One small change to the Declaration, no big deal

I propose a small change to the Declaration of Independence in order to help out the vibrant people in today’s world. Real small, no big deal.

Change the following:

“Life” which represents freedom to exist, free to inhabit earth without being productive or earning, without taxation on existence.

This needs to be changed to “Pro-choice”, because having the ability to choose the importance of things is more valuable than life. Especially choosing when to be moral, when not to. When to think of children as a burden, when to think of them as a blessing. When to think of a man as a loser, when to think of him as a husband. We people of the 21st century reserve the right to be fickle and to change our minds when the morality suits us.

“Liberty” which represents freedom from onerous taxation, ability to think freely and speak freely, permanent rejection of the conditions that lead to indentured servitude, slavery, monarchy.

This needs to be changed to ‘Equality’ because equality is simply a more important idea than liberty. Besides, liberty is much too controversial a subject if it ‘micro-aggresses’ toward providing true equality.

“The Pursuit of Happiness” which represents the ability to change circumstances away from tyranny and imposition on the soul. This also represents freedom to personally decide and declare oneself happy, or to change our pursuits to fit our subjective decisions what will make us happy.

This needs to be changed to “The Pursuit of Ignorance” because men function much better when they are unconcerned with things like sexual baggage, old dysfunctional relationships, old ‘exciting’ approaches to life. Also better not to think about what makes strong community, or to think about civil rights. It’s better to simply never know what to think about these things. Much easier to take them as coda. Women and minorities find you much more agreeable when you can prove you are ‘innocent’ of racism or sexism by being truly ‘innocent’, or ‘ignorant’ or ‘naive,’ much like a small child.

In conclusion, the summary is:

Change “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” to “Pro-choice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Ignorance.”

Thanks, that shouldn’t be too much of an inconvenience. No big deal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

More on the middle class ideology

Cross posted from a Rooshvforum thread.

The pursuit of sex and the pursuit of the middle class are different things.

Being productive, upstanding, honest, clean, intelligent, clear-minded, thoughtful, etc. are purely middle class ideals.

You recognize that sex in the middle class has “strings attached” to sex. “Be clean, productive, upstanding, etc. and society will reward you.” (Think about this next time you hear a girl preach about wanting ‘no strings attached’ sex)

This meritocratic ideal is what indicates a stable middle class, and the reward is money, sex, companionship, security, love, and peace.

Without adherence to codes of conduct, the middle class devolves. The result is an upper class and everyone else (aka the lower class). The upper class can afford all of these things by buying access to them. The lower class thinks its a dog-eat-dog hustle to become upper class.

You happen to live in a time of a devolving middle class.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Thomas Jefferson on Debt

To present this in another point of view, suppose Louis XV. and his cotemporary generation, had said to the money lenders of Holland, give us money, that we may eat, drink, and be merry in our day; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end of thirty-four years, you shall then, forever after, receive an annual interest of fifteen per cent. The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the people, eaten, drunk and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth and of their labor, to replace their dissipations? Not at all.

-Thomas Jefferson letter to James Madison, September 6, 1789


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A soul defined by sex

First, a word on conservatism.

If you can avoid the ad hominem associations of the word, you would see that the root of conservatism is to ‘conserve,’ defined simply as taking something that you currently have an abundance of, and saving it for the day when you do not have as much. When a conservative person lives this as an ideology, instead of simple weights and balances of material resources, he begins to treat perception and opinion in much the same way.

Instead of bags of grains stored in a barn, consider that a conservative stores pieces of his identity. Is a conservative person a Christian? Is he a family man? Is he an entrepreneur? Is he a father? How about a buddy, comrade, gang member, club member, frat brother? A lover?

