Sunday, September 29, 2013

Rose Wilder Lane, Libertarian Babe

I generally vacation in the Missouri Ozarks, and have since I was a kid, with my parents, when we would go to Branson before it turned into a senior citizens' entertainment mecca featuring, of all things, one Shoji Tabuchi, an Asian fiddle player with a huge toothy grin and a Moe Howard bowl haircut.

He's completely normal, though, compared to the Ejector Seat, in which two people are strapped into a seat, with their arms across their chests (perfect for a fitting ready-made into a pine box, in my opinion) and hurled shrieking a few hundred feet into the air in-between two elastic cables anchored to two towers. I opined I wouldn't go on it for less than $1,000 cash, since I had no desire to being catapulted into the sky like those knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, when they answered the questions wrong at the bridge. Instead I played miniature golf at the place next door, which featured a real crashed Indiana Jones-type airplane stuck on top of a gigantic fake rock shaped like a skull. Branson's now an unusual town, to the say the least. And I got a hole-in-one, too.

On the last trip, while looking for the Gloria Winery, which has great but inexpensive wine even though the winery turned out to be a shed with an acre of vineyard and a trailer in which the couple who owned the place lived (along with their little dog), we ended up visiting Mansfield, a tiny sleepy town which turned out, much to our surprise, to have been the long-time home of Laura Ingalls Wilder, who was not only author of the Little House on the Prairie books, but who wrote every one longhand while sitting in a home-built chair in their farmhouse on the outskirts of town. The house is a museum now, with very low ceilings, since Laura was 4'11 and her husband Almanzo 5'4". You should see their beds.

A connection that I somehow had never made is that Rose Wilder Lane, author of the early libertarian classic, The Discovery of Freedom, was Laura's and Almanzo's daughter. I didn't realize it until we were wandering through the museum and I saw a copy of Discovery, next to several pictures of Rose, one of which caused me to say, "Oooh, a babe." But since she died in '68, when I was busy learning not to fall off of my Stingray bike and to cover up the burns in the carpet I made with my chemistry set, it was never meant to be. She was most definitely a babe, though.

After blurting out that comment, SWMBO (She-Who-Must- Be-Obeyed) asked, You think she's attractive? Yes, I answered. Aw, that's so cute of you, SWMBO answered. (Strange how you can look at a woman and....pow.)

I wouldn't know if I'm a fan of the Little House books or not, since I've never read any of them. I never watched the TV series, not even once, since I could never get past Michael Landon morphing from a Teenage Werewolf drooling shaving cream to Little Joe to Pa. I did read Farmer Boy, which was Almanzo's biography that Laura wrote, and one which I would highly recommend. I still can't get out of my mind ten-year-old Almanzo getting up at 3 a.m. in the middle of a howling blizzard to move the cows around so they didn't freeze solid and tip over. That's not a joke, either. It really happened.

Laura didn't start writing her books until she was 65, long after Rose had become a successful novelist. The rumor, one that we will never know is true or not, is that Rose heavily edited the books and got them into shape for publication. In other words, the skinny is that she pretty much wrote them for her mom. It's a bit ironic that Laura became far more famous than Rose, and still is today. Unfortunately, there are no living descendents, so the line of this talented family has died out.

None of the family was born in Mansfield, although they all ended up there, including being buried. We missed the cemetery, though. Rose was born in Des Met (when it was called "Dakota Territory") in 1886 and died in her sleep at the age of 83 in '68, right before she was to embark on a three-year tour of the world. At the age of 78, in 1965, she was reporting from Vietnam for "Woman's Day Magazine."

Rose started writing around 1910 and was a successful novelist long before she published The Discovery of Freedom in 1943. Before that, she was most famous for her novels, which are adult versions of her mother's books, although I had never heard of them until I was in the museum. Nearly all of them are about her life in the Ozarks, including one that has the Politically Incorrect title of Hillbilly.

She was (of course?) predominately a home-schooled child, since she was so bored by school in her hometown that her parents allowed her to educate herself at home. Having been in the farmhouse, I know that her parents had a small room off of the living room, set aside as a library with about 300 books, all of them, as far as I could tell, hardbacks. I don't think they had paperbacks in those days.

As an adult Rose had become a stanch opponent of Communism after seeing it in practice in the Soviet Union (unlike many red-diaper dips of that time, who remained enamored of it, a feat that required not only closing their eyes but their brains and consciences), and became one of the most influential libertarians of the middle of the 20th century. She even became the adoptive grandmother of Roger MacBride, the Libertarian Party's candidate for President in 1976.

She opposed the quasi-socialism and creeping taxation of the New Deal so strongly that she quit her high-paying editorial job with the National Economic Council so as not to pay Social Security taxes. She regarded Social Security as unstable and prophetically called it a "Ponzi scheme."

In a pamphlet called "Give Me Liberty" she wrote, "In 1917 I became a convinced, though not practicing communist. In Russia, for some reason, I wasn't and I said so, but my understanding of Bolshevism made everything pleasant when the Cheka arrested me a few times.

"I am now a fundamentalist American; give me time and I will tell you why individualism, laissez faire and the slightly restrained anarchy of capitalism offer the best opportunities for the development of the human spirit. Also I will tell you why the relative freedom of human spirit is better – and more productive, even in material ways – than the communist, Fascist, or any other rigidity organized for material ends."

In 1958, famed libertarian Robert Le Fevre was so strongly influenced by The Discovery of Freedom he asked Rose to come visit his "Freedom School," which he had founded to promote the principles he said her book had taught him. She became a regular lecturer there for several years.

Her extensive correspondence had an effect, too. About it she wrote: "Twenty one years ago... I used to spend all my time, every day, at my typewriter following up every least lead that I could find. Example: I heard a high-school debate among all pro-New Dealers on the radio, and wrote to each of them. One replied, with all the Welfare State collectivist notions that had been put into his head, but he didn't seem wholly unintelligent, so I kept on writing to him for some months, apparently with no effect, finally getting no answer. Now he turns up as publisher of "National Review", telling people that I – i.e., my letters – changed his whole life."

Even though The Discovery of Freedom is Rose's most well-known book, she said years later it was "a very bad book" because of some minor mistakes in it. Still, it has had a profound influence, even now, after all these decades.

What's it about? The book is an attack on statism, nationalism, and what Hayek called the "fatal conceit" of central planning. She starts her story with the old observation that for most of history, people had lived in squalor, with only a few minor improvements through the millennia. What brought them out of it was liberty, the free market, and the emergence of property rights. It has been a kind of miracle, the wealth it has created.

In the first part of the book Rose lays out the one permanent conflict in history: between individual freedom and illegitimate authority (the subtitle of the book is "Man's Struggle Against Authority"). Even today those who seek to impose rule from above call themselves "progressives," when they are nothing of the sort. Like Hayek, like von Mises, like Rothbard, Rose understood it was a backward attempt to impose barbarism and poverty on the human race, to turn the clock back thousands of years.

The first printing of the book, in 1943, was a thousand copies. There wasn't a reprinting until 1971. Since then, it was become one of those early classics, one of those, like Isabel Paterson's The God of the Machine, that can be read and enjoyed by everyone. It's an optimistic book, with passages like this:

"The revolution is only beginning. When all living men know that men are born free, the energy of twenty-two hundred million human beings will be released upon this earth.

"A hundred million have made America. What will twenty-two hundred millions do?"

Such cheerfulness and optimism will appeal to anyone who looks to the future, knowing that even with the two-steps-forward-one-step-back history of humanity, things, ultimately, will get better. It will be due, as it always is, to liberty and the free market.

Look at the Big Brain on Bob

“I’m gonna go live in a cave, just completely live in my interior world.” ~ Tim Burton

Unfortunately my brain is pretty big, because I have a huge head (I have problems with hats). One girlfriend told me it was the size of a computer monitor, and another, when she saw a picture of me at six months old, wondered how my mother gave birth without exploding. I think of that famous scene in Alien. Or the birth scene in that classic horror film, It's Alive.

Worse (for other people but not for me), I'm an introvert. It's not like I'm 100% (impossible) but I almost always come up 60% introvert, 40% extrovert. I'm a Big-Headed Introvert, which isn't all that much of a good thing, not when I have to deal with Pin-Headed Extroverts (PHEs), whom I strongly suspect are the cause of most of the problems in the world. They certainly have caused a lot of problems for me.

Both extroverts and introverts can be creative, but being an introvert I am far more familiar with the kind I possess.

We have a lot of:

One: Imagination.

And need a lot of:

Two: Solitude.

“The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline towards the religion of solitude.” ~ Aldous Huxley.

