Thursday, July 31, 2014

Women Are the Best Material to Build a Totalitarian Society

"And what excellent material are women for building a totalitarian society! Their capacity for blind faith, self-sacrifice, leader worship and snooping makes them ideal true believers. What a picture: an elite of intellectuals served and guarded by an army of amazons." - Eric Hoffer, Working and Thinking on the Waterfront.

"I'm a half-breed POS Commie and boy are you a bunch of imbeciles!"

Let's be more specific. Many women are of totalitarian/fascist nature, their self-sacrifice is for bad causes, they worship terrible leaders and they snoop on innocent people. In other words, they lack discernment and often can't tell right from wrong.

Not only should 90% of woman not be allowed to vote, single or divorced women should be allowed to vote at all. Ever.

Every Date I Ever Had Was A Catastrophe

I have a friend who is about 5'6". He's told me some astonishing things that happened to him in college (I met him in college when we were both 20). Women who insulted him about his height. Ones who stood him up on dates. Ones who left in the middle of dates. Ones who couldn't hide the looks of disappointment when they first saw him.

He's never had a good date in his life. Yet, still, he's a romantic, as most men are. He just doesn't date anymore. He goes from woman to woman, and if they give him any shit he's gone.

Every date I ever had in college was a catastrophe. So I quit, years ago.

The women expected me to ask them out, pay their way - the whole ritual. Yet, not once, did I get any gratitude or appreciation. I gave and got nothing in return. Not even a "thank you." So the hell with them.

I maybe had four dates. That was enough. Instead I just started asking them to my apartment or house and jumping on them. That's all they had to offer.

I see the same thing today. It's why you get the PUA and the MGTOW phenomena (which is nothing new). Women's value to men has declined precipitously. The women don't understand that, since many women blame all their problems on men.

By the way, many PUAs are PUAs because their romantic feelings didn't work out, so what they do now is essentially revenge, which is an attempt to replace feelings of humiliation with pride. I've seen it more than once. And if you want read a famous account of this, try Casanova's Memoirs. His one and only dumped him for another man, and he spent the rest of his life seducing women.

In college I used to wonder how men and women ever got together, got married and had kids. Most of the women sat like bumps on a log and expected Prince Charming to just show up and charm them. I just jumped on them. Most didn't resist.

The women acted like this was a shortage of acceptable men and a surplus of creeps. And yet they never learned to look in the mirror. In reality there was a surplus of overweight stupid women and a decided shortage of friendly approachable women.

Occasionally I look up women I knew in college. It's disturbing the number who are not married and have no children. Instead I see horses and cats (both are major red flags). And many are hostile to men. And my God have I seen that!

I did know a few women who had Girl Game. Friendly and approachable. They mowed the guys down (I was one for one of them). The rest, unfriendly and unapproachable.

And this was decades ago. It appears to be worse now.

Men have an instinct to be protectors and providers. Now it's being thrown in our faces. It was thrown in our faces when I was in college.

Men are supposed to be protectors and women are supposed to be nurturers. And if they are not nurturers, then they become destroyers. So now I'm seeing many women who are destroyers. I started to see it in college.

Men and women are supposed to be a team...that's not happening so much anymore.

Strangely, I never saw this in high school (I had my first "real" date when I had just turned 18 - and it, of course, a catastrophe). Just when I got to college and started running across women who deluded themselves they were getting an "education" - mostly as "teachers."

And the fat women I see today! My God! Overweight, deluding themselves they are "educated," hostile, blaming their problems on men, expecting much and having little to offer...

No wonder the marriage rate is hovering right above 50% and soon might go below. No wonder we're at below replacement rate when it comes to children.

The guys I talk to say "women aren't women anymore." What they mean, mostly, is that they aren't feminine. Just hostile, overweight, entitled. blaming their problems on men...expecting much and offering little...very little.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Without Self-Consciousness There is No Right or Wrong

Myths are correctly defined as the distilled wisdom of the human race, made into stories that entertain and educate.

One of those myths is the story of the Garden of Eden. There are at least four interpretations: evil is brought into the world by people blaming their problems on other people; women's greatest sin is envy, and men's is listening to envious women; shame comes before guilt, and without self-consciousness there isn't the ability to tell right from wrong.("And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.'")

The latter raises some disturbing questions. Animals have no self-consciousness (and insects sure as hell don't) so they violate everyone's "life, liberty and property" just to stay alive. And the only thing they "understand" is violence and often death (such as squashing bugs).

Apply this to humans and you realize there are no "natural rights." They are just ideas in our heads we impose on reality. It doesn't mean they are bad ideas; on the contrary they are good ideas.

Now apply to concept to a modern argument: illegal immigration.

There are people who claim "borders don't exist." They're correct: they don't exist because they are ideas in our heads we impose on reality. And ultimately they are defended by violence or the threat of violence.

The same applies to "property lines" and indeed property itself. They don't exist. They are ideas in our heads we impose on reality, and they only reason they exist is because ultimately we can defend them through violence or the threat of it.

I often run into open-borders loons who are continually running their mouths that "borders don't exist." Yet they claim property and property lines ("property borders") do exist). They engage in every mental gyration to support their beliefs...which can't be supported.

And of course they have no problems with illegal immigrants flooding the country but they have no intention of letting these people camp in their front yards and move into their houses. Because, you know, "property."

But if these illegals were to take the property from these open-borders nuts...the only way they can keep their "property" is through violence or the threat of it. In such a situation it comes down to "might makes right." And that is a very nasty way to live, which is why some ideas are better than others. Lots better than others.

Even the idea of your body being your "property" is based on ideas in our heads, again imposed on reality. If someone turns you into a slave - and if you can't prevent it - then you are their "property."

Because of this truth, the more illegal Third World immigrants we have, the more violations of "property" - including life and liberty - we are going to experience.

"In the Absence of Fathers"

I've pointed out before that one of the reasons for initiation rites for boys - which generally started at 12 - is to pull boys away from the mother and introduce them to the world of men. We don't have that anymore.

The author of this piece also puts out one of the reasons is to overcome infantile grandiosity. It reminds me of when my six-year-old nephew (who essentially has a childish, often not there, father) once said to me: "You're not the boss of me." To which I replied, "I am the boss of you. You know why? Because I'm a grown-up man and you're a little boy. And if you want to grown up the right way, one of the things to do is listen to me and watch what I do."

He didn't say a word, but after that we got along just fine. In fact, when I'm not there he says he misses me.

Without fathers and "patriarchy" women's socialist/fascist nature takes over them, and little boys grow up not knowing how to be a man, so they fall into violent gangs and their violent initiation rites.

Either that, or they'll be so confused they'll think they're fags.

This article is from First Things and was written (in 1995) by David Gutmann.

"The radical feminists are using the O. J. Simpson tragedy to trash their usual suspects: 'patriarchal' men. Stimulated-perhaps overstimulated-by the fallen hero’s case, Mariah Burton Nelson for one has gotten a good deal of media ink for charging that the patriarchal sports world 'trains men to hate women.' Though Simpson was the son of an abandoning father rather than a patriarch, his misogynistic violence is nevertheless blamed on the woman-hating culture that supposedly breeds in exclusively masculine redoubts: certain combat units, college fraternities, and ballplayers’ locker rooms.

"But even as the gender feminists accuse patriarchal men of the appetite for violence against women, they themselves, in their usual imperious fashion, want to have it all, including the right to hold, simultaneously, two mutually incompatible moral and political positions. On the one hand, they are justifiably outraged by the evidence of increasing domestic violence against women, but on the other hand they are utterly committed to bringing about, within the American family, and under the antiviolence banner, the conditions that underwrite and even guarantee male violence.

"The feminists aver that the male tendency to violence is not innate, not a law of human nature, but a mutable product of our social nurture: it is a breakdown product of patriarchy (particularly white, Western patriarchy) and can be blunted and overcome only by implicit gynocracy, or by androgynous parenting arrangements-fathers and mothers as clones of one another. To this great end, the female presence must be injected into all the festering compost heaps of patriarchy and gynophobia: women must be enrolled in combat units, female reporters must have free access to men’s locker rooms, and fraternities must either be disbanded or degendered. The 'empowerment' of women and the concomitant disempowerment of men is the only cure for noxious patriarchy and the antiwoman violence that it presumably sponsors.

"They don’t get it. After decades of exposure to the social and psychological disasters, particularly those afflicting our inner cities, that have accompanied the deconstruction of American fatherhood, the gender feminists still don’t get it. Though they insist that such cannot be the case, it becomes increasingly clear that the mayhem inflicted by violent men on women (and on other men, and on society as a whole) has its roots not in conventional patriarchy, but in the increasingly matriarchal nature of the American family. Ever since Philip Wylie wrote his angry text on American "Momism" back in the thirties, various astute commentators, including a number of women, have been telling us that American children, and especially boys, need more patriarchy-in the best sense of that term-and not more 'empowered' matriarchs. These children particularly need fathers who are different from their estimable mothers in equally admirable ways: tough without being macho brutes, stern without being petty tyrants, and yes, affectionate-but on the whole, less nurturing than their wives.

"I can write these heresies without fear of reprisal from the politically correct: I resigned long ago from the American Psychological Association, and at my age I no longer worry about building a career. It is, of course, not enough to be outrageous; unfashionable views must be bolstered by evidence, including a brief review of the young boy’s psychological development in the two-parent nuclear family. We should consider the basic requirements for 'good enough' masculine development, as well as the predictably bad consequences-for example, the strong likelihood of male violence against women-when certain bottom-line requirements are violated.

"Thus, as we consider the new uniparental or bi-maternal parenting (for example: 'Murphy Brown'/single mother households or lesbian couples) we have to evaluate not only the well-being, freedom, and rights of those engaged in these unorthodox arrangements, but also the developmental requirements of the children that they presume to raise. What is good for General Motors is not necessarily good for the country; and what feels good to new-style or homosexual mothers is not on that account necessarily good for their kids. Mother Nature may be female, but she is not, in the current sense of that term, a feminist. She does not accredit parenting arrangements that flout her laws, even if they are promoted-in thunder-by a self-anointed Sisterhood.

"Let us begin with one of Mother Nature’s clear ordinances, a developmental imperative that is recognized, in both ritual and common practice, by all successful human societies. It is this: in order to mature as distinct individuals and as future fathers, at some culturally recognized point boys have to separate, in the psychological sense, from their mothers - whose biological destiny they do not share. Men’s work is done on the communal periphery; thus, before they can become creatures of the perimeter, and long before they can begin to think of themselves as reliable parents, boys have to free themselves from the sense that they are extensions of the mother - that they are no more than their mothers’ home-hugging little sons.

"At the proper season, patriarchal fathers-fathers, that is, who are different from admirable mothers in their own impressive ways-play a unique role in fostering their sons’ psychological migration away from the Magna Mater and towards some worthy role on the periphery. The competent father, seemingly adequate to all challenges (very much including provocations from his son), stands forth in the son’s eyes as enviable but also admirable: a pillar of strength. As such, he spreads an umbrella of security under which the son can temporarily shelter, even as he slowly declares himself to be a distinct person, separate from the mother. Thus the father whose special, 'patriarchal' virtues distinguish him from the mother becomes at the proper season what the psychoanalysts call a 'transitional object': standing apart from the mother, he provides a secure way station on the son’s psychological voyage away from her, and allows that risky evolution to go forward.

"Traditional societies typically organize rights of passage, ordeals of one sort or another, to mark the boy’s passage from the status of 'mother’s son' to that of 'father’s son.' The ordeal, whether it entails penile sub-incision with cowrie shells, or being responsible at age thirteen for the day’s Torah portion, is usually managed by the community’s collective fathers, who closely monitor the candidate for signs of weakness. If the boy breaks and cries under the ordeal, then he is still his mother’s son, not ready to join the male collectivity of fathers and age-mates of the community’s perimeter. But if he endures with some grace the punishment that the fathers mete out, then he has earned the right to be their son, the apprentice who will some day inherit their special powers. Under that sign, he can continue the process of individuation, and separate from the father-just as he had earlier on separated from the mother-to become finally his own man.

"Besides sponsoring the boy’s symbolic rebirth as a father’s son, 'patriarchal' dramas of this sort also sponsor the boy’s growing mastery over his violent drives-the destructive impulses that place him, early in life, in opposition to the father and the father’s law. Despite their many faults, patriarchal fathers are the best means that our species has devised for managing a very grave threat to any organized social life: male-particularly young male-violence. Our streets have been 'Beirut- ized' by violence from sons without fathers, and without superegos.

"The fathers’ role in bringing civilization in the form of the superego to their sons has been clarified by many psychoanalysts, the leading students of what is known as the 'Oedipal' track in child development. In their narrative, little boys, charged up with untested illusions of omnipotence, are driven early on to challenge the prerogatives and possessions of the father. If they come up against true patriarchs, fathers who are neither antagonized nor intimidated by their small sons’ enmity, these same little boys are quickly (and with real relief on their part) introduced to some basic propositions of the masculine reality principle: "You are not big, powerful, and supremely competent; instead, you are small, puny, and completely unready. However, matters can change; and if you pay him proper respect, your father will help you escape from your unfortunate condition."

"Thus, when the small sons of patriarchal fathers realize-however grudgingly-that they cannot win the father’s prerogatives and powers by force, they are ready to receive another bulletin from reality: "If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em." Young sons give up infantile fantasies of coopting the father’s powers by violence in favor of a disciplined filial apprenticeship. From then on, a boy’s self-esteem will be based increasingly on experiences of real mastery, rather than on hectic fantasies of omnipotence.

"The boy concedes his own omnipotence to his father; and through the intervention of his father, gives his potentially antisocial aggression a positive, pro-social sign. In effect, the boy’s aggression follows the general line of masculine evolution: as he becomes a 'father’s son' and moves his sights beyond the mother’s home, his aggressive potentialities track with him, and find new targets. From now on, his enemies will not be found in his own house or significant community, but will come to him from the outside, from beyond the periphery. Fathers’ sons can be very good killers, but not of their kin, or their neighbors. Mothers’ sons by contrast are indiscriminate: they are murderously aggressive within the home as well as outside of it-they are apt to abuse their aging relatives, their wives, and their children. But while the admittedly square and even priggish sons of patriarchal fathers may grow up to patronize the women of their house and town, they very rarely assault them. Instead, they are protective (sometimes overly protective) of their mothers, wives, girlfriends, and daughters: when killing is involved, they kill the men who come from the outside to hurt their women and children.

"In short, the boy comes out of the Oedipal engagement with a built-in internal presence: the superego, the sometimes harsh inner monitor that will not let him hurt-or even think of hurting-those whom he either loves or should love. But restriction is not the whole story. Via the superego the father’s son also gains an internal (and therefore trustworthy) sense of resource: so long as he acts in the service of his community, and against the enemies of his loved ones, he will have access to his own vital energies, his own iron rations of the psyche. Now he can make and fill his own bottles; he is, in the psychological sense, weaned. Thus assured, the boy is ready to slip the psychic umbilicus and graduate from 'mother’s son' to 'father’s son.' It does not much matter whether this transition is accomplished informally within the home, or formally, via rites of passage, in the larger society; in either case, the son is launched, under the father’s aegis, on the journey away from the mother and into maturity.

"This is not an ideal outcome-after all, as the feminists remind us, the father’s son is still quite capable of violence against foreign women- but considering the usual alternatives it is about the best that we can expect. But what of the boys who grow up under the ambiguous familial conditions that are rapidly replacing normal patriarchy? What is the fate of sons who grow up without a father, or with a father who is little more than an androgynous, often ineffectual, clone of the mother?

"One consequence is clear: in the absence of a compelling father, the mother’s presence fills not only the outer domestic frame, but also her son’s interior psychic space. These boys-the offspring of single women, lesbian couples, or devalued 'pops'-will not, in the proper season, attain psychological distance from their mothers. But children without fathers will usually find alternative, though less trustworthy ways to cut the golden cord. Boys who cannot achieve psychological distance from their mothers fall back instead on unreliable substitutes: physical distance and social distance.

"Physical distance they achieve by flight: from the mother’s home to the streets, to the fighting gangs that rule them and, at the end of the day, to the all-male fraternity of the penitentiary. Social distance they achieve by moving out of the mother’s cultural world, and off her scale of values; unable finally to split from the mother, they provoke her-through criminality, addiction, sexual exploitation, and physical violence against women within the domestic space-into throwing them out of her decent house. Finally, they turn to booze and drugs to get the transient soothing, the comfort that they can no longer take (or expect) from their mother’s hand. Through such desperate means, fatherless sons demonstrate-to the world, to their mothers, and to themselves-that they are Men. Finally, by their physical and verbal assaults on women they try to kill off the unrelinquished 'woman' - the psychic after-image of the mother-within themselves.

"In its essence, this could be the story of O. J. Simpson, whose case is being litigated as I write. Simpson is certainly not a typical product of misogynist patriarchy, taught by his seniors and locker-room companions to bash women. Quite the contrary: at age forty-seven, he seems to be the prototypical 'mother’s son,' now wrecked by the troublesome passage into midlife. We have been studying casualties of his sort-black and white, rich and poor- in my clinical service for middle-aged and older adults for the past fifteen years.

"Despite his celebrity O. J.’s history is in no way atypical of the syndrome. for starters, the father, known in the neighborhood as "Sweet Jimmy" Simpson, was hardly your stereotypical patriarch. Instead, he was a reported homosexual, who apparently left O. J.’s mother for a man when his son was three years old, and who died, probably of AIDS, in 1986. Left alone, O. J.’s tough and devoted mother overcomes daunting odds to raise him. Nevertheless, as a teenager he predictably splits from her into the world of gangs and dope. Far from being corrupted by patriarchy, he is rescued by a celebrated black man: hearing that a potentially great athlete is screwing up, Willie Mays shows O. J. the exciting world that could be his. Thus sponsored by a 'father figure,' O. J. finds a route away from the mother’s world that does not lead through the dangerous streets. He accepts the patriarchal discipline of coaches and locker rooms, goes on to win the Heisman Trophy, and becomes the legendary 'Juice.'

"Pace Ms. Mariah Burton Nelson, Simpson’s violent urges towards women do not really bloom until he retires from football, when he quits the locker room. Having lost the masculine cosmetic of the sports world-the fatherly coaches, the male allies, of the NFL-Simpson (like many of our midlife patients) is then probably threatened anew by his unsundered ties to the mother within, and to her feminine exemplars in the outside world. Once again he is in danger of becoming a 'Mama’s boy.' Having lost the 'patriarchal' or sportsman’s route away from the feminine, he seems to fall back on his last-ditch, emergency buffers: behaving much like a threatened teenager, he interposes physical and social distance between himself and the dangerous women. Thus he divorces two wives, he is certainly violent towards Nicole Simpson, and driven by his pathological jealousy-the usual fears of a man insecure about his masculinity-he may have killed her. The troubles of a poorly fathered son can afflict not only his childhood and adolescence, but his later years as well.

"Most reasonable adult human beings-including the fathers that I have interviewed in peasant societies around the world-are quite aware of the psychological need for patriarchy along the lines that I have described. It is only news to the gender feminists, who have ruled out the very idea of an essential human nature. Thus, the Murphy Browns of this world can for a while demonstrate their independence by having babies out of wedlock, raising them without fathers while holding down taxing professional jobs. They can play the narcissistic game of having it all: career, independence from exploitative men, and babies.

"But while the parental imperative can be temporarily violated, the transgressors eventually run afoul of the most stringent rule in nature: that of unintended and often catastrophic consequences. Thus, even as these new-wave mothers congratulate themselves on their own boldness and 'growth,' their sons, and eventually they themselves, will be at risk. The child-rearing revolutions that, in the name of women’s liberation from patriarchy, diminish the fathers lead paradoxically but inevitably to the loss of women’s freedom that results from desperate male violence.

"Loud blasts from the trumpets of ideology temporarily drown out the muted but insistent voice of the reality principle, but nature denied eventually returns, usually in its most primitive forms. 'Take Back the Night' protests will neither repair the damage nor reverse the social entropy that causes it. A measure of patriarchy in the home is, paradoxically, the major guarantor of democracy in our public life. We may still have a choice: either recognize the special grace and status of the father within the family, or eventually suffer-and probably in this order-criminal anarchy, then the Police State, and finally the iron rule of Big Brother over our domestic and public affairs.

"History's Little-Known Naval Disasters"

What American does not know of the Titanic and the fact Leonardo DiCaprio went down with it? Yet there were lots worse naval disasters, - which, not surprisingly were done during war.

I've been struck for years how some people's lives are so empty they have to fill it with what the Bible calls "the lust of the eyes" - war as a spectator sport. War reporter Chris Hedges once wrote a book, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.

Yet these chickenhawks never join the military, and if somehow they did, they'd be the first to collapse.

This is from the IHR site.

"Many of those who view 'Titanic,' the new blockbuster motion picture, may leave the movie theater believing that the April 15, 1912, sinking of the great British liner, with the loss of 1,523 men, women and children, was history's greatest maritime disaster.

"The 'Wilhelm Gustloff,' which served before as a luxury liner, was overloaded with desperate civilian refugees when it was struck on January 30, 1945, with the loss of at least 5,400 lives.

"Others may perhaps think of the British passenger liner Lusitania, which sank on May 7, 1915, after being hit by a German submarine torpedo, taking 1,198 lives.

"But these disasters are dwarfed by the sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff, the General Steuben and the Goya, three German ships crowded with evacuated refugees and wounded soldiers that were struck by Soviet submarines during the final months of the Second World War.

"As John Ries points out in his essay in the Fall 1992 Journal, "History's Greatest Naval Disasters," more lives were lost in the case of each of these vessels than in the sinkings of either the Lusitania or the Titanic.

"The first of these German ships to go down was the Wilhelm Gustloff, a 25,000-ton converted luxury liner that had been serving as a hospital ship. When it left the Baltic harbor of Gydnia (Gotenhafen) on January 30, 1945, it was jammed with nearly 5,000 refugees, mostly women and children, and 1,600 military servicemen. At shortly after nine o'clock in the evening, it was struck by three torpedoes from Soviet submarine S-13. Convoy vessels were able to rescue only about 900 from the sub-freezing Baltic waters. At least 5,400 perished.

"The 'General Steuben' was overloaded with wounded soldiers and refugees when it was sunk on February 10, 1945, with a loss of 3,500 lives. By comparison, 1,523 lives were lost in the 1912 sinking of the 'Titanic.'

"Eleven days later, shortly after midnight on February 10, the General Steuben sank with a loss of 3,500 lives, making this the third worst maritime disaster in history. The same Soviet submarine that had attacked the Gustloff, and in almost the same location, sank the Steuben with two torpedoes. Crammed with as many as 5,000 wounded soldiers and refugees, the converted passenger liner sank in just seven minutes.

"The sinking of the Goya on April 16, 1945, just three weeks before the end of the war in Europe, is acknowledged as almost certainly the greatest maritime disaster, in terms of lives lost, of all time. The converted 5,230-ton transport ship had set out from Hela near Danzig (Gdansk) with its human cargo of some 7,000 refugees and wounded soldiers.

"Just a few minutes before midnight, the Soviet submarine L-3 fired two torpedoes at the Goya, which found their marks amidship and stern. Almost immediately the ship broke in half, her masts crashing down upon the passengers crowding the decks. Before anyone could escape from the holds, the onrushing sea quickly drowned out the anguished screams of the refugees below. The vessel sank in just four minutes, resulting in the loss of nearly 7,000 lives. There were only 183 survivors.

"Concluding his essay on this chapter of history, Ries wrote:

"The 'Goya'...was attacked by Soviet submarine L-3 on April 16, 1945, taking almost 7,000 lives. This little-known sinking is the greatest naval disaster in history.

"Although little known, the sinkings of the Wilhelm Gustloff and the Goya -- with a combined loss of more than 12,000 lives -- remain the greatest maritime catastrophes of all time. Moreover, the deliberate and unnecessary killing of thousands of innocent civilian refugees and helpless wounded men aboard the Gustloff, the Steuben and the Goya -- as well as many other smaller and lesser known vessels -- is unquestionably one of the great atrocities of the Second World War.

"Lesser known but also worthy of note is the sinking of the German battleship Bismarck on May 27, 1941. Following intense attack in the Atlantic from British planes and four major British warships, it went under with the loss of some 2,200 men.

Even more tragic is the case of the Cap Arcona, a 27,650-ton converted German passenger ship packed with evacuated concentration camp inmates. On May 3, 1945, just a week before the end of the war, it was sunk by fire from a British fighter-bomber as it was moored in Lübeck harbor. Some 5,000 persons, nearly all of them inmates, lost their lives. Only about 500 could be rescued.

"A similar fate befell the Thielbek, a German ship likewise packed with 2,800 inmates who were being evacuated from the Neuengamme concentration camp. Succumbing to intense fire from British war planes, it sank on May 3, 1945, with the loss of all on board."

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The Manosphere is a Reaction to Women's Abuse of Men

"At the age of 30, Samantha Hess is a professional cuddler. For $60 an hour, she'll intimately snuggle with strangers of all types...about 90% of her clients are men" - Maggie Zhang

I didn't play by society's rules when I was a teenager and in college. I played by my social group's rules, though: we drank, we got high, we partied, we cruised, we picked up girls and got them in the backseat (basically I just grabbed them, and they never said no or protested).

And you know something? I was as grateful as could for all of it. That's why I understand the saying, "Enough is as good as a feast."

We did lots of things I knew were illegal, but so what? Some of my friends were way beyond what I would do, like riding around in a car smoking a bong while knowing perfectly well the cops could get them.

I guess things are different today. Specifically, women's abuse of men, their claiming it isn't abuse and if it is, men deserve it. Hell, if this attitude didn't exist, the Manosphere wouldn't exist.

I was never mean to girls or fell for that Manosphere bullshit about how girls like guys who exhibit the Dark Triad or were "insanely confident." That's just a load of crap.

And yet still I got girls. And as I have said before, in high school I looked like Garth Algar. But I was never ruled by trying to get pussy, and because I wasn't, I had two naked women jump in my bed when I was in college - and things that were close to it.

I didn't "respect" girls and I wasn't "nice" to them. No one told me I was supposed to act like that, and if anyone had I would have thought they were trying to con me.

It makes makes no sense to me to be too nice to people, because there are certain people who will just walk all over you if you act like that.

Once when we were 16, some friends and I were in McDonalds (which at the time was walk-in with no tables, drive-ins or benches outside) when some drunk girl I knew from school was rubbing my back and pressing up against me. I had several such things happen to me. It seemed normal - and, of course, fun.

And I definitely remember being 13 and wrestling with one of my 12-year-old sister's overly-developed 12-year-old friends - and I clearly remember thinking, "OHMIGOD!!!"

Several days ago I read an article about Elliot Rodger, in which some man got some girls to get Elliot down and tickle him. Apparently that was the first time he seemed normal.

Many women had made comments or blogged about how Rodger thought he was "owned sex." Retards didn't get it at all.

I suspect one of his main problems if that he was ostracized and had no one touched him at all. For decades.

I've mentioned before I knew guys in college who were utterly unpopular and spent their weekends alone in their rooms watching TV, in loneliness and isolation and rejection. None of them were right in their heads. They had very little connection to anything. No meaning, no importance, no community. No respect, no validation, no appreciation, no gratitude. Just hope things would get better when they were older.

By the way, confidence comes from external validation (the word "recognize" means "to look twice" and the German "achtung" means "respect, attention."). The other person is a mirror and you see yourself in how they treat you.

I see a lot of hostility in the Manosphere toward women. I understand it, but is isn't normal. Of course, you can certainly expect that reaction if women aren't acting the way they should - abusing men, ignoring them and ostracizing them, lacking gratitude and appreciation, expecting everything but giving little in return, hallucinating "patriarchy" and "oppression."

And the Manosphere does seem to be obsessed with sex, which means many are not getting much - or any. That's not normal, either. And the first time I read the word "incel," I thought, what the hell is that? When I found out what was, I thought, "Oh."

I figure it just doesn't mean "involuntary celibate." It means "ignored, ostracized, not touched because many girls consider me repulsive."

That, I suspect, was one of Rodger's problems, and after decades he went nuts.

When I was in college I had to read a book called Touching, by "Ashley Montague." It was an eye-opener. I already knew about Harry Harlow's experiments with monkeys:

Then there is what it known as Attachment Disorder: "Attachment disorder is a broad term intended to describe disorders of mood, behavior, and social relationships arising from a failure to form normal attachments."

A lot of guys have this, hence the Men Going Their Owny Way or the PUAs. All of it is due to women abusing men and justifying it, so men are "divorcing" women and becoming unattached from them - if they were ever attached to them in the first place.

Apparently many women can't see into the future, not to the extent men can. Unattached men, ostracized and disrespected, ignored and where do you think that's going to lead in the long run?

"This professional cuddler is a manifestation of a social pathology brought on by recent changes in human culture. Technology is one of them. Also, the atomization of our culture encourages us to remain single and isolated from the physical touch of others. This trend doesn’t end well." - the Private Man

"Eight Reasons Why the Man You Marry Should be an Introvert"

I keep testing about 60% introvert, 40% extrovert. And I have found the worst, most destructive people in the are stupid extroverts (I get along just fine with smart extroverts - not that there are many of them).

The military - says hundreds of years ago, before IQ tests - used to judge soldiers on two variables - Smart and Stupid and Lazy and Active. The worst, never to be given any command or authority whatsoever, where the Stupid and Active. In other words - the Extroverted Stupid. Just as I and many, many other people have noticed.

The highest command went to the Smart and Lazy. In other words, the introverted smart ones, the ones who sought the easiest way to do something.

It's the extroverts who are the Drama Queens. It can be either sex but women are far worse than men.

And a big problem with extroverts is that they don't understand introverts, in fact sometimes think they're stupid (this is particularly egregious when dealing with stupid extrovert teachers who are clueless about their smart introverted students - who are often smarter than their teachers).

Introverts understand the extroverted a lot better than extroverts understand introverts, just the way the smart understand the stupid a lot better than the stupid understand the smart.

The smarter ones understand one of the great truths of life - "Enough is as good as a feast." Most extroverts don't understand this, since to them everything good comes from the outside.

This article in from Elite Daily and was written by Paul Hudson. It is called "Eight Reasons Why the Man You Marry Should be an Introvert."

"I love that I’m an introvert by nature. While there are many downsides to be completely introverted, there are tons of benefits. The real beauty is that introverts can learn to become more extroverted.

"In reality, people aren’t either introverted or extroverted, but land somewhere in between on the spectrum.

"Introverts can very quickly pick up extroverted characteristics or tendencies. While it’s also possible for an extrovert to learn a few tricks from introverts, the fact is that it’s more difficult for them.

"Introverts have no choice but to function in a physical world outside of them all day, every day. Extroverts, on the other hand, have a difficult time finding a reason to be more introverted. Extroversion provides instant gratification while introversion is more useful when playing the long game.

"With that said, ladies who love men and men who love men, introverts make much better husbands. Here’s why:

"1. He’ll know himself better than most men you’ve dated.

"Why do most relationships fail? Because most people can’t make up their minds on what exactly it is that they want. Why can’t they make up their minds on what exactly it is that they want? Because they don’t know themselves well enough to understand what it is that they need in life.

"Introverts have this distinct ability to differentiate their wants from their needs. All of which is a result of talking to oneself for decades at a time. Differentiating between wants and needs is the first step in being able to suppress your wants in order to continue pursuing your needs.

"Introverts know themselves well enough and have trained themselves (obviously depending on their age and maturity) to better control their radical wants and focus on what they know they need instead. Because they’re men, what they want is to f*ck every woman in the world. But what they need is you.

"2. Because he spends more time thinking, he’ll likely spend more time thinking about you.

"What woman (or man) doesn’t want that?! Introverts spend a whole lot of time in their own heads, thinking, scrutinizing, daydreaming, solving, imagining.

"While their thoughts will vary greatly, even from day to day, they are sure to settle their minds most often on those who matter most in their lives.

"The introverted husband is likely to spend more time thinking about you than the extroverted husband. It makes sense, right? Men have thoughts pop into their heads sporadically throughout the day, much of which have to do with sex.

"While the introvert may just as well be undressing his secretary with his eyes, at least he’ll spend more time throughout the day thinking about how much he loves you. You won’t find a perfect man, but lock down an introvert and you may find a great one.

"3. He’s less likely to cheat on you.

"Introverts generally care less about other people. They don’t spend much time worrying about impressing others, interacting with others, or giving others too much thought.

"Unless, of course, those people matter to them. Unless those people influence their lives and are believed to be important individuals.

"The introvert is less likely to be the life of any party and for this reason is less likely to be found in a compromising situation. If he won’t talk to other women then chances are that he won’t sleep with them either.

"The fact is that the fewer chances a man has to cheat, the less likely he is to cheat. Numbers don’t lie.

"4. If he does cheat on you then at least you know how he feels about you.

"Introverts aren’t usually the ones to make such 'mistakes.' If he decided to cheat on you then it’s because he doesn’t want to be with you anymore.

"Whether or not he is still in love with you is up for debate, but more likely than not, he believes he no longer wants to be part of the relationship – even if he doesn’t know it yet.

"Or rather, he most likely does know it – being an introvert and all – but isn’t able to admit it to himself yet. While no one wants a cheating man, at least you’ll have one that leaves you knowing where exactly you stand.

"With extroverts, there tends to be much more deception and confusion.

"5. They’re better in bed.

"Men think about sex. A lot. Now, let’s do the math… Say an average male spends 10 percent of his thoughts thinking about pushing his preferred sexual partner up against the hood of his car.

"If an extrovert spends, say three hours a day fiddling with his thoughts and an introvert spends six hours with his thoughts, introverts spend double the amount of time thinking about sex.

"Even if the gap isn’t so drastic, introverts usually do spend more time daydreaming and thinking about sex. Practice does make perfect – even if you’re only running through raunchy scenarios in your own mind.

"6. They’re usually more reliable and less self-absorbed.

"You’d think it would be the other way around, but it isn’t. Introverts spend more time in their heads because they find that most of the outside world ought to be observed instead of simply interacted with.

"However, when they do interact with the physical world, they tend to do so with more meaning. They act not for the sake of acting, but because they feel the need to act. When an introvert loves you, you become part of him and he will take care of you like he takes care of himself – if not better.

"Introverts tend to obsess more over their loved ones because they find it miraculous that they can connect to another individual on such a profound level. He won’t forget your birthday to say the least.

"7. When an introvert enters a relationship, it’s because he believes he needs the relationship

"…Not that he’s bored and figures that he may as well enter such a partnership. Which, let’s be honest, seems to be the case for most men. Introverts are so comfortable with themselves that they often don’t feel that they need anyone else.

"They find themselves sufficient for their happiness. That is, however, until they fall in love. Once they realize that they literally need this other person, they will be the best partner they can possibly be. Why? Because they need it to work in order to stay happy.

"8. They make better fathers.

"Introverts spend the majority of their lives basically alone. They are observers. They are thinkers. They are lone wolves who believe the best way to live life is by taking a step back and seeing the bigger picture.

"When they enter fatherhood, things change – even more so than they did when they fell in love. Falling in love teaches them that there exist other people who are just as important to them as they are to themselves.

"Fatherhood teaches them that there are people in this world who are more important to them than themselves. An introverted father will love his daughter/son more than any other. Not to mention that he’ll likely have more to teach them."

Monday, July 28, 2014

Public School Shut Down My Brain

I've pointed out before that for all practical purposes I could have dropped out of school in the first grade. Public school was boring and I considered it a prison sentence.

For the other hand, at home and wandering around on weekends, I had a blast.

At school I mostly felt dead; when I was allowed to do what I wanted, I felt alive. I felt in public school I was just a cog in a Machine.

And there was no ADHD was I was a kid. None. One reason, I think, is that after school and on weekends our parents kicked us outside to play. I'm only half-joking there, because they didn't have to kick us outside.

I also found that when we collaborated on things it was a lot more fun. Sometimes, of course, I preferred to work on things myself. But hanging with my smart friends - we got things done.

Turns out that collaboration - two heads is better than one - is what created every "Enlightenment" that ever existed.

Sir Ken Robinson says it better.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

"Obama, Hitler and Women's Votes"

I suspect only ten percent of women should allowed to vote (I once told a woman that Obama was a "half-breed POS Commie" - which is what he is - and she was so offended she never spoke to me again).

Unfortunately, many women appear to be of a socialist/fascist character. That's why in the past they were never allowed to vote. While they may be nurturing in private life, in politics they are always destructive.

I should also mention the girls in the top photo are exhibiting what I've heard called "the O face" - the orgasm face. See the article for more on that.

I've also tried to read Mein Kampf, which I found excruciating. However, the section on propaganda was fascinating, and right on the money.

The article below explains why women should not be allowed to vote. It was written by Eric Ross, Ph.D. and is from the site Fathers and Children Coalition.

"In 2008, Obama was voted into the Office of the President of the United States. Women overall voted overwhelmingly for Obama — 56 percent for, and 43 percent against him; men's votes were split almost equally – 49 percent for, and 48 percent against him. Unmarried women voted for Obama by a massive 70 to 29 percent. With women in the US being the majority – 53 percent of the 2008 national electorate, one can safely say that Obama rode into power on the backs of American women voters.

"There is an interesting historical parallel here, which may appear at first inappropriate: in 1932, Adolf Hitler, the head of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (NSDAP), rode to power thanks to German women overwhelmingly voting for Hitler and the NSDAP ticket.

"As a pragmatist favoring the interests of the community, job creation and the growth of the middle class, I do not subscribe to the Republican dogmatic talking points any more than to dogmatic Democrat talking points, and would never draw a 'controversial' parallel like this… if it weren’t for Obama’s oratory, which echoes the familiar Nazi-styled, sinister and divisive demagogy. When it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it just ain't a chicken.

"Before we draw such a 'shocking' parallel with the notorious Leader of the Nazi Germany, it is inappropriate to equate a U.S. politician to Hitler in the scale and scope of evil. After all, Hitler lead the German youth to mass-murder millions of people all over Europe; his dictatorial rule resulted in the destruction of German cities, and in death and suffering for millions of German people. It is wrong to trivialize the horrors of Nazism and WW-2 by comparing people with whom we disagree, political figures whom we dislike for some reason, to Hitler, when such comparison simply serves to went and denigrate. Yet, when it comes to demagogy, Obama apparently comes from the same school of thought as the notorious Nazi leader, and has mastered and perfected the Führer's oratory, adapting it to today. His strife to polarize America for the benefit of his ill-conceived election strategies is as demagogic as they come. The most recent one was to bait the Republican frugality, abhorrence of fraud and waste, and then to sell to the American people the Republican natural opposition to fraud as a 'War on Women'.