Each occupation listed above has incredibly profound implications as to the public’s perception of him as a person. For example, if a Christian man deviates much too far into the frat brother side of his personality, the trajectory of his life could change greatly. He could face social pressures, both positive and negative. He could be hated. Imagine the mother who penalizes a father for being an entrepreneur and a family man, spending too much time in the office. Imagine the lover who neglects his friends. On the other hand, imagine the family man who successfully balances family life and business. Imagine the friend who regularly incorporates his friends in his passions.

The beauty of being a conservative is that a conservative person mentally grants that he will only ever be given a part of the other person’s soul, and is agreeable with that. A conservative will never have a passion or a defining thing; to do so admits that he has spent all the currency of his reputation and has failed to ‘conserve’. How often does the public grant an aging rock star the freedom to be a family man? How often does the high-powered lawyer woman feel the freedom to put her career aside? Hopefully you see that some of the most pressing liberal scenarios in today’s world- which they have no answer for- can be answered.

If I digress for a moment, I personally believe that women will never be able to grant that kind of agency to a man, because women need him to perform all his assigned and self interested roles without fail. It is due to the woman understanding her value and her obligation to scrutinize in choosing the best man, especially not a man who would claim failure or defeat in his responsibilities. If she marries a lawyer, she implicitly expects him to have conserved parts of himself for their union; the roles of husband, father, neighborhood leader. Etc. The 50 hour a week lawyer is bound for a divorce.

Now to speak to homosexuality.

As I have made the case, a conservative man carefully conserves and allocates parts of himself into his conceptual whole, never wholly defined or enclosed. The homosexual has chosen the exact opposite route. On a conceptual level, homosexuality is not about embracing the male-male relationship; it is about embracing the homogenization of all parts of his nature into one concept. It is a desire to be defined by one concept alone, and that concept is defined by sex with another man.

I believe that men instinctively do not agree with homosexuality because of the desire homogenize all roles and perceptions into that of homosexuality. Any task becomes a hypersensitive arbitration of the responsibilities, the players, the observers: do I look gay enough doing this? Does this make me look like I don’t care about gay/fem/etc rights? What will people think of me doing this task? Will I lose credibility for my personality for doing this? Do people think this is x,y,z? Everything becomes subservient to the homosexual characterization.

A conservative saves some part of himself for different scenarios, no matter how small or remote the possibility. Take a homosexual parent with an adopted child. If the child is respected as an autonomous individual who desires to take on multiple roles in society, the child will want to know how to handle a variety of issues. For example:

-Dad, how does a guy devote time to getting a girlfriend?
-How do I get a career, and be respected?
-How do I befriend a circle of friends?

or, more innocently random questions like

-Dad, do girls like auto mechanics?
-Dad, do you think I should join a team of soccer players?
-Dad, can office workers get girls too?

A gay man simply will not be able to answer any of these without making their response align with some coda or platitude regarding homosexuality (or any associated interest, fem, lez, trans, etc). It is an ideological impossibility for a homosexual to compartmentalize different social roles.

The homogeneity affords little room for platonic relationships with heterosexuals. Every act becomes a ‘micro aggression’ liable to scrutiny: was that a gay-acceptable action? Was that pro gay? A curious thing happens because of this. Under this constant scrutiny, the homosexual forgets that the actions of others are neither pro-gay or against gay; they are simply pro-individual acts of self interest. Homosexuality sees these acts of self interest as hostile to homosexuality, simply for not including homosexuality as part of a normal person’s self interest. The slippery slope is that self interest and human agency is made pathological for refusal to concern itself with homosexuality.

It is with no surprise that since the 60s revolution, society has struggled to give people the freedom for that one passion, one thing that ‘really defines me.’ Is it any surprise that the next iteration of society would include a group of men who have encountered a viable way to declare themselves under the banner of one thing that really defines them, a la homosexuality? When men stop believing that they need to save some of themself for multiple roles, and instead choose to fling themselves wholeheartedly into one pursuit, the dysfunction awaits.

A Navy SEAL learns to shoot a rifle, parachute from an airplane, build explosives, SCUBA dive, lead militia, hike, backpack, drive multiple types of vehicles, and a variety of other tasks. The moniker of being a SEAL is respected because of the successful compartmentalization of many jobs into that one title (you can even see this in the acronym: SEa Air Land) I guarantee that the SEALs are conservative, because they will need to conserve a little bit of themselves to push the mission forward, achieve the objective, and will have conserved a last little piece of themselves to remind that they are still fathers, friends, and human beings.

Will homosexuality find the humanity to leave no role untouched by the desire for gay-friendly compliance?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Managerial Ring Leaders: Google

The concept of a ‘managerial class’ is floating around the internet, suggesting that the future aristocracy will be comprised of the management layer of society: bankers, hedge fund managers, CEOs, etc. Indirectly, the ilk of Google, Bing, etc. are thrown in the ring for reasons not immediately apparent. Lets analyze.

Consider the tongue-in-cheek first grade understanding of entrepreneurship:

Step 1: Have idea.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit.

And right off the bat, the most successful modern companies break the mold. Its confusing to look at Google or Facebook or Amazon as being highly valued companies, since they don’t profit. What gives? Here are four possibilities:

1. Company not looking for profit

Assuming a company has a completely philanthropic mission is a valid assumption, and Google seems to reflect this partly by creating applications and services for free use for the betterment of society (think Google Maps, Labs, etc.) Also, it is valid to assume the nerds and geeks working for Google do so out of a sense of open-source like sentiment, for the betterment of technology as a whole. However, not looking for a profit makes it hard to estimate exactly how many services you can provide. Hypothetically, for ten dollars I can program you a calculator app. For ten thousand dollars I can program you an image browser. For ten million dollars I can program you a Google Maps. For ten billion dollars I can program you a ……you get my point. The mission becomes wide open. Profit tells you exactly where the market values you. So I will reject #1 as representative of Google.


2. Company concealing how it profits

Like any swindler or Ponzi scheme, a company can always conceal how it profits behind curtains of confusion and complexity. I doubt this is Google’s modus operandi because they publish all of their code to evaluate, their public earnings, etc. So #2  is rejected.


3. Profitting off of shit, embarassing

Cleaning shit out of toilets isn’t fun. But import enough low wage, low status losers, put a mop in their hands, and soon you have an empire built on shit. Try discussing this around the cocktail table and you sound like a right bastard. This is only an analogy, but we are getting warmer to Google’s strategy. Advertisement is a typically shitty way to earn revenue, and Google does it. Throwing up ads that are so distracting that your patrons have epileptic seizures, selling out your morals and giving any scumbag a platform to hawk his wares, all  to make a buck. Google dips its toes in this under the guise of AdSense, or giving retailers nice statistic analysis by placing ads all over the pages. Its a philanthropic wrapper with a shit delivery. Consider that Facebook needs to read your messages and search terms to give you ‘personalized’ ads; any normal person starts to realize this is aspergy and creepy. Search for a magnum tampon and soon you will be shown ads for Vagi-clean. It happens, so this is a valid assumption for Google’s profit model. However, they explicitly reject the idea of being labelled as a ‘search engine based on advertiser revenue.’ So what gives?


4. Profit isn’t important

By process of elimination, this is the most interesting and most valid assumption. Rejecting profit as the objective of work and business is a novel idea. How is it even possible to defy the traditional business model? What is happening to the market?

By deduction, I have reduced Google’s motive to show that they are not interested in profit, so now I will give my theory. It is the opinion of others that the new valuation in this economy is being the manager. To rephrase this for Google: the company is more concerned with their valuation than actually producing value.

Google is now the second most valued company, and ironically is competing with an oil company and an iPhone company. Exxon has oil, Apple has iPhones, Google has….data? Apple is the number one most valued US company, and has the iPhone, iMac, iPod, iTunes, iPad, App Store, etc. These are all tangible products. Google has….the Google phone? Please.

If the Baby Boomer generation stole the wealth of generations for their coffers, it makes sense that the biggest companies don’t actually hold the most wealth. It makes sense that the biggest companies are chasing the respect and valuation of those who do have generations of wealth. And for Google, that means looking really cool so they get paid for it.

The managerial class has sidled up to the Boomers to ‘manage’ their money, ultimately boiling down to ‘lots of fun for us to do this “hard” job.’



Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment



I wish to call your attention to two links today:

Face to Face (previously Dusk in Autumn)

The Limits of Human Scale (post #5)


The first link is a blog in which the author tracks the cycles of violence over time, and the distinct differences that the human condition experiences in falling crime periods versus rising crime periods.

The second link is a thread at My Posting Career. The thread is an appeal to reverse the tide of globalism by a return to smaller, regional political units. The practical benefits of doing so are described within.

Feel free to read in depth at both sites, so that you trust I am not crazy when I admit the following deduction:

Violence is noticeably declining from the modern world. The modern world is also becoming more centralized. Therefore, to achieve decentralization as described by ‘The Limits of Human Scale,’ it is necessary to reintroduce violence to society.

If you read through the second link, the author describes a ‘who’ ‘what’ ‘when’ ‘where’ ‘why’ but never a ‘how’ to create small decentralized political units-short of using force of law to do so. But to suggest that rule of law will ever move toward a decentralized system is fantasy and contradicts the ‘progressive’ nature of government and technology.

If you read through the first link, you will grasp that violence makes men react on a primal level, an unconscious move to form tribal bonds. Men drop the neurotic strive for status and instead mobilize into what has been described as comrades, brotherhood, family, etc. At the peak of a crime wave, anecdotal evidence shows that men internalize their trust in each other. The trust allows for men to have the confidence to establish many roles of leadership, much more than in safe times. The reason is because of the internalized trust in other men, and the trust that they have collectively put aside status striving.

The sum of these two blogs make it obvious men will not be motivated, coerced, ordered, or shamed into thinking of themselves as independent leaders. Men can only achieve that by testing themselves, succeeding, and watching fellow men undergo the same testing. Hence, the introduction of violence.


I will digress a moment and invite you to consider the popular concept of Game. The very fact that it is identified as Game is telling: treating intersex relationships as a game has the potential to benefit men. Like a sporting event, gamesmanship opens up unintended avenues for winning – at the cost of sportsmanship.

Game distills into sex for the sake of sex, or in other words, having multiple experiences with many women will eventually change a man into an uncaring, aloof master of women. And the reason a man would want to become an aloof master of women is…… to obtain more women. Sex for the sake of sex.

The curious phenomenon of Game is that all the actions you commit for the sake of Game are an attempt to reform the biological responses that men have in the face of beautiful women. The actions are not traditional attempts at wrestling status from other men, or by earning resources and money to attract women; Game only recycles these as applied to  ‘inner game’, ‘self mastery’, and so on.


Now apply the same Game concept to violence, or violence for the sake of violence. Fight Club recognized the phenomenon. Two men fight for no apparent outcome; not an attempt to wrestle status, nor an attempt to procure more resources. The desire to fight was to reform the internal biological composition of the man as a survivor, and the spiritual/psychological application to the man’s personality. Fighting for the sake of fighting.

How else do men learn to lead men, when they cannot say that they are tested to be stronger than the subordinate?

The modern response is to elevate the more intelligent men to positions of leadership. If you haven’t noticed, intelligence has quickly devolved to the mimicry of intelligence, or psychosis.


To summarize: while the world moves toward progressive organization across borders, the way to artificially stunt this movement is to introduce violence to the system. Game has set the foundation for men to generally comprehend the application of gamesmanship, and it will be natural to tinker with the concept to create a system of violence for the sake of violence. By doing so, men can consciously move the system in a direction that progressivism cannot accommodate.

