Friday, October 31, 2014

Envy or Gratitude

One of my commenters, Ray, wrote this:

"Folks self-segregate into two groups: those who resent and envy the blessings given others, and those who appreciate the blessings given others. I can't be what you are and have your talents so, guess I'll just hate and hinder you. Problem solved."

That's pretty much the way it is. For years I have been a great reader of "fairy tales," myths and fables (such as Aesop's) and many of them deal with envy and its destructive effects, and gratitude and its beneficial effects.

In fact, these stories tell us you can feel envy, or you can feel gratitude, but you can't feel both.

Successful societies have learned to control envy. Uncontrolled, it always destroys.

The ancient Greeks noticed the benign form of envy is admiration, which leads to emulation, or imitating someone because you want to be as good as they are. That is what is meant by emulating someone so you can achieve excellence, which leads to flourishing/well-being. This still exists in America.

Unfortunately, these days, a lot of the country is based on envy. The whole Democratic Party is based on envy and the Republicans have been following suit for decades.

Leftism is based on envy, and has been since its modern founder, the Marquis de Sade. Of course, feminism is leftist and based on envy - "We must be equal!"

"Equality" is not what it's about. It's more, "Since we are intellectually and morally superior to you we will rule, and everyone else will be equal." Think Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron." Everyone was "equal" except the Hilary Clintonesque lesbian Diana Moon Glampers, who shotgunned anyone who wasn't equal.

I don't see much gratitude and appreciation from women toward men anymore. It's more than a bit mystifying, since men created about 99.999% of everything in the world, and if all of those inventions evaporated all women would be in a seriously bad way. Bad in the sense of fatal.

I suppose it's since when you envy someone you can't consciously admit it. Just the way you can't admit you want to destroy them. So what you get are many liberal/leftist women envying men, wanting to destroy them and calling it equality, and thinking they can run a society to which their contributions have been infinitesimal.

There has been much study of envy for many years. Psychoanalysts have studied it for decades. Melanie Klein wrote a famous book called Envy and Gratitude, and I will quote from Wikipedia about it:

"The Kleinian psychoanalytic school of thought of which Melanie Klein was a pioneer, considers envy to be crucial in understanding both love and gratitude.

"Klein defines envy as 'the angry feeling that another person possesses and enjoys something desirable – the envious impulse being to take it away or to spoil it' (projective identification). (Klein 1984, p176). Envy leads the child to phantasise about entering the primal good object (the good breast) and debase the good object specifically because it is good. The good object is internalised, becoming part of the child’s ego, so roles are reversed from the pre-natal state as the mother is now inside the infant. This phantasy is a manifestation of the death instinct, where bad feelings are directed towards both good and bad objects, leading to confusion between the two (Hinshelwood, 1989).

"Klein further defines envy as an innate 'expression of destructive impulses' meaning it is present from birth, and that it has a 'constitutional basis', implying it is resistant to change.

"Kleinian gratitude is diametrically opposed to envy, as envy expresses destructive drives and is usually aimed at the object that provides gratification. Therefore envy can be seen to lessen or destroy gratitude towards the good object. Gratitude is the particular affect towards an object that produces appreciation or satisfaction.

"Like envy, gratitude is inborn and crucial in developing the primal relationship between mother (the good object) and child. It is also the basis for the child perceiving goodness in others and herself. 'The sense of an object being available and freely given arouses care, consideration and gratitude for the object itself as part of the life instinct.' (Hinshelwood 1989)

"Gratitude felt towards the good object shapes the child’s capacity for love in subsequent love relationships throughout life. If the envy aimed at the nourishing breast is intense, full gratification is obstructed because envy destroys and desecrates that which is good."

I have thought for a long time envious people cannot love. If they say otherwise, that's just talk.

When it comes to the Manosphere, a lot of it is based on the resentment toward and envy of women, otherwise there would not be so much denigration of women as being loveless "hypergamous" whores interested only in "Alphas" and "cash and prizes." That shows no gratitude or love toward women (think about how many times the word "love" is used in the Manosphere) because there is no love or gratitude from women toward men. It's a feedback system.

And as for gratitude, I try to keep in mind what was said by Meister Eckhart, who was sort of a theologian/mystic: "If the only prayer you ever say in your entire life is 'thank you,' it will be enough."

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Mencken on Feminism - Well, Sort of

There aren't any Menckens around anymore, not in the MSM. Newspapers are in big trouble and it's their own damn fault. I used to be a newspaper editor and the publisher was a moron with an MBA from Harvard. He didn't know what the hell he was doing.

If you want newspapers to get back online there needs to be truth and nastiness, like Mencken used to do. And others like him, such as James M. Cain. Today they're a bunch of PC cowards, boring and talentless and cowardly.

Anyway, here is a short quote from Mencken on certain women.

"One hears that 'the women of the United States' are up in arms about this or that; the plain fact is that eight fat women, meeting in a hotel parlor, have decided to kick up some dust."

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Women Entering and Destroying Male Spaces

Is it because of that "shit test" silliness? No.

It's because of envy, which leads to wanting to destroy, even if you destroy yourself.

It's because of the desire for power, domination and control - the Dark Triad for women (feminism is the Dark Triad for women). The Dark Triad, for men and women, is not what those in the Manosphere think it is. In reality it's a horror.

The Dark Triad is just narcissism, and if one characteristic that can be used to describe narcissists, it's envy. Which is why I point women's greatest flaw and pride/hubris (thinking they always right) and envy (it's right there in the story of the Garden of Eden).

As Sam Vaknin writes, "Envy is at the core of my being: seething, foaming-at-the-mouth, destructive, morbid, and potent. I envy other people's happiness, possessions, accomplishments, status, spot in the limelight, contacts, you name it. I disguise my envy. I rationalize and intellectualize it. I do my utmost to ruin the source of my frustration while pretending to be his or her friend. I lie sleepless at night, rebelling impotently against the injustice of it all, that any one should surpass me, perfect as I am."

Vaknin is a self-aware narcissist whose narcissism put him in prison.

I've also pointed out not only is feminism based on the envy of men and the desire to unwittingly destroy them, in many ways so is the Manosphere, with its denigration of women.

As Randi Kreger writes about the envious: "[The envious] feels contempt for those he envies and puts them down vociferously--sometimes to their face, sometimes not. This restores his upside down world where he's always on top."

Since women as a group (Hivemind, that is) destroy everything they touch, they have to be kept out of certain things - politics, for one. Education is another, unless you want to make education a real degree along with learning Latin.

Women are never going to go in STEM. They aren't going to write computer games, just whine they want the games changed to be more "female friendly."

Mythologically women are either nurturers or destroyers. Currently, the destroyer is ascendent. But not forever. For that matter, not even for long.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

"Creative Admiration: From Envy to Mastery"

The "motivation trifecta" is is autonomy, mastery and purpose. It's been studied all over the world by scholars from many different disciplines.

People imitate each other; it's how we learn. Apparently we tend to feel gratitude (or are supposed to) when we can imitate someone and it allow us to achieve mastery and therefore excellence (as in arete). That can lead to eudaimonia, or flourishing/well-being.

In other words, at first we imitate or at best emulate, then through autonomy, mastery and purpose we can achieve excellence and therefore eudaimonia. But it always starts with education/emulation (the word "education" means "to draw out.")

Everything we do is built on what came before. We should be grateful for that - and it certainly shouldn't be destroyed in the hopes we can achieve something better from chaos.

I've written before of mentors. We are short on them today, and as for dead mentors, certain people are trying to destroy them, often as Dead White Male Slaveholders, and trying to replace them with mediocrities. And for some odd reason, they are always from failed cultures. And we are supposed to admire and emulate them?

It's an attempt by the envious - the mediocre envious - to destroy the culture.

This is from Psychology Today and was written by Jeffry Davis.

Admiration is an artful way to convert envy into mastery.

"Would watching Michael Jordan waft across a basketball court inspire you to become a more skilled hoopster? Would listening to Eric 'Slowhand' Clapton (tagged by Rolling Stone as the #4 guitarist of all time) goad you to dust off your six-stringer and try your own hand?

"I've been wondering about these questions. I've been wondering whether or not cultivating admiration can shift envy toward mastery.

"The root of admiration is wonder. Literally. The Latin mira translates to 'wonder.' When you stand before someone you admire, you open up to the possibilities of being human or of being creative. You glimpse even what might be possible for you. And you're drawn toward that person through your desire to be like if not better in your own way than that person.

"A few social psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt (The Happiness Hypothesis and the forthcoming The Righteous Mind) have studied admiration with mixed results. Haidt and Sara Algoe gathered their college-aged participants for a study of excellence, gratitude, and admiration to observe whether or not certain stimuli could consistently motivate participants to be more exceptionally selfless (excellence) or more skilled (admiration). They showed participants videos of Mother Theresa and of Michael Jordan, for instance. Videos of both did, in fact, inspire the desire to be more selfless and skilled, respectively, but some participants felt more daunted than inspired by Jordan's prowess.

"Understandable. There is, I think, a motivation-admiration curve just as there's a motivation-challenge curve. Most people, for instance, like a challenge within their reach. And 'within their reach' is key. If a task is too easy, many creative people get bored. Too challenging, and they'll get frustrated.

"So, too, with what I'm calling the motivation-admiration curve. With a number of my clients, we study masters in their fields- whether that field is literary writing, photography, marketing, blogging, entrepreneurial ventures. 'Find a remote or dead mentor,' I say. Then - knowing the folly of trying to discern the magic of creativity from the product itself - we nonetheless study the craft and techniques of certain masters.

"Why? Because creative mastery involves in part studying masters.

"The idea is to find the right model within the client's range. A client is writing a novel set in another country and with shifting points of view. I suggested we read and study together Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible so she could see how Kingsolver masters the shifting points of view among the mother and four daughters. After she finished reading the novel, she said at first she got excited. 'Then,' she said, 'I panicked. I'll never be able to do that!' The motivation-admiration curve seemed way out of her range.

"After I talked her off the bridge, we talked about the purposes of the exercise, and soon she discovered that she could do some of what Kingsolver does but do it in her own authentic way.

"She realized she could imitate and emulate. Imitation is the foundation of our mammalian creative impulse. Emulation is the actual building of something with our unique signature - but built nonetheless on the foundation of masters who, we're grateful for, have preceded us.

"Once she started delving more complexly into the interior complexities of her characters and started walking in the rhythms of her characters' voices, she got out of her way, so to speak, and started letting each narrator of her novel simply tell his or her own version of the larger story.

"Her deliberate study of Kingsolver let her see that it could be done and gave her some glimpses into how (skill) it could be done. Her despair dissipated. And she saw what she could do. And she did it. Her novel likely will be published next year.

"Here are three tips to get you started:

"1. Choose a master within your field that is 'within reach.' A master within reach inspires but does not frustrate you. You see you can learn from this person - even if remotely (or even if the person is dead - See Michael Cunningham's The Hours for evidence of his admiration for Virginia Woolf).

"2. Some clients keep mastery notebooks and files - evidence of their study of their respective field's masters. These notebooks and files contain actual examples of masters' works, interviews with the masters, and clients' notes, too. Try it. Use some combination of Evernote, hard copy files, and visual files or corkboards to absorb the master's work.

"(You're not making an altar to a hero! You're gathering ideas for inspired study!)

"3. Imitate intentionally. Our teenaged minds take Emerson's 'Imitation is suicide' way out of context when we strut around saying, 'I'm an original' - which is, ironically, a very unoriginal teenage stance. Truth is, from being an infant on, we learn what it means to be creative human beings by imitation. You might as well do it intentionally and learn in the process. From imitation comes, perchance, emulation.

"Admiration is an artful way to convert envy into skill. But more than mere skill, it is a way of bringing out the best in yourself and giving concrete shape to that best within. It's also an essential way, as an adult, to keep admitting that you don't have everything figured out, that you're never too old to learn something new, and that your field has potential to keep surprising you. Enjoy this one wild life."

Monday, October 27, 2014

Imitation, Admiration and Envy

"Admiration is an artful way to convert envy into mastery." - Jeffrey Davis

I don't remember who is was - perhaps H.L. Mencken - who wrote that when people are allowed to do as they please, they usually imitate each other. It can be a terrible thing, and it can be a great thing. Because, as even Thomas Jefferson noticed hundreds of years ago, imitation is how we learn.

There, unfortunately, a big difference in the way men and women imitate. Men generally imitate other men out of admiration (and such imitation can lead to excellence), the way men wear the jerseys of their favorite athlete or sports team.

Often, women imitate men out of envy, which is not a spur to excellence but destruction. "He has an easy, high-paying career," they tell themselves, "so I want one, too. As long as it's not outdoors or dirty or dangerous, of course."

They don't know they're imitating men. To them it's about "fairness" and "justice." Overthrowing the Evil Patriarchy. All that silliness.

If someone was to tell them they were imitating men out of envy, they'd have hissy fits.

The problem with envy, of course, is that you want to bring down those you envy. So women, while they want to imitate men, also want to bring them down. Which is bizarre, since it brings societal destruction.

Men don't imitate women. If they did, it's a sign of degradation.

As far as I know, the ancient Greeks were the first to notice that admiration is the benign form of envy. The destructive form of envy is, well, envy.

The latter is what women overwhelming do. Destructive envy, to bring down the other, and, unwittingly, bring down yourself.

And when someone envies there can be no gratitude - which means no happiness.

"Imitation is the foundation of our mammalian creative impulse." - Jeffrey Davis

'Women's Intelligence as a 'Mirror'"

Some women are very intelligent and creative but they are exceedingly rare. They tend to cluster in the arts but not the sciences. I have no sure explanation for any of this, but I do know some reason try to convince themselves - and others - there really have been female Isaac Newtons out there.

Speaking of Newton, he was clearly a geek/nerd kind of guy. So was Adam Smith, for that matter. Many men of that type were, and are.

I have no sure explanation for that, either. Why would most of the intelligent, thought, rational, science-oriented men tend to be of the geek type? Who generally aren't that popular with women?

Women do tend to imitate men's opinions, though. I once had a women tell me universal health care was a good thing "because it works in Europe" (which it doesn't). When I asked her if she got that opinion from her ex-boyfriend (a nitwit liberal) she said nothing. She also imitated my opinions - and she was a very smart women compared to the average woman.

Since women are generally economic parasites the more society tries to "bring them up" to parity with men, the more men have to be brought down. What is this? Envy? Sure seems so, and anything based on envy is guaranteed to fail.

The following was written by Julian O'Dea and is from his site.

”I have a theory that women have evolved intelligence sufficient largely to assess the intelligence of men as potential sexual partners. They are clever at detecting cleverness. They are good at mimicking and copying intelligence. I find this with my wife – she is always repeating my opinions, sometimes word for word, back at me. I think this is why women excel in formal education. They can repeat the lecturer’s opinions back at him. '

"Something I said at this discussion:

"Alte, the blogmistress, had written, in response to David Alexander:

”'Your personal focus on eloquence blinds you to recognizing true intelligence, I think. You mistake good breeding and class for true talent. Most 'smart women' aren’t very smart in any useful manner, whereas most 'smart men' are. The women have merely been trained to mimic the men’s intellectual displays, but that does not mean that they actually possess the same intellect.

"Them girls thar just talk nice and write real pretty. But if you listen to what they are actually saying, or what they actually do, they are pretty useless. They would be better off making babies and teaching them to speak eloquently and eat with forks and knives, [than] crowding the more competent but less sociable men out of the job and education markets.'"

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Women Who Are Full of Hate, Envy and Vengeance

For some reason which I cannot explain I have run into a lot of unmarried/divorced women who are full of hate and revenge. Revenge is often caused by envy, so I figure these women are full of all three.

Probably the first time I noticed this was in college, when I ran across some women who I can only describe as having "thick features." Not attractive, a bit overweight, would never have good bodies even if they lost the weight.

They often seemed to think they were entitled to guys way out of their league, and they were in a rage at guys in their league and tried to do things to them. Hate, envy, revenge.

Now I'm running across quite a few never married/divorced middle-aged women. Same - hate, envy, vengeance. Same thick features, same weight problems. They act entitled to something they don't deserve, and are full of hate toward many men.

Somewhere in their heads there is apparently something about "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned." They don't realize if they've been scorned it's their fault for being so unpleasant. Their hate slops over onto innocent men.

Carl Jung, as I've pointed out before, said women's greatest flaw was thinking she was always right. That means men are always wrong, which means men are the cause of women's problems. At least in the heads of many women.

Such excessive pride, such envy, such hate, such desire for vengeance! Those are women's greatest flaws, and so much of it is directed toward men. And that's one of the reasons so many men are withdrawing from women. And many women cannot see that.

Because, of course, it's not women's fault. It's men's fault, so they have to change. But men have changed and tried to accommodate for decades. It's give and give and give and never get. No respect, no appreciation, no gratitude. Just abuse, contempt, hate, envy.

I decided quite a while go many women are just big, immature children. Not all, of course, but enough.

Sooner or later there is going to be a backlash. In fact, it's already started. It started a while ago. That's why marriage rates are at a 93-year low.

I wonder this, though: are women ever going to look in the mirror and realize how much of thee problems is their responsibility?

Answer? Most probably not.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Why Would Any Women Want to Usurp My Position?

"Feminism at its core is envy of men and a desire to usurp their position. It would be difficult to overstate just how deep this feeling is." - Dalrock

I realized many years ago feminism is based on the envy of men and therefore the desire to bring them down. That's why it's destructive - if men are destroyed, so are women, even though most women don't know that.

Leftism - and feminism is leftist - is about destroying. Destroying everything, actually, mostly out of pure envy.

Women want to usurp men's positions - those high-paying, indoor jobs. They don't to be carpenters or taxi drivers or auto mechanics or miners or work in a steel mill.

I can't imagine any women wanting to maintain her own car, the way I do. She's welcome to change the oil and transmission fluid or change the brakes. Have at it, honeybunch.

You can also tear the rest of the carpet out of my house and put down laminate. I'll supervise and bring you a drink.

You can also tear out the wall and change the leaking shower head. We can't use the shower until I do that.

I ran across a woman a few days ago who changed the electric motor on her dryer. She watched how it was done on YouTube. I didn't bother to tell her that was easy.

Why I asked why she didn't have her 17-year-old son pull the motor off, she said he would man-handle it and break it. I don't think she was ever married, so this teen-age boy (a high-school dropout) had no father to explain to him how to control himself.

She's got the attitude she can do anything a man can, but when something went wrong with her car it was a male friend of hers who pulled the head and fixed it. He's self-taught, too, just as I am.

I occasionally tease her. She ignores me. I saw her putting oil in her car and suggested she change the oil someday. I could tell by her face she's just steaming when I say such things.

I can't imagine any woman wanting to take my position. Working on cars, fixing houses, fixing the plumbing, changing wax rings on toilets...they don't want to do that. They want me to do it. They want to feel triumphant about doing the easy stuff, which makes them think they're equal to men in the hard stuff.

This is childish self-delusion. I'm waiting to see them get boards dropped on their heads, which happened to me when I was building houses with my father when I was 12 and 13. Or run a power saw over a finger and get a groove in that finger, which I have also seen. Or hit a thumb with a hammer, which ain't funny no matter what the cartoons portray. Or find the tip of some guy's finger when he fell off a ladder.

They don't want any of that. Can't even do it, for that matter. It's always the east, indoor stuff. And if they were forced to do the hard stuff, can you imagine and tears and complaints and resentment?

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Insulating the Naive from Reality

I am mystified at the naivete I see among some young women. There was a case recently where a young, very drunk, half-dressed woman, staggering home at 3 am, was accosted by some black guy, who pretty much turned out to be a serial killer. She was his second victim. Her body - what was left of it - was found recently

Didn't anyone tell her anything? Parents? Hello? Anyone?

I am pretty much aware of anything that goes on around me. It's kind of hard to surprise me. For that matter, everyone who's been mugged or had something bad happen to them always had a gut feeling something was going to happen to them - and they didn't pay attention to it. I do, and that's why I have never been surprised, never been attacked because I always saw it coming, never had anything truly bad happen to me.

I also know alcohol deadens that spidey-sense. The more you drink, the more disabled it is.

I sometimes get the impression society insulates many women from reality. They're taken care of way too much. Here, get your college degree, we'll give you a make-work job, there are all kinds of social services for you. And they end up having no clue as to what bad things can happen to them.

For example, look at what rape is supposed to be on college campuses, as compared to real rape. Talk about naive!

I see horror as inherent in reality. Experience in life? Yes. All those folk tales my mother read to me as a kid? That, too. All the horror fiction I read. Yep.

But what are women raised on? Romance novels. And they expect men to show up and save them. Chivalry, you know. They still expect it.

I always keep in mind anyone can kill me. The only defense I have is to not do stupid things, stay out of stupid places, stay away from stupid people. And my gut, intuitive feelings.

But a noticeable number of women, essentially being big children, apparently have little to none of those defenses.

Bizarre that women still expect men to protect them, when so many of them abuse men - and don't know it's abuse. But imagine what would happen if men abused women and didn't protect them?

Women would be helpless, and there is little they could do to protect themselves. They are essentially 100% dependent on the good graces and chivalry of men.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Brothers Grimm

"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." - H.P. Lovecraft

One of my posters, who goes by the name of Tekton, sent me this link, a film version of the folk tale, Bearskin:

Click here

These films were made in the '70s by Tom Davenport, and they are not available online to link to. Only trailers are available at YouTube. I strongly advise you to watch this.

These versions are exactly what the misnamed "fairy tales" are really about: they're horror stories. Does Stephen King writes fairy tales or horror?

Horror is always about Chaos or Evil intruding into the normal. Chaos is pushed back or defeated, and the normal reasserts itself.

Disney, of course, bowdlerized them, although some of the scary stuff did make it through.

"The tales are a magical, scary, comedic, and often violent journey into the forests of ancient Germany and France where every path leads to mystery and adventure," writes the site, Candlelight Stories.

So what exactly is the use of telling children such stories?

Bruno Bettelheim, in his The Uses of Enchantment: the Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales, suggested "that traditional fairy tales, with the darkness of abandonment, death, witches, and injuries, allowed children to grapple with their fears in remote, symbolic terms. If they could read and interpret these fairy tales in their own way, he believed, they would get a greater sense of meaning and purpose. Bettelheim thought that by engaging with these socially evolved stories, children would go through emotional growth that would better prepare them for their own futures."

In other words, they deal with it in the safety of their own minds. In addition to folk tales, think about how much horror there is in urban legends, print, radio, film, comics TV. Think The Walking Dead. Think even Breaking Bad. There must be a purpose to this, and an important one

Kids know how much they can take. They tell you to stop or put their hands over their eyes. But in the long run, most love the stuff.

Think about it this way: if kids were raised pure and innocent and knew nothing about life, how would they turn out? They'd be nuts. They couldn't deal with the unknown, the threatening, the deadly, the stalking, the thing under the bed, the scary stranger. Horror teaches us how to react in situations of dread and terror and fear and threat.

In fact, they'd end up like those stupid naive girls who stagger around at 3 am drunk and half-dressed, and end up butchered by a serial killer.

The Universal Leftist State Devalues Both Men and Women

Under leftism everyone is supposed to be equal. For those who think about such things, no one is equal, because no one can be equal. Only that which is identical can be equal, such as two pennies or two nickels. (Strictly speaking, though, the only people who aren't supposed to be equal under leftism are the rulers, who think they are everyone's intellectual and moral superiors.)

The only way people can be anywhere near equal is through the power and force of the State. I think of the Greek torturer Procrustes, who put people on his bed and stretched and chopped those who wouldn't fit. I also think of Kurt Vonnegut's most famous (perhaps infamous) story, "Harrison Bergeron."

Under the Universal Leftist State, All Must Be Equal! Men and women must be equal!

We're trying it through Affirmative Action ("White Men Need Not Apply") and "advanced education" for women, which consists mostly of make-work jobs which are parasitical on the real economy. Women are supposed be be "raised" up while men are being brought down.

Not surprisingly, leftism is based on pride and envy. Pride, in the belief people are infinitely malleable and can be moved around like chess pieces, and envy because everyone is supposed to be the when everyone is the same there isn't supposed to be any envy.

Yet the Law of Unintended Consequences has come into play, as it always does. Leftism has devalued women, just as it has devalued men. It always does.

Leftism is also about destroying society, since it believes people are malleable, and so a new, better society will be born out of the ashes of the old. That never happens.

But when society and civilization are damaged, the worst of human nature comes to the front, not the best. A noticeable number of women have now become drunken sluts instead of wives and mothers, and men have become slackers. Just look around. All you have to do is notice marriage is at a 93-year-low.

Just look around. Women whine, "Where have all the good men gone?" never looking in the mirror and thinking, "I'm a damn poor excuse for a woman." And they don't realize under leftism there can't be any good men. They're supposed to be brought down and destroyed in the Name of Equality.

Some women think They Can Have It All. They can't. They end up not getting married and not having kids, and wondered what has happened. Where are all those men who are supposed to support their careers and give them kids, too? The women who believe such things are deluded. And all in the Name of Equality.

They don't realize they're not supposed to get married, and if artificial wombs ever get going, they're not supposed to have kids, either. They're just supposed to slave their lives away as disposable drones for Corporation/State.

I sometimes wonder if we are supposed to even have homes, or just live in cinderblock apartments.

Under the ideal Borg-like Universal Leftist State there isn't supposed to be any marriage or families at all. All of use are supposed to be raised in orphanages, and ultimately be popped out of artificial wombs. The late psycho Shulamith Firestone wrote a famous book about that, The Dialectic of Sex.

I had seen such beliefs in science fiction, especially Brave New World, but that was a cautionary tale and I didn't think anyone really believed this crap. But there are some who do.

Ultimately this is what we are supposed to be under the Universal Leftist State. No marriage, no families, raised by the State to be equal, identical and interchangeable, both male and female. That's not Heaven, it's Hell.

I don't think there is any "conspiracy" about these things, not in the loony sense of Evil Geniuses with an Evil Plan that everyone is helpless against. That's just retarded. It's just that this is what leftism automatically does.

Fortunately we'll never get there. Everything goes in cycles, and sooner or later the Right will start knocking heads again, as it always does, and we'll start a new cycle again.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

The Brothers Grimm - "Bearskin"

There are several levels to this folk tale. I'll only cover a few. The soldier is brave, resourceful, and takes risks to reap a big reward. The woman who wins is sympathetic, honest, loyal, honest and fair. The two who lose are insulting, and full of scorn, derision, hate, rage and envy. They were so proud and haughty they could not be concerned to wonder why Bearskin looked as he did, and showed no gratitude and appreciation that he saved the whole family.

There was once a youth who enlisted as a soldier bore himself bravely, and was always seen to be foremost when the bullets were falling. Everything went well with him while the war lasted, but as soon as peace was proclaimed, he received his discharge, and was told by his captain that he might go where he pleased. He had no longer a home, for his parents were dead, so he went to his brothers, and begged that they would give him food and shelter until war broke out afresh. But the brothers were hard-hearted men, and said: "What do we want with you? You are of no service to us; you must go and fight your own way as best you can." The soldier shouldered his rifle, which was all that was left to him, and went forth into the world. In time he came to a wide heath, on which there was nothing to be seen but a circle of trees. Full of sorrowful thoughts, he sat down under one of these and began meditating on the sadness of his lot. "I have no money," he said to himself, "and I have learnt no trade but that of fighting, and for this I am no longer wanted since peace was declared; I see nothing left for me to do but to starve." All at once he heard a sound as of the wind blowing, and looking up, he saw a stranger standing in front of him, dressed in a green coat. He was of stately appearance but had a nasty cloven-foot. "You have no need to tell me of what you are in want," said the stranger, "I know already; both money and property I am prepared to give you, as much as you can make use of, spend what you will, but I must be first assured that you are a man without fear, for I do not wish to waste my money on a coward."

