Saturday, January 31, 2015

"Three fundamental truths" (about men and women)

It was C.S. Lewis who wrote that men are Sons of Adam and women are Daughters of Eve.

Women's greatest flaws are pride and envy (the serpent is a symbol of envy and tells Eve she could be like God) and men's greatest flaws are listening to women motivated by pride and envy.

This article was written by Moose Norseman and is from his site, Moose Norseman.

There probably won’t be many posts here for a while. I am currently in the midst of several things that relate directly to what we discuss here, but I need to let them play out further before I discuss them. In the meantime though, I will leave you with three fundamental truths–fundamental truths that I hold as a guide while navigating these aforementioned situations, and that will serve you well in the situations you must navigate.

Truth #1: The Fundamental Truth about Humanity

The fundamental truth about humanity is that it is fallen. Sinful. Wicked. Fucked. It’s who we are at our most basic level. In the words of J.C. Ryle:

There are many things on earth which a natural man cannot explain. The amazing inequality of conditions,-the poverty and distress,-the oppression and persecution,-the shakings and tumults,-the failures of statesmen and legislators, -the constant existence of uncured evils and abuses,-all these things are often puzzling to him. He sees but does not understand. But the Bible makes it all clear. The Bible can tell him that the whole world lieth in wickedness,-that the prince of the world, the devil, is everywhere,-and that it is vain to look for perfection in the present order of things. The Bible will tell him that neither laws nor education can ever change men’s hearts,-and that, just as no man will ever make a machine work well, unless he allows for friction,-so also no man will do much good in the world unless he always remembers that human nature is fallen, and that the world he works in is full of sin.

Truth #2: The Fundamental Truth about Men

As men, we are all sons of Adam. We are all prone to his failure. Just as Adam was not deceived, but consciously chose to harken to the voice of his wife over the voice of God, so each of us has a tendency to abdicate the leadership responsibilities given to us to please and placate women–even when we know that it would be wrong to do so.

Truth #3: The Fundamental Truth about Women

The truth about women is that they are all daughters of Eve. Like Eve, women are tempted to elevate their desires and listen to the beguiling words of those who would tell them their desires and emotions are a greater source of truth than God.

These truths are simple. They are short. And they may seem rather depressing. Take heart! These truths will allow you to exit the endless cycle of disappointments. Instead of looking for people who are not fallen, look for those who have acknowledged their problem and are being made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Don’t look for the man who does not have a tendency to abdicate his leadership responsibilities in favor of pleasing and placating women, but rather for the man who recognizes his sinful tendency and in the grace of Christ is learning to lead properly. Do not look for the woman who does not have a tendency to elevate her desires and emotions above the Word of God, but rather for the woman who recognizes her sinful tendency and in the grace of Christ is learning to bring every thought into captivity of obedience to Christ.

Friday, January 30, 2015

Women Have No Idea What It's Like to be a Man

This is about a woman who spent a year-and-a-half pretending to be a man (she ultimately cracked up). Even before I saw this I believed that the normal man's life would create mental illness in women. And since today so many women are trying to live a man's life...well, now, what will that lead to?

Women truly are the weaker vessel.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

"Six Reasons Why Men Are Avoiding Marriage, with Helen Smith, Ph.D."

"Paul Krugman Is Brilliant, but Is He Meta-Rational?"

Paul Krugman is nuts. He admitted he wanted to be an economist after reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, in which a "psychohistorian" named Hari Seldon figured out how to plot the course of the Galactic Empire 10,000 years into the future with a handheld calculator. I thought it was great...when I was 12 and 13.

Fiction is one thing and reality is another, and Krugman does not dwell in reality. This article explains why.

I figured out a long time ago my mind is not totally rational and actually is more intuitive. But everyone is self-deluded through pride or greed or any of the Seven Deadly Sins. As for Krugman, he is not interested in new information unless he twists it to agree with his previous beliefs.

For at least 2500 years and probably more, Pride/Hubris has been considered the worst sin of all, because it is the basis for all the rest. So I conclude that Krugman is so full of himself he can't admit new information and therefore change his mind.

Since Pride/Hubris is the basis of all sins, it makes me think Krugman has some pretty serious problems none of us know about.

It is from The Umlaut and was written by David Shankbone.

Nobel laureate, Princeton economics professor, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is a brilliant man. I am not so brilliant. So when Krugman makes strident claims about macroeconomics, a complex subject on which he has significantly more expertise than I do, should I just accept them? How should we evaluate the claims of people much smarter than ourselves?

A starting point for thinking about this question is the work of another Nobelist, Robert Aumann. In 1976, Aumann showed that under certain strong assumptions, disagreement on questions of fact is irrational. Suppose that Krugman and I have read all the same papers about macroeconomics, and we have access to all the same macroeconomic data. Suppose further that we agree that Krugman is smarter than I am. All it should take, according to Aumann, for our beliefs to converge is for us to exchange our views. If we have common “priors” and we are mutually aware of each others’ views, then if we do not agree ex post, at least one of us is being irrational.

It seems natural to conclude, given these facts, that if Krugman and I disagree, the fault lies with me. After all, he is much smarter than I am, so shouldn’t I converge much more to his view than he does to mine?

Not necessarily. One problem is that if I change my belief to match Krugman’s, I would still disagree with a lot of really smart people, including many people as smart as or possibly even smarter than Krugman. These people have read the same macroeconomics literature that Krugman and I have, and they have access to the same data. So the fact that they all disagree with each other on some margin suggests that very few of them behave according to the theory of disagreement. There must be some systematic problem with the beliefs of macroeconomists.

In their paper on disagreement, Tyler Cowen and Robin Hanson grapple with the problem of self-deception. Self-favoring priors, they note, can help to serve other functions besides arriving at the truth. People who “irrationally” believe in themselves are often more successful than those who do not. Because pursuit of the truth is often irrelevant in evolutionary competition, humans have an evolved tendency to hold self-favoring priors and self-deceive about the existence of these priors in ourselves, even though we frequently observe them in others.

Self-deception is in some ways a more serious problem than mere lack of intelligence. It is embarrassing to be caught in a logical contradiction, as a stupid person might be, because it is often impossible to deny. But when accused of disagreeing due to a self-favoring prior, such as having an inflated opinion of one’s own judgment, people can and do simply deny the accusation.

How can we best cope with the problem of self-deception? Cowen and Hanson argue that we should be on the lookout for people who are “meta-rational,” honest truth-seekers who choose opinions as if they understand the problem of disagreement and self-deception. According to the theory of disagreement, meta-rational people will not have disagreements among themselves caused by faith in their own superior knowledge or reasoning ability. The fact that disagreement remains widespread suggests that most people are not meta-rational, or—what seems less likely—that meta-rational people cannot distinguish one another.

We can try to identify meta-rational people through their cognitive and conversational styles. Someone who is really seeking the truth should be eager to collect new information through listening rather than speaking, construe opposing perspectives in their most favorable light, and offer information of which the other parties are not aware, instead of simply repeating arguments the other side has already heard.

Contemporary macroeconomic debates are a case where it is clear that a number of participants on both sides possess less than average levels of meta-rationality. It seems clear, for instance, that the “Internet Austrians” are not meta-rational. It seems equally obvious that Krugman is not meta-rational.

For example, when Jeff Sachs put forth a long, reasoned argument that Krugman’s crude Keynesianism was inadequate and dangerous, Krugman responded by saying that his model was not crude but sophisticated, pointing to published research that Sachs has no doubt already read. He did not respond to Sachs’s factual assertion, for instance, that profits are soaring, or to his claim that this conflicts with Krugman’s argument that our economic problems are purely demand-related.

Another recent example comes from Krugman’s hasty dismissal of Miles Kimball, who argued more narrowly that Krugman’s advice to Italy in particular to spend more was misguided. Krugman’s response, in full, was that the paper that Kimball cited, by Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff, did not constitute conclusive proof that high debt levels were bad for growth. I happen to agree in general about that paper, but, as Noah Smith pointed out, Krugman himself had argued a mere three days earlier that Eurozone countries, because they do not control their own currencies, do need to be concerned about their levels of debt. In case you need reminding, Italy is a Eurozone country.

And to take a non-recent example, who can forget Krugman’s blanket dismissal of the “conservative” blogosphere: “I don’t know of any economics or politics sites on that side that regularly provide analysis or information I need to take seriously.” As if this were not already a caricature of self-deception, recall that Krugman frequently and irritatingly refers to libertarian economists as conservatives.

What does this mean for the rationality of disagreement with Krugman? To quote Cowen and Hanson (emphasis added):

"For a truth-seeker, the key question must be how sure you can be that you, at the moment, are substantially more likely to have a truth-seeking, in-control, rational core than the people you now disagree with. This is because if either of you have some substantial degree of meta-rationality, then your relative intelligence and information are largely irrelevant except as they may indicate which of you is more likely to be self-deceived about being meta-rational."

Our intellects may be inferior to Krugman’s, but if we cultivate our own meta-rationality, we are more likely to be right than he is. Meta-rationality trumps intelligence. We would be fools to dismiss Krugman out-of-hand, because, after all, that would not be very meta-rational of us. But, having given due weight to his and other arguments, if we continue to disagree, we may do so with the strong suspicion that our disagreement is warranted.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

"Not Even Sexual Abuse is Egalitarian"

I, of course, have noticed this myself, for decades. It's one of the reasons I refer to feminism as the Dark Triad for women (amusing that some deluded men think all women are attracted to the Dark Triad in men, but men are completely blindsided and outraged when they get involved with Dark Triad women and find themselves manipulated and abused. And it's much more common than you think).

It's all about power, domination and control. There are popular sites that deal with the men who fall for these women, such as A Shrink 4 Men.

This was written by Cane Caldo and is from the site, Things We Have Know and Heard.

Generally speaking: The male form of sexual abuse is when a man abuses his power (usually some combination of money, respect, or strength), against a woman, to gratify his sexual desires. This is well-noted and agreed upon by everyone.

The female form of sexual abuse is: When a woman abuses her sexuality, against a man, to gratify her desire for power (usually some combination of money, respect, or strength). This is not usually acknowledged, and never fully.

I say it is not fully acknowledged because while it is sometimes frowned upon, the incidents are treated lightly. “Well, she shouldn’t have done so,” we tsk, “but he should have known better.” Which is a good bit different from the fiery condemnation that is heaped on male transgressors. Where is the movement to outlaw gold-digging? Who is creating a safe space from women?

Which church advocates custody of the eyes as a wardrobe selection strategy for women to employ rather than as a stick with which to beat men into being blind of their surroundings??

Every so often a female will imitate male patterns of sexual abuse. Those incidents don’t rise above the level of talking points. The occasion of a female teacher seducing a male student causes us to ask, “What is going on with that woman?”, as if she’s diseased or ensorcelled; rather than acknowledging that she chose evil because she liked it. A college op-ed about a man who surrenders to the protestations and physical manipulations of a college woman is a mere thought experiment. Crichton’s book Disclosure was a fictionalized story, but it was based on true events which failed to make the news and outraged no one. Why? Because we don’t get emotionally involved. Well why is that? Because our experience tells us that it’s not a pattern of which to be wary.

The first reason these thought experiment stories are ever reported are the novelty of “man bites dog”. But the important reason is that they give cover to the idea that we are striving for equality under the law; that our laws against males forms of sexual abuse constitute a full spectrum of justice to which men and woman can be held.

It's a lie.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Some Common Sense to Memorize

This is from More Right.

Patriarchy and families are the foundation of society.

The natural and unmolested course of selection and elimination must be allowed to occur in economics and society.

Hierarchy is the natural and right way for people to cooperate.

Different people are different. Equality is a lie.

Progressivism is an insane religion advanced by a hostile media/academic machine.

It’s not just “The Jews”.

Democracy isn’t going to fix these problems.

Merely denouncing those to the right creates a deadly signalling spiral, so no enemies to the right.

Monday, January 26, 2015

"When Narratives Collide—SELMA Versus AMERICAN SNIPER"

I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but one of my friends has and said it had a subtle antiwar message.

I know that Kyle was a bit of a nut and a liar, but movies are mythology - and let's not forget all the lies about Magic Negroes in movies today. It's American mythology against the mythology of leftists who wish to destroy us.

This was written by Paul Kersey and is from VDARE.

American Sniper, the latest film from director Clint Eastwood, is americansniperseemingly designed to enrage the Left. The film tells the story of the late Chris Kyle, a rodeo rider from Texas who became a Navy SEAL and the deadliest sniper in American history. It unapologetically portrays Kyle as a proud warrior dedicated to his country and his profession, a bracing change from the usual Hollywood treatment of American servicemen as either psychopathic killers or ashamed and broken victims.

Associated Press attributes the film’s success to conservatives flocking to the see the movie [‘Sniper’ success reveals power of conservative audience, Washington Post, January 20, 2015]. But this is a simplistic assessment of American Sniper’s appeal—it’s an unapologetically pro-American movie with a white male hero at a time when white male Americans are constantly lectured to feel guilty about their race and nationality.

That would be bad enough in the eyes of the Left, but American Sniper also came out over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend. Worse, it’s competing with the latest political hagiography dedicated to “Dr.” King: Selma. As King is less a historical figure than a modern American god, a competing film about a heroic white man has been interpreted as nothing less than a form of blasphemy.

What’s especially infuriating to the Leftist nation of “anti-America” is that American Sniper made $110 million over the Martin Luther King Day weekend and received several Oscar nominations. [Wow! “American Sniper Four Day Take Was a Whopping $110.6 million, by Roger Friedman, Showbiz 411, January 20, 2015]. In contrast, Selma is a box office flop.

The response from the cultural commissars who govern the commanding heights of American entertainment: this is a kind of national moral failing.

Film critic Scott Mendelson moans:

The sad irony of a weekend dedicated to a black man who preached non-violence and created great social change through pacifism being dominated by a movie about a white guy who (at least in the movie, final ten minutes notwithstanding) is most noteworthy for his record-breaking body count on a battlefield is not lost on me. \[Box Office: ‘Selma’ Grossed $5M On Martin Luther King Day, Forbes, January 21, 2015]

Matt Taibbi, whose anti-establishment posturing conceals his shameful retreat on immigration, threw up a lazily written blog post for Rape Hoax Magazine entitled “’American Sniper’ Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize” [Rolling Stone, January 21, 2015]. Unconsciously echoing the “millennial generation motto” of the permanently triggered, Taibbi intones, “It’s the fact that the movie is popular, and actually makes sense to so many people, that’s the problem.”

And of course, there’s Lindy West, a kind of walking (or waddling) caricature of the “Social Justice Warriors” who busy themselves searching for and complaining about “racism,”“sexism,” and “homophobia” among normal people. West compares American Sniper to Chappelle’s Show, a comedy show abandoned by its eponymous black creator because he found whites were laughing for the “wrong” reasons. West screeches:

If [Eastwood], intentionally or not, makes a hero out of Kyle—who, bare minimum, was a racist who took pleasure in dehumanising and killing brown people—is he responsible for validating racism, murder, and dehumanisation?

The real American Sniper was a hate-filled killer. Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero?, The Guardian, January 6, 2015]

It’s no wonder critics are so angry. Kyle was a real-life Captain America, the kind of positive heterosexual white male role-model our elites have been desperate to drive out of the military. [Bradley Cooper on portraying famed Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, by Meghann Myers, Navy Times, January 16, 2015]

But in an age when schools ban the American flag, American Sniper seems like a subversive phenomenon. The audience’s rejection of the official Narrative about evil traditional values and racist white males is eerily reminiscent of the public’s reaction to The Passion of the Christ. The film is a reminder the historic Majority of America thirsts for the type of heroes Hollywood, academia, and the federal government are increasingly devoted to destroying.

The rarely-spoken rationale behind the System’s hatred is that our cultural commissars link any expression of patriotism and pro-military sentiment to Nazism, a trope that Peter Brimelow calls “Hitler’s Revenge.”

Actor Seth Rogen made it explicit when he tweeted, “American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that’s showing in the third act of Inglourious Basterds.” He was referring to “Nation’s Pride,” a fake Nazi propaganda film shown during Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 Inglourious Basterds, a movie that featured the gleeful torture and slaughter of German prisoners by a fictional unit of Jewish-Americans. There were few Main Stream Media complaints about that film.

In contrast, “hate porn” like Selma is a product of the official culture and was heavily subsidized by both charities and the school system. Primarily black K-12 public school students were able to see Selma for free this past weekend thanks to the Selma for Students campaign. [Black business leaders raise over $2M so students can see ‘Selma’ for free, by Brooke Lefferts, FoxNews, January 19, 2015]

An estimated 275,000 tickets were provided to students just by part of this effort, making this cinematic entitlement an important part of Selma’s box office take. [275,000 Students Receive Free Tickets to Academy Award Nominated® “Selma,” Business Wire, January 16, 2015]

This includes students in:

Montgomery. [Montgomery students to receive free admission to ‘Selma’ showings thanks to local business leaders, by Amber Sutton,, January 16, 2015]

Memphis. [Mayor says students can see ‘Selma’ free, by Daniel Connolly, Memphis Commercial Appeal, January 15, 2015]

Detroit. [Free ‘Selma’ tickets available for Detroit students, by Julie Hinds, Detroit Free Press, January 17, 2015]

New Orleans. [Tickets to the civil-rights drama ‘Selma’ being offered free to local students, by Mike Scott, New Orleans Times-Picayune, January 14, 2015]

Washington D.C. [Thousands of D.C. students can see ‘Selma’ free, by Emma Brown, Washington Post, January 15, 2015]

Atlanta. [Free ‘Selma’ tickets for Atlanta Public Schools students in high school, by Rodney Harris, CBS Atlanta, January 16, 2015]

St. Louis. [STL among select cities offering 7-9 grade students free admission to ‘Selma’, St. Louis American, January 16, 2015]

Indianapolis. [Several Indy Venues Offering Free Admission on MLK Day, by Donna Schiele, Praise Indy, January 15, 2015]

Newark. [Free ‘Selma’ tickets for NJ students, by Stephen Whitty,, January 14, 2015]

Philadelphia. [10,000 Philly students can see “Selma” for free through Jan. 19, by Josh Kruger, Philly Now, January 13, 2015]

Baltimore. [Free tickets for students to Selma, Baltimore City Schools, January 22, 2015]

Dallas. DISD students can see ‘Selma’ free, thanks to donations, by George Rodrigue and Demond Fernandez, WFAA, January 16, 2015

New York, Chicago, Oakland etc. [Selma’ Free Screenings Expand to Chicago, Dallas, D.C. and Other Cities, by Brent Lang, Variety, January 14, 2015]

Yet even with this artificial head start, Selma is a box office disappointment which will struggle to gross the $80 to $90 million it will need just to break even [As America Tires of Race Hoaxes, ‘Selma’ Disappoints At Box Office, by John Nolte, Breitbart, January 12, 2015].