As a postscript, this is not advocating terrorism, sucker punching, or other cowardly acts. This is simply recognition of the effectiveness of organized or institutionalized violence in the hands of citizens.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I Own

Maybe I am too old fashioned conservative (despite being in my 20s), but I think when the creators of the United States set stuff down in ink, they had an idea about what it took to combat the forces aligned against their ideal of freedom. They chose the wording of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property to blanket the ideals that would influence the mission statement and purpose of the USA.  If you start at John Locke, origin of the phrase ‘L,L,PoH’, he asserts that these are inseparable from human existence and one of the key handshakes men make to respect each other and therefore become civilized.

In today’s world, do we have the right to life, liberty, and property? How about personal ownership, which assuredly pissed off the barons, lords, and aristocrats of the day?

In today’s world, the pursuit of property becomes a literal pursuit of paying for what you already own. The credentials you ‘earn’ for your name are not owned, but rented for a fee. See the ground under your feet? Pay a hefty sum up front under the guise of ownership, then begin routine payments to the government. If you stop pleasing your wife (with payments of resources) prepare for the government to come in help themselves to what you own. Your license to practice? Pay dues, else lose it.

I keep having a recurring dream of ideals. If you truly owned the property you stood on, it becomes an unshakeable rock. Were you to ever experience hard times, your property still affords you an existence attached to your identity. Without it, property lost in hard times makes you a vagrant, a nomad, who blows in the wind at the whim of society.

If you truly owned the credentials you achieve, it becomes impossible to separate from your identity. It destroys the power monoply of majority rule, especially the association of professionalism with private organizations. The power of the credential disperses to the individual.

If you truly owned your marriage license, as if the power to marry was not granted by the state, but by the resources you own (or, dare I say, the divine power), it destroys the power monopoly currently ruining the value of marriage.

The ideals of todays world are papier mache replacements for the real thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Everything you need to know about Japan’s population crisis

Cross post at Rooshvforum.

Article at The Week.

The Japanese now have one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, and at the same time, one of the highest longevity rates. As a result, the population is dropping rapidly, and becoming increasingly weighted toward older people.

Without a dramatic change in either the birthrate or its restrictive immigration policies, Japan simply won’t have enough workers to support its retirees, and will enter a demographic death spiral.

Notice that the article points out two ways to reverse the baby decline in Japan:
1. Change the Birthrate
2. Loosen the restrictive immigration policies.

Number one is not actually proposing any solution. It’s like saying “we need to rescue the survivors of a sinking ship,” and when you ask “How are we going to rescue them” the response is “by rescuing the survivors. Duh.”

Number two is progressive boilerplate. How does adding foreigners to the population save the Japanese people? Maybe if this is a proposal to import Thai hookers to marry off with the men, i get it.

A better solution would be: “Reverse the policies that lead to a declining birth rate.” Of course, that is such a huge can of worms, no journalist dare touch it. Pussies.

In reality, more Japanese singles are having sex than in past decades. In 1990, 65 percent of unmarried women and 45 percent of unmarried men had never had sex; today, the figures are 50 percent and 40 percent, respectively.

The marriage rate has plummeted, and with it the birthrate, since out-of-wedlock births are rare in Japan. In 1975, just 21 percent of women and 49 percent of men under 30 had never been married; by 2005, the figures were 60 percent of women and 72 percent of men.

Sounds like this is a problem. But that would require a serious reevaluation of feminism. Nope.

Japanese men … simply can’t afford it. Wages have stagnated since the 1990s, while housing prices have shot up. A young Japanese man has good reason to believe that his standard of living would drop immensely if he had to house and support a wife and children — especially considering that his wife likely wouldn’t be working.

Sounds like wages might be a problem.
To quote Captain Capitalism,

Say an individual has an option to stay at home on Saturday day. He isn’t going to go to work without having some kind of incentive to work. So in order for him to get off his butt and work you are going to have to pay him. You are going to have to pay him an amount of money that is more valuable to him than his leisure. i.e. – you are going to have to make it profitable for him.

