Thursday, April 30, 2015

The Lack of Our Rites of Passage

All "primitive" societies have forced boys, right around the age of 12, to undergo initiation rites in which they symbolically died as children and then were reborn as adults, under the direction of learned elders (I'm going to repeat that -- learned elders, not just elders).

One of the reasons for this "rebirth" is to boys pull away from the mother, who at her worst is represented by the motherly/destructive/seductive mythic goddess Kali (today, I use the example of the Borg Queen), and these days by society-destroying feminism, which although the average woman does not believe in it as an ideology, has still been infected with its ideas.

Mircea Eliade defined initiation as "a basic change in existential condition which liberates man from profane time and history," he wrote. "Initiation recapitulates the sacred history of the world and through this recapitulation, the whole world is sanctified anew...[the initiated] can perceive the world as a sacred work, a creation of the Gods."

He also believed the purpose of rites was "help [new generations] assume the responsibility of being truly men and hence of participating in culture." In short, to transmit cultural values.

The mythologist Joseph Campbell divided it into thee parts: Departure (sometimes called Separation), Initiation and Return.

This pulling away is necessary for boys to be introduced to the world of men, otherwise, under the influence under the worst aspect of the feminine (which pretty much means weak or absent fathers), they end up showing every imaginable pathology that exists.

These boys, in essence, were being taught to be budding patriarchs, and since all successful cultures are patriarchal (being that women destroy everything they get involved in) these initiation rites, being that they are universal, are absolutely necessary.

The Manosphere is supposed to be a rite of passage (pulling away from the feminine) but a lot of the advice has nothing with how to be a man. Some of it has to do without eternally being a child.

To a much lesser extent, there have been rites of passages for girls. In both cases, it happens right at puberty, when the body and brain are changing rapidly and profoundly.

Nowadays, we've lost these rites, at least the good ones. Did we ever have good ones? I'm sure we did, but offhand, I can't think of what they were. Currently, we're got some bad ones, and the kids and society pay for it. And pay and pay and pay. The lack of them is damaging to individuals and to the culture. "Culture is the public expression of group continuity," commented one thoughtful man, and I couldn't agree more.

Many people either don't know, or don't want to admit, how fragile society is, and that one of its purposes is to repress or transform all the imperfections inherent in human nature. When societies lose those myths, rituals and rites that help transform into something better, worse rites will take their place. That's how we end up with kids wearing tribal tattoos and acting like whiggers.

Here's an example, and it's about a woman instead of a man (if it's this important for a young girl, imagine how much for important it is for a boy): when I was about 23, and in college, I was sitting in the room of this woman, who was about 21 years old. We were just passing time listening to her CDs.

I was casual friends with her, but had noticed she was a bit more intelligent, sensitive and creative than the other girls who lived in her house, almost all of whom, in my opinion, were callow and not-very-bright college students. The one I was talking to was an art/design major, the only one in her house of 11 girls. Most of the others were studying to be grade-school teachers.

To this day, I have no idea why she told me the things she did. She starting telling me about her time in 7th grade, when she was pudgy and wore those kind of horn-rimmed glasses that always sit crooked on your face. She showed me a picture; personally, I thought she was rather cute.

She was certainly cute at 21, certainly much better-looking than the other girls in the house.

She told me that because of the way she looked, she was ostracized by the other 7th-graders. Twelve years old and an outsider and a scapegoat. Just great. No wonder Stephen King's novel Carrie was such a big hit. Public schools...

Over the summer, she told me, she grew up, lost the baby fat, filled out, and got contacts. Ugly duckling to swan in less than three months. When she came back for the 8th-grade all the kids who ostracized her now wanted to be her friends. She ignored them.

The way she was treated in the 7th-grade affected her for the rest of her life. She told me she was never attracted to what most people would consider "good-looking" men and was instead attracted to what she called "unusual-looking guys" (I had always wondered why she liked me over the other guys).

I got a big laugh out of this one: she told me she liked guys who looked like Peter Noone. I didn't recognize the name, until she told me he was the lead singer Herman of "Herman and the Hermits." They were popular about the time she was being born.

I saw her a few years later, after we had graduated. She had married a guy who looked like him.

She turned out just fine, but her initiation rites in 7th-grade consisted of a bright, creative, sensitive girl being ostracized and humiliated in public school. What she had gone through were unwitting initiation rites, ones that, I repeat, affected her for the rest of her life.

She was lucky enough to make it through them, even without wise elders, just teachers instead, although in a sense she was scarred for the rest of her life. She symbolically died and was reborn courtesy of being poorly treated by a bunch of dim-witted, immature 12-year-olds tossed together in public schools (which I think should be burned down and the ground salted). Those were not good rites of passage for her.

As bad as it was for her, I think this lack of initiation rites is a lot worse for boys. A lot worse, and I can't emphasize just how bad I think this lack is. We still have them, to a degree, although they're exactly the same as my friend went through: being tossed into the mish-mash that is public-school 7th-grade. It's not working.

My time in middle school consisted in getting into fights, trying to avoid them, being bored, and daydreaming. That was about it.

The fact we don't have any initiation affects us politically. Politically, the leftist nanny-state is Mommy. Why do men fall for it? Because, even though raised with two parents, they're still stuck in mommy-mode, due to the lack of initiation rites that pull them away from mommy and toward daddy. In other words, when boys don't go through the correct initiation rites, they can turn into leftists - or women haters, which is an attempt to get away from them.

This away-from-dominating-mommy/searching-for-daddy can be seen in gangs, most of whom were raised without fathers and with unfit mothers. They found all-male gangs, ones that denigrate women. Their initiation rites and lives are all in the bad-male mode.

Teenagers have a vague, inchoate, instinctive understanding of their need for initiation rites. That's why they act and dress as they do. I did it when I was a teenager. Almost all of us did. Almost all of us used drugs, although in those days it was booze and marijuana. Then it was Ecstasy and raves. I understand.

Looking back on it, I realize my friends and I were rather wild, at least compared to the other kids. There were a lot of us, creating our own initiation rites of drugs and booze and parties. We had no true mentors, be it parents or teachers. There was no ritualistic adjustment from childhood to adulthood. Nothing. These days, we'd be given Ritalin.

The way I see it, in American society, the skyrocketing rise of gangs and reckless behavior dramatizes how youth seek some sort of initiation rites, made worse in the absence of anything provided by the culture (read "learned elders" for "culture"). Unfortunately, old geezers fear young people, not realizing their wildness and energy are really just an unending longing for initiation into the adult world.

Adolescents hunger for real tests, somewhat risky ordeals by which they can turn into adults, ones with a purpose in life. What ceremonies and rituals and rites do we have? High school graduation? College graduation? Meaningless. They're not tests. Nearly everyone wants to feel like the Hero on a Quest. Luke Skywalker. That is why those movies are still so popular?

True rites involve some risk, some pain, and self- discipline and self-sacrifice. Look how many boys want to join the Marines. When those things are offered, then there is community. It doesn't matter what it is -- it can be anything from gangs to religious cults.

That lack of serious rites is one of the reasons Christianity is in the trouble it is in. It's too soft; it doesn't challenge. Make it harder, make it challenging, make it involve self-discipline and self-sacrifice, and the softness that plagues it will disappear.

We don't have, and we certainly need, adolescent initiations that meet the needs of kids today, ones that draw on tribal rites, ones that are feasible in a modern, urban culture. Since we live in a highly technological society, we need new rituals appropriate to urban teenagers. Then, of course, the other essential ingredients are elders and mentors willing to devise and perform such rituals and a supportive community -- that "group continuity" -- into which the initiated teens are brought.

The way things are now, we're turning into a society without fathers. When women try to raise children along, they almost automatically turn into Terrible Mothers, even though they don't mean to. They're just ignorant. Abysmally ignorant. The law has, foolishly and destructively, decided fathers are optional, and when they aren't, when a couple has to work to make ends meet and give their six-week-old baby to a pre-school, that's just another way of saying we no longer have elders. The government is no substitute.

When you're looking at young gang members, you're looking at people with no fathers or elders. So we either develop true fathers and elders and mentors, or the amount of violence will increase year by year. This is not something that can be replaced by government programs.

Sooner or later, we'll have to figure it out. We have to. But until we do, all the Ph.D.s and government studies and programs, are in vain, just chaff flying in the whirlwind.

Science is a Religion

I've said many times before that science is a religion, because to some people it is based on the faith that it is absolutely true, and the only way to truth.

After all, look at all this craziness about global warming...which, it turns out, does not exist.

Just about the only way you can tell if science is true is when it turns into useful technology.

On Robert Heinlein

I used to read a lot of science fiction between 12 and 14 (let's just say the stuff was a mind-expanding psychedelic drug). I read some even today, but not much. I do know there is some furor in the science fiction world because it's apparently been taken over by leftists and they've imposed PC on it, which means they're not interested in quality but instead leftist beliefs.

And that brings me to Heinlein.

I was never a fan of his. The first story of his I read was "Waldo," (which is about the occult) which was an early story and which I still think is his best. But when I read Farmham's Freehold I thought he'd lost his mind. It was about incest, castration and cannibalism and some other loony things I've forgotten about.

People have attacked Heinlein as a fascist. Har har! Heinlein was married three times and his last two marriages were open marriages. His second wife was a practicing witch. At first he was a self-proclaimed socialist.