Perhaps Barack Obama will issue an executive order dispensing reparations to reimbursing the producers of Selma, one of whom is his fellow ex-congregant at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church, Oprah Winfrey.

The box office battle between Selma and American Sniper is just another chapter in our cultural Cold War. An official culture dedicated to multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and white guilt tries to impose itself on a historic American nation which is still showing signs of life. But, as the ticket sales show, racial fatigue is beginning to hit home. Even the cinematic equivalent of Affirmative Action can’t force whites to sit through yet another movie designed to trash the country they once possessed.

The real question: will Hollywood executives—and politicians—will take a look at the money made by American Sniper? Change will come when elites decide, if only out of self-interest, that they can benefit from championing the people that the official culture ignores.

"Our White Common Law"

I first learned about the common law from Richard Maybury's book, Whatever Happened to Justice, in which he pointed out that the origin of the word "outlaw" meant someone outside of the law and outside of its protection. Say someone killed someone in a fight. The killer owes the family, say $50,000. If he didn't pay it he was outlawed and anyone could hunt him down, kill him, or capture and enslave him for profit. There wasn't much crime in those days.

He also pointed out law is discovered, like the laws of physics, and not invented, the way much is today.

By the way, there is Judaism and then there is Christianity and there is no "Judeo-Christianity." "Judeo-Christianity" is one of those "inventions" and it's a bad one.

This is from the site, Occidental Observer and was written by Kyle Bristow.

In 1066 AD, the Normans—led by William the Conqueror—invaded and captured the British Isles. With this invasion, the Norman invaders brought with them their customs, folklore, technology, art, and legal system. The Norman legal system would become what legal scholars label the common law — legal doctrines that are developed through judges taking into consideration our legal traditions and legal precedents to render decisions rather than solely statutory codifications of law.

When Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189) established secular tribunals, the common law was that which was deemed to be “common” throughout the realm—which disregarded the nuances unique to Mercian law, Danelaw, and the laws of Wessex. In deciding common law rights and obligations, English judges frequently deferred to the laws imposed by the Norse invaders, as well as legal musings of the ancient Romans, Greeks, Byzantines, and Germanics. This unified England, as the judges took into consideration history and tradition and judged accordingly. Many of our contemporary torts (civil claims relating to assault, battery, defamation, false imprisonment, etc.), crimes punishable by the state (murder, mayhem, arson, burglary, robbery, battery, rape, arson, etc.), and rights (e.g., self-defense, privacy, weapon ownership, free speech, property ownership, procedural due process) — have roots in this organic and very much European law.

Despite what Zionist neoconservatives and Christian conservatives would have us believe (e.g., here), ordered liberty existed in Europe prior to our forefathers’ adoption of Judeo-Christianity, and our contemporary legal system arguably has significantly more in common with the legal ideals of pagan Europe than anything coming out of the Levant in ancient or modern times. Simply said, the proposal that Judeo-Christian law constitutes the basis of modern American law is nothing more than a propagandist fiction—that is, the European conceptualization of rights and obligations was formed independent of and not because of Judeo-Christianity. Virtually all legal procedures and rights in use and recognized, respectively, today are of European and not Judeo-Christian origin.

In Njals Saga, which was written in the late thirteenth century and with a story that takes place between 960 and 1020 in pagan Iceland, the Icelandic legal system is detailed extensively by the anonymous author. This Icelandic system was based upon the legal system of Nordic countries, since the Norse settled Iceland. In this saga, Njal—a lawyer—attempts to mediate, arbitrate, and litigate controversies between Icelandic peoples, and the reader is introduced to the legal system commonly existing throughout Northern Europe approximately one millennium ago:

lowly peasants could file suit against even powerful feudal lords and would get their day in court;

process servers were used to summon defendants to court by orally stating the claims made against them—and the defendants would accept service by repeating the claims verbatim;

district courts would try cases and if any party disagreed with the verdict, they could appeal to the Althing—a higher court—for review;

a court would only have personal jurisdiction over a defendant if that defendant engaged in conduct in that jurisdiction or paid homage to that jurisdiction’s “godi”—the feudal lord;

jurors would serve as factfinders and parties could exercise peremptory challenges to excuse a certain number of prospective jurors from the trial for any reason or for no reason whatsoever;

lawyers could represent real parties in interest at hearings and could call witnesses to testify and question them; causes of action could be assigned to third parties, who could then litigate the cases on their own;

a system of probate law existed whereby the estate of a decedent was distributed to their heirs in an equitable manner; a placeholder called “Jon” was used by Norse lawyers in a way akin to how lawyers today use “John Doe” for unknown parties;

husbands and wives could sue one another for divorce;

the elected “lawspeaker” would publish all laws by orally reciting them in public;

individualism—both in the context of rights and obligations—was a significant theme of Norse law;

and the Icelandic people had a relatively well understood body of laws, rights, legal procedures, and specific penalties for criminal offenses.

In 1938, the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted—which are used by American federal courts today, while most state courts use similar rules. For federal court and almost all—if not all—state courts there is a rule that permits a party to make an “offer of judgment” to the opposing party; if the offeree rejects the offer of judgment and a trial verdict results in a less favorable outcome for the offeree than the offer of judgment, then the offeree must pay the offerer’s attorney’s fees and court costs that were incurred following the offer. Modern American jurists praise the offer of judgment as being an excellent vehicle by which tort reform goals are served, since parties are encouraged to settle cases out of court.

But the Norse beat them to the finish line with this legal procedure: it was in use by the Norse and Germanic tribes at least one millennium ago and was detailed in Njals Saga numerous times. In fact, for Norsemen and Germanics one thousand years ago, it was viewed as dishonorable and cowardly for one to reject a fairly made offer of judgment.

Tacitus chronicled the first-century Germanic peoples’ customs in his Germania. In this work, the Roman historian observed that our forefathers would hold trials, and if the controversy was relatively insignificant, the wrongdoer—after a public trial—would be made to pay fines to the tribal government and restitution to the victim, while the death penalty was reserved for two types of crimes: treason and moral infamy—the latter constituting conduct such as cowardice and sexual deviancy. For treason, the condemned was hanged—according to Tacitus—so that “glaring iniquities” would be exposed in plain sight, while those condemned to die due to moral infamy were drowned and buried in swamps so that degeneracy was out of sight and out of mind.

Although Tacitus did not delve into it, the Germanic people also had a form of punishment called outlawry; there were two types: lesser and full outlawry. If a person was sentenced to lesser outlawry, then their status as an outlaw would last only for a specific number of years, whereas full outlaws were made outlaws for the remainder of their lives. As an outlaw, anyone could kill them with legal impunity, if an outlaw killed another outlaw then the killer’s outlaw status would be rescinded—thereby rewarding outlaws for killing one another, and if any non-outlaw rendered assistance in any way to an outlaw, then that person would be made an outlaw as well. A sentence of outlawry was, in effect, a death sentence.

On an interesting note, Leif Erikson’s father, Erik “the Red” Thorvaldsson, was sentenced to full outlawry in Norway for having committed the crime of manslaughter, which induced Erik the Red to move to Iceland in order to escape with his life. While in Iceland, he was sentenced to lesser outlawry for a term of approximately three years for “some killings” he committed around 982. So as to again escape with his life, Erik the Red sailed west to Greenland and established the first Norse settlement on that island. When his son, Leif Erikson, came of age, he accidentally sailed further west to a land he called “Vinland”—translated as “Wine Land”—due to its great climate for growing grapes. Vinland is in present-day Canada, and Leif Erikson beat Christopher Columbus to the New World by nearly half a millennium due to the legal pressures imposed upon his father.

Judges today frequently defer to our Anglo-Saxon common law—that is, the substantive legal principles we inherited from our Germanic forefathers, since the English inherited their laws from their Germanic invaders—in deciding cases that concern what constitutes a right. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court referenced the “common law” twenty-three times in its opinion to determine whether abortion is a right of the people. The justices basically ruled that prior to quickening, European peoples historically permitted abortion, and so there was a right to it via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The implication was that whether a right exists or not is determined by history and tradition, so the judges deferred to our history to decide whether the right existed or not.

Additionally, in McDonald v. Chicago—in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment recognizes a right for individuals to keep and bear arms that cannot be infringed upon by state governments — “common law” was referenced three times, “tradition” was referenced forty-nine times, and “history” was mentioned in the opinion over one hundred times.

More recently, in DeBoer v. Snyder, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that same-sex marriage is not a right since it does not exist in history and tradition. In DeBoer, “common law” was referenced eight times and “history” was referenced twenty-four times.

State courts also rightfully defer to the common law in deciding substantive rights. In Glass v. Goeckel, 703 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. 2005), the Michigan Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the public has a right to walk along the shores of the Great Lakes when a private landowner purports to hold title to the water’s edge. The Glass court answered in the affirmative after noting in pertinent part, “Throughout the history of American law as descended from English common law, our courts have recognized that the sovereign must preserve and protect navigable waters for its people. This obligation traces back to the Roman Emperor Justinian, whose Institutes provided, ‘Now the things which are, by natural law, common to all are these: the air, running water, the sea, and therefore the seashores. Thus, no one is barred access to the seashore . . . .’ Justinian, Institutes, book II, title I, § 1[.]”

In State v. Delgado, 692 P.2d 610 (Or. 1984), the Oregon Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a citizen has the right to keep and bear knives. The Delgado court answered in the affirmative after noting that knives have been carried since “the Viking Period of the 9th and 10th centuries” for war and chronicling their use by Westerners since then for utility reasons and before then for ceremonial purposes.

Roe, McDonald, DeBoer, Glass, Delgado, and countless other cases demonstrate rather unequivocally that our people’s legal history is important.

Although statutory law can abrogate the common law—and states have done this by doing away with the right for one to demand a trial by combat or by preventing one from suing a third-party who made sexual advances towards their spouse for “alienation of affection” — the common law nevertheless has a significant influence on contemporary American jurisprudence. This influence is assuredly a good thing, because the common law is White law—when judges defer to history, after all, they are not deferring to Asiatic legal history, African tribal legal customs, or the legal precepts of Moctezuma II, but rather, to our history and to that which our people customarily believe to be right and wrong.

The common law is a reflection of the soul of Western Man—that which he appreciates is prescribed as a right, and that which he abhors is proscribed by law. American laws will reflect our attitudes so long as our people comprise a significant portion of the population. Otherwise, laws that infringe upon European ideals—such as hate speech restrictions that infringe upon the right of free speech; civil rights laws that violate the rights of free speech, free association, and property rights; firearm restrictions which are an affront to the right of self-defense; and same-sex marriage laws which mock the European conceptualization of the institution of the family—will become prevalent.

Or to quote Njal, “With law our land shall rise, but it will perish with lawlessness.”

Sunday, January 25, 2015

"Why Women Get Tingles"

“A mass movement those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self." - Eric Hoffer

I'll admit, I'm amused at those in the Manosphere who speak with such assurance of "tingles, "Alphas, "hypergamy," "cash and prizes," etc. They think they know the minds of women, when in reality they clearly don't know much about them. They read these things in the Manosphere and think it's God's own truth. Simple things are easy to understand but life is a lot more complicated.

This is from Kings and Queens.

The often repeated disparagement of women is that they get “tingles” for the wrong kinds of men, and for the wrong reasons. What I find amusing about this is that men on the internet really believe they know what is in each and every woman’s head at all times, and that they know more about what turns us on than we do ourselves. They ascribe notions as though they are factual, when all they need to do is actually listen to what we have to say to get to the truth.

Yes I know, here is where you insert a comment such as, “But women lie, they don’t even know what they want…what they want is constantly changing…research shows…I’ve never observed it…you’re shaming me...your calling me a misogynist…NUH UH!” Really guys, you need to start adopting new ways of shifting blame for your own short comings.

It’s your choice if you don’t believe what we say, or choose not to listen. This will be at your peril. When good women talk who haven’t been tainted by feminism, and you ignore them, you lose out on opportunities to learn more about them. And yes there are many women out there who are not now, nor ever have been, or ever will be feminists. RoQ is going to continually shoot down false notions made by men who are teaching men the wrong things, and encouraging them to engage in wrong behaviors. We understand it’s easier to point and bleat, “FEMINIST” at a woman if you’ve been unsuccessful in your interactions with her, but being right isn’t always the easiest path to take.

So lets talk about this whole “tingle” thing. Apparently women aren’t supposed to feel this for a man. The only explanation many men give on why we get them is that we only feel them for bad guys, that we never feel them for “useful” men, or ones who have utility, or are industrious. It’s been said that women never talk about how the “good guys” make them “wet” or arouse us.

Well, if we did go around saying things in the only words men seem to understand such as wet, horny, aroused, turned on, or whatever other sexually blatant words, we would be called whores, or criticized for not speaking like proper ladies. Ladies don’t go around saying those kinds of things in public, right? Maybe around other women in private, but never among mixed company or in the public arena. It’s one of those situations where we are damned if we do, or damned if we don’t.

Also, many of us women, at least those who have been raised properly, don’t feel comfortable using dialogue that includes words or phrases that are sexually charged. I am not comfortable just coming out and saying, “oh man, just look at that guy [insert a man doing something manly], he makes me wet!” It’s just not something I would say. If you are looking for dialogue which is like this, you should probably go to a place like Jezebel because feminists will say just about anything, and use any words even if they are inappropriate for a lady to use.

But, yes, we do get “tingles” for all different kinds of men. Our tingles and why we feel them are as varied as we are as women. Some women get tingles for obvious reasons; a big strong man doing something obviously manly requiring strength and/or agility, or for dangerous looking men, etc. Then there are women who get tingles for men for reasons that perhaps even they can’t explain themselves. It just happens.

Take QueenA for instance. I don’t understand her infatuation with Steve Buscemi, but as she’s said it several times, he, or guys like him, “do it” for her. There are women who’ve made comments here who’ve described the man in their life who gave them tingles – men who although may not be “alpha” according to society’s or other men’s standards, is alpha to her and gives her tingles. Of course men don’t believe these women because it goes against their flawed paradigm, but it’s par for the course with many guys in the manosphere.

So how is it possible that there are women out there who get tingles for men who aren’t viewed by the majority as being the kind that would typically turn a woman on? It depends on two things:



We’ve talked here before about Oxytocin. Yes it really is the bonding hormone. It’s the hormone that gives us all those obvious feel good feelings, makes us want to bond, and helps us enjoy mating so much, among other things.

There is another chemical though that plays a role in a woman’s tingle system, and that chemical is Dopamine. Believe it or not, the brain has a “reward system“, where Dopamine plays a role. Dopamine also plays a role in pair bonding:

These differences are located in the ventral forebrain and the dopamine-mediated reward pathway.

Both vasopressin and dopamine act in this region to coordinate rewarding activities such as mating, and regulate selective affiliation. These species-specific differences have shown to correlate with social behaviors, and in monogamous prairie voles are important for facilitation of pair bonding.

On the reward system:

Reward or reinforcement is an objective way to describe the positive value that an individual ascribes to an object, behavioral act or an internal physical state. Primary rewards include those that are necessary for the survival of species, such as food and sexual contact.

In addition to Oxytocin, Dopamine may also be the source of a woman’s tingles – especially if the reward system is activated. When women see men doing things that are useful, and get turned on by them while watching what they are doing, or perhaps just thinking about them doing something that is likely to produce some reward (food, shelter, etc.), Dopamine starts working in the area of our brain which causes us to, you said it, get the tingles. It’s a natural and spontaneous response which many of us have a hard time understanding and pinpointing when we try to talk about it. If our bodies and minds are functioning in a healthy way, women should get tingles when experiencing men in their natural habitat doing things that are likely to produce some kind of reward. We understand the value of men’s “work”, and are physically stirred by it.

The other aspect determining how women get the tingles is what goals we may have when seeking out companionship or a mate. If a woman merely wants to have sex, she falls into the “Short-term pair-bond: a transient mating or associations” or “Clandestine pair-bond: quick extra-pair copulations” categories of pair bonding. If her goal is instead to find a long term mate, she will fall into the “Long-term pair-bond: bonded for a significant portion of the life cycle of that pair” or the “Lifelong pair-bond: mated for life” categories. As said above, species studied who were found to be monogamous were more likely to have higher levels of receptors in the area of the brain where the dopamine-mediated reward pathway is located.

It’s true, NAWALT. Some women will have lower levels of chemicals in their body that are likely to cause them to want to seek out long term mates. Then again, many women will have these chemicals, and proper levels of them. Being that these women are healthy in mind, body, and spirit, they will be naturally inclined to seek out men who will be able to show they are good at something a woman needs. Because of chemicals working in our body, we will be unable to deny our tingles when we see a man of this caliber; a useful, industrious, talented, good guy; even if he isn’t what society tells us is alpha.

We don’t turn this system off and on ourselves. It’s mediated by our wonderful, complicated, minds and bodies. We may not be good in describing why we get the tingles, not feel comfortable saying that yes, we get aroused, we get wet, we become physically turned on by guys who show they are good providers (of something we need or want), but we do feel them even for men who are otherwise dismissed as being beta by the snake oil peddlers in the PUA industry.

The key here for guys is that they need to understand what is the true essence of a woman’s motivation for wanting him. If she wants you because you can build or fix things, or know things, or do other desirable things, she’s a keeper. If she wants you for how you can provide for her financially, she is not a keeper. Yes, some women are physically turned on by men who are rich. These women are a scourge upon the earth.

My only advice to men here is to not initiate the relationship with things that require a lot of money. You have to shit test them. If you begin dating by engaging in activities that don’t require a lot of money, if she is still dating you after several months, she may be a keeper. Also, never discuss how much money you make with a woman in the beginning. If she focuses on your job and money early on, or insists you take her on expensive dates, or encourages you to buy her expensive things, RUN Forest RUN! If you at some point lose your income and have to sell off all your “things”, she is probably going to leave you. If you end up marrying her she will more than likely divorce you then take half of everything you have.

But, never ever refuse to believe that a woman can get the tingles for a man who other men have labeled beta, or who are considered good guys. We do get hot and bothered by these men. We just don’t go around the internet talking about it in words that men want to hear.

For those of you men who continue to parrot crap being peddled out there and attempt to again, (and again and again) rationalize your lack of success with women by insisting that it’s the woman’s fault for being hypergamous, or whatever other reason is fashionable at the moment for why men don’t succeed with women, give it a rest. Instead look inward on why this topic bothers you so much. Do you see yourself as being a “good guy”, or that you have many useful qualities that should be getting you dates, but don’t get them? There is something else going on with you that is putting women off.

We can’t tell you what that something is. You have to discover it for yourself. The longer you shut the idea out of your head that women are attracted to all different kinds of men, and for many different reasons which cause many different responses in us, the longer it will take you to find the right woman. We know when a man is shutting down to us, or shutting us out. We will look elsewhere.

Average IQs and Below-Average Jobs

The average IQ in the United States is 100. It doesn’t particularly matter if you’re talking about mean or median average; either way, it means one-half of the people in the U.S. have IQs below 100, and the other half has IQs above 100.

About five percent of all people in the U.S. have IQs of 125 and above. Less than ten percent have IQs above 120, which is the cut-off point for “very bright.” Before the days of Political Correctness, those with IQs 85 and below were called "morons" (Muhammed Ali scored 78 on a military IQ test - and even his best friends claimed he was a moron).

What does all of this mean? Nothing good for the vast majority of people, which means nothing good for the United States.

As the political scientist Kevin Phillips has pointed out in several of his books, great countries go though three phases: agricultural, industrial, then in decline they develop financial industries. Actually, countries are already in decline when they enter that last phase.

Phillips used the now-gone empires of Spain, Holland and England as examples. All went though all three phases then collapsed. These days, he writes about the United States – which mired deep in its financial bog is in decline.

If this decline isn’t bad enough, it’s made worse by the exporting of our highly-paid industrial jobs, which the feds encourage because they delude themselves they’ll be replaced by better financial or service (“Do you want fries with that?”) jobs. Which they’re not, and won’t be.

Many of these now-gone jobs didn’t require high IQs to do them. You don’t have to have an IQ of 120 to work in a steel mill or on an auto-assembly line. In fact such an IQ would be a detriment in such jobs due to boredom.

Those high-paying jobs requiring average IQs are now gone. What’s left for these people? Jobs paying minimum-wage or slightly above. Either that, or welfare. Or crime (the average IQ of those in prison is 93).

The United States is stratifying itself by IQ. We’re going to end up without much of a blue-collar middle-class since their jobs are being outsourced. We’re going to end up with a poorly-paid lower-class partly supported by marginal welfare payments and a highly-paid upper class with higher IQs, who are partly supporting the lower classes through transfer payments.

I’ll give one example of what happens when the middle-class collapses: in Germany the Nazis were bought to power by the economically-ravaged middle class. You can fill in the blanks about our future (it won’t involve Nazis, contrary to the hallucinations of leftists).

Liberals, who delude themselves human nature is completely plastic, claim IQ can be raised substantially. How they think someone with an IQ of 85 can raise it to 125 is beyond me, but then, I’m not a leftist, all of whom are about four years old emotionally.

Your IQ is pretty much set by the time you are 12 years old. It can go up and down a little bit but it’s not going to go up and down by 20 points. There is no way to make it go up 20 points, and barring some major neurological insult, it can't drop 20 points, either.

Education does help in developing what IQ a person has, but the public schools haven’t done that for a long time, not with a 50% drop-out rate. It’s got to the point where if you have a lot of money you can get a fairly decent education but if you don’t have money these days you can’t even go to college unless you go into debt $70,000 – and I know a woman who owes exactly that much.

One of the things that the financial “elites” do is what to flood the country with low-IQ illegal immigrants. Why? To drive down wages, which means more money for the elites. The fact that many “libertarians” are too blind and ignorant to realize that by supporting open borders they are cutting their own throats – and that of the nation – would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.

This stratification into socio-economic classes won’t last, since the financial phase never lasts. If whatever administration that is in power had any sense, it would set up laws to reindustrialize the U.S. It wouldn’t be that hard.

Only making things produces wealth. Shuffling “money” around is not wealth; for that matter, money is not wealth. Gold and silver are not wealth. Agriculture is wealth; manufacturing is wealth; a financial economy is an economy on its way down and out.

To use Thom Hartmann’s phase, we need to reboot the country. That rebooting would in many ways take us back to the past, to ideas that worked for decades. The ideas of today are not working; they are destructive.

The financial “elites,” for all their vaunted high IQs (which doesn’t have much of anything to do with wisdom or even common sense) are extraordinarily short-sighted. They won’t change their policies until there is revolt.

Which, of course, sooner or later, there will be.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

How Propaganda Works

This was published at an online magazine, then I transferred it to my website, back before there were blogs. I had to code the entire thing.

One day when I looked at the counter (one for each article) I found I had over 40,000 hits. To this day I still believe what I wrote.

I should add that as nuts as Hitler was he understood propaganda. He wrote the masses were feminine, i.e., ruled by their feelings. Mobs always are. They are never rational.

"Once you base your whole life striving on a desperate lie, and try to implement that lie, you instrument your own undoing." - Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death.

It's not hard to understand how propaganda works. You don't need a college degree, or to even to read any of those thick textbooks everybody hates. Everything relevant can be explained in one not-particularly-long article. And I guarantee you, you must understand how propaganda targets you, to immunize yourself against the attempts.

Propaganda works by appealing to our most base, animalistic instincts. It does not appeal to our better nature, although one of the purposes of it is to convince us it does. It pretends to appeal to our reason, when in fact it appeals to our most primitive emotions. There is good reason for this: perception travels through the emotional brain first, to the rational brain last.

Specifically, propaganda works by appealing to three things: emotions, tribalism and narcissism.

I just mentioned perception travels first to the emotional brain, then the rational brain. This happens to everyone, including people who con themselves they are the most rational and intelligent of intellectuals.

As for tribes, we share with every nearly every animal in the world the instinct to form tribes, arranged in a hierarchy, with a leader. We are group animals. The fact we look to a leader to take care of us is one of the most firmly established principles in psychology (if you don't remember anything else, remember that).

When anyone transgresses the taboos of a tribe, they can, and often are, ostracized or even expelled. An example? Say some people oppose a war. What happens? They are often called cowards and told to leave the country. Who hasn't heard the insult, "You're a coward! If you don't like it here, get out!" People who say such things think they're being patriotic; in reality they're acting like animals. Emotional, irrational, herd animals, prone to the fear and flight activated by propaganda. Individuals think; groups do not, and cannot.

Narcissism is our inborn tendency to see everything as grandiose or devalued, good or bad, with nothing in-between. It's why nearly every tribe in the world—and nations are just tribes writ large—called itself "the People," "the Humans," "the Chosen," "the Motherland," "the Fatherland," or "the greatest nation on earth," relegating everyone outside the tribe to a devalued non-people, non-human status (aka "collateral damage"). No wonder it's so easy to kill the outsiders — they're just not quite human.

When you combine those three concepts, you have the basis for all propaganda. If a leader of a tribe tells the people their goodness is under attack by insane, evil people who want to destroy them, they will react just like animals and attack. The Nazi propagandist Herman Goering noticed all you had to do to get people to march off to war is for the leaders to tell them they were under attack, denounce protestors as traitors exposing the tribe to danger, and the people would slander, ostracize and expel the protestors, and then tramp straight off to be slaughtered. He said this technique worked in every country of the world.

The Bush administration used exactly this technique to start two wars. Essentially they told the public that our goodness was under attack by insane and evil people who wanted to destroy us. See how it works? Tribalism, emotionalism, and narcissism.

Supporters of the war responded by attacking protestors as traitors—trying to expel them from the tribe — and marching off to war. It's altogether too simple, and too easy.

One man everyone should know is Edward L. Bernays, the American disciple and nephew of Sigmund Freud. He was for all practical purposes the founder of modern propaganda techniques.

Bernays despised most people and regarded them as his inferiors, especially because of intellectual or social claims. (See how it works? I just appealed to your emotions, and convinced you Bernays was attacking you. You fell for it, right?)

Bernays not only pretty much founded modern propaganda techniques, but was also the father of modern PR. Although, you could say they are same thing, and that there's really no difference between them.

In his 1928 book, Propaganda, Bernays wrote, "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country..."

Remember that quote. Burn it into your memory. Bernays thought people should be ruled by an extremely small elite, who should manipulate them through propaganda. That means you. People who believe in the wonders of government, and that it is their friend, should think twice about it.

In another book, Crystallizing Public Opinion, Bernays wrote how governments and advertisers can "regiment the mind like the military regiments the body." This can be imposed, he said, because of "the natural inherent flexibility of individual human nature," and suggested the "average citizen is the world's most efficient censor. His own mind is the greatest barrier between him and the facts. His own 'logic-proof compartments,' his own absolutism are the obstacles which prevent him from seeing in terms of experience and thought rather than in terms of group reaction."

Bernays also thought "physical loneliness is a real terror to the gregarious animal, and that association with the herd causes a feeling of security. In man this fear of loneliness creates a desire for identification with the herd in matters of opinion."

Bernays claimed that "the group mind does not think in the strict sense of the word...In making up its mind, its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader. This is one of the most firmly established principles in mass psychology." What Bernays called the "regimentation of the mind" is accomplished by taking advantage of the human tendency to self-deception [logic-proof compartments], gregariousness [the herd instinct], individualism [exalting their vanity] and the seductive power of a strong leader.

Bernays also expressed the opinion people "have to take sides...[they] must step out of the audience onto the stage and wrestle as the hero for the victory of good over evil." This also means appealing to our narcissism, our inborn tendency to see everything as either good or bad, with little or nothing in-between.

He also noted the need for people to feel as if they belong to something larger than themselves. Again, this also means appealing to our narcissism, such as people claiming they belong to "the greatest nation on earth."

When people consider themselves as part of the Humans (by whatever name they call themselves), they exalt themselves. Still again, those outside the tribe are non-people, "collateral damage."

"Mental habits create stereotypes just as physical habits create certain definite reflex actionism," Bernays wrote. "...these stereotypes or clich├ęs are not necessarily truthful pictures of what they are supposed to portray." Perception is everything, the truth matters little or not at all.

Now, let's boil all this down and see what we have:

Mass Man, the herd, cannot think, and is instead ruled by its feelings. The herd will look to a leader to save it. The best way to accomplish this is for the herd to feel it is under attack. The herd will draw together, expel those who see the truth and protest, and then march off to war.

The full quote from Hermann Goering? "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Tell the herd they are the Humans, or the People, or best of all, have God on their side. Paint their enemies as insane and evil. Again, this is appealing to people's narcissism, the tendency to see everything as either good (us) or evil (them). Evoke paranoia and hysteria in them by convincing them the insane evil ones want to conquer and destroy them. What will happen? You can get them to march off to war by the millions, just as Goering noticed. The truth doesn't matter, only the manipulation of perception.

To make it as simple as possible, everything that is needed for a successful propaganda campaign can be summed up in those three aforementioned words: emotionalism, tribalism and narcissism.

We con ourselves we are so advanced. In reality, the human race is stuck in One Million Years BC, except there's no Raquel Welch in a two-piece fur bikini.

I forgot—there is one another component to successful propaganda: keep repeating the message over and over.

Friday, January 23, 2015

On Men Protecting Deluded Ungrateful Women

In college I spent about six months as a security guard (which these days are called watchmen). Later I became a security officer, which required training in those collapsible metal batons, Mace, firearms and handcuffs. I carried all of them. Technically I was a private police officer and now there are more of them than police officers.

I ended up working downtown nights in a big crime-ridden city, and this is why I am sympathetic to good cops and have no use for the bad ones.

I noticed something interesting things. When things go bad, women run straight to a man, including those Strong Independent Empowered Women, who don't exist. Yet some of then run and run and run their mouths, thinking somehow they are immune from the world. Or they can somehow handle themselves. Talk about deluded!

The military, police officers, security officers - and all the rest - protect those who cannot protect themselves, and that basically includes all women. Yet while some women are grateful, many are not.

Now imagine if men did didn't protect women. They'd be up the proverbial shit creek. Specifically we're dealing with white men protecting all women.

I've mentioned before I've had white women, black women and Asian women run to me for help, mostly about getting their car started, or changing a tire, or getting it out of the snow. My friends and I did these things with no complaint or no expectation of payment.

Yet I nearly and nearly every other man have been abused by women, often, in my case, straight out of the blue. Did they have no idea what I could do to them if I so wished, and they could be nothing about it? What are they going to do? Call the police and explain what happened while spitting blood through their broken teeth?

Many women today are pampered and deluded. Not all, but enough to be noticeable. And no matter how deluded they are, when things get tough, they'll turn straight to a man.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

"A rallying cry for insubordinate, smalltown America"

This is written by Wally Conger, a friend of mine, and is from his blog, Out of Step.

I’ve been reading and enjoying Bill Kauffman for two decades. I once heard someone call Kauffman a “category-busting radical crank.” Not bad. Kauffman has described himself as an American patriot, Jeffersonian decentralist, fanatical localist, and anarchist. What I love about him is that he’s so adaptable in finding allies — he frolics with both Right and Left — as long as they love America and despise Empire.

Bill’s a master of the beautifully crafted sentence and the subtly clever turn-of-phrase. I think he’s one of the best political essayists — strike that — best essayists period of the last 35 years. I spent the past week re-reading one of my favorite Kauffman books, Look Homeward, America: In Search of Reactionary Radicals and Front-Porch Anarchists, a paean to families, neighborhoods, and insubordinate, smalltown America. For almost a decade, it’s been one of my go-to, comfort books. When I need to “get a grip” philosophically and get my mind straight on where I fit in this big, messy world, I pick up Look Homeward, America. And every time I read it, I often stop at the end of paragraphs, rub the bridge of my nose, and mumble, “Goddamn that’s good.”

Here’s Kauffman writing about a pilgrimage he made in Iowa:

“So there we were, my wife, Lucine, our then-nine-year-old daughter, Gretel, and I, driving the gravel roads outside Clear Lake, Iowa, following directions like ‘first fencerow past the big grain bin,’ till we ditched the rental car and walked the narrow half-mile path between corn and soybean fields to the spot where on February 3, 1959, the plane carrying Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and the Big Bopper crashed, a tragedy later mythicized by Don McLean in ‘American Pie’ as ‘the day the music died.’ We found the cross and makeshift memorial to the three paleo rock-and-rollers. Lucine detests the har-har leering of the Big Bopper — ‘Hell-ooooooo Ba-Beeeee!’ — but Gretel and I persuaded her to join us in a spirited chorus of ‘Chantilly Lace,’ capped by a hearty ‘Oh baby that’s what I like!’ I imagined the Bopper, a bespangled specter, giving us a lewd wink.”

Still wandering through Iowa, Bill reflects on the late actress Donna Reed:

“At some point in post-World War II America, the Middle West and all its Middle American manifestations became inexplicable. Take Donna Reed, without question the most beautifully American-looking actress of the Cold War era. Donna was an Iowa girl, a tomboy who grew up playing baseball with her brothers on the farm — watch her hurl that rock at the window of the old Granville place in ‘It’s a Wonderful Life‘; what a wonderful arm! She was an Iowa Republican who was for her fellow Iowan Henry Wallace in 1948, for Barry Goldwater in 1964 because the Kennedy-Johnson Democrats offended her Iowa isolationism, and for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 for the same reason. Viewed through old-fashioned American glasses, Reed’s politics make perfect sense as the expression of a girl who attended the one-room schoolhouse in Nishnabotna, Iowa, and won a blue ribbon at the Iowa State Fair for the whole-wheat yeast rolls she made for the Nimble Fingers 4-H Club. It is only in the funhouse mirror of postwar American politics that the Donna Reeds are contorted and the Arnold Schwarzeneggers look normal.” Kauffman writes about the effect of war and empire on rural America:

“War devastates the homefront as surely as it does the killing fields. Soldiers are conscripted, sent hither and yon to kill and maim or to be killed or maimed; their families relocate, following the jobs created by artificial wartime booms. War is the great scatterer, the merciless disperser. How you gonna keep ’em down on the farm when Mom and Pop and Sis have found Elysium in Detroit?”

Look Homeward, America is a short book. (All of Kauffman’s books are.) But it’s stuffed with history, personal asides, and lots and lots of profiles of those Kauffman would call “reactionary radicals,” folks as diverse as U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (for whom Kauffman worked briefly), Catholic Worker founder Dorothy Day, writer Wendell Berry, novelist Carolyn Chute, Robert Frost, and Mother Jones. What it all adds up to is a virtual manifesto for front-porch radicals — a loose-limbed movement where Left and Right can stop arguing the little stuff and meet on common ground in their admiration for small-scale over big-scale, local over nation-state, peace over war, America over Empire, and plain, old-fashioned neighborliness.

Bill Kauffman is the champion of common sense, building relationships, and getting the real work done of just living satisfying lives. If you haven’t read his books, you’re missing something very special.

"The NYPD is Actually Proving that they Exist Mainly for Revenue Generation"

"Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money." - Thomas Hobbes

I've never seen any evidence that traffic tickets "save lives." Unfortunately, some police and citizens delude themselves they do. When police are running speed traps that means they can't do anything else, like investigate real crimes.

Some years ago there was a "town" in Southwest Illinois called National City. It had about 100 people living in trailers. The "police department" did nothing except run a speed trap and made hundreds of thousands a year.

One day the state of Illinois decertified the city and bulldozed the place. It's an empty field now.

The amount of resources diverted to the police state is enormous. It impoverishes everyone except the police state.

This article is from The Free Thought Project.

“It definitely is a revenue driver for the city, this mass regime of handing out tickets. It does strike the ear a little bit funny when you hear police union leaders talking about how we are only to going to arrest people when we ‘have to.’ It seems like that should be the real function of police generally.”

Arrests and ticket violations in New York City are dropping over the New York Police Department’s purported political protest against the mayor, but investigative journalist Matt Taibbi says the slowdown is exposing weaknesses in normal police policy.

The number of arrests across the city last week plunged to just over 2,000 – compared to over 5,000 during the same time one year ago – with parking- and driving-related tickets down more than 90 percent, according to NYPD data. There has also been a drop in new inmates, with only 618 entering the system compared to over 1,000 a year ago.

Speaking with RT, Taibbi said the so-called “work stoppage” – portrayed as a political police protest against Mayor Bill de Blasio over his sympathetic comments towards police brutality protesters – seems to be about trying to hit the mayor in the budget without endangering the public.

“The police, in this slowdown, they are halting handing out parking tickets, which are enormously lucrative for the city, and they are also not doing these ‘quality of life’ summonses, which are a huge hardship on the people who get them but make significantly less money for the city. So there are two different things going on here,” he said.

“It definitely is a revenue driver for the city, this mass regime of handing out tickets. It does strike the ear a little bit funny when you hear police union ,pleaders talking about how we are only to going to arrest people when we ‘have to.’ It seems like that should be the real function of police generally. If they are ticketing and arresting people when they don’t have to, then something’s up, and that’s not right.”

Taibbi said the slowdown demonstrates how police officers are used to make up for tax shortfalls with ticket and citation revenue. Cutting down summonses for “quality of life” issues also exposes the downfalls of “broken windows” policing.

“This new tactic, ‘broken windows,’ is kind of like commercial fishing. Basically what you do is throw a net over a whole neighborhood; you pull in everybody for every tiny, small thing; and then the idea is to get people who have guns or warrants, and then you throw everybody else back,” he said. “It is an effective strategy to a degree, but it creates a lot of hostility in the target neighborhoods.”