If you are a single dude, going to work with no visible proof you are profiting from it, either hard cash or pussy, is not only stupid, it just isn’t done.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe … renamed his economic plan from Abenomics to Womenomics. “Creating an environment in which women find it comfortable to work,” he told the U.N. General Assembly, “is no longer a matter of choice for Japan. It is instead a matter of the greatest urgency.”

He promised to expand day care offerings and promote flexible work arrangements so that women would no longer have to choose between work and childbearing, and he challenged businesses to promote women to senior management.

Fuck me. Oh I forgot: ‘it’s for the baby.’ Looking at the reality mentioned earlier in the article,

In Japan, marriage usually ends a woman’s working career, even though most women are well educated.

Once they have a child, women face strong social pressure to quit their jobs and assume very traditional roles, serving both the husband and the child.

Mothers who want to keep working are stigmatized and usually find that employers won’t hire them.

Child care is scarce and expensive,

Japan’s brutal work culture often demands that employees work more than 50 hours a week.

So the prime minister looks at factors that are engrained in Japanese culture/market and says “Gosh, we got to change all that.” So much for saving Japanese culture. Unless saving really means, “take a huge shit on it.”

“Sooner or later,” said economics professor Heizo Takenaka, “Japan will have to face the necessity of immigration.”

Progressive boilerplate cop-out.

As a foreigner, I observe a few things about Japanese culture, which are more likely the true avenues to pursue real change:

1. Hypergamy unleashed. Japanese women are desperate to snag a big exec husband at the cost of being lifelong spinsters. The larger the social differential pre-feminism, the more impact hypergamy has on the intersex relationship. Figuratively speaking, Japan used to be a culture of male big-businessmen and women servants. As a woman, you were #1 servant to the husband and children, and #2 mother, and #3 (if at all) career woman. No problem with the population then.

Read it and weep, feminists.

2. Big business and automation. Men cannot get decent wages because their jobs are automated out of existence. In fact, they are probably expected to consume the very products/content that they could be creating. Automation frees up more men to be consumers.

This isn’t a policy problem per se, but it is causality of technology. Still, it’s finger pointing that technology is fucking up society. In the war of profit versus human survival…well, business is damn sure going to choose profit.

3. Real Estate. The second you allow foreigners to buy land, you immediately homogenize the value of real estate. A Japanese guy isn’t buying land at the Japan rate. He is buying land at the international rate.

Again, this isn’t a policy problem; rather, causality of technology. I can research real estate in a foreign country online, fly there in a matter of hours, wire up my property with security to protect it when I’m gone, take comfort in local police protecting my property, etc. All while earning my dollars elsewhere. Is that fair to the Japanese guy? No. Is it profitable to the real estate company? Yes.

If you notice the larger trend here, Japan’s problems are not Japan-specific. They apply to any technologically advanced country. Is there a correlation between Japan embracing technology faster than any other country and it suffering a demographic decline worse than any other country? I think the anecdotal evidence is there.

These problems are soon to be our (the western world) problems.

Looking at some earlier quotes,

By 2060, the government estimates, there will be just 87 million people in Japan; nearly half of them will be over 65.

Japan simply won’t have enough workers to support its retirees, and will enter a demographic death spiral.

Half of the population, a good chunk of voting majority, is damn certain to vote in favor of holding on to resources, protecting retirement money, and protecting the elderly standard of living. So while the author uses the term ‘demographic death spiral’ to appeal to older readers, seems like we need this to allow younger people to thrive.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Dilbert Psychiatry

Digging back through the archive of The Last Psychiatrist, I happened to read his take on Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, and the internet tizzy the cartoonist stirred up with his anti-feminist thoughts.

In short, the author of the blog believes that Scott Adams lies to himself that society is holding men down; rather, this is simply a projection that the cartoonist indulges in so that he doesn’t have to acknowledge that he isn’t Casanova.

