How to Protect Yourself from Idiot Kings

”If Man were not so much more foolish and gullible than animals, he might have avoided a great deal of cruelty and misfortune.” - Isaac Bashevis Singer

Since it is the nature of people to understand stories more easily than most anything else, I will tell one. Let's call it a fairytale.

Once upon a time, not so long ago and not so far away, there was a large, prosperous village than unfortunately had an idiot for a king. Unfortunately, his advisers were idiots, too.

Down the road a bit was another village, one that was tiny and poor and not a threat at all to our large, prosperous village. Somehow, the Idiot King, along with his idiot advisors, got it in their heads the poor, tiny village had an insane homicidal maniac for a king. Along with that, many of the people in the village were also supposed to be insane homicidal maniacs.

"They are evil and are going to attack us for our goodness," exclaimed the Idiot King. "We have to attack them first in self-defense. How do we get the public to march off to war?"

"We will use propaganda," said one of his idiot advisers. "The techniques have been around for a long time and even an idiot could use them."

"Really?" asked the Idiot King, who was generally quite incurious about most everything. "Then it should be easy for us."

"There are four main techniques for successful propaganda," his advisor explained. "First, we have to stress emotion over logic, but convince people they are being logical."

"Works for me," said the Idiot King.

"Then," the advisor continued, "we have to demonize the enemy, but convince people the enemy really is evil."

"That's because they are!" frowned the Idiot King.

"Third," said the adviser, "tell people that by destroying the enemy the world will be safer, and will lead to a better world for us and them."

"It certainly will!" exclaimed the Idiot King joyfully.

"Fourth," the adviser continued, "idealize yourself, your country, your government, your military. By idealizing yourself and devaluing the enemy they can be transformed into evil monsters 'attacking us for our goodness.'"

"The things you can learn just by listening," the Idiot King said admiringly.

So the Idiot King and his idiot advisors told the people of the village (many of whom were idiots themselves) that the tiny poor village down the road was inhabited by monsters!! Evil, insane homicidal monsters that would go to any extreme to attack our large prosperous village and destroy it.

So of course many of the people of our large prosperous village grabbed their pitchforks and clubs and axes and marched down the road, attacked the poor tiny village, killed the King and many of the inhabitants.

Many of the inhabitants of the poor tiny village fled into woods, and when they caught one of the invaders of their village they killed him. In fact, the killed a lot of the invaders.

"This is really surprising," commented the Idiot King, puzzled. "I thought they would welcome us as liberators, cheering and throwing flowers at us and maybe even the women showing us their boobs."

"You'd think so," said his advisers, just as puzzled.

One of the inhabitants of our large prosperous village was a four-year-child who had no home so he slept with the village dogs to keep warm. Though this child was poor and homeless, an idiot this child was not.

"If the Idiot King has asked me," the child told his dogs, who listened attentively, "I could have told him his attack wouldn't work. For one thing, you can conquer a country on horseback, but you have to dismount to rule."

His dogs nodded their approval.

"If people weren't sleep-walkers," the child said to the dogs, who looked impressed, "they'd never believe anything their government says."

"Uh huh," chorused the dogs.

The child thought for a while then said, "If people want to prevent being brainwashed and falling for propaganda, perhaps they should use logic over hysterical emotion. Perhaps knowing some logical fallacies might help."

"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," said one of the dogs.

"'Because of this, therefore that'," said the child. "Just because something precedes something doesn't mean it causes it. You must analyze the situation and discover what the true causes are."

"Yep," commented a dog.

"Perhaps," the child said pensively, "we should never allow ourselves to demonize anyone. There is no one in the world that is pure good or pure evil. Unfortunately, in politics, everything is with good or evil, with no shades of grey."

The dogs smirked, knowing they were better than humans in that way.

"And never believe in Utopia," the child said thoughtfully. "It's always based on the belief in getting rid of those evil people.' The butcher is held in great esteem in Harmony,' I read somewhere."

The dogs listened in awe.

"Never idealize your government, your country, or your military," pondered the child. "All such idealizations are hubris, and hubris is always followed by nemesis—destruction."

"Pride goes before destruction," one of the dogs added. "And a haughty spirit before a fall. That's in the Bible somewhere."

"Someday people will smirk at people who in the past believed in witches, monsters, dragons, and so on," the child finished. "But they'll be no different than we are, because, if brainwashing and propaganda can be defined in one sentence, it's convincing people monsters are attacking our village, so we have to kill them."

"You're pretty smart for a human," one dog said.

"Like anyone's going to listen to a four-year-old child," the child observed.

"Or a dog, for that matter," said one of the dogs sadly.

How to Deal with Politicians

Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was a large, peaceful, free, very prosperous village. One day, a horde of quite brutal and even smellier barbarians rode into the village, stole some of the girls and gold, and otherwise made merry by killing and destroying, then rode away.

The villagers fought back, only not that well, and did kill some of the barbarians, but lost more than they slew.

After the attack, battered and bruised and bleeding and wondering how to meet this new menace, the villagers held a meeting and asked for suggestions.

The Wise Old Man of the village, who was pretty smart, and had traveled far and wide, and thought a lot and learned much, made one suggestion: “We have to kill every one of them.”

A murmur ran though the villagers. “Many of us will die!” one cried.

“Indeed,” said the Wise Old Man. “But I will tell you what will happen if we don’t rub out all of them. Sooner or later, these barbarians will get tired of raiding us and losing their body parts. So what they will do is conquer us.”

The villagers fell silent, waiting.

“They’ll enslave everyone,” the Wise Old Man continued. “We’ll spend our lives working for them until we drop dead. They’ll rape our daughters, sometimes our sons, occasionally our dogs, and they’ll build castles with prisons and torture chambers. We’ll spend our lives being tortured and impoverished.”

“How can you be so sure this will happen?” one villager asked.

“If you’ve been around as much as I have,” the Wise Old Man said ominously, “and seen what I’ve seen, you wouldn’t ask that question.”

“What will happen next?” another villager wondered.

“These thugs will set themselves up as royalty,” the Wise Old Man explained, “and we’ll be their slaves. They’ll tell us they are our protectors, as tyrants always do (as Plato and Aesop and Jesus noticed), but in reality they’re just cruel, blood-thirsty, power-mad tyrants. They’ll even tell us God put them in power.”

“Blasphemers!” blurted a villager.

“You got that right,” said the Wise Old Man wryly.

“It sounds just awful,” a villager said. “How long will it last?”

“Until we rise up,” said the Wise Old Man, “and vlad them on sharpened poles. If we don’t do that, our enslavement will last forever.”

“This is terrible!” chorused the villagers.

“It’s even worse than it sounds,” explained the Wise Old Man. “Someday, people will even rationalize their slavery as a good thing. The naïve ones will call it ‘patriotism’ and the big mouths that support our enslavers will be called ‘court intellectuals.’”

“You sure do know a lot,” said a villager admiringly.

“Someday,” the Wise Old Man said, “I’ll tell you about the difference between the Economic Means and the Political Means, or why the growth of ‘government’ always destroys the culture and the country and always leads to collapse. But what really works best is telling stories like what I’m doing now. Show, don’t tell, I always say.”

“What did you say these people call themselves?” a villager asked. “Royalty?”

“At first,” said the Wise Old Man, “but in the long run they’ll call themselves politicians.”

“What an awful name!” the villagers gasped in horror, some clapping their hands over their ears. Even some children started crying.

“The worst name there is,” the Wise Old Man said. “Mass murderers, warmongers, torturers, liars, thieves, counterfeiters, cowards, traitors, sex perverts – and they always claim they’re doing good things for us. What can possibly be worse than a politician?”

“Uh…” said the villagers. “Well, if you put it that way…nothing.”

So the villagers armed themselves, and practiced and practiced, and next time the barbarians rode into the village the villagers slew every one of them, losing many of their own in the fight. But they won.

So the village continued on, large and peaceful and prosperous, and every time a barbarian horde got it into their heads to raid the village, the people of the village, armed to the teeth, killed every one of them and stuck their heads on poles outside the village as a warning.

And so the villagers lived peaceful and free and happy and rich forever after.

Free Trade is Only Possible Between Equals

My hometown had three steel mills. Two are closed down permanently and the third isn’t doing too well. Why? Because of cheap Chinese steel dumped in the U.S., sometimes through Vietnam to avoid the minuscule U.S. tariffs (my hometown has also gone from 50,000 to 30,000 people).

These were high-paying jobs that disappeared with the steel mills – these guys retired at $75,000 a year. And that was with a high-school diploma.

Why is there any Chinese steel here at all? We have enough capacity to take care of all of our own needs.

Why is it that no one complains about trade with Canada? Because except for some minor cultural differences there is no difference between an American and a Canadian. We’re equal, so trade benefits both of us. Both are rich countries.

Yet nearly everyone complains about trade with Mexico and certainly with China. Why? Because Mexico has a GNP that is four percent of the U.S. and the mean IQ is 87. We’re not equal and never will be. And since Mexico is perpetually poor it will never have a growing economy that lifts all boats. It will always be dependent on the U.S. for jobs. Only Mexico benefits from trade with the U.S. – but not the U.S (if only we had another Canada south of us!).

China is a bit different of a story. The Chinese are not stupid but never did much of anything with their wealth and smarts. Like the Russians they’re stealing all they can from us because neither can produce the intellectual capital itself. The country is not equal to the U.S. no matter how much the Chinese delude themselves China is “the Middle Kingdom” – the middle of the world.

I recently read an article about a scientific and technology company in southern Missouri that was doing so well that it had an office in London. They were naïve enough to hire a Chinese couple, who stole $10,000,000 and fled to China.

Today, and for the foreseeable future, it’s the United States that is the middle of the world, because we are so far ahead of the rest of the world in innovation and scientific and technological advancement that they will never catch up with us.

No one also cares about trade with Europe because again except for cultural difference there is no difference between a European and an American. Again, we’re equal.

When you have trade between unequals only the poorer country benefits. Except for what I call Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations. They benefit, and hugely. But no one in the richer country benefits except for some lower prices – which is far less important than having a high-paying job.

Globalism, which is going the way of the Dodo (Brexit was a warning shot) has benefitted no one but the uber-wealthy.

It’s either free trade between equals or managed trade between unequals.

And if super-rich are so smart why could they not see the backlash that was inevitable? Perhaps they’re not nearly as smart as they think they are.