I consider our schools to be a catastrophe when it comes to introverts. I got the distinct impression that public schools were unwittingly trying to kill me. Dav Pilkey, who writes children's book, said he was stuck in the hallway as punishment. The dumbass teachers didn't realize that is exactly where he wanted to be, so he could write and draw to his heart's content. Not surprisingly, when I was stuck in the hallway, I much preferred it to being in class. My entire nervous system calmed down just sitting there by myself. (The same thing happens to me outside, say sitting in a park.)

"Talent is nurtured in solitude … A creation of importance can only be produced when its author isolates himself, it is a child of solitude.” ~ Johann Wolfgang Von Göethe

My report cards (which I still have) had notes on them that I wasn't paying attention, not doing my homework, and "not fulfilling my potential." So I've decided that if public school have to exist they are strictly for the Pinheads and not for the Big-Headed Introverts.

Big-Headed Introverts don't belong in school. If anything, they should have mentors with whom they can wander outside looking at ants and tadpoles and being told about them. If only I could have been raised like that. I was, in a way, because I used to wander around my myself on weekends just looking at things.

It's now clear that introverts have different brains that extroverts. For one thing, we have more blood flow to our brains and we are more sensitive to dopamine. It's one of the reasons there are so many extroverts on anti-depressants, which don't have much effect on introverts.

Since the Big-Headed Introverts possess such imagination and concentration, they are responsible for an extraordinary number of inventions and discoveries. Adam Smith, who pretty much founded economics, was the classic imaginative introvert whose study was strewn with books and papers, and when he went for walks at night to think and imagine, once fell into a ditch. I've come close to that myself.

“The mind is sharper and keener in seclusion and uninterrupted solitude. Originality thrives in seclusion free of outside influences beating upon us to cripple the creative mind. Be alone — that is the secret of invention: be alone, that is when ideas are born.” ~ Nikola Tesla

The rationalization for public schools is that they "socialize" kids. In the case of the Big-Headed Introvert I can guarantee you that is not true. For them, it's more like being traumatized.

Since the public schools are unfortunately not going anywhere soon, the only advice I can offer is that if your kid is smart and introverted, pull him or her out of them pronto. Homeschool them.

If you have a child who has to be alone at times, who reads and has a strong imagination, who does not like school (and would rather party with his friends on the weekends, as I did), pay attention to what your child is telling you.

I would rather live in a rural trailer with my kids and homeschool them than take a chance having their lives ruined by putting them in public schools.

“… practically all creative people, and certainly most geniuses, have preferred to be alone for long periods, especially when producing their best work.” ~ Raj Persaud, One Hundred Tears of Solitude

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Nibbled to Death for Your Own Good

Some Americans are deluding themselves about the amount of freedom they have. Some are not, and can see what has happened, and what is happening.

I'm not saying we're suffering from the sort of oppression that occurred under Nazism or Communism. Here, it's more along the lines of being nibbled to death by the State.

Here's some examples:

A friend of mine was driving through Texas on the interstate when he noticed a state trooper going the other way had slowed down and was looking at him. Looking in his rear-view mirror, he saw the trooper make a u-turn. Obviously, he told me, the cop was going to pull him over. But why?

Then it occurred to him – what if Texas had a seat-belt law? Being from out of state, he didn't know. Quickly, he buckled his seat-belt.

Sure enough, the cop pulled him over. Here's what this disgrace to his badge – who I'm sure thought he was doing the right thing – asked him:

"Did you just put that seat-belt on before I pulled you over?"

"No, I've had it on since I got into the car." That was his story, and he stuck to it. He had nothing else to say. He knows that anyone who talks to the police is making a big mistake. Martha Stewart found that out the hard way you can't trust them.

The cop had to let him go. He wasn't being what police officers are supposed to be – "peace officers." He was a fool playing a scam for the State, but too stupid to figure it out. "Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money," said Thomas Hobbes, hundreds of years ago.

Those of you who approve of the State telling you that you have to wear a seat-belt, think about this – the day may come when you're told to wear a helmet while driving. You think not? What about a law saying your kids have to wear helmets while in your car? You think that wouldn't pass?

That's not the only time I've seen such silliness. A 72-year-old man I know was pulled over because he was driving with his little dog in his lap. The dog, being a dog, liked to stick his head out of the window.

The cop told this man what he was doing was illegal. There's really a law stating, "No driving your car with a stupid ugly little dog on your lap"? The cop didn't give him a ticket, but told him not to do it anymore. The man still does, anyway.

I'd like to see anyone point out one just one wreck caused by people driving with a little dog in their lap. What next? Seat-belts for dogs? How about little dog-seats, like the ones you put babies in? Helmets for dogs? How about cats? Think of all the money to be made by manufacturers churning out tiny helmets for dogs and cats!

A woman I know was given a ticket for "improper usage of a seat-belt." She had the shoulder belt slung under her left arm and then across her chest. She had, let's say, an excessively endowed chest, making it uncomfortable to wear a seat-belt the normal way. She said she was given a ticket for having big tits.

A few months ago, while on vacation, we rented a pontoon boat in which we puttered around the lake. The owner told us it was illegal to drink while in the boat, and we had to watch out for the Water Patrol.

The two hours we were out we didn't see any Water Patrol boats, but still, we couldn't drink one beer or a glass of wine while operating a boat that maybe went 10 miles an hour? Even if we were completely drunk, exactly how much damage could we cause if somehow we did crash? What? We'd crash our pontoon boat into another pontoon boat piloted by drunks, on a meandering lake so gigantic that we got lost on it?

If we were drunk, how would the Water Patrol determine it? It's not like we could walk a straight line on the water, not unless they thought we were miracle-workers. The whole thing was ridiculous.

I know of one guy who was arrested for drinking on his front porch. The police said he was "a public danger." He was too soused to be a danger to anyone. He couldn't make it off the swing. It's gotten to the point the police are the public danger.

The State is trying to crush all the fun out of life, under the guise of it being for our own good. Right now it's no drinking or smoking or driving a car without a seat-belt. What next, laws against being chubby? How about eating at McDonald's, because the food may not be the healthiest in the world? Uh. . .forget I said that.

Liberty is very rarely lost all at once. It's lost degree by degree. It's like the old joke about boiling a frog. You don't put the frog into the boiling water, because he'll jump out. Instead, you put him into cool water, then slowly heat the water up. Before the frog knows it, he's croaked.

C.S. Lewis said the same thing, only not in a joking way. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

The Permanent Cure for Babbling Women

Woman: Babble babble babble babble.

Man: Can you please not do that?

Woman: Babble babble babble babble.

Man: You’re being very disrespectful and violating my boundaries.

Woman: Babble babble babble babble.

Man: You’re going to force my hand.

Woman: Babble babble babble babble.

Man: Okay, you asked for it.

Women: Babble babble babble babb --


Woman: Wah! You spanked me!

Man: Are you going to be quiet now?

Woman: *Sniff* Yes.

Man: Good. Now fix me a sammich, get me a beer, then draw a hot bath for me.

Woman: Okay.

Man: Ah….peace and quiet…blessed relief!

THE END (or is it THE BEGINNING?!?!)

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Outbreeding with Neanderthals

“Without contraries is no progression. Attraction and repulsion, reason and energy, love and hate, are necessary to human existence.” - William Blake

Below is a map of outbreeding in Europe. The light colors show the most outbreeding and the dark areas show the most inbreeding.

The people in light areas created/discovered much in the world. Most of it, according to some researchers.

By the way, my ancestry is overwhelming Scots-Irish and German. My last name, for example, is a famous Scottish name and relatives have traced the Scottish side to the Lowlands of Scotland, circa 1690. In fact, most of the people in the United States have German ancestry, followed by Scots-Irish.

Now here's a map that shows the areas Neanderthals lived in.

It's recently been proven that non-African populations have from one to five percent Neanderthal DNA.

It's not original with me, but many people think we picked up a lot of good qualities from the Neanderthals. They had bigger brains than we do, but it was in the back of the head, in the occipital area and not in the front of the head, where our frontal lobes are.

The first time I encountered a writer who claimed we are part-Neanderthal was the late Stan Gooch. Here's what he wrote about our encounters with Neanderthals:

"A biological supernova occurred when Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal man met. We can, if we will listen, still clearly hear the echoes of that explosion and observe its after-effects… [B]ehind these echoes and tendrils we can also then detect the still fainter traces of Neanderthal civilisation itself, and hear the still fainter echoes of falling cities of dreams."

When he wrote these things there was no genetic evidence whatsoever we had Neanderthal ancestry, and Gooch was viciously attacked. When the genetic evidence came in, it turned out he was right. For one thing he said Neanderthals had red hair, although the gene responsible for their red hair is not the gene responsible for our red hair. Still, he was right.

What we picked up from them, however, is a matter of debate.