So what is wrong with what Adams said?  What argument might convince him that he is wrong, or at least help him release some of that anger?

Adams seems to be believe that men are naturally sexually aggressive, and women/society put limits on their natural impulses.  This is what Jezebel got wrong: he doesn’t believe this.  He wishes this.

And when he says society is a “prison” for men’s natural urges to penetrate random women like in caveman days, he is not really complaining about this prison.  That’s what he wants.  He wants it to be true that society is cockblocking him.

Because if that is true, then it isn’t his own inability to score chicks that’s limiting him.  “I’d love to just walk up to some hot chick in a bar and just take her home and bang her,” he might think, “but society doesn’t let me.”  Really?  Dude, you need to switch bars.

The Last Psychiatrist (hereto forth referred to as TLP) also provides us with the criticism from some major outlets; here is the response to Adams’ original post:

Scott Adams, has written a blog insinuating that the act of a man raping a woman is a natural instinct and that society is to blame for these things, not the man who committed the rape.

And here is the response from Jezebel:

Wow. Trying to make it sound like your argument falls under the category of “gender theory” while saying that “boys” are pretty much designed to be rapists and we’d better get used to it is…I don’t even know what it is anymore.

And here is an excerpt from the response from Salon:

[According to Adams] Left to their own devices, men apparently would just go about raping and pillaging all the livelong day, with occasional breaks for grilling and watching ESPN.

And finally, here is TLP’s response to the above quoted response:

Which isn’t what he said, but, whatever. (Ed: emphasis added by me, for later discussion.)

[Cracks knuckles]

The above comment from TLP stands as anecdotal evidence that the author relies on the very irony he criticizes in order to direct the narrative he is writing. And, as far as I can theorize, the author is falling into the very trap he recognizes with Scott Adams: believe in a narrative where people become actors acting out a role. In fact, the author makes this very point on his blog, and I quote (more or less): “Narcissists believe that people are a type, and that people categorized as that type act out a predictable role, always subservient to the narcissist’s role. They are bit parts to the main actor.”In the case of Scott Adams, the author of TLP has already typified Scott Adams: Adams believes he is a victim of society, TLP believes he is a narcissist protecting his ego.

But that is a digression into psychiatry which is not the direction of this blog post. What I want to focus on is why the author reverts his philosophy and virtues to “whatever.” This is an interesting point because “whatever” is a boldfaced admittance of submissiveness to someone else’s frame. Which is strange coming from a seemingly intelligent psychiatrist.  To offer a similar, easy to understand analogy of a couple going out to eat:

girl- “We are going to eat at Chili’s.” (Girl takes frame, offers dominant direction, sets frame, expects compliance.)

boy- “Whatever.” (Boy responds thus, after disambiguity: “I will follow your lead to eat at Chili’s, but me taking direction from you is equivalent to me taking direction from anybody, in fact, the paperboy could say “We are going to eat at Chili’s” and I would listen to him just as validly as you.)

I digress.

Here is the meat and potatoes of my blog post. TLP’s response was ‘whatever,’ what was he responding to?

If you notice the mainstream responses to Scott Adam’s post, they all curiously bring up the topic of rape, curious considering Adams’ didn’t broach the discussion. TLP responds “whatever.” All of the mainstream outlets took Scott Adams post and reframed it to be about rape. TLP has no idea how to respond to this. So ****why*** did the feminists flip to discussing rape?

Because bringing up rape is the exact can of worms that TLP feels too icky to address Bringing up rape is a can of worms no man wants to address, in public. So I will. Why is introducing rape so important to the mainstream response? Why did they introduce rape when it was not a part of Scott Adams’ point?


I offer you a hypothetical scenario:

If, after some strange cataclysm, all but one man died on earth, but all of the women survived, would that man rape a woman? Would he still try and seduce women, or just revert to grabbing them and having his way with them?

And with that, I open the can of worms.

Feminists try and divert the argument to rape, because women cannot think in abstract. In fact, a totalitarian society run by feminists would line up all innocent male citizens for the gallows, and ask them that simple hypothetical scenario. Answer ‘yes’, and you hang. Answer ‘no’, and you live. Because to someone who cannot think in abstract, any response to the hypothetical scenario is an indictment of where you personally stand on the issue. To a woman, you are guilty of everything they don’t agree with, that is, until you kiss their ass and prove the contrary. (Let me reassure the readers that at this blog, no feminist ass-kissing occurs. This is simply anecdotal evidence.)

Kind of scary, considering we live in a culture of innocence, until proven guilty.

If I am moving too fast for you, let me review.

If you 100% believe that society places limits on male sexuality, imagining a world without those limitations is men running around raping at will.

If you 100% believe that society places no limits on male sexuality, then you see the world as winners and losers, naturally, with weak nerds  (a la Scott Adams) and uber sexy bad boys.

Notice that all of the (undoubtedly) female authors for Jezebel, Salon,, etc. seem to have an innate belief that society places limitations on male sex.

In my anecdotal experience, women desperately rely on the limitations on male sex, because it allows them access to the male seed which is most sexy, through violence, coercion, etc. Your woman is telling you “I’m too tired” to limit your sexuality because she was too busy boffing me the night before. And here I thought that lying and language are social concepts. I kid.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The middle class and the Google bus

If you look back at historic photographs of the USA, men are out in public wearing nearly the exact same outfit.

Men generally appeared wearing a two piece suit and tie, leather shoes, and nearly every man wore a hat. In fact, this outfit was so standard and ubiquitous that it can be tracked accurately based on the shape of the man’s hat. For at least two hundred years, men wore a suit with tricorn hats, top hats, bowler hats, wide brim hats, flat caps and fedoras.

Were men uncreative? Or did they all wear the same thing to express that they were part of a shared social convention?

The media has sold out this country in an interesting way. The media angle of the recent protests over the Google bus tells all: rich Google versus poor public transportation ridersRich company versus poor public. Rich upper class versus poor lower class.

How has the media sold out this country? By failing to tell the story of the middle class.

The middle class only ever had one ideal going for it: by creating social standards of dress and behavior, a large contingent of people could behave like the rich and could mimic the rich in attitude and appearance, without the money required to be upper class. The entire middle class would be free to enjoy the amenities that the rich experience: cleanliness, friendliness, smoothly operating systems, low violence, and so forth. Whereas people typically need lots of money to buy consistently clean and new equipment, architecture, and spaces, the middle class decided to invent social conventions that everyone would take part in. Everyone would be clean cut. Everyone would clean up after themselves. Everyone would dress modestly in public. And by doing this, they would enjoy a public that is well greased, runs smoothly, and doesn’t require money to operate.

Imagining an ideal bus ride is easy. You would smoothly be able to interpret your destination from clearly designed maps. The driver would pleasantly help you in matters unrelated to driving the bus, such as aiding the elderly, or answering questions. The bus interior would be spacious, clean, and quiet. You would feel at ease to interact with fellow riders. You would find all the latest gizmos and gadgets to keep you entertained. The bus would not be overcrowded.

Does this sound like the Google bus or the public bus? Before you answer that, realize that I only described an ideal bus ride, which both Google and the public have the potential to work toward.

Consider the hilarious demands of the Google bus protesters, to the tune of $1 billion. They argue that with one billion dollars, the city can return that money to the public busses which they ride, and therefore they could enjoy the fruits of the billion dollars. Recall the social conventions of the middle class. People agree to be quiet, dress nicely, act courteously, clean after themselves, and behave well. Through convention, the experience of riding the public bus would rival the Google bus, and the protester would have nothing to protest. I will call the protesters stupid and ignorant because they stupidly have no idea how the middle class works.




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment