text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84970930285488566662014-10-20T10:57:09.730-04:00UncleBob's TreehouseBob Wallace on Lots of StuffBob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-2907532652741604522014-10-20T08:39:00.002-04:002014-10-20T09:23:51.004-04:00"If I Can't Have Fun, Neither Can You"I've said before I think women are more envious than men. It's been noticed for thousands of years. It's right there in the story of the Garden of Eden.
The thing about envy is that you want to drag the other person down, even if you drag yourself down. Think leftism, which is the Bad Feminine and based on envy and leveling in an attempt to eradicate envy. And of course, feminism is leftist- based on hate, envy and the attempt to destroy the Father, i.e. "patriarchy."
I think it's obvious unattractive women envy more attractive women. I'd had attractive women mention this to me about the attitude and behavior of less attractive women.
For that matter, envious people want to drag down anyone whom they envy.
I mentioned in my last post that many years ago I and some friends have had women claim we were sexually harassing them, when in fact we were doing nothing of the sort. Actually, they were sexually harassing us.
But why would they want to drag us down out of envy? Perhaps they thought we had a better life than they did? That we had more fun than they were? That they wanted to be part of it, and that we didn't want them to? Is that were the phrase, "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned" comes from?
I am reminded of Betty Broderick, who murdered her ex-husband and his new bride, even though she getting about $16,000 a month in alimony, and had a new house and boyfriend (and had kids by him). She just couldn't stand her envy, and brought him down even though she also brought herself down, too.
Envy, of course, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It's the only one that isn't any fun, either.
Bob Wallacehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-32618488512950089692014-10-19T20:44:00.001-04:002014-10-20T07:41:57.144-04:00"Sexual Harassment"? What's That?I've only seen one case of sexual harassment in my life. Some black guy, who had a make-work job as a school administrator, was putting his hands on his white employees. The women, that is. (I take that back: I've seen black men harass white women and black women on the street, as long as no one was around. I've seen it from my car.)
The school administrator was told to leave.
Otherwise, I've never seen it. The Manosphere, in one of its many delusions, think those non-existent "Alphas" don't get claims of sexual harassment. They do.
One I only read about was the actor Ray Milland, who won an Oscar for portraying a drunk with the DTs. To rehearse for the role he staggered around in public unshaven and in ragged clothes.
A woman who he had rebuffed saw him and gave him a look of triumph.
What the vast majority of "sexual harassment" is, is this: "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned."
It happened to me when a woman I didn't want to get involved with claimed I was sexually harassing her. A few years later a friend of mine, who was very popular with women, had a woman he dated once claim he was sexually harassing her. When I told him she had a crush on him - based on my experience - he said, "That's what my father told me!"
I've also seen obese, unattractive women who think men are after them. That one I don't understand.
What I had noticed in every case is that the women are not married, and without hope of being so, due to the Wall or unattractiveness.
Perhaps this is a way they use to convince themselves they're attractive to men...especially when they're not.
 Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-39899883130142197622014-10-19T05:10:00.001-04:002014-10-19T09:47:17.233-04:00"How Personal Relationships Threaten The Power of the State"Leftists are nuts and don't under human nature at all. They really thinks it's plastic and infinitely malleable. Who needs families? The State is Big Daddy and Big Mommy, and all of us will turn out just fine. Just a little more tweaking is necessary, that's all.
Leftism is always about the destruction of the Father. And that means the destruction of society and civilization. And the destruction of the Father is why you get what the Manosphere calls MGTOWS and PUAs.
Everyone needs meaning, importance and community. The family is the basis of those things. And the bigger the State gets the more it is threatened by families, so they have to be destroyed. Ultimately, that means the collapse of the State, because there is nothing left to support it. So we get these horrible cycles of from to Hell and back.
The is from the Federalist and was written by Stella Morabito.

"Marriage is the new bogeyman for our 'progressive' friends. It's worth asking why that is the case.
"Consider this recent Slate article entitled: 'Just Say No: For White Working Class Women, it Makes Sense to Stay Single Mothers.' The co-authors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone both seem well connected to the school of feminist legal theory that claims marriage is generally an outmoded and 'patriarchal' institution. So perhaps it should come as no surprise they would be interested in discouraging it for yet another demographic: white, working-class mothers.
"Cahn and Carbone walk readers through their case study of Lily, employed but possibly pregnant by her boyfriend Carl, who's unemployed and aimless. We're told that Lily is not concerned about raising the child alone. She views Carl as more of a hindrance than a help, essentially just another mouth to feed.
"The Slate piece rounds up various statistics and trends – socio-economic, cultural, and so on – to make the case against marriage for Lily and all women of her class and color. The authors emphasize that men are less marketable these days, while working class women are increasingly more employable. They then argue that 'both men and women generally agree that a man who can't hold a steady job shouldn't marry.' Complicating matters further is that the men who do have better economic prospects, faced with a 'choice of committing to a woman who outearns them or keeping their independence… seem to prefer their freedom.' They conclude that the dearth of "marriageable" men should convince Lily she's better off going it alone. (Amusingly, the authors here seem to borrow from an old timey explanation of the facts of life regarding male behavior, like mother-scolds saying, 'He's just not marriage material, Honey.')
"There is a ream of statistics on the other side of this equation. Indeed, if single motherhood were such a boon, we wouldn't see such a grossly disproportionate number of that demographic living in poverty. The Slate piece also adds to the confusion by essentially promoting the emasculation of working class men, ignoring the benefits of strong relationships, and accommodating the irresponsibility of both mother and father in cavalierly producing a child.
"But there are deeper aspects to that argument meriting closer examination.
Could the Real Target be Strong Relationships?
"In the end, all of the statistics quoted in this Slate are superfluous. For the real story we have to read between the lines. And the real story is this: society is not cultivating the habits and trust that build strong relationships among individuals.
"Let's start by looking at Lily as a real person. She is in need of relationships, intimacy, and a life not overwhelmingly dominated by 9-to-5 drudgery. Let's consider Carl a real human being also. Yes he needs a job, but he also needs the same things as Lily: to feel respected, connected, and useful to others. They both need to feel anchored to something worthwhile, not like displaced persons wandering about life. How does such anchoring happen? Through strong relationships with real people.
"Most telling in the Slate piece is this throwaway line about Lily: 'She has very few friends, married or unmarried, in strong relationships.' That is a statement worthy of deep exploration.
"Consider one major reason the authors urge Lily not to marry:

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

"How wacky is this? First, our friend 'Carl' is a schlub (that's why Lily blows him off), certainly not an 'elite.' But the fundamental point here is that children and family, you see, are chopped liver in this deal. Marriage here is all about who gets what. Essentially, this means Lily is supposed to deprive her children of a relationship with their father because . . . ? Why? The deck is stacked against her? He doesn't 'deserve' or presumably doesn't even want a relationship with his kids? Lily should have an exclusive 'right' to custody?
"The upshot of all of this is to seal off the doors for Lily's children in having a relationship with their father. It also serves to reinforce a jaded outlook in women like Lily so that the doors are sealed against any hopes they might harbor to cultivate strong – i.e., mutually respectful and loving — relationships with potential fathers for their children.
"Ultimately, the Cahn-Carbone argument is about separation and isolation. It serves primarily to separate people and separate families. And it's another example of how children are the pawns and political footballs in just about every so-called 'progressive' agenda. Ironically, the argument also seems to cultivate a view of children born of casual sex as less deserving of intact families than children born to 'elites.' They are barely an afterthought in this picture, in which men are a hindrance to be avoided.
"So, raising a kid on your own is a snap? Well, possibly when you don't really have to raise your kid—since in the case study, Lily's parents are 'devout Christians who supported both her decision to have the child and her decision not to marry Carl, [and are] helping with child care.'
"The authors offer lip service to the idea that men like Carl should (someday) be employed – but only through government programs that don't interfere with 'women's autonomy.' For women like Lily this really means a fake Julia-style autonomy that likewise comes from heavy dependence upon government programs.
"Most troubling is that it seems the authors at Slate are happy to keep women like Lily separated from potential husbands. Why such eagerness to discourage the coming together of people by ties of family and kinship? Why tell single working mothers en masse that it's best to 'just say no' to marriage?
"What have our progressive friends really discovered? They have discovered that strong families — i.e., strong relationships — are the primary source of well-being in society. But rather than seeing that as a good thing to be encouraged, many are instead making the case that families are the main source of 'inequality.'
"Literature expressing this line of thought is mushrooming today. We have, for random example, an author of a forthcoming book on family inequality, a University of Maryland sociologist, whose blog rhetorically asks: 'Is 'the family' a barbaric, pre-modern holdover institution, perpetuating irrational relations and inherited forms of inequality?'
"But this style of attack on the family has been bubbling up for a while. Consider this 1999 paper by a British professor of philosophy 'Is the Family to be Abolished Then?' She opens by proclaiming 'The family is one of the main causes of morally arbitrary inequality. . . . the effects of the family are so profound that its mere existence may severely impede the access of individuals to equal life chances.' She suggests that everyone could be better off if raised in a well run state orphanage.
"Then you have this 1998 trial balloon essay 'The Child Swap Society' published on the op-ed pages of several major newspapers. The author Sandra Feldman (d. 2005), president of the American Federation of Teachers, fantasizes in it about a society in which all parenting is done through state controlled lottery, solving the problems of inequality. Just 15 years ago the essay seemed very fringy. Not so much anymore.
"Another example is a project of the feminist legal theorist Martha Fineman, who heads up an initiative on 'Vulnerability and the Human Condition' at Emory University. Her work seems aimed at promoting government intervention as a means to remedy 'inequality.' Fineman openly advocates for the end of family autonomy and privacy in much of her work, including the 2004 book The Autonomy Myth in which she calls for abolishing all state-sanctioned marriage and replacing it with a scheme that requires all parties to draw up contracts regulated by the state.
"In all of their ponderings about inequality, our progressive friends never fully address the ultimate source of human misery: isolation brought about by broken and weak human relationships. Of course, cultivating strong human relationships would be counter-productive to an agenda that aims to grow impersonal bureaucracy and its attendant power cliques.
Isolation is the real source of inequality
"So the only element I see in the Slate piece when it comes to relationships is that it prescribes separation from a male figure in the household – for both the working mothers and their children – as the best choice across the board.
"If I were a single working mother, here's how this Slate chorus would sound to me: 'There are no good men out there, so don't even look! . . . All the statistics are against you and resistance is futile. But we have this nice isolation chamber for you. We'll put food and drink out for you. We'll assign you work and school and 'communitarian' opportunities as long as you don't get married. We've got pre-K programs for your babies and toddlers. (Contrary to popular belief, we are just itching to be the hand that rocks the cradle.) And we'll provide you with plenty of free contraceptives to further encourage you to have lots of loveless sex. That way you'll continue to enable those ne'er-do-wells you like to hang out with. We know you want intimacy. But our policies are aimed at modifying your behavior so that you'll never catch on and cultivate the habits that encourage real intimacy. Honey, you're a great poster child for us at the moment. But we progressive elites really see you as a useful idiot. The main thing is that you give up on seeking any permanent male figure around you or your kids. No need to think deeply or independently about this, because we elitist progressive white women have it all figured out for you working class female drudges.'
"Perhaps you find this interpretation far-fetched? After considering the arguments of feminist gender theory listed above – how families are the main source of 'morally arbitrary inequality' – it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that strong relationships would get in their way. After all, strong relationships built on habits of mutual and loving self-sacrifice are ultimately where 'inequality' comes from – why some people are ultimately happier and more prosperous than others. Could this be the real basis for the slam on marriage of the Slate piece?
Dangerous Liaisons: Personal Relationships and Power
"Ultimately, personal relationships are the source of all real power.  Connection with others is the font of knowledge and wealth for human beings. Whoever controls personal relationships pretty much controls everything.
"If you look around, you can see this sort of impulse to control relationships everywhere. The 12-year-old 'queen bees' in middle school culture as well as dictators on the world stage – from Stalin to Kim Il-Sung – can turn it into an art form. For seemingly harmless little girls the impulse exhibits itself in nasty lunch room or cyberspace snubs that dictate who can be friends with whom. For world dictators it manifests itself in show trials that condemn and socially isolate political enemies as 'non-persons.'
"Unfortunately, it's always been the little dictators of the world who understand the ultimate power of personal relationships better than the rest of us who wish only to live and let live.
"Some of the 12 year olds in Lily's world are in the business of telling all of us what to do and how to live, and ensuring that the only enduring relationships we have are with our government keepers. Others among them — in politics, academia, the media, Hollywood — will keep in place conditions that that suppress strong personal relationships. Why? Because only weakened human relationships and alienation can serve to build a culture of distrust, envy, and divisions in class, gender, race, etc. that empowers an elite 'vanguard'—among whom, politicians, academics and media moguls are prominent.
"By enabling a culture of excess in which self-absorption and self-indulgence reign supreme, power elites seem invested in guaranteeing our problems will be self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. Their bait — sloth, sex, and nonstop mind-numbing entertainment – is a feel-good trap. Nothing substantial can be built on what they offer, least of all solid relationships.
A Modest Agenda for the Future
"So there you have it. Lily thought Carl was good enough to screw, but not worth a commitment. According to the authors at Slate, that seems to be a good thing. It seems ironic, doesn't it, that good habits and good relationships are really the bugaboo of progressive agendas? Our culture of self-indulgence, self-absorption, and sexual excess – which has been pushed very hard by so-called progressives – also cultivates ignorance about this reality.
"It seems funny, doesn't it, how progressive agendas always seem to begin as 'solutions' in search of problems? Collectivist agendas breed alienation, isolation, distrust, and dependency, which produce poverty, social chaos, and epidemic anxiety, which soften the ground for collectivist agendas. The myth of 'inequality' is perpetuated with the prescription that further isolates people from one another.
"But here's an idea: How about cultivating a climate for strong relationships? Strong relationships naturally have their roots in marriage and family life. They are then re-broadcast into society by the partners in and children of such relationships.
"Strong relationships are about teamwork: real communication, real cooperation, real trust, and real fellowship. How might individuals seek to cultivate these things? They can, you know, if government gets out of the way. And teamwork is about self-sacrifice, which is a dirty word these days. Yes, strong relationships may be difficult to produce. But that's what makes them strong. The blacksmith analogy is apt: the tempering of the iron in the fire – as with a relationship through trials — will give it shape and strength.
"But the really dirty little secret statists would rather you not know is this: strong relationships of mutual self-sacrifice yield the greatest prosperity of every kind – spiritual, emotional, and material – for everyone.
"The hunger for strong family relationships will persist. Social engineers can only offer weak 'communitarian' relationships as cheap imitations for the real thing, which, in the end, is real, human love."
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-30177612214142701832014-10-18T04:38:00.002-04:002014-10-18T04:38:54.126-04:00I'm Descended from Slaves, and That's Just Fine with MeI used to know this Jewish guy who told me that reason that Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years with his tribe of nitwits is so the slaves would die off. He didn't explain since I knew what he meant.
The one country that has suffered the most in the history of the world is Ireland. I am part-Irish, specifically Scots-Irish, or Ulster Scot. And I am descended from slaves ("Wallace" at one time meant "slave.") It means nothing to me.
Here is a long and very educating article.
The Irish Slave Trade.
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-68159734546665918332014-10-16T22:20:00.000-04:002014-10-17T08:24:58.912-04:00"The Incredibly Seductive Pull of a Very Skilled Narcissist""Butters falls in love with one of the waitresses (named Lexus), and obsesses over her throughout the episode, failing to see the insincerity of her interest in him." - The South Park episode "Raisins."

