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 change.org 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 change.org 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?

Easy.

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, change.org, 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

The Pyramid

One day a man looked up and noticed a treasure more enticing than any treasure ever seen. Upon his cry of delight, the people around him noticed it too. A small crowd immediately gathered. The excitement quickly turned to consternation since no person could reach the treasure.

The man evaluated his surroundings.

“You there! Help me up!,” he spoke to the nearest man.

Awash with a new surge of excitement, the crowd quickly embraced (and unwittingly stole) the idea and began hoisting each other.

Faster than the people could physically move, their minds began to unconsciously pool. With the treasure still out of reach, their minds could only reach one conclusion: it would take yet more people to form a strong enough foundation to reach the treasure.

The crowd began to assemble. People began to rise above the mass, hoisted overhead by the collective effort of the crowd. Boots stood on shoulders and arms locked as tightly as their grip allowed.

The pyramid arose.

A testament to the collective effort, the crowd watched the form rise high overhead.

But curiously, something changed.

The pyramid became so solid that people stood aside, unable to reach in and contribute. While some men struggled with bearing the great weight overhead, some stood aimlessly to the side, surprised at the newfound freedom.

And in that moment, the human mind adapted. While so many were concerned with supporting each other, men began to notice that they simply need to climb across the existing human framework to obtain the greatest chance at grabbing the treasure. They immediately began a climb to the top.

Still others noticed this, and upset with the apparent unfairness, they began to wail. Those people bore enough weight that releasing their attention would squash their own selves. They struggled on.

Those on the ground, unhampered by the weight, yet able to evaluate the grand construction with the most encompassing view, noticed the long climb. They also noticed how those at the lowest position in the pyramid carried many connections to those above, yet did not feel the effects of such a distributed load.

Their minds began to evaluate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Maslow and the Game

Here is a thought experiment for you: take Maslow’s heirarchy of needs and apply it to the recent New York Times article She Can Play That Game, Too.

Maslow puts sex as a base need, but so many men pedestalize it.

I am super curious what PUAs think about legalized prostitution. If sex is part of the journey and not the ultimate destination, then they should have no problem with legal prostitution.

Legal prostitution would also mothball AMOG tactics to an extent. Who cares how skilled you are at delivering or reframing ‘bro backslaps’ when you can plunk down a twenty and get laid with a hotter chick.

However.

If the PUA subconsciouly knows the ugly truth that sex IS the male destination, then they are secretly pedestalizing sex and specifically ignoring that men pursue crafts and skills to attract women for sex.

The wool has been pulled over all of our eyes anyway, since modern women have had as much sex or more than prostitutes, but are still clean doves in the eyes of an economy that subsidizes sluts.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Six year old Veteran

Here is a comment i left on a thread over on Roosh’s forum:

It is a byproduct of the times. Technology.

Today a six year old girl can find the alpha with considerable ease. He is the guy on the Disney channel. Or the guy with the quirky youtube channel.

That six year old girl is learning at a really young age how the cute popular guys make her feel. she is learning it through TV or the internet. (Corollary: she is also learning how to behave to get the cute boy’s attention)

Now imagine when she goes outside into the real world. Do six year old boys act like those boys on the Disney channel? Seven year olds? Eight? Ten? Twelve? Fourteen? Eighteen?

I would argue that a six year old girl with TV and internet is already well aware to notice behaviors of dominance and popularity. The creepiness comes in because her entire generation of boys is simply not on the same level. Yet society has to lump everyone together in school, etc.

The double standard: a six year old boy is at an evolutionary disadvantage to notice displays of dominance. He would be upset to notice it because he cannot challenge anyone at a young and weak age. I would suggest that boys are biologically hardwired to be naive and ignorant of it until their teens.

