Thursday, August 30, 2012

The Lost Boys of the Manosphere

I have been reading the Manosphere for about the last six months. Before then I had never heard of it. But there is nothing in it that hasn't been covered hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

The Manosphere is in some ways a needed corrective to the destructive influence of leftist/lesbian feminism, which, being enforced by law, has been immensely destructive to society and the relationships between men and women.

One of the things feminism has done is damage and sometimes destroy the traditional concepts of masculinity. Since leftists believe there is no human nature, and that people are plastic, they think they can remold men’s characters and in effect make them more like women. Oftentimes this involves the use of drugs such as Ritalin.

This attempt to change men's inherent characters is not only nonsense; it’s dangerous nonsense. As the late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn noted, “Leftists don’t merely misunderstand human nature; they don’t understand it at all.”

Since men are responsible for the creation of civilization, the attempt to destroy men is in fact the attempt to destroy civilization. As Camille Paglia noted, without men women would still be living in grass huts.

Unfortunately, many young men have lost the idea of what it means to be a man. So they’ve been looking to the Manosphere for ideas.

People learn by imitation. I’d never realized that until years ago when I read Thomas Jefferson and he pointed out that people only learn by imitating other people. Unfortunately this imitation can be for good or bad.

People not only learn by imitation, they look to leaders to teach them. Role models and mentors, in a nutshell. Again, unfortunately, mentors can be good or bad.

One of the more foolish concepts in the Manosphere is the concept of the “Alpha.” No one can agree exactly on what an Alpha is, but they’re generally supposed to be good-looking guys with lots of money who get all the women. They are supposed to be immune to what women say and are predatory toward them so they can pump ‘n’ dump ‘em.

I’ve had guys quote to me the exact definitions of an Alpha, a Beta, a Delta, a Gamma, a Sigma and an Omega. Those guys are particularly lost.

Apparently there are younger guys reading the Manosphere who think, “Well, if I imitate what Alphas are supposed to be then I’ll become an Alpha instead of being the Gamma or Delta I really am.” Good luck with that.

The idea of the Alpha I listed above is the classic definition of a narcissist or at worst a psychopath. Such people have no conscience or empathy.

Narcissists appear to be confident and unconcerned with what others think. In reality they are using those traits to cover up their feelings of inferiority and feelings of humiliation. That’s what a narcissist Alpha really is: a fake confidence on top covering up feelings of shame.

I once watched an Alpha on TV claim he’d had sex with about 130 women. This guy clearly has no concern for the feelings of these women. He is predatory and uses them. He had no empathy or compassion toward them. To him they are just things for him to use.

The original term to define these “Alphas” is a cad. My experience with promiscuous exploitative cads is that all of them are cowards.

As I’ve written before these Alphas end up ruining their lives by middle-age. I’ve seen it. And younger men think these are the men they want to emulate? And these are the kinds of men the leaders in the Manosphere say are the ideals who should be imitated? That is the best definition of a fool that I have seen in a long time.

These Gammas and Deltas are humiliated by what they are so they try to cover their feelings of humiliation and inferiority by pretending they are Alphas or Sigmas. It ain’t gonna work.

The traditional definition of a man in the West (I am unconcerned with what a man is supposed to be in non-Western cultures) is that of the chivalrous man.

Chivalry evolved from Christianity and is based on the better warrior virtues. It was based on defending the weak and helpless, including using violence if necessary, and being noble and honorable. It was the code that knights were ideally supposed to use.

The code of chivalry is the exact opposite of what an Alpha is supposed to be, according to many bloggers. A narcissist or a psychopath is not something you want to be.

The worst of psychopaths are particularly gruesome. All serial killers are psychopaths and they are so utterly lacking in a conscience that some them are cannibals and necrophiliacs. Think Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer.

I have never seen anyone in the Manosphere make the connection between what an Alpha is supposed to be and the fact they are narcissists and sometimes psychopaths. I have seen a few make the connection that Alphas are cads and cowards. I have also seen a few make the connection between chivalry and masculinity.

I've also seen some who don't understand the concept of chivalry and apply their misunderstandings to their Manosphere beliefs.

I consider the modern concepts of Alpha, Beta, etc., to to basically ridiculous. These concepts were covered several hundred if not several thousand years ago.

The original concept of a chivalrous man was an armed knight willing to do violence to protect the weak, helpless and powerless. They were noble, honorable and self-sacrificing. Is that not both Alpha and Beta traits combined?

On one of the more popular Manosphere blogs that idealizes the narcissist Alpha there was posted a picture of Prince Harry with an adoring beautiful woman (who I suspected was supremely stupid) whispering in his ear. He had his chin in his hand.

The caption was “The Alpha Male Look” with the text under the picture reading, "If you can adopt this posture in your dealings with women, you will alter their perception of you in the direction of presuming your sexy alphaness." Really? An effete degenerate aristocrat who's never had a job in his life and never will is an Alpha to be imitated? I had this image of a bunch of foolish guys sitting in a bar with his chins in their hands and thinking, “Where’s the babes? I’m imitating an Alpha!”

The degenerate behavior of aristocrats has been noticed for thousands of years. There are many jokes about the perversions of them. In fact, one of the reason the Constitution forbids titles of nobility is because the Founding Fathers were well aware of what aristocrats were.

Why do so many people fall for dubious concepts? They seek meaning and importance and community in their lives. Security. They seek to be part of a group that agrees with them. They seek leaders who know have confidence and know what's going on.

I don’t know how this Alpha/Beta/Delta/Gamma/Omega nonsense got started. But I do know it’s a detour from ancient wisdom and those who follow it are confused in the first place and just might end up even more confused. In some cases - far too many - they will end up confused.

The problem, ultimately, with these wannabe Gamers/PUAs, is that they're terrified they're wimps.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Charming People as Addicts

I know a guy who's had sex with about 100 women. He'd lie to them, "tell them what they wanted to hear," target women who weren't all that attractive, lead them to think he was their boyfriend, have sex with them several times, then dump them,

Later in life he became a drug addict and ended up ruining his teeth. He still has them but says they hurt all the time, especially when it's cold out. He's going to lose all of them, sooner or later.

He didn't have much of a conscience about those women, and the fact there were so many of them leads me to believe he has an addictive personality. His drug addiction proved that.

An addict will do anything to get his fix. Their consciences are impaired. And that is what my acquaintance (he was never my friend) did.

I also know a woman who used a fair amount of drugs in college but was never an addict. She admitted to me she used to be very promiscuous. The guys didn't mean anything to her beyond being a fun time. She was a promiscuous party girl. She also smokes heavily, which I see as self-medication.

My experience has been that women who smoke usually have sex on the first date.

The cad has never had a serious relationship with a woman. The woman has had one but her boyfriend finally dumped her. Both of them, as far as I can tell, have never really liked the opposite sex all that much.

I came to the conclusion years ago that "sexual addiction" is just a way for the person to make themselves feel good. Their baseline emotional state must be way below normal for them to do the things they do to make themselves feel better.

It's a given that many addicts lose their conscience. That's why they use and manipulate people, although it may take years for them to realize that.

My definition of a "slut" is a woman who uses men for sex and is only concerned about her own physical pleasure. A "cad" is a man who uses women for sex but is only concerned about his own pleasure and not hers. (The more confused in the Manosphere refer to cads as Alphas, even though they are narcissists who cover up their insecurity and feelings of inferiority and humiliation with bluster, a lack of empathy and fake confidence.)

My experience has been that both cads and sluts are cowards. My cad acquaintance and one of his "girlfriends" once walked by a guy who said, "Your chick's ugly." The cad said nothing and kept walking.

The curious thing about such people is that they often are popular with the opposite sex. They're good at manipulation. It's as if they've learned to read people and say the right things. They can be quite charming.

"Charm" can mean to use words to manipulate. "Spell" also means the use of words. Sometimes it takes years to figure out that charming people aren't so nice. Bill Clinton, for example, was a charming man and also a serial rapist.(I've met women who refuse to believe that because they fell for his charm.)

These kind of people zero in on the people they want to manipulate. They use a technique I've heard referred to as "love bombing" - making the target feel very special.

It appears to me that charming people are doing this to get attention. They're addicted to it. I wouldn't call them psychopaths but they are narcissistic. They lack empathy even though their charm is a good disguise that many people can't see through. They're like the villainous version of the Shadow, who can cloud men's minds.

"Often, narcissists are very charming in order to seduce people into liking them. Their ability to seduce people is amazing. They appear confident and therefore exciting," writes Susan Peabody.

I haven't trusted charming people for a long time. They can be malignant.

Leftists are Emotionally Four Years Old

"Crowds destroy and do not create." - Gustave Le Bon

I understand leftism intellectually. Perhaps I even understand it better than leftists do. But I don't understand leftism emotionally. I have a hard time even imaging what it's like to be a leftist.

I do know leftists are about four years old emotionally, because they blame all their problems on other people. It's called projection, which is the fancy psychiatric term for scapegoating.