The guy was a hippie before there were hippies! He never ceased being a hippie. All you have to do is read Stranger in a Strange Land, which is so bizarre and so leftist no society could be founded on it. As for The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, it's pretty libertarian.

People think because he wrote Starship Troopers he's some kind of fascist. Really? Being anti-draft is fascist? How so?

People who disparage him know nothing about him. And I suspect if I met him I would not like him, but I'm not going to tell lies the way the ignorant do.

I'll tell you this, though: he'll last a lot longer that the leftist retards of today.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Feminism Born from Boredom, Not Oppression

Feminism was born not of the oppression of women by a non-existent "cruel, repressive, oppressive" patriarchy, but from the boredom of women, which they blamed on a quite-real capitalism.

It was “capitalism” (in my opinion, misnamed) that freed women from a lifetime of cleaning, sweeping, laundry, sewing, cooking, canning and the rest of the day-long drudgery involved with keeping a home. It also freed them from unwanted, sometimes dangerous and occasionally fatal pregnancies.

The fruits of political and economic liberty resulted in the burdensome necessities of life not being eliminated, but greatly eased. After that advancement, with life being so much easier, the next step should be the improvement of minds and lives. That was the problem: what to do with the challenge of all that leisure.

Unfortunately, when it comes to many people, this material abundance results, as it always does with them, in spiritual poverty. I not believe there could be a Marquis de Sade or a Herod when men spent their days hunting game to survive; only “aristocrats” who never had to work a day in their lives could turn into bored hedonists who whiled their days away with sex and drugs and partying.

Boredom, quite correctly, was considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins: acedie, to be exact. That is, being unable to find meaning, importance and community in your life.

The word “sin” comes from the word “hamartia” and is derived from archery; it means “to miss the mark.” Those who cannot find true meaning, importance and community in their lives have missed the target.

Since no one can live without meaning, importance and community, certain people, since they almost always reject traditional religion, end up worshiping themselves. Only in leftism, for example, can man be considered a god.

Bored by the advancements and leisure generated by political and economic liberty, and at a loss what to do with their lives, leftists misinterpreted these things as oppression. Bored people always feel oppressed, and being the first defense of people is to blame their problems on others, they looked around and decided that “capitalism” and “patriarchy” were to blame.

The critics did diagnose the problem, but not only was the diagnosis terribly skewed, the cure was deadly: the destruction of society and the (impossible) remaking of human nature so they men and women would be exactly equal. Only then, they claimed, could “patriarchy” and “capitalism” be overthrown and destroyed.

In a perverted and limited sense, these critics were correct: these material advancements were generated by men (specifically white men), which was misnamed “patriarchy,” and also by science and political and economic liberty – misnamed “capitalism.”

You would think that after all that men have done, they'd be looked at with awe and respect and gratitude by women. Even Camille Paglia said she looked around her at what men have done and felt awe. "Look at the skyscraper!"

But that's not what happened. It's more along the lines of, "Okay, you've created civilization and society and science and technology and political and economic quit oppressing me and give all of it to me for free." And that attitude in the long run, will not last. In fact, when too many women get involved in a field, they always destroy it. This has been noticed by everyone who is thoughtful and interested in the truth, including women.

The Stalinist Betty Friedan, who was ugly to the point of being grotesque, and one of the founders of Sixties feminism, wrote in The Feminine Mystique there was a problem that “had no name.” The problem did have a name: that missing of the mark known as ennui. Boredom. Friedan, not at all surprisingly, was an atheist who was married to an extremely wealthy man and lived a life of luxury in a mansion on the Hudson River in New York. The housework was done by maids.

She was another bored, wealthy, self-appointed aristocrat without a religion, one whose suitcase once fell open at an airport and spilled her sex toys on the floor.

Her leftist “religion” promoted the elevation of women, the denigration of men, and the hoped-for destruction of “patriarchy” and “capitalism,” to be replaced with primitive tribal matriarchal equality and fraternity.

One way to overcome women’s “oppression” was for them to enter into men’s occupations. This didn’t mean entry into any hot, dirty, dangerous jobs: it meant entry into the much easier, highly-paid ones, a path smoothed by Affirmative Action (“White Men Need Not Apply”).

It also meant the denigration of motherhood and marriage. Gloria Steinem throughout her life never had a good thing to say about romance and marriage, even though they were the most importance things in her personal life, and she never practiced what she preached to other women. She was a complete and utter hypocrite.

These self-appointed elites, the vanguard of a hoped-for New Society, gained meaning to their lives – and importance and community – by trying to destroy the existing social order. It must be heady to think you have that kind of god-like power, and to get that kind of money and attention.

It is a sad fact of life there are people who get meaning to their lives by trying to destroy a society they hate, however incorrectly, as being little more than crushing and oppressive.

The intended goal of these people is a complete equality between men and women. Unfortunately, they never take this belief to its logical conclusion: if men and women were totally equal, they would be totally identical and interchangeable.

Men and women have to be totally alike, in the way two nickels or two quarters are alike. We’d have to be hermaphrodites, or totally sexless, with babies grown in jars. We’d be much like ants or termites, I suppose. Or worse, amoeba.

Since such equality is impossible, society would instead form along the lines of what Hans Prinzhorn called “the tyranny of a clique in the name of the equality of all.”

It is, of course, supposed to be leftists who are the wealthy and political powerful clique, and the mass of people who should have “equality” forced on them, whether or not they want it. They just need their consciousness raised by their betters.

The eternal delusion of the leftist is for people to be checkers that can be moved around, or perhaps just mud that can be shoveled into whatever shape rulers want. Only the intellectually and morally superior know what is good for the unwashed masses.

Their Nietzschean Will to Power is cloaked by the belief in their own humanitarianism – the humanitarian with a guillotine, as Isabel Patterson noticed.

This desire to remake people and societies is how leftists find meaning and importance in their lives. Perhaps it does make them feel God-like - the intoxication of believing you are omnipotent. It certainly a religion to them, as Arthur Koestler clearly documented in his book about those disillusioned by Communism, The God Who Failed.

If feminists did succeed in imposing their beliefs on society (which can only be done by the force of the State, being their beliefs run opposite to human nature) what kind of world would we have?

Since men, specifically white men, are responsible for modern civilization, if feminists were in charge of civilization we would, as Camille Paglia so correctly noted, be living in grass huts. Or, as the humorist P.J. O’Rourke once wrote, without men civilization would last until the next oil change.

Men have created civilization; women are the ones who made it comfortable. Many men, left to themselves, live like utter slobs. Some would wear their underwear until it fell off.

One ironic way to deal with leftists is to exile all of them to an island, where they would find rapidly their ideas of how society should be run won’t work.

Of course, they would blame their problems on the residue of the false consciousness inculcated in them by their former society. Perhaps in a few hundred years, I’m sure they’d say, – or maybe a few thousand – would all those bad ideas finally be eradicated.

Perhaps if they were denied the comforts of science and technology, and had to spend their lives eking out a living (so much for Rousseau and his Noble Savage), could they be neutralized. They certainly wouldn’t be bored anymore.

They might even end up like some of the blacks in Africa who, after running the white man out, begged him to come back.

People, unfortunately, are not that hard to mislead. Just keep repeating the same propaganda over and over: white men and capitalism bad; everything that is not those two things, good. And many women (say, 90%), lacking critical and analytic ability, fall for what they're told, and can't see through it until it's too late.

Today, through the media and schools, people are being inundated with ideas that don’t, and won’t, work. Not that leftists will ever believe this, except for the few who successfully graduate from the School of Hard Knocks.

Leftist ideas, manifested in society, always blow things up. Bad female ideas, manifested in society, blow things up. (Actually, bad female ideas are always leftist.) I doubt anyone will be bored by that process – just immensely pained. “May you live in interesting times,” goes the ominous old Chinese curse.

Leftists, not merely misunderstanding human nature but not understanding it at all, have failed at their attempts to cure society, at defining the relationships between men women, at finding the truth. Instead they have opted for simplistic, narcissistic – and wrong – answers. It’s a shame (and ultimately a horror) for all involved.

"Five Dangerous Things You Should Let Your Children Do"

I'm mixing my metaphors here, but sometimes I considered us stray cats, and sometimes a wolf pack. That is, my friends and I when growing up.

When I was a kid we used to ride in the back of my father's pickup trunk. We never got tossed out, because we hung on for dear life. Try putting your kids in the back today (cue busybodies with cell phones, followed by police sirens).

On weekends we'd leave the house (when they didn't throw us out), not tell our parents where we were going, and come back for lunch (sometimes) followed by dinner. Our parents didn't care. Sometimes we'd do things we'd never tell them, like ride our bikes ten miles out.

As I teenager I hitchhiked all the time. Once a friend and I took off one summer and were gone for three weeks. We hitched to California and back. We didn't tell our parents we were going. We just went. I've even hitched by myself across country. Our parents weren't even mad.

These things seemed normal to me, just the way it seemed normal to stay out until three a.m. on the weekends.

We knew there was crazies out there but we had a situational awareness and we weren't really afraid of much.

We used to go camping, too, as teenagers. We'd drive a hundred miles to a state park, stay there for the weekend (or longer during summer), then drive back. Sometimes we hike into the woods to see what we could see. We never got lost.

We carried knives in case we did run across some crazies. We also used to tote our .22 rifles down the railroad tracks and blow up gallon jugs of water.

Do kids even do these things anymore? Are they too busy playing video games or being smothered by helicopter parents who think danger lurks everywhere?

Now you've got parents who can't even let their kids walk home from school without someone calling their cops.

I did know some kids who got killed. Two got squished by tractors, one drowned, and two died in car wrecks.

There is enough danger out there without making up stuff.

"Societies With Little Coercion Have Little Mental Illness"

I started running into coercion quite young, as did everyone in the U.S. - public school. I was hit several times by teachers, including being slapped and punched in the stomach. Even if you didn't experience that, there was sitting in ranks and rows, which led me to daydream my sentence away. For all practical purposes I could have dropped out of school in the first grade. After readin', writin' and arithmetic I didn't learn a damn thing. And who needs to be in school from five to 17?

More than anything I was bored.

Believe me, I understand the concept of "free-range" kids.

For that matter, is not just about everything in the Manosphere an attempt to get away from coercion?

This article is from the blog Made in America and was written by Bruce Levine, Ph.D.

Throughout history, societies have existed with far less coercion than ours, and while these societies have had far less consumer goods and what modernity calls “efficiency,” they also have had far less mental illness. This reality has been buried, not surprisingly, by uncritical champions of modernity and mainstream psychiatry. Coercion—the use of physical, legal, chemical, psychological, financial, and other forces to gain compliance—is intrinsic to our society’s employment, schooling, and parenting. However, coercion results in fear and resentment, which are fuels for miserable marriages, unhappy families, and what we today call mental illness.

Shortly after returning from the horrors of World War I and before they wrote Mutiny on the Bounty (1932), Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall were given a commission by "Harper’s Magazine" to write nonfiction travel articles about life in the South Pacific. Their reports about the islands of Paumoto, Society, and the Hervey group were first serialized in "Harper’s" and then published in the book Faery Lands of the South Seas (1921). Nordhoff and Hall were stuck by how little coercion occurred in these island cultures compared to their own society, and they were enchanted by the kind of children that such noncoercive parenting produced:

“There is a fascination in watching these youngsters, brought up without clothes and without restraint. . . . Once they are weaned from their mothers’ breasts—which often does not occur until they have reached an age of two and a half or three —the children of the islands are left practically to shift for themselves; there is food in the house, a place to sleep, and a scrap of clothing if the weather be cool—that is the extent of parental responsibility. The child eats when it pleases, sleeps when and where it will, amuses itself with no other resources than its own. As it grows older certain light duties are expected of it—gathering fruit, lending a hand in fishing, cleaning the ground about the house—but the command to work is casually given and casually obeyed. Punishment is scarcely known. . . . [Yet] the brown youngster flourishes with astonishingly little friction—sweet tempered, cheerful, never bored, and seldom quarrelsome.”

For many indigenous peoples, even the majority rule that most Americans call democracy is problematically coercive, as it results in the minority feeling resentful. Roland Chrisjohn, member of the Oneida Nation of the Confederacy of the Haudenausaunee (Iroquois) and author of The Circle Game, points out that for his people, it is deemed valuable to spend whatever time necessary to achieve consensus so as to prevent such resentment. By the standards of Western civilization, this is highly inefficient. “Achieving consensus could take forever!” exclaimed an attendee of a talk that I heard given by Chrisjohn, who responded, “What else is there more important to do?”

Among indigenous societies, there are many accounts of a lack of mental illness, a minimum of coercion, and wisdom that coercion creates resentment which fractures relationships. The 1916 book The Institutional Care of the Insane of the United States and Canada reports, “Dr. Lillybridge of Virginia, who was employed by the government to superintend the removal of Cherokee Indians in 1827-8-9, and who saw more than 20,000 Indians and inquired much about their diseases, informs us he never saw or heard of a case of insanity among them.” Psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey, in his 1980 book Schizophrenia and Civilization, states, “Schizophrenia appears to be a disease of civilization.”

In 1973, Torrey conducted research in New Guinea, which he called “an unusually good country in which to do epidemiologic research because census records for even most remote villages are remarkably good.” Examining these records, he found, “There was over a twentyfold difference in schizophrenia prevalence among districts; those with a higher prevalence were, in general, those with the most contact with Western civilization.” In reviewing other’s research, Torrey concluded:

“Between 1828 and 1960, almost all observers who looked for psychosis or schizophrenia in technologically undeveloped areas of the world agreed that it was uncommon… The striking feature… is the remarkable consensus that insanity (in the early studies) and schizophrenia (in later studies) were comparatively uncommon prior to contact with European-American civilization… But around 1950 an interesting thing happened… the idea became current in psychiatric literature that schizophrenia occurs in about the same prevalence in all cultures and is not a disease of civilization.”

Yet Torrey is an advocate of the idea that severe mental illness is due to biological factors and not social ones, and he came to be responsible for helping build the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) into a powerful political force. How does Torrey square his ideas that mental illness is due to biological factors with his own research that shows that severe mental illness is highly associated with European-American civilization? For Torrey, “Viruses in particular should be suspect as possible agents.”

Torrey’s suspected biochemical virus agents have never been found, and so why has he not considered the toxic effects of coercion? Torrey is a strong advocate of coercive treatments, including forced medication. And so, perhaps his blindness to the ill effects of coercion compels him—even after discovering the strong relationship between European-American civilization and severe mental illness—to proclaim that mental illness could not be caused by social factors.

While Torrey researched records in New Guinea, Jared Diamond has actually worked with the New Guinea people for nearly a half century, spending extended periods of time with different groups, including those hunter-gatherer tribes in New Guinea (and other small-scale societies) whose parenting creates an abundance of nurturance and a minimum of coercion.

Diamond, in From the World Until Yesterday (2012), reports how laissez-faire parenting is “not unusual by the standards of the world’s hunter-gatherer societies, many of which consider young children to be autonomous individuals whose desires should not be thwarted.” Diamond concludes that by our society’s attempt to control children for what we believe is their own good, we discourage those traits we admire:

“Other Westerners and I are struck by the emotional security, self-­confidence, curiosity, and autonomy of members of small-scale societies, not only as adults but already as children. We see that people in small-scale societies spend far more time talking to each other than we do, and they spend no time at all on passive entertainment supplied by outsiders, such as television, videogames, and books. We are struck by the precocious development of social skills in their children. These are qualities that most of us admire, and would like to see in our own children, but we discourage development of those qualities by ranking and grading our children and constantly ­telling them what to do.”

Emotional and Behavioral Effects of Coercion

Once, when doctors actually listened at length to their patients about their lives, it was obvious to many of them that coercion played a significant role in their misery. But most physicians, including psychiatrists, have stopped delving into their patients’ lives. In 2011, the New York Times (“Talk Doesn’t Pay, So Psychiatry Turns Instead to Drug Therapy”) reported, “A 2005 government survey found that just 11 percent of psychiatrists provided talk therapy to all patients.” As the article points out, psychiatrists can make far more money primarily providing “medication management,” in which they only check symptoms and adjust medication.

Since the 1980s, biochemical psychiatry in partnership with Big Pharma has come to dominate psychiatry, and they have successfully buried truths about coercion that were once obvious to professionals who actually listened at great length to their patients—obvious, for example, to Sigmund Freud (Civilization and Its Discontents (1929) and R.D. Laing (The Politics of Experience, 1967). This is not to say that Freud’s psychoanalysis and Laing’s existential approach always have been therapeutic. However, doctors who focus only on symptoms and prescribing medication will miss the obvious reality of how a variety of societal coercions can result in a cascade of family coercions, resentments, and emotional and behavioral problems.

Modernity is replete with institutional coercions not present in most indigenous cultures. This is especially true with respect to schooling and employment, which for most Americans, according to recent polls, are alienating, disengaging, and unfun. As I reported earlier this year (“Why Life in America Can Literally Drive You Insane," a Gallup poll, released in January 2013, reported that the longer students stay in school, the less engaged they become, and by high school, only 40% reported being engaged. Critics of schooling—from Henry David Thoreau, to Paul Goodman, to John Holt, to John Taylor Gatto—have understood that coercive and unengaging schooling is necessary to ensure that young people more readily accept coercive and unengaging employment. And as I also reported in that same article, a June 2013 Gallup poll revealed that 70% of Americans hate their jobs or have checked out of them.

Unengaging employment and schooling require all kinds of coercions for participation, and human beings pay a psychological price for this. In nearly three decades of clinical practice, I have found that coercion is often the source of suffering.

Here’s one situation that I’ve seen hundreds of times. An intelligent young child or teenager has been underachieving in standard school, and has begun to have emotional and/or behavioral problems. Such a child often feels coerced by standard schooling to pay attention to that which is boring for them, to do homework for which they see no value, and to stay inside a building that feels sterile and suffocating. Depending on the child’s temperament, this coercion results in different outcomes — none of them good.

Some of these kids get depressed and anxious. They worry that their lack of attention and interest will result in dire life consequences. They believe authorities’ admonitions that if they do poorly in school, they will be “flipping burgers for the rest of their lives.” It is increasingly routine for doctors to medicate these anxious and depressed kids with antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs.

Other inattentive kids are unworried. They don’t take seriously either their schooling or admonitions from authorities, and they feel justified in resisting coercion. Their rebellion is routinely labeled by mental health professionals as “acting out,” and they are diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder. Their parents often attempt punishments, which rarely work to break these kids’ resistance. Parents become frustrated and resentful that their child is causing them stress. Their child feels this parental frustration and resentment, and often experiences it as their parents not liking them. And so these kids stop liking their parents, stop caring about their parents’ feelings, and seek peers whom they believe do like them, even if these peers are engaged in criminal behaviors.

In all societies, there are coercions to behave in culturally agreed-upon ways. For example, in many indigenous cultures, there is peer pressure to be courageous and honest. However, in modernity, we have institutional coercions that compel us to behave in ways that we do not respect or value. Parents, afraid their children will lack credentials necessary for employment, routinely coerce their children to comply with coercive schooling that was unpleasant for these parents as children. And though 70% of us hate or are disengaged from our jobs, we are coerced by the fear of poverty and homelessness to seek and maintain employment.

In our society, we are taught that accepting institutional coercion is required for survival. We discover a variety of ways—including drugs and alcohol—to deny resentment. We spend much energy denying the lethal effects of coercion on relationships. And, unlike many indigenous cultures, we spend little energy creating a society with a minimal amount of coercion.

Accepting coercion as “a fact of life,” we often have little restraint in coercing others when given the opportunity. This opportunity can present itself when we find ourselves above others in an employment hierarchy and feel the safety of power; or after we have seduced our mate by being as noncoercive as possible and feel the safety of marriage. Marriages and other relationships go south in a hurry when one person becomes a coercive control freak; resentment quickly occurs in the other person, who then uses counter-coercive measures.

We can coerce with physical intimidation, constant criticism, and a variety of other means. Such coercions result in resentment, which is a poison that kills relationships and creates severe emotional problems. The Interactional Nature of Depression (1999), edited by psychologists Thomas Joiner and James Coyne, documents with hundreds of studies the interpersonal nature of depression. In one study of unhappily married women who were diagnosed with depression, 60 percent of them believed that their unhappy marriage was the primary cause of their depression. In another study, the best single predictor of depression relapse was found to be the response to a single item: “How critical is your spouse of you?”

In the 1970s, prior to the domination of the biopsychiatry-Big Pharma partnership, many mental health professionals took seriously the impact of coercion and resentful relationships on mental health. And in a cultural climate more favorable than our current one for critical reflection of society, authors such as Erich Fromm, who addressed the relationship between society and mental health, were taken seriously even within popular culture. But then psychiatry went to bed with Big Pharma and its Big Money, and their partnership has helped bury the commonsense reality that an extremely coercive society creates enormous fear and resentment, which results in miserable marriages, unhappy families, and severe emotional and behavioral problems.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Leftism - and Feminism - is About the Murder of the Father

Leftism - and feminism (which is leftist) - is about the Murder of the Father. You can call it "patriarchy" if you want, but it amounts to the same thing. Why? Because leftism is based on envy, the urge to bring others down, to kill them if need be, even if you destroy yourself.

Everyone must be "equal," out of envy.

The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explained it well, many years ago.

This article was written by him.

The year 1989 A.D. was the cause for celebrating the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution in many countries. By the year 1880 in France, July 14, the day of the fall of the Bastille, had already been the occasion for all sorts of frivolity. By then the last witnesses to the revolution were long dead. One was dependent by then on historians who idealized this far-reaching event in our history, because with the French Revolution, democracy underwent a revival after the moral nose dive it had taken with the death of Socrates.

Place de ConcordeThe French Revolution, however, didn't come like a bolt out of the blue. Charles I had been executed 140 years before In Whitehall by religio-political fanatics, and as Jean Lacroix has convincingly argued, the Republic rests on "the death of the Father." Fraternity and Equality can apparently only be realized through parricide. The impetus for change in France came not only from Switzerland, rather it came from French Anglophiles and a completely false understanding of what had just happened in America. It was, in a way, the first great Euro-American misunderstanding. On the other hand, Governor Morris, the American envoy to Paris, told the conceited Lafayette at the beginning of the revolution: "I am against your democracy, Monsieur de Lafayette, because I am for freedom." In 1815 he began a speech with the words, "The Bourbons are back on the throne; Europe is once again free" -something which today hardly an American would understand after so many years of school-inculcated fatuity.


The vulgar interpretation of the French Revolution (not unlike that of the Russian Revolution) is based on the theory of the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction. The impoverished and oppressed people, led by highly intelligent idealists shook off the unbearably oppressive rule of monarchs, aristocrats, and priests and created a new order, in which Liberty, Fraternity and Equality were realized. Hadn't Goethe already told us that legislators and revolutionaries who announce Freedom and Equality simultaneously are frauds and charlatans? When there is no such thing as a "natural equality," it can only be brought about by raw violence. In order to bring equality to a hedge, one needs garden shears. Equality, the left-wing ideal, is closely bound up with identity. One hundred pennies makes a dollar, but each dollar of a certain year isn't identical with every other dollar printed at that time.

The first phase of the French Revolution, which played itself out as economic boom, as well as state financial crisis and a series of liberal reforms, had a predominately aristocratic character. The "new ideas" of the first enlightenment - the misunderstood American war of independence, Anglomania, the visions of Rousseau, Voltaire's (a man who held the common man in contempt) critique of religion, and the still turbulent Jansenist controversy - all this had confused the spirit of the upper classes. Freemasonry, newly imported from England, also played a role in this transformation. It is possible that even Louis XVI was a freemason. Beyond a doubt he was a devoted reader of the Encyclopédie. As a result a huge vacuum of belief came into existence, which was quickly filled by radical left-wing ideology, which just as quickly infected large segments of the population. The left-wing "Intelligentsia " acted as the ice- breaker for the revolution in such a way that, at the beginning at least, the monarchy's existence was hardly questioned, while aristocracy and clergy abdicated and "married" the bourgeoisie.

The signal event of the French revolution wasn't so much the alliance between the estates after the meeting at Jeu des Paumes as the storming of the Bastille, in which one man played a role every bit as crucial in the course of events as that of Rousseau:

I'm talking about the Marquis de Sade. He is mostly known now as the eponym of "sadism." However in his endless pornographic and extremely boring writings, there are long philosophical and political passages in which he reveals himself as a rabid, left-wing, materialist atheist. He was primarily responsible for the storming of the Bastille because at the request of his mother-in-law he was - thanks to a lettre de cachet - held prisoner in the Bastille along with seven counterfeiters, cardsharps, fools, and people in debt. From the Bastille, Sade incited the people of the quartier through his makeshift megaphone into coming to their assistance and liberating them. De Launay, the governor of the Bastille, was helpless. He didn't dare put the prisoner in a straitjacket (or in a dungeon) but instead asked the king to deliver him from this prisoner. As a result Sade was transferred on July 4, 1789 to the hospital for the criminally insane at Charenton and released in 1791. He then became chairman of the revolutionary Section des Piques in which "Citizen Sade" was active as a radical Jacobin until he quarreled with Robespierre and was once again committed to the hospital for the criminally insane. Sade, along with the masochistic neurotic Rousseau, who wrote pedagogic novels and committed his children to orphanages, is the true renewer of democracy in our time and naturally also a hero of our left-wing intellectuals.


The storming of the Bastille on July 14 and its immediate consequences showed what the French Revolution was all about, namely, the consequence of a moral collapse that had been prepared by the left-wing, radical chic, literati of its day. De Launay negotiated with the mob, which promised him and his tiny garrison of invalids and Swiss mercenaries free passage. Yet no sooner were the defenders in the open, than the mob attacked them and murdered in the most brutal manner possible. It was above all the invalids, who couldn't flee, who were torn to pieces. For a while the mob tried in vain to decapitate de Launay; however, their knives were too dull. Finally someone got a hold of a butcher's assistant, qui savait faire les viandes, to cut the governor's head from his by then cold body. It was then carried in triumph through the city.

Attempts to establish a constitutional monarchy failed. The drive for identity and equality, brought to a boiling point by hate and envy, prove the truth of Benjamin Constant's words: "In some epochs one must travel the entire gamut of madness in order to come to reason again." Everything even remotely different was damned and persecuted. Conformity celebrated orgies.

Only the fall of Robespierre in July of 1794 hindered further leveling plans, which Babeuf in all probability would have realized. So Robespierre planned not only to put all Frenchmen (and women) in uniform (like Mao's "blue ants"), he also planned to raze all church steeples as "undemocratic." They were higher than the other buildings and as a result stood out because of their "aristocratic" bearing. (In Strassburg, preparations were already underway for the barbaric mutilation of the cathedral there.) Another problem that needed to be solved was the language of the Alsatians, qui ne parlent pas la Iangue républicaine, otherwise known as French. Someone suggested taking the children away from those in Alsace-Lorraine or resettling the entire German-speaking population throughout out all of France. Those were costly plans and as a result a more practical solution was worked out, namely, the complete extermination of the germanophone population. As one can see, the French Revolution was not only interested in the good Doctor Guillotin's deployment of mechanical mass murder, it was also interested in genocide and not only in Alsace but also in other regions of the République Une et Indivisible.