"It is a shame that he dishonors the office of the President by polarizing America as part of his ill-conceived elections strategy, by creating racial strife leading to murders, by 'leadership,' which resorts to political demagogy in discussing important national issues. Thus a spotlight on such strong parallels is only fair, appropriate and timely. The Democrat-devised strategy of scaring women voters to vote Democrat with the alleged GOP's 'war on women' is actually a 'straw woman' argument. The concept of a 'straw woman' argument has been around for quite a while, perfected by Hitler, and now employed by Obama, without much finesse. It is making an argument by using a gross misrepresentation of your opponent’s position. Then, the demagogue can easily defeat the 'straw woman' – the fragrantly misrepresented position of his political rival, and his political rival along with it.

"Hitler, prior to coming to power had not killed anyone. He was a sociopath with a gift for gab, seeking to rise into the status of God by presenting himself as a messianic figure, but few could see that he was insane. Hitler was seen as a gifted, energetic leader of the People and was hailed as the savior of Germany, who re-energized the country. He was admired by Germans and had very influential and very rich sympathizers throughout the world. Hitler considered Henry Ford his personal friend. Indeed Ford financed NSDAP. Documents discovered in German and American archives after Hitler's defeat in 1945, show that in certain instances, American managers of both Ford and GM plants in Germany went along with the Nazi directives to convert the plants to military production at a time when U.S. government documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up military production in their plants at home. Ford and GM combined were producing over 70 percent of the German cars and military trucks at the beginning of the War in 1939.

"Hitler was also popular among the masses of people – the working class and particularly… among women. They shed tears when he spoke, they fainted, they devoted poems and songs to him, they screamed louder than American girls at mass rock concerts. He was not a politician, a celebrity, but a 'messiah'. In the eyes of many German citizens, he restored Germany’s national pride. He projected himself as their savior. He ran on the platform of change and hope. Yes, change!

"Despite a common misconception that it was 'authoritarian men' who brought National Socialist Hitler to power, his rise to power was fully supported by the majority of German women, and only a minority of men. In contrast, his counterpart Stalin, a Bolshevik International Socialist leader of the Soviet Union was shy of his inability to speak proper Russian, and came to power as an intriguing bureaucrat, patiently pitting his more talented political foes against one another. Stalin physically eliminated other contenders to his absolute power within the Bolshevik government, undemocratic to begin with, based on the ideology of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Unlike Stalin, Hitler rose to power through democratic elections, with women’s overwhelming support, once again proving that there is but a small step from Democracy to Fascism. The NSDAP … was much more attractive to female voters than the German Left in general, and the KPD in particular.

"Hitler himself thought that key to his success as an orator was in his ability to reduce his audience, both male and female, to 'a condition of femininity', in which he could play on their darkest emotions and abandon any attempt to appeal to their reason. In fact, he thought that the masses were already 'feminine'. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler postulated that 'the masses' of voters are female in nature:

“'a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning.'
"From the vast mass of verbiage in Mein Kampf, the passages on propaganda and oratory are virtually the only ones, which the politicians of today find worth noting. More over, Hitler appealed, first and foremost to the least rational people in his voter base:

"'All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses.'

"Hitler kept his people deliberately uninformed and liked it that way:

"'The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another." (all quotations above are from Chapter V of Hitler's Mein Kampf.)

"One of the most successful demagogic orators of all time, Hitler’s words on public speaking didn’t fall deaf on Obama’s ears. Both appealed first and foremost to women, and to those voters limited in their capacity to think rationally, those predisposed to 'straw woman' arguments, to demagoguery, which plays on their emotions of greed, fear, hatred and mistrust.

"As social fads in history go, pre-WW-2 German women liked or at least did not mind the idea of being pampered by the Nazi hierarchy. In a Nazi state, a German woman would be a reward, the Blau Blume (a Blue Flower, in German Romantic literature). A German woman would be responsible for nothing, but in charge of her household, while her husband is conquering for her the new lands, Lebensraum (killing off their native populations.) Hitler was the top dog in the Nazi male-supremacist hierarchy, and there is hardly any doubt that the majority of German women of all ages were captivated by his persona. 'His animal magnetism' and 'messianic' appearance, were canonized and made iconoclastic by his personal film director, the Nazi beauty-and-the-brain, the movie producer Leni Riefenstahl. At mass rallies, women reacted to his presence with complete, utter hysteria, perhaps feeling quite justified in their public display of orgasmic ecstasy 'expected of them' due to the pop-culture mythology of women being 'emotional creatures.'

"For women, Hitler exuded magnetism, which today is comparable only to the mass appeal of a rock star, usually affecting the female part of the audience much more than the male. The adulation of Adolf Hitler was no less electrified, than the teleprompter-guided, demagoguery-infused oratorical events by Barack Hussein Obama. Hitler was it. A woman whose hand he touched at a political rally, did not wash her hand for many days, so she could kiss it, thus touching her Furher. Doris K., then 14, wrote in her diary, 'Everybody screamed like crazy. Mass suggestiveness! The scream became a roar . . . Especially the women were fascinated. Their emotions were strongly touched and so were, without a doubt, unfulfilled sexual wishes and desires.'

"Electoral support for the NSDAP was spread unevenly across the age range, similarly to how enthusiastically younger women voted for Obama. The Nazi Party has often been portrayed as dynamic and youthful, while contrasted with the alleged sclerosis and conservatism of the traditional Right, the 60-year-old geezers who saw Hitler as a danger to democracy and the nation. The youthful, energetic image of the NSDAP was not without a reason: NSDAP membership was younger than that of other parties; the average age of those joining between 1925 and 1932 was around twenty-nine. It rose to an average of thirty-two in 1932. As with Obama, younger women, factory workers, university students and clerical personnel flocked to NSDAP.

"Of the few attempts to explain why German women voted for Hitler in 1932-33, the most popular, the most widely repeated, and generally accepted to this day was that, which explained Hitler’s popularity with women in terms of their supposed inherent irrationality.

"Contemporary analysts claimed that women were letting their hearts rule over their heads, 'in a female way'. Arguably it was a sexist point of view, as men are probably affected by emotion no less than women. The first major commentator to advance such 'Freudian analysis' was the disillusioned Nazi provincial leader, Hermann Rauschning, who fled to France. He remarked on the emotional affect which Hitler had on women, having witnessed from an angle close to the Furher’s podium the rapturously rolling, moist, veiled eyes of the females in the audience, which in his mind left no doubt as to the sexual character of their enthusiasm. Other commentators adhered to similar views. Thus, Richard Grunberger wrote:

“'Hitler's monkish persona… engendered a great deal of sexual hysteria among women . . . not least among spinsters, who transmuted their repressed yearnings into lachrymose adoration.'

"According to some contemporary writers, the sexual sublimation, which served as the driving-force of popular, mostly female enthusiasm for Hitler, was not merely one-sided: Hitler, too – they suggested – found an outlet for his frustrated sexuality, a compensation for his lack of a 'normal sexual relationship', in whipping up hysteria of adulation among his female listeners. Thus, Nazi rallies became a 'collective debauch', resembling 'the public sexual acts of primitive tribes.'

"Regardless of whether such 'keen observations' by contemporary commentators of 1940's hold any value today, Hitler the politician 'systematically adapted himself to the taste of women', as there was very considerable political capital to be gained. According to his biographers, Hitler exploited and manipulated 'specific female qualities, such as capacity for self-surrender or demand for authority and order', to the advantage of his party and himself.

"Devised in 2012, the Democrat political stratagem to corral American women voters into the Democrat barn by alleging Republican 'War on Women' is not only 'a straw woman' argument denying American women their intelligence, it is a hardly veiled 'War on Truth' waged by President Obama and his advisers. As for Obama's 'sex appeal' to women, sooner or later, the 'beauty' is what comes from within. His divisive racial, gender and class demagoguery is ugly as mortal sin."

Only Smart Men Have "Alpha" Sperm

I have to admit I read the Manosphere partly for humor.

Yes, there is a lot of good stuff in it how to improve yourself, and how to deal with the many retarded modern women today, but there is also a lot of stuff so ignorant the posters should be embarrassed.

One thing I've run across many times in the belief in "Alpha sperm" or "Alpha genes," and that a "Beta" can't produce an "Alpha," ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Now it turns out the only "Alpha" sperm belongs to smart men. And the guys babbling incoherently about superior "Alpha" sperm and "Alpha" genes possess neither.

The is from the site Science Direct.


"Human cognitive abilities inter-correlate to form a positive matrix, from which a large first factor, called ‘Spearman's g’ or general intelligence, can be extracted. General intelligence itself is correlated with many important health outcomes including cardio-vascular function and longevity. However, the important evolutionary question of whether intelligence is a fitness-related trait has not been tested directly, let alone answered. If the correlations among cognitive abilities are part of a larger matrix of positive associations among fitness-related traits, then intelligence ought to correlate with seemingly unrelated traits that affect fitness—such as semen quality. We found significant positive correlations between intelligence and 3 key indices of semen quality: log sperm concentration (r = .15, p = .002), log sperm count (r = .19, p < .001), and sperm motility (r = .14, p = .002) in a large sample of US Army Veterans. None was mediated by age, body mass index, days of sexual abstinence, service in Vietnam, or use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or hard drugs. These results suggest that a phenotype-wide fitness factor may contribute to the association between intelligence and health. Clarifying whether a fitness factor exists is important theoretically for understanding the genomic architecture of fitness-related traits, and practically for understanding patterns of human physical and psychological health."

The Open Borders Loons Have Always Been Nuts, Are Nuts Now, and Always Will Be Nuts

I have a degree in Mass Communications and was a newspaper reporter and editor. The Mainstream Media inherently does not tell the truth, which is why I don't read newspapers, rarely read magazines (which are better than newspapers) and don't watch or listen to the news. It's just filling your head with lies.

Let's take the ideologues and brain-dead fanatics who think open immigration and open borders is a great thing, and benefits the West with its "vibrant" immigrants. Sure it does.

Recently there has been a lot of protests in Europe against Israel. The media is not telling 95% of those people are not European, not Christian, and not smart.

I recently read a comment from one of the 87-IQ illegal aliens coming across the southern border. It was: "I'm as good as you."

Not, you're not as good as me. It's not even close. If you were as good as me, your country wouldn't be a toilet (because it's full of people like you) and you wouldn't be coming here to live in a culture created by people like me.

These people cannot be assimilated.

By the way, I once saw some attack helicopter pictures from Afghanistan, taken at night. Three towel-heads were taking turns fucking a sheep. And a Mexican in the U.S. caught screwing a dog said, "It's my dog." And having owned a taxi for five years, I guarantee this: a lot of non-white immigrants are sexual perverts. And some of the white ones.

The open borders/mass immigration believers don't have a leg to stand on. I'm mixing my metaphors, but their house is built on sand. How about, "a house divided against itself cannot stand"? Good wisdom, not that the blind leading the blind can see it. The "libertarian" open borders types can only sputter about the evils of "the State."

I know Jews who hallucinate antisemitism everywhere. Everyone's trying to convert them to Christianity, by force if necessary. But when real antisemitism rears its head, they're shocked because they never saw it coming. When it comes to these things, they're the dumbest people in the world.

By the way, the media is also ignoring that a trouble of trouble is instigated by Jewish gangs attacking Muslims. Hey, Europe has imported the Middle East right into their front yard! Way to go!

This article is from the site, whiskeyplace.

Mass Non White Immigration Equals Anti-Semitism

"Frenchmen or Tribal Rabble?

"Yahoo reports that thousands are protesting Israel in London. The Jerusalem Post reports that between two and three thousand people took to the streets of New York City to protest Israel. In Paris, Haaretz reports that thousands took to the streets to give Nazi salutes and trash synagogues...

"One might ask, just why has the average Londoner, Frenchmen, or Big Apple citizen changed to hate Israel so much? The answer is, they haven’t. Its just that London, Paris, and New York City are filled with Third World people. And Third World people are filled with hate for Jews in general and Israelis in particular. So more non-White immigration means the politics of Egypt or the Sudan informing the West. And just as the old saying goes, it will be the Jews first (hated for having a higher average IQ, and generally more successful, like the Chinese Diaspora), then other Whites.

"They Don't Look Like Downton Abbey

"Look at them. Do these women look like they could have been in Downton Abbey? Do they have any connection at all to England? Are their signs even in English? [No.] Make no mistake. The same hatred on display for Jews and Israel is also there for OTHER WHITES. Like the Irish. And the Italians. And the Poles. And the Germans. And the French. And the English. And the Dutch. And the Norwegians. And the Icelanders. And the Spanish. And the Hungarians. And the Greeks. And the Swedes. And the Finns. And the Russians. And Czechs. And the Swiss. No White will escape that hatred. And the hatred will exist because Whites will have higher IQs, and in general be more successful in life in general than Non White Blacks and Muslims. After all, their signs are not even addressed to English speaking people. Its all in squiggles. For other Arabs in other places.

"Non Whites Love Hitler

"Who loves Hitler? Black people do, particularly in France. Muslims love him as well. Mein Kampf is a perennial best seller in Turkey. Egypt, Lebanon, and India (among Muslims) are also places where Mein Kampf sells very well. For Blacks and Muslims, Hitler is a roadmap. First the Jews, and then … Other Whites. This cannot be emphasized enough.

"Do you think it will stop with Jews?

"And there is nothing Other Whites can do to avoid the hate, and the fate, should Non-Whites have power over them. Look at them, above. Do you really want these people in your cities? Whites can’t stop being smarter as a people, than Africans and North Africans and Middle Easterners. They can’t stop doing things that make them more successful: teaching their girls to read and write, do arithmetic, refraining from cutting off their clitorises, refraining from establishing hard, rigorously enforced harems and polygamy, refraining from forbidding sex to young men save with goats, sheep, camels … and young boys. Other White people cannot refrain from reading for pleasure, or from not veiling and restricting their women. And these things that Other White people do, make them more successful than your average African or Muslim, even leaving aside an intrinsic genetic advantage of IQ.

He doesn't look like a Cockney

"Your Average Muslim, will be good at Chechen-y type things as Steve Sailer noted. Making bombs, suicide bombing, blowing up the odd Marathon and killing a bunch of idle spectators. But this does not produce wealth or make a people prosperous and productive. Whatever Danegeld a cowed other population can be induced to fork over, is soon squandered. On men lounging around all day not working but trying to create raider-status as the most dangerous raider of other peoples; to get an approved Wife. Or the money will be spent on Big Man harems, or terrorist raids, and other wastes of money like camel races, boy concubines, and such like.

"And thus the hate will always be there. Of course, genetics inclines the stupid to stupid behavior, collectively, and the more gifted to smarter behavior. Smarter people LIKE solving puzzles, creating new technology, figuring things out, living in an abstract, non-concrete world where creating new things makes money. They don’t like endless Big Man competitions, tribal levies to fight other tribes, a life of Game of Thrones that never ends. Smarter people like safety, security, comfort, and predictability. So they can invent new and more compelling technology that ends up re-ordering their societies for the better, even if intermittent change and disruption occurs. [But never the chaos that never ends of Muslim and African societies.]

"For all their faults, Western Societies are incapable of the sort of routine and never ending slaughter that you see in Iraq, or the Congo, or Uganda, or Nigeria, or Pakistan. Pakistan has been an independent country, officially at peace since the last official War of 1971 arguably, and at worst since the conflict over Kashmir ended the active fighting in 1999. That’s fifteen years of active peace, and the conflict was far less devastating than what Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Britain, or Russia suffered during the Second World War.

"And yet, the slaughter never stops. Shias are cut down regularly, as are Baluchis, along with Christians and secular Sunnis. Plain old blood feuds and criminal activity create one of the world’s highest murder rates in Pakistan, leaving aside the Salafist Jihadis intent on displacing the overtly Muslim Sunni government in power.

"This violence is endemic, not the least of which as Stanley Kurz wrote in the 'Weekly Standard', no real state can exist among Arabs (or for that matter though he does not say it, Africans). The gist of Kurz’s argument is that Arab states (he might make an exception for the better organized, higher IQ state of Malaysia which is of course, non-Arab but SE Asian) are too weak, corrupt, and inept to be trusted by anyone, least of which are their own people. And that cousin-alliances aka Tribes or the sort of society seen on Game of Thrones rules everything. That to create some sort of security people form tribal alliances. And at the same time will not give up weapons or tribal warfare because the State cannot as in Europe suppress them.

"The central institution of segmentary tribes is the feud. Security depends on the willingness of every adult male in a given tribal segment to take up arms in its defense. An attack on a lineage-mate must be avenged by the entire group. Likewise, any lineage member is liable to be attacked in revenge for an offense committed by one of his relatives. One result of this system of collective responsibility is that members of Middle Eastern kin groups have a strong interest in policing the behavior of their lineage-mates, since the actions of any one person directly affect the reputation and safety of the entire group.

"Universal male militarization, surprise attacks on apparent innocents based on a principle of collective guilt, and the careful group monitoring and control of personal behavior are just a few implications of a system that accounts for many aspects of Middle Eastern society without requiring any explanatory recourse to Islam. The religion itself is an overlay in partial tension with, and deeply stamped by, the dynamics of tribal life. In other words–and this is Salz-man’s central argument–the template of tribal life, with its violent and shifting balance of power between fusing and fissioning lineage segments, is the dominant theme of cultural life in the Arab Middle East (and shapes even many non-Arab Muslim populations). At its cultural core, says Salzman, even where tribal structures are attenuated, Middle Eastern society is tribal society.

"Though Kurz will not say it, at least part of this is IQ. European nation-states were able to crush the tribe because they were run by higher IQ people, not just the rulers but the commanders of non-feudal levies, and critically the people themselves. Unlike other societies, Europeans could and did form national identities [Asia excepted of course.] and a strong central state because they could see the advantages: a neutral court of justice, wealth and power through trade and manufacturing (even Early Modern Manufacturing like Delft’s porcelain) and the security against your tribe, your alliance, finding the downside with few allies and thus … screwed. The King by being the King, was fair, taking allegiance from all and protecting all against tribal revenge. Kings were smart enough to emphasize this advantage, and the average soldier, leader, and nobleman was smart enough to see the advantage of giving up some freedom and power in exchange for security.

"Nations and peoples who did not unite under a King and strong central government able to create mass levies of peasants using gunpowder weapons and drilled through the use of instructors reading … instruction manuals (your peasants did not need to read, but their leaders did), fared poorly. Scotland, Italy, Poland, riven by tribal feuds were the playthings of more powerful peoples, as was Ireland under the yoke of England. Tiny Netherlands, Prussia, and Switzerland showed the power of an Absolute Stadtholder, or Kaiser, or semi-federalized power structure eliminating blood feud tribes. But it takes a people smart enough to see the advantage of a King over a Tribe. And disciplined enough to make it stick overall.

"One might argue that the War of the Roses was the crushing of English feudal tribes in favor of a … Tudor style nation-state complete with Absolute Monarch and a Nation not tribes.

"As such the interest of the nation is … the nation. It is not riven by feudal, tribal blood feuds. It is not characterized by: universal absolute male militarization, every man under arms all the time, with surprise attacks on the innocent and collective guilt and punishment. No. It is … a rational, unified, exclusive use of force nation state. The King nor the Government allows rabbles, tribes, or mobs to mete out their own punishment. Rather it is for a neutral, unbiased, impartial Monarch or Government (at least in theory) to hand out whatever punishment cruel or gentle might be in order.

"And secondarily, this is why Non-White immigration to Western countries is a horror. The entire hard-won Western way of life moving from Game of Thrones and Red Weddings to a place where every male does not have to be armed all the time, where surprise attacks on innocents are not part of the way of life, where collective guilt and punishment are not on the agenda, is at risk when you import tribesmen who because of their low IQ and blood ties cannot and will not abandon their way of life. And instead, wreck the Western one. And give us:

A Red Wedding at every opportunity
Your life determined by which Tribe you were born to
A constant look-out for attack and betrayal
Violence without end or resolution

"Look at these people. Can anyone say they are Frenchmen? Or Londoners? Or Gothamites? None of these people belong in the West. If they and their descendants stayed five hundred years, they would not belong in the West. This is as true of Africans by the way as Middle Easterners.

"Does it matter to the U.S., or France, or Britain if a few thousand Gazans are killed in response to constant rocket attacks by Israel? No. It does not matter to Egypt, or at least their rulers, and the Assads and ISIS would call a few thousand dead a day’s work. Those two have butchered hundreds of thousands, and promise more blood. Gaza? An irrelevant side show. Someone with a deep, national attachment to their country, would not care if they were British, or American, or French. You don’t see, for example, that sort of thing directed at Putin and Russia. Even in Holland where many of the dead in the down Malaysian Airliner came from, there are no screaming demonstrations and trashing of Russian people, shops, embassies, etc. This is a tribal reaction with tribal flags, and tribal hatred of other people, at work.

"To sum up:

"Africans and Muslims love Hitler.

"They are tribal and HATE HATE HATE Jews and Israel.

"Their HATE HATE HATE of Jews and Israel be assured extends to OTHER WHITE PEOPLE.

"They are incapable of being Frenchmen, or Englishmen, or Americans.

"They should not be let into the West, particularly Europe and America.

"Those here should be deported. To tribal countries more suited for their tribal ways."

The Triple Revolution, Followed by Another Triple Revolution

"Good things come in threes" - Old Sayings

I used to read a lot of science fiction from 11 to 14. One I remember vividly was a story by Philip Jose Farmer called "Riders of the Purple Wage." In it he wrote of the Triple Revolution Document, on which his story was based.

So I ordered a copy of it. These days, it's free on the Internet.

This paper was created in 1963, and it was about three "revolutions": the "cybernation" revolution of increasing automation; the weaponry revolution of mutually assured destruction; and the human rights revolution.

We are still having the cybernation revolution and we still have no idea how to handle it. Clueless nerdgeeks cheer fast-food places becoming automated and throwing the 87-IQs out of a job, but contrary to their hallucinations of these people training for better, high-paying jobs, that ain't happening, and ain't gonna happen. These people are going to end up on welfare, permanently (and the document predicted that, too).

In fact this is going to be a huge problem in the not-so-distant future.

So what happens with these people will be, paraphrasing that old Chinese curse, "interesting."

I'm not seeing a weaponry revolution, but I am seeing a misuse of weaponry by the government, especially in its attempt to establish a police state. So what's new? That's the history of government.

I'm not seeing a human rights revolution, either. Yes, people are protesting abuse and repression, but they're always doing that.

The big problem, again, is automating people out of their jobs.

Today, we supposedly have three more "revolutions":

The Internet Revolution the Mobile Revolution, and the Social Network Revolution.

The Internet Revolution "has created new opportunities for people to gather information and communicate in ways that was not possible before. It has also given people the tools to become their own publishers."

The Mobile Revolution has made "our physical separation from each other by time and space less important, by making it possible for people to have access to friends as well as information all the time, no matter where you go."

"The Social Network Revolution "has made us go from socializing in tight groups and changed our relationships to make them, as well as our social worlds, more diverse. It also allows us to move among and between these worlds in an easy way."

Oddly enough, those have been revolutions.

Just think! The knowledge at our fingertips. I find it astonishing. And I'm especially happy to see the self-publishing. And I can find just about everything I want to the internet is seconds.

I have a degree in Mass Communications, and some of the classes were very enlightening. Newspapers are actually written for high-school graduates. The internet is for college graduates, or at least the smart.

The Mainstream Media, then and now, and much worse now, aren't particularly interested in the truth - just propaganda. The internet is far more interested in disseminating the truth. This is the main reason newspaper are dying, and good riddance.

I used to be a newspaper reporter and editor. The biggest newspaper I worked had a publisher who was a MBA from a top five school, and he was a moron.

So good riddance to such fools.

The internet and those two other revolutions are giving power back to the people, where it belongs, and I've loving it. The more the pompous are bought down - those who they are so intellectually and morally superior they believe they hae the right to dictate what people read and the ideas they get - the better it is for everyone.

Now we end another Triple Revolution - the elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank, the elimination of the Police State along with militarized police, and the elimination of 99% of the Federal Government.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

The South Should Have Won

"Behind every fortune is a great crime" - Honoré de Balzac

The War Between the States was not about slavery. It was about what almost every war is about.


And as St. Paul wrote, "The love [actually lust] of money is the root of all evil." (Radix malorum est cupiditas - Latin that means "greed is the root of evils." Or, in the proper sentence order, the root of evil is greed.)

Half the wealth in this country is concentrated along the Boston/New York/Washington D.C. corridor. These are the Yankees that started the War Between the States. This is pretty much where the "1%" live.

The death rate among Southern officers - the smartest - was appalling.

How what is there that makes this corridor so rich?

Why, the federal government, of course. Sucking up taxpayer money.

I once had a girlfriend who lived right outside of D.C. - in Maryland - and worked for the feds. She started at $100,000 a year and got a $10,000 a year raise every year.

The South should have won.

The more war, the wealthier this corridor becomes. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." The Bushes, for example, are not Texans but wealthy New England Yankees.

Governments go through three phases: agricultural, industrial, and when they start to collapse, financial. The latter is always associated with Empire.

We are deep into the financial/empire phase, thanks to that corridor and the people who keep sending politicians there, thinking they'll make a difference. For bad, yes. For good, no.

Let's put it this way: do you really think it would be any worse if they South had won and we now had two countries?

I give us until 2030.

"The business of war is profitable. In 2011, the 100 largest contractors sold $410 billion in arms and military services. Just 10 of those companies sold over $208 billion." - USA Today

Friday, July 25, 2014

"Feminist Envy of the Beautiful"

I'll tell this story again: in the story of the Garden of Eden, Eve is seduced by listening to the serpent, which is a symbol of envy, and Adam is seduced by listening to Eve. The moral? Women's greatest sin is envy, and Adam's is listening to an envious woman.

In other words, no man should listen to any woman when anything envious comes out of her mouth. Basically this means not listening, and not acting, on anything leftist - since leftism in based on envy and therefore leveling people.

I've mentioned before that in 2010 I had two women say to me, "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world." Both had been popular with men in the past, but ended up middle-aged and without home, husband and children. "You bastards, how dare you not give me what I want! I'm eaten up with rage and envy, and I'll drag you down you sonsofbitches!"

Envy attempts to bring the other person down. Since feminism is based on envy, not only of men but other women, some women will attempt to drag other women down. Specifically, unattractive envious feminists will attempt to bring down better-looking women.

See this? The envy and hate on the face of this unattractive woman is clear to see. Since she's not a decoration and never will be, she wants the same for the other women. "Since I cannot be you, I want to drag you down to my level and make us equal." That's why leftism is based on envy: everyone must be equal.

God forbid this unattractive women ever become a dictator. She'd probably throw acid in attractive women's faces.

Of course, it is not fair that women be unattractive. I wish I could wave a wand and change that.

By the way, the exceptionally attractive women I've known have told me they're the object of envy and hate from less attractive women - stares of hate and rude behavior.

This article is from the site Face to Face.

"This shit never ceases to crack me up. Now, I have nothing against ugly girls, but I cannot stand when people nakedly advance their own selfish ends under the pretense of altruism. First, I grant that there are groups who are so disadvantaged that they cannot stick up for themselves, and so more privileged individuals must provide 'a voice for the voiceless' -- slaves who depended to an extent on the agitation of white abolitionists, for example. But note several crucial features of such a relationship:

"1) The crusading group is in an objectively more advantageous or desirable situation, while the to-be-protected group is not.

"2) The crusading group enjoys some kind of power or influence that the to-be-protected group does not.

"3) Because of 1) and 2), the crusading group feels some degree of pity, compassion, and/or solidarity with the to-be-protected group, such that they feel compelled to help them out.

"4) The to-be-protected group will benefit from the crusade, while the crusading group does not expect to benefit in the same sense. Indeed, that is the definition of altruism: incurring costs to oneself in order to bestow benefits upon others.

"In the present case, clearly the feminazis are not protesting against the objectification of themselves: 'Women are not for decoration' -- not the ugly ones anyway. So the assumption is that they're sticking up for their oppressed sisters who work at Hooters. But let's have a look at whether the crucial features of altruistic crusading are met. As for 1), the real situation is the reverse of what's expected: it's the hot girls who enjoy numerous advantages that the plain or ugly feminazis lack. More, hot girls command the attention of not just the average male but also plain females (who then incessantly gossip about and slander them), so their messages are easily noticed -- think of the topless PETA activists (NSFW) -- whereas plain or ugly feminazis are, for some odd reason, more likely to be ignored, again the opposite of what feature 2) predicts. Therefore, rather than feeling compassion or solidarity with hot girls, the feminazis are boiling with envy and resentment, against feature 3), as is plainly visible in the stare of the plain woman in the picture. 'Stupid airhead bitch,' you can almost hear her say. 'Well, if that's what men go for, rather than cold, bitter, semi-smart women like me, then that proves that men are scum.' Turning finally to feature 4), it's obvious that de-emphasizing feminine beauty would only serve to cripple hot girls relative to their plain and ugly competitors, a la Tonya Harding's attack by proxy on Nancy Kerrigan.

