human race is deluded. But some of us are far less deluded than others.
Andrew Carnegie funded most of the libraries in the United States and before he died gave away most of his money. J.P. Morgan bought a huge amount of art and funded many museums across the U.S.
Say what you will about Bill Gates, but he is using his money to fight diseases and fund sanitation throughout the world, and is planning to give away his money when he dies.
What have the Bush and Clinton crime families ever done except start wars and murder people and make fortunes from it? What charities or other organizations have any of foul, greedy criminals even given a cent to? What have either of them done for this country except lie, steal, exploit, extort and murder?
The very wealthy are parasites and so are the deserving poor. There are many similarities between them: the laziness, the indolence, the drugs, the sex, the trying to live off of the blood and sweat of others, the lying, the crime, the blaming of their problems on other people.
None of the Bushes have ever had a job and since they’ve gone into politics neither have the Clintons – corrupt, greedy, blood-thirsty liars.
The government is now supporting policies to destroy the middle class and create more super-wealthy and poverty-stricken poor.
Our political “elites” - the Bushes and Clintons – are bad people. Both, no matter what they say, want to destroy the middle class. Otherwise they wouldn’t support destructive policies to export jobs and import the stupid.
“Virtue is not hereditary.” – Thomas Jefferson
This was written by Guillaume Duroucher and is from Radix Journal.
He's wrong about the “Jeurasian” elite but what I find interesting about that is that both Jews and Asians would sell their souls to get a white woman (think Woody Allen) and of course NOWAG means "No One Wants Asian Guys." We're the race everyone wants, and we do almost all of the innovation in the world. That's why they lust after us. Overall, no one can compete with us, and everyone wants white blood in their kids.
And neither of them has shown themselves to be capable of running an advanced society - the ones created by white people. Israel is a parasite on the U.S. and China is collapsing as we watch.
These days there are so many occurrences, mostly favorable to the awakening of our people, that it's easy to lose track. This positive trajectory can be downright intoxicating. But we must keep the big picture in mind and, more than this, inscribe our work in eternity.
No one can predict the future with much certainty. But we can know what historical forces will be at work in the coming centuries, as these forces will be reflections of human psychology, and this psychology will have significant continuity with our own. Thus, to look into our own souls is to gain insight into the future.
Let me be more specific. In this article, I want to discuss two historical forces which have increasingly affected our world: cognitive sorting and dysgenics, occurring in both cases, for the first time in human history, on a global scale. These two forces are interacting with one another in a complex and dynamic dialectic. Let me summarize my thesis: humanity in general, and our societies, in particular, is becoming more stupid and ethnically fragmented. However, the negative consequences of this are being attenuated by the technical innovations of the second phenomenon: the emergence of a multi-racial, global cognitive super-elite (e.g. Google). Both phenomena are evil so far as our people are concerned: the first means our deterioration and replacement, the second means rule by an alien and hostile elite.
Cognitive sorting is an established phenomenon in the modern era, most famously documented by Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. The more intelligent members of a society tend to converge in the cities, tend to marry with one another, and generally form a sub-group within the nation. Alexis de Tocqueville had noticed a similar phenomenon in the France of his day and in previous centuries, as the nobles ruined themselves, and the more gifted members of the bourgeoisie connived to steadily rise despite aristocratic privileges and prejudices. We might call this the inevitable meritocracy of intelligence.
Today, national borders and racial pride having been dissolved, this phenomenon is taking place on a global scale. In the Western countries in particular, the intelligent create desirable locations and institutions, whether in terms of their agreeableness or resources. People across the planet then conspire to enter these locations and institutions, succeeding in proportion with their ability.
These institutions include all the elite globalist power nodes which dominate our world. The phenomenon is most visible in Silicon Valley and the Ivy League universities, which have largely been taken over by disciplined Asians and nepotistic Jews. A “Jeurasian” super-elite is forming, with inclinations and interests significantly opposed to the traditional European majorities across the West. In practice, the only really ethnically organized element in this super-elite is Jewish. (Compare Bill Gates and Warren Buffet’s promotion of multiculturalism in their own country, with Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban’s support for ethno-nationalism in theirs.)
The second phenomenon is global dysgenics. Within nations, the intelligent, pursuing an individualist strategy of well-being, tend to have fewer children than the poor. Between nations, the more-or-less failed societies of Latin America, South Asia, the Middle East, and especially Africa (which is expected to grow to a fatal 4 billion this century) are having more children than the more successful ones of Europe, North America, and East Asia. Southern and Eastern Europe and East Asia, in particular, have catastrophically low fertility rates.
Indeed, virtually all of the technological innovations of today continue to be accomplished almost entirely in North America, Europe, and East Asia. Facebook and Google, while aggressively pushing multiracial propaganda upon the entire planet, have themselves failed to find many competent blacks and Mestizos: 2% of their workforces are black, while over 30% are Asian. Richard Dawkins has noted that the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims barely produce any scientific papers and, he fails to add, the performance of Sub-Saharan Africans is even worse. Black scientific geniuses to this day mainly exist in television entertainment and advertising propaganda."
The results of all this, logically, is a degeneration of humanity to more primitive forms. In practice, we witness the phenomenon of combined and uneven development: the innovations of the most gifted parts of humanity are attenuating the consequences of this degeneration and, to some extent, lifting up the less gifted with technology they could never produce themselves.
Even societies which should objectively have a very low level of civilization can rise a little. In much of Africa, tribal nepotism and incompetence are too severe for governments to even be able to maintain basic infrastructure such as telephone poles. The Jeurasians have a solution however: mobile phones for all. Similarly, extremely violent societies such as Brazil or South Africa can artificially reduce crime – not by increasing social trust or reducing the barbarism of the inhabitants – but by the proliferation of security cameras.
This is the phenomenon of “convergence” – evident in the “emerging world’s” economic growth – which short-sighted materialists in the mold of The Economist are very smug about. But they omit the fact that this convergence is never complete. The Iron Law of Inequality remains unconquered.
These two phenomena are then in interaction: the concentration of human intelligence, which is leading us towards transhumanism, and the degeneration of human material, which is leading us back to Africa. I did not invent any of this. Lothrop Stoddard, whose work really does seem to age well, noticed this phenomenon a hundred years ago in The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man.
In a word: mongrel Under-Man vs. mongrel Super-Man.
Liberals, in their infinite arrogance, believe that there is nothing to worry about. We have lived since the 1960s in an “affluent society” and they assume that technology will simply solve all of our problems. We will always be comfortable, and that’s what matters. We needn’t think about the implications of long-term trends like demographics (unless, of course, our masters have told us to worry about an alleged long-term trend, such as climate change). A German in 1900, with that forceful pride of the bourgeois fin-de-siècle, European Man having conquered the world and apparently Nature, could be guilty of the same misguided arrogance. The same misplaced belief in a naïve progress.
But history is nothing but a string of surprises. We cannot predict the next world crisis – economic, environmental, energetic, military . . . – and when that crisis comes, a society’s survival will be determined by its character, not merely technological trinkets. Technology will show diminishing returns as America becomes Brazilianized and Europe becomes Afro-Islamized. And really, besides the significant gains of IT, one does not get the impression that technology has much changed human life since the 1960s (the energy sector, in particular, has been rather slow to change, despite all the hoopla about renewables, biotech has also been slow to develop).
Feckless boomers appear particularly guilty of this, with politicians like Bill Clinton, Frans Timmermans, Joschka Fischer, and Carl Bildt being downright enthused at the prospect of minorityhood in our own lands. To be fair, one cannot fault boomers in general for having awful values and ideas. Imagine if you were raised in a world where your only access to information was television and newspapers in the hands of liberal-universalists and anti-gentiles. Imagine if you’d been brainwashed in this manner for 50 years and this conditioning had been reinforced by the agreement of the entire society. Well, you’d also have trouble adjusting to a genuinely inconvenient truth.
The basic force underlying these two phenomena, cognitive sorting, and dysgenics, is individual intelligence. Each try, in his selfish way, to pursue his well-being by joining with other intelligent people and by avoiding an investment in children. These strategies are completely short-sighted and destructive. Against this, we will have to oppose other principles: group identity and solidarity with the next generation, so that our people don't degenerate. Against the selfish intelligence of individualism and the sentimental falsehoods of egalitarianism, we oppose the collective intelligence, and love, of ethnocentrism. We do it for love.
I owned a taxi for five years, and was it an eye-opener. For one thing, all taxi companies are corrupt. The laws concerning taxis are corrupt – their purpose is to protect the multi-millionaire owners of the cab companies. The drivers don’t count.
The head of the County Taxi Commission was a corrupt old bastard named John Hill, now deceased and I’m sure broiling in Hell. He used to try to extort money from the company owners. I saw him do it twice. He thought it was his due, and used to threaten the owners that if they didn’t pay him off he would do things to them.
I didn’t drive in the county but I knew a man who owned some airport taxis, and I knew Hill from him. Like all the corrupt he had sex, money and drug problems.
I’ve never seen such corruption as in the cab business. One airport cab company was owned by an old crazy woman, clearly in her 70s but who dressed as if it was 1966 – miniskirts and go-go boots. The first time I saw her from across the street I thought, “What the hell is that?” When I told some drivers what I saw they explained the situation.
She also stabbed her rich husband to death, put a nick on her arm, hid in the closet, said intruders did it -and got away with it. That’s how she ended up owning a cab company.
As far I as I’m concerned there should be no laws at all concerning cabs. It’s none of the government’s business, and it doesn’t protect the drivers or the public at all. Background checks, fingerprints – all worthless. We had one guy who had been in prison for child molestation, but still somehow got a taxi license. The owner of one company I worked for was a convicted felon – he got caught running a city-side gambling operation.
Such scum as the child molester never had the brains to own a taxi, so they rented them. At least at Uber you have to own your car, and they’ll even finance one for you, of course at an astronomical interest rate.
All cabs should be owned by the drivers. It automatically gets rid of the riffraff. Which reminds me – there is a reason the Founding Fathers only wanted property owners to be allowed to vote.
Owning a taxi was the best job I ever had. It was a party. The drivers were great – the ones who had the brains and ambition to buy their own cabs. The criminal lowlifes rented their cabs day by day.
Every law I’ve seen concerning taxis was about protecting the cab company owners. Not surprisingly a lot of laws are about protecting the wealthy from competition by people smarter and more ambitious than they are.
The most interesting thing Donald Trump has said recently isn’t his taunting of Hillary Clinton, it’s his comment to Bloomberg’s Joshua Green. Mr. Green writes: “Many politicians, Trump told me, had privately confessed to being amazed that his policies, and his lacerating criticism of party leaders, had proved such potent electoral medicine.” Mr. Trump seemed to “intuit,” Mr. Green writes, that standard Republican dogma on entitlements and immigration no longer holds sway with large swaths of the party electorate. Mr. Trump says he sees his supporters as part of “a movement.”
What, Mr. Green asked, would the party look like in five years? “Love the question,” Mr. Trump replied. “Five, 10 years from now — different party. You’re going to have a worker’s party. A party of people that haven’t had a real wage increase in 18 years.”
My impression on reading this was that Mr. Trump is seeing it as a party of regular people, as the Democratic Party was when I was a child and the Republican Party when I was a young woman.
This is the first thing I’ve seen that suggests Mr. Trump is ideologically conscious of what he’s doing. It’s not just ego and orange hair, he suggests, it’s politically intentional.
It invites many questions. Movements require troops — not only supporters on the ground, but an army of enthusiastic elected officials and activists. Mr. Trump doesn’t have that army. Washington hates what he stands for and detests the idea he represents policy change. GOP elites will have to start thinking about two things: the rock-bottom purpose of the party and the content, in 2016, of a conservatism reflective of and responsive to this moment and the next. This will be necessary whatever happens to Mr. Trump, because big parts of the base are speaking through him. It is no surprise so many D.C. conservatives are hissing, screeching and taking names. They’re in the middle of something epochal that they did not expect. They’re lost.