"A soldier and fear!" he answered, "when were they ever found together? You can put me to the proof." "Good," replied the stranger, "turn and look behind you." The soldier turned, and saw, trotting towards him, a great bear, growling as it came along. "Ho! ho!" cried he, "I will tickle your nose for you in such a way that you will not want to growl any more," and so saying, he aimed at the bear and shot it through the muzzle, and the animal fell over and did not move again. "I see that you are not wanting in courage," said the stranger, "but there is yet another condition that you will have to fulfill."

"I will consent to anything that does not endanger my salvation," answered the soldier, who was perfectly aware with whom he had to deal. "Otherwise I will have nothing to do with it."

"You shall judge for yourself," continued Greencoat; "during the next seven years you must neither wash, shave, comb your hair, or cut your nails, nor say a paternoster. I will give you a coat and cloak which you must wear the whole time. Should you die before the end of the seven years, you will be mine; but if you survive, you will be a free man, and a rich one, as long as you live." The soldier thought of the great poverty and distress in which he now found himself, and of how often he had before faced death, and he made up his mind to brave it once again, and so gave his consent to the proposed conditions. The Devil then drew off his coat, handed it to the soldier, and said, "When you are wearing this coat, you have only to thrust your hand into the pocket and you will find it full of gold."

He then went and cut off the bear's skin. "This," he said, "is to be your cloak and your bed; on this must you sleep and on no other bed must you lie, and on account of your apparel, you shall be called Bearskin." And with these words the Devil disappeared.

The soldier put on the green coat, thrust his hand at once into the pocket, and found he had not been deceived. Then he threw the bearskin over his shoulders and started again on his travels, but he now enjoyed himself, and denied himself nothing that did him good and his money harm.

In the first year his appearance was tolerable, but in the second year he already looked more like a monster than a man. His face was nearly covered with hair, his beard was like a piece of coarse felt, there were claws at the ends of his fingers, and cress might have been grown in the dirt that had collected on his face. Everyone who saw him fled before him; he was still, however, able to find shelter for himself, for, in whatever place he stayed, he always gave largely to the poor, begging them in return to pray for him, that he might not die before the close of the seven years, and he always paid handsomely for everything he ordered.

It was in the course of the fourth year that he came to an inn, the landlord of which refused to take him in, or even to allow him a place in the stables, for he was afraid that even the horses would take fright. But when Bearskin put his hand in his pocket and then held it out to him full of gold pieces, the landlord thought better of it, and gave him a room in one of the back parts of the house, making him promise, however, not to let himself be seen, as it would give his house a bad name.

As Bearskin sat alone that evening, wishing with all his heart that the seven years were over, he heard sounds of lamentation in the adjoining room. He was a man of a kind and sympathizing heart, and he therefore went to the door and opened it, and there he saw an old man flinging up his arms in despair and weeping bitterly.

Bearskin stepped nearer, but at first sight of him, the old man sprang up and was about to escape from the room. He paused, however, when he heard a human voice, and finally, so persuasively did Bearskin speak to him, he was induced to disclose the cause of his distress. It seemed that his wealth had diminished more and more, until he and his daughters were now in a state of starvation; he was too poor even to pay the landlord what he owed him, and was threatened with imprisonment. "If that is the extent of your trouble," said Bearskin, "I have money and to spare," and he thereupon sent for the landlord, settled his account, and put a large purse of gold besides into the poor old man's pocket.

When the old man saw himself so wonderfully delivered from his trouble, he did not know how to express his gratitude. "Come home with me," he said to Bearskin. "I have three daughters, all miracles of beauty, choose one of them for your wife. When she hears what you have done for me, she will not refuse you. Your appearance is just a little peculiar, I must confess, but she will soon put all that right for you."

Bearskin was delighted with this proposal and went home with him.

At the first sight of his face, the eldest daughter was so horrified, that she screamed and rushed from the room. The second daughter did not indeed run away, but she looked at him from head to foot, then she spoke and said, "How can I marry a man who has no longer even the semblance of a human being? I would rather have the shaven bear that was on show here once, and gave himself out for a man; he had at least a good soldier's coat and a pair of white gloves. If it were only a matter of ugliness, I might grow accustomed to him." Then the youngest rose and said, "Dear father, the man who has helped you out of your trouble must be a good man, and if you have promised one of us to him as a wife, your word must not be broken." It was a pity that Bearskin's face was just then so covered with dirt and hair, or those present might have seen how the heart within him laughed for joy when he heard those words. He took a ring from his finger, broke it in two, and gave one half to the girl, and kept the other himself. Then he wrote her name in his half, and his own name in hers, begging her at the same time to keep it safely. After this he took his leave. "I must continue my travels for three more years," he said to his betrothed; "if at the end of that time I do not return, you may know that I am dead and that you are free; but pray to God for me that my life may be spared."

The poor young girl clad herself all in black, and whenever she thought of her betrothed husband, her eyes filled with tears. Her sisters treated her to nothing but scorn and derision. "Take care how you offer him your hand," the eldest would say, "for he will give you a blow with his paw." "You must be careful," said the

other, "for bears are fond of sweet things, and if he finds you to his taste, he will eat you up." "You must never do anything to irritate him," the eldest would start again, "or he will begin to growl." "But the wedding will be very lively," continued the second, "bears dance so well." The youngest made no answer, and would not allow herself to be put out by these taunts.

Meanwhile Bearskin wandered about from place to place, doing all the good he could, and giving freely to the poor in order that they might pray for him. The last day of the seven years dawned at last. Bearskin went to the heath again, and sat down under the trees. Before long there came a sudden rush of wind, and the same figure stood looking at him as before, but this time it was evident that he was in a very bad humor. He threw his old coat back to Bearskin and asked for his green one.

"We have not come to that part of the business yet," said Bearskin, "you must first make me clean." And whether he liked it or not, the Devil was now obliged to fetch water and wash him, comb his hair, and cut his nails. Bearskin now looked once more like a brave soldier, and was handsomer than he had ever been before.

Having at last said good-bye to the Devil, Bearskin felt like a free man again. Joyful and light-hearted he went into the town, put on a magnificent garment of velvet, ordered a carriage and four horses, and drove to the house of his betrothed. No one of course recognized him; the father took him for some distinguished military officer, and led him into the house and introduced him to his daughters. He was invited to sit down between the two eldest, and they poured him out wine, and offered him the daintiest food, thinking all the while, that they had never before seen such a splendid-looking man. His betrothed sat opposite to him, with her eyes cast down and not speaking a word. When finally he asked the father if he would give him one of his daughters for wife, the two eldest sprang up and ran to their rooms to put on their richest attire, for each felt certain in her own mind that she was the chosen one. As soon as the stranger found himself alone with his betrothed, he drew out his half of the ring, and threw it into a goblet of wine which he then handed across to her. She took it from him and drank, but her heart gave a great throb as she saw the half ring at the bottom. She took her own half, which was hung round her neck by a ribbon, placed it against the other, and saw that the two pieces fitted exactly. Then he spoke and said, "I am your betrothed husband, whom you only saw as Bearskin, but, by the grace of God, my human form is returned to me, and I am clean once more." And saying this he went up to her, and embraced and kissed her. At this moment the sisters returned, clad in gorgeous apparel, but when they saw that it was their youngest sister whom the handsome man had chosen, and were told that he was Bearskin, they were so overcome with rage and envy that they both rushed out of the house, and one of them drowned herself in the well, the other hung herself on a tree."

Monday, October 20, 2014

What Are We Supposed to do About Women's Destructive Envy of Men, Which Will Collapse Civilization?

Leftism is the Bad Feminine, which means feminism is the Bad Feminine, and destroying society means destroying men, i.e. the "patriarchy." If anything, it's based on the envy of men? Why?

Perhaps because men created everything, and maybe on some level women know this. And the envious want to destroy those they envy, even if they destroy themselves. So, leftist, feminist women will destroy men even if they destroy themselves, and civilization. Because they are completely, 100% dependent on men, who created everything.

They bite the hand that feeds them.

Or, as my poster, Days of Broken Arrows, put it:

"People resent those on whom they depend. That's why teens resent their parents. No one likes to feel they need to be 'taken care of.' It makes them feel helpless. We like to be independent.

"Women know, on some deep subconscious level, that they owe their survival to the world that was built and is maintained by men. You can give them all the power positions in the world and dress them up in pantsuits and heels, but it's the men who built what they'll be running.

"If all the men went on strike tomorrow, we'd have power outages, looting, etc. and society would cease to function. They write about 'the end of men,' but 'the end of civilization' is what would happen if there really was an 'end of men.'

"They don't teach this in school. And the media can't say this for fear of backlash or being called 'sexist.' Women know we can't tell them this truth out loud -- much like kids know when parents can't tell them certain things. Some women resent this. Those are the ones of whom you speak.

"It's not a matter of 'having fun.' By becoming the Junior Anti-Sex League, women wish to strip men of their humanity and a large part of their reason for existing. This is why the societies before ours limited their rights -- they knew women contributed little but created lots of drama.

"We have to learn that lesson again and we'll probably have to do it the hard way."

The French have a word for this: "ressentiment."

Wikipedia defines it thus: " philosophy and psychology, is one of the forms of resentment or hostility. It is the French word for 'resentment' (fr. Latin intensive prefix 're', and 'sentir' 'to feel'). Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the 'cause' generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability."

In other words, "It's your fault, not mine, and I hate and resent you for the power I think you have over me, so I want to bring you down, even if I bring myself down, too."

"If I Can't Have Fun, Neither Can You"

I've said before I think women are more envious than men. It's been noticed for thousands of years. It's right there in the story of the Garden of Eden.

The thing about envy is that you want to drag the other person down, even if you drag yourself down. Think leftism, which is the Bad Feminine and based on envy and leveling in an attempt to eradicate envy. And of course, feminism is leftist- based on hate, envy and the attempt to destroy the Father, i.e. "patriarchy."

I think it's obvious unattractive women envy more attractive women. I'd had attractive women mention this to me about the attitude and behavior of less attractive women.

For that matter, envious people want to drag down anyone whom they envy.

I mentioned in my last post that many years ago I and some friends have had women claim we were sexually harassing them, when in fact we were doing nothing of the sort. Actually, they were sexually harassing us.

But why would they want to drag us down out of envy? Perhaps they thought we had a better life than they did? That we had more fun than they were? That they wanted to be part of it, and that we didn't want them to? Is that were the phrase, "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned" comes from?

I am reminded of Betty Broderick, who murdered her ex-husband and his new bride, even though she getting about $16,000 a month in alimony, and had a new house and boyfriend (and had kids by him). She just couldn't stand her envy, and brought him down even though she also brought herself down, too.

Envy, of course, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It's the only one that isn't any fun, either.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

"Sexual Harassment"? What's That?

I've only seen one case of sexual harassment in my life. Some black guy, who had a make-work job as a school administrator, was putting his hands on his white employees. The women, that is. (I take that back: I've seen black men harass white women and black women on the street, as long as no one was around. I've seen it from my car.)

The school administrator was told to leave.

Otherwise, I've never seen it. The Manosphere, in one of its many delusions, think those non-existent "Alphas" don't get claims of sexual harassment. They do.

One I only read about was the actor Ray Milland, who won an Oscar for portraying a drunk with the DTs. To rehearse for the role he staggered around in public unshaven and in ragged clothes.

A woman whom he had rebuffed saw him and gave him a look of triumph.

What the vast majority of "sexual harassment" is, is this: "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned."

It happened to me when a woman I didn't want to get involved with claimed I was sexually harassing her. A few years later a friend of mine, who was very popular with women, had a woman he dated once claim he was sexually harassing her. When I told him she had a crush on him - based on my experience - he said, "That's what my father told me!"

I've also seen obese, unattractive women who think men are after them. That one I don't understand.

What I had noticed in every case is that the women are not married, and without hope of being so, due to the Wall or unattractiveness.

Perhaps this is a way they use to convince themselves they're attractive to men...especially when they're not.

"How Personal Relationships Threaten The Power of the State"

Leftists are nuts and don't under human nature at all. They really thinks it's plastic and infinitely malleable. Who needs families? The State is Big Daddy and Big Mommy, and all of us will turn out just fine. Just a little more tweaking is necessary, that's all.

Leftism is always about the destruction of the Father. And that means the destruction of society and civilization. And the destruction of the Father is why you get what the Manosphere calls MGTOWS and PUAs.

Everyone needs meaning, importance and community. The family is the basis of those things. And the bigger the State gets the more it is threatened by families, so they have to be destroyed. Ultimately, that means the collapse of the State, because there is nothing left to support it. So we get these horrible cycles of from to Hell and back.

The is from the Federalist and was written by Stella Morabito.

"Marriage is the new bogeyman for our 'progressive' friends. It’s worth asking why that is the case.

"Consider this recent Slate article entitled: 'Just Say No: For White Working Class Women, it Makes Sense to Stay Single Mothers.' The co-authors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone both seem well connected to the school of feminist legal theory that claims marriage is generally an outmoded and 'patriarchal' institution. So perhaps it should come as no surprise they would be interested in discouraging it for yet another demographic: white, working-class mothers.

"Cahn and Carbone walk readers through their case study of Lily, employed but possibly pregnant by her boyfriend Carl, who’s unemployed and aimless. We’re told that Lily is not concerned about raising the child alone. She views Carl as more of a hindrance than a help, essentially just another mouth to feed.

"The Slate piece rounds up various statistics and trends – socio-economic, cultural, and so on – to make the case against marriage for Lily and all women of her class and color. The authors emphasize that men are less marketable these days, while working class women are increasingly more employable. They then argue that 'both men and women generally agree that a man who can’t hold a steady job shouldn’t marry.' Complicating matters further is that the men who do have better economic prospects, faced with a 'choice of committing to a woman who outearns them or keeping their independence… seem to prefer their freedom.' They conclude that the dearth of “marriageable” men should convince Lily she’s better off going it alone. (Amusingly, the authors here seem to borrow from an old timey explanation of the facts of life regarding male behavior, like mother-scolds saying, 'He’s just not marriage material, Honey.')

"There is a ream of statistics on the other side of this equation. Indeed, if single motherhood were such a boon, we wouldn’t see such a grossly disproportionate number of that demographic living in poverty. The Slate piece also adds to the confusion by essentially promoting the emasculation of working class men, ignoring the benefits of strong relationships, and accommodating the irresponsibility of both mother and father in cavalierly producing a child.

"But there are deeper aspects to that argument meriting closer examination.

Could the Real Target be Strong Relationships?

"In the end, all of the statistics quoted in this Slate are superfluous. For the real story we have to read between the lines. And the real story is this: society is not cultivating the habits and trust that build strong relationships among individuals.

"Let’s start by looking at Lily as a real person. She is in need of relationships, intimacy, and a life not overwhelmingly dominated by 9-to-5 drudgery. Let’s consider Carl a real human being also. Yes he needs a job, but he also needs the same things as Lily: to feel respected, connected, and useful to others. They both need to feel anchored to something worthwhile, not like displaced persons wandering about life. How does such anchoring happen? Through strong relationships with real people.

"Most telling in the Slate piece is this throwaway line about Lily: 'She has very few friends, married or unmarried, in strong relationships.' That is a statement worthy of deep exploration.

"Consider one major reason the authors urge Lily not to marry:

If a couple marries [sic—then divorces], a court will insist on a custody order and it will expect that both spouses continue their relationship with the child. Indeed, some states presume that the child should spend approximately equal amounts of time with both parents. These changes make marriage a better deal for elite men.

"How wacky is this? First, our friend 'Carl' is a schlub (that’s why Lily blows him off), certainly not an 'elite.' But the fundamental point here is that children and family, you see, are chopped liver in this deal. Marriage here is all about who gets what. Essentially, this means Lily is supposed to deprive her children of a relationship with their father because . . . ? Why? The deck is stacked against her? He doesn’t 'deserve' or presumably doesn’t even want a relationship with his kids? Lily should have an exclusive 'right' to custody?

"The upshot of all of this is to seal off the doors for Lily’s children in having a relationship with their father. It also serves to reinforce a jaded outlook in women like Lily so that the doors are sealed against any hopes they might harbor to cultivate strong – i.e., mutually respectful and loving — relationships with potential fathers for their children.

"Ultimately, the Cahn-Carbone argument is about separation and isolation. It serves primarily to separate people and separate families. And it’s another example of how children are the pawns and political footballs in just about every so-called 'progressive' agenda. Ironically, the argument also seems to cultivate a view of children born of casual sex as less deserving of intact families than children born to 'elites.' They are barely an afterthought in this picture, in which men are a hindrance to be avoided.

"So, raising a kid on your own is a snap? Well, possibly when you don’t really have to raise your kid—since in the case study, Lily’s parents are 'devout Christians who supported both her decision to have the child and her decision not to marry Carl, [and are] helping with child care.'

"The authors offer lip service to the idea that men like Carl should (someday) be employed – but only through government programs that don’t interfere with 'women’s autonomy.' For women like Lily this really means a fake Julia-style autonomy that likewise comes from heavy dependence upon government programs.

"Most troubling is that it seems the authors at Slate are happy to keep women like Lily separated from potential husbands. Why such eagerness to discourage the coming together of people by ties of family and kinship? Why tell single working mothers en masse that it’s best to 'just say no' to marriage?

"What have our progressive friends really discovered? They have discovered that strong families — i.e., strong relationships — are the primary source of well-being in society. But rather than seeing that as a good thing to be encouraged, many are instead making the case that families are the main source of 'inequality.'

"Literature expressing this line of thought is mushrooming today. We have, for random example, an author of a forthcoming book on family inequality, a University of Maryland sociologist, whose blog rhetorically asks: 'Is ‘the family’ a barbaric, pre-modern holdover institution, perpetuating irrational relations and inherited forms of inequality?'

"But this style of attack on the family has been bubbling up for a while. Consider this 1999 paper by a British professor of philosophy 'Is the Family to be Abolished Then?' She opens by proclaiming 'The family is one of the main causes of morally arbitrary inequality. . . . the effects of the family are so profound that its mere existence may severely impede the access of individuals to equal life chances.' She suggests that everyone could be better off if raised in a well run state orphanage.