The biggest red flag to identify a leftist is when they use the word "hate" all the time, which they apply to anyone who disagrees with them. It's their own hate they are projecting. The Southern Poverty Law Center is as close to a perfect example of this dynamic.

The first defense people engage in is projection. Apparently it runs back to our being infants, if researchers are right.

I once caught my four year old nephew stealing some loose change out of my car. When he saw me he ran and fell down. The first words out of his mouth were, "You made me fall down!" It wasn't his fault; it was my fault.

I am reminded of a scene in Jaws in which two boys are caught pretending to be sharks. One points to the other and says, "He made me do it!"

When people are always blaming their problems on other people it's a pretty good bet they're leftists.

Leftist politics does not unite; it divides, because it encourages each special-interest group to blame its problems on someone else. What that results in is conflict, not harmony.

Since projection is the first defense people engage in - even if they don't know they're doing it - those who tap into this defense can manipulate people. It's made worse by the fact our perception goes though our emotional brain first before it reaches our rational brain.

So all you have to do is tell people it's not their fault, that their problems are caused by someone else, and many people will fall for it.

The masses will always fall for it. The masses - herds of people - don't think. In fact they can't think. Only individuals think. The masses operate on childish emotion, which means all masses are about four years old intellectually and emotionally.

Only individuals can be rational. Herds of people cannot.

I suspect herds of people are always inherently leftist since they can't think, they operate only on childish emotion, and they always blame their problems on other people. Then, of course, they'll want to get rid of those people.

Whenever I see a charismatic person I never believe want he says. The masses always do, at least at first. These kind of manipulative, charismatic people can actually cast a spell on the masses ("spell" means the use of words).

In fact I stay out of large crowds. Only crowds can riot. Who wants to be stuck in a beast that can't think, is a child emotionally, and wants to find someone to blame its problems on, even if that person is completely innocent?

Monday, August 27, 2012

Sex as Meaning Nothing

Sex “taken by a degradation of human nature.” - Kant

I have, three times in my life, had naked women get into bed with me. The first time, it lasted perhaps one minute. The second girl, it lasted maybe a minute and a half. The third girl, about a minute.

With the second girl, there was a second time. It lasted about a minute. She wanted there to be a third and fourth time, but I ignored her.

Each time, the sex, since it was so brief, meant nothing to me. For them, it was clearly just physical relief. One actually said to me, “I really needed that.” Notice she didn’t ask a thing about me. That’s significant.

I suppose some guys would be envious of me. In fact, I know some were, because the second girl, we lived in a co-ed house in college, and she ignored the other guys in favor of me. Yet, when it comes down to it, there was nothing for them to be envious of.

Each of these girls was extremely promiscuous, and I do not think they were capable of love. I wonder if there is a inverse relationship between promiscuity and love? After all, notwithstanding silly fantasies like Pretty Woman, how many prostitutes fall in love at least once in their lives? I doubt it’s all that many.

As far as I'm concerned, a slut is not necessarily a promiscuous woman. I know a woman who was promiscuous in college, and it had something to with long-term molestation by her father.

A slut is a promiscuous woman who is concerned only with her own physical pleasure. For all practical purposes guys are just organic dildos to them.

One question I have never been able to answer is, where do you draw the line? What is the upper limit on sex partners? I do know that devoting your life to physical pleasure will destroy you. That’s been noticed as far back as the ancient Greeks.

Physical pleasure has its place. I always think of Jesus, who went to weddings and ate, and drank wine. He approved of it. And what happens at these parties? Dancing and music, of course. It all has its place in life, along with sex. But you can’t be drunk all the time, or eat all the time. Or have sex all the time, either.

Speaking of Jesus, I consider these people to have fallen for the First Temptation – people do not live by bread alone. “Bread,” if it means anything, means materialism. Such materialism includes food, money, drink, sex. Pleasure. No one can make such things the meanings of their lives, such as epicures try to do. Ultimately, and generally quickly, it leads to a degraded life.

I’m not disapproving of sexual promiscuity in a moral sense or even in a physical one, although there can be physical repercussions from such promiscuity. I’m interested in only the psychological effects. The only thing I can say with any certainty is that the more sexually promiscuous someone is, the more difficulty they will have in maintaining a long-term romantic relationship.

I think the reason for this difficulty is that in case of every one of these girls, they were self-centered and lacking in empathy. Lacking in those feelings, they tried to fill the empty place in themselves with physical sensation. That, of course, never works, since physical sensation always ebbs and flows, goes up and down. So you end up needing another fix, but fast. That’s the nature of pleasure.

The original meaning of the Greek word “daemon” (perverted into the word “demon”) was a natural function that took over one’s life, be it sex or food or alcohol. It appears when one gets taken over by a daemon, not much of the personality is left for anything else. Such is the nature of addiction.

King Grisly-Beard, or The Husband Store

Myths, fables and the misnamed "fairy tales" (in Germany they're called Marchen, or "folk tales") contain the stored wisdom of the human race. It's too bad many of them are not taught and explained anymore. After all, if you don't discuss the stories with they kids they're not really going to understand them.

There is a cliche' (and like all cliches wouldn't be around unless there was truth to it) that women seek 100% of what they want in a man, while men would think they were in Heaven if they could find 80% of what they seek in a woman.

Does the wisdom of the race support this observation? Yes, it does.

Let's take the Brothers Grimm story "King Grisly Beard" (also called "King Rough Beard").

The story is about a princess who rejects every man who courts her. Not only does she reject them, she makes fun of them. One suiter, who has a rough or grisly beard, gets the advantage of her, humbles her so that she changes her character and turns into a good woman, and then makes a fine wife.

("A great king of a land far away in the East had a daughter who was very beautiful, but so proud, and haughty, and conceited, that none of the princes who came to ask her in marriage was good enough for her, and she only made sport of them...then she bitterly grieved for the pride and folly which had brought her so low...'I have done all this only to cure you of your silly pride, and to show you the folly of your ill-treatment of me. Now all is over: you have learnt wisdom, and it is time to hold our marriage feast.'")

The moral of the story is that some women seek too much in a husband and should become more self-aware and humble (and the correct definition of "humble" is to know your limitations).

By the way, every man she insults does not come back. Women might want to keep that mind.

There is a modern version of "King Grisly Beard" called "The Husband Store," and I'll reprint the whole version here.

"A store that sells new husbands has opened in New York City, where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates:

"You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the value of the products increase as the shopper ascends the flights. The shopper may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!

"So, a woman goes to The Husband Store to find a husband.

"On the first floor the sign on the door reads:

"Floor 1 – These men have Jobs.

"She is intrigued, but continues to the second floor, where the sign reads:

"Floor 2 – These men Have Jobs and Love Kids.

"‘That’s nice,’ she thinks, ‘but I want more.’

"So she continues upward. The third floor sign reads:

"Floor 3 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, and are Extremely Good Looking.

"‘Wow,’ she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.

"She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads:

Floor 4 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Good Looking and Help With Housework.

"‘Oh, mercy me!’ she exclaims, ‘I can hardly stand it!’

"Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads: Floor 5 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, Help with Housework, and Have a Strong Romantic Streak.

"She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor, where the sign reads:

"Floor 6 – You are visitor 31,456,012 to this floor.

"There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at The Husband Store.

"To avoid gender bias charges, the store’s owner opened The Wife Store just across the street.

"The first floor has wives that love sex.

"The second floor has wives that love sex, have money and can really cook.

"The third floor has wives that love sex, have money, can really cook and are drop dead gorgeous.

"The fourth, fifth and sixth floors have never been visited."

A novel that I have mentioned several times is Edgar Rice Burroughs A Fighting Man of Mars, which Burroughs wrote around 1912.

The hero, Tan Hadron of Hastor, becames infatuated with a woman named Sanoma Tora. He is not good enough for her, she insults him, and for reasons not relevant here ends up kidnapped. Hadron, who is a brave, chivalrous but somewhat naive (when it comes to women) warrior, goes to save her.

He does end up saving her - and she appears to be changed, more humble woman - but Tan Hadron in the meantime has found another woman, Tavia. Sanoma Tora finds out she is wrong - and it's too late.

A Fighting Man of Mars is in some ways a retelling of "King Grisly Beard." Do tell.

Parents today might want to explain to their daughters there are no perfect men - and they are not perfect, either - and that too high of standards will end up to their being alone.

In fact, they should tell their daughters (depending on theirs looks and character): "You are not a princess and there are no perfect men. Women tend to be more influenced by their feelings than men and just because you feel something doesn't make it right. And if you think you can postpone marriage until you're 30 you'll probably find things are going to turn out the way you want them."

Let's face the facts - a woman's marriage value peaks at about 23. She might think she'll go to college, fool around all she wants, get a career job, then get married at 30. Many of these women find out they've been conned by feminism and what they planned is not what happens.

They'd be better off paying attention to "fairy tales." Their lives might be improved.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

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.

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 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.

Friday, August 24, 2012

The Chivalry of Edgar Rice Burroughs

"Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as for inducing them." - C.S. Lewis

Probably the first science-fiction novel I read was Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Fighting Man of Mars. I'm not completely sure. It might have been The Time Machine (woo hoo!) and it might have been Dwellers in the Mirage (woo hoo!). But to the best of my memory it was A Fighting Man of Mars.

Even though I didn't realize at the time, being that I was 12 years old (barely) ERB was writing about the code of chivalry in his novels. Since he was born in 1875, it makes sense. The code existed a lot more back than than it does now.

Burroughs main character in his Mars novels (he called Mars Barsoom) was the Earthman John Carter. Carter was a former Confederate officer. I find that significant.

The Southern officers during the War Between the States were a lot more chivalrous than most of the Northern ones. Compare Robert L. Lee to the psychotic mass-murdering drunk Sherman, who burned everything in his path and wanted to exterminate the Indians. In fact, the War Between the States, as wars go, was pretty chivalrous.

It would have been better if the South had won - and by win I don't mean just sucede but take over the North. Perhaps then the Northern mercantilists destroying this country today wouldn't be in power. And does anyone believe those financial lowlifes with their stealing and lying are honorable, chivalrous men, ones who believe in noblesse oblige?

Most people don't even know what chivalry is today. What they believe is really more of a pseudo-chivalry. It's been so twisted today by feminists and clueless men the concept is almost unrecognizable. Think of the way the concepts of oppression, misogyny, patriarchy, choice, rape, Dead White Males, etc. have been perverted.

Chivalry was originally based on the better warrior virtues - to deal out justice, to protect the weak and helpless, to be noble and honorable, to not lie and steal, to be brave. When I say the "better warrior virtues" I mean not murdering innocent men, women and children and rationalizing it as "collateral damage."

Chivalry evolved from Christianity, which is pretty much on life support today. I can't imagine chivalrous atheists or pagans, not in the long run.

In fact, the Knight's Code of Chivalry is entirely due to Christianity and was originally an aristocratic warrior code.

If you want to think about chivalry, think of knights, such as King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Knights were originally armed men. They could have killed many people but did not because of their code of chivalry. They protected them instead.

This can be considered graciousness and not an obligation. Men are not obliged to be chivalrous. It is something they choose. Otherwise, many women will claim that men have obligations (duties and responsibilities) toward them while they have none in return. Making it an obligation and duty removes the noblesse oblige part.

"Knights" existed in other cultures, such as the samurai in Japan, although they didn't particularly protect people and instead had the right to kill someone and walk away. Although, to be fair, you can see the samurai code of chivalry in such movies as The Seven Samurai, which was remade in the West as The Magnificent Seven (I am especially fond of Yohimbo).

Burroughs wrote about the Western code of chivalry in almost all his novels. All of his heroes were knights and all of his villains embodied the exact opposite of the code.

All of his heroes were warriors, all of them attempted to be just, and all of them attempted to protect the weak and helpless, all of them were brave.

None of his heroes were perfect. The hero in A Fighting Man of Mars was Tan Hadron, who in the beginning became infatuated with a haughty gold-digger by the name of Sanoma Tora. When she's kidnapped he goes all white-knight goofy and sets out to save her.

(Parenthetically, three of the most ominous characteristics of Sanoma Tora are that she is unpleasant, a gold-digger, and no man is good enough for her. In some ways this is a retelling of the Brothers Grimm story "King Roughbeard.")

Fortunately he encounters an escaped slave girl - Tavia - who turns out to be a bit of a warrior girl herself. He ends up falling in love with her, rescues Sanoma Tora, and when Sanoma professes her undying love (meaning about for two weeks) for Tan Hadron, he tells her that he prefers the escaped slave girl. She goes all female-hysterical on him, which he ignores.

In other words, because Sanoma Tora showed herself to be an unworthy woman Tan Hadron withdrew from her his chivalrous behavior, just as so many men today have withdrawn chivalrous behavior from unworthy women. As I said, chivalry is freely chosen and is not an obligation or duty.

The code of chivalry in my opinion is based on European men's instinctive desire to protect women. Think of how it's supposed to be "women and children first" on lifeboats. In fact a man who saves himself over women and children (such as Cal the Cad in Titanic) is considered a villain.

I don't read much fiction anymore but I did read the first two Harry Potter novels. I liked the first but not the second. As I was reading the first I knew that "J.K. Rowling" was a woman.

Harry isn't masculine but effeminate. And he allowed the Dursleys to terribly abuse him and did nothing about it. Harry would not have even made a good Cub Scout. There is very little about him that is chivalrous and he's certainly no Tarzan (the most famous creation of ERB).

Chivalry only comes from a position of strength. In other words, being armed and willing to do violence to the Bad Guys, including killing them. To the degree that society become anti-gun chivalry will decline.

In other words, liberalism is anti-chivalrous! For one thing it's based on the idea that human nature is plastic and there are no differences between men and women. This is not only nonsense; it's dangerous nonsense.

The best definition of a liberal that I've encountered is someone who'd rather see a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than defend herself with a handgun. Then you get some really bizarre beliefs, such as people who think they can legislate away violence by not allowing boys to draw war scenes on the backs of their school papers (which is what all of us did as children). "Zero tolerance" means "zero brains."

These days, a chivalrous man would would own and know how to use several firearms, and be willing to do violence to protect the weak and helpless. If cartoon heroes can do this (and aren't all of them armed?) why men should do it, too.

Feminism, which is leftist/lesbian, has been busy for the past 40 years destroying chivalry. This has made men confused and women probably more so, since they expect to be the equal of men except when they don't want to be equal and expect men to be chivalrous. That would be amusing if it wasn't pathetic.

Leftism has done great harm to the world. Leftist feminism has done great harm to men and women.

The fact that so many men are lost and confused is why the Manosphere exists. It is in many ways a needed corrective to the destructive influence of feminism. In other way it's pretty damned retarded, such as in the cases of men who memorize every definition of an Alpha, a Beta, a Gamma, a Delta and an Omega, and really think these categories exist and try to apply them to their lives.

People learn by imitation (hence the memorization I just mentioned). If I had my way ERB would be taught in the schools to six-year-old boys. And King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. And the Greek myths.

The answers to most of our problems were figured out thousands of years ago. A lot of them are in the Bible, which I consider not so much religion but good practical wisdom about human nature. Of course you don't get Bible stories taught in school anymore, either.

I'd settle for Edgar Rice Burroughs. I think almost all six-year-old boys would too.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Humiliated Losers Seeking Murderous Revenge

"If we keep bashing men and ostracizing them, nothing good will happen. Every time we take away due process from men, throw them in jail for debts to women and children (child support), portray them as perverts and rapists in the media, and treat them as expendable, we break the bonds of trust and threaten our own survival and that of others at the same time. It is societal suicide." - Dr. Helen Smith

I can't remember where on the Internet I read it, but the comment was along the lines of "They'll go all Sodini" on them. It was in the context of men doing this to women. I didn't recognize the name so I Googled it.


George Sodini, who was in his late 40s, entered a fitness center and murdered four women, then killed himself. Sodini hated women because he felt he was ignored and rejected by them. For decades. In a word, he felt shamed and humiliated and powerless.

When people feel humiliated, they sometimes seek to restore their lost pride by revenge. This can include murder (think Cain killing Abel, which was the attempt to replace shame with pride).

Humiliation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of (take a deep breath) low self-esteem, school-related difficulties, pernicious child-rearing practices, delinquency, poverty, social phobia, anxiety, depression, paranoia, marital discord, domestic violence, sexual aggression, rape, other forms of violence, serial murder, and suicide.

It's an understatement to say that's a lot of problems.

I am reminded of Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in Virginia. It's clear to me Cho was utterly unpopular with women, was a virgin, never had a girlfriend, and had never kissed a girl (not surprisingly, he was a stalker). People made fun of him in high school. Like Sodini, he felt humiliated. He got his revenge and went out in a blaze of glory.

Then we have James Holmes, another complete loser with women. Holmes had struck out with three women on a sex site and was described “a shy, pretty socially inept person.”

It's really really really bad when you can't even get a slut to fuck you.

By the way, when I say "loser" there is no moral condemnation in that description. A loser is someone who loses, that's all. We're all losers in some way or another.

Unfortunately some of these losers have been so traumatized they can't get over it. They can't forgive people, so they exact their vengeance.

I go out of my way to not humiliate people (which I consider emotional homicide), since I know what it can do to them. And this is from a man who is not a particularly nice guy (I was once described as "a gentleman and a barbarian").

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

A mentor who someone who teaches you. A model is someone you imitate.

A mirror is what people reflect back to you. When people reject, ignore and humiliate you, they are a mirror in which you see those things. We become what we behold.

Humiliation followed by revenge - the attempt to replace shame with pride - is so well-established I consider it a science.

By the way, the word "recognize" means "to look twice."

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."

By the way, to mortify means to "make dead". People who murder people - especially mass murder or serial murder - are already dead inside.

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).

One of the worst punishments is ostracism. That's why solitary confinement is such a horrible thing. And when you ignore someone and pretend they don't exist, that's ostracism. It's worse than solitary confinement. It's being invisible.