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

Mythologically these women are Seductresses, and many men are fools before them, no matter how deluded they think they are "Alphas" immune to them. It's sad but inevitable that such arrogance leads to a fall.
There are a few men immune to what is done to them. They're psychopaths. Of course, there are psychopathic women!
This is from the site Dr. Sam.
"If an extreme narcissist were religious, he would worship himself. He would apply to himself the phrase that says, "You shall have no other gods besides ME!" Narcissist are full to the maximum… with themselves.
"In my years of studying human nature and counseling many individuals, I have come across an amazing type of narcissist. This kind of narcissist is the one who is so seductive he makes you like or believe in him or her with your whole heart. In my personal opinion, this type is the most dangerous of all narcissists. The following are some characteristics of this impressive little "god."
Charming
"Charm creates a feeling of being delightfully attracted to something. You can be fascinated with something or someone because of beauty. Though the looks of a person can be stunning to the point of you saying, "Wow!", nevertheless, a captivating narcissist does not necessarily have to have good looks to draw you in. Good looks, definitely, can increase the magnetic pull towards the narcissist, but that is not the core. You can also be charmed by the pulling power of someone reflecting you so as to create a deep rapport. This intense connection is created when a person gives you the feeling like you've known them a long time or you feel initially safe with them. They have unlocked the door to your insides. A skilled extreme narcissist knows just how to reflect your music back to you so that you feel like he has your playlist of favorite songs.
More astute than you
"An astute person is one who creatively figures out some unique and impressive angle quickly, an angle few think about. Skilled narcissists can typically outsmart most folks. They are three steps ahead of you. They are also fast in coming out with these unique approaches. That is why you are constantly intrigued by them. When your relationship sours with one of these narcissists, you better watch out. They generally have already thought through how you might react and are ready to discredit you or destroy you. They have their ducks in order. When they get a lawyer you can bet that they are determined to humiliate and obliterate you.
Great storyteller
"A skillful narcissist can be some of the greatest storytellers. They can weave a complex story and mesmerize you with amazing statistics, trivia, quotes, history of events, to the point that you could feel overwhelmed. Naturally, they would be the center of those stories, often re-writing history. These skillful narcissists are hardly boring. They incessantly can talk to you with interesting information. Those I have known, I have often gleaned amazing information from. They too are students of human nature, but with a goal in mind. Their goal is to further their power by enhancing their stature and influence among those around them. Sometimes they exaggerate their claims and position. The media abounds with examples, ranging from politicians and business people to actors who are given to hype.
Believable
"Skillful narcissists work hard at being believable about their myths of themselves. They arm themselves with information that enhances their position and even can change the numbers to suit their arguments. The end goal is to snag you into his/her lair. One trick they use is to play the game of appearing magnanimous. In other words, they appear to take the high road of being nobler than you by forgiving your mistakes. Many times this is a set up to later trash or destroy you. I remember one who came into my office with their former lover. The narcissist said something like, "God knows how dysfunctional I am… and of course, I have my own therapist that I speak to about this… but… Could you please help my former partner here who is so vindictive… and mean… as a matter of fact, I think this person should have an MRI because they have behavior that is similar to that of a person having a brain tumor." I could not believe how creative this attack was. I had to read between the lines to see the fake tears of this narcissist trying to take the position of Mother Teresa.
Able to cover tracks
"I am always amazed at how a skillful narcissist can cover their tracks. They will play two women at the same time and cover it up with some important business emergency out-of-town meeting. I've even seen them have false online identifications. Some may even exaggerate accomplishments, and though they work at a prestigious firm, they might be a junior member or a hated boss who steals credit from others. They can frame the theft as them first having the original ideas. One story sticks out in my mind with a skilled male narcissist who married a woman that he slowly destroyed over the years. It got so bad that one night he got right in her face and spit at her. She had to push him away from her and call the police. When they showed up, she was asked, "Did you touch him?" She said, "Yes, I pushed him." They hauled her away for being the supposed perpetrator of domestic violence. On the way out and with a concerned face, the narcissist said to the police, "Please be careful. She needs her medication because she is a bipolar person!" Judge for yourself.
Among the greatest actors in the world
"One of the main characteristics of narcissism is that there is a wounded and/or insecure child inside the adult. To survive and compensate, the child has to divert attention and give appearances that are not necessarily true. The skilled narcissist has had many years of theatric practice often changing roles to suit the situation. Because they perceive that their very life is at stake they are zealous to protect and perfect their disguises. These theatric roles cover a wide range. Some are comedic. Others are highly "respectable." There are also those who use intimidation to create distance and admiration or respect. They might use leather, tattoos, piercings, chains, motorcycles, cars, brash loudness, etc. They can also choose to be the lovable and huggable teddy bear persona. With the skillful narcissist, it is not so easy. The reason for this is that they actually believe they are the persona. I have had narcissists, in a moment of rare transparency and "weakness", admit to me that they don't even know who they are.
Be wise
"As you can see, the skillful narcissist is a person with some pretty amazing traits. In my opinion, they can be formidable. They can be impressive in power, strength, intelligence, size, and difficulty. If you find one opposing you, they can be astounding enemies. They are not omnipotent, though they might think so. They do have limitations. Their ego is their own undoing. Many times, when they discover that you are on to them, they disappear. They do this if they perceive that you can blow their cover and expose them as a sham. For an extreme narcissist, being fully exposed to the world is the greatest pain in their lives. It is also the best medicine to their disease because it will force them to look inside and deal with their pain and wounds. If and when that happens, they will become like the rest of us, realizing that we do need others to help and love us. They will see how they need to love from a genuine heart that does not seek to use people. A former and healed narcissist can turn all his powerful assets, which he used to advance himself, to making a powerful contribution in the lives of others and being realistically liked. In the meantime, be careful and avoid being duped and drawn by the amazing magnetism of this kind of person."

Wikipedia: "A femme fatale is a stock character of a mysterious and seductive woman whose charms ensnare her lovers, often leading them into compromising, dangerous, and deadly situations. She is an archetype of literature and art. Her ability to entrance and hypnotise her victim with a spell was in the earliest stories seen as being literally supernatural; hence, the femme fatale today is still often described as having a power akin to an enchantress, seductress, vampire, witch, or demon, having power over men."
Bob Wallacehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-25668805120499466002014-10-16T04:09:00.002-04:002014-10-16T04:34:31.503-04:00 "Is Envy the Engine that Drives Fairy Tales?"I believe, as I've stated before, you should know and understand the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly Virtues, and if you do you'll understand most everything about human nature.
Since it's better to show than tell, we need stories. This is why I own the collected works of both the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen.
Of course, the worst sin of all is Pride/Hubris, because it is the basis of all the rest.
This is from the site Diamond and Toads.

"Ah, envy. Without that, where would the stories of "Snow White" and"The Goose Girl" be? True, envy isn't the sin behind the action in every fairy tale, but it shows up in many of them as a secondary source of action. In "Cinderella," the sisters envy Cinderella's goodness and beauty. Same scenario in "Beauty and the Beast."
"Envy, like most of the other sins, has its root in pride -- the deadliest sin. It doesn't have to involve an extreme desire for a big house or fancy wardrobe, as greed does. Envy is an over-the-top lust for anything another person has -- like musical ability or a child or the romantic love of another person. When we are wrapped up in prideful notions of competition and showing off, we get envious.
"Think about it. If the Sea Witch didn't envy The Little Mermaid her lovely voice, then the terrible sacrifice the mermaid makes might not have taken place. And obviously, if Snow White's stepmother wasn't envious of her, there would have been no schemes, no tricks, no attempted murder."
Bob Wallacehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-27359839171193619382014-10-15T21:41:00.002-04:002014-10-16T03:29:04.784-04:00The World-Spanning Male Brain"Machines are amplifiers" - Cooper's Law
The author is correct. The internet is male; created, maintained, repaired by men. This makes the internet a world-spanning male brain, of which I am a neuron. In some ways it is a superorganism.
Women, for the most part, are abusing it, trying to turn it into a leftist "female" space. How? By attacking men.
Perhaps, women should be bred like cattle. And because of easy travel men are in a sense are breeding women: look how many men marry foreign women, especially Asian women, because so many American women are disgusting.
Here is the title: Men Have Bred Dogs And Cattle. Why Not Women Too?  It's from Angry Harry.
"Sometimes, when I am sitting at the screen, I feel very much like a computer. My brain is the central processor, and everything else that is attached or linked to it in some way - arms, legs, internal organs - are mere peripherals.
"My brain goes through various thought processes, and then it rattles off what it is thinking about via its bodily peripherals and the keyboard.
"And 'I' sort of 'look on', while munching on a sandwich.
"Well, that's what it sometimes feels like.
"Also, my thoughts are very heavily influenced by what I have read - which mostly comes off the screen. And, moreover, the material that I have read is influenced by what other people have sent me - also through the screen. And so it seems quite clear that I am some kind of cog in a most enormous wheel.
"There is some vast exchange of information which has been created and reconfigured by human brains going on via the internet, and this information ends up influencing all those other brains that log on to read it - and who might then create their own information in order to respond. And so the flow and exchange of information keeps moving - and growing.
"There is therefore a huge amount of informational activity going on in cyberspace and in the brains of those who interact with it.
"There is therefore a huge amount of informational activity going on in cyberspace and in the brains of those who interact with it.
"Further, this information is clearly colouring much of that which now ends up in the mainstream media - which influence millions of people.
"I have oftentimes seen articles with wide circulations arise even from something that I have posted only a few days earlier - and sometimes with the same kind of phraseology used in some of the paragraphs.
"But such things work in both directions, and what I read influences me.
"And so the ideas and notions that I think I have so magnificently conjured up from my own brain really mostly derive from what I, myself, have been reading.
"Now, as the men's movement begins to grow, or, indeed, as more and more men like me simply get involved in areas which, in some way or other, push forward 'the aims of men' more into the forefront of this global psychological arena, so it is that forces will be created that will move in the direction of achieving these aims. And this will occur because the 'thinking' (the arguments, if you will) behind arranging matters for the acquiring of these aims, will also get pushed forward.
"In other words, some kind of enormous artificial 'male brain' is forming within cyberspace and it is connecting to the brains of those humans who access parts of it.
"And, in much the same way that my brain controls my body, so it is that this cyber-brain exerts some control over those beings who interface with it.
"And the male part of this cyber-brain is beginning to grow.
"And it is because of this 'male' brain growth that feminists have absolutely no hope of surviving as a significant force for very long, and why women really do need to watch their step.
"You see, in the past, men have always had to be nice to their women in order for their societies to cater as best as they could for everybody's needs and desires. And in places where men were not nice to their women, their societies and their cultures did not get very far.
"But, in the future, men might well not have to be so nice in order to guarantee the success and well-being of their societies - and themselves!
"You see, in the past, if men did not treat their women properly (i.e. as women wished to be treated) then, at the very least, they could not get their support. And without the support of their womenfolk (whether in terms of society as a whole, or at an individual level) the men were doomed.
"Somewhere, somehow, women who were treated badly would have ended up finding (or being found by) other men, and they would quickly have extricated themselves from their oppressors over time.
"Further, in the past, when the family was everything, it was very important to keep the women happy. There was no hope for any family or for a successful society without the support of women.
"And this, of course, worked both ways.
"Men and women depended on each other.
"But, in the future, men will not have to be so nice anymore because the various peoples of the world are becoming evermore coalesced into one huge society. As such, there will be no other society to compete with it. And if this society decides that women should be 'subjugated', then there will be no place for women to turn to in order to escape this.
"The European Union gives us a possible insight into how such a thing might come about.
"Imagine, for example, that the Roman Catholics and other religious groups suddenly became very powerful within the European bureaucracies, and that they instigated a law which made abortion illegal. Well, suddenly, throughout the whole of Europe, women would be prevented from having abortions or they would be prosecuted - perhaps for murder - if they broke the law. And so it is that a cascade of similar legislation emanating from just one supreme body could very easily overturn many of the 'rights' that women enjoy today.
"Such a possibility is clearly not that far away.
"And so when it comes to gender issues, it is quite possible - actually, very likely - that one gender will come to dominate this one global society that seems to be on the horizon.
"And the winning gender will depend on which 'brain' gets bigger - the male one or the female one - and which brain is 'more persuasive', both inside and outside cyberspace.
"Well, in my view, the male point of view will end up prevailing most strongly - for many reasons; most of which I never actually address on this website, since it seems prudent not to do so.
"Now, in the past, men could not really get away with considering only their own needs. They depended on their own women to love and to support them in order to survive in the rat race.
"If men didn't have the support of their women, then the other rats, who did, won!
"Men needed the support of their women.
"In the not too distant future, however, they won't.
"And so it is that I suspect that if western women remain antagonistic toward their men, their days of empowerment are numbered.
"In the past, such a development would not have occurred very easily because there would always have been enough other men who would have stepped in to 'side' with the women in order to get access to them. ('I will betray my gender if you sleep with me.')
"And powerful men have always arranged matters so that their access to more women is guaranteed - by, basically, oppressing and depriving those men who are lower down the food chain.
"But, in the future, men will not need to compete with each other over women.
"For example, more than enough women could be made available through, say, genetic manipulation techniques, or perhaps through 'supreme' legislation that, in effect, makes women 'more available' to men.
"Indeed, there are many developments currently taking place that could easily give men the upper hand.
"And, most importantly, men are beginning to recognise this.
"And therein lies the BIG change in the future balance of power.
"Could women stop such a thing?
"In the long run, I doubt it.
"How come?
"Well, in general, if men begin to see women as their adversaries rather than as their comrades, and a battle ensues, then the men will win hands down. The women will have no chance of succeeding.
"The only question of real interest is, therefore, will there be such a battle? And the answer to this is that it is probably already taking place. The Men's Movement is NOT a major power player in this battle, as yet, but it will be.
"For the moment, the battle is mostly taking place at the level of the individual (divorce, violence, avoidance of marriage, promiscuity, homosexuality) and it has been going on for some time.
"But when enough men begin to realise that many of the world's problems arise because of the dissatisfaction of men, and they consider ways in which this might be best alleviated, the subjugation of women while increasing their number would seem to have a lot going for it - particularly given that most men on the planet would quite readily take to such an idea.
"And even those who initially dissented could probably be persuaded to change their minds without too much effort.
"Thus, and for example, it would not surprise me at all if men's psychology led them to create circumstances which allowed them to access a veritable harem of women whenever they wished to do so.
"After all, the technology (e.g. the internet) will enable their psychology to have a huge impact. Future biological techniques will allow them to create females to specification. And globalisation will ensure that there is no escape and no alternative to a male-dominated landscape.
"Indeed, the required male psychology is already in place, the appropriate technology is getting there, globalisation is progressing quickly, and appropriate biological techniques are not that far away.
"So what, exactly, is likely to prevent men in the future from, say, breeding women like they breed dogs and cattle?
"Nothing, it seems to me.
"Supporting feminism will probably turn out to be the biggest mistake that western women have ever made. They have betrayed the very men who sacrificed much of their being and who worked and fought so hard in order to protect and care for them and themselves, and who have managed to provide the west with all the luxuries and benefits to which its peoples have grown so accustomed.
"Compared to western men, western women have contributed very little to the stunning progress achieved in their societies and, currently, by supporting feminism they seem to be doing their damnedest to destroy what their men have achieved.
"And when enough western men recognise that the current contributions of women, in the main, are more than offset by the problems that they are causing by their selfishness, I cannot foresee any other outcome than the one alluded to above; unless men simply continue to look on unthinkingly, and allow their societies to crumble and decay without any concern even for themselves - which, of course, might happen.
"But western women could hardly benefit from this.
"And if western women continue to undermine their men by supporting agendas that discriminate against them, and that rob them of their homes, their children, their security, their dignity, and their heritage, then they will only have themselves to blame should men decide that they have had enough of all this 'equality'.
"And, in many respects, I think that western women might have already missed the boat.
"For example, one of the best ways to ensure that peace and harmony prevail is for men to be treated properly, particularly by other men. And a major cause of violence and disharmony, whether at the street level or between nations, is partly the result of men having failed to learn to deal sympathetically and non-aggressively with other men.
"Putting this another way: If men were brought up to treat each other with respect, the benefits for society would be huge. Instead, however, we have the complete opposite, with battalions of people in the government, the feminist media and the legal profession hell bent on creating as much disharmony as possible through the demonisation of men - particularly the white ones - in order to feather their own nests.
"This demonisation has been so successful and so widespread - and its effects are now so ingrained - that it would likely take very many years before it could be countered sufficiently - possibly decades - if one were to try to achieve this through polite discussion, gentle persuasion and voting for the right politicians; and even this is assuming that the opposition would not put up much of a fight, which is unlikely.
"And so it is that the time frame is too long to prevent millions upon millions of men from being further alienated from western society and from becoming 'delinquent' and antagonistic toward it in some way.
"Indeed, even as I write this, a gang of 12 year old boys seems to have been involved in the raping of two girls aged 15.
"Males are beginning to attack women and children at a very early age these days despite everything that they have to lose.
"And, of course, the consequence of such things is that men will be demonised even further.
"We seem to have reached a situation wherein a vicious cycle of hatred has been set up by various feminist-dominated groups whereby men are responding to their alienation in a manner which guarantees even more alienation. And this spiralling upwards of hatred toward men now seems unstoppable.
"And this is why I believe that western women might have already missed the boat.
"Some kind of crisis seems likely to take place throughout the western world in the very near future because more and more men will begin to act destructively toward it in various ways. And men will have far more destructive power than ever they have had in the past - compared to their rulers - because of the new technology.
"(Remember 9/11?)
"And those who have destructive power have the power to negotiate, to influence - and to demand! - e.g. see Eight Horrible Facts
"I also think that once the ball has started rolling it will gain in momentum very rapidly, and so, before long, men will have re-empowered themselves, particularly with regard to gender issues.
"And when they have done this, there will be enough evidence before them, and enough anger inside more than enough of them, to decide that aiming for 'equality' between the genders - something that, in fact, can never be achieved - has had its time.
"But this, I suspect, would just represent the first phase in the process of men re-shaping their societies.
"The next step will involve men recognising that when it comes to making 'progress' - for example, in the battles against disease and societal disharmony - it is far better to put men firmly in charge than to allow women persistently to undermine their efforts (e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?)
"Another thing that men will also have learned by then is that women do not actually care that much for them. This will further widen the gender divide, and the traditional understanding between men and women is likely to be diminished to the point where they act as if they were two separate competing tribes. (This process is well under way.)
"Western men will recognise that their women are a threat to them (and, hence, even to themselves) and so they will disempower them.
"And then, having done this, more than enough men might well decide, consciously or not, to give women a taste of their own medicine, and begin to demonise them, just as they have for so long been demonised themselves.
"And, in this, they might well be more than just successful.
"Matters could easily reach a stage where, for example, people actually laughed when women were genuinely raped (in much the same way that cutting off a man's penis is currently considered to be funny) or where people couldn't give a damn that a man was violent toward his female partner (like it is today when the reverse is true) or where women could quickly be hauled off by the police for merely shouting at their menfolk (like it is today when the reverse is true).
"And so on.
"Well, western women certainly wouldn't like to live in a world like that!
"Would they?
"But they seem most content for their men to have to live under such unhappy circumstances.
"And my guess is that, in the near future, more than enough men will remember this state of affairs, and the lack of concern that it shows for them, and they will be affected by it.
"Deeply.
"And long term.
"Putting this another way: If western men in the future decided to heap upon women as much hatred as has been heaped by women upon them, one quite shudders at what they might do.
"The appropriate male psychology is already in place, the appropriate technology is getting there, one global society is clearly in the making, and appropriate biological techniques are not so far away.
"And if western women do not quickly wake up to what the government, the justice system and the media are doing to their men, then any backlash will be far worse.
"And it might be worth remembering that the west is not the planet's only repository of males. There are quite a number of men in China, India, Africa, the East, and the Middle East.
"Of course, the disempowerment of western women would not necessarily give rise to the 'abuse' of women. For example, children are mostly disempowered compared to their parents, but most parents do not use their greater power to abuse their children. Indeed, they do their best for their children.
"And the same might happen with regard to western women in the future.
"But I wouldn't bank on it - because the new advances that will be re-empowering men will be arriving on the scene at a time when western men will have been subjected by women to gross unfairness and mistreatment for more than three decades.
"And, on balance, they might well be in an ugly mood.
"And so if western women do not very quickly start supporting their men by helping them to destroy the outrageous discrimination and demonisation that they have continually to face but, instead, actually continue to collude with those very groups that promote such things, I cannot see any type of outcome that will, let's just say, allow western women to retain the high status to which they have grown so accustomed.
"Putting it simply; creating a society that exhibits a deep hatred of its men, the extent of which is evidenced, for example, by the fact that people will actually laugh at jokes about men whose penises have been cut off, was not, in my opinion, a very wise thing for feminists to do.
"And I suspect that, one day, women will pay a price for this."
Bob Wallacehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-44620853524090374592014-10-14T22:35:00.001-04:002014-10-14T23:04:56.857-04:00Women Should Thank God Love Exists
Some years ago I was told, "If you couldn't fuck women and have kids by them, there would be a bounty on them." Which reminded me of a comment by Homer Simpson: "Why couldn't God find someone else for us to marry besides women!?"
Think about what that means: if men couldn't love women, they'd be worthless except for having babies. All the things men have done for women, they wouldn't do. And women can't do those things themselves - create, discover, invent, repair. To quote Camille Paglia, without men they'd still be living in grass huts.
Everything men have done for women, they have done, ultimately out of love. Without love, women would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
If women had any sense and understood these things, they'd overflowing with gratitude and appreciation. Instead, they're eaten up with envy of men - and that is exactly what feminism is. Leftist, envious, desiring, to paraphrase Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, to "overthrow the Father." Even if they destroy themselves.
That's what envy does - "I'll bring you down even if I destroy myself!" And loveless, envious women are just big babies. Not big children, as Schopenhauer suggested, but big infants - hate-filled, raging, loveless.
You can't be envious and feel gratitude at the same time. You'll find that wisdom as far back as Aesop and such folk tales as "Snow White," in which the Evil Queen says, "I'll destroy her even if I die."
Women in general are far more envious than men. That, again, is why feminism is leftist, and again, leftism is based on envy.
Can the envious love? I see no evidence of that. Gratitude, appreciation, love, yes. Envy and no gratitude? Then there cannot be love.
I wonder where all this is going to lead? Envious, ungrateful women, trying to destroy men...so men are withdrawing and not loving women, instead denigrating them as whores, users, and abusers.
Men are now wising up to what women are doing - and someday women will realize just now dependent they are on men - which is 100%.
 Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-7923527833829442302014-10-14T19:02:00.000-04:002014-10-14T19:02:44.480-04:00"There are New Dreams Crowding Out Old Realities"When I was 12 years old I saw an absolutely ridiculous movie called Wild in the Streets. All art is but a reflection of reality, and what struck me about it is the way computers and programmers ended up running everything. Otherwise it was almost ludicrous beyond words.
However, there was one perfect line in the movie's most famous song: "There are new dreams crowding out old realities." For good or bad, it happens every generation. Every new generation thinks it invented sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, and thinks the generation before it knows nothing. That's why every new generation is full of dumbasses.
The people who made this film went from dumbasses to old farts, and that is the way of the world. Very few people of whatever age have any brains.