"Of course, if Hooters girls were down-and-out prostitutes, there would be reason to worry about their predicament regardless of how good they looked. But they're just young girls who want to make more money than they would answering phones, manning a cash register in a clothing store, or whatever low-wage jobs are available on their college campus or the local mall. They're not strippers or any other type of sex worker. True, they'll be oogled constantly by their customers -- but hot girls have a way of attracting that type of attention no matter what job they do. The only (former) Hooters girl I know is my cousin -- her father (my blood-uncle) owns a private dentistry practice, she attended a 'public Ivy' college, and she's perfectly well-adjusted and outgoing. As I said, it's mostly a side job you take when you're young to make better money than other bullshit jobs, then you graduate and do something serious. Hooters girls are the last people feminazis need to protect, though they have plenty to covet as regards their looks and personalities. (And for those keeping score, she's 1/4 Japanese like me, but she appears half-and-half.)"

Why a Woman Cannot be "Hypergamous" and Attracted to Loser "Bad Boys" at the Same Time

I don't believe in Evo-Pysch at all. It's not a science and in fact is not even close to being one, so let's stop pretending it is.

Here's an example: women are "hypergamous" and supposedly want the best men to have children by. I've heard some real nonsense from the ignorant. They really believe there is "Alpha" sperm and "Alpha" genes, which shows they know nothing about genetics.

If a woman is irresistibly attracted to "Alphas" who are rich and good-looking and popular with women, then she cannot at the same time be attracted to Loser Bad Boys.

Unless, of course, these Loser Bad Boys are tattooed, meth-dealing, motorcycle-riding George Clooneys. Who don't exist.

I was raised with Loser Bad Boys. They were not "Alphas." Most are dead from drugs or murder or in prison. None of them were good-looking and none of them were popular with women. They were narcissistic and stupid and sometimes very scary. And for the most part, I got along with them just fine.

Yes, some women were attracted to them, but every one of them was physically disgusting, not to mention stupid.

By the way, I have Loser Bad Boys in my family. One got into a gun fight with a cop and got his pinky finger blown off (the doctors don't know how many times he was shot because some of the bullets went through the same holes). The second got 40 years for murder, got paralyzed in a fight with another inmate, and is permanently in a wheelchair. He will get out at age 65. His life ended at 25.

I also know about women who write prisoners. I've met them, just the way I've met a lot of whores and groupies. They're nuts and unfit for any kind of relationship.

And if you think these women are good for just a fuck, have at it. The last guy I knew who tried is dead. Murdered. Blown right off his Harley. The shooter got life. And one of my friends got his jaw broken by one of these guys, because he was with this guy's "girlfriend" and had no idea that she was. This was the same guy I saw get into a gunfight (if he knew who I was, he ever mentioned it, even though later he worked a while for my father).

The Soft Boys of the Manosphere wouldn't be talking about these things as they do is they had any experience in life.

Don't talk about things you know nothing about. You don't know anything about "Bad Boys." I do.

Experience trumps stupid theory every time.

Prediction: I will hear every excuse and rationalization as to why women can be attracted to rich, good-looking, popular "Alphas" and unattractive, poor Loser Bad Boys at the same time.

And every one of them will fail. It's because the Believers have gone down the Rabbit Hole and can't find their way out.

"Cosmic Leveling and the Animalization of Man"

I understand leftists intellectually but not emotionally. But then, I'm not full of hate and envy, and I am not run by my infantile feelings and don't have a fuzzy mind. I can also extrapolate into the future.

Leftists can do none of these things. What they can do is project their own problems onto other people. When leftists speak of "hate" it's the own hate they are projecting on others. Same with "racism" and "sexism" and whatever. The greatest racists and sexists I know are leftists.

Eric von Keuhnelt-Leddihn (everyone should read his Leftism Revisited understood these things. He pointed out that "leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature; they don't understand it at all" and that leftism is about "the overthrow of the Father."

Leftists want everyone to be "equal." Except, of course, for them. Since they consider themselves the intellectual and moral superiors of everyone, they believe this gives them the right to "plan" and run society, and to shovel people around like gravel.

It never works. Society is a thin, fragile film on top of a lot of bad human nature, and when leftists meddle with society (since they think human nature is plastic and can be molded), that bad animal nature pops right up.

Of course, feminism is leftist and look at what it's done. Leftism not only means the destruction of the family, but of religion and anything else that stands between the leftist and his greed for power, domination and control.

The destructiveness of leftism is what the following article is about. It is from the site One Cosmos and was written by "Gagdad Bob."

"'Leveling is the barbarian's substitute for order.' --Aphorisms of Don Colacho

"As mentioned a few posts back, one of the general tenets or principles of conservative thought is the recognition and preservation of vertical hierarchy. When 'natural distinctions are effaced among men,' writes [Russell] Kirk, 'oligarchs fill the vacuum.' (Like nature, trans-nature abhors those vacuous nothings.)

"Thus, the story of leftism does not have a happy ending, i.e., a carefree proletariat living on Sugar Candy Mountain. It doesn't end in a classless society but a two-tiered one, e.g., wards of the state and administrators of the state, bureaucrats and cronies, power and its clients.

"It is why the 'income inequality' liberals pretend to care about has become so much more pronounced under Obama, why labor participation is at a historic low, and why blacks are falling further behind (one reason, anyway). The cure? More of the same!

"Here's how it works: 'Each day we demand more from society so that we can demand less from ourselves' (Don Colacho). Or in other words, little by little we transfer our power to the state, until the state does all the demanding and we do all the obeying.

"'Hierarchies are heavenly. In hell all are equal' (ibid.). Indeed, 'if men were born equal, they would invent inequality to kill the boredom.' But since they are born unequal (or better, un-equivalent) -- in talents, in intelligence, in interests -- the left has invented a soul-sapping, boredom-inducing culture to stifle the recognition. Mind-numbing bread and mediated circuses to keep the LoFos either amused or riled up.

"Another aphorism: 'In society just as in the soul, when hierarchies abdicate, the appetites rule.' Why? Because in a two-tiered system there can be nothing higher than carnal appetite and endless desire. The state has the overwhelming advantage here, since conservatives must rely on arguments, whereas the left has only to bribe with other people's property. Thus, 'elections decide who may be oppressed legally.' And 'social justice'? That's the term they invented 'to claim anything to which we do not have a right' (ibid.).

"Ah, Obama's epitaph: 'Revolutions have as their function the destruction of the illusions that cause them.' True enough, but he's also causing an awful lot of collateral damage to reality while he's at it.

"I could playgiarize with Don Colacho all day. Let's move on to the nature of this vertical hierarchy.

"I suppose the first thing a spiritually bereft leftist will say is, 'what about 'all men are created equal?'' Do we really have to remind him that this refers to equality before God and therefore before the law? This mediocre book on Original Sin makes the point that the doctrine of our primeval calamity assures that all men are equal in another sense, of ineradicable guilt for unavoidable sin. Thus, the doctrine can be 'curiously liberating,' in that it implies that we are 'all in the same boat' and in need of a vertical intervention, the prince no less than the pauper.

"For [Frithjof] Schuon there are no fewer than five vertical degrees which we could boil down to corporeal/material, soul/psychic, spirit/intellect, formal (cataphatic) God, and formless (apophatic) God. Being that this is a hierarchy, it can only be understood from the top down. Thus, each level is a kind of downward projection of the one immediately above.

"As we have discussed and even belabored, the essential error of modernity was to invert this hierarchy, such that the bottom -- matter -- became the top. But this led to insoluble absurdities such as how life can emerge from dead matter, or how the soul can emerge from biology. As a patient of mine once put it, 'you can only get so much blood from a turnip.' Likewise, you can only get so much wisdom from a rock.

"In a properly oriented cosmos, we see the hierarchy of Beyond Being → Being → Spirit → Soul → Body; or Godhead → Personal God → Celestial/Logospheric Realm (which is mirrored in the Intellect) → Psychic → Corporeal (encompassing space, time, matter-energy, etc.)

"Now, what would happen if we were to collapse this hierarchy? Or rather, what has happened? Let's start at the top: what happens when level 1 is merged into 2? A fascistic theocracy such as Islamism, which merges God and religion and denies the divine freedom of the Godhead.

"How about when 2 blends into 3? I would say an impotent and disembodied idealism. 3 into 4? The desiccated, wisdom-free mind of the tenured. 4 into 5? The successful animalization of man, i.e., nihilism and barbarism.

"For example, Schuon draws a distinction between 'intellective intuition' (level 3) and 'a merely cerebral 'intelligence'' (level 4). 'The cult of intelligence... distances man from truth: intelligence narrows as soon as man puts his trust in it alone,' for the level 3 intellect is precisely that faculty 'which perceives the transcendent,' or level 2.

"And importantly, this intellect is 'a receptive faculty and not a power which produces: it does not 'create': it receives and transmits; it is a mirror' of what transcends it, just as the level 3 psyche, when properly functioning, should be a mirror of 'the world.'

"Another valid point, although one that will be easier for eastern Christians to appreciate: that the intellect is not fallen per se; or rather, one might think of it as the divine spark which survives the fall, even if it is only an ember. But the real fall is from level to level, especially from intellect to ego and then on down to the infrahuman (which is technically lower than the innocent animal, which only does what comes naturally; but when man becomes an animal, he sinks beneath himself and exists in a kind of unreal, non-space).

"But if we understand the hierarchy rightly, there is nothing whatsoever 'wrong' with any of the levels, so long as the hierarchy is maintained. I am thinking, for example, of Pope JP2's 'theology of the body,' whereby the body (and sexuality) is divinized by energies and graces emanating from above. (Indeed, the whole doctrine of Incarnation could hardly be more clear about this.)

"Likewise, there is nothing wrong with the tenure-mind, so long as it is informed by the spirit, and doesn't become detached from vertical reality; or negate what surpasses it, up to and including its very source and ground."