"Then you have this 1998 trial balloon essay 'The Child Swap Society' published on the op-ed pages of several major newspapers. The author Sandra Feldman (d. 2005), president of the American Federation of Teachers, fantasizes in it about a society in which all parenting is done through state controlled lottery, solving the problems of inequality. Just 15 years ago the essay seemed very fringy. Not so much anymore.

"Another example is a project of the feminist legal theorist Martha Fineman, who heads up an initiative on 'Vulnerability and the Human Condition' at Emory University. Her work seems aimed at promoting government intervention as a means to remedy 'inequality.' Fineman openly advocates for the end of family autonomy and privacy in much of her work, including the 2004 book The Autonomy Myth in which she calls for abolishing all state-sanctioned marriage and replacing it with a scheme that requires all parties to draw up contracts regulated by the state.

"In all of their ponderings about inequality, our progressive friends never fully address the ultimate source of human misery: isolation brought about by broken and weak human relationships. Of course, cultivating strong human relationships would be counter-productive to an agenda that aims to grow impersonal bureaucracy and its attendant power cliques.

Isolation is the real source of inequality

"So the only element I see in the Slate piece when it comes to relationships is that it prescribes separation from a male figure in the household – for both the working mothers and their children – as the best choice across the board.

"If I were a single working mother, here’s how this Slate chorus would sound to me: 'There are no good men out there, so don’t even look! . . . All the statistics are against you and resistance is futile. But we have this nice isolation chamber for you. We’ll put food and drink out for you. We’ll assign you work and school and ‘communitarian’ opportunities as long as you don’t get married. We’ve got pre-K programs for your babies and toddlers. (Contrary to popular belief, we are just itching to be the hand that rocks the cradle.) And we’ll provide you with plenty of free contraceptives to further encourage you to have lots of loveless sex. That way you’ll continue to enable those ne’er-do-wells you like to hang out with. We know you want intimacy. But our policies are aimed at modifying your behavior so that you’ll never catch on and cultivate the habits that encourage real intimacy. Honey, you’re a great poster child for us at the moment. But we progressive elites really see you as a useful idiot. The main thing is that you give up on seeking any permanent male figure around you or your kids. No need to think deeply or independently about this, because we elitist progressive white women have it all figured out for you working class female drudges.'

"Perhaps you find this interpretation far-fetched? After considering the arguments of feminist gender theory listed above – how families are the main source of 'morally arbitrary inequality' – it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that strong relationships would get in their way. After all, strong relationships built on habits of mutual and loving self-sacrifice are ultimately where 'inequality' comes from – why some people are ultimately happier and more prosperous than others. Could this be the real basis for the slam on marriage of the Slate piece?

Dangerous Liaisons: Personal Relationships and Power

"Ultimately, personal relationships are the source of all real power. Connection with others is the font of knowledge and wealth for human beings. Whoever controls personal relationships pretty much controls everything.

"If you look around, you can see this sort of impulse to control relationships everywhere. The 12-year-old 'queen bees' in middle school culture as well as dictators on the world stage – from Stalin to Kim Il-Sung – can turn it into an art form. For seemingly harmless little girls the impulse exhibits itself in nasty lunch room or cyberspace snubs that dictate who can be friends with whom. For world dictators it manifests itself in show trials that condemn and socially isolate political enemies as 'non-persons.'

"Unfortunately, it’s always been the little dictators of the world who understand the ultimate power of personal relationships better than the rest of us who wish only to live and let live.

"Some of the 12 year olds in Lily’s world are in the business of telling all of us what to do and how to live, and ensuring that the only enduring relationships we have are with our government keepers. Others among them — in politics, academia, the media, Hollywood — will keep in place conditions that that suppress strong personal relationships. Why? Because only weakened human relationships and alienation can serve to build a culture of distrust, envy, and divisions in class, gender, race, etc. that empowers an elite 'vanguard'—among whom, politicians, academics and media moguls are prominent.

"By enabling a culture of excess in which self-absorption and self-indulgence reign supreme, power elites seem invested in guaranteeing our problems will be self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. Their bait — sloth, sex, and nonstop mind-numbing entertainment – is a feel-good trap. Nothing substantial can be built on what they offer, least of all solid relationships.

A Modest Agenda for the Future

"So there you have it. Lily thought Carl was good enough to screw, but not worth a commitment. According to the authors at Slate, that seems to be a good thing. It seems ironic, doesn’t it, that good habits and good relationships are really the bugaboo of progressive agendas? Our culture of self-indulgence, self-absorption, and sexual excess – which has been pushed very hard by so-called progressives – also cultivates ignorance about this reality.

"It seems funny, doesn’t it, how progressive agendas always seem to begin as 'solutions' in search of problems? Collectivist agendas breed alienation, isolation, distrust, and dependency, which produce poverty, social chaos, and epidemic anxiety, which soften the ground for collectivist agendas. The myth of 'inequality' is perpetuated with the prescription that further isolates people from one another.

"But here’s an idea: How about cultivating a climate for strong relationships? Strong relationships naturally have their roots in marriage and family life. They are then re-broadcast into society by the partners in and children of such relationships.

"Strong relationships are about teamwork: real communication, real cooperation, real trust, and real fellowship. How might individuals seek to cultivate these things? They can, you know, if government gets out of the way. And teamwork is about self-sacrifice, which is a dirty word these days. Yes, strong relationships may be difficult to produce. But that’s what makes them strong. The blacksmith analogy is apt: the tempering of the iron in the fire – as with a relationship through trials — will give it shape and strength.

"But the really dirty little secret statists would rather you not know is this: strong relationships of mutual self-sacrifice yield the greatest prosperity of every kind – spiritual, emotional, and material – for everyone.

"The hunger for strong family relationships will persist. Social engineers can only offer weak 'communitarian' relationships as cheap imitations for the real thing, which, in the end, is real, human love."

Saturday, October 18, 2014

I'm Descended from Slaves, and That's Just Fine with Me

I used to know this Jewish guy who told me that reason that Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years with his tribe of nitwits is so the slaves would die off. He didn't explain since I knew what he meant.

The one country that has suffered the most in the history of the world is Ireland. I am part-Irish, specifically Scots-Irish, or Ulster Scot. And I am descended from slaves ("Wallace" at one time meant "slave.") It means nothing to me.

Here is a long and very educating article.

The Irish Slave Trade.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

"The Incredibly Seductive Pull of a Very Skilled Narcissist"

"Butters falls in love with one of the waitresses (named Lexus), and obsesses over her throughout the episode, failing to see the insincerity of her interest in him." - The South Park episode "Raisins."

One of the amusing things about "Game" and self-proclaimed "Alphas" is that they think the applications of their beliefs actually works almost all the time. As if women are automatons who can't help with the "tingles" and their attraction to "Alphas." These guys apparently have little clue there are narcissistic "Dark Triad" women who can make fools of these men. How? Because men are the real romantics. And when they fall, they fall hard, and they never know what hit them. Think of the movie, Body Heat. Or the Elvin Bishop song, "Fooled Around and Fell in Love."

Mythologically these women are Seductresses, and many men are fools before them, no matter how deluded they think they are "Alphas" immune to them. It's sad but inevitable that such arrogance leads to a fall.

There are a few men immune to what is done to them. They're psychopaths. Of course, there are psychopathic women!

This is from the site Dr. Sam.

"If an extreme narcissist were religious, he would worship himself. He would apply to himself the phrase that says, “You shall have no other gods besides ME!” Narcissist are full to the maximum… with themselves.

"In my years of studying human nature and counseling many individuals, I have come across an amazing type of narcissist. This kind of narcissist is the one who is so seductive he makes you like or believe in him or her with your whole heart. In my personal opinion, this type is the most dangerous of all narcissists. The following are some characteristics of this impressive little “god.”


"Charm creates a feeling of being delightfully attracted to something. You can be fascinated with something or someone because of beauty. Though the looks of a person can be stunning to the point of you saying, “Wow!”, nevertheless, a captivating narcissist does not necessarily have to have good looks to draw you in. Good looks, definitely, can increase the magnetic pull towards the narcissist, but that is not the core. You can also be charmed by the pulling power of someone reflecting you so as to create a deep rapport. This intense connection is created when a person gives you the feeling like you’ve known them a long time or you feel initially safe with them. They have unlocked the door to your insides. A skilled extreme narcissist knows just how to reflect your music back to you so that you feel like he has your playlist of favorite songs.

More astute than you

"An astute person is one who creatively figures out some unique and impressive angle quickly, an angle few think about. Skilled narcissists can typically outsmart most folks. They are three steps ahead of you. They are also fast in coming out with these unique approaches. That is why you are constantly intrigued by them. When your relationship sours with one of these narcissists, you better watch out. They generally have already thought through how you might react and are ready to discredit you or destroy you. They have their ducks in order. When they get a lawyer you can bet that they are determined to humiliate and obliterate you.

Great storyteller

"A skillful narcissist can be some of the greatest storytellers. They can weave a complex story and mesmerize you with amazing statistics, trivia, quotes, history of events, to the point that you could feel overwhelmed. Naturally, they would be the center of those stories, often re-writing history. These skillful narcissists are hardly boring. They incessantly can talk to you with interesting information. Those I have known, I have often gleaned amazing information from. They too are students of human nature, but with a goal in mind. Their goal is to further their power by enhancing their stature and influence among those around them. Sometimes they exaggerate their claims and position. The media abounds with examples, ranging from politicians and business people to actors who are given to hype.


"Skillful narcissists work hard at being believable about their myths of themselves. They arm themselves with information that enhances their position and even can change the numbers to suit their arguments. The end goal is to snag you into his/her lair. One trick they use is to play the game of appearing magnanimous. In other words, they appear to take the high road of being nobler than you by forgiving your mistakes. Many times this is a set up to later trash or destroy you. I remember one who came into my office with their former lover. The narcissist said something like, “God knows how dysfunctional I am… and of course, I have my own therapist that I speak to about this… but… Could you please help my former partner here who is so vindictive… and mean… as a matter of fact, I think this person should have an MRI because they have behavior that is similar to that of a person having a brain tumor.” I could not believe how creative this attack was. I had to read between the lines to see the fake tears of this narcissist trying to take the position of Mother Teresa.

Able to cover tracks

"I am always amazed at how a skillful narcissist can cover their tracks. They will play two women at the same time and cover it up with some important business emergency out-of-town meeting. I’ve even seen them have false online identifications. Some may even exaggerate accomplishments, and though they work at a prestigious firm, they might be a junior member or a hated boss who steals credit from others. They can frame the theft as them first having the original ideas. One story sticks out in my mind with a skilled male narcissist who married a woman that he slowly destroyed over the years. It got so bad that one night he got right in her face and spit at her. She had to push him away from her and call the police. When they showed up, she was asked, “Did you touch him?” She said, “Yes, I pushed him.” They hauled her away for being the supposed perpetrator of domestic violence. On the way out and with a concerned face, the narcissist said to the police, “Please be careful. She needs her medication because she is a bipolar person!” Judge for yourself.

Among the greatest actors in the world

"One of the main characteristics of narcissism is that there is a wounded and/or insecure child inside the adult. To survive and compensate, the child has to divert attention and give appearances that are not necessarily true. The skilled narcissist has had many years of theatric practice often changing roles to suit the situation. Because they perceive that their very life is at stake they are zealous to protect and perfect their disguises. These theatric roles cover a wide range. Some are comedic. Others are highly “respectable.” There are also those who use intimidation to create distance and admiration or respect. They might use leather, tattoos, piercings, chains, motorcycles, cars, brash loudness, etc. They can also choose to be the lovable and huggable teddy bear persona. With the skillful narcissist, it is not so easy. The reason for this is that they actually believe they are the persona. I have had narcissists, in a moment of rare transparency and “weakness”, admit to me that they don’t even know who they are.

Be wise

"As you can see, the skillful narcissist is a person with some pretty amazing traits. In my opinion, they can be formidable. They can be impressive in power, strength, intelligence, size, and difficulty. If you find one opposing you, they can be astounding enemies. They are not omnipotent, though they might think so. They do have limitations. Their ego is their own undoing. Many times, when they discover that you are on to them, they disappear. They do this if they perceive that you can blow their cover and expose them as a sham. For an extreme narcissist, being fully exposed to the world is the greatest pain in their lives. It is also the best medicine to their disease because it will force them to look inside and deal with their pain and wounds. If and when that happens, they will become like the rest of us, realizing that we do need others to help and love us. They will see how they need to love from a genuine heart that does not seek to use people. A former and healed narcissist can turn all his powerful assets, which he used to advance himself, to making a powerful contribution in the lives of others and being realistically liked. In the meantime, be careful and avoid being duped and drawn by the amazing magnetism of this kind of person."

Wikipedia: "A femme fatale is a stock character of a mysterious and seductive woman whose charms ensnare her lovers, often leading them into compromising, dangerous, and deadly situations. She is an archetype of literature and art. Her ability to entrance and hypnotise her victim with a spell was in the earliest stories seen as being literally supernatural; hence, the femme fatale today is still often described as having a power akin to an enchantress, seductress, vampire, witch, or demon, having power over men."

"Is Envy the Engine that Drives Fairy Tales?"

I believe, as I've stated before, you should know and understand the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly Virtues, and if you do you'll understand most everything about human nature.

Since it's better to show than tell, we need stories. This is why I own the collected works of both the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen.

Of course, the worst sin of all is Pride/Hubris, because it is the basis of all the rest.

This is from the site Diamond and Toads.

"Ah, envy. Without that, where would the stories of "Snow White" and"The Goose Girl" be? True, envy isn't the sin behind the action in every fairy tale, but it shows up in many of them as a secondary source of action. In "Cinderella," the sisters envy Cinderella's goodness and beauty. Same scenario in "Beauty and the Beast."

"Envy, like most of the other sins, has its root in pride -- the deadliest sin. It doesn't have to involve an extreme desire for a big house or fancy wardrobe, as greed does. Envy is an over-the-top lust for anything another person has -- like musical ability or a child or the romantic love of another person. When we are wrapped up in prideful notions of competition and showing off, we get envious.

"Think about it. If the Sea Witch didn't envy The Little Mermaid her lovely voice, then the terrible sacrifice the mermaid makes might not have taken place. And obviously, if Snow White's stepmother wasn't envious of her, there would have been no schemes, no tricks, no attempted murder."

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The World-Spanning Male Brain

"Machines are amplifiers" - Cooper's Law

The author is correct. The internet is male; created, maintained, repaired by men. This makes the internet a world-spanning male brain, of which I am a neuron. In some ways it is a superorganism.

Women, for the most part, are abusing it, trying to turn it into a leftist "female" space. How? By attacking men.

Perhaps, women should be bred like cattle. And because of easy travel men are in a sense are breeding women: look how many men marry foreign women, especially Asian women, because so many American women are disgusting.

Here is the title: Men Have Bred Dogs And Cattle. Why Not Women Too? It's from Angry Harry.

"Sometimes, when I am sitting at the screen, I feel very much like a computer. My brain is the central processor, and everything else that is attached or linked to it in some way - arms, legs, internal organs - are mere peripherals.

"My brain goes through various thought processes, and then it rattles off what it is thinking about via its bodily peripherals and the keyboard.

"And 'I' sort of 'look on', while munching on a sandwich.

"Well, that's what it sometimes feels like.

"Also, my thoughts are very heavily influenced by what I have read - which mostly comes off the screen. And, moreover, the material that I have read is influenced by what other people have sent me - also through the screen. And so it seems quite clear that I am some kind of cog in a most enormous wheel.

"There is some vast exchange of information which has been created and reconfigured by human brains going on via the internet, and this information ends up influencing all those other brains that log on to read it - and who might then create their own information in order to respond. And so the flow and exchange of information keeps moving - and growing.

"There is therefore a huge amount of informational activity going on in cyberspace and in the brains of those who interact with it.

"There is therefore a huge amount of informational activity going on in cyberspace and in the brains of those who interact with it.

"Further, this information is clearly colouring much of that which now ends up in the mainstream media - which influence millions of people.

"I have oftentimes seen articles with wide circulations arise even from something that I have posted only a few days earlier - and sometimes with the same kind of phraseology used in some of the paragraphs.

"But such things work in both directions, and what I read influences me.

"And so the ideas and notions that I think I have so magnificently conjured up from my own brain really mostly derive from what I, myself, have been reading.

"Now, as the men's movement begins to grow, or, indeed, as more and more men like me simply get involved in areas which, in some way or other, push forward 'the aims of men' more into the forefront of this global psychological arena, so it is that forces will be created that will move in the direction of achieving these aims. And this will occur because the 'thinking' (the arguments, if you will) behind arranging matters for the acquiring of these aims, will also get pushed forward.

"In other words, some kind of enormous artificial 'male brain' is forming within cyberspace and it is connecting to the brains of those humans who access parts of it.

"And, in much the same way that my brain controls my body, so it is that this cyber-brain exerts some control over those beings who interface with it.

"And the male part of this cyber-brain is beginning to grow.

"And it is because of this 'male' brain growth that feminists have absolutely no hope of surviving as a significant force for very long, and why women really do need to watch their step.

"You see, in the past, men have always had to be nice to their women in order for their societies to cater as best as they could for everybody's needs and desires. And in places where men were not nice to their women, their societies and their cultures did not get very far.

"But, in the future, men might well not have to be so nice in order to guarantee the success and well-being of their societies - and themselves!

"You see, in the past, if men did not treat their women properly (i.e. as women wished to be treated) then, at the very least, they could not get their support. And without the support of their womenfolk (whether in terms of society as a whole, or at an individual level) the men were doomed.

"Somewhere, somehow, women who were treated badly would have ended up finding (or being found by) other men, and they would quickly have extricated themselves from their oppressors over time.

"Further, in the past, when the family was everything, it was very important to keep the women happy. There was no hope for any family or for a successful society without the support of women.

"And this, of course, worked both ways.

"Men and women depended on each other.

"But, in the future, men will not have to be so nice anymore because the various peoples of the world are becoming evermore coalesced into one huge society. As such, there will be no other society to compete with it. And if this society decides that women should be 'subjugated', then there will be no place for women to turn to in order to escape this.

"The European Union gives us a possible insight into how such a thing might come about.

"Imagine, for example, that the Roman Catholics and other religious groups suddenly became very powerful within the European bureaucracies, and that they instigated a law which made abortion illegal. Well, suddenly, throughout the whole of Europe, women would be prevented from having abortions or they would be prosecuted - perhaps for murder - if they broke the law. And so it is that a cascade of similar legislation emanating from just one supreme body could very easily overturn many of the 'rights' that women enjoy today.