And of course you can make yourself visible - and have people recognize you - by violence. It is the easiest and cheapest way to make people pay attention to you. And you get revenge and restore your lost pride to boot.

Whenever I Google "humiliation revenge murder" I always get someone saying "I committed murder to get revenge for my humiliation." As I have pointed out many times, that's the lesson of the first recorded murder in the West - Cain killing Abel.

For the last few months I have been reading the Manosphere (before then I had never even heard of it). One of the concepts is that of the Omega, which are men who are complete losers with women. They are the men who commit the kinds of murders I've mentioned.

Another concept is that of the Alpha, who are supposed to be the most popular of men with women. They are also supposed to be immune to what women say because they don't take them seriously. And that is more important than it sounds.

Feminism, which is leftist/lesbian, has never been about equality. It's been about exploiting, abusing and humiliating men. The Manosphere, which is reaction to feminism, is in some ways about becoming immune to what women say and do. Hence, that is why an Alpha is not supposed to take women seriously. In other words, to devalue them as feminism devalued men.

Alphas are supposed to be immune to being humiliated by women. That shows right there what a Big Red Button is involved in the Manosphere being a reaction to the abuse of feminism.

And why do people devalue each other? Generally, out of envy - which means hate. You can see this dynamic in the story of the Garden of Eden, in which the serpent, a symbol of hate and envy, wants to bring down Adam and Eve.

Feminism, based of the envy of men, wants to bring down men. The Manosphere, based on men's envy of women, wants to bring down women. It's a cycle, a cybernetic feedback system. It's a system that is incapable of gratitude. And without gratitude there can be no happiness.

In fact, envy and gratitude are opposed to each other. That's been noticed as far back as Aesop - and I'm sure even further.

This doesn't mean that the Manosphere isn't in some ways a necessary corrective to feminism. But it does mean that in other ways it devalues women as feminism devalued men.

You see Humiliation followed by Revenge in the movies all the time. Think Charles Bronson in Death Wish and Russell Crowe in Gladiator. Kill Bill. Amadeus.I could go on and on.

There is a way around the humiliated seeking revenge. Success is the best antidote. Who hasn't heard, "Living well is the best revenge"? It's true. In fact, living well is not only the best revenge, it is the only revenge that doesn't involve violence.

The problem, of course, is being successful. That's the rub.

Laboratory of Really Dumb Experiments

I realized in kindergarten I didn't like school very much. Five years old and I wanted less to do with it than I did with girls. Of course at that age I didn't understand that many public schools unwittingly eat many of their young. But I learned.

I knew little more than I was bored and restless and inattentive and saddled with a teacher that years later I realized was the matrix for Miss Wormwood from "Calvin and Hobbes." She insisted on naps even if we weren't tired, and if we didn't fall asleep she would whap us on our butts with her pointer

Heck of a way to start your school days. A thin veneer of kindergarten, to the superficial eye, with undercurrents of boredom and fear. And all of five years old. I won't discuss the Big Yellow School Bus to and from Hell.

Things didn't get much better from first through sixth grade. After that, there was middle school, but that's a whole other Stephen King-generated Hell. There was an occasional teacher whom I liked, and others who had a spark of quasi-humanity that sputtered occasionally in them, but for the most part they appeared to have been grown in the same vat. (I have this image, probably from a horror film, of a monster, all eyeballs and teeth and claws and a dog biscuit for a brain, hauling itself out of a bubbling vat: "Arrgghhh! Where're the kids? Arrgghhh!")

I was always glad when I made it home: cookies and milk and cartoons awaited me. In college I asked one of my friends – raised 300 miles from me – what he did when he came home from school. His answer: "Well, I got some cookies and milk and watched cartoons." Did you like school? I asked him. His answer: "What are you, retarded? It was a kind of Hell." (Which raises the question: just how many Hells are there?)

Because I didn't like school, I figuratively escaped from it by daydreaming away most of my 12-year sentence. Since I still have my report cards, I know what my teachers wrote about me: "I hope Bobby continues trying to concentrate, as he is capable of doing such good work if he only keeps his mind on the matters at hand! He needs to spend time working accurately on his assignments." Another one reads, "Bob is not turning in his assignments. Those which are turned in are usually very brief and show little preparation."

All my comments have in common the unquestioned belief that everything was my fault, not the school's. Pinion a kid to a chair for several hours a day, bore him with Dick and Jane and Pony and Spot, and then pretzel-logic the responsibility so the blame falls solely on him when he doesn't pay attention or do his homework. I will always be fuzzy on how many times I got in trouble for drawing pictures in class instead of listening to the teacher go "WAK WAK WAK" like the incomprehensible instructor in the Charlie Brown TV specials.

Why was there no Attention Deficit Disorder when I was a kid? Where has it been hiding for thousands of years? Even the ancient Greeks accurately described real diseases like diabetes; why is there nary a word from them about "hyperactive" kids? Maybe because ADD, which was diagnosed only in the last few decades, is a phantasm completely unhinged from reality?

Could the real problem be schools that bore some kids to near-insanity? And instead of blaming the problem on the schools, blame it on the kids, just the way my teachers blamed my boredom and inattention on me. Only these days, instead of hitting students, we dope them up.

I find it incomprehensible that there are four million to six million kids in the United States who are prescribed Ritalin, a drug chemically similar to cocaine. And it's not just for restless kids who jump around; it's also for inattentive kids who daydream. Sounds to me as if it's an inadvertent attempt to drug to sleep the imaginations of bright but bored kids. And imagination, Einstein said, is more important than knowledge.

Have boredom and imagination – normal things for kids – now become diseases, to be treated with brain-altering chemicals? Have schools now become Laboratories of Really Dumb Experiments, with children as the guinea pigs? Would I, an imaginative kid whose brain conjured up fantasies from robots hooked up to frog brains, to submarines made out of hot-water heaters, to air-to-tree (sigh) shoulder-held rocket launchers, been treated with Ritalin? Even at five, just because I wouldn't lie still and go to sleep?

I wonder what bitter harvest we will reap from these Ritalin-treated brains when the possessors are adults? (Kurt Cobain, diagnosed as hyperactive and raised as a Ritalin child, might be an example.) The public would throw a conniption-fit if the schools treated children with booze or marijuana every day; why is there not much more outcry over treating them with – as we called it in high school – speed?

Little kids raised with their brains full of speed. "It calms them down," the legal pushers claim. I've seen speed freaks stare at one of their hands for half an hour. Marijuana has the same effect. Some of the users were calm, all right. Sheesh.

I wonder what speed is doing to all the cells and neurons and synapses in their brains. I'll bet doctors, schools and the drug companies wonder, too, even as they try to con the public into thinking they really do know. I wouldn't be surprised if they were peering into a Magic 8-Ball. A very dusty one.

It was these same speed freaks – and coke heads – who told me Ritalin is a street drug. They've told me if enough is ingested, the effects are better than sex. Long-term side effects? A few. Suicide, for one, and selling their babies to get their daily fix for another.

There are always at least two sides to every story. The side few know about is an impaired conscience is oftentimes a result of drug addiction, be it alcohol or Ritalin. The baby-sellers and school shooters such as Kip Kinkel, are examples.

All I can say: oh, good Lord, what is wrong with the schools and "doctors" prescribing this poison for kids? Who is going to take responsibility for the side effects? What's that I hear? There aren't going to be any? Really? Name one psychoactive drug that in the long run doesn't have side effects.

I can think of no one who has ever used marijuana or cocaine every day who contributed anything to themselves or society. Yet kids raised on an amphetamine are supposed to turn out just fine and be productive and happy people? I don't believe it.

The kids would be better off if they were allowed to some physical activity. That would calm them down. A playground is a lot cheaper than Ritalin, although not as profitable to drug companies. Playgrounds are no profit at all for drug companies.

And a more interesting curriculum wouldn't hurt, either. Especially for the smarter, more imaginative students. The one scene from Ferris Bueller's Day Off that is always clear in my memory is where all the kids are sprawled nearly unconscious on their desks as Mr. Excitement himself, Ben Stein, drones on in a monotone that would do Satan proud with its ability to warp souls. Doesn't high school ever change?

If I was a conspiracy buff I'd think there was a plot to destroy the brains of American children. And if I was an enemy of America, I'd be smiling, hoping for a generation of adults so drug-addled they lack both conscience and imagination.

Monday, August 20, 2012

The Death of Chivalry


 The evil man is the child grown strong – Thomas Hobbes
Not much good has come from feminism. A little bit, perhaps (after all, nothing is totally evil). But being that feminism is almost exclusively left-wing – and leftists are emotionally four years old – it has done far more damage than good.

Two of the most destructive four-year-olds, who conned a lot of women, and quite a few men, were Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. Neither of them, being Compleat Leftist Hypocrites, followed in the slightest their prescriptions for other women. They were female children who grew stronger but never grew up. Both, not surprisingly, completely ignored the damage their ideas were responsible for when women put them into effect in their lives.

Leftists hate society and many lesbians hate men (although both deny their hate and project it on “rightists.” This projection is typical of any four-year-old.). Since feminism is leftist/lesbian, how could good come from such hate? The fact this hate disguises itself as “justice” or “fairness” is something bad ideas always do. Evil always pretends to be good.

Feminism is also parasitical, and only exists because of the technology and civilization created by men. If civilization collapsed and went backwards 200 years, do you think feminism would exist, when people had to spend most of their time merely surviving? Luxury and leisure – thanks to men’s creativity and inventiveness – allowed feminism to flourish.

One of the bad things feminism has done is essentially demolish chivalry. I get the impression that many people don’t really know what the word means anymore – to be disciplined, to protect the weak and helpless, to be loyal and generous, to tell the truth.

Sounds like the Boy Scouts, doesn’t it? (By the way, I was in both the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts – and at their best they are very good organizations for young boys).

Chivalry originally exemplified the better warrior virtues, and in some ways still does. To protect the weak and helpless you’d better have some warrior spirit in you, or you’re not going to be much help at all. And it does take some courage to tell the truth when you don’t want to.

Chivalry came from Christianity, which is close to being on life support in this country (you might want to read about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table to have some understanding of chivalry). And putting women on the front lines in combat is the antithesis of chivalry. How any decent man can support that is beyond me.

For that matter The Canterbury Tales also speaks of chivalry. Unfortunately neither the tales of King Arthur or The Canterbury Tales is taught anymore. Or even Edgar Rice Burroughs, creator of Tarzan and writer of those wonderful tales of Barsoom (what we call Mars).

It was from the first Burroughs' novel I read - A Fighting Man of Mars - I found what chivalrous behavior was, although Burroughs never used the word "chivalrous." He did what all good story-tellers do - he didn't tell; he showed. But then, Burroughs was born in 1875.

Hell, even Superman was chivalrous, before the modern version gave up his citizenship (there goes Truth, Justice and the American Way).

As I’ve noted several times, the Manosphere blogs are a reaction to feminism, which blames nearly every problem in the world on men. Specifically, white men (“The white race [white men] is the cancer of human history,” lied the envious leftist-lesbian hater Susan Sontag). In response to this hostility, most men have ceased to be more than minimally chivalrous because of all the abuse heaped on them, and have become hostile in return. What else could you expect? What goes around comes around.

In 2010 (not 1971, as you’d expect) I had two women tell me, “Men are responsible for all the problems in the world.” Both were spinsters on psychiatric drugs (I can’t call it medication), who lacked husband, home and children. They tried desperately to fill that void with cats and jobs they called “careers.” I occasionally wonder how they ever thought they’d get what the wanted with such hostility instilled in their characters through four decades of lies/propaganda/brainwashing.

One concept in the Manosphere is that of “the Alpha.” Alphas are supposed to be good-looking guys with money who get all the women and lead wonderful lives. It’s the Manosphere ideal of a man. At least, to the more bitter Manosphere bloggers.

That ideal definition of an Alpha hasn’t been my experience. Mine has been that many of them are drug-abusing cowards who ruin their lives by middle-age. The word that has historically been used to describe them is “cad” (the dictionary definition of that word is “a man who behaves crudely or irresponsibly toward women”).

I've had women tell me cads are lousy in bed. After all, since it's always about them, why should they care about you. Hump 'em and dump 'em is their motto.

Actually, a cad could be considered the Bad Alpha. A good Alpha is the exact opposite of a cad. A Good Alpha would be a chivalrous man.

A cad exhibits in his character and behavior most of the Seven Deadly Sins. For him these traits are chronic since they are part of what he is. I have found that all of them show lust, greed and gluttony. Ennui, too, since most of them cannot tolerate being alone, so they go from woman to woman – none of whom they get emotionally involved with.

Four out of seven is pretty bad. I could make an argument they’re afflicted with Biblical Pride (what the Greeks called Hubris) since they never believe what they are will catch up with them – they’re convinced they’re above the moral laws written on their own hearts. Eventually those laws mow them down, as they always do (one told me, “I got a taste of my own medicine”). Then their lives collapse.

That makes five out of seven sins. That’s a terrible score. I generally don’t see wrath or envy, although one cad I know quite well nearly had a seizure when one of the very few women he was seriously interested in when we were in college dumped him for me.

Perhaps most cads do show wrath, since I have found they don’t really like or respect women. Not that the more foolish and naïve women can see this contempt. Or the lies and attempts at manipulation.

For that matter, cads are also short on the Four Cardinal Virtues of Prudence, Justice, Temperance (restraint) and Fortitude (courage). (They’re called “cardinal” because they are of fundamental importance for morality - “cardinal” means “hinge,” as in on which everything else swings.)

The opposite of a cad would be a man with self-discipline and honesty. He’d have most of the opposite of the Seven Deadly Sins. He’d have the Seven Heavenly Virtues of prudence, justice, courage, temperance, faith, hope and charity (actually the first four are the Four Cardinal Virtues and the last three are the Three Theological Virtues). He’d be a grown-up Boy Scout – and that is a fine thing to be.

The word “virtue” is an interesting word indeed. It translates as “the powers of man.” Obviously, the Seven Deadly Sins are not virtues, in any culture in the world.

For that matter, the word “sin” isn’t accurate. It comes from the word hamartia, which comes from archery and means “to miss the mark.” That’s why current translations of Jesus’ sayings use “You have missed the mark” instead of “You have sinned.”

Incidentally, the world “repent” is from the Greek word metanoia, and the correct translation is “to change your heart and mind.” So, “repent from your sins” means “You have missed the mark so change your heart and mind.”

There is nothing in that phrase about changing yourself because of any “sin” against God. The offense is against the health and integrity of your own character (the word “holy” comes from the same root word as “health” and “wholeness” – and that is why health and integrity is the same thing).

The Seven Virtues would show themselves in chivalrous behavior, something that the Seven Deadly Sins don’t support at all.

These things – sins and virtues – are not taught anymore, even in church. They certainly aren’t taught in the catastrophes that our public schools have become. Even private schools don’t teach them. They don’t know they should.

Instead, men, trying to understand what is going on, have made a detour in the Manosphere concepts of Alpha, Beta, Sigma, Omega – inaccurate, simplistic ideas, none of which support any kind of civilized, chivalrous behavior.

Those Manosphere terms are from evolutionary psychology, and neither evolutionary theory nor psychology is a science. What is a science, and has been for over a thousand years if not longer, is the effect of “sins” and virtues on the life a person leads (these studies used to be called “natural philosophy” before they were shattered into worthless fields such as sociology and economics).

A society based on the Seven Deadly Sins wouldn’t be a society worth living in, except perhaps if you were a psychopath. And psychopaths are closer to monsters than human beings.

On the other hand, a society based on the Seven Heavenly Virtues and the Four Cardinal Virtues wouldn’t be a bad place at all. I think everyone instinctively know that. Unless, of course, if you’re a deluded, destructive leftist.

I’m a bit surprised it’s taken over 40 years for this reaction against feminism to manifest itself. Of course, when something is destructive there always is a reaction against it. Unfortunately, it’s going to take a while for that pendulum to swing back into sanity again.

This swinging back of the pendulum means feminism is on its way out. Its leaders will die and the world will be shut of them. It’ll take less than a generation before they’re gone. If we’re lucky, far less.

“[Feminists] do not create revolution; what they do create is anarchy.” – G.K. Chesterton

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Without Men There is No Civilization

In college I walked out of the back door of the house I was living in just in
time to see two women put a quart of oil in the engine of the VW convertible Bug one owned.

I dashed over, yelling, “STOP!!”

“Why?” one asked, confused.

“Because that’s the CARBURETOR!!” I yelled.

She and her friend had poured the entire quart of oil down the carburetor. I had to take the carburetor off and clean it out. It took a while, but I finally got the car running. After three days. I told them they should give the car to me before they destroyed it completely. They declined.

I also knew a woman who, when her car wouldn’t start, hit the battery posts with a hammer. She broke a post off. End of battery. She also thought the way to tell if a car needed oil was to wait until the red oil light came on. She also blew up an engine driving it when the thermostat was stuck closed. She didn’t believe it would blow up, even though I guaranteed her it would.

I’ve also gotten two women’s cars – both of whom were strangers – running by simply cleaning the battery posts. One was in a gas station and one at a bank. I also once changed a woman’s tire in a parking lot, staring at her in disbelief as she tried to change it by herself with the wrong tools. She couldn’t figure out how to loosen the first bolt.

The humorist P.J. O’Rourke has written that without men civilization would last until the next oil change. I’d have to agree with him.

The feminist Camille Paglia, though a lesbian, is surprisingly not a man-hater. In fact, she understands that men created civilization, and has famously written that if civilization was left in the hands of women, we’d be living in grass huts. I’d agree with her, too.

I am completely mystified how some women, maybe even most, have no sense when it comes to the simplest of mechanical things. I know a mechanic who won’t let his wife drive the car. I understand. For another example, again in college, I found a woman trying to take the front door off the hinges with a screwdriver.

When I asked her what she was doing, she said the door wouldn’t shut, so she was going to take the door off the hinges to find out why. I told her doors don’t come off using screwdrivers, especially using little toy plastic ones about three inches long, then spent five seconds diagnosing the problem, got my hammer and pounded down a finishing nail that popped up from the floor, preventing the door from closing.

Occasionally, let’s say when I’m outside, I’ll look around and subtract everything invented by men. What’s left? Almost nothing. Cars, houses, streets, heating, cooling, advanced technological society, advanced intellectual accomplishments, medicine, dentistry – gone. What’s left? Paglia’s grass huts.

There are no female Aristotles, Newtons, Eulers or Einsteins. I wish there were, but there aren’t. Women in general do two things: have babies and determine the comfort level of the home – otherwise most men would live in a pigsty.

I once worked at a place that employed mostly women. At the end of the shift they would all gather together and complain about men. Women may think men complain about women, but they don’t, not to the degree women complain about men. It’s not even one percent compared to what women do.

The difference is that when men complain about women, their complaints are almost always justified. Women, on the other hand, always seem to have vague complaints that consist mostly of blaming their problems on men. And it’s always about their relationships.

These women would complain and complain and do it in front of me as if I was invisible. The other men who worked there were never around when these whine-fests erupted…which was every night. Maybe that’s why they were never around.

I also know that when many wives get together they mostly complain about their husbands. Do they think they married down?

I thought, what do these women want? Men have created/discovered close to 100% of everything in the world, in fact created civilization, and apparently that isn’t enough for them?

I occasionally run across women who tell me, if women were in charge we wouldn’t have this or that bad thing. I ask them, so men created civilization and are supposed to hand the keys over to you because you think you can do a better job?

That problem is that they didn’t know what men have done, and if told, probably wouldn’t believe it. Some of them think there is a suppressed history of women geniuses who invented all kinds of wonderful things, or that they are as a sex “oppressed,” which is a close-to-meaningless phrase that’s supposed to explain everything.

It’s a bizarre situation…one sex that has created civilization, and the other one has created almost nothing and complains about the gifts given to them.

Repairman Jack: the Strengths and Weakesses of Mankind

These days, my favorite hero – you can call him an anti-hero if you want -- is F. Paul Wilson’s literary character, Repairman Jack. Jack “fixes” things and people those in the legal system cannot or will not fix.

Jack is not perfect. He embodies a lot of virtues but also some sins. It’s too bad the words “sin” and “virtue” even exist, because they don’t get across what the words really mean.

“Sin” comes from the archery word “hamartia” and means “to miss the mark.” It means to miss the mark for your self, but has come to mean some sort of moral condemnation from God, usually for reasons defined by modern-day Pharisees.

“Virtue” comes from words that mean “strength” and “power” and also “man.” It’s also related to the Greek word “arête,” which means “excellence.”

What sin and virtue really mean, then, are weakness and strengths that people have within them, that help or hinder.

Jack’s biggest weakness, his biggest flaw, is his wrath. He’s a hater, and so angry he sometimes kills people – all of whom deserve it, I’ll add. He is, fortunately, never out of control.

As an aside, another reason I like this guy is because he uses handguns, rifles, shotguns, grenades and flamethrowers -- not only against the bad guys, but monsters! What’s not to like?

What’s Jack’s biggest strength? Here’s where things get interesting. At first glance it appears to be Justice, but a few thousand years of thought and experience on the subject puts Prudence first.

In fact, without Prudence, the other four main strengths – Justice, Temperance and Courage – cannot exist. All of them are interconnected.

And Jack is prudent, which can be defined as wisdom, or better, right reason. The shortest definition of prudence I’ve encountered is recta ratio agilbilium – “right reason about things to be done.” Right reason is that which conforms to reality.

Jack, then, is prudent – he has knowledge and right reason about things to be done. He not only takes care of himself and his family, but also problems in the world that need to be fixed.

Justice has been defined as “the virtue whereby we give to each person what is due to him, and we do this consistently, promptly and pleasurably.” Jack believes in justice; in fact, it’s his life’s work. But without the prudence – the right reason about things to be done – he could not be just.

Jack is also courageous, or brave. This is a delicate one. A person can be brave for the wrong reasons – reasons that don’t conform to truth, or reality ("It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare..." - Mark Twain). Many men are brave in war, but almost all wars are for the wrong reasons, so their bravery is wasted. It doesn’t “conform to reality,” to the whole truth, to what is “really real.”

True bravery must be based on justice and prudence – giving people their due, based on right reason about things to be done, things that conform to reality. The easiest way to see if bravery is wasted, and not based on prudence and justice, is through the existence of large standing armies, separate from the public, unlike, say, in Switzerland, where the entire public is armed and part of the military.

Jack, of course, wants nothing to do with militaries or armies.

Then we have temperance, defined as that which governs our appetite for pleasure. . Temperance requires us to train ourselves and prepare ourselves even when we are not faced with an immediate temptation.

Temperance is not opposed to pleasure, but since the pleasure of the senses, and especially touch, are so powerful for us, temperance should govern them. Temperance, then, is opposed to lust.

Here’s where things get delicate again. How do you define lust? I define it as using the other person, seeing them as just a thing for your use. In fact, what all “sins” have in common is not seeing the other person as fully human, and what all virtues have in common is seeing them as people who exist in their own right.

Jack engages in the pleasure of the senses – he drinks, he enjoys movies, he loves his girlfriend and her daughter – but he is temperate, He is not a glutton, does not go overboard, does not let his life ruled by pleasure. And as the ancient Greeks noticed, those who let their lives be ruled by pleasure end up degraded.

The interesting thing about pleasure – and this has been noticed by people as far apart as the Buddha and Freud – is that it goes up and down. It is a roller coaster – it is never permanent. People who are not temperate about their pleasures, who are ruled by them, become addicted to them, and, as addicts, end up requiring larger and larger doses. They are never satisfied with what they have.

People who are temperate enjoy their pleasures, but never become addicted to them, are never ruled by them. Jack in that sense is temperate. And prudent, and just, and brave.

The mythologist Joseph Campbell pointed out that all heroes have a flaw, sometimes a fatal one. It’s why Anakin Skywalker turned into Darth Vader – he became consumed by his hate, his greatest “sin.”

Jack has his flaw. As I mentioned, it’s wrath – his hate and anger. But it never took over his life, even though it does damage him. But it never consumed him, never destroyed him.

The Repairman Jack novels, more than anything else, are horror stories. They’re fun ones, unlike say, H.P. Lovecraft, who no fun at all.

All horror stories conform to the same archetype – Order, or Goodness, invaded by Chaos, or Evil. That chaos, or evil, is always associated with the Deadly Seven Sins, or, as I prefer to call them, weaknesses.

Pride (what the Greeks called hubris) is always associated with violence, and is considered the worst of sins. Lust, envy, wrath (hate) ennui (boredom), greed, gluttony – every villain, every monster, embodies one or more of these weaknesses. These weaknesses are the cause of violence, chaos and evil ("Five great enemies to peace inhabit within us: viz., avarice, ambition, envy, anger, and pride. If those enemies were to be banished, we should infallibly enjoy perpetual peace.") - Petrarch).

I define good as that which makes us whole (and “whole” is related to the words “healthy” and “hale”) and evil as that which makes us unwhole (as in unholy), or unhealthy. Our strengths make us healthy and whole; our weaknesses do the opposite.

These strengths “conform to reality” in the sense they see others as beings in their own right, meaning they make us connected to them. These strengths are what give us community, meaning and importance to our lives. Power over our selves, as opposed to power over others.

Good novels are modern mythic retellings of old stories, the same stories seen in the Bible. They entertain and educate about human nature, and the human condition. And that is what Repairman Jack does – he tells us about ourselves, our lives, and our strengths and weaknesses.

Narcissism and Sexual Promiscuity

"The individual with a narcissistic personality has not mastered [the necessary] developmental tasks." - Salman Akhtar

All societies that I know of have frowned on excessive sexual promiscuity. I used to wonder why but I don’t so much, not anymore.

Some years ago I lived in the St. Louis area. The city prosecuting attorney was a sleazeball named George Peach. It turned out Peach was a nut. He spent his career putting prostitutes in prison (as a misdemeanor, it’s up to a year) and putting their customers’ names and pictures in the paper.

His behavior was way too extreme. I knew an old, retired city judge who told me during his time the city was involved in policing prostitution. Once a year the police would round up the girls and take them to the city health department to be tested and treated. The police, judges, the health department – all were involved. They knew it couldn’t be stamped out, so they informally policed it.

Peach, on the other hand, while trying to eradicate something that cannot be eradicated, was frequenting prostitutes for years and using city funds to pay for them (he got caught on tape saying, “I’d like some oral sex to make me feel good”). When he got caught in a sting operation he started destroying city records to cover his criminal behavior.

The reason I know so much about that sting operation is because I got caught in it, since I was driving a taxi and was transporting a hooker to a hotel. Since I didn't know that she was a hooker (although I suspected), the vice cops let me go – and her, too, since they were after Peach. Although, I found out to my dismay that while being a hooker is a misdemeanor, transporting one is a felony, since it is “promoting prostitution.”

I always thought I was closer to Bob the Builder, not Bob the Inadvertent Pimp Felon.

Strangely, Peach never served time (which he should have), but did get fired, get probation and lost his law license. I don’t know if he had to pay any money back, but I hope so.

Peach had to have had a character disorder to do the things he did. He was some kind of narcissist, and was so sexually promiscuous he was paying dozens (who knows how many) of prostitutes for sex.

He caused a lot of problems because he just happened to have political power. He had to have zero empathy for the girls he put in prison and the guys whose names and pictures he put in the newspaper. I’m sure he conned himself he was doing a good thing, but of course was so disassociated from himself he could patronize hookers while simultaneously trying to put them in prison.

The only thing Peach ever regretted was that he got caught. It was always about him and how things affected him, never how he affected anyone else. That’s the way it is with all narcissistic people.

I started running across excessively promiscuous girls when I was a teenager. I noticed they all had certain things in common. For one thing, their idea of sex was something that lasted a minute. They never kissed – just like prostitutes don’t kiss.

All of them had problems with their relationships with men, not so much because of their promiscuity, but because of their character flaws that resulted in their promiscuity. Every one of them was self-absorbed and lacked empathy toward others. The sex, such that it was, was about them only, not about their partner.

How can you have any kind of relationship with someone of the opposite sex when you are self-absorbed and lack empathy? You can’t, not a successful one.

One 19-year-old girl I knew in college once told me, bitterly, that a man she had been interested in was told by one of her “friends” that this guy should stay away from her, because he considered her a nut. And she was self-absorbed, lacking in empathy, and her idea of sex lasted one minute with zero foreplay. It was for her, more than anything else, physical relief – it was just for her (I have found one-night-stands utterly unsatisfactory). She had no clue what she was like.

I knew another girl who had been a promiscuous party girl in college – sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. She ended up 51 years old, unmarried, no children, and no prospects – all she had was a cat. She was also self-absorbed and lacking in empathy. She didn’t know it, unfortunately.

When I drove a taxi for a while I worked for an escort service. There is no such thing as a hooker with a heart of gold. They’re all mercenary. It was always about the money.

None of them had a relationship with a man and I never saw one who ever did. The guys were just things to them, ones to be used, which is the classic sign or a narcissist. Did they have empathy for others? Of course not. What concern they did have was only for their selves.

I have found the more sexually promiscuous someone is, the less they understand the other sex. In fact, they barely understand them at all. It can’t be otherwise, when you’re so self-absorbed it’s always about you and other people are just props in your play.

I've decided that a "slut" (which can be male or female) is not merely someone who is promiscuous. I've seen promiscuous women who had emotional problems, such as being molested as a little girl. They can't be considered sluts. A slut is someone who into the sex for the sex itself and has no concern for their partner. They're narcissistic.

I know a guy who's slept with about 100 women. He's ruined his life and has never been in love or had a real relationship. He finally realized what he has done and told me, "I finally got a taste of my own medicine."

To him the women were just playthings. The traditional name for such men has been a "cad," although today the more lost and puzzled in the Manosphere call them "Alphas" (as Steve Sailer wrote, "...dopey intellectual frameworks can lead to wacky results"). This is why I claim a "true Alpha" (and technically Alphas don't even exist) is a chivalrous man - which is a man who doesn't use and exploit women.

Incidentally, this guy wasn't all that smart - and he knew it. He had to study a lesson four or five times to master it in college. And not being that smart when it come to relationships, he discounted the future. In fact all sluts, male or female, discount the future ("I'll fuck around for as many years as I want and then find someone really good...hey, I'm 40 and I can't find anyone!").

Most cads and sluts suffer from narcissism, impulsiveness (which means not thinking about the future) and they engage in various psychological defenses such as rationalization, self-deception and projection ("It's your fault, not mine").

Dr. Sam Vaknin wrote this about narcissists: "Sex for the narcissist is an instrument designed to increase the number of sources of narcissistic supply. If it happens to be the most efficient weapon in the narcissist's arsenal - he will make profligate use of it.

"In other words: if the narcissist cannot obtain adoration, admiration, approval, applause, or any other kind of attention by other means (e.g., intellectually) - he will resort to sex. He will then become a satyr (or a nymphomaniac): indiscriminately engage in sex with multiple partners. His sex partners will be considered by him to be objects not of desire - but of narcissistic supply. It is through the processes of successful seduction and sexual conquest that the narcissist will derive his badly needed narcissistic 'fix.'"

I've also found that cads are cowards. One I knew quite well, when his girlfriend was called ugly in his presence, said and did nothing. He also used to call his male friends to cover for him when he wished to remove himself from a "girlfriend's" presence.

Calling a man a slut or a manwhore will make most men smirk. Telling him he's a cad will bother him just a little bit. But calling him a cad and a coward will get to him.

I don't know where to draw the line on how many is too many. It certainly is the attitude and not so much the number (although most people know intuitively the number does count). But even the Greeks noticed that those who devote their lives to physical pleasure become degraded.

History has shown there is a huge risk in marrying these promiscuous, narcissistic people. They'll certainly have problems being faithful. There are entire sites devoted to such women. Shrink4men, for example, which shows how many men can no longer see through such women.

As Sandy Hotchkiss wrote: "Narcissists are people who never learned to make it on their own. Except for their fantasies of perfection, envy of others who have what they lack, and unacknowledged fears of humiliation, they are empty on the inside. They have no real Self to bring to a relationship with another person, but they desperately need someone else to join them in their emptiness and help them maintain emotional equilibrium. The ideal candidate is someone willing to become an extension of the narcissist's fragile ego, to serve as an object of admiration, contempt, or often enough both. The sign over their door ought to read: Abandon Self All Ye Who Enter Here."

Then, of course, many women cannot see through narcissistic men, as exemplified by their inability to discriminate between a player and a chivalrous man - and chivalry was originally based on Christianity (on life support today) and the better warrior virtues (think Edgar Rice Burroughs and not J.K. Rowling).

Speaking of Christianity, cads and sluts show most of the Seven Deadly Sins, and a chivalrous man would show most of the Seven Heavenly Virtues - or at least the Four Cardinal Virtues of Prudence, Justice, Temperance or Restraint, and Fortitude or Courage.

Too many people today have lost their way. If they hadn't, they would allow these exploitative, rapacious people to gain political power - such as whore-mongering politicians. Or be able to recognize exploitative, rapacious narcissists, and instead think they are wonderful people - until they get to know them.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Take the Vote from Almost Everyone

Eighty percent of all the people in the United States should not be allowed to vote. The reason? Pareto’s Law.

In the late 1800s, Vilfredo Pareto, who was not only an economist but a gardener. noticed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. In his garden he noticed that 20% of the peapods yielded 80% of the harvest. Thus was born Pareto’s Law, also known as the 20-80 Rule.

His Law has stood the test of time. In fact, it is so important than everyone should be familiar with it. Most people intuitively understand it. Who doesn’t know that the vast majority of crime is committed by a minority of the people?

Joseph Juran uses the phrase “Pareto Principle.” He describes it as “the separation of the vital few from the trivial many.”

Some examples: if you make a bed, 20% effort will get it 80% smooth. If you clean something, 20% effort will get it 80% clean. Twenty percent of the people in the US own 80% of the wealth.

Pareto’s Law means 20% of the people have 80% of the brains and knowledge. Because of this, the other 80% shouldn’t be allowed to vote. This law also means democracy is a lousy method of government.

If everyone could live without working, 20% of the people would continue to work at something (say, scientific discoveries and their applications), but the other 80% wouldn’t work at all. That’s another reason democracy is such a crummy form of government. It assures that 80% of the people are going to try to vote into their pockets the money of the other 20%.

I consider the Welfare State to be feminine. I call it “the Mommy State.” Everyone is a child. No guns allowed. Mommy will take care of you from cradle to grave, assure you a job, unemployment and medical care.

It won’t work. It never has, and never will. When people swoon with tales of the wonders of socialized medicine. I remind them that people think supply is free, demand will skyrocket. That is why in Nothern Europe they rarely save premature infants; they have to put their limited resources someplace else. Doctors place babies to the side and ignore them so they die. And in the rest of Europe, once you reach a certain age, you don’t get treatment. You get painkillers until you die. That same will happen here. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a permanent part of the 80%.

My experience has been that many women are collectivists run by their feelings. That why they vote Democrat, even though the party is as close to pure evil as exists in the US today. It was women who put the psychopathic Bill “I Feel Your Pain” Clinton into office twice.

Men are at fault, too. They vote for the Mommy State because they think it will protect their jobs and lifestyles from the depredations of the rich. They think the Mommy State will give them “security.” It won’t, but it will take your freedom. There’s no freedom at the airports. There’s no security, either.

Unfortunately, Pareto’s Law guarantees us that democracy will always turn into the Mommy State. Eighty percent of the people are going to vote for it. Few realize the Mommy State has to be protected by the Daddy State. That, I believe, is why it’s not just the Welfare State. It’s always the Welfare/Warfare State. Daddy goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy, to protect Mommy and the little kiddies at home.

How can we assure only the right 20% are allowed to vote? I’m not sure. That’s been a problem for thousands of years. I have some clues, though.

I’m only halfway joking, but I think that any woman who can read a map should be allowed to vote. It shows she’s accessing the logical, rational part of her brain. The same applies to any woman who can merge on a highway without stopping on the entrance ramp and backing up six cars behind her. She’s accessing her masculine, “See, I’m not a woman driver” brain cells.

Men are a bit more puzzling. For a reason I as of yet have no explanation for, many men who are libertarians are also fans of science fiction, fantasy and horror. So any man who is a libertarian and a fan of those three genres should be allowed to vote.

Pareto’s Law if one of the reasons why Murphy’s Law works. Murphy’s Law states, “If something can go wrong, it will.” And when you have 80% of the people will only 20% of the brains, it’s a given something will go wrong.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

"Ayn Rand," Sith Lord Wannabe

"Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should." - Alan Greenspan, friend and follower of Ayn Rand.

So Paul Ryan, who looks like the Compleat Dork/Nerd/Geek, says he was been very much influenced by Ayn Rand. I shake my head.

To quote the Dork: "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."

A few years the Geek was served a letter signed by numerous theologians and Jesuit priests: "In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love."

I ain't even Catholic but their criticisms were right on the mark.

Ayn Rand's real name was Alice Rosenbaum,and she wasn't American but an immigrant Russian Jew. She was also anti-American, although her followers can't figure that out. They can figure out she was anti-Christian, but have problems wrapping their brains around the fact she was just another pro-Israel Jewish atheist who would have put Israel over America and had no problem sending Americans to die in meaningless wars.

What people say - especially women (and the grotesque Rand, like Betty Friedan, was barely a woman) - doesn't matter. It's what they do. And what Rand did in her life showed her to be a self-centered hypocrite and a fraud.

I refer to Atlas Shrugged as "the Talmud Lite." These days, Rand would be a neocon, all of whom are at their core cowards, traitors, and fucked-up WaffenPussy. For one thing, even though a rabid atheist, she somehow still supported Israel and considered the Palestinians subhuman if not nonhuman.

Long ago and far away, she'd be a Sith Lord Wannabe (Objectivism can be considered a variation of the Sith Code). Darn if I can remember the exact quotes, but the Sith were described as believing in pure good and pure evil (perhaps it was they believe in absolutes, which is the same thing). This was apparently a dig at the inept George Bush, as as the bit in one of the movies about "If you're not for me you're against me" (again, not an exact quote).

Those quotes can also apply to Rand, who narcissistically believed in pure good and pure evil. (As in,"Me good, in fact the greatest person who ever lived; everyone who disagrees with me, evil and not human"). This was so bad with her that her friends used to argue if she was evil and insane. They couldn't figure it out.

One Objectivist psychologist diagnosed Rand with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder. To which I'll add: yep.

To show how crazy she was, she admired a guy named William Edward Hickman. This psychopath raped and murdered a 12-year-old girl, Marion Parker, and cut her body in pieces (being a serial killer, she wasn't the first person he murdered). Then he dumped her dismembered body in front of her father, who, not surprisingly, started screaming.

Rand was outraged that Hickman was hanged (she called it “The mob’s murderous desire to revenge its hurt vanity against the man who dared to be alone”). But then, there are quite a few women out there who are serial killer groupies. Maybe they think these guys are misunderstood and that love will save them. Or maybe it's just that silly female Drama Queen nonsense.

Rand's best-known hero, John Galt, was partly based on Hickman. I am shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

This is what she wrote about Hickman: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should...[he has] “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”

Superman? That's the description of a psychopath, i.e., someone with no conscience. All serial killers are psychopaths, and many of them are cannibals and necrophiliacs. Think Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, who had sex with their victim's body parts. Think Gary Ridgway, the Green River killer who murdered at least 71 women. (Significantly, Rand referred to altruism as "moral cannibalism.")

Rand's fans, when confronted with the truth about her, go into immediate brainlock overload. They can't handle the truth. Cognitive dissonance hurts and they immediately go into the main psychological defenses: self-deceptive, denial, and projection ("You don't understand Rand, but I do! Did you even read her? If you did you didn't understand her!").


All Randroids are stamped from the same Irrational, Hysterical and Hostile cookie-cutter. Like all fanatics, they've never had an original thought in their lives.

Rand is simple to understand, like Communism ("Me good; you bad"). She's also grandiose, and the immature and uneducated almost always fall for that.

For some reason I've always been immune to her. I read Anthem when I was 12 or 13 and it was the only novel I read at that time that disappointed me. And when I read Atlas Shrugged in my 30s I thought, "How can anyone believe this crap?"

Apparently many people do.

Wilfredo Pareto was the guy who came up with the 20/80 Law: 20% of the people have 80% of the brains. 20% of the people have 80% of the wealth. And so on.

Rand's fans think they aren't just the 20%. They think they're the one percent, and everyone else is vermin. Let's just say believing that is not conducive to good mental health.

Fortunately Objectivists will go nowhere. The whole movement is just a circle jerk.

As for libertarians, they have to give her up. Libertarians need to become American patriots and stop supporting anti-American beliefs such as open borders. And supporting State-created corporate monstrosities such as Wal-Mart, for that matter.

As for Paul Ryan, I hope he's grown up enough to see through Rand. And if he ever says he now considers her nonsense, watch her fans howl. Most probably from their parent's basements, while they lovingly caress their Holy Bibles that Contain the Answers to All - Atlas Shrugged.

“If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life." - Alice Rosenbaum

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Women's Blind Spot

"Crime is common. Logic is rare." -- Sherlock Holmes

Many years ago I read an article stating that any woman dating a man should ask his friends what he's like. I thought that was good advice, because men can see through other men very rapidly. Many women, on the other hand, can't see through men at all.

In my entire life I have never seen a woman ask another man what the man she is dating is really like.

In college I knew a guy, who was an acquaintance and not a friend, who I did not like. He never did anything to me, but I was getting red flags on him -- sort of an intuitive gut feeling.

He was a friend of a friend, though, so I got the story on him. He was the only guy I ever met who would go out of his way to manipulate and lie to women so he could have sex with them.

He'd target women who were less attractive than he was, lead to them to think he was their boyfriend, have sex with them for a few weeks, then dump them. He said he'd tell them "what they want to hear." He talked about marriage, lots of kids, having a home. It was all bullshit. He was the only guy in my life I've met who did this.

The women were always stunned. They had deluded themselves they were special. And I guarantee you that if my friend -- or I -- had told these women was this guy was really like, they would have never believed it. They would have thought we were trying to break them up, for whatever bizarre reason they could concoct in their fuzzy-minded heads. (I am reminded of an old Persian saying: Never come between a woman and her delusion.)

This guy was also a coward. A couple of guys once walked by him and a girlfriend. One said, "Your chick's ugly." The cad did nothing and kept walking. He said nothing

Many guys, although not all, will sleep with an available attractive woman, but they won't lead her to believe he's considering her for a serious long-term relationship. This guy did, dozens of times.

I've also met female versions of this man. He, and the women, have all ended up alone, unmarried, with no children. The women have cats as surrogate children. All of them have royally screwed up their lives, and I have no sympathy for them. How did this happen?

My experience has been excessively promiscuous people are narcissistic, i.e., self-centered, exploitative, manipulative and lacking in empathy. They're also irresponsible and cowards -- hence the phrase "selfish and irresponsible." They're very insecure inside, covered up with that Machiavellian narcissism.

They use people, don't know it, and in the long-run end up alone. All of them were the kind of people who had sex simply for their own enjoyment, with no concern for the other person. It was always about them only.

But why are so many people unable to see through them? In the case of women, who generally ruled by their feelings more than their reason, a manipulative, exploitative guy can connect with their feelings and thereby get them to connect with him.

The fact that so many women are ruled by their feelings and therefore irrational is why they traditionally have been denied the vote. It wasn't an oversight by the Founding Fathers. They did it on purpose.

Any parents with any sense, who have any understanding of their daughters, might look at them and tell them that girls tend to be more susceptible to their emotions and therefore might want to watch out for those charming, friendly, exploitative, manipulative types. If they don't least you tried.

In fact, Roissy's Ninth Commandment is "Connect with Her Emotions": "Set yourself apart from other men and connect with a woman’s emotional landscape. Her mind is an alien world..."

Sound sexist? Guess what? I don't care. The truth is the truth.

I remember only one girl saying anything bad about this guy. She said he had "a sneer on his face when he tried to smile." And it was true. That sneer was because, ultimately, I don't think he liked women. And the promiscuous women I knew, I think that they really didn't like men (the biggest red flag or this is "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world").

Women's blind spot is they are are ruled by their feelings, are not rational, and fall for a guy who can connect with their feelings, even if he is a lowlife.

Forewarned, as always, is forearmed.