Gooch claimed "that Neanderthals were the original creators, the innovators, of high culture, of symbolic values and religious sensibilities, which early modern humans (Cro-Magnons) copied and adopted without genuine understanding. Neanderthal culture was not a civilisation of high technologies, but one of the mind and spirit that survives today in our beliefs, myths, folklore, and religious practices."

That may or may not be true. Only time and more research will tell.

Some modern writers have claimed we picked up much creativity from the Neanderthals, along with introversion, the ability to concentrate, and imagination. Some of them consider Cro-Magnons to be a lesser form of human.

"Let's look at the facts," writes Garret LoPorto, "modern humans made basically zero progress for over 163,000 years. They didn't invent much. They didn't develop any significant societies. They didn't build much of anything. They were basically hunter-gatherers that did not make any technological progress for 163,000 years.

"To put that in perspective, virtually all of human progress has been made over the last 37,000 years.The traits of modern humans could be summed up as very traditional, stable, with a low capacity/tolerance for risk, innovation, change and progress. In short, they were temperamentally too stable and too disinclined towards free thought or creativity to make any recognizable progress over the first 163,000 years of their existence on this planet."

He described Neanderthals as "wild and relentlessly creative to a fault. They were innovative, but because they couldn't stop innovating, battling, and moving on to the next new thing they could not maintain any progress. Think of a tribe that was 100% ADHD and bipolar -- no stability -- complete and utter madness. Without any stability their abundant creations, breakthroughs and innovations would be short-lived and forgotten by subsequent generations. Their attention could not be held for long enough to create a lasting legacy. Neanderthals were Uprisers -- radical change agents who couldn't stop changing."

The interbreeding of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal could have produced a type of "super-human" - and that could be why Europeans essentially conquered the world. They're part Cro-Magnon for the stability and part Neanderthal for advancement..

This stability/change is essential to progress. Once there is change it has to be stabilized before there can be more change, more advancement. Without the first you'd have nothing but chaos, and without the second we'd end up with 1984 or Brave New World.

There is what is known as a Neanderthal (or Celtic) toe. The big toe is shorter than the one next to it. I have one on my left foot. I know a woman who has two of them - and she is schizophrenic. Again, I wonder. (I don't know if that toe is the reason, but I am left-footed but right-handed.)

If any of this is true or not I do not really know. If this is any truth to it, however, it makes me wonder about interbreeding with people who are, to put it delicately, not up to par. That, I think, is common sense.

Because if you are not careful with whom you have children, you'll end up degrading or destroying your own bloodline.

Why So Many "Libertarians" are Butthurt Dumbasses

It astonishes me that politics always splits itself into Left and Right, even among libertarians, many of whom think they are beyond Left and Right, or in the middle of them, or whatever.

I don't know why this happens. I suspect it has something to do with the brain, since I often wonder if leftists don't have some sort of brain damage - not enough oxygen at birth, their parents beat them, other kids beat them, genetic deformity, inbreeding, etc. All of them appear to be about four years old emotionally, which of course affects their thinking.

The Right libertarians make the most sense, although they use different names - conservative libertarians, libertarian nationalists, right-wing libertarians. (The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn called himself a "right-wing anarchist," which always made me smile because that's how I can describe myself).

The Left libertarians don't make much sense, as leftists usually don't (except in the blind-pig-finding-an-acorn way), but I think the easiest way to identify them is that they support Michael King (aka "Martin Luther" King).

When it's pointed out King was an adulterer, a whoremonger, a woman beater, a plagiarist (among other things) they tend to wax very, very wroth. Where I was raised these were called "hissy fits," which, fortunately, isn't as bad as a conniption fit, although they throw those, too.

In reality the best thing that happened to King is that he got murdered (oops, I mean "assassinated"), since he was on the verge of being exposed. Now he's a martyr who has streets named after him (good thing, too, because "Martin Luther King Dr." is always the dividing line from areas that are inhabited by the Stupid and Feral and areas that aren't).

Some "libertarians" claim that if you don't enthusiastically support homosexuality, believe all races are totally equal in all ways, and that there is no essential difference between men and women, then you are one of those horrible racist, sexist, ageist, lookist homophobes. That is, a witch, or even one step up - a demon.

There are other things that many "libertarians" do that mystify me.

One, they support open borders, and are utterly oblivious that open borders (aka "multiculturalism") has without exception destroyed every country in the past that practiced it. The main reason open borders exist is to flood the country with low-wage immigrants. Then, unfortunately, there are some people who want to destroy this country. The name for them is "traitors."

Two, many "libertarians" are enamored of Wal-Mart and McDonalds to the point it appears to be some kind of sexual perversion.

They're clueless that these two companies (I call their kind Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations - CDTMCs) have enough political power to write laws that benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

The phrase I've read many times is "privatizing the benefits and socializing the costs," which is why Wal-Mart gives its employees instructions on how to appy for food cards, Section 8 housing, Aid to Dependent Children, and other tax-payer funded "benefits."

It's also why McDonalds hires the - ahem - "mentally-challenged." It's not out of the goodness of its collective pea-sized heart. They get a tax break. Personally, I'd like to hire them but they couldn't do the work, but poorly-paid fast-food jobs are so much of the economy these days I suspect CDTMCs are seeking ways to breed Epsilon Minuses.

These "libertarians" are idealogues in the Russell Kirk sense - they believe their simple-minded philosophy applies to everyone throughout the world, regardless of race, sex, nationality, religion, ethnic group. Personally, I consider such a belief to be quasi-insane, since if they gained political power I think it'd go straight to their heads and they'd turn into fascists, Which they are anyway but don't know it.

It's much easier for many people to be convinced they know the Absolute Truth than to think they don't know everything. Feeling satisfied and secure thinking you've got the clue to everything actually makes you part of the Borg.

They tend to be atheists. Not even agnostics, but atheists. Their attacks on Christianity tend to be the most tiresome of cliches' - "spook in the sky," "imaginary friend in the sky," stuff like that. That is the main reason I believe they tend to be such rabid "libertarians" - it gives importance and meaning to their lives, which everyone seeks.

That makes their version of "libertarianism" a religion, although, again, they wax very, very wroth if you call their beliefs a religion. They usually worship at the Church of Darwin, with their prophet being Richard Dawkins (himself a leftist who throws hissy fits and will not appear on panels with those who disagree with him).

Yes, political and economic freedom does work, and makes people rich and happier. But how do you define "political and economic freedom"? People have different definitions. And that is the problem.

The way the Left defines it - even if they call themselves "libertarians" - is not the way I define it. In fact, they way they define it I don't consider to be freedom at all.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Bye, Bye, Middle Class

I owned a taxi for five years. For two years out of that five I owned a small company consisting of four cabs.

I had a blast except for owning those four taxis. That was way too much work. I didn't expect it. Except for that, it was a wonderful job. I once read that "rejoice" in the Bible might as well be translated, "Have a blast." It makes sense to me.

Every day I went to work was a new adventure. I was joyful when I went to work, eager to go. It was more play than work. I had control over my own life. I worked the hours and days I wanted. The money was pretty good - sometimes I made over $200 a day. And if I got that lucky (about one a year) I did it in about four hours. What more could you ask for?

I was reminded of something I read in Richard McKenna's novel, The Sand Pebbles: "Holman started the job the next morning. He felt filled with power and joy..." And later: "...they had caught Holman's feelings of power and accomplishment." He was rebuilding the Ship's 50-year-old engine - and Holman loved engines.

McKenna knew what he was writing about. To do so, he had to have felt it himself.

I wasn't the only one who felt that way. When I started I met an older man who had started in the '50s. He told me, "Where has this job been my entire life?"

He started in the '50s, and I think America reached its peak in that decade. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Read Bill Bryson's The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid sometime.

This driver, whose name was Al, told me he worked 11 months out of the year (we were independent contractors) then for one month he went on vacation, put his wife in the sidecar of his motorcycle, and toured the country. He made today what would be about $50,000 a year.

Those days of owning a taxi and making $50,000 a year are gone. Try about $15,000 a year. The days of it being a middle-class job are not going - they're gone.

One reason is the misnamed "multiculturalism,"

Originally all drivers were American. These days you can hardly find an American driver. Now the vast majority of drivers are foreigners, and they are not admirable foreigners.

When I started we had some Nigerian drivers. If you want to find a Nigerian who isn't a stupid criminal, good luck with that. If it was up to me, I'd deport their worthless selves right back to the toilet they came from. The stories I could tell.

The Somalians were better, but I'd deport them, too.

The Russians were the best of all, but I'd deport some of them, too. I did know one (who got fired, fortunately), who put a small mirror in his car so he could look up woman's dresses. I remember thinking, "What is he, six years old?" Then I thought, "Character-wise, that's exactly what most of the immigrant drivers are."