The French Revolution has been seen by most authors as predominately a political, social or (under Marxist influence) even as an economic event. Burke, Young, Rush, as well as other British and American visitors to France before the revolution point the finger at the aristocracy, the clergy and the upper classes; however, both skepticism and atheism had made inroads into the highest circles, and there existed among the clergy what Spengler called the "priestly rabble," or what we would call today our left-catholic "progressives." Censorship in the hand of the forerunners of the liberals, who suffered from moderno-snobbery, favored the left-wingers and persecuted the right, so as not to be labeled "reactionary. " All that gradually influenced the middle and lower classes as well.


There is no other way to understand the nightmarish circumstances surrounding the slaughter of Princess de Lamballe. This friend of the queen was arrested but refused to take the oath to the constitution in the La Force prison. As a result of her refusal she was handed over to the screaming mob. That happened just before the September murders of the year 1792, so carefully organized by Danton, a "moderate" Republican. The protagonists in this bloodbath received six livres apiece and all the wine they could drink for their troubles. The jails were emptied in a veritable orgy of killing, during which not only political prisoners but also prostitutes and juveniles, often mere children, were slaughtered. Scenes which remind one of Goya's desastres de la guerra took place in Bicetre and Salpetriere. (The extermination of prostitutes was also carried out mercilessly by those favorites of the left, the Spanish Republicans, probably brought on by the spread of venereal disease among the brave defenders of democracy.) In the year 1792 at the fall of the Tulieries, the Swiss guards, true to their oath, fought to the last man. The Swiss who fell into the hands of the mob alive were then mutilated and cut to pieces. A cook's helper, who attempted to defend the royal couple, was basted in butter and then burnt alive.


From these and other similar occurrences one sees something else very clearly: from a purely quantitative point of view the atrocities of the red and brown socialists were worse than those of the French Revolution, however, from a qualitative point of view the whole business takes on a different hue. The crimes of the National and International Socialists were carried out for the most part in concentration camps and dungeons by their own trained thugs, whereas the atrocities of the French Republicans were committed under the slogan of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality to a great extent by the people themselves or at least accompanied by the applause of delighted spectators - all in broad daylight with full publicity. The guillotinings were not just general holidays; they were carefully thought out, sadistic happenings, during which (to give just one example) an aristocrat with his hands bound and his head already on the block was forced to listen to a long-winded ironic speech about the victories of the Republican armies so that he could share them with his forbearers in the afterlife. The completely natural transformation of democracy into socialism, from political to financial equality, had its beginnings back then. Not only aristocrats but the rich as well because of their wealth were handed over to notre chére mère la guillotine. (Actually only 8 percent of those guillotined were from the aristocracy: over 30 percent were peasants.)

The "moderates" fared just as badly. Cities like Lyon, Toulon and Bordeaux, which were led by the Girondists against the Jacobins, were partially leveled and their inhabitants decimated. When the guillotining threatened to go too slowly, many victims were drowned and others were executed with shotguns, so that the crowds could revel in seeing them slowly bleed to death. (Napoleon, a Jacobin, and close friend of Robespierre, achieved his first victory by subduing "unruly" Toulon.)


The French revolution didn't really become one huge sadistic sex orgy until after the uprisings in Brittany and the Vendee were crushed. One must keep in mind that the Vendee was a peasant's revolt that carried the aristocracy along with it. The leadership of the Chouannerie was partially peasant (Cathelineau) and partially aristocratic (Larochejacquelein); in addition Charles Armand Tuffin, Marquis de la Rouerie, a friend of Washington, met their end in this battle. (His corpse was dug up and decapitated after the fact.) The terror involved in this deliberate genocide was announced in advance by the atrocities in Paris, especially in the extensive defiling of graves and cemeteries, because the main who can rage against the dead - against kings, and aristocrats but also against saints - will have no qualms about doing the same thing to the living. (I have to confess here, however, that the defilement of corpses practiced by the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War - especially in the cemetery of Huesca - is in the same league with what the French Republicans did.) In his forward to Reynold Sechers' book. Le Génocide Franco-Francais. Professor Jean Mayer says that the author held much back and that the worst could not be described here. The truth is much more appalling.

The German Revolution, which began in the year 1933, also went through a relatively humane phase; however, June 30, 1934 was a flaming warning signal, which was followed by a steep and ineluctable plunge, like the kind described in Greek tragedy, into the hell of totalitarian left-wing tyranny. As with the French Revolution, the way had been paved in this direction from the beginning. The same thing is true of Russia. Just as in France it was the writings of the Encyclopedists, Morelly, Rousseau, Diderot, and Sade, and in Germanic countries, the writings of Haeckel, Chamberlain, and Rosenberg as well as those of Hitler and Goebbels, so in Russia it was the writings of Marx, Tschernyschewsky, Plechanow and Lenin which determined subsequent political development. What eventually took place in the the French Revolution, especially in the Vendee, in Brittany, and in Anjou was in its internal logic simply the realization of the great materialistic atheism of the first Enlightenment.

In situations like this we are forced to confront once again Dostoyevsky's dictum:

"If there is no God, then everything is permitted."


Even in Arras, where the Jacobin leader Lebon observed the mass guillotinings from his balcony with his dear wife, the decapitated corpses of men and women were undressed and then bound together in obscene poses as batteries nationales maniacs out of Sade's 120 Nights of Sodom. Similar practices took place in the Noyades in the Loire where men and women were tied together naked and then thrown still alive into the river as a "republican wedding." When the mob couldn't find enough men and women, they organized the "tying of the knot" in homosexual fashion. Carrier, who also finally ended up losing his head, was the director of all this. He called these atrocities, Le flambeau de la philosophie, an expression he got from the Marquis de Sade. Quite naturally the main victims of these male-perpetrated atrocities were women (as well as their children, often murdered before their eyes.) The sadistic misogyny of the Revolution reached unbelievable proportions.

The story of the atrocities perpetrated by the Jacobins in Girondist cities has yet to be told. Most of what we know concerns the pandemonium in the Vendee and neighboring regions. Here the Republicans (as well as their brave Girondist collaborators) planned nothing less than the complete extermination of the population, even if that entailed the destruction of "patriots" and their families as well - One couldn't be too choosy. An entire "treasonous landscape" complete with its inhabitants was to disappear from the face of the earth. We're talking here not about the type of genocide practiced by the Russian international socialists or the German National Socialists; we're talking her about the satisfaction of perverted sexual lust, something undertaken with diabolical thoroughness. Saint-Just had declared that not only the traitors but also the indifferent would have to be exterminated. Danton had said that aristocrats and priests were guilty because they placed the future in question by their very existence, and Robespierre wanted a "quick, strict and unflinching Justice as result of the virtue and consistency of democratic principles." All of this focused itself on the Vendee, whose name was officially changed into "Vengee," or "revenged."


General Westermann eventually reported to the welfare committee: "There is no more Vendee, my republican fellow citizens! It died beneath our sabers along with its women and children. I just buried them in the swamps and woods of Savenay. According to your orders, the children were trampled to death beneath the hoofs of our horses; their women were slaughtered so that they couldn't bring any more soldiers into the world. The streets are full of corpses; in many places they form entire pyramids. In Savenay we had to make use of massive firing squads because their troops are still surrendering. We take no prisoners. One has to give them the bread of freedom; however, mercy has nothing to do with the spirit of the revolution." Westermann, however, soon met his nemesis; he was guillotined a short time later with his friend Danton.

Le Mans was the scene of further brutality; women, the aged, and children hiding in the houses of this large city were discovered and then under the eyes of Barbott and Prieure had their clothes torn from their bodies with sabers and bayonets; women and girls were raped, and since there weren't enough living females for the "boys in blue," the corpses were violated as well. This at least partially necrophilic orgy ended when the mob, accompanied by the rejoicing of the government's soldiers, bound the cadavers together as "republican batteries" as they had done at Arras. In Angers, however, the mob decapitated those it had already hanged and demanded of the doctors that they prepare the heads so that they could place them on the battlements of the wall surrounding the city. Since the physicians were too slow at their work, the mob quickly decapitated another group of prisoners, among who was a saintly, 82-year-old abbess.


Another amusement for the "Bleus," who referred to themselves as colonies infernales, was to roast women and children in baking ovens. In order to get maximal sadistic pleasure from this practice, the victims were placed in cold ovens, which were then heated. One general, who couldn't stop this sort of entertainment among his troops - Mergeau Desgraviers - became so melancholy that he was happy to die in 1796 in the battle against the Austrians. General Turreau was told that his soldiers behaved worse than cannibals; however, he he himself had given the order to burn down all houses (which was also carried out). Everywhere one could see the batteries nationales made up of human corpses. Turreau, the leader of these Promenades, as the death marches were termed, was to go onto a long successful career. From 1803 to 1811 he was the French envoy to the United States (where he worked on the alliance against England); he was later immortalized in stone on the east face of the Arc de Triomphe.