To another part of the Trump phenomenon that does not involve policy, exactly:
When Mr. Trump went after Mrs. Clinton over her husband’s terrible treatment of women — she was his “unbelievably nasty, mean enabler” — my first thought was: Man, I thought it was supposed to get bloody in October. This is May — where will we wind up? But I was struck that no friend on the left seemed shocked or appalled. A few on the right were delighted, and some unsure. Isn’t this the sort of thing that’s supposed to turn women off and make Hillary look like a victim?
But so far Mr. Trump’s numbers seem to be edging up.
I was surprised that if Mr. Trump was going to go there early, he didn’t focus on a central political depredation of the Clinton wars. That was after Mrs. Clinton learned of the Monica scandal and did not step back, claiming a legitimate veil of personal privacy — after all, it was not she who had been accused of terrible Oval Office behavior — but came forward on “Today” as an aggressor. Knowing her husband’s history, knowing his sickness, having every reason to believe the charges were true, she attacked her husband’s critics, in a particular way: “The great story here … is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president… . Some folks are gonna have a lot to answer for.”
She was speaking this way about conservatives, half or more of the country. At a charged moment she took a personal humiliation and turned it into a political weapon, which further divided the nation, pitching left against right. She did this because her first instinct is always war. If you have to divide the country to protect your position by all means divide the country. It was unprotective of the country, and so unpatriotic.
The lack of backlash against Mr. Trump’s attacks on Mrs. Clinton, though, I suspect is due to something else. It’s that the subject matter really comes down to one word: decadence. People right now will respect a political leader who will name and define what they themselves see as the utter decadence of Washington.
I don’t mean that they watch “Scandal” and “House of Cards” and think those shows are a slightly over-the-top version of reality, though they do. Now and then I meet a young person who, finding I’d worked in a White House, asks, half-humorously and I swear half-curiously, if I ever saw anyone kill a reporter by throwing her under a train. I say I knew people who would have liked to but no, train-station murders weren’t really a thing then. (Someday cultural historians will wonder if the lowered political standards that mark this year were at all connected to our national habit of watching mass entertainment in which our elites are presented as high-functioning psychopaths. Yes, that may have contributed to a certain lowering of real-world standards.)
But the real decadence Americans see when they look at Washington is an utterly decadent system. Just one famous example from the past few years:
A high official in the IRS named Lois Lerner targets those she finds politically hateful. IRS officials are in the White House a lot, which oddly enough finds the same people hateful. News of the IRS targeting is about to break because an inspector general is on the case, so Ms. Lerner plants a question at a conference, answers with a rehearsed lie, tries to pin the scandal on workers in a cubicle farm in Cincinnati, lies some more, gets called into Congress, takes the Fifth — and then retires with full pension and benefits, bonuses intact. Taxpayers will be footing the bill for years for the woman who in some cases targeted them, and blew up the reputation of the IRS.
Why wouldn’t Americans think the system is rigged?
This is Washington in our era: a place not so much of personal as of civic decadence, where the Lois Lerner always gets away with it.
Which brings us to the State Department Office of Inspector General’s report involving Hillary Clinton’s emails. It reveals one big thing: Almost everything she has said publicly about her private server was a lie. She lied brazenly, coolly, as one who is practiced in lying would, as one who always gets away with it could.
No, she was not given legal approval to conduct her business on the server. She was not given the impression it was fine. She did not comply with rules on storage and archiving. Her own office told U.S. diplomats personal email accounts could be compromised and they must avoid using them for official business. She was informed of a dramatic increase in hacking attempts on personal accounts. Professionals who raised concerns about her private server were told not to speak of it again.
It is widely assumed that Mrs. Clinton will pay no price for misbehavior because the Democratic president’s Justice Department is not going to proceed with charges against the likely Democratic presidential nominee.
This is what everyone thinks, and not only because they watch “Scandal.” Because they watch the news.
That is the civic decadence they want to see blown up. And there’s this orange-colored bomb …