This is from Wikipedia.

"Wild in the Streets is a 1968 film featuring Christopher Jones, Hal Holbrook, and Shelley Winters. It was produced by American International Pictures and based on a short story by writer Robert Thom. The movie, described as both "ludicrous" and "cautionary," was nominated for an Academy Award (for best film editing) and became a cult classic of the counterculture era.
"Wild in the Streets was first released to theaters in 1968. Its storyline was a reductio ad absurdum projection of contemporary issues of the time, taken to extremes, and played poignantly during 1968 — an election year with many controversies (the Vietnam War, the draft, civil rights, the population explosion, rioting and assassinations, and the baby boomer generation coming of age). The original magazine short story, titled "The Day it All Happened, Baby!" was expanded by its author to book length, and was published as a paperback novel by Pyramid Books.
"The movie features cameos from several media personalities, including Melvin Belli, Dick Clark, Pamela Mason, Army Archerd, and Walter Winchell. Millie Perkins and Ed Begley have supporting roles, and Bobby Sherman interviews Max as president. In a pre-"Brady Bunch" role, Barry Williams plays the teenaged Max Frost at the beginning of the movie.
"A soundtrack album was also successful, and the song "Shape of Things to Come" (written by songwriters Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil) and performed by the (fictional) band Max Frost and the Troopers, featured in the movie, became a No.22 hit on the U.S. Billboard charts.
"Wild in the Streets was released on VHS home video in the late 1980s, and in 2005 appeared on DVD, on a twofer disc with another AIP movie, 1971's Gas-s-s-s.
"According to filmmaker Kenneth Bowser, the part eventually played by Christopher Jones was first offered to folk singer Phil Ochs.
"Christopher Jones stars as rock singer and aspiring revolutionary Max Frost (born Max Jacob Flatow Jr.; his first public act of violence was blowing up his family's new car). Frost's band, The Troopers, live together with him, their women, and others in a sprawling Los Angeles mansion. The band includes his 15-year-old genius attorney Billy Cage (Kevin Coughlin) on lead guitar, ex-child actor and girlfriend Sally LeRoy (Diane Varsi) on keyboards, hook-handed Abraham Salteen (Larry Bishop) on bass guitar and trumpet, and anthropologist Stanley X (Richard Pryor) on drums.
"When Max is asked to sing at a televised political rally by Kennedyesque Senate candidate Johnny Fergus (Hal Holbrook), who is running on a platform to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 (a genuine issue, not passed until 1971), he and The Troopers appear — but Max stuns everyone by calling instead for the voting age to become 14, then finishes the show with an improvised song, "Fourteen Or Fight!", and a call for a demonstration.
"Max's fans (and other young people, by the thousands) stir to action, and within 24 hours protests have begun in cities around the United States. Fergus' advisors want him to denounce Max, but instead he agrees to support the demonstrations, and change his campaign — if Max and his group will compromise, accept a voting age of 15 instead, abide by the law, and appeal to the demonstrators to go home peaceably. Max agrees, and the two appear together on television, and in person the next day using the less offensive mantra "fifteen and ready".
"Most states agree to lower the voting age within days, in the wake of the demonstrations, and Max Frost and The Troopers campaign for Johnny Fergus until the election, which he wins by a landslide. Taking his place in the Senate, Fergus wishes Frost and his people would now just go away, but instead they get involved with Washington politics. When a congressman from Sally LeRoy's home district dies suddenly, the band enters her in the special election that follows, and Sally (the eldest of the group, and the only one of majority age to run for office) is voted into Congress by the new teen bloc.
"The first bill Sally introduces is a constitutional amendment to lower the age requirements for national political office — to 14, and "Fourteen Or Fight!" enters a new phase. A joint session of Congress is called, and The Troopers (by now joined by Fergus' son Jimmy, played by Michael Margotta) swing the vote their way by spiking the Washington water supply with LSD, and providing all the Senators and representatives with teenaged guides.
"As teens either take over or threaten the reins of government, the "Old Guard" (those over 40) turn to Max to run for president, and assert his (their) control over the changing tide. Max again agrees, running as a Republican to his chagrin, but once in office, he turns the tide on his older supporters. Thirty becomes a mandatory retirement age, while those over 35 are rounded up, sent to "re-education camps", and permanently dosed on LSD. Fergus unsuccessfully attempts to dissuade Max by contacting his estranged parents (Bert Freed and Shelley Winters), then tries to assassinate him. Failing at this, he flees Washington with his remaining family, but they are soon rounded up.
"With youth now in control of the United States, politically as well as economically, and similar revolutions breaking out in all the world's major countries, Max withdraws the military from around the world (turning them instead into de facto age police), puts computers and prodigies in charge of the gross national product, ships surplus grain for free to third world nations, disbands the FBI and Secret Service, and becomes the leader of "the most truly hedonistic society the world has ever known". The final moments of the film indicate, however, that Max and his cohorts may face future intergenerational warfare from an unexpected source - children ten years of age and younger."
Bob Wallacehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-59988581192071515482014-10-14T09:39:00.000-04:002014-10-14T12:32:13.304-04:00How to Tell if Someone Doesn't Understand Economics"A rise in the minimum wage is the most horrible thing there is! These people need to improve their skills and get better-paying jobs!"
Half the people in this country have IQs of less than 100. They aren't going to be "improving" their skills to get better jobs. The government destroyed their high-paying, blue-collar jobs long ago, mostly by exporting them.
The only thing left for such people to be A) be cannon fodder B) life-long welfare C) "Would you like fries with that?"
I am consistently encountering people who think they understand economics, but don't. They praise Wal-Mart and McDonalds as paragons of the free market when both are gigantic tax-money welfare whores.
They have no comprehension half the wealth in this country is located in the Washington DC/New York/Boston corridor, and got that way because of the War Between the States, which was not about slavery but tariffs the North imposed on the South. But they think it was about slavery.
By the way, Lincoln was a brain-damaged, chronically depressed homosexual who admitted he gave his wife (who died in an insane asylum) and his son (who died from it) syphilis.
They have no comprehension that Bill Gates, who is a criminal disguised as a nerd, is a major criminal. As that old saying tells us (said by several people), "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
And Carlos Slim free market? Please.
Velocity of money? What's that? Not a clue. Inflation transferring wealth from the middle-class to the obscenely wealthy, and therefore destroying the middle-class? Huh?
Corporations as legal persons and are therefore above the law? What?
Bankers and corporations controlling the government?
Yet all they know is the minimum wage.
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-40035972110701755922014-10-13T17:28:00.000-04:002014-10-13T17:28:10.228-04:00The Swineherd by Hans Christian AndersenIn the past when kids graduated high school - and perhaps even those who only graduated the eighth-grade, like my bootlegger grandfather - they knew their Bible, and Greek and Roman mythology, and their folk tales. Not anymore, and not for a long time.
This story is from Hans Christian Anderson, and it's called The Swineherd. It's about an ungrateful woman who expects way too much. She's also a bit of a whore. Sound familiar?

"Once there was a poor Prince. He had a kingdom; it was very tiny. Still it was large enough to marry upon, and on marriage his heart was set.
"Now it was certainly rather bold of him to say, "Will you have me?" to the Emperor's own daughter. But he did, for his name was famous, and far and near there were hundreds of Princesses who would have said, 'Yes!' and 'Thank you!' too. But what did the Emperor's daughter say? Well, we'll soon find out.
"A rose tree grew over the grave of the Prince's father. It was such a beautiful tree. It bloomed only once in five long years, and then it bore but a single flower. Oh, that was a rose indeed! The fragrance of it would make a man forget all of his sorrows and his cares. The Prince had a nightingale too. It sang as if all the sweet songs of the world were in its little throat. The nightingale and the rose were to be gifts to the Princess. So they were sent to her in two large silver cases.
"The Emperor ordered the cases carried before him, to the great hall where the Princess was playing at "visitors," with her maids-in waiting. They seldom did anything else. As soon as the Princess saw that the large cases contained presents, she clapped her hands in glee. "Oh," she said, "I do hope I get a little pussy-cat." She opened a casket and there was the splendid rose.
"'Oh, how pretty it is,' said all the maids-in-waiting.
"'It's more than pretty,' said the Emperor. 'It's superb.'
"But the Princess poked it with her finger, and she almost started to cry. 'Oh fie! Papa,' she said, 'it isn't artificial. It is natural.'
"'Oh, fie,' said all her maids-in-waiting, 'it's only natural.'
"'Well,' said the Emperor, 'before we fret and pout, let's see what's in the other case.' He opened it, and out came the nightingale, which sang so sweetly that for a little while no one could think of a single thing to say against it.
"'Superbe!' 'Charmant!' said the maids-in-waiting with their smattering of French, each one speaking it worse than the next.
"'How the bird does remind me of our lamented Empress's music box,' said one old courtier. 'It has just the same tone, and the very same way of trilling.'
"The Emperor wept like a child. 'Ah me,' he said.
"'Bird?' said the Princess. 'You mean to say it's real?'
"'A real live bird,' the men who had brought it assured her.
"'Then let it fly and begone,' said the Princess, who refused to hear a word about the Prince, much less to see him.
"But it was not so easy to discourage him. He darkened his face both brown and black, pulled his hat down over his eyes, and knocked at the door.
"'Hello, Emperor,' he said. 'How do you do? Can you give me some work about the palace?'
"'Well,' said the Emperor, 'people are always looking for jobs, but let me see. I do need somebody to tend the pigs, because we've got so many of them.'
"So the Prince was appointed 'Imperial Pig Tender.' He was given a wretched little room down by the pigsties, and there he had to live. All day long he sat and worked, as busy as could be, and by evening he had made a neat little kettle with bells all around the brim of it. When the kettle boiled, the bells would tinkle and play the old tune:

"Oh, dear Augustin,
All is lost, lost, lost."

"But that was the least of it. If anyone put his finger in the steam from this kettle he could immediately smell whatever there was for dinner in any cooking-pot in town. No rose was ever like this!
"Now the Princess happened to be passing by with all of her maids-in-waiting. When she heard the tune she stopped and looked pleased, for she too knew how to play 'Oh, dear Augustin.' It was the only tune she did know, and she played it with one finger.
"'Why, that's the very same tune I play. Isn't the swineherd highly accomplished? I say,' she ordered, 'go and ask him the price of the instrument.'
"So one of the maids had to go, in among the pigsties, but she put on her overshoes first.
"'What will you take for the kettle?' she asked.
"'I'll take ten kisses from the Princess,' said the swineherd.
"'Oo, for goodness' sakes!' said the maid.
"'And I won't take less,' said the swineherd.
"'Well, what does he say?' the Princess wanted to know.
"'I can't tell you,' said the maid. 'He's too horrible.'
"'Then whisper it close to my ear.' She listened to what the maid had to whisper. 'Oo, isn't he naughty!' said the Princess and walked right away from there. But she had not gone very far when she heard the pretty bells play again:

"Oh, dear Augustin,
All is lost, lost, lost."

"'I say,' the Princess ordered, 'ask him if he will take his ten kisses from my maids-in-waiting.'
"'No, I thank you,' said the swineherd. 'Ten kisses from the Princess, or I keep my kettle.'
"'Now isn't that disgusting!' said the Princess. 'At least stand around me so that no one can see.'
"So her maids stood around her, and spread their skirts wide, while the swineherd took his ten kisses. Then the kettle was hers.
"And then the fun started. Never was a kettle kept so busy. They boiled it from morning till night. From the chamberlain's banquet to the cobbler's breakfast, they knew all that was cooked in town. The maids-in-waiting danced about and clapped their hands.
"'We know who's having sweet soup and pancakes. We know who's having porridge and cutlets. Isn't it interesting?'
"'Most interesting,' said the head lady of the bedchamber.
"'Now, after all, I'm the Emperor's daughter,' the Princess reminded them. 'Don't you tell how I got it.'
"'Goodness gracious, no!' said they all.
"'But the swineherd-that's the Prince, for nobody knew he wasn't a real swineherd-was busy as he could be. This time he made a rattle. Swing it around, and it would play all the waltzes, jigs, and dance tunes that have been heard since the beginning of time.
"'Why it's superbe!' said the Princess as she came by. 'I never did hear better music. I say, go and ask him the price of that instrument. But mind you-no more kissing!'
"'He wants a hundred kisses from the Princess,' said the maid-in-waiting who had been in to ask him.
"'I believe he's out of his mind,' said the Princess, and she walked right away from there. But she had not gone very far when she said, 'After all, I'm the Emperor's daughter, and it's my duty to encourage the arts. Tell him he can have ten kisses, as he did yesterday, but he must collect the rest from my maids-in-waiting.'
"'Oh, but we wouldn't like that,' said the maids.
"'Fiddlesticks,' said the Princess, 'If he can kiss me he certainly can kiss you. Remember, I'm the one who gives you board and wages.' So the maid had to go back to the swineherd.
"'A hundred kisses from the Princess,' the swineherd told her, 'or let each keep his own.'
"'Stand around me,' said the Princess, and all her maids-in-waiting stood in a circle to hide her while the swineherd began to collect.
"'What can have drawn such a crowd near the pigsties?' the Emperor wondered, as he looked down from his balcony. He rubbed his eyes, and he put on his spectacles. 'Bless my soul if those maids-in-waiting aren't up to mischief again. I'd better go see what they are up to now.'
"'He pulled his easy slippers up over his heels, though ordinarily he just shoved his feet in them and let them flap. Then, my! How much faster he went. As soon as he came near the pens he took very soft steps. The maids-in-waiting were so busy counting kisses, to see that everything went fair and that he didn't get too many or too few, that they didn't notice the Emperor behind them. He stood on his tiptoes.
"'Such naughtiness!' he said when he saw them kissing, and he boxed their ears with his slipper just as the swineherd was taking his eighty-sixth kiss.
"'Be off with you!' the Emperor said in a rage. And both the Princess and the swineherd were turned out of his empire. And there she stood crying. The swineherd scolded, and the rain came down in torrents.
"'Poor little me,' said the Princess. 'If only I had married the famous Prince! Oh, how unlucky I am!'
"The swineherd slipped behind a tree, wiped the brown and black off his face, threw off his ragged clothes, and showed himself in such princely garments that the Princess could not keep from curtsying.
"'I have only contempt for you,' he told her. 'You turned down a Prince's honest offer, and you didn't appreciate the rose or the nightingale, but you were all too ready to kiss a swineherd for a tinkling toy to amuse you. You are properly punished.'
"Then the Prince went home to his kingdom, and shut and barred the door. The Princess could stay outside and sing to her heart's content:

"Oh, dear Augustin,
All is lost, lost, lost."

 Bob Wallacehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-25612453309178503302014-10-13T10:05:00.001-04:002014-10-13T10:09:35.911-04:00King Roughbeard and the Husband Store<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=unclestreeh-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1611042704&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1<1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0">
I wear a goatee and shave my head. I scare hell out of children, because I have a rough beard, not one of those silken smooth ones that some guys are blessed wih. Nope, not me.
Now to "fairy tales," which I read to the four children running in and out of my house. Then I discuss with them what they mean. It's at time some nasty stuff, but kids are bloodthirsty barbarians, anyway.
Myths, fables and the misnamed "fairy tales" (in Germany they're called Marchen, or "folk tales") contain the stored wisdom of the human race. It's too bad many of them are not taught and explained anymore. After all, if you don't discuss the stories with they kids they're not really going to understand them.
There is a cliche' (and like all cliches wouldn't be around unless there was truth to it) that women seek 100% of what they want in a man, while men would think they were in Heaven if they could find 80% of what they seek in a woman.
Does the wisdom of the race support this observation? Yes, it does.
Let's take the Brothers Grimm story "King Grisly Beard" (also called "King Rough Beard").
The story is about a princess who rejects every man who courts her. Not only does she reject them, she makes fun of them. One suiter, who has a rough or grisly beard, gets the advantage of her, humbles her so that she changes her character and turns into a good woman, and then makes a fine wife.
("A great king of a land far away in the East had a daughter who was very beautiful, but so proud, and haughty, and conceited, that none of the princes who came to ask her in marriage was good enough for her, and she only made sport of them...then she bitterly grieved for the pride and folly which had brought her so low...'I have done all this only to cure you of your silly pride, and to show you the folly of your ill-treatment of me. Now all is over: you have learnt wisdom, and it is time to hold our marriage feast.'")
The moral of the story is that some women seek too much in a husband and should become more self-aware and humble (and the correct definition of "humble" is to know your limitations).
By the way, every man she insults does not come back. Women might want to keep that mind.
There is a modern version of "King Grisly Beard" called "The Husband Store," and I'll reprint the whole version here.
"A store that sells new husbands has opened in New York City, where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates:
"You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the value of the products increase as the shopper ascends the flights. The shopper may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!
"So, a woman goes to The Husband Store to find a husband.
"On the first floor the sign on the door reads:
"Floor 1 – These men have Jobs.
"She is intrigued, but continues to the second floor, where the sign reads:
"Floor 2 – These men Have Jobs and Love Kids.
"'That's nice,' she thinks, 'but I want more.'
"So she continues upward. The third floor sign reads:
"Floor 3 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, and are Extremely Good Looking.
"'Wow,' she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.
"She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads:
Floor 4 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Good Looking and Help With Housework.
"'Oh, mercy me!' she exclaims, 'I can hardly stand it!'
"Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads: Floor 5 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, Help with Housework, and Have a Strong Romantic Streak.
"She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor, where the sign reads:
"Floor 6 – You are visitor 81,456,012 to this floor.
"There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at The Husband Store.
"To avoid gender bias charges, the store's owner opened The Wife Store just across the street.
"The first floor has wives that love sex.
"The second floor has wives that love sex, have money and can really cook.
"The third floor has wives that love sex, have money, can really cook and are drop dead gorgeous.
"The fourth, fifth and sixth floors have never been visited."
A novel that I have mentioned several times is Edgar Rice Burroughs A Fighting Man of Mars, which Burroughs wrote around 1912.
The hero, Tan Hadron of Hastor, becames infatuated with a woman named Sanoma Tora. He is not good enough for her, she insults him, and for reasons not relevant here ends up kidnapped. Hadron, who is a brave, chivalrous but somewhat naive (when it comes to women) warrior, goes to save her.
He does end up saving her - and she appears to be changed, more humble woman - but Tan Hadron in the meantime has found another woman, Tavia. Sanoma Tora finds out she is wrong - and it's too late.
A Fighting Man of Mars is in some ways a retelling of "King Grisly Beard." Do tell.
Parents today might want to explain to their daughters there are no perfect men - and they are not perfect, either - and that too high of standards will end up to their being alone.
In fact, they should tell their daughters (depending on theirs looks and character): "You are not a princess and there are no perfect men. Women tend to be more influenced by their feelings than men and just because you feel something doesn't make it right. And if you think you can postpone marriage until you're 30 you'll probably find things are going to turn out the way you want them."
Let's face the facts - a woman's marriage value peaks at about 23. She might think she'll go to college, fool around all she wants, get a career job, then get married at 30. Many of these women find out they've been conned by feminism and what they planned is not what happens.
They'd be better off paying attention to "fairy tales." Their lives might be improved.
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-81103644276373664202014-10-12T08:31:00.003-04:002014-10-12T08:31:28.535-04:00Fat Girls Losing WeightI see an awful lot of fat younger women today. It was in college that I first noticed some thought they were attractive and entitled to guys way out of their league. And yet they were hostile and unpleasant.
Recently, at one coffee shop we frequent, I ran across a young woman I did not know. When I asked whe she started, she relied, "A couple years ago."
Turned out she had lost a lot of weight, gotten contacts, and taken her hair down from the bun on top of her head.
I hadn't recognized her.
Her face lit up and she looked very pleased with herself at the fact she had changed so much I didn't recognize her. The weight loss in her face had transformed her. I had praised her, not shamed her.
In college I knew a girl she showed me a picture of her at 12. Pudgy, glasses, goofy-cute.
Over the summer the weight went away of its own accord, she got contacts, and when she came back to school in the eighth-grade all the girls who had ignored and ostracized her now wanted to be her friend, and all the boys wanted her to be their girlfriend. She ignored them. That was her revenge.
She told me in college she was not interested in "handsome" men and preferred what she described as smart, funny, "unusual-looking" men. When she told me this I was sitting on the floor in her room. She completely ignored the rest of the guys in the house
Shaming someone is trying to humiliate someone, and you're most probably going to get some revenge because of that. That's a female tactic, and one of the reasons so many of them are big, immature children who, when that revenge comes their way, don't have a clue. The male tactic is praise and "Attagirl!"
What's that old saying? You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar?
Bob Wallacehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-50213881671829990902014-10-09T12:05:00.001-04:002014-10-09T13:11:10.613-04:00"I Wasn't Good Enough For You and Now You're Not Good Enough for Me"I keep hearing the same stories over and over, from men:
You ignored me when I was younger. Women would barely talk to me, rejected me and sometimes insulted me. I wasn't good enough for you. Now, since I make $150,000 a year and am 30 years old and have my own house, car and a lot of savings, you've getting desperate and have baby rabies.
But I don't want anything to do with you. I have no intention of being the 31st guy you had sex with, and have no intention of ever getting married considering you can divorce me for no good reason, and take my house, kids and money.
I will never get married. It's all liabilities and no benefits.
I'm also hearing this:
I plan on living a minimal life even if I don't make much money, because it isn't worth working that hard for nothing. I'll just enjoy my hobbies. Women think I'm immature and perhaps I am, but it's not like they're mature, either. Maybe I'll enjoy my pot and porn rather than deal with you.
Then there is the least populous group, contrary to the braggadocio of the Manosphere: I'll spend my life getting revenge on women by seducing all I can.
This is what I hear from women: where are all the good men? Answer A: you left them back in your twenties. Answer B: these days, you're not good enough for them. Men don't care about your "career," they do care if you're a slut, they don't want anything to do with obese landwhales who think they have "curves," and they don't want anything to do with a 33-year-old women who put her "career" above relationships and family.
I saw all these thing since I was 13, but there wasn't much of it. Now it's really getting bad. I saw things starting to go bad in '82/'83, when I was in the last years of college, but now it's really bad, with entitled, unpleasant women who think they deserve a guy way out of their league, who thought they should have a "career" and some guy should support it, that they should quit and be supported when they want to start a family.
Few women, of course, look in the mirror. It's always men's fault.
Of course, none of this can continue. I just wonder how low it will get before it gets better.
 Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-18009980255183131002014-10-08T12:35:00.000-04:002014-10-12T17:08:26.073-04:00The Destruction of Men, Women and ErosThe Greeks had a concept, Eros, which essentially meant union through love, which led to creation. The union of male and female to the creation of babies. For men, their union with work they loved lead to creation, discovery, fixing, repairing. I've seen women who loved cooking, which led to meals. All of that is kind of love leading to creation.
Every mythology I've know about considers the entire universe, from bottom to top, as masculine/feminine, positive/negative, motion/rest. And when all those come together and in balance and harmony, then we have creation - through a kind of love. In other words, love creates everything. And that is why in Christianity God is considered love (again, the same concepts exists in all religions and mythologies).
I find all it fascinating.
So what happens if men and women are out of balance, as we have today? If women start to act like men and men act like women?
Just look around. Women think they are supposed to believe they should be career-oriented and make a lot of money. Yet they are incapable of creating/discovering/repairing. That's why, as the humorist P.J. O'Rourke noted, without men civilization would last until the next oil change.
And if men stop following their true nature (which really won't happen, not all the way) then we lose a bunch of discovering/inventing/fixing/repairing. That's why so many young men have become slackers who get high and play video games. What's in it for them to do anything different? Nothing to very little. All costs and little benefit.
Right now the Feminine is ascendant, and that is not a good thing at all. Everything is out of balance.
Worse, it''s the Bad Feminine that is ascendant.
Politically, that bad feminine is leftism. Leftism is always feminine, thus feminism is leftist. And leftism always wants to destroy, which is why women, mythologically, have always been either the nurturing or destroying.
The nature of leftism is to destroy everything, in the vain hope something better will arise out of the chaos. That will never happen. Specifically, it is about destroying the masculine, which, to paraphrase Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, is defined it as attempting to "overthrow the Father." That's why leftists hallucinate about "patriarchy" and the "oppression" of women.
None of it is about "equality." It's about destroying men. That is the nature of leftism and the Bad Feminine.
Of course, none of this will last. I'm curious as to what will as it collapses. I do know that with things this out of baalance that Eros, that is, love between men and women, will become harder and harder to find.
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-55070133611932704402014-10-06T08:43:00.001-04:002014-10-06T11:50:26.401-04:00The Most Accurate Psychological Theories I've EncounteredObject Relations Theory, which some wish had been called Personal Relations Theory, since that's what it's about. As far as I know, Hegel was the first one to articulate it.
The basics of it are common sense. As infants we "internalize" our parents as emotional, mostly unconscious "images," and those affect us for the rest of our lives. And we always seek satisfaction of our drives in relation to others. In other words, the intersection between nature and nurture.
Now imagine a world in which women denigrate men (feminism) and men denigrate women (quite a lot of the Manosphere). What happened to these kids growing up to create people like this?
"Splitting" refers to seeing yourself as good and the other as bad. Sometimes it refers to seeing yourself as bad as the other as good. It's the basis of narcissism.
So what happens to infants, both male and female, if, as is common today, the father is weak or missing, and single mothers are automatically incompetent? Or what happens if the parents treat the girl as if she is a princess (say lead her to believe she is invulnerable) and what happens if the boy is in the same way sheltered too much?
The research on these problems is extensive.
This article is from Wikipedia.
"Object relations theory in psychoanalytic psychology is the process of developing a psyche in relation to others in the environment during childhood. Based on psychodynamic theory, the object relations theory suggests that the way people relate to others and situations in their adult lives is shaped by family experiences during infancy. For example, an adult who experienced neglect or abuse in infancy would expect similar behavior from others who remind them of the neglectful or abusive person from their past (often a parent). These images of people and events turn into Objects in the subconscious that the person carries into adulthood, and they are used by the subconscious to predict people's behavior in their social relationships and interactions.
"Internal Objects are formed by the patterns emerging in one's repeated subjective experience of the caretaking environment, which may or may not be accurate representations of the actual, external others. In the theory, Objects are usually internalized images of one's mother, father, or primary caregiver, although they could also consist of parts of a person such as an infant relating to the breast or things in one's inner world (one's internalized image of others). Later experiences can reshape these early patterns, but Objects often continue to exert a strong influence throughout life. Objects are initially comprehended in the infant mind by their functions and are termed "part objects." The breast that feeds the hungry infant is the "good breast," while hungry infant that finds no breast is in relation to the "bad breast." With a good enough facilitating environment, part object functions eventually transform into a comprehension of whole objects. This corresponds with the ability to tolerate ambiguity, to see that both the "good" and the "bad" breast are a part of the same mother figure.
"Melanie Klein's work tends to be most commonly identified with the terms "object relations theory" and "British object relations," at least in contemporary North America, though the influence of 'what is known as the British independent perspective, which argued that the primary motivation of the child is object seeking rather than drive gratification', is becoming increasingly recognized. Klein felt that the psychodynamic battleground that Freud proposed occurs very early in life, during infancy. Furthermore its origins are different from those that Freud proposed. The interactions between infant and mother are so deep and intense that they form the focus of the infant's structure of drives. Some of these interactions provoke anger and frustration; others provoke strong emotions of dependence as the child begins to recognize the mother is more than a breast from which to feed. These reactions threaten to overwhelm the individuality of the infant. The way in which the infant resolves the conflict, Klein believed, is reflected in the adult's personality.
"Fairbairn took a radical departure from Freud by positing that humans were not seeking satisfaction of the drive, but actually seek the satisfaction that comes in relation to real others. Klein and Fairbairn were working along similar lines, but unlike Fairbairn, Klein always held that she was not departing from Freudian theory, but simply elaborating early developmental phenomena consistent with Freudian theory.
"Fairbairn revised much of Freud's model of the mind. He identified how people who were abused as children internalize that experience. Fairbairn's "moral defense" is the tendency seen in survivors of abuse to take all the bad upon themselves, each believing he is morally bad so his caretaker can be regarded as good. This is a use of splitting as a defense to maintain an attachment relationship in an unsafe world."
The entire Wikipedia article is HERE.
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-6797126160774732162014-10-05T09:10:00.001-04:002014-10-05T15:58:17.207-04:00"Castes of the United States"
Bill Pullman in Ruthless People lives in a trailer, has an aquarium, and has dark roots.

Many years ago I read a book by Paul Fussell titled Class. I vividly remember his description of one of the lower classes: lives in trailers and has aquariums. I had relatives who fit that exact description.
Before I go any further, I'll again point out the map is not the terrain: all these ideas and descriptions are ideas in our heads. They are not reality. They are always inaccurate and can always be refined.
He described the classes this way:
Top Out of Sight - Billionaires and multi-millionaires. The people so wealthy they can afford exclusive levels of privacy. We never hear about them because they don't want us to.
Upper Class - Millionaires, inherited wealth. Those who don't have to work. They refer to tuxes as "dinner jackets."
Upper Middle - Wealthy surgeons and lawyers, etc. Professionals who couldn't be described as middle class.
Middle Class - The great American majority, sort of.
High Proletarian (or "prole") - Skilled workers but manual labor. Electricians, plumbers, etc. Probably not familiar with the term "proletarian."
Middle Prole - Unskilled manual labor. Waitresses, painters.
Low Prole - Non-skilled of a lower level than mid prole. I suspect these people ask "Would you like fries with that, sir?" as a career.
Destitute - Working and non-working poor.
Bottom Out of Sight - Street people, the most destitute in society. "Out of sight" because they have no voice, influence or voter impact.
My parents were High Proletarian/Middle Class. Obviously, there are many on the margins.
Now it's try the castes that even many Americans know about:
Brahmins: priests, teachers and preachers. (This is the class to which I belong)
Kshatriyas: kings, governors, warriors and soldiers.
Vaishyas: cattle herders, agriculturists, businessmen, artisans and merchants.
 Shudras: laborers and service providers.
Dalits: criminals, beggars, parasite.
Here's the Manosphere classes, which are the least mature, the most inaccurate, and the most insecure, since all men fit in almost all of the classes (and those who claim they don't are adolescent liars - early adolescent, I'd say: mentally and emotionally about 12):
Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.
Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.
Beta: Betas are the good-looking guys who aren't as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy's friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women. Betas tend to genuinely like women and view them in a somewhat optimistic manner, but they don't have a lot of illusions about them either. Betas tend to be happy, secure in themselves, and are up for anything their alpha wants to do. When they marry, it is not infrequently to a woman who was one of the alpha's former girlfriends.
Lifetime sexual partners = 2-3x average.
Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can't attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league. This is ironic, because deltas would almost always be happier with their closest female equivalents. When a delta does manage to land a second-tier woman, he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her. In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them.
Lifetime sexual partners = 1-1.5x average
Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there... sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.
Lifetime voluntary sexual partners = .5x average
Omega: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They're not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone's mind to invite them in the first place. Omegas are either totally indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury.
Lifetime sexual partners < 2
Sigma: The outsider who doesn't play the social game and manage to win at it anyhow. The sigma is hated by alphas because sigmas are the only men who don't accept or at least acknowledge, however grudgingly, their social dominance. (NB: Alphas absolutely hate to be laughed at and a sigma can often enrage an alpha by doing nothing more than smiling at him.) Everyone else is vaguely confused by them. In a social situation, the sigma is the man who stops in briefly to say hello to a few friends accompanied by a Tier 1 girl that no one has ever seen before. Sigmas like women, but tend to be contemptuous of them. They are usually considered to be strange. Gammas often like to think they are sigmas, failing to understand that sigmas are not social rejects, they are at the top of the social hierarchy despite their refusal to play by its rules.
Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.
Lambda: Those men who have quite literally no interest in conventional male-female sexual relations. They clearly have their own hierarchy of sorts, but I can't say that I know much about it other than it appears to somehow involve youth, free weights, and mustaches.
Lifetime sexual partners = 10x average+
Unfortunately, the intellectual proles of the Manosphere will defend their delusions of classes with the fervor of fundamentalist lower-class Protestants...which I estimate is how most of them were raised (I can't imagine anyone of any upper-class persuasion babbling about "Alphas" and "Betas" and "plates" - and truly believing these things). And according to the definitions below, almost all denizens of the Manosphere are wannabe Dalits, which is why I hold them in such contempt. In other words, many of them are the vulgar lower classes.
There are sites which discuss classes, such is Unqualified Reservations.
"It's always fun to rethink the world by redefining our terminology. But the brain can only stand so much of this. The cerebrum boils, releasing green gas. The cortex starts to blacken and fray. A shocking, foreign pain arises between the ears. It will not go away.
"So it's a relief when there's a backup word, which already has exactly the right meaning, but is disused and carries no (or at least few) political and emotional associations. This word is "caste." The word it replaces is so encrusted in historical nonsense that I won't even say it.
"Of course the word 'caste' is generally associated with India. The U.S. is not India. So if we meant 'caste' in the precise Hindu sense of the word (varna), there are no castes in the U.S. except perhaps among some Indian immigrants.
"Some redefinition, therefore, is necessary. Let's define a 'caste' as a social group with its own internal status system. All hominids crave status and will exchange almost anything for it, but different castes assign status in very different ways - as we'll see.
"Here's my taxonomy of American castes. I've picked names from various historical cultures, hopefully without strong emotional associations for modern readers, for these castes. The implicit analogies these names create should be roughly accurate, but certainly not precise. I have ordered them alphabetically to avoid any implicit ranking.
"In the Brahmin caste, status among both men and women is defined by scholarly achievement, success in an intellectual profession, or position of civic responsibility. The highest-status Brahmins are artists and scientists, but Brahmins can also be doctors or lawyers, although it is much better to be a doctor than a lawyer, and much better to be a lawyer than a dentist (a trade which was perhaps once Brahmin, but is now definitely Vaisya). Ideally, as a Brahmin, if you are a doctor you should be primarily concerned with caring for the poor; if you are a lawyer, your practice should focus on civil liberties and social justice - cardiology and corporate law are slightly de trop. An increasing number of young Brahmins consider themselves 'activists' and work for 'nonprofits' or 'NGOs,' lending some credence to the theory that the Brahmins are our ruling or governing caste. Entry into the Brahmin caste is conferred almost entirely by first-tier university admissions, although getting into Harvard doesn't mean you don't still need to make something of yourself.
In the Dalit caste, status among men is defined by power, wealth and sexual success, among women by attractiveness and popularity. The favored occupation of Dalit men is crime, preferably of the organized variety. However, Dalit criminals are not generally psychopathic; they perceive crime as guerrilla warfare against an unjust society. Dalit women may support themselves by crime, welfare (which they consider a right), or payments from men. Both male and female Dalits may occasionally support themselves by conventional employment, but this is usually in jobs that other castes (except Helots) would consider demeaning, and Dalits share this association. The Dalit caste is not monolithic; it is divided into a number of ethnic subcastes, such as African-American, Mexican, etc. A few white Dalits exist, notably in the Appalachians. There is little or no solidarity between the various Dalit ethnicities.
The Helot caste is an imported peasant caste, originating primarily in rural Central America. Status among Helot men is conferred primarily by hard work, money and power. Status among Helot women is conferred by attractiveness, motherhood, and association with successful men. The Helot value system does not seem to be sustainable in the U.S., and the children of Helots tend to grow up as Dalits. New Helots, however, can always be imported to replace them.
The Optimate caste has to be mentioned, because it was until quite recently the U.S.'s ruling caste. It is not clear, however, that the Optimate value system still exists in any meaningful sense, and if it does it is decaying rapidly, with most young Optimates becoming Brahmins. However, status among any men and women who do still follow the Optimate way is conferred by birth, breeding and personal character, with wealth serving as a prerequisite but not a mark of actual distinction. The Bible of the Optimate caste is, of course, the Social Register.
The Vaisya caste is the most difficult to define. It's tempting to say that a Vaisya is anyone who is not a Brahmin, Dalit, Helot or Optimate. Status among Vaisya men is conferred by productive employment, generally defined in monetary terms; by a successful family life; and by participation in church or other formal social groups. Status among Vaisya women is conferred by attractiveness, motherhood, and social participation, with an increasing number of Vaisya women entering the labor force, typically in unintellectual white-collar jobs.
"(Update: please see the comment by "smb," whose perspective of the present-day Optimate caste is much sharper and clearer than my definition - which on reflection is too antiquated.)"
Here is the comment by SMB:
"I am, admittedly, a bit wet behind the ears—as I'm still a senior in college—but what I've seen amongst my social set doesn't align very well with your castes. To give some context, I'm at an Ivy; about a third of my friends went to boarding school, a third private/parochial, and a third went public, as did I; about a third was born 'upper class'. Two-thirds were born 'middle class' (widely defined), as was I. Altogether we could be defined as a mix of your Brahmin and Optimate classes.
"I agree with SFG regarding doctors: cardiology and neurology definitely rank above family practice. Re working with the poor: most doctors I know do pro bono work anyway, rather than dedicating their careers to the 'poor.' However, this profession is overall considerably less prestigious than I imagine it once was. Literally all of my friends who have a parent who is a physician were told, in no uncertain terms, that they should avoid the profession completely. Half of the students I know who began as pre-meds have decided against pursuing a medical career, many opting for consulting or investment-banking.
"As far as those who work at various NGOs and nonprofits: they're mostly considered ne'er-do-wells. They largely belong to the 'trustifarian' set—pseudo-bohemians who will never have to work, never appreciate not having to work, and certainly never suffer the consequences of not working. Granted, there are a good number of folks who work at non-profits and think tanks, who are seen as important parts of some political movement or another (but they will probably end up in politics, or going to business or law school).
"For men, banking and consulting are generally considered the jobs to aim for, if one is able to get them. Ambitious women have slightly expanded options: advertising/marketing, PR, auction houses, even teaching (though most of these jobs are considered a spot for women to cool their heels whilst waiting to find a husband; not that anyone dare come out and say so).
"If a fellow is ambitious, but unable to get into either finance or consulting or somesuch field, he will often go the NGO/non-profit route at first. (Another option is government service: CIA, State Dept., military, White House intern.) Down the road he'll apply to business school or law school and begin his career in earnest.
"It should be noted that the quality-of-life for corporate lawyers is considered so dismal that most of those who earn law degrees don't actually ever want to practice law. Those too greedy/ambitious for government service will become paralegals, go to top-notch law schools, and slave away as corporate lawyers for most of their salad days. The 'better' set of lawyers takes the degree and heads to Washington, often bouncing between lobbying, staffing, non-profit, bureaucratic sectors &c. These are the ones who will serve as all points in the iron triangle at some time during their lives.
"Re Steve: Professional athletes (and Hollywood types) are considered hopelessly vulgar.
"Now, regarding entrance into this hybrid Brahmin/Optimate class I've been speaking of:
"*Top-tier universities help, but aren't required. Haverford, Trinity, Bucknell will do.
"*Personal character is important. Breeding is not.
"*Wealth is not a prerequisite to this broader class.
"*Good manners are a prerequisite.
"I see vestiges of the Optimate system you propose. I certainly know guys who went to Buckley, Exeter, and then a top Ivy. But America's relentless push to meritocracy has made any presumption of themselves as a ruling class appear incurably rude—amongst themselves, too, not just to us middle class visigoths. After their hundreds of thousands worth of schooling are complete, they tend to strive on the same playing field as those who came from modest suburbs and went to public school.
"Granted, these viewpoints will not quickly be admitted by most of those my age. Most will pretend to deeply admire their friends who enter the peace corps or work at some anti-land mine NGO. Their actual employment decisions are far more telling: very few pick altruistic jobs or 'public service' as a first choice, but rather as last resorts.
"Also, I would say this view is accepted by roughly 80% of those my age, having studied at similar institutions. Half of those could vaguely be considered 'traditionalists.' They want to find good jobs, earn capital (monetary or political), and start families. The other half could be called 'neoliberals.' These are the ones who are simply ambitious and mostly want material success; they feel fewer personal obligations towards family and community; they love both consumerist capitalism and the welfare state.
"The remaining 20% could be called the hangover from the counter-culture. They sneer at most economically productive jobs, and invariably go for the NGO/Peace Corps jobs, or perhaps academe. They would disagree with everything I've written above, but probably admit that most of their fellow students see things more or less as I do."
I suggest you read all the comments at the site. They are quite enlightening.
Bob Wallacehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-17673948527071392902014-10-04T19:41:00.001-04:002014-10-04T20:23:35.556-04:00Fathers, Mothers, and Love"Maybe we just love the small pieces of ourselves that we find in others" -William C. Hanna
That's been my experience. We seek someone whom we have much in common, yet at the same time we seek someone to fill what we lack.
There is an old observation that men's attraction for women is based on their relationship with their mothers, and women's attraction for men is based on the relationship with their fathers. I've seen that, too.
If they have good relationships with the opposite parent, they generally have a good relationship with their significant others/spouses/boyfriends/girlfriends. If they don't have a good relationship with their parents, they often try to repeat the relationships to fix it.
Now what happens, as is so common today, the kids end up with a clueless/incompetent mother and weak/absent father? Voila! We have the Manosphere!
But it's often worse that. The quote from my last post? That the correct translation of "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" is "You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you"?
Notice that the woman is the first one at fault, just the way the woman is the first one at fault when the serpent (a symbol of envy) targets her pride and envy.
The means the first one to desire to dominate, to control, to want power, is the woman.
And who is the first one a baby boy encounters? His mother. And if she wants to dominate, control and manipulate him? And his father is absent or weak?
As an adult he'll have nothing but problems with women, and may end up hating and fearing them. I see these all the time in the Manosphere - the bizarre denigration of women, which is an envy-motivated attempt to take away the power their incompetent,clueless mothers had over them, and which still affects them.
I get lots of younger men trying to lecture me about the nonsense they read in the Manosphere - which they defend with the fervor of religious fanatics. And it's clear they have little experience with women.
Why the lack of experience? Those incompetent single mothers and weak fathers.

This scene is from Boogie Nights.
It's illustrates just about all you need to know about bad mothers and weak fathers.
When you have "images" inside of you of those kinds of parents, what does it do to you? And how hard is it to change them?
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-10661819505565979592014-10-04T11:13:00.000-04:002014-10-04T15:08:40.437-04:00It's Fallen Human Nature, Not Shit Tests, Not "Alphas""You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you." That's the real translation of "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." That's in Genesis, in the story of the Garden of Eden.
It points out what been noticed for a long time: you can have power or love, but you can't have both. And with fallen human nature - in Christianity called Original Sin - both sexes are affected in their relationships with each other.
This wisdom used to be taught. Not anymore.
In fact, society is now set up to encourage women's worst nature. I don't have to explain that, do I?
Women are far more of big children than men. It's why in the past society had found it was necessary to physically discipline women, which is why I make jokes about beating women once a day and twice on Sundays. Or that any man should be allowed to spank any woman if she thinks needs it.
These aren't shit tests women are doing. They don't exist, and certainly not in the sense of testing for "genetic fitness." That's pure hallucination.
But trying to assert power, domination and control over a man? Yeah, that's true for women. It's right there in the first story in the Bible.
And since the whole thing is a cybernetic feedback system (A affects B and then B affects A) - men respond to women's bad behavior with their own - hence the adolescent concept of "Alpha," "plates," "women are loveless hypergamous whores" - the whole bit.
Weak men, just like weak women, desire power, domination and control over others, too. That in fact is what a narcissist/psychopath is, which is why the first accepted definition of an "Alpha" fit almost exactly the definition of a psychopath. (Roissy and Vox Day couldn't figure this out, and seemed to think this childish behavior was an admirable thing).
All these modern problems are the result of ignoring - or not knowing - ancient wisdom. And what we have today is very far from being an accurate restatement of it
By the way, "confidence," which the Manosphere obsesses over, is an integral part of the Four Cardinal Virtues, which were first written down, oh, about 2500 years ago.
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-42421685697720707482014-10-04T06:44:00.000-04:002014-10-04T06:44:03.719-04:00"It's Time We Sent All Short Men To The Gas Chambers""Anne Gus" is clearly a man writing satire. The style is masculine.
He does have a point, and it's a big one. I stare mystified and in awe at fat women who claim they have "curves," who wear clothes way too tight, who claim every kind of "discrimination" under the sun, who think they should get guys way out of their league and get offended when they don't...and yet many of them do have the attitude that short men should just disappear.
I have a short friend from college and the shit he told me - stood up on dates, had girls leave in the middle of dates, insulted when he asked them to dance, had to endure very obvious looks of disappointment. It's amazing he didn't go all Elliot Rodgers on their asses.
I remember one time he and I walked into a convenience store and the clerk was all over me. She didn't even look at him or acknowledge his presence. I remember thinking, "Has it occurred to you at all that you might not stand a chance with me unless you recognize my friend standing here next to me?"
This is from Thought Catalog.
 "For thousands of years women have had to endure crippling beauty standards by the media, magazines, and the objectifying male gaze. There's so much pressure to be skinny, blonde, have long legs, have blue eyes, have big boobs, and be super pretty—I guess you could say there's a pressure to look kinda like me #lol.
"Women are suffering every day from unrealistic beauty standards, and it's fucking ruining the lives of women everywhere. I'm so fucking over it, men are so fucking shallow, and their shallowness is causing an epidemic of low self of steam among young women.
"Men are always saying 'No fat girls.' Don't they realize how sexist this is? Are you really judging a woman on what she looks like—and her size, at that? It doesn't matter whether she is 100 pounds or 350—all women are beautiful NO. MATTER.WHAT.
"This has got to stop—and I think I have the solution—a final solution.
"The group of men that seems to have the biggest chip on their shoulder and who are the most critical of women are none other than short men (uggghhh)(yuck).
"Short men are literally the scum of the Earth. They're not real men. Like, any man who says a "5" at the beginning of his height is dead to me, literally, like, do they even deserve to be called human beings?
"I always see short ass men (manlets) strutting around the streets with suits on, and I like, laugh my ass off—you're 5'7" and you have the nerve to go around acting confident? #LMAO. It's like seeing a toddler in daddy's suit. Short "men" are pretending to be real men. If I were a short man I'd be so ashamed I'd never leave the house, cuz people get pissed off just from looking at you. When you think about it, men under 6 feet shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, I swear—short guys should seriously be illegal.
"Every time I see a short man, I think to myself, like what's the purpose of men under 6 feet? Like why are you even on Earth? The worst is when they try to talk to me and my girlfriends, like, ughhh, you're half my size, what the fuck are you thinking? Do I look like I'm into midget sex to you?
"Being a tall girl (I'm 5'8"), it's an insult when guys who're like 5'10" think they have a shot with me, cuz like I really, really like wearing heels and if I got together with gnomes like that, I'd tower over them and that'd make me feel really insecure.
"I used to be really into Daniel Radcliffe, the guy who plays Harry Potter, but when I learned he was like, 5'5", I puked a little in my mouth. I'm not sure if he could attract me again even if he got leg-lengthening surgery, because he would still have that shitty Napoleon Complex that all short men have. I'm sure you've all noticed that short men always feel like they have to overcompensate for being like, genetic failures, and this is so comical to see their little bodies being all aggressive.
"I've got a plan to put short men out of their misery so we won't have to bear the sight of them. Like this might be a little harsh (#lol #naughtygirl), but I think we should do what Hitler did to the Jews with short men—gas them. I mean, like now you may be thinking like, "But Anne, they're humans too, they deserve to be alive," but like, are they, though? Human, I mean. I'd say they're not. Most women look at them more like a pest, and what do you do with pests? That's right—you gas them.
"It'd clear up so much space—or not that much space actually, cuz they're tiny—but still, short men are a waste of any space they take up. Women wouldn't have to constantly feel visually insulted or preyed upon by Hobbits. The world would be a much better place. I'm sure short men would appreciate it, too, to just have it all end. The world would be a much better place if short men just disappeared forever.
"I'm ashamed to admit this, but I've been with a short man once, and I promise he was the only short man I've ever, like, talked to. He was this super douche that had really cool tattoos and was super aggressive and he made my panty-muffin tingle by some miracle. Somehow, despite his inferior height (5'8"), he managed to get me in bed, and I was super into him. Then we had sex for a few months, and I was like falling in love with him and stuff, but then it turned out he was sleeping with many other girls and that I was just a side chick. To this day I…FUCK YOU JACOB, YOU SAID I WAS YOUR WORLD, YOU SAID YOU LOVED ME, I FUCKING LOVED YOU, YOU MIDGET SHORT ASS MAN. I FUCKING HATE YOU…so, yeah, anyway, he was a typical short man, you just can't trust them. It was a HUUUUGE mistake to get involved with one. I am ashamed and disgusted that I let that Goblin put his ding-dong anywhere near my Lollipop Lair.
"So, yeah—short men are no good, they're bad news, that's what I'm trying to say in case you hadn't noticed. It's time we, as a society, stand up tall and say NO to the Short Man (#Oxymoronalert). It's time for the Final Solution. It's time the menace is exterminated. Let us free the world from Halflings. They're holding our species' development back and they're perpetuating unrealistic beauty standards for women. Short men: Off to the gas chambers ye go.
"Show this to any guy you know who's under 6 feet tall to make sure he's not wanted. Also, spread the word with this hashtag on Twitter #GasShortMen. Remember, it's not murder if it's short men; it's…cleansing."
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-16415960102379445712014-10-03T18:45:00.002-04:002014-10-03T19:20:52.656-04:00 Polygamous Societies Bring Everything Bad and Nothing GoodLet's apply Pareto's 80/20 law to men and women: 20% of the men get 80% of the women and 80% of the men get 20% of the women. This is why monogamy works to support civilized society and polygamous societies aren't worth living in.
I've had people tell me polygamy is coming to the U.S. and sooner or later will be made legal. That's not going to happen. Any man who would want to put up with six wives is nuts.
The only way polygamy would work is to crush women utterly. Few rights, keep them sequestered inside, no employment. No backtalk or a whap across the mouth - and the law would have to support this.
Researcher have found that polygamous marriage in a culture leads to higher levels of crime, violence, poverty, and gender inequality. It's because the intrasexual competition for wives. Monogamy creates far fewer social problems than polygamy.
This is what studies of monogamous and polygamous cultures have found: "Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny," says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.
"The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny -- wealthy, powerful men -- were best positioned to reject it," says Henrich, lead author of the study that was recently published in the journal "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society." "Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies."
The most comprehensive studies have found significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. These crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives. These studies have also found monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict.
Then let's factor in some of the more psycho unmarried men are going to murder the men who have all the women. That 20% are going to have to watch their backs all the backs. Hence, the society would probably be totalitarian.
Here's something else to consider: polyandry is one woman with more than one man. That, in many cases, is what we have today. Many women marry the State (one "man") and then marry an actual, corporeal man (and sometimes engage in serial monogamy). This happens when the government favors women over men.
Now just look around and see how that is working out.
We can see the effects of polyandry - deluded single mothers who believe they can make it on their own, their children who turn into "failure to launch" adults, the destruction of marriage, young men without decent jobs, women turning into sluts who blame all their problems on men...do I need to go on? A little bit, I suppose. Men either fight or withdraw.
These results are what happens with the destruction of "patriarchy."
These things are what happens when monogamy goes away: either women crushed by men or men crushed by women. Right now we've got the second, and the problems are easy to see for anyone with one eyeball open.
 Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-25638540256618960922014-10-03T13:36:00.001-04:002014-10-03T14:18:58.229-04:00Yay for Ebola!First of all, I have a smallpox vaccination scar on my left bicep. Many of you don't.
I'm sorry about the people who have died from Ebola, but then, many Africans aren't the cleanest people and believe in witchcraft. We can't do anything about that (both HIV and Ebola are from Africa.)
And I'm sorry for the foolish Americans who went to Africa and got it.
But what it has done is bring to awareness that we don't need any immigrants from the Third World. None.
They have not brought anything useful to the U.S., just death, destruction, drunk driving, rape, theft, murder - and disease.
Of course, court-jester economists have lied through their teeth, trying to convince us these people are a benefit.
Finally, Americans just might be waking up to the fact that these people don't belong here, and will do nothing but destroy our country.
 Let's see how the open borders whackos spin this one. While their scratching their Third World bedbugs and wondering if their cough might be tuberculous. And I've got - what? - smallpox? Bubonic plague? I thought those were eradicated!

Bob Wallacehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-87124042038804532842014-10-03T09:45:00.002-04:002014-10-03T11:58:46.504-04:00"What Happens When All The Police In A Town Are Removed"

"Unnecessary laws are but traps for money." - Thomas Hobbes.
I have been of the opinion for many years that the police mostly exist to steal your money. Traffic tickets, for example. There is no evidence whatsoever they contribute to safety.
Everyone knows about speed traps.
I used to live in Illinois. There was a "city" there called National City. It consisted of nothing but trailers. I doubt there were 100 people. The "police" ran a speed trap that got international attention.
The state of Illinois closed the city down and bulldozed it. It no longer exists. Now it's just a field. Such "police" should go to prison.
If I hit someone's car and damage it, I owe them. That's why I have insurance. I don't owe the government, and the police, prosecutor and judges. If they say I do, they are liars and thieves.
If you got rid of all police (detectives are okay) and armed all the people, crime would drop 90%.
Law is not created. It is discovered, like the laws of physics.
I strongly advise you to buy the book above, by Richard Maybury, It is one of those essential books that I unreservedly recommend.
It's about the difference between made-up law and discovered law.
Those old "Wanted: Dead or Alive" posters? If a person damaged someone, and would not make restitution, they were declared an "outlaw" - they were outside the law. You could kill them to get the bounty, or even enslave them for profit.
Here's an example. Let's say you have some drunken illegal immigrant who totals someone's brand-new $25,000 car. If they have no insurance, and won't pay, he is declared and outlaw - you can kill him for the bounty, or capture him and sell him into slavery - say an prison that uses his labor to pay back the $25,000 to the injured party, $20,000 to the bounty hunter, then has to continue as an imprisoned slave until he pays back his room and board at the prison, then some more time until the place makes a profit off of him. Say he end up serving life - all because he didn't pay what he owned to the person whose car he destroyed.
Or perhaps it would just be easier and more profitable up chop him up and sell his organs. How much would that be? A hundred grand?
How many people would not carry insurance, or try to run and either end up dead or a life-long slave?
Instead these days they end up with three or four drunken-driving convictions, and often don't end up in prison until they kill someone - perhaps a child.
And if the bounty hunter got the wrong person? Then he was a outlaw. By the way, how often does anything happen to the police who kill an innocent person? Wouldn't it be justice if such "police" were declared outlaws?
Which system is better?
The following article is from the Dollar Violante and written by Jeff Berwick.

"It all started over a month ago, right here in Acapulco, Mexico, when I commented to a good friend, 'Have you noticed how much better traffic has been lately?'
"He responded, 'Yes, traffic flow has been so much better... it's because the Transit Police went on strike.'.
"It turned out that was the case. The Transit Police in Acapulco had went on strike and all of a sudden many local residents were noticing how much better traffic, which can get to gridlock levels during peak holiday periods, had become.
"Weeks went on and you could tell that almost everybody had become aware of the lack of transit police and no one was adhering to red lights if there wasn't any oncoming traffic. The majority of people began treating red lights like a 'yield' sign. They'd slow down, check that no cars were coming, and if there weren't, they'd just roll through the red light instead of sitting there for a minute or two, as traffic backed up behind them.
"But, it got even better. The municipal police also then went on strike... and no one noticed.
"I mentioned to my friend how much everything has been so much better in Acapulco for the last few months and said people just seem happier and I assumed it was just because traffic was flowing so much better. He then said, 'Actually, the municipal police are on strike now too... so people are probably just a lot happier in general because there isn't really anyone around to bother them.'
"And then it got even better, this week, when the Mexican military decided to take away all the guns from the municipal police - who are still on strike!
"Now, the transit and municipal police, faced with a very happy public and having been disarmed are protesting for the government to let them come back to 'work'! The public in general is apathetic to it all with the vast majority of people not caring too much if they ever come back to work or not!
"Has there been any noticeable increase of violent crime in the meantime? No, not at all. While the main tourist areas of Acapulco are almost always completely peaceful there has been no change that I can see on the street other than people seem a bit happier than usual.
ANARCHAPULCO
"This is just one of many reasons why I love Acapulco. Even when the police are working most of them are playing cards or drinking beer. The transit police do try to extort people for money from time to time (usually around $10) if they catch them breaking some arbitrary law like going through a red light but even that is quite rare. People here just don't put up with the police and certainly don't expect them to protect them. People down in southern Mexico protect themselves.
"And, even in the rare case that a certain band of young criminals have been terrorizing a neighborhood and stealing from stores it is almost always the cartels who come in to find the perpetrators... even sometimes setting up a checkpoint in the area when on the look-out for someone who has been causing problems in the community. And when the cartels find the abuser justice is usually swift... that person is never seen again.
"It's almost anarchy and that's why I spend so much time here. It is by far the most anarchic big city in North America and life is so enjoyable. There are no closing times for bars and restaurants, no legislated and enforced laws on smoking or drinking, no speed limits that are enforced... and currently nothing is enforced and the city is tranquil and eminently enjoyable.
"For this reason we'll soon be officially announcing Anarchapulco. It will be a freedom conference and festival held right on the beach. We've already opened up early bird pre-registrations and the amount of interest has been incredible. You can check out the site at Anarchapulco.com to see just a small part of what we've already got lined up. And, we'll be announcing new speakers and artists nearly weekly (sign up to receive updates at Anarchapulco.com or like the Anarchapulco Facebook page to be kept up to date).
"Who knows, perhaps by February 27th, when the conference begins, there will still be no traffic or municipal police and you'll get an opportunity to see what a town without government police looks like and how it functions.
"Here's a hint: It's eminently better!
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-38190173204571462602014-10-02T21:11:00.000-04:002014-10-03T10:01:51.031-04:00I Pay Taxes for This?I recently read an article about a "Somali-American" who got 30 years in prison after thinking he was setting off a bomb to murder possibly hundreds of Americans in a Christmas bomb plot. It was FBI sting operation, so the bomb didn't go off.
He said he was hoping to kill a lot of children.
I'm paying taxes to let these POS potential murderers in my country? I'm paying for bombs to be set off?
And now I'm paying to have him incarcerated for 30 years?
 I'm also paying for "Major" Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered 13 people and wounded 32 others, to be incarcerated. And I paid for his military training?
And I'm paying all for the welfare for Third World trash screwing up my country - to murder, to rape, to steal?
And, of course, I'm paying for the American Empire to murder hundreds of thousands of people on the other side of the world, in hopes of imposing the leftist lunacy of "democracy" on them? The only thing that's going to do is make more America-hating enemies.
The strangest thing about it is that we are paying these people to kill us. Sooner or later, some of those people we've imported are going to succeed.
If they do, there will be a backlash against them - and the government will ultimately find that is helpless to do anything about it.
After all, when it comes right down to it, people can be policed only to the extent they want to be policed.
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497093028548856666.post-62563922300828290282014-10-02T13:25:00.000-04:002014-10-02T16:04:08.134-04:00"You're Not Good Enough for Me""...the typical feminist biases. Men are the ones that are the source of all sin in the world and women are just innocent victims." - the Society of Phineas
One of the major complaints in the Manosphere is the attitude of many women that the men aren't good enough for them. You know - "Where have all the good men gone?" Or that they're invisible to women.
I've actually seen pudgy, thick-featured, not-very-bright women hit on guys way out their league, and who were outraged when they didn't respond.
As if my wont, I apply the Seven Deadly Sins to things. And as I've mentioned before, women's greatest sins are pride and envy. It's right there in the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis.
Many women have too much pride and overvalue themselves ("Real women have curves," meaning fat) and they also want to drag men down (feminism is based on the envy of men). Pride and envy.
Again, Carl Jung noticed women's greatest flaw is thinking they are always right and men are always wrong. That's pride.
So women have two contradictory impulses: such is their excessive pride they want perfect men, yet at the same time they want to drag them down. It's an impossible, contradictory situation, one that cannot be reconciled. Most women don't even realize this.
The opposite of pride is humility, which is why there exists that story, King Roughbeard.
And the opposite of envy? Kindness. The components of it? Satisfaction, loyalty, compassion, integrity. As Wikipedia puts it: "Charity, compassion and friendship for its own sake. Empathy and trust without prejudice or resentment. Unselfish love and voluntary kindness without bias or spite. Having positive outlooks and cheerful demeanor; to inspire kindness in others."
How about appreciation and gratitude?
A lot of women don't want to hear that, though.
Bob Wallacehttp://email@example.com