"Such a possibility is clearly not that far away.

"And so when it comes to gender issues, it is quite possible - actually, very likely - that one gender will come to dominate this one global society that seems to be on the horizon.

"And the winning gender will depend on which 'brain' gets bigger - the male one or the female one - and which brain is 'more persuasive', both inside and outside cyberspace.

"Well, in my view, the male point of view will end up prevailing most strongly - for many reasons; most of which I never actually address on this website, since it seems prudent not to do so.

"Now, in the past, men could not really get away with considering only their own needs. They depended on their own women to love and to support them in order to survive in the rat race.

"If men didn't have the support of their women, then the other rats, who did, won!

"Men needed the support of their women.

"In the not too distant future, however, they won't.

"And so it is that I suspect that if western women remain antagonistic toward their men, their days of empowerment are numbered.

"In the past, such a development would not have occurred very easily because there would always have been enough other men who would have stepped in to 'side' with the women in order to get access to them. ('I will betray my gender if you sleep with me.')

"And powerful men have always arranged matters so that their access to more women is guaranteed - by, basically, oppressing and depriving those men who are lower down the food chain.

"But, in the future, men will not need to compete with each other over women.

"For example, more than enough women could be made available through, say, genetic manipulation techniques, or perhaps through 'supreme' legislation that, in effect, makes women 'more available' to men.

"Indeed, there are many developments currently taking place that could easily give men the upper hand.

"And, most importantly, men are beginning to recognise this.

"And therein lies the BIG change in the future balance of power.

"Could women stop such a thing?

"In the long run, I doubt it.

"How come?

"Well, in general, if men begin to see women as their adversaries rather than as their comrades, and a battle ensues, then the men will win hands down. The women will have no chance of succeeding.

"The only question of real interest is, therefore, will there be such a battle? And the answer to this is that it is probably already taking place. The Men's Movement is NOT a major power player in this battle, as yet, but it will be.

"For the moment, the battle is mostly taking place at the level of the individual (divorce, violence, avoidance of marriage, promiscuity, homosexuality) and it has been going on for some time.

"But when enough men begin to realise that many of the world's problems arise because of the dissatisfaction of men, and they consider ways in which this might be best alleviated, the subjugation of women while increasing their number would seem to have a lot going for it - particularly given that most men on the planet would quite readily take to such an idea.

"And even those who initially dissented could probably be persuaded to change their minds without too much effort.

"Thus, and for example, it would not surprise me at all if men's psychology led them to create circumstances which allowed them to access a veritable harem of women whenever they wished to do so.

"After all, the technology (e.g. the internet) will enable their psychology to have a huge impact. Future biological techniques will allow them to create females to specification. And globalisation will ensure that there is no escape and no alternative to a male-dominated landscape.

"Indeed, the required male psychology is already in place, the appropriate technology is getting there, globalisation is progressing quickly, and appropriate biological techniques are not that far away.

"So what, exactly, is likely to prevent men in the future from, say, breeding women like they breed dogs and cattle?

"Nothing, it seems to me.

"Supporting feminism will probably turn out to be the biggest mistake that western women have ever made. They have betrayed the very men who sacrificed much of their being and who worked and fought so hard in order to protect and care for them and themselves, and who have managed to provide the west with all the luxuries and benefits to which its peoples have grown so accustomed.

"Compared to western men, western women have contributed very little to the stunning progress achieved in their societies and, currently, by supporting feminism they seem to be doing their damnedest to destroy what their men have achieved.

"And when enough western men recognise that the current contributions of women, in the main, are more than offset by the problems that they are causing by their selfishness, I cannot foresee any other outcome than the one alluded to above; unless men simply continue to look on unthinkingly, and allow their societies to crumble and decay without any concern even for themselves - which, of course, might happen.

"But western women could hardly benefit from this.

"And if western women continue to undermine their men by supporting agendas that discriminate against them, and that rob them of their homes, their children, their security, their dignity, and their heritage, then they will only have themselves to blame should men decide that they have had enough of all this 'equality'.

"And, in many respects, I think that western women might have already missed the boat.

"For example, one of the best ways to ensure that peace and harmony prevail is for men to be treated properly, particularly by other men. And a major cause of violence and disharmony, whether at the street level or between nations, is partly the result of men having failed to learn to deal sympathetically and non-aggressively with other men.

"Putting this another way: If men were brought up to treat each other with respect, the benefits for society would be huge. Instead, however, we have the complete opposite, with battalions of people in the government, the feminist media and the legal profession hell bent on creating as much disharmony as possible through the demonisation of men - particularly the white ones - in order to feather their own nests.

"This demonisation has been so successful and so widespread - and its effects are now so ingrained - that it would likely take very many years before it could be countered sufficiently - possibly decades - if one were to try to achieve this through polite discussion, gentle persuasion and voting for the right politicians; and even this is assuming that the opposition would not put up much of a fight, which is unlikely.

"And so it is that the time frame is too long to prevent millions upon millions of men from being further alienated from western society and from becoming 'delinquent' and antagonistic toward it in some way.

"Indeed, even as I write this, a gang of 12 year old boys seems to have been involved in the raping of two girls aged 15.

"Males are beginning to attack women and children at a very early age these days despite everything that they have to lose.

"And, of course, the consequence of such things is that men will be demonised even further.

"We seem to have reached a situation wherein a vicious cycle of hatred has been set up by various feminist-dominated groups whereby men are responding to their alienation in a manner which guarantees even more alienation. And this spiralling upwards of hatred toward men now seems unstoppable.

"And this is why I believe that western women might have already missed the boat.

"Some kind of crisis seems likely to take place throughout the western world in the very near future because more and more men will begin to act destructively toward it in various ways. And men will have far more destructive power than ever they have had in the past - compared to their rulers - because of the new technology.

"(Remember 9/11?)

"And those who have destructive power have the power to negotiate, to influence - and to demand! - e.g. see Eight Horrible Facts

"I also think that once the ball has started rolling it will gain in momentum very rapidly, and so, before long, men will have re-empowered themselves, particularly with regard to gender issues.

"And when they have done this, there will be enough evidence before them, and enough anger inside more than enough of them, to decide that aiming for 'equality' between the genders - something that, in fact, can never be achieved - has had its time.

"But this, I suspect, would just represent the first phase in the process of men re-shaping their societies.

"The next step will involve men recognising that when it comes to making 'progress' - for example, in the battles against disease and societal disharmony - it is far better to put men firmly in charge than to allow women persistently to undermine their efforts (e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?)

"Another thing that men will also have learned by then is that women do not actually care that much for them. This will further widen the gender divide, and the traditional understanding between men and women is likely to be diminished to the point where they act as if they were two separate competing tribes. (This process is well under way.)

"Western men will recognise that their women are a threat to them (and, hence, even to themselves) and so they will disempower them.

"And then, having done this, more than enough men might well decide, consciously or not, to give women a taste of their own medicine, and begin to demonise them, just as they have for so long been demonised themselves.

"And, in this, they might well be more than just successful.

"Matters could easily reach a stage where, for example, people actually laughed when women were genuinely raped (in much the same way that cutting off a man's penis is currently considered to be funny) or where people couldn't give a damn that a man was violent toward his female partner (like it is today when the reverse is true) or where women could quickly be hauled off by the police for merely shouting at their menfolk (like it is today when the reverse is true).

"And so on.

"Well, western women certainly wouldn't like to live in a world like that!

"Would they?

"But they seem most content for their men to have to live under such unhappy circumstances.

"And my guess is that, in the near future, more than enough men will remember this state of affairs, and the lack of concern that it shows for them, and they will be affected by it.


"And long term.

"Putting this another way: If western men in the future decided to heap upon women as much hatred as has been heaped by women upon them, one quite shudders at what they might do.

"The appropriate male psychology is already in place, the appropriate technology is getting there, one global society is clearly in the making, and appropriate biological techniques are not so far away.

"And if western women do not quickly wake up to what the government, the justice system and the media are doing to their men, then any backlash will be far worse.

"And it might be worth remembering that the west is not the planet's only repository of males. There are quite a number of men in China, India, Africa, the East, and the Middle East.

"Of course, the disempowerment of western women would not necessarily give rise to the 'abuse' of women. For example, children are mostly disempowered compared to their parents, but most parents do not use their greater power to abuse their children. Indeed, they do their best for their children.

"And the same might happen with regard to western women in the future.

"But I wouldn't bank on it - because the new advances that will be re-empowering men will be arriving on the scene at a time when western men will have been subjected by women to gross unfairness and mistreatment for more than three decades.

"And, on balance, they might well be in an ugly mood.

"And so if western women do not very quickly start supporting their men by helping them to destroy the outrageous discrimination and demonisation that they have continually to face but, instead, actually continue to collude with those very groups that promote such things, I cannot see any type of outcome that will, let's just say, allow western women to retain the high status to which they have grown so accustomed.

"Putting it simply; creating a society that exhibits a deep hatred of its men, the extent of which is evidenced, for example, by the fact that people will actually laugh at jokes about men whose penises have been cut off, was not, in my opinion, a very wise thing for feminists to do.

"And I suspect that, one day, women will pay a price for this."