Sin City: the Hero as Self-Sacrifice

“Show me a hero and I’ll show you a tragedy” – F. Scott Fitzgerald

I’ve heard Sin City called “brutal and breathless.” It is, but it’s a lot more than that. It’s about how a hero is, ultimately, someone who gives up his life to save someone else’s. That’s what the characters of Mickey Rourke and Bruce Willis did. They were heroes, and their lives were tragedies.

Specifically, they gave up their lives to save women. Rourke’s character said Goldie (whom he said “smelled like angels”) gave him something he “never knew existed,” and when she was murdered he hunted down and tortured and killed everyone involved in her death. Ultimately it led to his death, but he clearly thought it was worth it.

As for Willis, he gives up his life twice and loses everything, to protect a young woman from the Yellow Bastard, a psychopathic torturer and murderer of prepubescent girls.

For all the brutality and blood and flying body parts, this movie is actually conservative, if you define “conservative” as trying to keep the chaos at bay (a leftist is someone who wants to let the chaos in, although they’re too stupid to know it).

The archetype of the horror story is Good attacked by Evil, Order attacked by Chaos. A hero is someone who tries to keep evil and chaos at bay and restore order. That’s what Willis and Rourke did, and for that matter, Clive Owens’ character.

In order to be a hero, you not only have to risk your life, but sometimes actually lose it. What makes a real hero is what they choose to defend.

Now we come to the women. Everyone protected in the film is a woman protected by a man, except for those men who kill women. Why is this so? Is there an instinct in men to protect women? Apparently so.

There is also apparently an instinct to kill, only that instinct is directed towards both men and women, and even children, as in the case of the Yellow Bastard.

Men fix, create, discover, protect, save. The easiest way to activate a man’s instinct to protect is to put in danger the lives of children and women. The easiest way to get a man to give up his life is for him to try to save the lives of children and women.

Cultures warp that instinct by telling soldiers – who are overwhelmingly young men – that they are heroes when they risk and lose their lives to protect society from Evil. This of course means the use of propaganda to convince them those defined as “evil” truly are insane evil homicidal maniacs, even if they’re not.

Almost always they’re not protecting society but the economic interests of the elites (I use that term neutrally) who’ve captured the government and become even richer through war. War, as Randolph Bourne commented, is the health of the State.

Because of the influence of leftist feminism (and almost all feminism is leftist) and indeed leftism in general, men have for many years been portrayed as the Yellow Bastard and the other cruel and heartless men in the film. But men who discover, create, fix, save, protect? They’re invisible.

The curious inversion in Sin City is that the heroes are outsiders and the evil are the soldiers, only they’re the police. Even though Willis is a policeman, he is a rarity – an honest one, which makes him an outsider. All the rest of the police are corrupt murderers protecting corrupt murdering politicians and religious leaders.

The movie, and the Frank Miller graphic novels on which it is based, is a warning that society, government and religion are now corrupt. The heroes are the outsiders trying to keep the corruption and perversion of those things at bay.

Ezra Pound called the artist “the antennae of the human race.” He was right. Art imitates life, and Sin City, although it uses an exceedingly broad brush, certainly does that.

On Being a Baby Magnet

For a long time I have been a Baby Magnet. It took a while to figure out why. It's because these babies don't have fathers around them, because so many of them are raised by single mothers, or the parents got divorced and the mother got the kids.

I walked through a door one time, and a little kid in a stroller pointed at me and exclaimed, "That's a man!" I pointed back and said, "That's a little kid!" In that case, I don’t know if the kid had a father in his life or not, but that kid was one of many in a daycare center located in a hospital, so the kid was there while the mother and father were at work.

Was the father in the child’s life? I don’t know. Were the parents still married? I don’t know. But I did find it odd that as soon as this boy saw me, he immediately said something about my being male. None of us did that when we were kids.

I was in a bookstore one time, and looked down to find a little girl holding my hand. "Sorry," says the mom, who has no ring. "Forget it," I answer. "It's my lot in life."

Once, at my sister's house, I had to sit on the floor near the door because the living room was full of teenage girls. A little boy, who could walk but not talk, spied me from across the room, made a bee-line for me, and threw his arm around my neck. (He had a snotty nose. When I told him to get some toilet paper - which he understood - he grabbed a handful and brought it to me in the living room without detaching it from the roll in the bathroom.)

I later asked my sister if he had a father. "No," she told me, "he doesn't." The mother was young, overweight, unmarried, lived in a trailer, and was on welfare. My sister said she got pregnant “somehow” and thought it was acceptable for a single woman to raise a child by herself.

This is never-ending for me. Kids wave at me on the streets, try to hold my hand, and want me to watch them while they show off jumping rope or singing or dancing. When I got out of my car one Friday evening, the little girl next door was waiting for me. "Do you want to see me do my cheer?" she asked. So she did it, while I smiled and applauded.

She has no father. None of these kids do. Since they don't, they want male attention. Why they choose me I don't know. It must be the way I look, even though I certainly don't understand what That Look is.

Since the Sixties, feminists have claimed fathers aren't really necessary. What's unnecessary are these kinds of socialist feminists, most of who are feminists because they're aren't very feminine. Tattoos or too much make-up doth not a true woman make. They barely make a woman, and the kind they make I'm not interested in.

The history of the world has shown that fathers are necessary, even more necessary than mothers, since men are the ones who invented civilization.

Without fathers, bad things happen to boys. The word "bastard" means "a fatherless boy" and "a cruel, heartless man." The first often turns into the second, no matter how much the blind pretend it doesn't. What we have in society currently are the blind leading the blind. Oops! There's the ditch!

Until the early 20th Century, in a divorce, the children were almost always given to the father. And until the Fifties, an unmarried pregnant girl was sent away to have the baby, and it was given to an orphanage. The reason for these things is because an unmarried single woman with children is an economic and social catastrophe when it comes to raising kids. Not always, but enough to make the word “bastard” have a double meaning.

I once found a little fatherless boy torturing a cat. I yelled at him and took the cat away. It was wheezing blood through its nose. I thought it was going to die, but it lived. I gave it to my sister and her kids, who took care of it until it disappeared.

When children are raised without fathers the boys become teenagers and form predatory gangs. The girls get pregnant and have children who are raised without fathers. The girls live on welfare, essentially marrying the government. The cycle repeats itself.

Women are responsible for two-thirds of all child abuse. Boys are twice as likely to be abused by women as girls. A father at home is the best way to prevent this, not a social worker.

Some years ago I walked out of a friend's house late at night. I ran into a gang of teenage boys on the sidewalk. "You got a cigarette?" the leader asked. "No, I don't," I said. "Why don't you give me the one in your mouth?" He grinned. I put my hand in my pocket and stared at him. "You got a gun?" he asked. His grin was gone. I said nothing. They decided to not take the chance and faded away.

Later, I contacted the police. A bunch of fatherless boys living on welfare, they told me. They just moved into the neighborhood. The cops quickly ran all of them out of the neighborhood. Ah, the wonders of the liberal welfare society. It breaks up families, or else prevents them from forming.

Coupled with the catastrophic failure of the public schools and the fact that high-paying have been run out of the country because of massive taxation and regulation, we have now lost entire generations of children, who have essentially become psychopaths.

You can blame a lot of the problems children have on women who purposely have babies without fathers, truly believing the kids will turn out fine. Then they end up with a hostile teenage boy and suddenly realized they made a very big mistake. You can blame it on fathers who desert their families, like the creep Phil Donahue, who traded his wife and family for a much-younger trophy wife.

I, however, mostly blame it on the State, for interfering in family life. The more the State expands, the more civilization recedes. It's a Law of the Universe. And the family is the foundation of civilization.

In the past, we had answers to incompetent parents. They were called orphanages. I was an undergraduate at a university that used to have an orphanage. It was closed down before I started school. I used to study at it because it was so quiet and peaceful.

I once read an article in the paper about the kids who lived there. They grew up to be good citizens. They became doctors and lawyers, cabdrivers and carpenters. All honest jobs.

Very, very few became criminals.

If you want generation after generation of screwed-up kids, just let the State continue to devastate families. When I cease to be Baby Magnet, then I’ll know things are back to normal. That’s not going to happen anytime soon.

Single Mothers are Automatically Child Abusers

"Malignant narcissism has been described as 'an extreme form of antisocial personality disorder combined with narcissistic elements that is manifested in a person who is pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation, and with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism.'"

I've known several single mothers, both middle-class and lower-class. All of them were child abusers, even though they did not know it.

One of them, who was middle-class, decided to have a child when in her early '30s. She gave the boy her last name, treated him like a friend instead of a son, and as soon as he graduated high school, she moved out of state and deserted him. Once her "boyfriend" hit her (gee, I wonder why) and she called her son at 2am from out of state to pour her heart out to him, treating him like some emotional tampon.

And she's one of the good ones. Her boy is merely okay, and he has problems maintaining relationships with women. No surprise there.

The no-class ones tend to hit their kids at two years old, really thinking the kid going to learn to behave from it. They'll learn, all right, but nothing good.

In the past, a boy raised without a father and only by his mother was called a bastard. A bastard means two things: a fatherless boy and a cruel, heartless man. These days, what would be called a sociopath/psychopath. Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

Again, what does history say produces these men? A single mother and no father. (For that matter, when there are too many women in a field, it automatically becomes anti-male and produces hostile men. Think the schools.)

Want is see a clear example of what is produced with single mothers and no fathers? Look at the psychopathic behavior among young black males. That's our future.

I've read some articles about the disturbing increase of sociopaths/psychopaths. The clueless are trying to stuff it into their Evo-Psych Box (which isn't a science and is closer to a joke.)

Their explanation? It's increasing because women like "bad boys," so men are becoming psychopaths to get women. That's pretty pathetic, really, because the supporters of this hypothesis don't even know what a psychopath is. Becoming a psychopath often comes from the way you're treated at less than three months old.

A psychopath is someone who has no conscience and is incapable of love. They cannot be cured. Their conscience has been destroyed. The worst ones - the violent ones - are the serial killers, who get sexual gratification out of torturing, murdering, mutilating, cannibalism, necrophilia.

The Greeks understood this people better than most people today, which is why in their definition of Hubris, there was often a sexual aspect to it.

Psychopaths are only interested in power over others. As Carl Jung wrote, you can have power or you can have love. You can't have both.

A psychopath is also sometime who has a "grandiose" self covering up a "devalued" self. That's where the child abuse/single/mothers/no fathers comes in. They have that insecure, easily humiliated "devalued" self which they cover up with their "grandiose" self.

Anyone who does not know these things has no business whatsoever talking about psychopaths/sociopaths. Anyone who does not know who Otto Kernberg and Heinz Kohut are (or Melanie Klein, for that matter), has no business talking about these things.

A psychopath is someone who has never grown up. Or as Thomas Hobbes said, "The evil man is the child grown strong." They are eternally children, without conscience, without love, full of hate and rage. And they are all malignant.

"What you're seeing is how a civilization commits suicide." - Camille Paglia

On Being a Baby Magnet

For a long time I have been a Baby Magnet. It took a while to figure out why. It's because these babies don't have fathers around them.

I walked through a door one time, and a little kid in a stroller pointed at me and exclaimed, "That's a man!" I pointed back and said, "That's a little kid!" In that case, I don’t know if the kid had a father in his life or not, but that kid was one of many in a daycare center located in a hospital, so the kid was there while the mother was at work.

Was the father in the child’s life? I don’t know. Were the parents still married? I don’t know. But I did find it odd that as soon as this boy saw me, he immediately said something about my being male.

I was in a bookstore one time, and looked down to find a little girl holding my hand. "Sorry," says the mom, who has no ring. "Forget it," I answer. "It's my lot in life."

Once, at my sister's house, I had to sit on the floor near the door because the living room was full of teenage girls. A little boy, who could walk but not talk, spied me from across the room, made a bee-line for me, and threw his arm around my neck. (He had a snotty nose. When I told him to get some toilet paper - which he understood - he grabbed a handful and brought it to me in the living room without detaching it from the roll in the bathroom.)

I later asked my sister if he had a father. "No," she told me, "he doesn't." The mother was young, overweight, unmarried, lived in a trailer, and was on welfare. My sister said she got pregnant “somehow” and thought it was acceptable for a single woman to raise a child by herself.

This is never-ending for me. Kids wave at me on the streets, try to hold my hand, and want me to watch them while they show off jumping rope or singing or dancing. When I got out of my car one Friday evening, the little girl next door was waiting for me. "Do you want to see me do my cheer?" she asked. So she did it, while I smiled and applauded.

She has no father. None of these kids do. Since they don't, they want male attention. Why they choose me I don't know. It must be the way I look, even though I certainly don't understand what That Look is.

Since the Sixties, feminists have claimed fathers aren't really necessary. What's unnecessary are these kinds of socialist feminists, most of who are feminists because they're aren't very feminine. Crewcuts and tattoos doth not a true woman make. They barely make a woman, and the kind they make I'm not interested in. Maybe Janet "Yikes! A Monster!" Reno might be, but certainly not me.

The history of the world has shown that fathers are necessary, even more necessary than mothers, since men are the ones who invented civilization.

Without fathers, bad things happen to boys. The word "bastard" means "a fatherless boy" and "a cruel, heartless man." The first often turns into the second, no matter how much the blind pretend it doesn't. What we have in society currently are the blind leading the blind. Oops! There's the ditch!

Until the early 20th Century, in a divorce, the children were almost always given to the father. And until the Fifties, an unmarried pregnant girl was sent away to have the baby, and it was given to an orphanage. The reason for these things is because an unmarried single woman with children is an economic and social catastrophe when it comes to raising kids. Not always, but enough to make the word “bastard” have a double meaning.

I once found a little fatherless boy torturing a cat. I yelled at him and took the cat away. It was wheezing blood through its nose. I thought it was going to die, but it lived. I gave it to my sister and her kids, who took care of it until it disappeared.

When children are raised without fathers the boys become teenagers and form predatory gangs. The girls get pregnant and have children who are raised without fathers. The girls live on welfare, essentially marrying the government. The cycle repeats itself.

Women are responsible for two-thirds of all child abuse. Boys are twice as likely to be abused by women as girls. A father at home is the best way to prevent this, not a social worker.

Some years ago I walked out of a friend's house late at night. I ran into a gang of teenage boys on the sidewalk. "You got a cigarette?" the leader asked. "No, I don't," I said. "Why don't you give me the one in your mouth?" He grinned. I put my hand in my pocket and stared at him. "You got a gun?" he asked. His grin was gone. I said nothing. They decided to not take the chance and faded away.

Later, I contacted the police. A bunch of fatherless boys living on welfare, they told me. They just moved into the neighborhood. The cops quickly ran all of them out of the neighborhood. Ah, the wonders of the liberal welfare society. It breaks up families, or else prevents them from forming.

Coupled with the catastrophic failure of the public schools and the fact that high-paying have been run out of the country because of massive taxation and regulation, we have now lost entire generations of children, who have essentially become psychopaths.

You can blame a lot of the problems children have on women who purposely have babies without fathers, truly believing the kids will turn out fine. Then they end up with a hostile teenage boy and suddenly realized they made a very big mistake. You can blame it on fathers who desert their families, like the creep Phil Donahue, who traded his wife and family for a much-younger trophy wife.

I, however, mostly blame it on the State, for interfering in family life. The more the State expands, the more Civilization recedes. It's a Law of the Universe. And the family is the foundation of Civilization.

In the past, we had answers to incompetent parents. They were called orphanages. I was an undergraduate at a university that used to have an orphanage. It was closed down before I started school. I used to study at it because it was so quiet and peaceful.

I once read an article in the paper about the kids who lived there. They grew up to be good citizens. They became doctors and lawyers, cabdrivers and carpenters. All honest jobs.

Very, very few became criminals.

If you want generation after generation of screwed-up kids, just let the State continue to devastate families. When I cease to be Baby Magnet, then I’ll know things are back to normal.

That’s not going to happen anytime soon.

Men are Responsible for Letting Women Destroy Culture and Civilization

Men are ultimately responsible for letting women destroy culture and civilization. I believe they have let them do it out of a misguided sense of fairness, which seems to be a particularly Western fault.

Men are responsible for creating culture and civilization. Even Carl Jung wrote about this, although some people try to ignore that he said it, or claim that he was wrong. He wasn't.

(If you want to know how smart Jung was, this is what he said about women trying to act like men: "Women develop an excessive rational drive which may end up in excessive criticism and stubbornness...in women with strong interest in intellectual matters we find the need to impose and maintain a rigorous and schematic list of values judged the most important. There's no reflection as regard the little substance and significance of these values, nor any aim at discussing about them. Only the urge to impose them to others.")

Sound familiar?

Since men created civilization, men civilize women, not the other way around. The nitwit who popularized the meme that women civilize men was George "Daffy Duck" Gilder, who wrote Wealth and Poverty.

George finally crashed and burned and if we're lucky we'll hear from him no more.

When women get out of control, i.e. when men fail in their duties to civilize them, then societies and cultures get damaged, sometimes severely.

Here's an example: until the early 20th century childen were almost always given to the father in a divorce. Some have claimed it was because in those days men had the jobs and money and women didn't.

I'm sure that had something to do with it but there is something else.

The word "bastard" means a "cruel, heartless man" and "a fatherless boy." In other words, fatherless boys often turn into cruel heartless men. If you want to see a perfect example of this look at blacks, where fathers are usually absent and the kids are raised by the mothers. All of whom, of course, are on welfare.

Men can raise children by themselves. Women cannot. And women most especially cannot raise boys to be men. Fatherless boys are more likely to be poor, to get involved in crime, to abuse drugs, and to have more physical and emotional problems. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

It also used to be in the past that if a woman got pregnant out of wedlock the social pressure was so great she was sent away to give birth and then the child given to an orphanage.

Orphanages no longer exist, and while I'm sure some of the places were pretty bad, I actually know some adults raised in them and they turned out fine. I also know at least three adoptees, and they turned out fine, too.

Imagine today if any single woman who gave birth always had her baby taken away. In other words, imagine if no single woman was ever allowed to raise a child by herself.

Would it be a better country or not? Anyone with any sense would say yes. Those with no sense, say liberals, would say no.

Since men created civilization and culture, this means women cannot do it on their own. As Camille Paglia commented in Sexual Personae, without men, women would still be living in grass huts.

The humorist P.J. O'Rourke made a similar but more amusing comment: without men civilization would last until the next oil change.

As an aside, but not much of one, I knew a woman who tried to start her car by hitting her battery posts with a hammer, another one who thought the red light meant "add oil," and in college I saw two girls pour a quart of oil down the carburetor of a VW Bug.

Leftists of course are going to claim women haven't added all that much to society because of about a billion years worth of "oppression." Yet when you look at the last forty years of leftist/lesbian feminism, ask yourself: are women better off? Are they happier? Are men happier? Has society benefited?

Leftists are about four years old emotionally. They've never grown up. And when society is set up so people can remain children, some of them will remain kids.

Has feminism helped society? Or harmed it terribly?

You be the judge. You already know what I think.

Yay for Uber!

Last I heard, Uber was worth more than General Motors.

I owned a taxi for five years, and was it an eye-opener. For one thing, all taxi companies are corrupt. The laws concerning taxis are corrupt – their purpose is to protect the multi-millionaire owners of the cab companies. The drivers don’t count.

The head of the County Taxi Commission was a corrupt old bastard named John Hill, now deceased and I’m sure broiling in Hell. He used to try to extort money from the company owners. I saw him do it twice. He thought it was his due, and used to threaten the owners that if they didn’t pay him off he would do things to them.

I didn’t drive in the county but I knew a man who owned some airport taxis, and I knew Hill from him. Like all the corrupt he had sex, money and drug problems.

I’ve never seen such corruption as in the cab business. One airport cab company was owned by an old crazy woman, clearly in her 70s but who dressed as if it was 1966 – miniskirts and go-go boots. The first time I saw her from across the street I thought, “What the hell is that?” When I told some drivers what I saw they explained the situation.

She also stabbed her rich husband to death, put a nick on her arm, hid in the closet, said intruders did it -and got away with it. That’s how she ended up owning a cab company.

As far I as I’m concerned there should be no laws at all concerning cabs. It’s none of the government’s business, and it doesn’t protect the drivers or the public at all. Background checks, fingerprints – all worthless. We had one guy who had been in prison for child molestation, but still somehow got a taxi license. The owner of one company I worked for was a convicted felon – he got caught running a city-side gambling operation.

Such scum as the child molester never had the brains to own a taxi, so they rented them. At least at Uber you have to own your car, and they’ll even finance one for you, of course at an astronomical interest rate.

All cabs should be owned by the drivers. It automatically gets rid of the riffraff. Which reminds me – there is a reason the Founding Fathers only wanted property owners to be allowed to vote.

Owning a taxi was the best job I ever had. It was a party. The drivers were great – the ones who had the brains and ambition to buy their own cabs. The criminal lowlifes rented their cabs day by day.

Every law I’ve seen concerning taxis was about protecting the cab company owners. Not surprisingly a lot of laws are about protecting the wealthy from competition by people smarter and more ambitious than they are.

Model, Mentor, Mirror

There are three concepts I keep in mind: model, mentor, mirror.

A model is a role model. Some that have been used in the past: Babe Ruth, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant. In the recent past: Clint Eastwood (and he's still around even today).

Those were the movie stars. On TV? Andy Griffith, Ward Cleaver. There were even the silly ones, like Gilligan (who was in many ways a role model of what not to be).

Today? I can't really think of any.

There are books. Stephen King. Harry Potter. The Hunger Games. Comics books. Cartoons (my nephew, when he was little, was such a big fan of Bravestarr he had his mother make Bravestarr's uniform, which he wore around the house).

Then there are mentors. The biggest one is supposed to be your father, but with rise of female-dominated households (and women cannot raise boys) many fathers aren't very good role models anymore.

Incidentally, I'll point out the word "bastard" means both "a fatherless boy" and "a cruel, heartless man."

Mentors can be grandfathers, Cub Scout and Boy Scout leaders (does anybody join those organizations anymore?) pastors, teachers, and anyone else who's supposed to be an "authority."

A mirror is someone in whom you can "see" what they think of you. If they show contempt toward you, you be certainly be able to perceive that. If they think you're funny and smart, you'll be able to see that.

These three concepts together create the cultural ocean in which we swim. And they are all very important.

We take these models and mentors, try out their ideas in society, and incorporate the workable ones into our core selves. Ideally, that is.

Mirrors are a little different. I am reminded of that saying, "We become what we behold." It applies to models and mentors, but mirrors, I think, are stronger. If you have a bad mirror from the time you are born, it is pretty damned difficult to not let it affect you.

There are entire schools of psychology that deal with mirrors. One of them that impresses me is known as Object Relations Theory, which deals with how parents mirror their infants. If what they say is true, then a lot of what we become runs back to how we are treated as infants.

Then we have to deal with the fact it is easier to shame someone that make them feel guilty. There is really only one word to describe guilt but look at all which describes shame - humiliation, ridicule, being dissed, insulted, mocked, made fun of...

For an infant, shame becomes before guilt.

Either way, whether shame or guilt, they're not something that should see all the time in the people who mirror them. Their models and mentors shouldn't do it, either.

A little bit is good but being overwhelmed with them has nothing but negative effects. In fact, some models, mentors and mirrors have become relentless propaganda designed to damage children.

The Cabbie Who Vaporized His Hand

Ray drove a taxi at the airport and the "county official" in charge of the airport taxis kept telling the starter to fire Ray. He never did.

Good thing because it would have been a major lawsuit.

Incidentially the starter is the guy in a little booth who calls up the taxis from in line to pick up passengers.

In the movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles the angry man who grabs Steve Martin by his balls and drags him along the concrete is the starter.

The reason I know this is because the scene is set at Lambert Field in St. Louis, which is where Ray worked.

Later Ray moved to a local cab company, the one at which I owned a cab.

Ray did not have a left hand. That's why the old bastard, who was as corrupt as hell and is now dead, thank God, wanted Ray fired.

I was one of the few people who knew why Ray was missing his left hand.

When he was 21 years old he took an empty toilet tissue roll, put in it what he described as the gunpowder from "a thousand firecrackers," wrapped it in duct tape, then lit the fuse.

Before he could even throw it the fuse went ZIP and the bomb went BOOM! The FBI later said the explosion was equal to one-quarter of a stick of dynamite.

Ray, who was left-handed, had his left hand vaporized.

He told me he didn't remember much after that until he woke up in the hospital. "It was a pretty big bandage," he told me, "but not big enough to have a hand under it."

He lifted his sheet and noticed a big bandage by his groin.

"OH MY GOD I BLEW IT OFF TOO!"

He felt around and found "it" was still attached and undamaged.

While in the hospital two FBI agents showed up quizzing him about this huge explosion which set off alarms at a local plant. When they saw what happened to Ray they pretty much left with no more questions. I'm sure they were thinking, "Dumbass."

Ray ended up having to write with his right hand.

At the airport he was called "Hook" because he had one of those two-pronged pincer-hands that he often wore. Sometimes he wore nothing but a sock over his stump because when bare it hurt from changes in the weather.

He told me he was arrested one time and the only thing the cop could do is hang one of the cuffs on his hook and warn him, "Don't take it off."

I was in his car one time when he ran a stop sign and the cop didn't give him a ticket (how can you give a ticket to a man without a hand?) but just scolded him. Ray actually hung his head and I just snickered.

Ray was a major drug addict since age 15 and used to live in my back room when things went really bad in his life for reasons I will not go into here. Let's just say he did things he did not remember, such as holding a 9mm pistol against his "girlfriend's" head. He said he had no memory whatsoever of doing it. She sure did.

But he died in June of 2000 at age 49 from a self-inflicted drug overdose. He did this while living with me in my back room. He got a bunch of Seconals from a pill doctor, went into some woods about 15 miles away, and swallowed the whole bottle, washing them down with some Coke.

His skeleton was found six months later. A cop showed up at my apartment with the attitude Ray and I were homosexual lovers and I had killed him. He wanted in but no dice on that. Later a much more pleasant detective showed up and I didn't let him in, either. He told me Ray was found wearing women's black silk underwear.

I was wondering why I found women's black silk underwear in Ray's room, under his bed. The hypodermic needles I understood.

Ray was a drug addict, promiscuous (and like all promiscuous guys his women were bottom-ot-the barrel) and a sexual pervert (the underwear was the least of his problems). Yet, for all that, he was a pretty good guy.

He left his hook in my living room closet, where it hung for a few years until I gave it away to a thift store.

New Thug City

10.3 million

"The number of single mothers living with children younger than 18 in 2012, up from 3.4 million in 1970."

36%

"Percentage of births in the past 12 months that were to women age 15 to 50 who were unmarried (including divorced, widowed and never married women)."

"More than six out of 10 women who give birth in their early 20s are unmarried, the Census Bureau said Wednesday in a report that shows sharp discrepancies in single mothers related to income, education and race.

"Census demographers said that single motherhood, while on a steady uptick since the 1940s, has accelerated in recent years. The birth rate for unmarried women in 2007 was up 80 percent in the almost three decades since 1980, the report said. But in the previous five years alone, between 2002 and 2007, it was up 20 percent."

"Skyrocketing levels of fatherlessness having ‘devastating’ effects on children: UK report."

"Canadian scientists believe growing up in a fatherless household could have a greater impact on daughters than on sons.

"They said growing up without a father could permanently alter the structure of the brain and produce children who are more aggressive.

"Dr Gabriella Gobbi of McGill University in Canada said that the main impacts were seen in the prefrontal cortex."

I've read many articles on the deleterious effects of single mothers. I've seen it personally.

I was able to find the above quotes by Googling for about...one minute.

I am mystified as to why any woman thinks she can be a successful single mother. What sort of bizarre self-delusion is that? I keep reminding people that the word "bastard" means "a fatherless boy" and "a cruel heartless man." That relationship has been noticed for a long time.

Of course these women are convinced their boys are going to turn out fine, right up to the point they don't, and then they'll blame it on the father, or the government (these days, the proxy father) because of a supposed lack of support and money...which has traditionally been the fathers' role - which has now been taken away by law.

The more fatherless boys we get, the closer to we get to New Thug City.

Now let's see what I can remember about my experiences with fatherless men: one killed himself with a drug overdose (he was living in my back bedroom when he did this). Another died of alcoholism. Another died of a combination of alcoholism and drug abuse, and was on probation for a three-year suspended sentence. There are more, but those three are enough.

Not only did they lose their fathers, all their mothers were more than a bit cruel to them. It's almost as if the women are blaming their problems on their sons (as women are wont to blame their problems on men) so they take it out on their sons.

There's basically been screaming for more than a few decades that if you want to see what is going to happen to society at large, look at the black family, which has a lot of fatherlessness, and a lot of clueless mothers claiming he was "a good boy" after he ended up arrested or dead after rape and murder.

What many of these fatherless boys do is join gangs, which is an ersatz family (and you're going to have initiation rites that involved attacking innocent people), and the girls have babies and then go on welfare.

Some years ago I lived in an apartment. A single black mother with a child moved in across the hall. Then she had another kid...and another...and another. Then a guy moved in, and he wasn't the father of any of them. The landlord finally had to evict them.

I know a young man, about 21, who was raised by a single mother. In her case she happens to be a college graduate.

She considered him not a son but a friend, and once called him at 2am from over a thousand miles away (after she deserted him when he was 18) because her new "boyfriend " had decided to knock her around (gee, I wonder why?)

This was a kid who had to go the dentist to have a molar pulled because he was grinding his teeth so hard he shattered it.

We're not going to just end up with New Thug City when the current crop of fatherless boys grow up. We're also going to have a lot of "failure to launch," and that is a very bad thing, too.

Considering that fact that men are the created and sustain civilization, the worse it gets for civilization and culture...for men - and most especially women.

Many women have no idea just how dependent they are on men. Just imagine if men withdrew all support from women - no welfare, no make-work jobs, no marriage. That's what I mean when I say it would be worse for women.

Projection is the First Defense People Use

Blaming someone else for your problems - even when they are innocent - is the first defense people use. It's part and parcel of denial, which is refusing to see that the accused people are innocent. Denial is the result of self-deception, because you have to deceive yourself first before you deny something to someone else.

Look around and what do you see? Blacks, women, gays, whoever - their problems are always someone else's fault. To them.

While everyone's first desire is to blame their problems on others, it is a childish, indeed infantile, defense. Who has not seen a young child exclaim, "You made me do it!"

Let's take women, for example. Their problems are the fault of men, patriarchy, Dead Whites Males, "oppression" for hundreds if not thousands of years.

For years I've been hearing that men "don't want to commit." I find that more than a little odd since two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. Most of them happen in middle-age.

The only thing I can conclude from these statistics is that while women want to get married, many don't want to particularly stay married. Then of course when they want to get divorced, they have to blame it on the man. Then they have to deceive themselves it's not their fault. Then they deny it's their fault to other people.

In other words, women are generally the first to demand commitment and then generally the first to try to get out of it. They want all the advantages of being a man and a woman and none of the responsibilities of either.

The excuses and rationalizations some women use are legion and I don't have to recount them here. But what it ultimately comes down to is that they are bored with being married, although they use such words as "trapped."

But when they get divorced they'll still want the kids and to get money from their ex-husbands.

Society in the past reduced these problems to the minimum. First, it was hard to get a divorce. Second, no-fault divorce did not exist. Third, the children were almost always given to the father. Returning to these things would be a good thing and take care of a lot of problems.

Oh, I forgot - as far as I'm concerned women who have children out of wedlock should have their babies taken from them. In the past such women who got pregnant were sent away to have the child, which was then adopted by a married couple or else sent to an orphanage (and almost all orphanages weren't bad places - I've known people raised in them).

By the way, the word "bastard" means a fatherless boy and a cruel, heartless man. I'm not even going to bother to explain the relationship.

I have for a long time thought women expect too much from marriage. The cliche' is that women seek Mr. Perfect (who does not exist) while if men find a woman who is 80% of what they want they are in Heaven.

Cliches' wouldn't be around unless there was some truth to them. So the idea that women have too high of standards has been around for a long time, otherwise there would not exists such stories as the Brothers Grimm tale, "King Roughbeard," which is about a princess who rejects all her suitors because none of them are good enough for her.

The only cure for her is to be humbled, and that is exactly what happens.

Men should pay a lot more attention to whom they marry. For that matter, women should pay a lot more attention, too. Her parents might want to explain there are no Mr. Perfects (and that she's not perfect, either) and explain the wisdom of the "King Roughbeard" tale to her.

Parents might want to also explain that many women are more ruled by their feelings than men, which means that many of them are not exactly rational (I am reminded of that scene in As Good as it Gets when Jack Nicholson's character says he understands women by thinking of a man and "taking away reason and accountability").

In fact, it's an excellent idea to interview a prospective mate. This is not as aside, but quite relevant: it's been found that when a man and a women on politics and pornography they stand a better chance of staying together. Having similar religious beliefs wouldn't hurt, either.

As cruel as it sounds, I don't think being in love justifies getting married. I knew a man who thought he had found the woman for him until an older man asked him if he'd be glad to wake up next to her every morning for the rest of his life. He suddenly realized he wasn't in love that much.

And of course love can, and does, die. Sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. Otherwise, there wouldn't be as much divorce as there is. And, of course, you have a duty to your future unborn children to make sure your mate would be a good father or mother.

I'll tell you one big red flag: she won't take your last name. That's the first red flag she's been brainwashed by 40 plus years of leftist/lesbian propaganda.

Why I Take the Manosphere With a Great Big Grain of Salt

"One is usually woefully misinformed about what exactly one is being envious about." - The Badger Hut

Envy and hate are two reasons why.

I was more popular in high school that I thought I was. Several girls had crushes on me. I didn't have a clue (as I written before, I am not an "Alpha." In high school I looked like Garth Algar, only with better hair).

As an aside, I now look like Walter White, including the shaved head and goatee.

Again, in college I was more popular than I thought. Three girls admitted they had crushes on me at the same time. Again, I didn't have a clue, although one told me later, "It was obvious." Obvious to who? Me? No, it wasn't.

In college I encountered something I had never encountered before. Envy. I was such a low envy person I didn't recognize it.

For about a year I lived in a co-ed house, meaning two girls and about seven guys. Both girls ended up in my room, but not any of the other guys. Three came home with me from various places. Five in a year.

Of the other guys, not one ever had a date, not one had a woman spend the night. The attitude of some of them was decidedly hostile to me. I didn't get it.

Years later I realized it was envy, which creates backstabbing and the attempts to put the envied down. I realized later they were thinking, "Why that bastard and not me?" Because I'm better than you, that's why.

Let's put it this way: all these "Alphas" and "Sigmas" don't talk about others envying them, sabotaging them, denigrating them. Yet if they were these things, they would be very familiar with less successful guys envying and attacking them. But they never write about it. And that is one reason I think the "leaders" of the Manosphere (they are only leaders because their followers made them that way) are not telling the truth. Perhaps because they don't know as much as they pretend? Perhaps they not the Alphas they pretend to be, are not as popular and successful as they lead their readers to believe?

One other thing. I sort of fit the "Sigma." And I've noticed something about that which I have written about before. When you tend to be funny as I am (I recently told a woman, "When women get involved with me their lives always get better" which caused her to say laughingly, "God, you're arrogant") many women either love you or hate you. This is something never written about in the Manosphere: that some women can't stand "Alphas" and "Sigmas." And there is nothing about this. It's all about lifting weights and approaching a thousand women to get one "bang" - overwhelmingly fantasies. There is nothing about the Dark Side.

Not every woman is going to say, "Ohmigod! George Clooney! An Alpha! Superior Alpha genes! Resources! My hypergamy is tingling!" I know women who don't find him attractive, just the way when I was in my 20s I had women tell me they didn't find Robert Redford attractive.

I have been the object of a noticeable amount of hate and envy in my life. It is not a pleasant thing, and real "Alphas" and "Sigmas" should have experienced the same things.

So when these more influential bloggers starting writing about how much they suffer from the envy of others, and how some women are not attracted at all to "Alphas" and "Sigmas" (and for that matter, don't despise "Betas") then the day will come when I take these writers a lot of seriously than I do now.

"Because We Destroyed Ourselves"

I would describe our societal problems thus:

A bad economy created 100% by our degraded government.

A low-grade racial civil war created by "multiculturalism."

A "drug war" that has created another low-grade way due to drug smuggling.

A war between men and women since they have forgotten their proper roles, women far more than men.

That's enough for now.

Except for saying that Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn once wrote that every square inch of the world is claimed and reclaimed by either God or the Devil - and I'm beginning to think he was right.

By the way, the word "bastard" means "a fatherless boy" and "a cruel heartless man."

This article is from the site Tremble the Devil.

"As our financial crisis deepens and the schisms between the haves and the have-nots continue to open, American drug laws and the prison system they’ve perpetuated are beginning to gather an increasingly harsh spotlight. But so what. It’s not like the War on Drugs, which started over forty-years ago in 1973, has done anything to increase the growing level of economic disparity in America… right?

"A lot happened in 1973.

"It was a few years after Nixon slammed the gold window shut, the waning hours of a decapitated Civil Rights movement, and the year we began to disentangle ourselves from Vietnam. But it also marks the genesis of the War on Drugs: the year the Rockefeller Drug Laws were passed. And that same year something funny happened: the income gap between black and white began to widen back out, instead of closing – as it had been up until 1973.

"Did the start of the War on Drugs play a significant role in creating our present economic and social realities – where the average black family has eight-cents of wealth for every dollar owned by whites, and a black child is nine-times more likely than a white child to have a parent in prison?

"Not having both parents around can be directly linked to any number of issues, in fifty-years of international studies of over 10,000 subjects, researchers haven’t been able to find 'any other class of experience that has as strong and consistent effect on personality and personality development as does the experience of [parental] rejection… children who were often rejected by their parents tend to feel more anxious and insecure, as well as more hostile and aggressive toward others.' And surprisingly enough, the study showed that fatherly affection, or lack thereof, may shape our personality even more than attention from our mothers.

"Just how damaging is it for a child to grow up in a fatherless home? Well, they produce: 71% of our high school drop-outs, 85% of the kids with behavioral disorders, 90% of our homeless and runaway children, 75% of the adolescents in drug abuse programs, and a striking majority in one final category. Out of all the kids in our juvenile detention facilities, 85% of them come from fatherless homes.

"If your Dad’s in prison there’s an extraordinary high chance that you too will someday end up behind bars, creating a cycle of absence that has been perpetuating for two-generations within the African-American community.

"And yet everyone from Bill Cosby to Ronald Reagan seems fond of placing the blame for our black community’s fate squarely on the shoulders of African-Americans, largely excusing the rest of America from any blame for their plight and refusing to consider that – just maybe – other factors might have come into play at some point during our shared history.

"For the most part, the emergence of the modern Welfare State in particular has been singled-out as the single most detrimental force within our African-American community, since it supposedly allowed 'welfare queens' with '80 names, 30 addresses, and 12 Social security cards' to pull in over $150,000 of tax-free income a year. As the argument goes, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 created a system that disincentived marriage by rewarding single mothers with loads of free cash.

"All they had to do was remain out of wedlock, and the checks would just keep on rolling in.

"This view was popularized by a Nobel Prize winning physicist, William Shockley, who argued that these programs 'tended to encourage childbirth, especially among less productive members of society (particularly blacks, whom he considered to be genetically inferior to whites), causing a reverse evolution.' Shockley popularized this hypothesis, bringing it to both Congress and the public, and even put forth a proposal offering financial rewards to minorities if they were voluntary sterilized.

"So assuming that the Welfare State was created by black mothers who had no intent to ever marry, and willfully popped out babies to get paid, we’d expect to see a steady even rise in the rate of single black mothers starting right around 1962, when the Public Welfare Amendments were passed. And yet Welfare didn’t have anything to do with the destruction of the black family, it would take a decade for a different phenomenon to emerge and remove black fathers from the picture entirely and create the familial reality that African-Americans have lived in for the past two generations.

"In the decade prior to the start of the War on Drugs, the first decade of the Public Welfare Amendments, the percentage of married African-American women roughly followed the national trend and declined proportionally by less than 6% – but then in the ’70s, as the national average rate remained stable, the proportional decline for African-American women tripled to nearly 18%.

"Seems a bit odd. Did it just take a full decade for black women to finally realize that all they had to do was pop out a baby or seven, marriage be damned, and they could start rolling in the dough? Or maybe something else happened that created a dearth of African-American men who were available to actually marry?

"In 1971 President Nixon officially began the War on Drugs, which fully hit its stride in ’73 with the passage of the draconian Rockefeller Drugs Laws, and very quickly a distinct trend in the American prison population emerged.

"And how would this spike affect the marriage rates of black folks? Well, if you’re familiar with American drug laws, it shouldn’t surprise you that some 90% of those arrested under the Rockefeller Drug Laws in the years after its passage were minorities. This baseline source of our prison population has persisted up until today, when over half of those in federal prison are serving time for a drug offense.

"Sure, correlation doesn’t prove causation – but when you stop a moment and consider that marriage requires an eligible male, it’s not that hard to figure out why the black family begin to disintegrate just as our War on Drugs began, as it’s a little bit difficult to marry someone behind bars. And just how many African-American males were sent behind bars in the decades following the start of the War on Drugs?

"A black male born in 1974 had a 13.4% chance of going to prison at some point in his life, while a white male had just a 2.2% chance. And it’s not like this trend got any better, by 1991 the odds a black male would spend time in prison had ballooned to 29%, while the odds a white male would end up in the clink had only increased to 4.4%

"Today roughly 12% of the American population is black and yet about half of the two-million Americans locked up in prison are black. And at any one time in America, almost a third of black American males in their twenties are under some form of 'correctional supervision' – if not actually incarcerated, then either on probation or on parole, meaning they’ve recently passed through the American penal system.

"This means that as of 1996, a sixteen-year-old kid in America would have nearly a one-in-three chance of spending some time behind bars if he was unlucky enough to have been born black. If he happened to be born white, he’d only face a 4% chance of incarceration – a disparity that’s been steadily increasing since then. In Chicago’s home state there are 10,000 more black prisoners than black college students, and for every two black students enrolled in college there are five elsewhere in the state either locked up or on parole.

"The explanation is not that blacks simply use drugs at a higher rate than whites. If anything, studies have shown that whites, 'particularly white youths, are more likely to engage in drug crime than people of color.' Surveys published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that compared to black students: white students were seven times as likely to use cocaine, eight times as likely to use crack cocaine, seven times as likely to use heroin, and were 33% more likely to have sold illegal drugs.

"So it’s not all that difficult to see how the reduction in marriageable males effectively gutted African-American families. What’s also perfectly clear is how the growth of the American Prison State affected government welfare expenditures, and led directly to the emergence of our Modern Welfare State.

"Welfare spending on families and children also witnesses a distinct spike during these same years – but it starts in the early ’70s not the early ’60s when the Public Welfare Amendments were first passed. Neither population growth nor total welfare spending explain this spike, both grew at a relatively flat linear rate during this time period.

"If the growth of our Welfare State was caused simply by the laws funding it being passed, you’d expect to see American government expenditures on welfare funding sent to families and children spike in 1962, and then grow into the next few decades. 1962′s the year the Public Welfare Amendments were passed, which specifically increased aid to dependent children.

"But that’s not what happened at all.

"If the War on Drugs didn’t directly precipitate the destruction of the African-American family, why did the decline in married black women triple during the first decade of the War? And why did welfare spending spike in lockstep with our prison population right as it started?

"We’ve certainly come a long way as a nation since Abolition, but the horrible reality is that a black child who was born during slavery was more likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during the twenty-first century. As Fredrick Douglass explained, during slavery it was common practice to separate children born into slavery from their birth-mothers before their first birthday. Which makes perfect sense when you consider that under slavery blacks were human chattel, and separating newborns calves from their mothers is just what you do with livestock.

"Things had been looking up for black families, back in 1963 as MLK gave his 'I Have A Dream' speech about 70% of black families were headed by a married couple. But that percentage steadily began to drop, between 1970 and 2001 it declined by 34%, double the white decline, and by 2002 it had bottomed out at just 48%.

"In fact, the impact of the War on Drugs has been so racially biased that in 2006 America had nearly six-times the proportion of its black population in prison than South Africa did at the height of Apartheid. And our penal system has grown so massive that the U.S. criminal justice system now employs more people than America’s two largest private employers, Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, combined.

"And although only 14% of all illicit drug users are black, blacks make up over half of those in prison for drug offenses. A black man is eight-times as likely as a white man to be locked up at some point in his life.

"After all, drug laws in America 'have originally been based on racism… all of these laws are based on the belief that there is a class in society that can control themselves, and there is a class in society which cannot.' Nixon’s public motivation for the War on Drugs is that it was a response to the growing numbers of military serviceman who were getting hooked on heroin and other narcotics while serving in the Vietnam War.

"Although that was a troublesome issue, when you know the history of all past American drugs laws it quickly becomes apparent that there’s no way in hell drug-using veterans was the only impetus behind this wave of anti-drug legislation, and that Nixon was using soldiers’ addiction as opportunistic displacement – especially when you consider that only 4.5% of returning servicemen tested positive for heroin. As one Nixon’s Chief of Staff wrote in his diary: 'Nixon emphasized that you have to face the fact the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.'

"And if there’s any doubt about the weight that quote might have had on legislation, here are Nixon’s own words on abortion: 'There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that.' And when exactly would that be? 'When you have a black and a white.'

"As the Arab world is wracked by the spasms of popular violence brought on by their social and economic inequality, many Americans have begun to stop and consider the possibility that violent fissures in our own society may begin to open. Much has been made of the emerging upper-class in American society, but the reality is that with the median white family having over twenty-times as much wealth as a black family – no economic disparity is starker than the one that correlates directly with race.

"In the same way that the Arab Street finally erupted when food prices simply became too much, is there a timer on our own inner cities ticking down as food stamp use and food inflation continue to skyrocket? Could a wave of urban homegrown terrorism erupt in American cities once our urban poor finally reach a tipping point and decide to lash out?

"Maybe it doesn’t mean much to you that the average black family has eight-cents of wealth for every dollar of wealth owned by whites, that the the ongoing recession has doubled the wealth gap between blacks and whites, or that the unemployment rate of blacks is edging up on twice as high as the white rate – easily surpassing it when you count incarcerated blacks. After all, a black child in American is nine-times more likely than a white child to have a parent who’s locked up."

"But let’s look into the data and the implications a little bit more.

"The precise era that saw a drug-law fueled explosion in our prison population, the early 1970s, are the exact same years that the economic situation of blacks began to starkly worsen and that the gap between rich and poor is wrenched wide open. Beginning in those years and continuing into today, the economic status of black compared to that of whites has, on average, stagnated or deteriorated.'

"Up until 1973, the precise year the Rockefeller Drug Laws were passed, the difference between black and white median income had been closing. But then that year it changed course, and in 'an ominous bellwether… the gap between black and white incomes started to grow wider again, in both absolute and relative terms.' Direct empirical research into incarceration’s economic effects weren’t done until recently, when a Pew Charitable Trusts research paper showed that prior to imprisonment two-thirds of male inmates were employed and half were their family’s primary source of income. Additionally, upon release an ex-con’s annual earnings were reduced by 40%."

"In the nearly forty years since America’s modern drug laws were passed, there has been a massive increase in economic inequality by any measure. In the early 1970′s not only did the income gap between black and white begin to widen again, it also becomes much more top-heavily favored to the very rich – who happen to be almost exclusively white as well.

"With home equity making up 44% of an average American’s family’s net worth and fully 60% among our middle class, the statistics around homeownernship further delineate the racial schisms of American wealth. Not only do blacks pay higher interest rates, have higher downpayments, have less access to credit, get turned down more frequently for loans no matter what’s controlled for, and pay what amounts to an 18% 'segregation tax' because homes in black neighborhoods have much less equity than homes in white neighborhoods – but since 1970 black homes have appreciated in value roughly half as much as white homes.

"Even Eminem seemed to have little sense of the irony that was invoked as his self-consciously white autobiographical film, 8 Mile, highlighted the hopeless plight of Detroit’s urban black community. The 8 Mile district was created in 1941, when a six-foot wall was built around a black enclave that was deemed unfit to accept loans from the Federal Housing Administration. This was 'part of a system that divided the whole city, in theory by credit-rating, in practice by color.' And so the segregation that emerged in Detroit 'was not accidental, but a direct consequence of government policy.'

"This policy of segregated mortgages became known as 'red-lining,' and by the 1950s one in five black borrowers was paying interest at over 8%, while it was about impossible to find a white family paying more than 7%.

"And yet this economic line extends far past that generation. The fact that blacks are foreclosing at a much higher rate than whites in the current crisis was predestined by the conditions of the loans they received, as banks turn down equally-qualified blacks much more often than whites, and forced blacks to pay higher interest on their loans. Housing values are indelibly color-coded, as the average value of a white house appreciates much quicker than a black house. All of this is snowballing into a collective institutional bias that cost black families at least $82 billion even before this current crisis began.

"Atlanta served as a case study for mortgage-based racism, as the Pulitzer-winning series in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution 'The Color of Money' so aptly captured.

"It showed how blacks were routinely rejected for loans which whites in a comparable economic situation were accepted for. And this phenomenon wasn’t isolated to one city, as a 1991 study showed that out of 6.4 million mortgage applications nationwide, even after income was controlled for – blacks were rejected twice as often as their white counterparts. However that wasn’t the worst of it, in urban centers such as Boston, Philly, Chicago, Minneapolis, blacks were rejected three-times more often than whites.

"Even well-to-do blacks have been unable to escape from this institutional prejudice.

"Wealthy black neighborhoods in the DC suburbs have a much tougher time getting loans than low-income white areas, and in Boston blacks living on the exact same street as their white neighbors and earning similar incomes found it much tougher to get a mortgage than their white neighbors. Joe Kennedy summed up the cumulative effect of this racial injustice well, describing 'an America where credit is a privilege of race and wealth, not a function of ability to pay back a loan.'

"The city of Baltimore partly captures how higher-rate loans to blacks have affected foreclosure rates, with several Wells Fargo loan officers testifying that they targeted 'mud people' for 'ghetto loans,' resulting in 71% of foreclosures in that city being made on black homes in recent years. And so, even when income and credit score are controlled for, across the nation blacks are more than three-times more likely than whites to have their home foreclosed and be thrown out into the streets.

"America may have nominally advanced from 'separate but equal,' but the reality of racial disparity still haunts the bottomlines of black mortgages and checkbooks, holding them back from fully embracing the dream we’re all supposed to share.

"The very idea of what it means to be poor is color-coded, as while 1 in 3 blacks live in poverty, less than 1 in 10 whites do. And yet the very definition of poverty itself now varies to the point of absurdity, since 'poverty level whites control nearly as many mean net financial assets as the highest-earning blacks, $26,683 to $28,310. For those surviving at or below the poverty level, this indicates quite clearly that poverty means one thing for whites and another for blacks.'

"The impact of these facts have echoed across generations, as nearly three-quarters of all black children grow up in homes with no net financial assets. That’s nearly double the rate of white kids. And nine in ten black kids grow up in homes without enough monetary reserves to last more than three months at the poverty line if their income were to drop, roughly four times the white ratio.

"Nearly any way you look at it, our current economic crisis is impacting our poor black communities much more acutely than our poor white ones. The most obvious indicator is the still skyrocketing unemployment rate, which for young black males is now twice as high as their young white counterparts.

"But simple unemployment doesn’t capture the full scope of economic distress, to understand where we are now you have to take a look at where we’re coming from.

"Following the Civil War the earliest anti-drug laws were passed in some states, banning the consumption of alcohol. But not, of course, for everyone. Whites could drink as much as they pleased – as well as use opiates and cocaine, but if you were a minority in much of antebellum America you were prohibited from imbibing or using any drug at all.

"At the time it was a widely held belief in American politics that some races, bless their brown souls, simply couldn’t control themselves. Furthering the codification of this perception, in 1901 Henry Cabot Lodge spearheaded a law in the U.S. Senate banning the sale of liquor and now opiates as well to all 'uncivilized races.'

"In this case, 'uncivilized' was synonymous with 'dark.' At this point in American history, whites could get as drunk, high, or smacked as they wanted – while the brown-skinned members of American society were completely banned from consuming any intoxicant.

"Throughout the first half of the 20th Century, any violence carried out by a black man against a white could be attributed to the commonly-held caricature of a 'cocaine-crazed negro.' Newspaper headlines screamed of coked-up black criminals who were SHOT BUT DON’T DIE! and policemen claiming that WE NEED BIGGER BULLETS! because their current caliber wasn’t large enough to stop the crack-crazed negroes they routinely came up against in the line of duty. It was actually this specter of THE COCAINIZED-NIGGER that led to police nationwide to upgrade their guns from .32 caliber to .38 caliber.

"However blacks weren’t singled out as a racial minority, the first anti-marijuana laws targeted the wave of Mexican immigrants who were spreading across the American South. They were seen, then as now, to be stealing jobs and government resources from resident whites, and so politicians from that region of the country first banned marijuana use by minorities alone and then eventually altogether.

"Nixon’s public claim that the War on Drugs was primarily a response to the growing number of addicted veterans was at best a lie of omission. Taking into account past legal precedent, and the fact that American urban centers were being wracked by a series of seemingly unending race riots, it becomes self-evident that the War on Drugs was simply another page in the story of American anti-drug laws that have always been rooted in racism.

"Then in 1973, with Nixon desperately attempting to spin his way out of Watergate, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller passed a set of laws that were soon mimicked by several other states and eventually the entire federal government.

"They were minimum sentencing laws for drug crimes that, partially because they included a fifteen-year prison term for possessing even a small amount of narcotics, were the harshest the country had ever seen. The per-capita prison population of the United States remained constant from 1930 to right around 1973, at which point the graph begins an exponential climb that grows steeper and steeper with every passing year.

"Is all of this just coincidence, or is there demonstrable cause-and-effect at work? Are things bad enough to cause the Department of Justice to deliberately massage its own data, effectively removing mixed-race prisoners from their statistics entirely?

"These counter-narcotics laws that, both by design and in practice, fueled an explosion in our prison population – a population which started disproportionately black – with 90% of those incarcerated under the Rockefeller laws either Latino or black – and only growing to become more so as the years passed. Between 1979 and 1990 blacks made up a steady percent of our overall population, but between those same years blacks went from making up 39% of our drug-related prison population to 53% of it.

"Today that number’s down to 51.2%. An improvement, but hardly.

"Through the 1980s this disparate growth was fueled by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, one of the hundreds of crime bills passed by state and Congressional legislatures in the 1980s and 1990s. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act imposed the first of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws, here five-years in prison without chance of parole for anyone caught selling a substantial-enough amount of heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, or cocaine. This last drug, cocaine, had a unique provision.

"You’d receive the same unparolable five-year sentence for selling either 5 grams of crack cocaine as you would selling one-hundred times that much – 500 grams – of powder cocaine. Crack and powder cocaine are pharmacologically the exact same drug, there’re only two important differences. One is that crack cocaine is smoked while powder cocaine is snorted. The other is a bit more telling. Powder cocaine was mainly consumed by whites, whereas crack cocaine was the form of choice for inner-city blacks.

"Critics, for good reason, blasted the law as shamelessly racist.

"America introduced a solution to civil disorder and social injustice that wasn’t novel, it’s simply grown to become unmatched in scale. By 2003, the percentage of our population in prison dwarfed England’s level, our international neighbor whose culture and mores are closest to ours.

"We have, proportionally, six-times the population locked up behind bars as our tea-sipping crumpet-munching cousins across the pond. For France and Germany, the difference approaches ten-times as many.

"Our prison population has increased five-fold in just thirty years. In terms of the global population, we have just 5% of that but fully a quarter of the world’s prisoners. And these American prisoners have one common and inescapable denominator that you’ve almost certainly already stereotyped them with – but for good reason. The stereotype of the black male American prisoner is, among other things, an accurate reflection of reality.

"Our prison system has created a nearly inescapable gyre of poverty and despair, as other than race the most unifying characteristic of our prison population might be that some 50% of American prisoners are both illiterate, and have a family member who’s also been incarcerated at some point.

"If anything whites use drugs at a slightly higher rate than blacks, and yet two-thirds of those imprisoned for drug possession are black, and the rate of black drug arrests is four-times the white rate. Nearly half of all drug arrests in America are for simple marijuana offenses, and during the ’90s arrests for simple marijuana possession accounted for almost 80% of the increase in drug arrests. These statistical realities should do much more than stagger you.

"If you’re black – they terrify you.

"Numbers aside, there’s absolutely no way spending time in prison pacifies someone.

"Getting a man to kill someone right in front of them is surprisingly tough to do. The U.S. Army didn’t get the formula right until Vietnam, when it combined the modern psychological principles of classic and operant conditioning, along with heavy doses of desensitization to violence and the appropriate levels of cultural and moral distance.

"Our modern prisons, while not using classic or operant conditioning, appear to be reaching the same ends. Not only does increased incarceration raise the rate of violent crimes at the community level, but sticking someone in jail desensitizes them to violence and increases their level of cultural, moral, and social distance from anyone not in their own race.

"No where in the modern world is someone more forced to 'practice thinking of a particular class as less than human in a socially stratified environment,' a crucial step in becoming prepared to take someone’s life. It is extremely difficult to survive in most prisons without at least loosely aligning yourself with whatever gang your race corresponds to, and steering well clear anything beyond cursory or institutionally-forced interaction with members of another race.

"Although America’s five-fold per-capita increase in the incarceration rate hasn’t seemed to have increased the overall level of violent crime, a study released in 2002 revealed that without the advances in medical technology that we’ve made since 1970 the murder rate would be between three and four times higher than it is today.

"And upon their release, prisoners often become ineligible for public housing and are denied welfare. So getting a job and trying to find a legitimate way to support themselves is far from easy for ex-cons, more often then not they feel forced to go back to a life of crime to support themselves and any family they might have.

"Unemployment rates as high as fifty-percent are frequently cited by those who have researched and followed the lives of former prisoners. One recent study put the unemployment rate at 60% in the first year after release, and another survey found that two-thirds of the employers surveyed in five large cities would never hire an ex-con. Having to state that you’ve been incarcerated on your job application means that any jobs beyond the most menial and low-paying will likely remain out-of-reach. And in today’s turbulent economic times, when even those with advanced college degrees have trouble finding any kind of paid work, the prospect for an ex-con is even more grim.

"Due to the incredibly high concentration of blacks in the American prison population, the hope-numbing impact of being held in prison and then being hard-pressed to find employment afterward enforces 'the stigma of race [that] remains the unmeltable condition of the black social and economic situation.'

"Racism is generally understood in America to have fallen to an all-time low. But this is an illusion, created because our prisons and the hundreds of thousands of black men inside of them are built at sites unseen.

"A 'subtler and more covert' racism has been enabled as prison populations artificially bend racially specific underemployment rates as 'mass incarceration makes it easier for the majority culture to continue to ignore the urban ghettos that live on beneath official rhetoric.'

"The Civil Rights movement was marked by dozens and dozens of indelible images of racism that were carried in the media each day – black children being marched past an angry white mob into a newly segregated school, police dogs being sicced on peaceful black protesters, burnt-out remains of bombed black churches, one black man behind a pulpit preaching of Christian love and patience and another black man punctuating with his fist the need for angry black action, crowds full of college students both black and white being sprayed at times by firehoses and other times by bullets.

"We’ve all seen the living, breathing, killing reality of racism in the 1970s. None of us now are able to see its existence now, because racism no longer lives on the front pages of our newspapers and on our evening news – instead it’s been suffocated inside poured concrete walls which rise and fall in invisible existence, locked safely out of sight."

I Am For Globalization But....

...but not for corporations.

Corporations are creations of the State and have the legal status of persons. All of them are anti-free market and anti-competition (competition always lowers prices and increases quality). If they get big and rich enough they give millions of dollars to politicians so these bribed political whores will "do favors" for them.

The Bush and Clinton Crime Families were notorious for "doing favors" for corporations, as was Barak Obama. This included looking the other way at sweatshops in other countries, in which young women had their passports confiscated, were raped and beaten, were forced to work 14 hours a day, and lived 14 to a room with one toilet - and paid almost nothing. The Bushes especially looked the other way about such things. Along with many other terrible things their crime family did.

The Founding Fathers, except for the fraud Alexander Hamilton (who only wanted the "rich" and "well-born" to rule - hilarious considering he was "the bastard son of Scots peddler") were not fans of corporations. They pulled their charters left and right and literally put them to death (Thomas Jefferson referred to these people as "the moneyed interests" and wrote they were only interested "in profit").

Cargill, for example, is one of the few corporations that controls our food supply. Farmers have to sell to Cargill for a pittance, then Cargill turns around and sells it to all over the world for a huge profit. They can only do this because the U.S. government allows it.

As an aside (sort of) Cargill had a grain elevator on my way to middle school (located on - what else? - Cargill Road). It's been torn down but another one was built in another place.

All corporations do this. They bribe politicians to pass laws to allow them to get monopoly power.

Our War for Independence was caused by a corporation - the East India Company. It had a monopoly granted by the British Crown to monopolize the tea trade and therefore attempted to put American companies out of business. That's how the Boston Tea Party happened in which crates of tea were dumped overboard (St. Paul was right when he wrote, "The love of money is the root of all evil").

Recently Trump has claimed Boeing is trying to charge way too much money for replacements for Air Force One. He's right - the job-killing Boeing was allowed by the Obama administration to sell planes to Iran.

Can you imagine Obama and the Clinton and Bush Crime Families complaining about this? Of course not. The taxpayers are just supposed to bend over and take it.

Obama, the Clinton and Bush Crime Families, never gave a good Goddamn about the exporting of American jobs. They were being paid to look the other way (the vile Dubya Shrub said he "didn't understand poor people" - and this party-boy crackhead loser was also contemptuously referred to as "Junior" by the serious players in his daddy's White House).

Now imagine if corporations had their charters pulled. Globalization would actually work then. But it would benefit the American people. That's the wonders of free trade, not managed trade.

The Manosphere is Based on the Lost Boys' Envy of Women

"The Manosphere is feminism's bastard son." - Crissa Espina

Feminism is based the envy of men, and in response the Manosphere is based on the envy of women. Not all of each is based on envy, but there is a lot of it in both.

Not all of feminism is bad, since nothing is all good or all bad. Let's say it's 98.7% bad. The Manosphere, being in some ways a needed corrective to the evils of feminism, has some good in it. Let's say about 80% of it is nonsense.

The easiest way to identify envy when when the envied is devalued when they don't deserve it. That is the lesson of the story of the Garden of Eden, which while not literally true, is figuratively true. No myth lasts thousands of years unless there is great truth to it.

The serpent attempts to being down Adam and Eve because he envies them. He is a symbol of hate, envy, feelings of humiliation, and the desire for revenge (John Milton clearly illustrated this in Paradise Lost).

These days, the serpent would either be a narcissist or a psychopath (a psychopath is the extreme form of a narcissist). These people devalue other people (turn them into things) and cover up their feelings of humiliation and envy with grandiosity.

Feminism, itself a symbol of the serpent, has attempted to destroy men because of some women's (let's say leftist/lesbian women) hate and envy of men, and who desire revenge on them because they feel they have been humiliated. Which they haven't, but there is no talking any sense with the self-righteousness and self-pity of the self-deluded. That, of course, also means men, which is why it's almost impossible to talk any sense into the Lost Boys of the Manosphere.

Some of these feminists were literally insane, such as the Jewish lesbian Shulamith Firestone, author of the worthless but dangerous The Dialectic of Sex, who died recently and spend the last few decades of her life incapacitated by schizophrenia.

Others, such as Betty Friedan, envied men because she was excruciatingly ugly. Gloria Steinem never followed any of her beliefs that she prescribed for other women, just as the "leaders" of the Manosphere don't follow what they prescribe for the deluded Lost Boys of the Manosphere. Exactly why Steinem envied men I don't know, but it's not as if I'm going to make an extended study of her hypocritical life.

There are certain self-appointed "leaders" of the Manosphere, such as narcissists like Vox Day and Roissy, who are the Manosphere's version of Friedan and Steinem. Like Friedan and Steinem, Day and Roissy will follow them into oblivion.

Because of the Manophere's envy of women, there is a attempt by some of the men in it to devalue women. For the PUA's (Pick-Up Artists) this means objectifying women - seeing them as objects merely for sex. This reducing women to objects is based on these men's feelings of humiliation and insecurity, which they cover up with attempts at power, domination and control.

The story of Cain and Abel is relevant here. Cain is humiliated, blames his problems on Abel and murders him. This is humiliation followed by revenge. Strictly speaking, it is perceived humiliation followed by the desire for revenge.

Feminists want revenge on men because they delude themselves they've been humiliated and many of the Manosphere bloggers believe they've been humiliated by women so they devalue them and want revenge on them. They want to replace shame with pride.

The purpose of feminism is to humiliate men. In response, that is why some men have come up with the concept of the Alpha (which per se doesn't exist) as an extreme reaction against feelings of helplessness, that they are a little boy, a wimp

One way to understand normal people is to look at the extremes, since extreme behavior is just normal behavior taken to the breaking point. Everyone is susceptible to humiliation and envy.

The psychiatrist James Gilligan, who spent 35 years interviewing thousands of prisoners, said he always heard the same story as to why they murdered or brutally assaulted people. What he heard, every time, was “He dissed me” or else mocked, insulted and ridiculed the prisoner’s children, wife, parents, friends.

Gilligan one day realized what he was hearing, over and over, was the story of Cain and Abel: the feeling of humiliation followed by revenge manifesting itself as murder.

Gilligan also said, "an underlying factor that is virtually always present to one degree or another is a feeling that one has to prove one’s manhood, and that the way to do that, to gain the respect that has been lost, is to commit a violent act."

This can include violent verbal attacks or devaluing people in other ways...such as seeing them as objects to be manipulated.

John Douglas, the retired FBI profiler of serial killers, and the author of several best-selling books, stated that every serial murderer he encountered was an “inadequate” type (i.e., he felt humiliated) who covered it up with grandiosity (i.e., an immense Satanic pride) and sought revenge on anyone who reminded him of those who believed caused his problems in the first place. Again, humiliation leading to murder.

Wrote Douglas in The Anatomy of Motive about one mass murder: “…this crime…[was] a kind of revenge…it was retaliation for some perceived wrong – real or imagined – perpetrated against the killer” (in another case, a teenage school shooter said, “The world has wronged me, and I could take it no more” — his pride was hurt).

Chris Stout wrote in The Psychology of Terrorism: “The first stage in the development of terrorism begins when intolerable life conditions cause suffering that produces…a malignant alteration in the personality caused by the repeated failure to respond to overwhelming trauma.” That pretty much explains the worst of the Manosphere, since the abuse of men by feminism (enforced by law) has not been addressed by society and the government.

What surprised me about the Manosphere is the ignorance of evil. Many in it idealize psychopaths and narcissists, based on the fact they have no idea what they are. These are the Alphas, which don't really exist.

The worst of psychopaths are the sexual sadists known as serial killers. These men torture, murder and mutilate women. Some of them are cannibals and necrophiliacs.

Outwardly, these men appear to be friendly and charming and confident. Inwardly they have no conscience and no guilt. They're monsters, not human beings. They have invariably been horribly abused as children, and when adult cover up their fragile personalities with the aforementioned attempts as power, control and domination. They are incapable of love.

I recently saw on TV the late Jerry Brudos. He was laughing and making jokes and appeared to be a friendly and charming man. Yet this is a man who killed about six women before he was caught. In one case he kidnapped a young woman, strangled her, had sex with her corpse, cut off one of her feet (he had a shoe fetish), then went inside and ate dinner with his family.

He would also hang women in his garage and let them dangle for two or three days, occasionally visiting them to rape their corpses.

This is what the worst of psychopaths do. The lesser versions, such as narcissists and borderlines, still murder women, rape them, beat them, and abuse them in various ways.

Bizarrely, the Lost Boys of the Manosphere idealize psychopaths, narcissists and borderlines, referring to dangerous concepts such as the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy). Women supposedly instinctively drool after such men.

Some women do. There are also women who are serial killer groupies and also women who think when men abuse and beat them it's their fault for "making them mad."

I mentioned the concept of the Alpha. Since it means nothing it can mean anything. Some speak of them as rich, good-looking guys who get all the women. They essentially have no conscience and see women merely as objects to be seduced.

Some see Alphas as more along the lines of chivalrous men.

If you do want to use the concept of the Alpha, the seducers are the cads. They are cowards who are narcissists. They generally collapse by middle-age. I've seen it more than once.

Men who babble they are Alphas or Pick-Up Artists are not. They are men who have feelings of humiliation and envy, who feel they have been rejected and disrespected by women, so they devalue them to reduce their power ("Since I believe they have abused me my entire life I will objectify them so they so longer have any power over me").

This is why exists the old observation that all bullies are cowards. Bluster and bravado on top, disguising feelings of powerlessness and humiliation.

The good Alphas are the chivalrous men. Chivalry is based on the better warrior virtues and evolved only from Christianity.

Since there are at least two kinds of Alphas, and one concept is the exact opposite of the other, this is why the concept of the Alpha means nothing.

Why do younger men fall for this nonsense? Because they are lost and have never learned what it is to be a man. Everyone seeks meaning, importance, community and security. They seek mentors and models they believe will educate them, even if their mentors and models are self-deluded frauds and what they teach ends up to be dangerous.

The curious and ironic thing about the Dark Triad Pick-Up Artists is that they are not admirable men. They are altering their behavior and personalities merely to get laid. This means women are ruling them and telling them what to do. These men are pathetic, about which they are clueless.

This flaw in certain men was studied hundreds of years ago. The conclusion reached is that a man does not does not alter his behavior or character to merely get laid. Such men are cowards. And I have seen that, too.

There is a useful book by Waller Newell called, What is a Man: 3000 Years of Wisdom. There are some useful comments by some of the reviewers:

"Thus, many of our young men are driven by their lust rather than learning to love the beauty of women and enjoying the simple pleasure of observation. Boys find themselves full of rage, becoming aggressive and even violent instead of learning to focus their energy to set right what has been made wrong."

Exactly right.

Another reviewer wrote this:

"Manly Virtue:

"There's nothing more humiliating for a genuinely real man than to betray the code of manly honor, that once consisted of a canon of ethics called; 'manly virtue.' In Latin, vir means man, and a man of honor controlled his bodily passions and fears with fortitude, endurance and grace. Those are not virtues which most of today's men hope to acquire, nor their female partners promote, since a genuinely real man cannot be defined solely with female aspiration.

"In classical times, these virtues were Prudence, Courage; abstinence, and Justice. Being dignified, courteous, a temperate devotee to a chivalry of Justice and truth was the ultimate social aspiration for men. These virtues have no meaning unless exercised by free men and women. But it was the clear conviction of the ancients that if citizens were not raised with these virtues, to which Faith, Hope, and Charity, were added by the Christians, democracy would soon deteriorate into soft, then hard tyranny."

Cads demonstrate the Seven Deadly Vices. Chivalrous men try to live their lives by the Seven Heavenly Virtues. This is why the Alpha (sic) cannot be both at once.

The Lost Boys of the Manosphere would do better to pay attention to ancient wisdom rather than confused modern concepts.

"The PUAs and Gamers...are comprised mostly of men who bear the deepest afflictions of a fatherless culture. Abandoned to feminist governance by their male elders and bereft of masculine guidance, they have been dropped into the solipsistic void that was the only existence feminism ever could have offered them outside direct servitude. Stripped of values and consciousness and the ability to be circumspect, they have turned feral; so unable to form community or embrace brotherhood that they have shrugged off the desire for either." - Paul Elam

Waking Up to Her Every Morning for the Rest of Your Life

Blaming someone else for your problems - even when they are innocent - is the first defense people use. It's part and parcel of denial, which is refusing to see that the accused people are innocent. Denial is the result of self-deception, because you have to deceive yourself first before you deny something to someone else.

For years I've been hearing that men "don't want to commit." I find that more than a little odd since two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. Most of them happen in middle-age.

The only thing I can conclude from these statistics is that while women want to get married, they don't want to stay married. Then of course when they want to get divorced, they have to blame it on the man. Then they have to deceive themselves it's not their fault. Then they deny it's their fault to other people.

In other words, women are generally the first to demand commitment and then generally the first to try to get out of it.

The excuses and rationalizations women use are legion and I don't have to recount them here. But what it ultimately comes down to is that they are bored with being married, although they use such words as "trapped."

But when they get divorced they'll still want the kids and to get money from their ex-husbands.

Society in the past reduced these problems to the minimum. First, it was hard to get a divorce. Second, no-fault divorce did not exist. Third, the children were almost always given to the father. Returning to these things would be a good thing.

Oh, I forgot - as far as I'm concerned women who have children out of wedlock should have their babies taken from them. In the past such women who got pregnant were sent away to have the child, which was then adopted by a married couple or else sent to an orphanage (and almost all orphanages weren't bad places - I've known people raised in them).

By the way, the word "bastard" means a fatherless boy and a cruel, heartless man. I'm not even going to bother to explain the relationship.

I have for a long time thought women expect too much from marriage. The cliche' is that women seek Mr. Perfect (who does not exist) while if men find a woman who is 80% of what they want they are in Heaven.

Cliches' wouldn't be around unless there was some truth to them. So the idea that women have too high of standards has been around for a long time, otherwise there would not exists such stories as the Brothers Grimm tale, "King Roughbeard," which is about a princess who rejects all her suitors because none of them are good enough for her.

The only cure for her problem is to be humbled, and that is exactly what happens.

Men should pay a lot more attention to whom they marry. For that matter, women should pay a lot more attention, too. Her parents might want to explain there are no Mr. Perfects (and that she's not perfect, either) and explain the wisdom of the "King Roughbeard" tale to her.

Parents might want to also explain that many women are more ruled by their feelings than men, which means that many of them are not exactly rational (I am reminded of that scene in As Good as it Gets when Jack Nicholson's character says he understands women by thinking of a man and "taking away reason and accountability").

In fact, it's an excellent idea to interview a prospective mate. This is not as aside, but quite relevant: it's been found that when a man and a women have similar views on politics and pornography they stand a better chance of staying together. Having similar religious beliefs wouldn't hurt, either.

As cruel as it sounds, I don't think being in love justifies getting married. I knew a man who thought he had found the woman for him until an older man asked him if he'd be glad to wake up next to her every morning for the rest of his life. He suddenly realized he wasn't in love that much.

And of course love can, and does, die. Otherwise, there wouldn't be as much divorce as there is. And, of course, you have a duty to your future unborn children to make sure your mate would be a good father or mother.

I'll tell you one big red flag: she won't take your last name. That's the first red flag she's been brainwashed by 40 plus years of leftist/lesbian propaganda.