Free trade between equals is disruptive, as innovation is always disruptive. Those who want managed trade don’t want competition and disruption, not of their wealth, not of their power. If they disrupt everyone else’s lives, as long as more money accrues to them – they have never shown the slightest concern about that.

Like the steel mills in my hometown.

Why I Didn’t Watch the Debates

I don’t like politics and I don’t consider it entertainment.

I didn’t watch the debates because it’s not going to change my mind.

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politician and whatever she says has nothing to do with what she’s going to do. I’d trust her about as far as I can throw her epileptic ass.

As for Trump I already knew what he was going to say.

And I’m supposed to spend an hour and a half – if not more – watching these two debate?

I already knew what each candidate’s supporters were going – “Mine won!” “No, mine won!”

Politics is so easy to figure out. There is only black and white, without any shades of grey.

Murdering the Father

"When women and gays get access to the institution, it's no longer prestigious." - the Anti-Gnostic

"When an organization becomes feminized, focus shifts from the efficient production of goods and services to the establishment of rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable." - Uncle Elmer

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his magnum opus, Leftism Revisited, described leftism as "the overthrow of the Father." In other words, leftism is feminine.

So let's start with some basics: all societies are patriarchal. There have been no matriarchies. If there were in the past, they'd be leftist and immediately collapse.

Yet all societies and governments ultimately collapse. All societies ultimately become leftist and collapse. Patriarchies commit suicide. Why?

I think it is a misguided sense of fair play. Trying to "be fair" to women. Yet women, if there are too many in a field, always destroy it. Men, trying to be fair to women, allow them in enter fields in which they are not qualified, and so they destroy everything, including societies. (Additionally, when women take over a field, men leave. In other words, "empowering" women is the same thing as slowly destroying society.)

In leftism everyone is supposed to be equal, except, of course, for the rulers.

There is a way out of this, which of course will outrage feminists and leftists. Women have to be kept out of certain fields. No one is equal. The only way anyone can be equal is if they are identical, they way two nickels or two pennies are identical and therefore equal.

I have found the best way to keep women out a place is to smoke cigars. I have seen them enter a cigar store with cigars being smoked, cough, then turn around and walk out.

Even if there was a matriarchy it would still a hidden patriarchy, since men created everything in the world. Women ultimately have the choice of marrying a man or the State. There is nothing else available to them. Since men created everything, society would collapse without their accomplishments, and women would be living in grass huts.

To truly be fair to women - in the sense of the survival of society - means being "unfair" to them, in the sense of keeping them out of fields which is not their ken.

There will always be that tension between patriarchy and the destroying feminine, i.e. leftism. You can have liberty or equality, but you can't have both at the same time.

In a sentence, when women get hysterical and shriek, men should not listen to them.

"Men are naturally the stronger and superior sex, so it follows that women can only do what men grant them." - Samseau

The Purpose of Women is Making Sandwiches and Babies

I sometimes (jokingly, sort of) tell women that their purpose is to make sandwiches and babies.

Often they laugh but sometimes they get hostile (some people have no sense of humor). Sometimes very hostile, especially with the comment about making sandwiches.

Sometimes they think they can read my mind and they think they know what I’m really like from my comment (I also tell people that only leftists and women think they can read people’s minds). You know – I’m a racist, fascist, sexist, ageist White Male (by the way, not only have I been called a fascist, I’ve been called a leftist and an ultra-conservative, and worse, both a Republican and a Democrat).

When I was 19 years old I once had a woman tell me that women were not the equal of men (I remember she was a nurse). That’s a comment I will never forget. She really thought women were the weaker vessel (by the way, they are, which is why you don’t see them working in steel mills and mines).

I’ve also had women tell me they should not have to work and should be supported by men.

I once had a woman claim I was sexually harassing her. It was a case where she had a crush on me and was upset because I wasn’t interested in her (Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, even if the whole thing is a complete fantasy in her head). I also had a friend of mine, very popular with women (one of those non-existent “Alpha” types that supposedly gets away with everything) who was fired by his boss because he wasn’t interested in her).

I used to work for this guy many years ago and even then he had a woman (again one he wasn’t interested in) tell his boss she was being sexually harassed by him. His boss, fortunately, didn’t take her seriously and thought she was a joke. Which she was, since I knew her.

I told him she had a crush on him (remembering what happened to me) and he said, “That’s what my father told me!” I told him his father was right.

The more authority is given to women they more they are going to screw things up. Even some women, the honest ones, know that.

All you have to do is look at Hillary Clinton.

I’ve mentioned before that Carl Jung said women’s greatest flaw was thinking they are always right and they wouldn’t be happy until they gave up that belief.

When someone thinks they are always right that means someone else has to be always wrong, which means they have to blame their problems on them. And that’s why so many women blame all their problems on men.

And who blames all their problems on others? Children. This means, logically, a lot of women are children (when I tell men that they have never disagreed with me).

I am reminded of that famous comment by Jack Nicholson’s character in As Good as It Gets: to understand women “think of a man and take away reason and accountability.”

I’ve had more than one man tell me his wife has “the good job,” which she got on Affirmative Action (which means “White Men Need Not Apply”) so he was reduced to delivering pizzas (I knew one man who made $44,000 in one year by working 55 hours a week delivering pizzas for that entire year, which he said was “very hard” (and it is a bullshit job).

I’ve heard women say “men are worthless,” mostly because they can’t find good jobs anymore. Do these women ever look in the mirror? Never.

Where is all of this going to lead? No place good. Let’s put it this way – they can get away without making sandwiches but most will go nuts without having babies.

Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can’t, Lie and Brag

I’ve pointed out before there are grifters in the Manosphere, the two most notorious being the greasy, unattractive half-white half-wit Roosh and the Jew Roissy (lying is apparently genetic among Jews).

Why would anyone in their right mind listen to non-Europeans who want to destroy American culture, which their ideologies (which are not new but ancient) lead to? Usually this kind of desire for destruction is based on the envy inherent in being inferior.

None of them are getting laid they way they say they are. As I’ve noticed in the title, those who can, do, and those who can’t, lie and brag.

I’ve met more than one guy who was always bragging how many women he laid, when he wasn’t laying any. I’ve first encountered these kinds of liars in high school when some guys (among them my friends) bragged, “Yeah, I fucked this girl, I fucked that girl” when they hadn’t).

When I was in high school (or perhaps middle school) I would see ads in magazines for a book titled, How to Pick Up Girls. Later in college I found out how much a full-page ad in a magazine cost, and I thought, “My God, this guy must have been raking in the bucks!”

So don’t think there is anything new in the Manosphere, just the way there is nothing new about a sucker being born every minute.

I’ve met more than one guy who has claimed – in fact bragged – he’s laid a lot of women. They always paid for whores, screwed ugly fat girls or sluts who’d fuck anyone with a working dick. Or weren’t getting laid at all.

That includes Roosh and Roissy.

Anyone who looks like Roosh isn’t getting all of these hot white girls no matter how much he uses his non-exist “Game” (I’d like to see his greasy ass try his “Game” on Angelina Jolie or some famous model). His sex life probably mostly consists of jerking off over pictures of beautiful white girls he can’t get and has never had.

He reminds me of those black guys I’ve met who were proud of getting a obese white skank that no white man would be seen in public with.

The same with Roissy and his obsessions with goyim shiksas.

As for Vox Day (who’s obsessed with Gammas because he is one), he’s just as naïve as hell with him thinking psychopaths are popular with women. He clearly has no idea what a psychopath is.

I once briefly (like for about ten seconds) met a woman who was about two days later murdered (strangled) by a serial killer named Dale Anderson (all serial killers are sociopaths/psychopaths) who also murdered about six women over the years, including a pregnant woman. He wasn’t executed, just got life in prison.

What’s with all this lying? Mostly for attention and the demented amusement at putting a con over on people. And money, too, although none of them are getting rich. But hey, if you can at least make a decent living putting one over on people, why not? That is, you’re lacking in a conscience.

This is Self-Explanatory and Therefore I Have No Comment

(H/T to Al Finn Next Level)

The Child of Plenty and Poverty

The ancient Greeks were shitheads in many ways but they were scarily intelligent. One of those who was scarily smart was Plato, who once opined that love was the “child of plenty and poverty.”

By that, as Jerome Levin wrote, Plato meant we have just enough to know we’re missing something (because if it didn’t have it at all we would never miss it, like not missing sight if born blind), and so we seek to supplement our lack “by merging with the beloved, who has them in superfluity – or at least so we hope.”

In other words, everyone has “holes” in their character, and we hope the beloved can fill those holes. That appears to be one of those permanent imperfections in the human race.

We long for something which completes us. To the religious, like St. Augustine (who was the first in the West to suggest this in his autobiography) we seek God to complete us and make us whole (which comes from the same root word as “holy” and “hale”).

The first time I fell in love I was 18, and it happened within minutes – or maybe within a minute. As soon as did, I knew exactly what it was. How did I know that when it had never happened before? I could only conclude I knew what it was because it had happened before only I was a baby and didn’t remember it. I was sure it had something to do with my mother and father, as it does with everyone.

It seemed to be something old and yet something new. Years later I remembered that old saying, “Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue.”

The feeling toward this woman started with an immense and overwhelming feeling of jealousy. She only worked about three blocks from me (I was working nights, as she was), and I wanted to run over there is make sure she was at work and not with some guy. But I didn’t.

For that matter, how did I know it was jealousy when I had never felt it before? Same thing – I was remembering the feeling from being an infant. How else could I have immediately identified the feeling?

With the second woman it started not with jealousy but a searing envy, which is odd because I am not envious at all, and had never felt it before. But I knew exactly what it was, so I again figured I was remembering it from being a baby (and there are a lot of researchers who agree with me on these things).

Why would I be envious? Because she had something I wanted. And I wanted it badly. It really did feel like there was a big hole in me and only she could fill it. Intellectually I knew this was stupid but my emotions were telling me something completely the opposite.

I wanted to make her good qualities part of me because I felt like I was lacking in those qualities.

With the third woman it was again the envy. But no jealousy, just the way with the second there was no jealousy. In fact, after the first one I’ve never felt jealousy again.

I shake my head at the Manosphere, as I have written many times. It knows nothing of love, jealousy and envy – or gratitude. It has nothing to say about these things, except to tell you that you’re supposed to have a lot of “plates” and how to “spin” them. Which, as I’ve written more than once is an excellent way to wreck your life because it is closer to nihilism than anything else.

I suppose there are some people out there who don’t have that many holes in them. For them I guess love is really more based on gratitude then envy.

What I have found, though, is that if you find someone like you, cut from the same cloth (associative mating), that even if there is envy at first – and if you trust them and they you – you give up that feeling of envy and instead come to gratitude and thankfulness.

In fact, the late psychiatrist Melanie Klein once wrote a very famous book called Envy and Gratitude, about how if you can work through the envy it turns into gratitude.

It’s painfully obvious that feminism, being leftist, is based on the envy of men, and therefore there is no gratitude in it. Women, even though they don’t know it, are cutting their own throats.

For that matter, there is a lot of envy of women in the Manosphere – and therefore no gratitude. That’s why feminists put down men and the Manosphere puts down women as loveless hypergamous whores only interested in “cash and prizes” (the people telling you these things are clueless fools).

The Manosphere is the mirror image of feminism – grandiosity (as in those non-existent “alphas”), envy, devaluation, no gratitude.

Women have a lot be grateful for when it comes to all that men have done for them. But these days, what do men have to be grateful to women?

And that is going to hurt both men and women.

There is an old saying by Hegel: “The owl of Minerva flies only at night.” It means wisdom only comes only after a lot of strife. We only learn after the fact.

I Ponder Teleportation and Time Travel

I've thought about teaching myself teleportation and time travel, but I realized there are some pretty bad problems associated with them. Insurmountable problems, apparently.

For one, the spin of the earth. The earth spins at about 1000 miles an hour at the equator. Let's say I jumped from either pole to the equator.

I'd go from barely moving at all to going 1000 miles an hour! You know what would happen? I not only would be killed, I'd be nothing but a very long red streak.

Now if I was to jump from the equator to either pole, I'd appear at the pole and instantly be going 1000 miles an hour. I'd just shoot off into the air, and of course the inertia would squash my innards flat.

I could jump from either pole into space, and have no problem as long as my spacesuit went with me. But again, from the equator into space, and I'd materialize doing 1000 mph. The inertia would pancake me.

As best as I remember, the moon is doing about 60 miles a second, so I could jump from the earth to the trailing edge, and have no problem, except for the fact the moon would be zooming away from me. But if I appeared on the leading edge, I'd hit at 60 miles a second.

Now that I think about it, I was conned by “Star Trek.” That damn transporter would not work at all, unless the Enterprise was in a geosynchronous orbit. Otherwise, splat.

For that matter, whoever is operating the transporter would have to get it right down to the millimeter. Can you imagine appearing with your feet stuck inside the ground?

As for time travel, the same problems apply. The Earth moves around the Sun, the Sun moves around the galaxy and the galaxy moves, too. So if you time-traveled one hour into the future, you’d materialize in space.

If you jumped one million years into the future, who knows where you would end up? In the interior of a star?

Apparently the logistics of overcoming the problems of space and time are insurmountable. It’s fun to pretend they don’t, the way Alfred Bester did in The Stars my Destination or the way Mr. Wizard did with Tutor Turtle. But reality is a different story. Damn.

The Scapegoating/Human Sacrifice Inherent in Politics

“Girard…reversed the classical mythological pattern by exonerating the scapegoat and showing the community to be guilty of gratuitous murder.” - Brian McDonald

I’ve pointed out before more than once I’ve been interested in scapegoating/human sacrifice for a long time. And once you become aware of it you see it everywhere.

Let’s take politics. I don’t like politics and the only reason I’m interested in it is because it is interested in me (it reminds me of an old saying: “You may not believe in the devil but the devil believes in you”).

Politics is always based on a narcissistic all-good/all-bad dynamic. And once the “all-good” gets rid of the “all-bad” then things will be much better Of course in reality this never happens.

The fact we have only two major parties is why it’s so easy for one to see the other as evil.

Leftism (these days, the Democratic Party) always sees those to the right of them (in their minds, the Republicans) as not merely mistaken but evil. And leftism clearly is based on envy and hate.

I’m certainly no fan of Trump and I’m not surprised at the vicious attacks on him by the “elites” (that word is not a compliment), who really should know better. But they obviously don’t (and I’ve had people tell me, “I hope he gets assassinated”).

Look at the attitude of the Republican Party toward him. To it it’s not their fault all the horrible things it’s done to the United States; it’s Trump’s fault because he’s not like them.

You know – Trump is a Nazi and therefore pure evil (I once saw some idiotic woman on TV dressed as a Nazi officer, supposedly imitating Trump).

His attackers are of course trying to use him as a scapegoat. Not at all surprisingly many people have fallen for it.

The same all-good/all-bad dynamic applies to feminism, which is a leftist political ideology and sees men (specifically white men) as the cause of all the problems in the world. The cure, to the leftist mind, is to destroy them (which means to make them over in another, better, image).

As far as I’m concerned politics is paganism in action and certainly not Christian at all even if it claims it is. It believes in human sacrifice even if it claims it doesn’t.

All human sacrifice, in whatever form it takes, is always a fertility rite.

I’ve also mentioned before, more than once, that Dionysus was a god of sacrifice and a fertility god (the two always go together). The scapegoated/ sacrificed are always guilty (even though innocent) and deserve their fate, in order to “save” and “renew” society.

The most famous story about this is Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery,” which used to be taught in middle school. These days, I have no idea if it’s still taught. People (most especially in groups) have no brains, just childish emotion. That’s why it is so easy for them in engage in Dionysian orgies of sacrifice (just watch a political convention sometime).

These people are engaging in blood lust, i.e. a lust for blood. And blood is a fertilizer.

I’ve also mentioned before about the late Rene Girard, who spend his life studying scapegoating (for the matter, so did the insane prophet Nietzsche). Not surprisingly Nietzsche greatly influenced Girard.

Here is what Nietzsche wrote: "Every time Dionysius appears, a victim is dismembered and often devoured by his or her many murderers.”

In a sentence that is what politics is about.

“People must really project their tensions and aggressions against the victim.” – Rene Girard

Why Evo-Psych is a Joke

"...if my personal experience matches the findings of established science, I am more likely to be a believer. But if the science and my observations disagree, or science and common sense disagree, it triggers my B.S. detector." - Scott Adams

I was originally taught in college, by supposed "esteemed" professors, that men give love to get sex, and women use sex to get love. And women were monogamous because they needed a man to stay around to help raise their kids. And men were polygamous to "spread their seed."

Looking back to my high school and college days, I found I didn't believe this. For one thing, I met some very promiscuous women (and who they were attracted to had nothing with do with being an "Alpha") and I also found they were capable of multiple orgasms - as in having sex with five guys in a row. Why? It would have nothing to do with monogamy, that's for sure. It surely isn't to get the "genetically superior Alpha sperm" to improve your children.

What I realized quite early is that men are the real romantics, and women can be multi-orgasmic sluts. I suppose "Evo-Psych" will come up with some rationalization to "explain" this. Good luck with that.

It's amusing the way "science" can flip-flop when the facts prove wrong long-held theories. It proves they were completely wrong in the first place and yet teaching it with utter assurance.

Some time ago I read the book What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire by journalist Daniel Bergner. (I've written about this book before.)

Bergner pointed out that women's sexuality is not some sort of civilizing force, but instead a ravenous, animalistic, civilization-destroying force. Religion has understood this for thousands of years - read the stories of Lilith and Jezebel. Or Joseph and Potiphar's wife.

As for those who dismiss the Bible as being written thousands of years ago by cave-dwelling camel-jockeys...well, they're just plain stupid.

It's clear this is why there are such restrictions on female sexuality. For God's sake, I once had a Romanian hooker sit down next to me and stick her tongue in my ear! And that's the least of what has happened to me.

Now start with the facts - men romantics, women ravenous multi-orgasmic sluts, and then try to Evo-Psych that. You can't do it. You have to take in account that one of the purposes of civilization is to repress the worst of human nature. So there is no "human nature" separate from society.

As for those restrictions on females...here's what one researcher told Bergner: "Those barriers are a testament to the power of the drive itself. It’s a pretty incredible testament. Because the drive must be so strong to override all of that."

He also said, "Women’s desire — its inherent range and innate power — is an underestimated and constrained force, even in our times, when all can seem so sexually inundated, so far beyond restriction. Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety...one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale."

Bergner also said this: "Well, I guess the first thing to say is how struck I was by the distance between reality and the fable that we’ve been taught most recently by evolutionary psychology, that is, that men are driven to spread their seed and women, by comparison, are more driven to find one good provider, and that, therefore, while men are very poorly suited to monogamy, women are much better suited to monogamy. But that just really doesn’t stand up when you look at the science. The science behind that is flimsy, circular. And the science, when you look at it clearly, that stands in opposition to that is actually fairly strong — still emergent, but fairly strong. And so, that was the first thing that was so striking to me."

This, among many other reasons, is why I am such a critic of the Manosphere. A lot of the concepts in it are fairy tales (I recently read an article that claimed the Alpha brain-waves produced by meditation meant the meditator was an "Alpha" in real life. That's just pathetic.)

Those adolescent concepts of Alpha/Beta, shit tests, "chicks dig the Dark Triad," etc...the only reason they believe them is because they read them somewhere. Are they scientific? Not even close. Cherry-picking and Fallacies of Composition are not science.

Someday all this nonsense will sort itself out. The sooner the better.

Oh, by the way, this almost sounds like this: the more promiscuous a woman is, the harder it will be for her to fall in love. I've seen that...just the way I've seen a 13-year-old do five guys in a row.

Conspironuts

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Hillary Clinton is Now Unelectable

The uncontrollable coughing fits, the seizures, passing out and being propped up like a puppet on strings, being dragged up stairs..she'd rather die (and just might) than give up running for President. The lust for power for these people is stronger than life itself.

I've said for months Trump will sweep the election. I wonder if he will attend the Hildebeast's funeral?

By the way, I wonder how many meds the Hildebeast takes?

The Victory of Persuasion Over Force

The Russian writer Dmitri Merejkowski (1865–1941), believed all religions could be divided into two basic ones: in the first, Man sacrifices Man to Man (and all human sacrifice is a fertility rite, as history tells us). In the second, God sacrifices Himself to Man.

The second archetype was fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus, which, according the French philosopher and theologian Rene Girard, author of Violence and the Sacred and Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, was supposed to finally put an end to the scapegoating and human sacrifice that was endemic in the pagan world, and so casually accepted as necessary. If anything, it would have truly put an end to evil, not the political hallucinations of David Frum and Richard Perle, authors of the grossly misnamed An End to Evil.

Girard believed there were two functions to the scapegoat: social cohesion, and the attempt to renew society by doing violence to the scapegoat. The theologian Walter Wink, author of The Powers That Be, called the second function, "the Myth of Redemptive Violence." Both authors thought people, indeed entire societies, believed they could be made whole (a word with the same root as "healthy" and "hale") by projecting their own imperfections onto the scapegoat and eradicating it by violence.

Dostoevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov, claimed that Jesus also gave people freedom, but that many more than anything else wanted to give up this "burden" for security, and to find someone to worship and provide for their every need. Their craving for a "community of worship" would lead to religious violence against scapegoats.

Since it's the modern godlet State that is supposed to provide for these needs, Dostoevsky's observations fit with the theories of Merejkowski, Wink and Girard. It also fits with what war correspondent Chris Hedges wrote in War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning: "The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living."

That carnage, that destruction, is always based on finding a scapegoat, on human sacrifice, on believing in an Absolute Good and an Absolute Evil that always dehumanizes and demonizes the opponent and sees them as fertilizer. A group created by such things is what Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn meant when he wrote, "'I' is from God and 'We' is from the Devil." Social cohesion, indeed.

The U.S. used alcohol for a while as a scapegoat, and currently is using drugs (some drugs, but certainly not those money-makers approved by the FDA, the AMA and the pharmaceutical companies). The first attempt didn't work and neither is the second.

The attempt at Utopia, Heaven on Earth, the return to the Garden of Eden, whatever you want to call it, has always been considered blasphemy, and for the best of reasons. It never works and always backfires. The road to Hell is truly paved with good intentions, and naive idealists have caused more catastrophes in the world than the worst of people.

That first archetype, Man sacrificing Man to Man, was the scourge of the 20th century. The Nazis and the Communists (especially the Communists) danced to that tune, which ended in the deaths of perhaps 200 million people. That danse macabre is best embodied in the story of Satan, who deluded himself he could be God.

It's also embodied in the story of the Garden of Eden, where Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the “serpent,” a symbol of envy. In any case it points out the first defense of people is to oversimplify and blame their problems on others, whether they are guilty or not. It is always the first defense of all groups.

The first archetype is best associated with political power, what Albert Jay Nock in Our Enemy, the State called the Political Means of force and fraud: murder, lying, theft. After all, Satan did tempt Jesus with political power over the kingdoms of the world, an offer He refused, but one which no politician ever has. Does this mean that all politicians are in some degree Satanic? Of that I have no doubt.

That first archetype - Man sacrificing Man to Man - is always associated the Political Means (remember the Nazis and the Communists?), is based upon envy and the avoidance of it, and is always based on the grandiose and narcissistic belief in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. Were it not based on the fairy tale of pure good and pure evil, the projection of evil onto others could not exist.

Only with the belief in pure good and pure evil can Man sacrifice Man to Man. It is based on the belief that Man is God, and being God, can only remain God by eradicating that which is defined as evil. Those who define themselves as good always have to project their imperfections elsewhere. That "elsewhere" will always be the object of attempted annihilation.

This sacrificing of Man to Man has been going on for a long time. In the Bible the best-known example is that of Moloch, who required quite a few babies to hold his malice and envy at bay. This type of sacrificing even exists in the “libertarian” tradition, with Ayn Rand, whose popular novel Atlas Shrugged was based on her god-like heroes projecting their imperfections onto her evil, malicious, envious subhuman "looters" and "parasites," who were then human-sacrificed to save the purity of her demigods.

If the first archetype of Man sacrificing to Man is based on the Political Means of force and fraud, then the second archetype, God sacrificing Himself to Man, is based on voluntary persuasion, what Nock called the Economic Means. Not only Jesus, but every legitimate spiritual teacher has claimed that people must voluntarily change their hearts and minds. Clockwork-Orangian Ludovico's Technique to bash people into being good will never work.

Alfred North Whitehead, in his book Adventures of Ideas had this to say about the difference between persuasion and force: "The creation of the world -- said Plato -- is the victory of persuasion over force...Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals...

"Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of these two forms: force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force."

In two nutshells this is what we have:

FORCE:

The Political Means of force and fraud.

The fairy tale of Pure Good and Pure Evil.

Scapegoating and human sacrifice.

Violence as redemptive.

PERSUASION:

The Economic Means of voluntary persuasion and liberty.

Good and Evil as a continuum.

The extinction of scapegoating and human sacrifice.

Violence not as redemptive, but always destructive.

The inbred war criminal George Bush has claimed Jesus is his favorite philosopher, a concept that would be amusing if it wasn’t so stupid, since he ignored that comment about "Blessed are the peacemakers." Bush also ignored the comment, "What does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?"

It is clear to me that a substantial part of Christianity has been perverted, especially by Jerry Falwell and his kind. When he claims that "God is pro war" he is in his dull-wittedness supporting scapegoating, human sacrifice, the belief in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and violence as redemptive. Unfortunately there are in this country enough people like him to activate that saying about the blind leading the blind over a cliff.

Of course, this will always happen when there are enough people who can't tell the difference between God and the Devil.

I Don't Think Hillary has Parkinson's

I've dealt with Parkinson's. There are two kinds: with tremors and without. Without, you can't move very much.

The Hildebeast has something very wrong with her but it's not Parkinson's. Looks like some sort of progressive palsy.

Human Nature Doesn’t Change

I get people telling me “women have changed.” No, they haven’t. Anyone who thinks they have hasn’t even read the Bible at the very least.

Women throughout history have been liars, parasites, whores, drug addicts, abortionists, murderers of their infants, adulteresses, fat, lazy, disgusting, tattooed, promiscuous, diseased, naggers and torturers of men.

This is why the concept of Original Sin exists. Because everyone is flawed and imperfect. In some way, a lot.

That’s women at their worst. The fact there may be more of them today is irrelevant. Same nature, same kind of people.

I’ve pointed out before the Bible tells the truth – good and bad – about both men and women.

The things the Old Testament – and Jesus and St. Paul – said about people is eye-opening.

The same thing applies to men.

Part of What We Are is Inherited

To me this is common sense. All you have to do is look at how we’ve bred dogs. I only keep pugs, which are boisterous and silly dogs. How did they get that way, to have that nature? We bred them that way.

I can tell in many ways I’ve inherited my father’s temperament. My mother’s, hardly at all.

Only the completely self-deluded think we are blank slates.

I was thinking of these things after I reread one of those Great American Novels. In this case, Gone With the Wind.

Near the beginning Scarlet O’Hara’s father, Gerald, is explaining life to his daughter.

“Only when like marries like can there be any happiness,” he tells her.

That’s true. That’s Associative Mating, which has been proven by every study ever done. None of this Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Sigma/Omega nonsense.

He also tells her, “No has ever changed a husband one whit, and don’t you be forgetting that.”

He also tells her, “The whole family is born that way, and they’ve always been that way. And probably always will.”

That too is true. I’ve known sons who inherited their father’s tendency toward alcoholism. Not only that, but also their father’s love of motorcycles (one son became a motorcycle mechanic. And his son got on a bike at three and immediately started riding it.).

No wonder parents are often horrified by whom their children marry. I’ve seen that, too. In many cultures the parents choose whom their children married. I can understand that.

Gerald O’Hara has some opinions on that, too.

“For a woman love comes after marriage…the best marriages are when the parents choose for the girl. For how can a silly piece like your-self tell a good man from a scoundrel? Now, look at the Wilkes. What’s kept them prideful and strong all these generations? Why, marrying the likes of themselves…”

One only needs to look at the difference between races and ethnic groups. Look at the hideous inbreeding of Muslims for thousands of years. Does that not in many ways explain their poverty, low IQs and tendency toward violence (and no matter how many of them we kill we aren’t going to turn them into Americans). Blacks? The low IQs, the poverty, the tendency toward crime and violence? Is this not in many ways genetic?

Is not the ugliness, cowardice, lying, stealing, spying and treason of Jews in some ways genetic?

I’m not saying that everything we are is inherited. I generally hear about 50% of what we are is genetic. The rest is environmental.

But those who believe we are nothing but a blank slate and everything is environment…they’re always leftists. And I have to admit, I don’t understand them at all. The truth is right before their eyes and they close them and refuse to admit the truth.

Of course all of this means multiculturalism will never work. It would if all of us were blank slates and therefore products of our environments. But it’s not true.

This means the more we try to mix different ethnic groups, races and religions – when they try to share the same land – the more conflict we had going to have.

There has never been an exception to that in history.

“Manifestations of Hubris”

I have no idea who wrote this. I’ve had it on my hard drive for years. But it is superbly written.

Aristotle praised Sophocles’ King Oedipus as the definitive Greek tragedy; however, he could not have surmised the influence of Oedipus’ tragic pride on modern day literature and philosophy. Hubris, the only true crime, has had a threefold influence: it is a reason for downfall as well as a characteristic of criminal motivation; it is manifested in the diverse protagonists of Salinger, Fitzgerald, and Hawthorne; and it is forgiven only by repentance for wrongdoing and the complete surrender of pride.

The erroneous idea that pride is only a predominant characteristic of crime, rather than a crime itself, would put tragic hero Oedipus on the same level as serial killer Charles Manson: while both are guilty of committing heinous acts, Oedipus relinquishes his pride and, ironically suffering under his own proclamation of exile, does penance for his crimes, whereas Manson shows no remorse for his vile and disturbing bloodletting. Oedipus’ ultimate repentance is proof that he realizes his hubris and understands his mistakes, as irreparable as they may be.

All human filthiness in one crime compounded!
Unspeakable acts - I speak no more of them.
Hide me at once, for God’s love, hide me away...
Touch me, and have no fear.
On no man else but on me alone is the scourge of my punishment.

Had Oedipus sought to blame another for his crimes, or denied his own responsibility for his actions, he would have been no nobler than a common criminal; Oedipus is redeemed by his strength of character.

The hamartia of hubris lives on 2500 years after Aristotle lauded King Oedipus as the quintessential Greek tragedy; pride has evolved into an integral characteristic of the majority of literary characters from J.D. Salinger’s angry, disillusioned Holden Caulfield to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s idealistic Jay Gatsby to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s tortured Reverend Dimmesdale.

Holden’s pride in his sarcastic perception of the world around him perpetuates his cynicism and frustration with life, making him unrealistic and incapable of finding happiness. He believes himself omniscient, and that other “people never notice anything.” Oedipus’ belief in his own infallibility makes him equally unrealistic; soon after Oedipus’ sins are revealed, the chorus of Elders conveys a Holden-esque message of discontent:

All generations of mortal man add up to nothing!
Show me the man whose happiness was anything more than illusion
Followed by disillusion.

Both Holden and Oedipus are self-absorbed, and each is isolated by his own erroneous perception of the situation around him. Until their respective situations force Holden and Oedipus to overcome their pride and accept reality, they are incapable of realizing the errors of their perceptions.

Jay Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s impractical and self-absorbed millionaire, is unrealistic and foolishly proud because he believes his affluence will easily buy him the love of Daisy Buchanan. His entire “Jay Gatsby” persona is built upon the assumption that he can maintain the playboy facade without consequences. His frequent bouts of fear and insecurity derive from his pride, and his persona and wealth are useless once his affair with Daisy ends.

...He wanted to recover something, some idea of himself perhaps, that had gone into loving Daisy. His life had been confused and disordered since then, but if he could once return to a certain starting place and go over it all slowly, he could find out what that thing was....

Gatsby is incapable of relinquishing his belief that Daisy’s love will cure all of the problems that have plagued him; his pride prevents him from realizing that his dream, seemingly “so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it”, cannot be accomplished.

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Reverend Dimmesdale is an entirely different manifestation of hubris: he takes pride in torturing and loathing himself. Dimmesdale believes that the only way he will truly be forgiven is through public castigation and exile, just as Oedipus believes that the only punishment suitable for himself is a self-inflicted blinding and a life which Òage, nor sickness, nor any common accident can end” ( Sophocles. Dimmesdale cannot abandon his self-flagellating behavior because his hubris keeps him from coming to terms with his guilt; until his death, he is incapable of repentance because he believes, with dark pride, that his sin is unforgivable.

Teiresias’ statement “all men fall into sin. But sinning, he is not for ever lost... who can make amends and has not set his face against repentance” is further proof that the truest form of any crime is the criminal’s prideful belief in his own infallibility. A predecessor of the Christian doctrine of forgiveness via penitence, Teiresias’ sage advice is pivotal to Creon, although the king of Thebes does not realize it. Ironically, Creon learns of his errors from the same prophet who foresaw Oedipus’ downfall, and he has the same reaction to the seer as Oedipus: disbelief and scorn. Only when the chorus of elders reinforces the prophesy does Creon realize that he has committed a grave transgression against Antigone: “My mind is made; ‘twas I that imprisoned her, and I will set her free. Now I believe it is by the laws of heaven that man must live.” Although he loses his wife, son and niece because of his pride and lust for power, Creon’s chorus-aided epiphany and his ensuing attempt to right his wrong against Antigone serve as his repentance.

“He is not for ever lost, hapless and helpless, who can make amends and has not set his face against repentance.” Teiresias’ judicious advice throughout Oedipus and Antigone is more than just prophesy, it is an astute analysis of the driving force behind the crimes of Oedipus and Creon: pride. Both works illustrate hubris and repentance, concepts inherent to Greek tragedy and further prove that pride is more that just a simple character trait: it is a complex crime essential to both downfall and redemption.

Koros to Hubris to Ate to Nemesis

“The fear of humiliation appears to be one of the most powerful motivators in individual and collective human behavior.” - Donald Klein

There is no light on human nature more pitiless and perceptive and accurate than mythology. Through hundreds if not thousands of years all the dross was burned away, leaving some very acute observations about human nature.

Unfortunately mythology is not taught in schools or the churches or by parents. Too bad, since there is wisdom in the stories, wisdom that doesn’t exist at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, places that produce “the Best and Brightest” now busy destroying the United States.

The ancient Greeks outlined this sequence: Koros to Hubris to Ate to Nemesis. They argued about what exactly each word meant. Scholars still argue today.

I’ve heard Koros described as a kind of greed -- and had those ancient Greeks been Christian, they would have called it one of the Seven Deadly Sins. I’ve also heard Koros described as what happens to people of unsound character when they gain great wealth and power (meaning, more than anything else, political power, which ultimately is the power to “legally” kill people).

Examples (which are another name for stories) work best. I consider former President George Bush, who started two unnecessary wars, to have an unsound character. An ex-alcoholic who was never treated for it (which makes him a dry drunk), who is apparently brain-damaged by that alcoholism, with rumors of past heavy cocaine use, who never had a legitimate private-sector job in his life, who was (is?) on psychiatric medication, who believes he is a Christian who is “saved”…and he became President.

To use just our last three Presidents (Obama, Bush and Clinton) as examples, they are portraits of what Friedrich Hayek meant when he wrote his famous article, “Why the Worst Get on Top.” It’s also why the Founding Fathers were opposed to the leftist delusion of “democracy” – again, the worst get on top.

A man or woman, a weakling of unstable character, who gains great wealth and political power, then next suffers from Hubris -- another name for the towering, grandiose Pride that afflicted Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost. Hubris is arrogance, moral blindness, wanton violence, which creates in the afflicted the ability to cruelly and brutally humiliate people without any qualms – the way Herod and Caligula did. They always rationalize this as a necessary thing how even the innocent suffer terribly, which is why there is the ironic observation (which both Jesus and Aesop noticed) that all tyrants call themselves benefactors.

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

Not so surprisingly, the root words of “obscene” and “humiliation” both mean “dirt” – to treat someone as dirt. Humiliation also means “to mortify,” which means to “make dead,” not necessarily physically dead, but worse, dead in psyche, as in the walking dead – zombie or vampire, which is how those whose souls have been murdered by vicious humiliations describe themselves.

I am reminded of the sociologist C. Wright Mills when he wrote about what he called “crackpot realists” -- fools who are convinced they know what they are doing but don’t, and instead destroy in their attempts to save. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were fine specimens of that, as in everyone in Obama’s administration.

Seeing wrong as right is Ate -- madness. When a politician starts unnecessary wars in which they become even richer (again, the greed of Koros), in which tens of thousands of innocent people are killed and many more impoverished, and the instigators claim they had the “time of their lives” (as both Bush and Clinton said), that is Ate.

Bush was far more arrogant than Clinton or Obama (he was, after all, referred to as Smirk). The more arrogance one shows, the more it is covering up feelings of humiliation. As the psychiatrist James Gilligan so perceptively wrote, “The most dangerous men in the world are the ones who are afraid they are wimps.”

It has been noticed for many years by many people that bullies cover up their cowardice with braggadocio – arrogance on top hiding their feelings of humiliation. When such people gain political power millions can die because of their attempts to replace shame with pride (Hitler had one testicle, Stalin had badly pockmarked skin, fused toes on one foot and a withered arm, and LBJ escalated in Vietnam because he was afraid his critics would consider him “chicken” if he didn’t).

Now we come to Nemesis. Nemesis is the goddess of fate and retribution. You can use many other names: revenge, vengeance and retaliation, payback…perhaps even justice. (As an aside, the Greeks called justice Dike, and it exists because of the criminal acts created by Hubris.)

I find it significant that Nemesis means “fate.” That means cause-and-effect, although I believe it is more accurate to define it as a cybernetic system, specifically a positive feedback system: humiliation leads to revenge, then those who are the objects of revenge seek revenge in turn, and so in, an escalating spiral of death and destruction.

Humiliation doesn’t always have to lead to revenge, if the object of humiliation can maintain his or her innocence, as in such stories as “Cinderella” and the first Harry Potter novel (in both cases they are stories that illustrate the saying, “Living well is the best revenge”).

But when it comes to groups of people – ethnic groups, religions, nations – immunity to feelings of humiliation can never be maintained and revenge will always happen. Mobs cannot think, only feel; they never follow principles, only leaders, and they always fall for propaganda that portrays them as innocent victims and their attackers as evil, subhuman monsters bent on death and destruction.

Osama bin Laden said the Islamic countries in the Middle East had been humiliated by the U.S. for 80 years, and that the revenge of 9-11 was “a copy” of what the U.S. had done. Then the U.S. sought revenge for the humiliation of 9-11, and now those the American government is killing in Iraq and Afghanistan are getting their revenge by killing our soldiers in return. Those who are blinded by political fanaticism cannot see this (because they perceive all political problems as Good versus Evil), and as long as they are deluded, they never will be able to see the truth of things.

In a nutshell, when you brutally humiliate people and make them suffer cruelly, and don’t even know you’re doing it, and instead of relieving their suffering you see it as something good and necessary, you’re going to be pretty damned surprised when the people you are oppressing and exploiting and killing rise up and kill you back. You’ll be outraged and consider it ingratitude; they’ll consider it justice.

When unsound people (meaning about 98% of all politicians) get political power, they always seek to expand it. This is why the State throughout history has always expanded its power, always at the expense of people and society.

There have been quite a few people throughout history (Marcus Aurelius for one, Akbar the Great for another) who have been able to handle political power. Unfortunately, Clinton, Bush and now Obama don’t belong to that admirable group. Those who consciously seek political power are avaricious, self-deluded weaklings and can never handle it properly. As Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I prefer the sayings, “Power intoxicates and immunity corrupts,” and “Power is the horse that evil rides.”

As Dostoevsky put it in The House of the Dead, "Tyranny...finally develops into a disease. The habit can...coarsen the very best man to the level of a beast. Blood and power intoxicate...the return to human dignity, to repentance, to regeneration, becomes almost impossible."

The opposite of Hubris is humility, or what the Greeks called Sophrosyne. It can be described as “Nothing in excess” and “Know thyself,” meaning having a clear understanding of your character, your strengths and limitations. It means treating people with respect, not brutalizing and humiliating them, and when it comes to relations with other countries, to, as our Founding Fathers advised, trade with them but otherwise leave them alone.

Unfortunately, if you flunk history (which so far has always happened), you have to go through the whole mess again. The U.S., which has the whole of history before it, is ignoring all its successful lessons and is instead repeating all its failures.

Trump in a Landslide

I am part of the "basket of deplorables" and I'm predicting Trump (aka "Lucky Hitler" to his enemies) in a landslide because the Hildebeast is at death's door.

80% of Women are Unattractive

I’ll have to admit I am amused by all the nonsense I read in the Manosphere about “the nature of women and what they want.”

Freud wondered that too and couldn’t figure it out, except to suggest that perhaps they were envious of men (his infamous “penis envy”), an observation that runs back to the story of the Garden of Eden (and women’s envy means they want to destroy men, hence feminism, which is leftist…and leftism of course is based on envy).

It doesn’t matter what women want. It only matters what they get.

80% of women are unattractive, and it gets worse the older they get. You’ll never find a female Sean Connery or Paul Newman. Or even a George Clooney. And oh how older actresses howl when their offered roles dry up and disappear!

“Alpha Fux and Beta Bux”? Doesn’t exist. Never seen it, not even once. Neither have any of my friends. Any studies at all on this? Not a one, and there never will be (the True Believers of the Manosphere don’t want any scientific studies since it will destroy their fantasies about how these “Betas” will take an “Alpha’s” worn-out, over-the-hill rejects).

“Cash and prizes.” Never seen it, not even once. Same with my friends. Again, no studies and there never will be.

Where did these concepts come from? Did the originators pull them out of their asses, along with their heads (“preposterous” literally means having your head up your ass)?

What women get – and men too – is Associative Mating. There have been a lot of studies about this and all have confirmed it.

“Birds of a feather flock together.” That observation is thousands of years old. I first read it in Aesop’s Fables when I was about 12.

I occasionally see some obese woman at Wal-Mart with her scrawny drug addict boyfriend/husband and their ugly retarded children. Does she want better? Doesn’t appear so. They’re a good fit, even though they’re both trash. Again, Associative Mating.

I also occasionally will see some loser drug addict couple riding their junky bikes together. Know why? No car. Either can’t afford one or lost their drivers’ licenses. (I’ve actually seen this many times, and generally they are on welfare/disability). And neither of them is attractive. They might have been 20 years ago before the meth and heroin and alcohol wrecked them.

I’ve met women who reached their peak at 16 or 17 and by 35 I didn’t recognize them because they looked so horrible (I recently met one who has really cute when I met her when she was 16 and at 50 was a completely unrecognizable monster). And these women are going to engage in “Alpha Fux and Beta Bux”? Or hundreds of them would share Brad Pitt because they wouldn’t even touch Joe the Plumber? What sort of demented hallucinations are these? Those things never happen.

When the weather is nice my friends and I hang out outdoors at coffee shops. I asked one to rate the women as they walked by. Again, 80% of them were unattractive (this is known as Pareto’s 80/20 rule).

I’ve done this before, more than once. Same thing: 80/20.

I’ve mentioned before I still have two of my high school yearbooks, from my junior and senior years. Many years ago I went through both of them and rated the girls. Same thing: 20 percent attractive, 80 percent unattractive.

I’ve also read how 80% of the women go after 20% of the guys. Guess what? Even if true (and it’s not) these women can’t get them. They can’t even get these guys to fuck them, although some of these women place such a premium on their skanky selves they seem to think they deserve guys far out of their league. I’ve seen that way more than one time.

How many guys are going to screw a woman who is far less attractive than he is, plus also crazy? (I once had an older friend, when I was far younger, tell me, “Never screw a woman who’s crazier than you are”).

I’ve had people tell me “women have changed since you were growing up.”

Guess what? They haven’t.

Human nature doesn’t change and women were the same 6,000 year ago (the limit of written history) as they are today.

You’re certainly not going to find out much about women by reading the hallucinations of the Manosphere. You’d be better off reading the Bible, which is full of stories about every good and bad thing men and women do.

I know there is cognitive dissonance is giving up lies and learning the truth, but that’s just the way people are.

Many intelligent men in the past have offered their opinions on women (their opinions tend to be about noticing many women are big children). That’s been much of my experience, too.

Yay for Fido!

The only thing I remember about this one is that I wrote it post 9-11.

The year: 2084.

The place: any city in the USA.

Characters: Father, Daughter, Baby, Fido and a Few Shadowy Characters.

Father parks his 1986 Yugo at a curb and exits the vehicle with Daughter, Baby, and Fido the Chihuahua.

Police Officer (emerging from the shadows. He is a clone, as all the police are in 2084. He has a narrow head and squinty lop-sided eyes set too close together and bears strong resemblance to the stereotypical politician): Hold it right there!

Father: What? What did I do?

Officer: I have to search all of you and the car for a bomb! It's a new Global UN law passed this morning.

Father: I haven't heard a thing about it.

Officer: That's not my problem. I have a job to do and orders to follow.

Father: Orders to follow, huh? (He places his left forefinger under his nose, shoots out his right arm at a 45% angle, and goosesteps in circles.) Sieg heil! Actung! Verboten!

Officer: Huh?

Father: Adolph Hitler? Nazis?

Officer: Huh?

Father: Forget it. I'm a comedian practicing a comedy routine.

Officer: Whatever.

A police van screeches around a corner. It stops and four police officers jump out. They remove the tires from the Yugo, place the car on concrete blocks, put the tires in the van and screech away.

Father: What was that about?

Officer: We have to search your tires for bombs.

Father: Those are brand-new tires! They might even have rubber in them! It took me a year to save for them! The economy's been bad for 80 years, you know, what with the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya and all those other places I can't remember! I think you guys just stole my tires!

Officer: Complain to the government.

Father: This is outrageous!

Officer: I'm just keeping the country safe. (He squints at Baby.) There could be a bomb in that baby!

Father: Sure.

Officer: I have to check. (He grabs Baby and pries open its mouth.) You got a bomb in there?

Baby: Gaga googoo.

Officer (upending Baby and shaking it up and down): Cough it up!

Baby: Wah!

Officer: I guess you're okay. (Hands Baby back to Father.)

Baby (glaring at Officer): Pfffttt!

Father: Baby!

Baby: Gaga googoo!

Officer (squinting at Fido): There could be a bomb in that dog!

Father: It's a Chihuahua!

Officer: Plenty of room for a bomb. He needs a body-cavity search!

Fido: Yikes!

Father: This is ridiculous! It's insa -

Daughter: Daddy!! Look at what the bad man is doing to Fido!

Father (placing his hands over Daughter's eyes): Don't look, honey!

Fido: (eyes bugging out like poached eggs) URK!!

Officer: Dang! (shakes hand) He's stuck!

Fido: (bouncing up and down like a yo-yo) YEOW!

Officer (shaking hand harder) There he goes! (Fido does a somersault through the air and lands in Daughter's arms.)

Fido (glaring at the Officer): Grrr! GRRR! GRRR!!

A man walks by wearing a three-foot tall turban. There is a loud ticking sound coming from it.

Father: Did you see that? I think he's got a bomb in his turban!

Officer: Since when are you a trained police officer?

The man rounds the corner. Seconds later there is a gigantic explosion. An axle with two tires on it lands in the street.

Father: Look! Two tires! Can I have them?

Officer: Don't get smart.

Father: Can we go now?

Officer: I guess. You better watch yourself. And the dog, too. He better watch himself...or you...er...you know what I mean.

Father, Daughter, Baby and Fido cross the street. Fido is walking upright on his front paws like a circus acrobat.

Fido: Ow! Ow! Ow!

All step onto the curb across the street. An Officer appears from the shadows.

Officer: Stop right there!

Father: What now?

Officer: I have to search all of you!

Father: The guy across the street just searched us!

Officer: He's Homeland Security for the south side of the street! I'm Homeland Security for the north side!

Father (putting hands on head): It's a madhouse!

Officer: Huh?

Father: Charleton Heston? Planet of the Apes?

Officer: Huh?

Father: Forget it. I'm a comedian practicing a comedy routine.

Officer (squinting eyes): The dog's first!

Fido: ARRRGGGH!

Officer: What the -- yikes! Oh no! Wait, stop! Help! Mommy! Daddy! HELP! HELLLPPPP!!!!

Father: Wow! I didn't know he could do that!

Daughter: Yay for Fido!

Fido: Burp.

Grandma Beats Up Airport Security Guards

I wrote this about six months after 9-11 when the government was going crazy. It became an Urban Legend and is still listed at Snopes as “untrue.” Which it is.

It was also read on the radio (by Neal Boortz if I remember correctly and I was interviewed on the radio (I forgot by whom but it was a radio personality in Texas).

I got over 300 emails and was still getting some five years later.

FROSTBITE FALLS, MN -- Charges were dropped yesterday against Ruth "Grammy" Gordon, an 83-year-old wheelchair-bound grandmother, who was originally charged with assault and battery, and assault with a deadly weapon, because of an altercation she had last week with six airport security guards, that left all of them hospitalized.

"Justice has been served," said the 85-pound mother of three and grandmother of six, as she sat in her wheelchair, aided in her breathing by an oxygen bottle. "Now I'm going to sue every fool in the federal government for ignorance, stupidity, and just plain general incompetence. I'm an American, and I won’t be treated like this."

The problem began last month as Gordon was attempting to board an airplane at the R.J. Squirrel Airport in Frostbite Falls, Minnesota. "These guys are supposed to be some kind of professionals," she said, "but they’re dumber than rocks. Here they were letting guys who looked just like terrorists walk through without searching them, and then they pull me aside and tell me they’re going to search me? I don’t think so."

According to one witness, Bud Cort of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, one guard, "who weighed about 300 pounds, looked like he was drunk, and had his shirt out, told this woman she couldn’t board the plane unless they searched her. He was really rude. That’s when the trouble started."

Videotapes showed that Gordon ran the guard down with her motorized wheelchair, then sat on top of the screaming man while spinning her chair in circles. "Doofus was so fat he couldn’t get up," said Gordon with a giggle.

One guard who attempted to pull Gordon’s wheelchair off of the screaming man from behind was hit over the head with an oxygen bottle and left spread-eagled unconscious on the floor. A third guard, who approached Gordon from the front, was left dazed on the floor, holding his head in his heads and crying like a girl.

Witnesses said she was cackling, "Put your hands on an old lady, will you?" as she repeatedly and energetically thumped both guards with her oxygen bottle.

The tape also showed a fourth guard attempting to grab Gordon’s wheelchair. Gordon removed a knitting needle from her purse and stabbed him in his left buttock. "What a wimp," she told reporters. "He started screaming and grabbing his butt and running like a puppy that someone kicked."

"It was amazing," said another witness, Scott Ryan, also of Cuyahoga Falls, a professor of music at Ohio Express University and author of Yusef Islam: Cat Stevens Declawed. “The whole crowd just stood there cheering and clapping. I mean, she was whupping butt.”

A fifth guard that attempted to grab Gordon had the seat of his pants set on fire with a cigarette lighter that Gordon pulled from her purse. "He just went whoosh across the concourse, screaming and slapping at all these flames flying out of his rear," said Ryan.

A sixth guard did finally manage to get Gordon in a body hug. "I think that was the wrong thing to do," said another witness, who declined to be identified. "She just grabbed him by his greasy hair with one hand and cracked him across the jaw with her skinny fist. And down and out he went."

The tapes showed that as the first guard under the wheelchair was getting up, Gordon grabbed him in a headlock, hit him several times in his forehead with a gnarled fist, and yelled, "Apologize to me, you fat sumbitch, or when I’m done with you you’ll just be a greasy spot on the floor!"

As the crowd roared, the guard cried, "I’m sorry, I’m sorry! Uncle! I won’t do it again!"

Finally, Gordon surrendered without further incident, and was taken to jail and released on her own recognizance. "We didn’t have any choice," said an unidentified officer of the court. "Over 200 people showed up to support her. I think if we had demanded bail, there would have been a riot."

Over 20 lawyers offered to defend her for free. However, realizing the precariousness of the case, Gordon was not charged with anything. "I doubt there’s a jury in the whole country that would have found her guilty of anything," said one of the lawyers.

"Now this is the way America is supposed to be," Gordon announced. "I’m flying again tomorrow, and I suggest no one at the airport so much as look at me wrong."

Alphas and Gammas are the Same Thing

I’ve pointed out before more than once that a lot of the concepts in the Manosphere are inaccurate to the extent they’re worthless. And anyone who takes them as gospel is, at the minimum, courting a lot of confusion.

I’ve also pointed out before, more than once, that the Manosphere’s definition of “alpha” is really the definition of a narcissist/psychopath, both of whom have no guilt or remorse, no conscience, and are incapable of love.

Here, again, in the definition of an “alpha.”

“Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.”

This is probably more the definition of a narcissist.

What sort of emotional infant wants to be the center of “male and female attention”? Classic star of the football team dating the prettiest cheerleader? Successful business executive with the beautiful wife? All the men want to be like him and all women are attracted to him? Women only exist for his physical and emotional gratification? That’s treating them as things that only exist to worship these “alphas”.

These are the grandiose fantasies of losers. These men don’t exist except in the movies. James Bond, Matt Helm Derek Flint.

All narcissists/psychopaths/borderlines have a grandiose self and a devalued self. In the case of the psychopath/sociopath all they have is a grandiose self and everyone else is devalued. In the case of the narcissist they alternate between their grandiose and devalued selves. As for borderlines, they’re pretty much narcissists who are psychotic (the women who drown their kids in cars or bathtubs are borderlines).

Now here is the definition of a Gamma.

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

Remember what I said about narcissists having grandiose and devalued selves? The “Gamma” if a close to perfect definition of one.

The Manosphere like to pretend their non-existent “Alphas” wouldn’t have a grandiose and devalued self. But if they actually existed, they would. Everyone has one. If we didn’t no one would be prone to being humiliated or mortified (the last word means “to make dead”).

The Manosphere likes to pretend “Alphas” are so grandiose they’re close to perfect.

But psychologically there is no difference between an “alpha” and a “gamma.” That’s why in reality they’re the same thing.

I’ve met some men who devoted their lives to seducing women. They weren’t “alphas.” They were cowards and liars who ruined their lives. I’ve never seen an exception to that.

Actually they are the real “Omegas.” They’re not even respected by their friends. And certainly not by the sluts who fuck them (I’ve never met a slut who had any respect for men or even herself). To them men are just working dicks (I’ve rogered more than one of them myself).

Sooner or later the Manosphere will have to give up all this Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Omega nonsense and replace them with definitions that actually work.

The Fantasy World of the Savior and the Scapegoat

Whenever any country idealizes itself as the Savior of the world -- a problem that currently afflicts the United States -- there must be another country, or countries, that is scapegoated. This is a law of human nature, and as such, there are no exceptions. If there is a country that believes it to be a Savior, there is always a Scapegoat. They're opposite sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.

There is one man who avoided that problem and became a real Savior, and that is Jesus. In fact, he cured the problem, since he was the first scapegoat in history that was considered innocent. Before him, scapegoats and sacrifices were considered essential to keep Chaos at bay.

Unfortunately, his message was pretty much lost today, and in the past even his most devout followers have still scapegoated and murdered those who disagreed with them. In a nutshell, all scapegoats today are considered guilty, even if they're innocent. Even today, their deaths are deemed "necessary" to keep Chaos and evil at bay. So, then, in what way are we any different than Aztecs who ripped the living hearts out of people (which is something Mel Gibson noticed in Apocalypto)? We're worse, in numbers of people killed. And we have advanced technology.

This Savior Complex, as the late mythologist Maggie Macary termed it, consists of a fake innocence in which those who consider themselves as Saviors ignore their own guilt and what they have done to others. They deceive themselves. This is why Bush, in all seriousness, referred to the United States being attacked for its goodness. He's completely ignoring the 50 years of attacks the United States has inflicted on the Islamic world. I am sure he truly does not understand that when people are oppressed and murdered for decades, they will sooner or later rise up and attack their oppressors. It’s revenge.

When one group idealizes itself, it must necessarily demonize another group it defines as its enemy or enemies. That way, it can project all evil onto those Others and maintain the fiction of its own goodness and innocence. This means, and this is truly scary, that groups or countries that idealize themselves are always dwelling, in some degree, in a fantasy. Part of that fantasy is always projecting evil onto the innocent.

Most people don't know it, but one of the original meanings of "dwell" is to "deceive, hinder, delay; to err." As in the old A. Merritt novel, Dwellers in the Mirage.

Lee Harris, in an article titled, "Al Quada's Fantasy Ideology," writes: "This power of the fantasist is entirely traceable to the fact that, for him, the other is always an object and never a subject. A subject, after all, has a will of his own, his own desires and his own agenda; he might rather play the flute instead of football. And anyone who is aware of this fact is automatically put at a disadvantage in comparison with the fantasist - the disadvantage of knowing that other people have minds of their own and are not merely props to be pushed around."

Anybody or any country that lives in the fantasy of the Savior Complex will never see the Scapegoat as human beings, only as objects, and evil ones at that. Ones that must be eradicated. They become nothing more than "collateral damage."

The United States government now appears to be involved in a collective, groupthink, nearly insane fantasy, one in which it sees itself as wholly Good, and those it defines as enemies, as wholly Evil. As the egregious David Frum put it, "an axis of evil."

This fantasy of splitting everything into either Good or Evil, is, in my view, the main reason for genocide. We see ourselves as sacred and innocent, and those outside as guilty and evil. The logical and indeed inescapable result: annihilate them.

As Mircea Eliade writes, "Since 'our world' is a cosmos, any attack from without threatens to turn it into chaos. And as 'our world' was founded by imitating the paradigmatic work of the gods, the cosmogony, so the enemies who attack it are assimilated to the enemies of the gods, the demons, and especially to the archdemon, the primordial dragon conquered by the gods at the beginning of time. An attack on 'our world' is equivalent to an act of revenge by the mythical dragon, who rebels against the work of the gods, the cosmos, and struggles to annihilate it. 'Our' enemies belong to the powers of chaos. Any destruction of a city is equivalent to a retrogression to chaos. Any victory over the attackers reiterates the paradigmatic victory of the gods over the dragon (that is, over chaos)."

What Eliade is writing about is the archetype of the horror story: good attacked by evil. The sacred "Homeland" under assault by fanatical, insane, evil mass murderers who wish to destroy and conquer us. Heaven under attack by Satan. It's an old, apparently instinctive archetype, and many, many people fall for it. Always have, and probably always will.

Unfortunately, it is quite natural for people to kill anyone who they think is invading their sacred space, especially when they turn these "enemies" into monsters. Just because it is "natural" doesn't mean it's right. In this case, it's something that must always be opposed.

Or, as the playwright Arthur Miller put it: “It is always and forever the struggle: to perceive somehow our own complicity with evil is a horror not to be born. [it is] much more reassuring to see the world in terms of totally innocent victims and totally evil instigations of the monstrous violence. At all costs, never disturb our innocence.”

"Are Women Naturally Amoral?"

I've written before I take Evo-Psych with a boulder of salt because I've read some utter nonsense the author should have been embarrassed to write. Psychopaths evolved as warriors, blonde women's hair gets darker so men can tell she's beyond her fertile years, women babble because they had to make noise to keep the saber-toothed tigers away while they picked berries...and other complete silliness.

This, however, is funny.

And yes, men create morality and women destroy it. Just look around.
It's from the Female Misogynist.

Mr. Zopo asked what I think of the theory that women are naturally amoral. I would put it that women are naturally more inclined towards amorality, but basically, I do think that it’s true.

The fact is that morality – the ability to stand by principles when doing so makes one’s life more difficult, or even puts that life in peril – is adaptive for men, and maladaptive for women.

Incidentally, most people’s “lizard brains” – their subconscious minds, where all the real decisions are made – are far more sexist than my frontal lobes. When I was a child, I was downright priggish. I was always pointing out to the adults around me the immorality of their behavior or theories. (As you might expect, I had a very unpleasant childhood as a result.) Also, I often refused to do things people wanted me to or that other children were doing, on moral grounds. This made other people, both children and adults, angry at me, but even more than that, they were astonished. It wasn’t until well into adulthood that I realized that they were astonished to see a female standing on principle! They would never have articulated such a thought, but they knew which sex was supposed to make a moral stand and which wasn’t.

But let’s get back to the survival value of morality. For a minute, pretend you are a cave man. You decide to kill a woolly mammoth in order to feed your tribe. But woolly mammoths are big honkin’ critters. You can’t just go up to one with your little handmade spear and kill it all by yourself. Bringing down one of these requires teamwork. So you ask two other healthy young men of the tribe, your pals Og and Ug, to help you. After they’re done switching to Geico, they agree. (Okay, it probably takes more than three guys, but that’s not important right now. Three guys or ten guys, the principle is the same.)

Now, when the three of you pick out your woolly mammoth, it’s entirely possible that one or more of you will get killed in the process of hunting it. So on the face of it, it would seem that running away and abandoning your comrades at the first sign of trouble would be adaptive, would have survival value. But let’s say the mammoth gets feisty. You and Ug run away, leaving Og behind to be trampled by the mammoth. You and Ug live through that day, but you and your tribe are less likely to survive because you don’t have mammoth steaks. Plus, if you’d killed the mammoth, the chicks in your tribe would have dug you. They might not have bartered a straightforward exchange – their sexual favors in return for a chunk of mammoth meat – but killing it would have given you and your pals status, which is excellent currency for getting laid. So you’ve just lost several opportunities for passing on your genes.

Since you, Og and Ug are most likely to succeed in killing the mammoth, staying alive throughout the hunt, and going home to a feast and sex with grateful cave women, if all three of you stick together even when the hunt is dangerous. In other words, loyalty and courage are adaptive for males, even when it imperils them. Loyalty to an ideal and courage against inquisitors who are trying to stamp your ideals out come from the exact same personality qualities. Hunting, or defending your tribe against the tribe across the river, also requires aggression, and that aggression can also be channeled into, for example, crusading against evils such as slavery or communism.

Understand, a lot of cave men are going to die trying to stick together while they attack woolly mammoths. The fact remains that the cave men who survive and reproduce will be the ones who stick together in the face of danger and succeed, not the ones who run away when the mammoth gets tetchy.

Another personality quality that morality requires is independence. This, too, is adaptive for males. Let’s say there’s a hominid tribe living in a valley. They’ve been there for generations, but lately pickings have been slim, and consequently so are the hominids.

Driven by their testosterone, a couple of young males propose leaving the valley in search of territory richer in food. The elders warn them not to. Everybody knows that outside the valley are dragons, ogres, and who knows what other monsters, ready to gobble up hominids who wander out of the valley.

But teenage boys never listen to anyone. Our two young males insist on leaving anyway. That is, they take a risk on their own independent judgment. Two things could happen. One, they could die, of starvation or of being eaten by a cave bear or any number of other things. In this case, their genes vanish and they matter not. The other possibility, however, is that they discover that a mere half a day’s walk away is a much nicer valley, with lots more fruit-bearing trees and plenty of animals just waiting to be killed and eaten. They claim it for themselves, then invite other hominids who are willing to accept their dominance to join them. As the ruling males, they get first call on poontang. Thanks to their independence, their genes are passed on.

A few thousand years later, their descendant refuses to renounce his faith even on pain of death. Let’s say this descendant is a Christian living in Rome before Constantine. He is showing his independence by following what his own heart and mind tell him is right even when everyone else he knows thinks he is wrong, just as his ancestors did when they went in search of a new valley to live in. Our Roman martyr might die himself, fed to lions in the arena, but his brave sacrifice is part of what founds the largest and most powerful force for morality in human history: Christianity.

But these ingredients of morality – loyalty, courage, aggression, and independence – are as maladaptive for females as they are adaptive for males. Any of them could cost a woman her life and her chance to reproduce.

Think about it. What constitutes reproductive success for a woman? She has to invest nine months in gestating the child without miscarrying, then take care of it for at least a decade. Carrying it, nursing it, watching it to make sure it doesn’t eat toadstools or walk right up to a cobra or simply wander off, providing it with food and basic training in human behavior. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, a man can ejaculate and die 30 seconds later and still be a reproductive success, but for a female, the investment is far larger. A female cannot afford personality qualities, such as courage, aggression, curiosity, and innovation, that might get her killed before her children reach puberty. Females who had those qualities generally didn’t live to be our ancestresses, so we didn’t get their genes. We got the genes of the meek women who pleased the men of their tribe and stayed far away from the woolly mammoths.

(I would hypothesize that these traits are sex-linked, but not perfectly so. This would explain why most women inherit the genes of their submissive ancestresses, but occasionally manifest those of their independent, aggressive ancestors. Similarly, while men will usually inherit the genes that made their fathers viable, like courage and loyalty, sometimes instead they will show the qualities of their mothers, of manipulating and befriending.)

What does a woman need in order to raise her offspring, the carriers of her genes, to adulthood? Other people to help her watch the sprog so he doesn’t run into the nearest pride of lions would be good. Other people with spears and torches to chase off hungry predators who come around hoping to snack on some juvenile Cro-Magnons. Other people to bring her some food when she’s eight months pregnant and can barely move, or when she’s got a baby in her arms and a toddler following her everywhere and she just can’t gather enough for herself because she and the baby have both come down with something. Other people to kill antelopes – she’d do it herself, but her three-year-old follows her everywhere and keeps crying and alerting the antelopes – so that she and her kids can get some of that essential protein. Other people to hold the baby for a little while so that she can climb a tree to get some fruit off the high limbs.

In short, other people. Hillary was, in a sense, correct: it does take a village. But not in the way she meant.

This means that women cannot, evolutionarily speaking, afford to be independent. An independent female would be drummed out of the tribe, and with no one to help her protect and care for her small children, she would be dead very quickly. Even if she did manage to survive, her children would have no one to mate with, being without a tribe, and her genes would die out. A woman’s survival depends upon her keeping enough of the favor of the tribe, or at least of a powerful member or two of the tribe, that they will let her stay and enjoy the protection and support of the tribe. She can’t stand up to the chief because she thinks his decisions are immoral. He would either beat her into submission or exile her, and unless she found other protectors, she would soon be dead.

A woman also cannot afford the aggression that allows men to promote moral ideals. Aggression often leads to fights, and anyone can get killed in a fight, and women are smaller and weaker than men, so their chances aren’t as good. A woman can’t afford courage. Survival rewards her for avoiding danger, and placating fellow humans who might be dangerous, including by having sex with them. If she bravely defied the males from the next tribe when they came in and took over, they would kill her, then no reproduction. The males’ courage and aggression in invading has enabled them to pass on their genes; her courage and aggression in resisting them has destroyed her chance of doing the same.

Loyalty is the same. Again, imagine you are a young cave man and you and your friends Og and Ug see a gang of cave men from a rival tribe on your territory. The three of you walk up to confront them. As you get close, Og notices that one of the other lads is much bigger and more muscular than any of you. Og might decide on the spot that casting his lot with this large stranger is his best course. He does, and you and Ug are killed by him and the other guys. Now maybe Og will get a chance to pass on his genes with the females of the rival tribe, but more likely they’ll never really trust him and he’ll never have enough status to get laid. He lives out a cave man lifespan, but his turncoat genes are unlikely to be passed on.

However, if Og sticks by you and Ug even when he sees how big and strong one of the enemies is, the three of you have a chance to prevail against the big stranger and his buddies. If you do, you’ve defended the territory and you live and you get nookie. Your loyalty to each other has survival value.

But what does loyalty mean to a female? Imagine for a moment that you are a primitive woman. You have recently been married to a nice young man from a friendly neighboring tribe. While the two of you are traveling back to your new husband’s tribe, a tough guy from yet another tribe happens along. He looks you over, likes what he sees, and kills your husband without preamble. You’re all primitive, so that’s how it’s done. He grabs you and takes you away on his horse. As you ride back to his camp, you weep for your dead husband.

But once you get to your new man’s camp, you have a choice. You could be loyal to your dead husband and reject this new man. Most likely he’ll rape you if you resist, but after that if he’s not pleased with you he might kill you, or he might just not make your offspring his heirs, minimizing their chances of reproductive success. Or you could dry your tears, make the best of a bad job, and set about making your new man happy with you so that he will make the son you will give him his heir. (Heirs get more nookie.)

This is not hypothetical. More than 800 years ago a woman named Hoelun was faced with that choice. She made the latter decision. Today, the world hosts roughly 16 million of her descendants, because the son she bore her abductor grew up to be Genghis Khan, who got a lot of nookie. Disloyalty to her first husband – ingratiating herself with his murderer – meant tremendous reproductive success for Hoelun.

I think it’s pretty clear that people who are designed by nature to be this opportunistic should not be allowed a great deal of power in a civilization.

Now, it isn’t that women are incapable of being moral. It’s just that they require massive societal (male) support for their morals. It requires a man to invent systems of morality. Whether you believe that the Torah and the Gospels and other holy books were the work of man or of God using a man as His instrument, we know for sure that they were not the work of woman. Ayn Rand was a woman and a brilliant philosopher, but she was drawing on centuries of patriarchy and grew up in a patriarchal culture – and, by the way, she was a self-described male chauvinist.

Women are not going to invent morality. When barbarians first came up with the notion of ethics, thus launching civilization, it was male barbarians who did this, not female ones. Women can practice morality, but they need to be supported by men in this: fathers, husbands, clergyMEN, policemen, the MEN who run the government of the society in question, and God the Father.

When Margaret Mitchell was a teenager, she wrote a short novel which was published in the 90’s. In it, an innocent, virtuous young girl is captured by an evil man who intends to rape her. She kills herself rather than endure the proverbial fate worse than death. She chooses death out of loyalty to her fiance rather than be unfaithful to him, because of the patriarchal ideal of chastity, and because of her strong Christian faith. In other words, she gave up the reproductive success which nature would have made her choose, because the men in her life had provided her with the artificial moral values of religion, loyalty, chastity, independence and courage. I approve of the choice – for one thing, it would discourage other evil men from kidnapping and raping women, if they know the women are likely to choose death over sex with them – but it’s one that is only possible to a woman with religion and patriarchy to back her up.

This is why I keep pointing out that secular, “liberated” feminists see no problem with encouraging terrorism and tolerating Islam. They know, at some level, that when the time comes, the Mohammedans will spare their lives, because women are more useful as living sex partners than dead. Western men will have to be killed, but feminists are okay with that; they know they’ll live. Some Western women will of course refuse to yield to the invaders. These will be chiefly the conservative Christian women, who have learned the artificial values of loyalty to their husbands, of chastity until proper (not forced or polygamous) marriage, of religion which forbids them from becoming the whores of infidels. In other words, without moral Western men to protect these moral women, the moral women will die and their genes disappear while the amoral women – feminists – will not be killed and will bear children for the terrorists.

So yes, one could say that women are naturally amoral. Women can be moral, but it is not natural to them. It requires the support of moral men.