Taibbi added that police officers have told him that they wished they could go back to the days when they responded to calls, fought and investigated crime, and developed sources and informants – rather than issue summonses to meet quotas every month.

Earlier this week during a presentation at police headquarters – when the city revealed the latest crime data, showing the lowest murder, robbery, and burglary rates for the city in the past 10 years – the mayor and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton responded to a question by stating that the lower crime figures were a result of police policies like broken windows, not because of the ineffectiveness of the programs.

“Broken windows is here to stay. Stop, question and frisk is here to stay,” Bratton said. “But it will be done in appropriate amounts. So, even the broken windows policing – we are very selective in terms of looking at areas where we can reduce the need for that. Marijuana arrests is clearly one of those. We took a close look at marijuana arrests and felt it was not an appropriate use of our resources. It was costing us a fortune, in terms of manpower, over time.”

At this point, Mayor de Blasio interrupted Bratton to take the podium.

“A lot of us were here in the 1980s, 1990s, and could never have imagined these kind of numbers. They are the result of a proactive strategy. They’re the result of a number of strategies, one of which is the broken windows approach,” he said.

“That’s why I believe in it, because it continues to drive down crime. And think of what that means for everyday people’s lives – an ever-safer city, where people know that they’re safe, their children are safe, their seniors are safe, their property’s safe. It has immense ramifications for the economic well-being of this city. It’s a strategy that’s worked.”

Monday, January 19, 2015

The Terrible Father, the Terrible Mother and the Manosphere

"When people are seduced by dominance and power, they inevitably make a Faustian pact with the devil. They satiate their unending hunger for more power by getting into bed with the devil. Of course, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul. Jung added, '…whoever prefers power is therefore, in the Christian view, possessed by the devil.'" - Paul Levy

The Greeks understood there were two ways of thinking about things: the mythos and the logos. Mythological and logical, although I think they are ultimately the same thing - which is why it is "mytho-logical," i.e. the logic of myth.

Mythologically, there is the Great Father/Terrible Father and the Great Mother/Terrible Mother. I think the easiest way to identify the Terrible Father/Terrible Mother is that both are interested only in power, domination and control, and both are incapable of love. At their worst that makes them psychopaths.

The Terrible Mother is the Witch, the Harlot, the seductive and destructive woman. In the West, Eve, Delilah and the Medusa (a beautiful woman with venomous snakes for hair), for some examples. The one who tries to turn men into boys or prevent them from turning into men. The one that "castrates" men, the one who leads them to destruction.

Feminism is an example of the Terrible Mother. It tries to destroy men (under the guise of "justice," of course). It wants to keep them boys and tries to prevent them from turning to men. These days, usually with the use of Ritalin. It's not about love but instead power, only power.

Wrote Jung: "The Terrible Mother wants to possess and smother, devour and destroy. She is angry and jealous, enslaving her husband, lovers, and children."

The Manosphere is a reaction to the destructiveness of feminism. Unfortunately, much of the Manosphere embodies the Terrible Father - the destructive, psychopathic Father. The Terrible Father traditionally eats his own children, as evidenced by Saturn eating his son.

It is the Terrible Father in the Manosphere who tells men not to get married and to not have children, unwittingly destroying the family, the basis of civilization. It is the Terrible Father who starts war and sacrifices his own. In Star Wars Darth Vader is a Terrible Father, consumed with power, incapable of love until his son he sacrifices his life for his son. He gives up power for love.

It is the Terrible Father who say women are incapable of love, who are "hypergamous", rationalizing, gold-digging whores who have no self-awareness and only seek "Alpha Fux and Beta Bux."

It is the Terrible Father who claims women like men who exhibit "Dark Triad" traits - power, domination, control and the inability to love. To paraphrase Jung, you can have power over others, or you can have love for them, but you can't have both.

In other words, some of those of the Manosphere are trying to use the Terrible Father to fight the Terrible Mother. It's not going to work.

Both men and women have to escape the clutches of both the Terrible Mother and the Terrible Father, both of whom are only interested in power and not love, and both of whom want to sacrifice both men and women. The way feminists try to sacrifice both women and men who don't agree with them, and the way some in the Manosphere try to scapegoat, expel and ostracize those who disagree with its beliefs.

Traditionally the way to escape the clutches of both has been marriage. "The symbol par excellence of the final escape from the family is marriage," writes Ray Harris. "It is the union of male and female which allows a new round of birth to occur. In patriarchal societies the daughter is given away by the father into the care of the husband. The marriage ceremony is a rite of passage into full adult responsibility (and marks the symbolic taming, the civilizing, of the wild youth). It recapitulates the ancient union of the god and goddess."

One of the things the writer is implying is that when marriage goes the society follows and up springs the Terrible Mother and Terrible Father. Which is exactly what we are now seeing.

"Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty." - John Adams

How to Get Laid a Lot

I have slept with about one-quarter of the women I could have. Why not all I could have?

Because to get laid a lot you have to lie to women. Tattoo that on your brain, because it's true. You have to tell what what they want to hear. And since so many women are greedy, lazy, envious, vain children, you have to appeal to that.

I've mentioned before about the must successful PUA I know. (I will again repeat he ruined his life because of it). He was good-looking and fit (also necessary) but more than anything else he lied to women. He said he told them "what they wanted to hear." That's a direct quote.

He told them he was going to be a doctor (actually podiatrist) who wanted to make a lot of money, have a home and wife and children, but also wanted to support his wife in what she wanted to do. It was all lies. He pretended to be a feminist, but at the same time a traditional provider. The girls ate it up, even though he was a cowardly douchebag (I am reminded of the nutcase Hugo Schwyzer, who did the exact same thing my friend did).

My friend, who is cowardly, impulsive and imprudent (what PUA isn't?), really did a number on his life. He whined he "got a taste of my own medicine." To him women were Narcissistic Supply to fill the void were his character used to be.

The sites that tell you "chicks dig the Dark Triad" and "insanely confident men," and "Alphas" - they're full of it. Such men only appear to have strength of character to naive women. It's all fake. Inside they're as empty as balloons. And a lot of women are conned by the trappings of masculinity and don't recognize the real thing.

It's not all the hard to lay a lot of women. Be pretty good-looking, stay in shape, dress well - and more than anything else - lie through your teeth. You just have to be a lowlife, one willing to ruin your life just to get a lot of pussy.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

"Hypergamy," the Fisherman and His Wife

C.S. Lewis said the problem with women is that they are "daughters of Eve." For that matter, men are the Sons of Adam, and he screwed up everything by listening to Eve.

I pretty much dismiss Evolutionary Psychology. Again, it's not a science and closer to bad fairy tales.

I prefer the wisdom of good "fairy tales" - what the Germans call Marchen. And the wisdom of the Seven Deadly Vices - greed, sloth, envy and pride. "That's what "hypergamy" is. And, as far as I'm concerned, women's greatest sins are Pride and Envy.

This is the Grimm Brothers story, "The Fisherman and His Wife."

Once upon a time there were a fisherman and his wife who lived together in a filthy shack near the sea. Every day the fisherman went out fishing, and he fished, and he fished. Once he was sitting there fishing and looking into the clear water, and he sat, and he sat. Then his hook went to the bottom, deep down, and when he pulled it out, he had caught a large flounder.

Then the flounder said to him, "Listen, fisherman, I beg you to let me live. I am not an ordinary flounder, but an enchanted prince. How will it help you to kill me? I would not taste good to you. Put me back into the water, and let me swim."

"Well," said the man, "there's no need to say more. I can certainly let a fish swim away who knows how to talk."

With that he put it back into the clear water, and the flounder disappeared to the bottom, leaving a long trail of blood behind him.

Then the fisherman got up and went home to his wife in the filthy shack.

"Husband," said the woman, "didn't you catch anything today?"

"No," said the man. "I caught a flounder, but he told me that he was an enchanted prince, so I let him swim away."

"Didn't you ask for anything first?" said the woman.

"No," said the man. "What should I have asked for?"

"Oh," said the woman. "It is terrible living in this shack. It stinks and is filthy. You should have asked for a little cottage for us. Go back and call him. Tell him that we want to have a little cottage. He will surely give it to us."

"Oh," said the man. "Why should I go back there?"

"Look," said the woman, "you did catch him, and then you let him swim away. He will surely do this for us. Go right now."

The man did not want to go, but neither did he want to oppose his wife, so he went back to the sea.

When he arrived there it was no longer clear, but yellow and green. He stood there and said:

Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!
Flounder, flounder, in the sea!
My wife, my wife Ilsebill,
Wants not, wants not, what I will

The flounder swam up and said, "What does she want then?"

"Oh," said the man, "I did catch you, and now my wife says that I really should have asked for something. She doesn't want to live in a filthy shack any longer. She would like to have a cottage."

"Go home," said the flounder. "She already has it."

The man went home, and his wife was standing in the door of a cottage, and she said to him, "Come in. See, now isn't this much better?"

There was a little front yard, and a beautiful little parlor, and a bedroom where their bed was standing, and a kitchen, and a dining room. Everything was beautifully furnished and supplied with tin and brass utensils, just as it should be. And outside there was a little yard with chickens and ducks and a garden with vegetables and fruit.

"Look," said the woman. "Isn't this nice?"

"Yes," said the man. "This is quite enough. We can live here very well."

"We will think about that," said the woman.

Then they ate something and went to bed.

Everything went well for a week or two, and then the woman said, "Listen, husband. This cottage is too small. The yard and the garden are too little. The flounder could have given us a larger house. I would like to live in a large stone palace. Go back to the flounder and tell him to give us a palace."

"Oh, wife," said the man, "the cottage is good enough. Why would we want to live in a palace?"

"I know why," said the woman. "Now you just go. The flounder can do that."

"Now, wife, the flounder has just given us the cottage. I don't want to go back so soon. It may make the flounder angry."

"Just go," said the woman. "He can do it, and he won't mind doing it. Just go."

The man's heart was heavy, and he did not want to go. He said to himself, "This is not right," but he went anyway.

When he arrived at the sea the water was purple and dark blue and gray and dense, and no longer green and yellow. He stood there and said:

Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!
Flounder, flounder, in the sea!
My wife, my wife Ilsebill,
Wants not, wants not, what I will

"What does she want then?" said the flounder.

"Oh," said the man sadly, "my wife wants to live in a stone palace."

"Go home. She's already standing before the door," said the flounder.

Then the man went his way, thinking he was going home, but when he arrived, standing there was a large stone palace. His wife was standing on the stairway, about to enter.

Taking him by the hand, she said, "Come inside."

He went inside with her. Inside the palace there was a large front hallway with a marble floor. Numerous servants opened up the large doors for them. The walls were all white and covered with beautiful tapestry. In the rooms there were chairs and tables of pure gold. Crystal chandeliers hung from the ceilings. The rooms and chambers all had carpets. Food and the very best wine overloaded the tables until they almost collapsed. Outside the house there was a large courtyard with the very best carriages and stalls for horses and cows. Furthermore there was a magnificent garden with the most beautiful flowers and fine fruit trees and a pleasure forest a good half mile long, with elk and deer and hares and everything that anyone could possibly want.

"Now," said the woman, "isn't this nice?"

"Oh, yes" said the man. "This is quite enough. We can live in this beautiful palace and be satisfied."

"We'll think about it," said the woman. "Let's sleep on it." And with that they went to bed.

The next morning the woman woke up first. It was just daylight, and from her bed she could see the magnificent landscape before her. Her husband was just starting to stir when she poked him in the side with her elbow and said, "Husband, get up and look out the window. Look, couldn't we be king over all this land?"

"Oh, wife," said the man, "why would we want to be king? I don't want to be king."

"Well," said the woman, "even if you don't want to be king, I want to be king."

"Oh, wife," said the man, "why do you want to be king? I don't want to tell him that."

"Why not?" said the woman, "Go there immediately. I must be king."

So the man, saddened because his wife wanted to be king, went back.

"This is not right, not right at all," thought the man. He did not want to go, but he went anyway.

When he arrived at the sea it was dark gray, and the water heaved up from below and had a foul smell. He stood there and said:

Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!
Flounder, flounder, in the sea!
My wife, my wife Ilsebill,
Wants not, wants not, what I will

"What does she want then," said the flounder.

"Oh," said the man, "she wants to be king."

"Go home. She is already king," said the flounder.

Then the man went home, and when he arrived there, the palace had become much larger, with a tall tower and magnificent decorations. Sentries stood outside the door, and there were so many soldiers, and drums, and trumpets. When he went inside everything was of pure marble and gold with velvet covers and large golden tassels. Then the doors to the great hall opened up, and there was the entire court. His wife was sitting on a high throne of gold and diamonds. She was wearing a large golden crown, and in her hand was a scepter of pure gold and precious stones. On either side of her there stood a line of maids-in-waiting, each one a head shorter than the other.

"Oh, wife, are you now king?"

"Yes," she said, "now I am king."

He stood and looked at her, and after thus looking at her for a while he said, "Wife, it is very nice that you are king. Now we don't have to wish for anything else."

"No, husband," she said, becoming restless. "Time is on my hands. I cannot stand it any longer. Go to the flounder. I am king, but now I must become emperor."

"Oh, wife" said the man, "Why do you want to become emperor?"

"Husband," she said, "go to the flounder. I want to be emperor."

"Oh, wife," said the man, "he cannot make you emperor. I cannot tell the flounder to do that. There is only one emperor in the realm. The flounder cannot make you emperor. He cannot do that."

"What!" said the woman. "I am king, and you are my husband. Are you going? Go there immediately. If he can make me king then he can make me emperor. I want to be and have to be emperor. Go there immediately."

So he had to go. As he went on his way the frightened man thought to himself, "This is not going to end well. To ask to be emperor is shameful. The flounder is going to get tired of this."

With that he arrived at the sea. The water was all black and dense and boiling up from within. A strong wind blew over him that curdled the water. He stood there and said:

Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!
Flounder, flounder, in the sea!
My wife, my wife Ilsebill,
Wants not, wants not, what I will

"What does she want then?" said the flounder.

"Oh, flounder," he said, "my wife wants to become emperor."

"Go home," said the flounder. "She is already emperor."

Then the man went home, and when he arrived there, the entire palace was made of polished marble with alabaster statues and golden decoration. Soldiers were marching outside the gate, blowing trumpets and beating tympani and drums. Inside the house, barons and counts and dukes were walking around like servants. They opened the doors for him, which were made of pure gold. He went inside where his wife was sitting on a throne made of one piece of gold a good two miles high, and she was wearing a large golden crown that was three yards high, all set with diamonds and carbuncles. In the one hand she had a scepter, and in the other the imperial orb. Bodyguards were standing in two rows at her sides: each one smaller than the other, beginning with the largest giant and ending with the littlest dwarf, who was no larger than my little finger. Many princes and dukes were standing in front of her.

The man went and stood among them and said, "Wife, are you emperor now?"

"Yes," she said, "I am emperor."

He stood and looked at her, and after thus looking at her for a while, he said, "Wife, it is very nice that you are emperor."

"Husband," she said. "Why are you standing there? Now that I am emperor, and I want to become pope."

"Oh, wife!" said the man. "What do you not want? There is only one pope in all Christendom. He cannot make you pope."

"Husband," she said, "I want to become pope. Go there immediately. I must become pope this very day."

"No, wife," he said, "I cannot tell him that. It will come to no good. That is too much. The flounder cannot make you pope."

"Husband, what nonsense!" said the woman. "If he can make me emperor, then he can make me pope as well. Go there immediately. I am emperor, and you are my husband. Are you going?"

Then the frightened man went. He felt sick all over, and his knees and legs were shaking, and the wind was blowing over the land, and clouds flew by as the darkness of evening fell. Leaves blew from the trees, and the water roared and boiled as it crashed onto the shore. In the distance he could see ships, shooting distress signals as they tossed and turned on the waves. There was a little blue in the middle of the sky, but on all sides it had turned red, as in a terrible lightning storm. Full of despair he stood there and said:

Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!
Flounder, flounder, in the sea!
My wife, my wife Ilsebill,
Wants not, wants not, what I will

"What does she want then?" said the flounder.

"Oh," said the man, "she wants to become pope."

"Go home," said the flounder. "She is already pope."

Then he went home, and when he arrived there, there was a large church surrounded by nothing but palaces. He forced his way through the crowd. Inside everything was illuminated with thousands and thousands of lights, and his wife was clothed in pure gold and sitting on a much higher throne. She was wearing three large golden crowns. She was surrounded with church-like splendor, and at her sides there were two banks of candles. The largest was as thick and as tall as the largest tower, down to the smallest kitchen candle. And all the emperors and kings were kneeling before her kissing her slipper.

"Wife," said the man, giving her a good look, "are you pope now?"

"Yes," she said, "I am pope."

Then he stood there looking at her, and it was as if he were looking into the bright sun. After he had looked at her for a while he said, "Wife, It is good that you are pope!"

She stood there as stiff as a tree, neither stirring nor moving.

Then he said, "Wife, be satisfied now that you are pope. There is nothing else that you can become."

"I have to think about that," said the woman.

Then they both went to bed, but she was not satisfied. Her desires would not let her sleep. She kept thinking what she wanted to become next.

The man slept well and soundly, for he had run about a lot during the day, but the woman could not sleep at all, but tossed and turned from one side to the other all night long, always thinking about what she could become, but she could not think of anything.

Then the sun was about to rise, and when she saw the early light of dawn she sat up in bed and watched through the window as the sun came up.

"Aha," she thought. "Could not I cause the sun and the moon to rise?"

"Husband," she said, poking him in the ribs with her elbow, "wake up and go back to the flounder. I want to become like God."

The man, who was still mostly asleep, was so startled that he fell out of bed. He thought that he had misunderstood her, so, rubbing his eyes, he said, "Wife, what did you say?"

"Husband," she said, "I cannot stand it when I see the sun and the moon rising, and I cannot cause them to do so. I will not have a single hour of peace until I myself can cause them to rise."

She looked at him so gruesomely that he shuddered.

"Go there immediately. I want to become like God."

"Oh, wife," said the man, falling on his knees before her, "the flounder cannot do that. He can make you emperor and pope, but I beg you, be satisfied and remain pope."

Anger fell over her. Her hair flew wildly about her head. Tearing open her bodice she kicked him with her foot and shouted, "I cannot stand it! I cannot stand it any longer! Go there immediately!"

He put on his trousers and ran off like a madman.

Outside such a storm was raging that he could hardly stand on his feet. Houses and trees were blowing over. The mountains were shaking, and boulders were rolling from the cliffs into the sea. The sky was as black as pitch. There was thunder and lightning. In the sea there were great black waves as high as church towers and mountains, all capped with crowns of white foam.

Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!
Flounder, flounder, in the sea!
My wife, my wife Ilsebill,
Wants not, wants not, what I will

"What does she want then?" said the flounder.

"Oh," he said, "she wants to become like God."

"Go home. She is sitting in her filthy shack again."

And they are sitting there even today.