This influx of foreigners, most of whom lived six to a room, drove wages down so much that driving a taxi is now a lower-class job (it has enriched the owners of the big taxi companies, though - more drivers per company owner). Not just lower-class in terms of the money, but lower-class in terms of the character of the drivers.

I once almost got into a fight with a Nigerian, who cut me off to be first in line. I shoved him up against a car and next thing I know the white drivers got in-between me and him and pushed me back. Many whites have a sense of fairness, which many Third Worlders do not. If the drivers had understood what was at stake they would have got him down and kicked the crap out of him, which is what I was planning on doing. That's just about the only thing they understand.

I was cursing mightily at him, and later he told another driver I had "no right" to say the things I did to him. He had no understanding, as many foreigners don't, of the freedom to say what you want. To him it was all about his hurt feelings, never mind that fact he was a liar and a thief - your typical Nigerian.

That's not the only problem I had with no-IQ Nigerians. Another thing is that if I got within six inches of them the stink was unbearable.

We did have one Afghani driver, who I was friends with. He told me he got into some kind of a conflict with a Somalian driver, and the Somalian pulled a crowbar on him. In downtown.

Now this Somalian would have never dared pull it on a white driver, because the cops would have been all over him, and he knew it. But he knew he could get away with doing it to another immigrant.

I have so many stories I had to keep a diary to keep track of them.

When you have many different foreigners in one country they're going to fight each other. Then we there is enough of them there will be a tipping point and they'll start going after native Americans. Then after they have enough the dipshit Third Worlders in our midst will wonder what the hell hit them.

Why do they want to come to America? Because as bad as our economy is, the Third World's is worse. Permanently, worse, because it's full of Third Worlders, the vast majority of whom are genetically stupid. And when you're that stupid, there is a strong tendency for you to be a criminal.

The State and Corporations (Mussolini defined fascism as "corporatism") want immigrants so they can pay less money so they can make more. In the long run they are cutting their own throats, although they can't seem to figure that out.

If I had to use a taxi I would never get into a taxi with an immigrant driver. These days most drivers have cell phones. I'd get their number and call them personally. I used to do that with my passengers. I gave them my number. It got to the point half the money I had was from people calling me personally.

I had some of them tell me the reason why - do I have to tell you? - they didn't want to be picked up by some creep of an immigrant driver.

So much for the wonders of multiculturalism.

Friday, September 20, 2013

The Balance Between Inbreeding and Outbreeding

I cannot remember where I got this map from, but the light areas show outbreeding and the darkest ones show the most inbreeding.

I find it very interesting because of this map:

This map is from Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment, in which he found 98% of all the discoveries in the world came from Europe and its descendents in the rest of the world. When I saw the top map the lower map immediately sprang to mind.

Even more interesting, Murray found that those accomplishments were concentrated in certain areas of Europe. If you compare those two maps, you'll see some intriguing things.

Where there was the most outbreeding there was the most accomplishment. Look specifically at northern Italy, England, and central Europe.

I find this astonishing.

It didn't occur to me until recently that in those days most people couldn't travel that much. I recently got on a plane and flew over 1000 miles in about four hours. In the past, you couldn't travel any faster than the fastest horse.

None of this, of course, means indiscriminate outbreeding. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, has produced nothing of any value. India, Asia, South America and the Middle East put together contributed only contributed about two percent.

I've read several times that about 50% of what we are is inherited. The rest is environmental. If this is true (and I think it is) then we should be very careful about whom we have children with.

The Eternal Lure of Mommy

Many women have a tendency to be natural socialists/fascists. I would not go so far as to say all women, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 90% of them. Or maybe Pareto was right and it's only 80% of them.

To be accurate, there are men who are natural socialists. The late drunken fat slob Teddy Kennedy was one of them, as are whackos like Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. Yes, I know...but Hillary is not a woman.

I'm sure that people in the past noticed this tendency in women. Hence, it is possibly the main reason that women have traditionally been denied the vote. When feminine socialism moves into the political (the political being defined as the attempt to rule others by force), it can do little more than destroy any society in which it becomes dominant - and it especially destroys men through its attempt to turn them into little boys or babies. We need do no more than look any further than the Mommy State as it exists in America today.

Notice that I wrote, "moves into the political." I've come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as a good Leftism (and the feminine socialism of the Mommy State is pure Leftism). This Leftism belongs in one place only: the home. And even then it should be balanced by the father.

Friedrich Hayek, among others, has written that socialism is an attempt to take familial/tribal values and impose them on society. It's an attempt to make society "one big family." One of the biggest problems with this is that citizens remain children instead of growing up.

And what is one of the things that children do? They blame their problems on everyone else. Blaming everyone else for all your problems is one of the main characteristics not only of children, but of immature adults.

These days, this "blame everyone else" attitude has infected society in general: "It's the gun manufacturers' fault I shot's fast-food restaurants' fault I'm's tobacco companies' fault I have lung's McDonald's fault I spilled hot coffee in my lap."

This is what happens when "family" values are imposed by force on society: many "adults" still have a great deal of child in them, always pointing their fingers at someone else and crying, "You made me do it!"

I understand the desire to impose family values on society. Ideally, it would be a society without envy, without violence, and without anxiety. It's why Leftists always want everyone to "share," even though this kind of sharing in any society can be imposed only by force. It's also why they are for gun control - little kids (and certainly babies!) cannot be allowed to play with dangerous things. This desire for force, for power over others, is why Leftists are so enamored of the idol of the State.

Leftists believe if everyone is totally equal through sharing, then there would be no envy. Unfortunately, it is not possible for everyone to be totally equal. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out in Leftism Revisited, the only way people can be totally equal is if they are totally identical. Two quarters are totally equal because they are identical. The same does not apply to people, and never will

Kuehnelt-Leddihn has also written about Leftism as "the attempt to overthrow the Father," and uses as an example the "patriarchal" monarchies of Europe, which were overthrown by Leftists, thereby ushering in the genocide of the 20th century. He pointed out that not one monarchy went down fighting.

If people are supposed to be children under Leftism, who are supposed to be the parents? Those who plan and run societies, of course. This are the kind of people that Thomas Sowell mocked as "the Anointed." They are the people who believe that they are so intellectually and morally superior to everyone else it gives them the right to impose their vision on the unwashed masses.

A world without envy, without violence, without anxiety. Sure does sound good, doesn't it? It actually does exist in one place: the womb. It is a place to which we cannot return.

I suspect this eternal lure of the Mommy State is, more than anything else, an attempt to return to the womb. It's an attempt to avoid not only envy, violence, and anxiety, but self-consciousness. After all, babies in the womb are unconscious. And in that unconsciousness, there is no envy, no violence, no anxiety. Just the safe, blissful oceanic feeling of being one with Mommy.

Most political scientists appear to be clueless about this desire to return to the womb, but good artists certainly aren't. In 1953 the writer Philip Jose' Farmer wrote a truly creepy story called - yes, you guessed it - "Mother."

In it, an explorer on an alien planet ends up being trapped inside one of the planet's female inhabitants. She is little more than a gigantic immovable womb, in which everything he needs is given to him. At first he tries desperately to escape, but as time goes by, he gives up. And finally, when the Mother opens her "door" to allow him to leave...he won't go. He has returned to the bliss of the womb, escaping all the problems of the world. Of course, he gives up his self-consciousness.

This story not only describes the baby in the womb, but the way children relate to adults: what they want is just supposed to, somehow, "be there." Unfortunately, it's the way a lot of "adults" relate to the Mommy State. What they want is also just supposed to "be there." High-paying jobs should just "be there." Cheap, plentiful gasoline should just "be there."

The most scary of the Leftist mother/wombs is "Star Trek's” the Borg. The Borg cube is essentially a gigantic womb flying through space. The members of the Borg are equal and identical. They feel no pain, no envy, no anxiety. They are unconscious in the womb of the Borg cube.

In a stroke of genius, the creators of the Borg have as the ruler not a King, but a Queen. A mother. In the movie, it's played by Alice Krige, who portrays the Queen with equal combinations of regalness, sensuousness and motherliness. It's truly frightening combination, because she is both repulsive and desirable. As is the Borg womb.

For men, this return to the womb means to cease to be men. This, unfortunately, is one of the functions of (leftist) feminism - to literally make them children, even babies.

One of the things feminism wants to do is castrate men, to return them to being little mama's boys or babies always dependent on the Mommy State. Leftism is ultimately an attempt to return everyone to being that original, unconscious fetus - a return to the womb-like Garden of Eden, a place in which Adam and Eve were, like babies, utterly safe and unconscious of evil.

In literature the Borg Queen fits the archetype known as the Temptress. In the book, Myths and Motifs in Literature, the Temptress is described as follows: "Women seen as destroyer created many taboos as to where and when females might appear within the tribal territory, what foods they might touch, what relations they might have with men. But male fantasies about women were equally matched by her erotic attractiveness...women who were seductive and beautiful, but who would bring about the destruction of those they ensnared." This is a nearly perfect description of the Borg Queen.

We certainly shouldn't return to silly tribal taboos about who can go where and who can eat what, but it should be kept in mind that that myth about the "feminine as destroyer" is an accurate description of what happens when feminine-socialist Leftism moves into the political: it superficially appears to be attractive, but in the end it only destroys. Socialism is always the eternal Temptress: an unattainable womb that is eternally seductive, eternally destructive.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

"Nobody Loves Me - Guess I'll be a Suffragette"

My first year in college, when I was 18 years old, I had a class in which there was the first feminist I had met. She was overweight and unattractive, and was a little bit too loud and a little bit too hostile.

It occurred to me she was a feminist because she was overweight and unattractive. Perhaps if she had lost the weight, dressed better and put on some make-up she would have looked a lot better and been more popular. But she wasn't going to do that.

It is a cliche that many feminists are unattractive. Like all cliches there is truth to it. Notice, for example, the little girl in the picture is not attractive and is mean-looking - or maybe just sad-looking. She's also torn the leg off of her doll, which you can interpret as "Since I'm not going to get married and have husband, home and children I don't want them." And she's putting on pants. And isn't that a tear in her left eye?

The dog still loves her, though (it should be a cat or three).

A picture is worth a thousand words.

I have for a long time thought feminism is based on feelings of humiliation and envy. In other words, feelings of not being lovable. They feel unwanted and rejected and want revenge, which is an attempt to replace feelings of humiliation with pride.

Perhaps unattractive women should get free plastic surgery. After all, there is another cliche with a lot of truth in it: An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure.

Worthless Make-Work Jobs for Women

I worked for myself for years. Then in 2009 everything collapsed. And it hasn't picked back up, contrary to government lies. So, out of necessity, for a while I worked for others, until I opened my own business again.

My, how things have changed.

Now we have "Human Resources Departments" which hire dumb young women with worthless college degrees. They're make-work jobs that, I'm sure, pay way too much.

I was interviewed for half an hour and asked stupid questions they clearly memorized from a textbook. They looked to be about 25 years old and clearly had no idea what they were doing.

One question was, "Do you smile a lot?" Since I had decided I didn't want the job, I answered, "I hardly smile at it. In fact, I glower a lot." Of course I didn't get the job, which was fine with me.

These days, when you're interviewed by HR you're supposed to give the "right" answers. I suggest you don't do that and instead tell the truth: "You do know of course you have a make-work job and if it was eliminated things would get better?" Let's put it this way: do you really want to work at a job when the person who hired you is an Epsilon Minus?

These were the first times I've interviewed with "Human Resources." Before I always interviewed with owners. Not so much of that, not anymore.

Of course, none of these women knew they were incompetent. Incompetents rarely know they are incompetent. Usually they think they are super-competent. (By the way, I've worked with incompetent men and they didn't know they were incompetent, either.)

When too many women go into a field, men move out. Since there are so many girls in "Human Resources" the men who are in it are going to move out. That is, if there are any men in it. In fact, when too many women go into too many fields, a noticeable number of men stop participating in the economy.

If men cannot find useful high-paying jobs that allow them to be patriarch/protectors and masters of their own ships, then they'll just say, fuck it all. The first is good for men, women and society and the second is bad for all involved.

Often they become never-do-wells or predators. Just look around.

Since it is men who created civilization, science and technology, when they withdraw society goes backward and sometimes collapses. The signs are clearly obvious for those who want to see them.

Now, unfortunately, when I think of "Human Resources" I think "Dumb College Girls with Worthless Degrees Diddling Around in Make-Work Jobs."

When I was hired I found the companies which were top-heavy with management who did nothing. I worked at one place which had 100% female management - six of them. Three of them didn't do anything. It was astonishing. This was a small business.

The second company was the same way. That was it. Time to open my own business!

I'd go nuts if I had a sinecure in which I did nothing. I have to find something useful to do.

I also found women tend to play it safe but in really dumb ways. That is, rules out the wazoo. Men often take chances. Many women are horrified by that and put worthless "safety" rules above doing the right thing. It was suffocating - and that is the biggest reason why men flee working for women.

Unfortunately many women are clueless about these things. They probably delude themselves men don't want to work for "smart, strong, independent" women, which is the exact opposite of the truth. No one wants to work for silly little girls with no management skills, which is why most women prefer to work for men.

I'd say 80% of women (Pareto's Law here) cannot successfully participate, maintain and advance civilization. I get tired of saying it, but the humorist P.J. O'Rourke was right: without men civilization would last until the next oil change.

These women are parasites on a not-so-healthy economy, which means someday - and most probably quite soon - their jobs will go away. Then they'll whine and complain about their "important" jobs going away and claim sexism.

A job is not a job unless it adds value to the economy. Make-work jobs don't add value; they subtract it. That's why they're parasitical.

Ultimately it's men's fault for allowing this problem. They didn't have to allow it, but they did it out of a misguided sense of fair play and justice (the real definition of Justice is to "give each his due").

If most women can't even run companies competently they sure aren't going to be able to run societies. And that is why there are no matriarchies. Never have been, and never will be.

They suck out the adventure in a job and the ability to accomplish anything. And they don't even know it.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

When a Woman's Value to Men is Close to Zero

Some years ago I met a woman who told me out of the blue her daughter was "high maintenance." Her daughter appeared to be in her late 50's and wore a lot of makeup and expensive clothes. She was divorced. I remember thinking, "Her value to men is close to zero but she doesn't understand that. And all the clothes and make-up in the world can't disguise that fact."

I got the impression her daughter still thought she could find a wealthy handsome man and was perpetually angry such a man was not coming her way. Unfortunately she appeared to be about 35 years past her peak.

I once wrote an article about bringing dowries back.

When there is a shortage of women, men pay bride prices for them. It's simple supply-and demand. When there is a shortage of men, groom prices are paid.

Since when women get older there is a decided shortage of men, women should now pay groom prices for men (personally I'd settle for a red '66 Mustang convertible, non-refundable of course). Now if she is divorced and has children, she'd better come up with a Porsche!

Unfortunately it's even worse than that. A fair number of younger women today have essentially set their price close to zero.

I'll give you an example: when I was 18 I had a naked 19-year-old girl jump in bed with me. Turned out she had done one of my apartment mates before me and after me did the third and last one. She was extremely promiscuous.

What do you think the chances were of her finding stable, long-term relationship with a man? I'd say zero. She had ruined her value with men. To get a man to stay with her she'd have to pay for him!

At 21 I had another naked 19-year-old jump in my bed. She told me "there had been a lot" of men. Again I thought, she'll never find a stable long-term relationship.

When a woman is that promiscuous she's setting her value at zero. Unfortunately those two women didn't understand it. I doubt they understand it even now. And like most women whose relationships didn't work out, they probably blame it on men and not themselves.

Actually, I'm just joking about low-value women having to pay for a husband. Any guy who would do that is himself low-value.

However, if women had to pay huge groom prices to men they were going to marry, they'd be a lot more careful who they married. If they lost $20,000 in marrying a man, they'd automatically become much better judges of men. There is nothing like taking a chance losing a lot of money to wonderfully focus the mind.

And that is why women should have to pay very large groom prices.

Of course, American women would be outraged at the idea of paying groom prices, even though it clearly would be in their best interests to do so. I still meet overweight 35-year-old women who "aren't going to settle" for anything less than some tall handsome wealthy man. Good luck with that, chubby! I wouldn't have anything to do with you even if you did have a '66 Mustang!

Rats, Drugs and High School

The first guy I knew who died of a drug overdose was 15. He was sniffing paint. The second was 17, and he passed out in a ditch and didn't wake up. He had injected something. Heroin, I think.

They were in high school, and so was I. All of my group did drugs, as did I, although in my case it was just booze and marijuana. Others did harder stuff, such as heroin (the first time I saw someone shoot up I was 16, although the first time I saw a needle kit I was 15).

I was hanging out in bars when I was 15. Actually that was a blast, although I almost always had one beer.

When I got out of high school all of us, except the disturbed ones who continued their entire lives, cut down tremendously or else quit. It didn't surprise me.

High school was a bore. It was without meaning or importance, so we used drugs and partied. There was rarely any sense of adventure, of having power over your own life, of having any mastery or competence over anything. Of feeling truly alive. Drugs, temporarily, kill the pain and make you feel alive.

I was reminded of this after reading about a study called Rat Park.

The study was in response to other studies that claimed heroin was so horrifying and so addictive that addicted rats could never get free of it. Turned out that wasn't true.

In the first studies rats were kept in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus. Sometimes they injected until they died.

When they were placed in a normal rat environment with play, food, and a place to raise their families, their "addictions" went away.

...tethered to a cage with a self-injection apparatus. Hm. Sounds like my time in public schools.

In college I drove a taxi and ended up driving at night. I got to know some working girls quite well, and ended up driving for an "escort" service. The couple who ran it were heroin addicts. After a while they wanted to quit. (By the way, they were actually pretty good much for the myth about heroin addicts.)

It wasn't hard for them. Took about a month. Then they got out of their business and got real jobs. When I was working for them I always had this oppressed feeling, as if the whole thing was a prison with invisible bars.

"Drug addiction" isn't a thing by itself. It's connected to everything else in society - a decent job and a solid family, for two. And having importance, meaning and community is your life. The last three are absolutely necessary. Without them you have nothing.

It is those who are isolated, without meaning, importance and community, who generally become the heavy drug users. It's cultural dislocation - or the destruction of your culture - that does you in.

Some people, of course, are always going to use drugs. The poor (in character) are always with us.

As bad as high school was, middle school was worse. It was a kind of hell. I remember thinking, what happened? This is horrible. Even then I knew it was because a bunch of strange kids were shoved together in a crowded rat cage. It was utterly unnatural.

It is obvious that you can gauge the health of a society by the condition of the young. Those who drop out of high school, those who are addicted to drugs, those who live on welfare, who don't want to work at horrible jobs, those who end up in jail.

And yet many think that force and fraud - police, jails, blaming the lack of importance, meaning and community on them and not society - is the answer to these ills.

I am reminded of a wonderful book by Bill Bryson, about his growing up in a different world - the '50s in Des Moines, Iowa. The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid.

Bryson ended his book with this comment: "What a wonderful world it was. We won’t see its like again, I’m afraid." I knew a bit what he was talking about, but mostly it seemed like a fantasy world, like Brigadoon.

Decades before I read Bryson, I read a horrifying novel by Norman Spinrad called The Men in the Jungle.

I was about 13, I suppose.

The novel was about blood, pain, murder, sexual perversions, drug use, political power over others. It was a hell on earth. When I compared Bryson's autobiography to Spinrad's novel, it was the difference between heaven and hell.

Spinrad's novel reminded of what Dostoyevsky wrote in The House of the Dead: "Whoever has experienced the power and the unrestrained ability to humiliate another human being automatically loses his own sensations. Tyranny is a habit, it has its own organic life, it develops finally into a disease. The habit can kill and coarsen the very best man or woman to the level of a beast. Blood and power intoxicate ... the return of the human dignity, repentance and regeneration becomes almost impossible.”

The difference between Bryson and Spinrad was the growth of the State and everything that goes along with it - Cosmodemonic Transnational Corporations and "multiculturalism," for two hideous examples.

In Bryson's book the State was never mentioned because it was barely there. In Spinrad's novel it was a world-wide tyranny.

Right now, in many ways, America is closer to Spinrad than Bryson.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Building a House for Almost Nothing

My father was a general contractor. I started helping him build houses starting when I was 12. I wasn't impressed by houses then, and am even less impressed now.

Wages stopped going up in January of 1973, but houses have kept getting bigger and bigger and more expensive, which is just plain dumb. Had wages kept going up as they should have, the size and expense of houses wouldn't be a big deal, since the average person would be making $90,000 a year.

Since the average person isn't making anywhere near $90,000 a year, smart people are buying - or building - much smaller and much more efficient houses.

At first I checked into underground houses, which are a great deal if you do it right. But not everyone wants to go that route. I can build one myself, but not everyone can.

By the way, Sears used to sell prefab metal houses they shipped to you. There are some in the area I used to live.

Then I checked into strawbale houses, which are a great deal because you can build without much effort.

Since I know what I'm doing I could build a strawbale cottage for $2500. I'd scrape out the foundation with a shovel, put sand down with the plumbing and wiring in it, then put down smooth brick for flooring, then use rugs. I'd have to pay to put the fusebox in, but that's about $300.

I could put the walls up with a friend.

You can even live in a houseboat.

If you want to spend your life being a slave to paying off a $150,000 house - or more - go right ahead. But as for me, I don't think so.

Think about it - just how much of a house do you need to live in?

Monday, September 16, 2013

Men Are Better Judges of Other Men than Women Are

I never paid any attention to this Hugo Schwyzer whackjob. I read an article by him in which he claimed women are supposed to poke their boyfriends in the butt with a dildo, and I immediately knew he a) didn't mean it, which made him b) a liar, and c) a nut. I suspected he was doing it for attention and running some sort of a scam. Which he was, to seduce his deluded female students.

But the kerfuffle reminded me of something I've known for years: men are better judges of other men's character than women are. In fact, if a woman wants to know what a man is like, ask other men. Even ask his friends. The former will tell the truth and the latter usually do, or look really uneasy if they don't want to.

Unfortunately, telling women the truth about a man reminds me of an old Persian saying: "Never come in-between a woman and her delusions."

When I was in college I lived for a summer in a house with other students, both male and female. There were maybe six altogether since most of the students went home for the summer.

One morning I was drinking some coffee at the dinner table when one girl sat down by me and exclaimed, "I don't like your friend Ralph very much."

I personally didn't care if she liked him or not, but was a little curious why she felt she had to tell me.

"Why's that?" I asked her.

"Ralph showed up one day trying to come in-between me and my boyfriend Tom," she told me. "I think he's jealous." Now I began to suspect she was engaging in some female venting.

I knew the whole story, and now I realized she was deluded as hell.

"Tom's your boyfriend?" I said in mock puzzlement.

We've been seeing each other about a week."

"The reason Ralph came in-between you and Tom," I explained to her with a completely, straight, serious face," is that Tom wanted to get away from you so he called Ralph up and asked him to come over and say he wanted to do something. The reason I know this is because later you wrote Tom a note, on white paper with blue ink, saying you thought that Ralph was trying to come in-between you and Tom. I know this because Tom thought the note was funny and showed it to me and Ralph.

"Tom is not your boyfriend. He's a player and you're a girl he's fucking. He's screwing another one right now. In another week he'll tell you it's not working out between both of you and dump you."

She looked at me with disbelief in her eyes and I knew what was going on in her head. Not only did she not like Ralph, she suddenly didn't like me either, because her first impulsive was to blame her problems on me for bursting her bubble.

"I don't believe you!" she said, which I knew she was going to say.

"How did I know about the note then?" I countered, and got a little angry. "Tom is a player and a coward. That's why he couldn't tell you to leave and got Ralph to back him up. I've told Ralph be shouldn't do that, but he does anyway."

She got up and left, unable to face the truth. I'm sure she hated me for blowing up her groovy little fantasy world in which she had a good-looking boyfriend who was charming and attentive and said he was going to be a doctor and have a big house and some kids and still support his wife in her career.

"I tell them what they want to hear," he once snickered to me. Schwyzer said he told women the same thing.

Some women - a very few - saw through Tom. One said he had "a sneer on his face." And he did, too, because ultimately he didn't like women and held them in contempt.

About a week later Tom told this girl things weren't working out between him and he wanted to break up. She never spoke of it to me again and in fact only briefly spoke to me for the rest of the summer. It's as if she thought my telling her the truth is what made it come true, that if I hadn't told it to her things would have worked out between her and Tom.

I got the impression she wanted to get revenge more on me than Tom, and would have have damaged herself just to get at me. But she never did, probably because she couldn't. I still think in her mind was this: "Bob and Ralph: creeps. Tom: not a creep but for some reason cheated on me, which I will forgive if he comes back." If that's what she was thinking she got everything exactly backwards.

Now that I think about it, the first time I noticed women not listening to other men was when I was 17. Two girls I knew were doing to leave with these two guys in their car, and I warned them not to go. They didn't listen.

I could almost swear I said to them, "You're making a big mistake. You should listen to Uncle Bob here."

About a month later I was at a party at one of the girl's house, where both the guys were there. Suddenly the larger, older brother of the girl showed up and told both of the guys to leave. Which they did. I don't know exactly what these guys did, but it didn't matter. I just knew the girls shouldn't have gone with them. They didn't listen to me, to their detriment.

Too bad fathers and mothers don't tell their daughters that men are better judges of other men than women are. They might want to add women are more influenced by their feelings than men are, but of course these days that verges on blasphemy. Even though it's true.

Both men and women have a tendency to idealize the other sex in a romantic relationship. At first. Then, sooner or later, reality comes crashing down and they realize the other person is not what they thought they were. But they're not told that anymore.

I'd tell daughters (and sons) that the first defense of people is too blame their problems on other people. I'd tell them that charm is nothing to base a relationship one, because such people are often manipulators. And for daughters, to listen to what other men say about their potential boyfriends.

Wives "Submitting" to Husbands

The Bible says wives are supposed to "submit" to husbands (sometimes the words "be subject to" is used). It's Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord."

Sometimes it's even translated, "Be under the authority of your husbands."

There is an old saying, and it's a true one: "All translators are liars." That's why there are three words used to describe one thing.

The word "submit" is "hupotaso," which means "to place under." It means to have an order to things. Otherwise we'd have chaos.

My take on this is that the phrase is defending "patriarchy." To me patriarchy means that men created everything in the world - society, technology, culture, and the ideas that support all of them. Some women of course have contributed to some of these things, but they are statistical outliers. It's not due to "oppression" but the fact men and women have different brains.

"Submitting" means "don't screw up things men have created/discovered, okay? Support them...don't try to destroy them or society."

Ultimately men are protectors/providers and women are nurturers (to be more precise, I think they are receptive/reactive). Not all, of course, but most.

Whether women believe it or not, all of them are under the "authority" of men. They are completely dependent on men, because either they can marry men or they can marry the State, which itself is "patriarchal." If men withdrew all that they have created from women, women would, as Camille Paglia noted, be reduced to living in grass huts.

When men, for whatever reason, allow women to stop being under their authority, then we end up with feminism, which is leftist, which itself what I call the Bad Feminine: destructive, seductive, not nurturing at all.

Left to their own devices women destroy everything when there are too many of them in one field. This is what happens when men allow women to do what they want, free from the authority of men.

Ultimately this is men's fault for allowing women to do this. You can see these warnings in mythology, when Adam listened to Eve when he was warned not to, and in the story of Pandora, who loosed everything bad on the world (the only thing left in the box was Hope).

Any woman with any sense (that is, ones without that inflated "self-esteem" based on nothing) knows what men have done for them, both good and bad. They know the bad things these days but most don't know the good. There is no gratitude or appreciation for any of the good.

While there is room for improvement in everything it's not going to come about through through leftism (the late Catholic anarchist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn referred to leftism as "the overthrow of the Father"). In other words it's not going to come about through women, except the exceptional individual ones.

All you have to do is look at the 20th Century, the century of leftism, when monarchies (Kings and Queens, Fathers and Mothers) were overthrown. It's been estimated up anywhere from 177 million to 200 million died. And all because the Bad Mother overthrew the Good Father (and the Good Mother, too).

Not one monarchy went down fighting. Why? For mature constitutional monarchies, killing their subjects is like killing their children.

Now of course we can look around to today. It's easy to see what we have: a government of Bad Fathers and Bad Mothers (leftist, of course) and almost no Good Fathers and Good Mothers. No good can come from this and instead a whole of bad.

Which is what we are seeing right now.

Amazing what the past can tell us about the future, if we just listen.

Sunday, September 15, 2013

The Mind of the Terrorist

I don't read very much hard-boiled detective fiction, but I have read enough to know that the genre is a type of horror fiction, and like all horror, is based on goodness and order being attacked by evil and chaos.

A fine example of this is John D. MacDonald's 1979 novel, The Green Ripper, a book I read only because Stephen King praised it. A horror writer praising a detective novel about MacDonald's famous anti-hero, Travis McGee? It made me curious.

It turns out King was right in his assessment. Like all good writers, MacDonald has acute insight into human nature, a nature that sometimes is not such a great thing. In the case of The Green Ripper, the human nature that McDonald writes about is the mind of the political terrorist. If you want to understand that mind, this is the novel to read.

How does a good writer have such insight? MacDonald describes McGee,underneath his hard exterior, as "unusually sensitive, intelligent and imaginative." McGee is obviously a part of MacDonald. Perhaps those traits are absolutely necessary to truly understand people.

I had not read anything by MacDonald before, although I have heard of McGee. McGee is one in a long line of those loners/heroes who do what little they can to put things right. McGee calls it "doing my little knight-like thing." Such a character is brother to Robin Hood, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro, and,currently, F. Paul Wilson's Repairman Jack.

I'm not giving anything away here, since it's on the cover of the book, but the plot concerns the murder of the only love of McGee's life. McGee, just like every one of his kind from Edward Dantes to Gully Foyle, hunts down those responsible for his loss.

The question, as it always is in cases like these, is if McGee seeks vengeance or justice. Men like McGee, and those like him, have a moral code they are actually willing to enforce. They don't make their own laws; indeed, although it's always unstated, they believe in Natural Law, most especially the one about "do not murder." And they are willing to personally deal out a great deal of violence, death and destruction to the guilty parties (and they are always very guilty of terrible crimes).

Are people like McGee what happens when they seek justice (or revenge) instead of allowing the government to do it? Or are they created because the government fails in its responsibility to enforce justice? Every one of these characters is outside the law because the law does not function. Obviously these characters touch a nerve in people, and have for hundreds of years, ever since the modern novel was created. Clearly, there is a need for them. My view is these are the characters who do justice when the government fails in its job.

I at first used to read a great deal of science fiction, a genre about what is called "the sense of wonder." In a sentence, it can be described as "I want to live like that." It's partly a combination of admiration and envy. Horror fiction is just the opposite: "I do not want to live like that. Maybe I don't have the perfect life, but at least I don't have vampires or some Lovecraftian monster trying to suck me up in its maw."

Hard-boiled detective fiction, being horror fiction, is also about "I don't want to live like that." But there is more to it than that. Certainly readers don't want to have the life described, but there is a part of them that says, "I sympathize with what he is doing, indeed support him fully in it." Even though it involves all kinds of mayhem and multiple deaths (of the guilty), there is a part of the reader saying, "Go! Go!" People want to see justice done and the guilty punished.

And "go" is exactly what McGee does. And in his search for the killers he discovers exactly what makes political terrorists tick.

Potential terrorists are often marginal, ostracized people, or better yet, they think they are, which is essentially the same thing. Sometimes they have no community to which they belong, or any meaning or purpose to their lives, or love. People need these things, even if they are used for a bad purpose. They can't live without them. No one can live as an atom disconnected from everyone else.

McGee describes people as "herd animals, social and imitative." That is true, and anyone who underestimates the power of a cohesive group, whose members feel loved and who are united by what they consider a great, meaningful purpose, is making a very grave mistake. Eric Hoffer, in his book, The True Believer, understood as much as McDonald the terrible trouble that can be caused by a fanatical group that wants to change the world.

"Saving the world" is always an excuse for destroying and conquering it. Jesus, Aesop, Plato and Aristotle understood this, when all commented that all tyrants call themselves benefactors.

Here is probably the most important point: all terrorists see things as either good or bad, black or white, with nothing in-between. Of course, they see themselves as good, which is why they are paranoid about people whom they define as "evil" wanting to destroy them. Their defining themselves as purely good makes them utopians and idealists. As such, they believe in projecting "evil" onto others (the "scapegoating" of which I write so much), then attempting to destroy this evil, so from the ashes of what they consider a degraded society a new, better one can arise. Whom they destroy in the process is irrelevant; they are merely things, necessary sacrifices (one potential terrorist tells McGee they're aren't going to "waste" their munitions on military targets; women and children are much more "productive"). Ultimately, all terrorists are utopians. Perhaps all utopians and idealists are in some degree terrorists.

One thing these people always do is blame their problems on others. That's one of the lessons of the story of the Garden of Eden, one of the oldest and most perceptive myths that exists. These "others" are devalued into being evil and/or insane. Once these people are eradicated, terrorists believe only the good will be left.

MacDonald understands the relationship between utopianism, idealism and the perversion of religion (I define any perversion of religion as one in which everyone inside the religion is good and everyone outside is evil).

MacDonald's political terrorists belong to a religious cult called "the Church of the Apocrypha," one that believes in a self-created Armageddon. I'd go so far as to say that any religion that promotes Armageddon and the destruction of this world - and the people in it - is idealistic, utopian and therefore murderous, destructive and perverted. It appears to be MacDonald's view, too.

Art imitates life and human nature. Neither life nor human nature change. That's why The Green Ripper is applicable today. It's about a very small group of dedicated people who want to use violence, death and destruction to tear down a society so a new, better one can be built. If many innocent people are killed, they're necessary sacrifices. Such people are utopians and idealists. They have the mind of terrorists, even if they claim they are benefactors, a title they nearly always claim.

Ultimately, their sin is the worst one of all - the hubristic, satanic "monstrous ego" of which Russell Kirk wrote, the sin that is the source of all evil. When people think and act like earthly gods, they invariably turn into devils.

MacDonald opens the book with a quote from Santayana that is always relevant, most especially today: "Fanaticism is described as redoubling your effort when you've forgotten your aim." Idealists and utopians, being fanatics, are always redoubling their efforts because they, too, always forget their aims. These days, perhaps "fanaticism" should be spelled with a capital "F."

It's Not Fair That I Can't Find a Rich Woman to Support Me

I don’t think it’s fair that I can’t find a rich woman to support me. Or even a middle-class one. I’d prefer she not be a butterface, but I suppose I could put a bag over her head, the way Rowdy Roddy Piper did the frog-faced girl in Hell Comes to Frogtown.

Maybe I can’t have everything, so I’m willing to compromise a bit. Just a little bit. An itty-bitty tiny little bit.

Betty Friedan, who was not even a butterface but more like the Medusa’s ugly sister, had one job in her life as a third-rate Stalinist journalist when young, and got a rich man to support her when she was married to him, even though she was psycho and went after him with a knife and he had to fight her off with a chair.

They even lived in a mansion on the Hudson River in New York, and to live there doesn’t mean two or three million dollars. It means fifty or a hundred million dollars. They even had maids to do the housework. I’m willing to do the housework, so money can be saved on maids, as long, of course, it’s spent on me!

If a quasi-monster like Friedan can find a rich man to support her, why can’t I find a rich woman to support me? I’m smart and funny and kinda maybe sorta okay-looking, and I’m really good in bed unless that hooker was lying to me, so how come there’s not even one rich woman wanting to support me? Huh?

It’s not like us white guys can find high-paying jobs anymore, what with exporting our jobs, importing traitors, and Affirmative Action, which means “White Guys Need Not Apply.” It’s okay if we’re coal miners or carpenters or cab drivers or other jobs that get us killed or maimed, but try to get a job with an M.S. in Economics like one of my friends, who taught for seven years simultaneously at two community colleges and drove like 40 miles a day and was never offered a full-time position because he was passed over for women (incompetent ones who didn't know the math) and of all things, Africans (utterly incompetent ones). So of course he quit. I think he collects aluminum cans on the side of the road these days.

There’s a lot more women in college than men, so us white guys are being forced to the bottom economically by law, so how about cutting me a break and supporting me? I mean, what the heck do you expect me to do? Just die, maybe?!?!

I could just never figure this out. I mean, aren’t men and women supposed to be totally equal these days? I meet all kinds of women who want to be doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, business executives, etc., yet they don’t even ask me out for a cup of coffee! I just don’t get it! Shouldn’t I have hundreds of women ask me out, like a dozen every week? Huh? Why isn’t it happening?

How come I’m supposed to be the one to make all the adjustments? It’s just not fair! I’m supposed to adjust to women having careers and all, so why can’t they adjust to me and support me? Hmmm? Why do they think it’s fair the "educated" ones should have access to easy high-paying jobs but get outraged if I think they should ask me out, ask me to marry them, and then should support me? What is this? They expect all the advantages of being a man and a woman and none of the responsibilities of either? Wahhh! Not fair!

Maybe there should be Affirmative Action for guys. Since according to leftists all of us are supposed to be equal, and there’s no human nature since we’re all just John Lockean blank slates, then by law woman should be forced to ask me out to make up for all those years men did it.

I suppose there could be undercover cops, and every time a man asked a woman out he’d be given a ticket with a stiff fine. Woman would have to keep a record of all the guys they asked out (let’s say two a week) and then every week report to the local office of the Federal Dating Affirmative Action Bureau and show their records to the bureaucrats there. More stiff fines! And re-education classes, too, for resentful recalcitrant women! Then of course boys would be taught in grade school only girls can ask them out. We all have to be equal! I agree with that sentiment, of course.

If the federal government is interfering so much into the relationships between the sexes in the economy, then it should interfere in romantic relationships, too. Everything is connected, you know. The economy, romance, looks.

The Feds are interfering in everything else with their Panopticon, so why they can't interfere on my behalf at least once?

For that matter, what does love have to do with it? It should all be about fairness. Fair and equality is what matters, nothing else!

Ultimately I suppose science can make all of use sexless identical clones, so all of us can be totally equal. Isn’t that what we really want?

It might be kinda weird at first, but I’m sure we’d get used to it.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Men Civilize Women, Not the Other Way Around

Some years ago I read a famous book by George Gilder called Wealth and Poverty, which had a huge and mostly undeserved influence on the Reagan administration. It was clear, even then, that Gilder had some obvious problems.

He essentially claimed that women civilized men, since they required men to submit to their "long-term views." Gilder kept babbling nonsense (women mostly have short-term views) throughout the years and finally self-destructed, losing almost all his money in the dotcom crash, after writing several books about the wonders of the computer revolution.

He also praised mass immigration...and this from a man who claimed he was a conservative. He also praised Israel. Clearly, there are many things he never thought through.

Women don't civilize men. Men civilize women. Men have created/discovered everything, including civilization and the ideas that support it. Women who have created anything are outliers. It's not due to oppression and "patriarchy," but because men and woman have different brains. Women are the ones who determine the comfort level of the home, which is why I refer to men as Work and Reason and women as the Heart and the Home. It's simple, but not wrong.

When men fail to civilize women, society collapses. There are no matriarchies and never have been. Overwhelmingly (say 90%) of women are natural socialists/fascists and so destroy every field in which there are too many of them. They don't even know they are doing it and instead think they are doing a good thing.

Many men have a misguided sense of justice and fair play, which allows them to let women move into fields which they destroy. Samuel Johnson understood the problem: “Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.”

While men don't try to enter women's fields, women consistently try to enter men's fields. It's a big problem, and I don't quite understand why women do it. Envy? They think that men have a better life so they want to force themselves into the boy's clubhouse? And when admitted they want to change the rules to benefit them.

Left to their own devices women would end up living in grass huts, as Camille Paglia so famously predicted.

I keep in mind the story of the Garden of Eden. A weak Adam listened to Eve and so got both of them kicked out. And it was Eve who fell for the promises of the serpent, who is a symbol of envy (and therefore also hate). So I have to assume that when women want to change society (and men) it's mostly based on envy.

This is what happens when weak-minded men, who don't understand what justice really means (to give each their due) listen to envious, socialist/fascist women. This of course doesn't mean all women are like this...just a lot.

Most women (and in fact many men) are ruled by their emotions, even though they believe they are rational. I'd say Pareto had it right with his 80/20 Law: 20% of people are rational. The rest aren't. This means democracy will never work (in the long run democracies have always fallen, as our will).

Actually, I consider democracy/leftism to be feminine (to be precise, the Bad Feminine). Mythologically, it's the Destructive, Destroying Mother. Mythologically, woman has also always been Mother Earth, to which there are two aspects: the nurturing and the destroying. One of the main functions of civilization (which is a fragile flower) is to encourage the nurturing and hold the destroying at bay.

Men will have to stop listening to this Seductive, Destroying Mother, the way Adam should not have listened to Eve. Because if we don't, then, over and over, the human race will get kicked out of what it has created.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Too Popular & Too Flirty Leads to Being Alone

Starting in college I began to notice that some girls were very flirty and very popular. One in particular would really hit on guys she liked with obvious compliments. She was asked out a lot.

The reason I know these things is because she hit on me and I got to know her quite well. She was of course very attractive. In some ways she was astonishing. Most of the girls just moped around and wondered why they weren't being asked out. This girl just cleaned up.

She had also been a cheerleader in high school, which made her an extrovert who sought a lot of attention. I have found these very extroverted types tend to be unstable, since they believe all good comes from the outside, from other people.

Things didn't work out for her. When she got to be about 27 she wasn't asked out so much anymore. Then when she got a little older she wasn't asked out at all. She ended up being unmarried, with no children, living in an apartment with a cat.

She also became more than a little hostile to men and blamed her problems on them.

It was bizarre to see that transformation, yet I have seen it more than once. A popular flirt, an extrovert, who gets older and finds out her game is no longer working. The attention dries up. Guys no longer pay much attention to her. She blames it on men and not on herself. Then she becomes hostile because she went from the center of attention to getting no attention at all.

I've known more than one woman who wasn't popular at all. They weren't very attractive. And I've seen it happen to men a lot. I knew guys in college - a lot of them - who had no dates, no girlfriend, who were utterly unpopular. Yet these extroverted flirty types can't seem to put themselves in these other people's shoes. They can't see how lucky they are. They have no gratitude or appreciation.

If she had been my daughter I would have told her, "There is such a thing as being too extroverted, too popular, too flirty. Guys might just see you as a party girl and not someone to get serious with. And I guarantee you the day will come when all that attention dries up, and if you haven't found a serious relationship by then you probably never will. To end up alone as a hostile man-hating spinster with a cat is not much of a life."