Queen Marie-Antoinette & her children, as we have already indicated, the Girondists were hardly less involved in these atrocities than the Jacobins. Barere, who began his career as a Girondist, declared that he intended to to transform the Vendee into a cemetery. It is, however, especially the units which were promoted in the last years of the revolution, which reveal its fully sadistic and masochistic character. Because the men of the Vendee fought in battle, the atonement had to be made by their women and children - even the smallest. (The British did the same thing in principle in their concentration camps during the Boer Wars.) In the Vendee, however, a particularly popular sport among the Blues was to throw children out of windows and to catch them with their bayonets. Equally popular was the practice of slicing open pregnant women in order to chop their unborn children into pieces and then let the mothers bleed to death. Other pregnant women were crushed to death in wine and fruit presses. Also popular was the burning of victims in houses and churches. This bloodlust increased so vehemently that Commander Grignon gave the order that everyone they met was to be immediately killed, even if they were Republicans. A particularly gruesome case involved one girl who was tied naked to two tree branches after being raped and then had to undergo repeated attempts to cut her in half. The Bleus lacked nothing in imagination. With hindsight, one can see the hardships, the unending suffering that the "progressive" defilers of people, graves and churches have brought over all of Europe. (The interiors of old French churches show to this day what these brutish barbarians have destroyed.)


Did the French Revolution leave anything positive to posterity? Only the metric system, which admittedly grew out of the democratic predilection for eternal measuring and counting. What about then the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen? It was a purely anthropocentric document, a typically declamatory product of the first Enlightenment, which was conceived in 1789 and finally engrafted into the constitution of the Sadist-Republic in 1793. In the schoolbooks one reads about the period of the terror, "Le Terreur était terrible mais grande!" Even with all that a good number of moderates came under the blade too. Historically they had it coming because they hadn't considered what happened when one destroyed the old order. Charlotte Corday d'Armont, an enthusiastic Girondist, murdered the bloodthirsty Marat and was executed; Andre de Chenier, the great liberal lyric poet, died on the scaffold; the Marquis de Condorcet, chief ideologue of the "moderates," committed suicide in order to escape the chére mère. Madame Roland de la Planière, also a Girondist, exclaimed from where she was to be executed, "Oh liberty, what crimes are committed in your name. (Metternich on the other hand comments in the face of such flourishing "fraternity" that if he had a brother he would now just as soon call him a cousin.) Especially tragic was the fate of Chrétien de Malesherbes, a highly enlightened Liberal who remained true to the king. He defended Louis XVI and had to stand by and watch as his daughter, his son-in-law, and his grandchildren were decapitated before the guillotine brought an end to his own despair.

One shouldn't forget that much of what may appear positive to us today - liberality, intellectuality, humanitarianism - had all been already brought to us by the liberal, courtly absolutism, while the French Revolution which used all these words in reality did nothing more than brutally extinguish them. One is reminded of the reaction of Caffinhals, who replied to the uproar created by the defenders of Lavoisier, who cried, "You are condemning a great learned man to death," by saying, "The Revolution has no need of learned men." The good man was right; since the French Revolution only quantities, ciphers and numbers, have any value. The speech of the elite is hardly tolerated anymore.

From an intellectual point of view, the French Revolution was a conglomeration of un-thought out but fanatically believed inconsistencies, but it showed clearly, as so many other revolutions have, the true character of the great majority of the Genus Humanum.

The year 1989 A.D. was the cause for celebrating the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution in many countries. By the year 1880 in France, July 14, the day of the fall of the Bastille, had already been the occasion for all sorts of frivolity. By then the last witnesses to the revolution were long dead. One was dependent by then on historians who idealized this far-reaching event in our history, because with the French Revolution, democracy underwent a revival after the moral nose dive it had taken with the death of Socrates.

In Revolution only quantities, ciphers and numbers, have any value. The speech of the elite is hardly tolerated anymore.

From an intellectual point of view, the French Revolution was a conglomeration of un-thought out but fanatically believed inconsistencies, but it showed clearly, as so many other revolutions have, the true character of the great majority of the Genus Humanum.

In the French Revolution the scum of France succumbed to blood lust and opened the door to evil. In our day of electronic stultification, it's a sure bet that now, 200 hundred years later, this monstrosity will be the focus of orgiastic celebrations. The average man always clings despairingly to cliches. If one takes them away from him, he has to do his own research, his own thinking and deciding and has to begin anew. One can't really expect this sort of elitist behavior from such poor folks. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first rob of their reason.

"Love, Sex and War"

In Greek mythology, Hephaestus (who was a blacksmith who made all the weapons) was involved with Aphrodite (who was the goddess of "love"). Aphrodite (an adulteress) was also involved with Ares, the god of war. "Love," war and weapons all go together. Unfortunately.

The ancient Greeks understood human nature a lot better than we do.

This is from and was written by by John Costello.

Since love and war represent the extremes of human experience, it is no surprise to find that a ‘total war’ had profound emotional and sexual consequences for many of its participants. ‘We were not really immoral, there was a war on,’ was how one British housewife explained her behaviour during World War II. So pervasive was this attitude that it seemed that sexual restraint had been suspended for the duration, as the traditional licence of the battlefield invaded the home front. ‘By most people’s standards we were immoral,’ admitted an American soldier, ‘but we were young and could die tomorrow.’

The urgency and excitement of wartime soon eroded moral restraints, and life on many home fronts appeared as cheap and short as life on the battle front. Soldiers had always claimed fear of death on the battlefield as an excuse for sexual licence. ‘In war a man has to love, if only to reassert that he’s very much alive in the face of destruction,’ explained a US army sergeant. ‘Whoever has loved in wartime takes part in a passionate reaffirmation of his life.’

In the same way, many British women attributed their wartime immorality to air raids.

The emotional turbulence of war left a lasting impact on many marriages. Traditionally wives had waved their husbands off to war on the assumption that strict fidelity was incompatible with soldiering, but such was total war that even on the home front many wives were confronted by new choices and opportunities. One English woman who confessed she had ‘enjoyed herself’ conceded that the old dual standard of feminine fidelity was no longer acceptable to wives.

‘Dear John’ Letters

The constancy of wives and sweethearts became a preoccupation for all servicemen and a gnawing anxiety for front-line soldiers in World War II anxiously awaiting every letter from home...

Many British women, through loneliness and circumstance, broke social conventions and their husbands’ hearts following the ‘friendly invasion’ of American troops in the year before D-Day. ‘Our own servicemen were set aside for the Americans, who appeared more glamorous in every way because of the movies and their generosity with money,’ recalled one British woman. ‘There were fights between them and our men over girls. I knew of two young wives that left and divorced chaps they seemed to have been devoted to.’

Next to an enemy bullet or mortar shell, the receipt of a ‘Dear John’ letter from home confessing marital infidelity or desertion was the worst blow that could hit an infantryman in a front line foxhole. A group of GIs in North Africa had organized a ‘Brush-Off Club’ whose admission qualification was to have been jilted. Most American girls interviewed in a December 1944 newspaper survey agreed, ‘to jilt a soldier is a serious offence’; but one of the more forthright interviewees insisted, ‘those guys over there aren’t just shy-eyed sheep in a jeep.’

Not every soldier could count on the spiritual comfort of the girl he was fighting to get home for. ‘I haven’t got what you call a real girlfriend and on a night like this, it sure hurts,’ confessed one GI to his parents in a letter before he embarked for the D-Day invasion. ‘A guy gets lonely out here and should have somebody to want to come back to and share building a wonderful life together, hand in hand. And that means a girl you’d want to marry and have for the mother of your kids, and who would wait and pray for you on a night like this.’

‘It is my contention,’ reflected one GI, ‘that when a man loves a woman, she always remains a vivid memory.’ This particular staff sergeant’s ‘sensual nymph, with brown eyes and red-black hair,’ had been a tap-dancer from Spokane, whose memory haunted him before he went into action. ‘Now that I may soon die on the battlefield nine years later, I realize more forcibly than ever that I am still in love with her.’

The extensive personal testimony to the emotional impact of World War II suggests that what men and women were fighting for had less to do with abstract notions of freedom or patriotism than with the need to protect the personal values represented by sweethearts, wives, and families. Sex, therefore, played an extensive role in the war experience. Whether it was pin-ups of Hollywood stars, well-thumbed pictures of ‘the girl back home,’ ‘Rosie the Riveter,’ the archetypal female factory workers, or women pilots, World War II acquired an undeniably feminine aspect.

The postwar trend towards liberalization of moral attitudes and the coincident ‘liberation’ of the female population was accelerated rather than set in motion by World War II. – Wars have always been powerful catalysts of social change. The Carthaginian Wars brought the first recorded campaign for women’s liberation in 215 BC, when the Roman senate repealed the discriminatory Oppian tax law – despite Cato the Elder’s warning that ‘what women want is complete freedom – or, to put it bluntly, complete licence.’ The Hundred Years’ War saw the patriarchal authority of the church challenged by Joan of Arc when she led the French troops to victory over an English army at Orleans. She was condemned for daring to dress as a man, ‘in violation of canon law, abominable to God and man.’ Yet three centuries later, American women were increasingly drawn into the active prosecution of war after the Union recruited them to take over the clerical and factory jobs of male conscripts in the Civil War. World War I mobilized industrial and human resources on such a scale that Winston Churchill was moved to write, ‘All the horrors of the ages were brought together, and not only armies, but whole populations were thrust into the midst of them.’

The historic distinction between civilian and fighting fronts, already eroded by the partial female mobilization of World War I, was finally demolished by the more extensive mobilization of women into the armed services and the production battle of World War II.

War Aphrodisia

‘War aphrodisia,’ as it has been called, accentuates the disruptive physical impact of war on family life. The loosening of wartime moral restraints acts as an incentive to extramarital promiscuity and the unshackling of unsatisfactory marriage bonds. Historically it was a phenomenon confined to areas adjacent to the fighting, but the mobilization of entire populations necessary to fight a ‘total war’ spreads the hedonistic impulse throughout a society.

Why The Manosphere is Full of Liars

What he is says is true. A skank can be a slut. A fat ugly neckbeard cannot.

In high school I met several guys who claimed, I fucked this girl, I fucked that girl. They were lying, just the way I encounter men on the internet bragging about their "plates." They, too, are lying. Same with Roosh and Roissy and Krauser. Liars, all them, doing what they do for money and attention.

I have met fat, ugly women who were sluts. In high school I once encountered a line of high school boys outside a trailer. I immediately knew what was going on. When I asked who the girl was (turned out there were two of them) I recognized the names. Both were fat and ugly.

By the way, the few PUAs I've known have always targeted unattractive women.

If there weren't any overweight unattractive women the number of sluts available would just about collapse.

"Sex and the Pareto Principle"

What I started noticing in high school is that everyone hung out with certain groups; jocks with jocks, partiers with partiers, etc. I was in the party group, and we ended with seeing the party girls. So years later when I found out about Pareto's Rule, I realized it wasn't "universal" but had to be applied group by group. The girls in my group despised athletes as stupid jocks, for example. I also saw that in college.

You can't apply Pareto's Rule universally to all men and women, when it comes to sex and romance, without taking other things into account. You can't compare Sean Connery to, say, Richard Simmons, without taking certain variables into account.

I also found the truly promiscuous girls, who were a very small minority, saw the promiscuous guys. I knew most of these girls in high school because they were included in the party girls.

When I owed a taxi I finally encountered groupies who went after athletes and rock stars. I found the vast majority of them were unattractive and were mental cases. It wasn't a case of going after "Alphas" but trying to attach themselves to someone rich and famous so they could convince themselves they had some worth.

Because of my experience in life, I have never taken seriously Roissy, Krauser, Roosh, Vox Day, "The Rational Male," etc. I once told Roissy, "I have more experience than you" and he thew a I predicted he would.

This article is again from Susan Walsh at Hooking Up Smart. There are many graphs so I'm going to post the first few paragraphs and then post a link.

Do 20% of the men get 80% of the women? I’ve come across this claim repeatedly, though the application of the 80/20 rule varies. Sometimes it’s stated that 20% of the men get 80% of the sex, which is actually a very different claim.

I felt the need to understand exactly what the data says, if anything, in support of the Pareto Principle as it applies to the distributution of sex. Are we talking about 80% of all women? Sexually active women? Women in their 20s, when they are at their peak of fertility and beauty? Or, as in Hollenhund’s version, is it just a question of the frequency of sex, even with one partner? In that case, how to incorporate the male preference for sexual variety?

Read the rest HERE.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

"The Beta Bux Myth Debunked by Science"

In my life I have never met an Alpha (all men are a combination of that Greek alphabet soup). I have never seen Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks (getting off the "carousel" and marrying some spineless wimp who they don't love? - get real). I have never seen women chase "Alphas" (all the relationships I have seen have been associative mating). I have seen fat, unattractive, stupid women think they should get guys way out of their league. All the PUAs I have known have been cowardly douchebags. All the Bad Boys I have known have been drunks, drug addicts and criminals; most have been in and out of prison, and are now murdered or in prison. I have never seen any of them be popular with women. Most the "sluts" I have have known have never seen married and if they were are divorced. Some, though have had successful marriages, but I have found that the biggest sluts I've known are still sluts. I have never seen 20% of the men get 80% of the women. A number of men who get divorced hate women and many women who get divorced hate men. (By the way, I have been around a lot and simple-minded criticisms that "things have changed" or "you need to get out more" are just that - simple-minded.)

Many of the concepts in the Manosphere are nonsense. They're just easy to understand, like feminism or Marxism. And like feminism and Marxism, their explanatory power is poor.

This article was written by Susan Walsh and is from Hooking Up Smart.

I’m feeling feisty today and reader Kevin sent me a link to an interesting article, so…

Let’s bust a myth!

Are you familiar with the phrase “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux?” It refers to the widespread (heh) practice of women having sex with noncommittal alphas until they go over that pesky SMV cliff at 30. Then they scramble like mad to find some poor provider sap to serve as their workhorse and emotional punching bag. Oh, and they never have sex again once they snag him.

Well…it turns out there is some merit to the idea of settling, but you may be surprised by the booby prize.

Anyone who has watched a lonely friend shack up with a useless buffoon can relate to this new finding: People really do settle for less in a relationship when they fear being single.

A study of 3,000 Canadian adults of all ages showed that:

Participants with stronger fears about being single were more likely to stay in relationships they were unhappy with – and more likely to date people who weren’t good for them, the researchers concluded in a paper published in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology."

How did people settle?

1. “They settled in the area of personality, choosing someone who might come off as more of a jerk or uncaring as a partner.”

2. “People who were more afraid of being single were more willing to date someone unattractive.”

Was it primarily women who settled?

“It was roughly the same for both men and women – they both expressed similar levels of fear of being single and we saw that affecting their relationship positions in similar ways.” Did people settle more as they got older?

“Interestingly, [no].”

And another myth bites the dust…I’ve always said that the alpha chasers don’t “change lanes” to marry decent guys. The carousel is the ride that never ends, it just goes round and round forever.

Oh, before I forget:

Someone else has finally written an intelligent response to that stupid SMV graph. In a post titled "People Doing Statistics Badly," the blogger at "Midnight in the Garden of Epsilon and Delta" explains why the manosphere depiction of female vs. male SMV is completely bogus, and how the red pill objections to my analysis were groundless. He did point out something I had missed:

Should a person’s peak sexual value drop because they live longer? Men and women do, on average, have different life expectancies in the USA and as a result if we assert the area under both curves should be equal, then we are penalizing the longer-lived sex with slightly lower sexual value for the rest of their younger years in order to have some left over for those extra couple years of life.

So there you go, ladies. You’re a little hotter than you thought.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Swedish Cops Break Up Subway Fight - In The U.S.

These men are deescalating, which they are trained to do.

Now imagine how many American cops would act - shoot the nearest dog, beat the people with nightsticks and fists and feet, tazer them....and all the time screaming, "Quit resisting arrest!" Then they would claim they "feared for their lives" after shooting them 25 times while they were unconscious on the floor.

I've said it before: fire 90% of the police, arm the citizens - and crime will drop 90%.

By the way, I had a cop tell me 10% of cops have no business being police officers.

"Techno-Materialism as a Drowning Pool"

This is something thoughtful people have considered for a long time. There is such as thing as life being too easy, i.e., having no meaning for purpose to it. As an example, teenagers are notorious for being bored.

You can't get meaning or purpose from what the author calls "techno-materialism." Meaning, purpose, feeling alive - nope.

It's not just techno-materialism. It's the expansion of the State, although the State uses techno-materialism to oppress people. Even if it's not intended.

Speaking of being a teenager, I can clearly remember being bored, especially in high school. I felt like a cog in a machine, even with all the technological advances. Weekends were a different story, though.

My friends and I used to go camping a lot on the weekends. Why? It was a bit of a struggle, yet fun. But now, kids seem to do little more than play video games. This can't be a good thing.

When I was in college one male student just disappeared. There was an article in the newspaper about it. Soon it turned out he had run off and joined the Marines. I knew why he had done it. He wanted a challenge, which these days is hard to find. Even the intellectual aren't being challenged in college anymore, not with all the soft leftism.

Used to be society had rites of passage for boys, at the age of 12, in which they suffered and were introduced to the world of men - and away from the mother (which is what feminism is). And we are paying and paying for this lack.

This article was written by Mark Citadel and is from Social Matter.

Off the back of Reed Perry’s article ‘declension of the rich‘, I had that old Reactionary adage running through my head, “technological advances mask societal decay”. What does this actually mean?

To expand, this adage is to say that people will be unawares of deep structural problems in their society, even as said problems metastasize to a choking largess, because they will be according undue praise to technological advancement as a measure of civilizational success. In other words, similar to how it is prophesied in the Hindu Doctrine of the Ages that the measure of men will become their wealth, the measure of the society at large will be its level of technological development.

During the Cold War, a distinction was made to divide the world into three camps.

1. First World countries: aligned with the United States and participant in capitalist economic structure

2, Second World countries: aligned with the Soviet Union and participant in communist economic structure

3, Third World countries: non-aligned typically adhering to what were perceived as lower, undeveloped forms of economic structure

Not many people actually know this is the origin of the ‘World’ classifications for countries, mainly because it has little relevance in the post-Cold War era. However, the terms remain in popular usage, particularly ‘third world’, which has simply come to describe any country that has lower levels of technological development. For example, Laos would typically be described as a ‘third world’ country, despite the fact that it has been second world since 1975. It’s one of the few states to remain (albeit as more of a title than anything else) a declared communist, and therefore second world country.

Increasingly, this is the metric for how functional and healthy a given society is. So it makes sense that if a country is experiencing greater technological advancements, this will overshadow any other problems that might previously have been recognized and addressed. So long as we’re not scraping in the dirt like those poor brown people, then our society must be a success with a positive trajectory going forward.

This is fundamentally wrong. The technological advancement of any society, beyond a certain point, is completely irrelevant to that society’s health, and to the degree that it does have an impact, it is that untempered it is a decay accelerant.

When all of man’s ills and petty desires can be cured and secured with the push of a button, the flick of a switch, or the swipe of a screen, he ceases to be engaged in any kind of struggle. Struggle is an essential part of manhood in particular and so without it, you end up with varying degrees of feminization amongst men. Why be an ascetic when you can just watch Deepak Chopra on DVD? Why be a hero when you can just play on the joystick with a predator drone? With no counter or substitute to the paths that led man to his true virility in these dual qualities, he simply doesn’t achieve them. The level to which he fails is largely determined by his socioeconomic status, with the faux Modern elite proving the best example of full wussification. In his article, Perry points out the popularity of sodomy and other sexual deviancies in the upper echelons of our society. This is a marker of the declining health of what was already an illegitimate aristocracy.

The more man is provided for not by his labors, duties, and a spiritual/mental sustenance, but by technological comfort, the more he comes to attach the meaning in his life to this telluric source, the material wealth that he can accrue. This does not only become the means by which he lives his life, it becomes his life in and of itself. We see a very direct warning of this in Scripture.

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.”
– John 2:15-17

In the book by Marty Glass ‘Yuga: An Anatomy of Our Fate‘, the Hindu Doctrine of the Ages is examined, and the following is said about the Dark Age that we currently reside in.

“In the Kali-Yuga we ‘get the job done’, as never before; but ‘we’ are machinery, ‘Technique’, and a machinery has nothing to say about itself, because there’s no one left to know anything and to know: there’s no one there, it’s dead. Titanic, inexhaustible, ceaselessly moving, shaping, tearing down, building up, creating and achieving. But nobody’s home. In more than one sense.”

The soul of man is entirely absent in this age, as is any connection to its origin in the Divine Realm prior to man’s Fall. The society is now enthralled to “the world” and as such reaps the consequences with eyes wide shut.

Alas, the elite caste in any given hierarchy face the same peril. They must parry the fancies of the flesh lest they be consumed by materialism and the dedication to the finite rather than the infinite. If there be three divisions of the elite caste, then they must employ methods of combating the telluric urge, even in the face of great technological prowess.

1. The priestly class must suffer the grueling trial of the ascetic life, drained by a zealous commitment to the Divine forces that they mediate to on behalf of man. They must be forever aware of their subordination to higher realms of being.

(Undermined in our age by ‘health and wealth’ spirituality focused on the success of man rather than giving glory to God. Our priests, by in large, do not fulfill the Traditional priestly role and not only in the political sense of that role)

2. The warrior class must have an eternal heroic character, tested by external threats and the constant critical eye of the aristocratic class as well as the pressures of strict masculine meritocracy.

(Undermined in our age by the creep of affirmative action in the military, and the mechanization of war which first turned conflicts into an apocalyptic battle against crude machines where the gladiatorial heroism of the past was destroyed, and then later managed to turn the art of war into a video game in which the warrior became totally detached from combat)

3. The aristocratic class has the hardest trial of all. Lacking the inherent ascetic and heroic virtues of the roles given to priest and warrior, yet with the grave responsibility of high governance, these men are at the greatest risk of corruption by the materialist strain. This can be combated through intermingling with the warrior class, high sport and hunting traditions, as well as the universal rejuvenation brought through the ‘great threat’, whether imagined or real.

(Literally everything undermines this class in our age, in fact its safe to say this class doesn’t exist. It has been usurped and replaced with demotic powers (politicians) and a depraved artistic elite represented by the modern celebrity)

I challenge the notion that atheism leads to materialism in a society, rather I think materialism leads to atheism instead, in addition to other societally degenerative tendencies which unfortunately rot the head of the fish (the elite) first. The greater we become technologically, the more incapable we are of seeing the problems that surround us. First man becomes blind to the spiritual world, ceasing to harness its power against chaotic forces, and then he becomes blind even to common sense. Obviously terrible things are allowed to occur in the name of progress, because technology has become our metric, our material well-being the be all and end all, and it will indeed end all.

In becoming a society centered around the merely physical virtues of techno-materialism, man has ceased to struggle in almost every aspect of his existence. He has plunged himself into a drowning pool thats warm waters provide the comfort that his aching limbs and mind crave, it is in essence a return to the safety of the womb with these liquid confines bearing the hallmarks of the usurping feminine principle, but water is water and we are no longer unborn. Unless we somehow manage to surface, such depths will be the death of us.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Leftists, Self-Deception and Blasphemy

This has been making the rounds around the Internet recently. Of what's listed, only one thing is true - He was against public prayer. The rest is lies, distortions, exaggerations, or irrelevant.

Jesus is being portrayed as a leftist here.

How can someone do this? Because in order to successfully lie to others you first have to lie to yourself. Leftists are notorious about lying to themselves and others and not having any honor. They also think anyone who disagrees with them isn't merely mistaken - they think they're evil.

Of course, some people think this is a wonderful list. They live in a world of delusion.

I once read a long article about how Jesus was a libertarian. It made a lot more sense than this list. I have a book called The Humor of Christ, which convinced me He was very witty but had a pretty mean sense of humor and would have been a bear to deal with. A leftist? Meek and mild? I don't think so.

Leftists hate religion. This list is an attempt to make Jesus a leftist and therefore destroy everything He stands for.

If you look at the history of Christianity a lot of the strife and murder were caused by leftists. Whenever you read of some dead cult whose leaders were beheaded they were almost always left-wing.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Empire, Inc.

I try to make things as simple as possible. I see D.C. as an alien city full of psychopaths ruling u with a tiny military force. And like all empires sooner or later it will collapse. It has only survived thiss long because most people are pretty much indifferent until things get unbearable. The country will survive but the government won't. That's been the history of the world when it comes to those who abuse and exploit.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Depolicing the Lowlifes

Everyone has seen the video of Michael Slager shooting the guy running from him in the back five times. "He's a psychopath," some say. Perhaps. Or maybe he has some of PTSD from dealing with lowlifes. After all the guy he shot had been fighting with him.

The police never did this when I was kid. Now we have a nation full of Third World criminal trash. You know - the misnamed "Multiculturalism."

I suggest the police depolice these people, except to keep them out of decent areas. It's got to the point I don't care what happens to them. They want to attack each other? Not my problem. Let them police themselves.

When I was about 12 years old a cop pulled over a guy roaring down our street in his car. He was a teenager. The cop yelled at him in public. The guy stood there wiith his head hanging down. That was it. End of story. No ticket. Just being embarrassed in public.

It's nearly impossible for this to happen today.

People aren't equal. Some people are trash. They are always with us, and we certainly don't need to import them. Because the more we do, the worse the police are going to act. And their bad behavior to going to slop over onto innocent people, just as it is doing now.

Friday, April 17, 2015

Mother Instinct? Har Har!

The biggest threat to a baby during the first year of life is the mother herself (look up Paula Sims, who was from the area I was raised in). Want more proof? Think of the tens of millions of abortions on demand...which they want others to pay for. Moloch lives even today - except the infants are being sacrificed to themselves and not some pagan god.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Depression, Anxiety and Hostility

One quarter of American women are on psychiatric medication. I have found they get this way this way when they lack husband, home, and children - then they blame their lack on men. Then the men run because of the attacks on them. The problem gets worse. This feedback system can be broken by attacking the weakest link only I don't know what it is.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

How to Deal With Bad Cops

Any cop who shoots a dog, automatic termination.

Any cop who shoots anyone from behind, prison.

Any cop who beats anyone, prison.

Any cop who prevents anyone from filming them, automatic termination.

Fire 90% of the police and arm all the citizens and crime will drop 90%.

Cops should be forbidden to issue traffic tickets, which are nothing but an attempt to steal you money.

Killing a Dalit should be a $5 mail-in fine.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Human Rabbits

All leftists are liars and have no honor. They remind me of the human version of rabbits or cats.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

"Ennui Fills My Days"

One of my posters wrote that perhaps this German pilot suffered from accidie, which is generally considered mental sloth. It's more than that. It's ennui, boredom, meaningless, hopelessness, not being connected to anything. I read years ago that some people committed suicide out of boredom. That's accidie.

I use the example of insomnia. When you can't fall asleep, can't think of anything to do, you are bored and things seem meaningless...that's the beginnings of accidie (Stephen King once wrote one of his typically enormous novels about a man suffering from insomnia. It was of course called Insommnia.)

This suicidal pilot, to me, appeared to be envious ("If I can't be happy no one can, so I'll take 150 innocent people with me"). But perhaps he also considered life meaningless, so he decided to go out in a blaze of glory. Hubris and accidie? Perhaps. It's not as if you can suffer from just one.

I use the Seven Deadly Vices and Seven Cardinal Virtues to explain people. They have been around for thousands of years, and came from the Greeks and were adopted and expanded by Christianity. They're not "religious." It's more like practical, useful psychology that can be applied to everyone.

'Accidie has always been considered a sin, although, as I have written many times, "sin" means to "miss the mark."

When you suffer from accidie and hubris people don't seem real anymore. They're just props in your personal play. Instead it's all about you, and it doesn't matter if people live or die. Or if the suffered lives or dies, either.