Postscript: girls need exposure to as many men as possible to learn who the best is. Technology helps that A LOT.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Dreaming

Reading through comments on The Last Psychiatrist’s blog is a grinding and headache inducing task. Nevertheless,  I descended to the Marianas Trench at three hundred fifty-ought out of probably five hundred. The original post was part two in commentary of white upper class hipsters on food stamps, fee free to read it. For now, follow along and read the comment below:

 

I’m not against dreams, but the fact is that we never bother to teach kids the difference between a dream and a fantasy. Almost every kid with a keyboard dreams of being either a game designer or an author. Any kid with a notebook and a pencil fantasizes about being an artist. that’s all well and good, but it’s mostly a fantasy — at best they’re dillitants who aren’t seriously into art for art’s sake, writing for the sake of writing or making mods of games for the sake of the game.

My thing is that too many kids end up with a fantasy — they fantasize about being an author but they don’t really like writing, they like being the kind of person who is an author. They don’t like coding, they want to be the kind of person to design the next Skyrim or Saints Row. They don’t want to draw, they want to be an artist. They don’t want be a teacher, they want to be the kind of person who gets English lit. The difference is that the kid who wants to do something will do it when no one is looking, the kid who wants the lifestyle won’t do it unless they get credit for being the kind of person who writes, draws or codes.

The trick is to teach kids the difference — the difference between a dream (I want to sing, and I’ll work my ass off to get there) and a fantasy (I want to get famous from American Idol and sign autographs, but don’t want to spend a life time learn to sing). The difference comes when you realize that you don’t want to do the hard parts. You don’t want to code if you won’t debug, you don’t want to write if you don’t want to edit, you don’t want to sing if you don’t want to learn how to read music or take voice lessons.

I won’t say “don’t dream”, but what I will say is that there’s a difference between wanting to be an author and wanting to be an author. There’s a difference between wanting to be a game designer and wanting to make a game. If it’s about wanting to do the work, it’s a dream. If it’s about the life style, it’s nothing more than a fantasy.

The commenter’s belief is perfectly reflective of the huge elephant in the room. The gender double standard.

Men will put in hard work and will build society when they are incentivized to do so.

Men will not put in hard work when their potential mates are off fucking around with antisocial Hunter Moore dickwad men.

Yet again we can default back to Heartiste’s Four Sirens.

Oh, and by the way, any suggestion that men should voluntarily maintain themself in a state of blissful ignorance of female nature while slaving away working passionately is grounds for putting a bullet in your head and dropping your remains in a roadside ditch.

The commenter above emphasizes how modern kids want the ‘being’ without the ‘doing’ as if there is a problem with this. As far as I can see in this cock-carousel world,  ‘being’ the superstar is all that’s necessary for getting tons of pussy. You don’t have to ‘do’ jack shit except sit idly by your preteen smoking girl friend while her hundred thousand Instagram fans anxiously wait for her to reblog a photo of you (“Hotttt ❤ xoxoxo lol!”)

I love love love how casually easy it is to default an argument back to biology and sex and Heartiste.  I feel sorry for people like The Last Psychiatrist. I feel sorry for his commenters. It takes them hundreds of thousands of soap box speeches to solve the world’s problems – which Heartiste does in four statements.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Users

Around the time of the 80’s Tron movie, we wondered: will we continue to be users of technology, or will technology use us? Are we consumers, a la “the consumer is always right?” Or are we political tools in a metaphoric garden shed called PRISM?

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trajectory

My readers most likely know of Skrillex, the off-beat scenester turned mega-award winning DJ. He popped out of a heavy gothic catacomb straight into the limelight.

What shocked me was not his sound. What shocked me was the veracity and speed of women embracing his style and behaviors. I now have a solidified belief that women are parasitic to the point that they need to hijack male entity to align it with the female imperative.  

Whereas everyone was praising how unique the sound is, I scratched my head. In a world of rapidly advancing technology, it kinda makes sense that the next iterations of everything are technologically processed.

Take an earlier unrelated example: the 1969 moon landing. Landing on the moon is certainly ‘unique,’ but considering the massive social and financial investment at the time, what seemed to be a unique event was in reality the next step on the then-current trajectory. (As a postscript, the zeitgeist didn’t embrace the subsequent lunar missions.)

Returning to Skrillex, his music was simply the next step in the trajectory. Which leads me to the crux of this post’s theory: women are obsessed with the next step in the trajectory.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment