Use No Hooks
The mendacious Salon article

This turned out better than I’d hoped:

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

A vile an ugly man has died today; Senator Frank Lautenberg of NJ.  I won’t mourn the passing of someone who used emotive prevarications to benefit himself at the expense of others; good riddance to this bad rubbish.

“Isn’t calling a man Evil pretty extreme?” I hear the voices in the peanut gallery ask, “Can you truly know what Evil lurks in the heart of men?  Or does only the Shadow know?” I may not know what cruelties Lautenberg suffered as a child at the hands of his parents; I can only half-imagine the trauma of being an impoverished Polish-Jew, with a father who died when he was 19; but I can recognize when a man chooses to ally with the darker demons of his nature, rather than overcoming the challenges he faced.

This is the face of the late Frank Lautenberg:

That is the expression of a man on a holy and righteous mission; the face of a man holding a pistol to the back of the head of a monster who raped and murdered his child; a man who’s making a darkly moral choice for the sake of perpetuity.

Frank Lautenberg is making this expression at a podium with armed bodyguards present, a mendacious manipulator of naive newsmen and histrionic house-fraus.  This man surely had ancestors and neighbours who were disarmed and murdered by the Nazis, yet during his career he repeatedly voted-on and passed legislation to do the same to native Americans.

The hypocrisies detailed by the Modern Ronin are not an example of unintended consequences, but rather the very-much intended consequences of the standard Gun Control shell game.  Modern Ronin rightly describes them as perverse:

An even more heinous aspect of this is that it is an ex post facto law (which are supposedly unconstitutional). This means that if such an event like I described happened in 1990, such a person still maintained his constitutional and natural rights… until the Lautenberg Amendment was passed in 1996. He then became a prohibited possessor. A perverse consequence of this was that a significant number of police officers lost their jobs in 1996 for a minor event that might have happened decades earlier, because as a prohibited possessor they were no longer allowed to possess a firearm.

The law he’s referring to is often called “The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban”, or the “Lautenberg Amendment” – and he does a thorough job explaining what legal insanity it all is.  There’s no need for me to reiterate his excellent post.  What I’d like to focus on instead is how you should never, ever, ever do business with the devil or his appointed advocates.

The genuine, Faustian, “Sell your soul to the Devil” thing is (reportedly) only approved once or twice a century; what’s far more common is that a slight advantage is offered, or an easy way out, priced in such a manner that it seems far cheaper than walking the straight and narrow.  It’s only after signing the contract in blood that you learn how hard the easy-way-out can truly be.

When I was falsely accused of domestic violence, the representative of the Crown, Ms. Margot Engley – as textbook a case of Antisocial Personality Disorder as one could ever hope to see (in my opinion)[1] – offered a plea bargain where I’d cop to Assault, but only serve several months of community service.  The alternative was proving my innocence (“proving guilt” being an outmoded concept) while risking the penalty of many years behind bars as a violent offender.

Let’s look at that again: I (allegedly) was a violent thug, a biker who beats up women and mentally abuses them for fun, who deserves to be locked up for years on end for the safety of society; Ms Margot Engley was willing to have me walk the streets so long as I picked up some garbage for a few months as an indentured labourer.

Oh, with one catch – I’d be registered as a violent offender for the rest of my life, my licence plate would pop up like an MTV music video for every cop who wound up behind me in traffic, and I’d never be allowed to travel outside of the country.

I decided to fight for my freedom, and damn the cost.

Needless to say, there are a number of troubling legal standards which underlay all of this; Primary Aggressor legislation, mandatory DV prosecutions, plus a culture which assumes that males are always guilty (even when he has a black eye and a cigarette burn upon arrest at his mother’s house where he ran to, while she’s uninjured and has a history of involuntary psychiatric commitment to boot – don’t stick your dick in crazy, fellas).  Also, I was extremely lucky that Judge T.C. Semniuk was so level-headed, and that I was able to afford the $10,000 for my lawyer, Andre Oullette (a truly decent man); but even if I’d been forced to represent myself against a dishonest, feminist judge, I still would have fought the charges.[2]

I’d rather spend several years in prison than admit to a crime which I didn’t commit.

Modern Ronin mentions the multitudes of men who take the plea-bargain – only to find out, years after the fact, that it wasn’t what they thought they bargained for.  I have sympathy for these men; they were stuck between a rock and a hard  place, and somebody offered the easy way out.  The stress and panic they were put under is hard to explain to anyone who hasn’t had the society they supported and fought for turn against them.

The tragedy they suffered, however, was foreseeable.  Never make a deal with the Devil.

Nobody said life was perfect.  Nobody said that all your plans were going to turn out exactly as you hoped.  Nobody said this blighted world was fair.  That still isn’t an excuse to stoop-down to vileness and bargain with the agents of evil.

Life sucks: wear a hat.  Wash your hands of creatures like Frank Lautenberg and Margot Engley.  Live a clean life, and accept the fact that twisted and broken people will throw up stumbling blocks in your path.  Scheming and tactical thinking – that way lies the path to ruin.

Choose the Higher Road; that is why I’m still a Free Man.

 ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

(1) This is my own assessment; I would advise the Court of Queen’s Bench (Calgary) to have a professional Psychologist assess her.
(2) Given that I’m naming names, I should forewarn any other men from dating the woman who assaulted me, Amanda Lockhart – her name is part of the public record, after all.  She admitted to assaulting me multiple times on the stand, was caught in two separate lies while under oath, yet no charges were ever brought against her.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

Children have been the garbage bin where the adults dump the unrecognized parts of their psyches. It is expected that the child-garbage bin absorbs the ill moods of her custodians to prevent that the adult feels overwhelmed by her anxieties. If I kill the soul of my daughter I thus kill the naughty girl that once inhabited me.
~El Retor no de Quetzalcoatl, English Translation, (Pages 415-610 of Hojas Susur rantes) by Cesar Tort

Not to be confused with the fictional Psychohistory of Asimov’s Foundation novels.

Introduction

Some time back I thought about writing a post on the moral imperative of maintaining mental hygiene.  The destructive potential of Schedule II personality disorders is something I’ve been interested in since suffering through the abuse and false-accusation of Domestic Violence from a Borderline, and one of the most frightening aspects of the whole ordeal was how long it took for me to regain sanity.  Mental illness is infectious, and to maintain moral behaviour we must all be vigilant against the formation of neuroses, regardless of whether they come from the deeply mentally ill, or from the day-to-day stresses of living in our societies (it’s worth noting that these are most likely not distinct phenomenon).

The idea never jelled into a full post because of its brevity.  I knew it was connected to the many other topics I write about, but the different elements required a catalyst before they’d react.  Tort’s book was that catalyst.  In the following essay I plan to quote liberally from him, and expand upon his ideas, rather than simply review his work; suffice to say that I heavily recommend reading it for yourself, and that I’m a great admirer of his blog.  Tort is a man who doesn’t shy away from dangerous ideas, but who also understands that reversed stupidity is not intelligence.

So let us move forward and consider the roots of mental illness, its effects upon history, the nature of violence, the theory of Psychohistory, and the implications this has for the present cultural crisis we find ourselves in.

The Ur-Theory of Mental Illness

The classes of Mammalia and Aves are unique amongst life as we know it for their high metabolisms, methods of reproduction, and complex cerebrums; the latter two being distinctively correlated (and possibly requiring the former for functioning).  In layman’s terms, we have the “lizard-brain” of fight/flight/eat/fuck, and the “mammal-brain” (or “bird-brain”) of love/nurture/socialize/pair-bond.

Despite separate evolutionary ladders, our brains and our child-psychologies developed in very similar ways.

Our children are born incomplete, half-formed; baby birds, monkeys, and opossums finish gestating outside of the mother, both physically and mentally.  The parent-child bond is absolutely critical, hard-wired into us is a need to be protected and loved.  The most thorough (and disturbing) investigations into this were performed by psychologist Harry Harlow with his rhesus macaque experiments.  While it is common-sensical to notice that abused animals tend to grow up vicious, Harlow demonstrated that early-socialization was mandatory for primates, elsewise they develop severe depression and schizophrenic behaviour patterns.  After being raised in isolation for 30 days, six months, or a year, severe social- and sexual-deformity was the result:

Harlow also wanted to test how isolation would affect parenting skills, but the isolates were unable to mate. Artificial insemination had not then been developed; instead, Harlow devised what he called a “rape rack,” to which the female isolates were tied in normal monkey mating posture. He found that, just as they were incapable of having sexual relations, they were also unable to parent their offspring, either abusing or neglecting them. “Not even in our most devious dreams could we have designed a surrogate as evil as these real monkey mothers were,” he wrote.^[8] Having no social experience themselves, they were incapable of appropriate social interaction. One mother held her baby’s face to the floor and chewed off his feet and fingers. Another crushed her baby’s head. Most of them simply ignored their offspring.^[8]

Being mothered is not optional.  It is not merely a matter of providing sustenance.  It is absolutely critical for future cognition.  Harlow was able to destroy these primates, not through abuse, but through denial of love.  While I am unfamiliar with any other experiments upon mammals or birds, cases such as feral children (demonstrating the nurturing instinct of wolves), and the way herring gull chicks tap the red spot on the mother’s beak to be fed – as wells as basic common sense – suggest this is universal amongst the higher-order animals.

And yet there is a major divide between humans and the rest of the primates.  In other animals, child-rearing is a distinct phase with a distinct end.  In the movie Cool Hand Luke, his mother says to him:

Sometimes I wish that people was like dogs, Luke. Comes a time, a day like, when the bitch just don’t recognize her pups no more, so she don’t have no hopes nor love to bring her pain. She just don’t give a damn.
~Arletta, Cool Hand Luke

Anybody who’s familiar with animal breeding can attest to this; my parents have a pair of pure-bred golden labs, a mother and a daughter, and it’s notable how completely absent the mother-daughter bond is between them.  The daughter is the more dominant of the two, and she takes on the Alpha role without reservation.  Past weaning, the parental bond disappears in other animals, including primates (suggestive evidence of which we will get to in a later post).

Contrast to humans where things are utterly different.  First off is the mere length of parental-dependence; at the very minimum humans require twelve years before they’re able to function independently, and recent neurological evidence can arguably push full mental adulthood into the mid-twenties.  Not only does this extended-period provide more opportunity for error, the child-rearing in our species is so remarkably complex, (multiple stages, each requiring a different sort of input) that if any one stage is mis-performed, future neuroses result.

The second difference of note is that the parent-child bond in our species never disappears.  Possibly a result of our neotenous tendencies, even as elders we sill crave the relationship we had with our deceased parents.  In other species the parental bond falls away like baby teeth, in ours we never stop being our parents’ children.

Thus we come to the ur-theory of mental illness in humanity.  In other species parenthood is largely binary – six months of being fed and socialized will result in a mentally well-adapted animal.  In humans this bond is so foundational to our identity, that there are a myriad of ways in which it might go wrong.  Mental illness – outside of the rare instances of genetic or environmental damage (e.g. Wilson Disease or Foetal Alcohol Syndrome) – are caused by social abuse during childhood, be it parental or societal.

Attachment to the Perpetrator & The Locus of Control Shift

Blaming the vast majority of mental illness on parental abuse engenders the knee-jerk response of: “Things are tough all around – get over it!” This may be a good attitude to embody, but it can blind one to the full social and historical implications of mental illness.

Neither myself nor Tort bring this up out of a masochistic excuse for failure, anymore than looking at the childhoods of serial killers excuses their crimes.

The second challenge of such a statement is that it claims that the myriad of mental illnesses we see derive from one particular mechanism; bold as this might be, it is the natural conclusion which we must draw.

All mammalian babies are utterly dependent upon their mothers for survival; thus the immediate need for imprinting.  In humans this happens even more so, and in the cases of abusive parents the result is “Attachment to the perpetrator.” Tort quotes Dr Colin Ross to explain:

In a sense, we all have the problem of attachment to the perpetrator. None of us have absolutely secure attachment. We all hate our parents for some reason, but love them at the same time. This is the normal human condition. But there is a large group of children who have the problem of attachment to the perpetrator to a huge degree.They have it to such a large degree, it is really a qualitatively different problem, I think. These are the children in chronic trauma families. The trauma is a variable mix of emotional, verbal, physical and sexual abuse.
~Dr Colin Ross, The Trauma Model: A Solution to the Problem of Comorbidity in Psychiatry

On top of the immediate requirements for survival, there is information and identity.  Children not only believe whatever they’re told, but they also require an ego-identity to subscribe to – we have a need of agency.  Without an ego-identity, without a developed sense of agency, neuroses and schizophrenia are the result.

Children raised in a stable and loving environment grow to understand their own agency; deny them love and stability, and their primal need for agency will lead them to become deluded on the matter.  This is known as the “locus of control shift.”

The scientific foundation of the locus of control shift is Piaget and developmental psychology. We know several things about the cognition of children age two to seven. I summarize this as “kids think like kids.” Young children are self-centered. They are at the center of the world, and everything revolves around them. They cause everything in the world [“locus shift”] and they do so through magic al causality. They do not use rational, analytical, adult cognitive strategies and vocabulary.

Imagine a relatively normal family with a four year-old daughter. One day, the parents decide to split up and dad moves out. What is true for this little girl? She is sad. Using normal childhood cognition, the little girl constructs a theory to explain her field observation: “Daddy doesn’t live here anymore because I didn’t keep my bedroom tidy”.

This is really a dumb theory. It is wrong, incorrect, inaccurate, mistaken and preposterous. This is how normal kids think. But there is more to it than that. The little girl thinks to herself, “I’m OK. I’m not powerless. I’m in charge. I’m in control. And I have hope for the future. Why? Because I have a plan. All I haveto do is to tidy up my bedroom and daddy will move back in. I feel OK now”.

The little girl has shifted the locus of control from inside her parents, where it really is, to inside herself. She has thereby created an illusion of power, control and mastery which is developmentally protective [of the attachment].

…

The locus of control shift is like an evil transfusion. All the evil inside the perpetrator has been transfused into the self, making the perpetrator good and safe to attach to. The locus of control shift helps to solve the problem of attachment to the perpetrator. The two are intertwined with each other.
~Dr Colin Ross, The Trauma Model: A Solution to the Problem of Comorbidity in Psychiatry

Tort concludes:

In his brief class Ross showed us why, however abusive our parents, a Stockholm syndrome elevated to the nth degree makes us see our parents as good attachment objects. The little child is like a plant that cannot but unfold towards the sun to survive. Since even after marriage and independence the adult child very rarely reverts in her psyche the locus of control shift to the original source, she remains psychically disturbed. For Lloyd deMause [the founder of Psychohistory Theory], this kind of super-Stockholm syndrome from parents to children and from children to grandchildren is the major flaw of the human mind, the curse of Homo sapiens that results in an alter ego in which all of the malignancy of the perpetrator has been transfused to the ego of the victim. In a divided self this entity strives for either (1) substituting, through the locus of control shift, the unconscious anger felt towards the parents on herself with self-harming, addictions, anorexia or other sorts of self-destructive behavior, and/or (2) harming their partner or the next generation of children. In any case the cause of this process is the total incapability of judging and processing inside ourselves the behavior of the parent: the problem of attachment to the perpetrator.

To summarize:

• Mammals and Birds evolved for complex child-parent relationships, these are a neurological necessity
• Humans take this to the next level, our extensive childhoods and complex cognition require far more than just love and nutrition
• Failure to receive these psychological necessities is the foundation of all neuroses
• These neuroses, by their very nature, are memetically heritable from parent-to-child, down the familial line

So far we’ve largely been quoting and summarizing.  Next time we’ll explore the social and historical implications of this, as well as the claims made by deMause’s Psychohistory, the nature of violence, the societal crises which result from improved mental-health, how this relates to Strauss & Howe’s generational cycle, and how this relates to the modern reactionary challenges of Feminism, Democracy, Marxism, and general social degeneracy.

So I noticed this article making its way around Facebook – Obama admits that he’s a socialist.

Obama himself, the Times explained, has been “longingly” telling his inner circle that what he’d really like to do is what Sen. Jay Bulworth, played by Warren Beatty in his 1998 movie “Bulworth,” did: to go public as an unabashed, angry and admitted socialist.

No surprise here – and yet, I seem to remember a lot of Liberal snark going around when Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Baggers, and Professional Bloggers pointed this out some time ago:

Quite frankly, this is just another data point in my war of Eternal Frustration – heck, the whole reason I started blogging in the first place, before I went fully Red Pill, was annoyance with endemic stupidity.  The Liberal Media in particular (and all their repeater-stations on Reddit) constantly enjoys ridiculing people for stating the blinding obvious – though the Conservative Media isn’t much better.

Dear Nay Sayers: time and time again I – and all of my colleagues in the Blogosphere – are proven Right; meanwhile the MSM is repeatedly proven Wrong.  The closest we come to failing is when we can’t find the evidence; for instance, as yet there is no proof of the FBI’s involvement with the Boston Bombing; Red State finds the whole thing ridiculous for whatever reason, despite a long history of the FBI aiding and abetting terrorism due to a misguided policy of enforcement.

If anything, we fail to go far enough.

So a request to all the mindless idiots who believe whatever they’re told, no matter how many times the story contradicts – kindly shut the fuck up, stop voting, and read some George Orwell.

Theology: to most of us who’ve suffered from a modern Education it sounds like “Philosophy for the superstitious.” In reality it’s far more than that.  Theology isn’t some discipline intended only for the musings of celibate priests, any more than Economic Theory is something that only Professional Econometricians ought to understand – it’s so foundational that not only do our morals derive from it, but so too the very heuristics by which we judge morality in the first place.

Quite frankly, it’s Theology that makes up the ideological DNA of all Memetics.

Throughout the Manosphere and the Alt-Right there is a core Theological premise upon which we all agree, whether we know it or not; irrespective of whether we call ourselves Atheist or Christian (or Hindu, or Buddhist), this one principle unites us, and explains why staunch Atheists such as Aaron Clarey can use the word “Evil” un-ironically.  It is a simple binary which delineates the difference between Angelic and Demonic, between Christianity and Churchianity, between Right and Left, between Civilization and Barbarity.

It is the question: “Which comes first?  Logos or Agape?  Reason or Love?”

The Bible is pretty clear on the matter:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
~John 1:1

Jesus talks a fair bit about love and forgiveness, but the very first premise is the Law.  Reason, mathematics, the coherent universe – only once this has been established does love, can love enter into the equation.  Contrast for a moment to the Hippy ideology we were taught growing up: “God is love!  The universal spirit is love!  Love all mankind!” Or as that degenerate John Lennon put it, “All you need is love.”

Ann Barnhardt (a relatively sane woman) puts it thusly:

It’s actually quite simple. All of the Marxist-homosexualists are always going on and on about how giving people free stuff and letting people do whatever they want is the message of Christ and His Church, right? There is no sin, there is no hell, I’m okay – you’re okay, do what you want and give people free stuff because … wait for it … God is Love. And love means free stuff, never ever having to say you’re sorry, and sex.

The problem with this is that love PROCEEDS from logic and reason. Look at The Last Gospel. It’s right there in the very first verse. In the beginning was THE WORD. Verbum in Latin. Logos in the original Greek. Logos means logic and/or reason in the Greek. John identifies God NOT as “The Caritas” (Latin for love, which is the root of the word charity) or The Agape (Greek for the ultimate self-sacrificial love). John does not say, “In the beginning was the Love…” No, no. John identifies God as THE LOGOS. The Word. Logic and reason. Existential Reality.

The Greeks had three main words for Love; Caritas, Agape, and Eros (erotic love), and that just so happens to be a perfect way to break this down.  So lets go through these one-by-one to help demonstrate how we on the Right consistently use our intellect to guide our emotions, while those on the Left start with their feeeeelings and use the rationalization hamster to explain why other people need to tolerate it.

Eros: Erotic Love

1. Game

The very premise of Game is chock-full of Logos.  It presupposes that there primordial, evolutionary psychological reasons for why women choose certain men over others.  Game has two primary stages.  First the study of what works, the trial-and-error of field research, the hypothesis-experiment-theorizing of the scientific method.  Ten years ago we had Ladder Theory – just look at how far we’ve come since then.  Second there’s the application.  Letting your balls drop and overcoming approach anxiety; developing inner game and growing into the sort of man who deserves a top-notch woman.  Becoming well-read, becoming successful, and learning how to touch her inner core so that she swoons.  Logos first, and then Eros.

What sort of advice do those whom the SPLC finds acceptable offer? “Just be yourself!  You can’t argue with your heart!  Love happens when you least expect it!” – and let’s not even get started on the Fat Acceptance Movement.  They start with the Eros, “Oooh, he’s a drummer in an indie band!” and use the Logos to justify it.  No responsibility, no forethought, just blindly bouncing through life like a malformed billiard ball.

2. Marriage

Dalrock has already put it best in his post Lovestruck:

What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage.  Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage.  This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.

“Oops, it just happened!  We woke up next to one another after getting hammered at the bar, and then eventually we got married!” While getting married at all is a pretty stupid idea nowadays, marrying a girl whom you haven’t thoroughly vetted, simply because it’s the first time you’ve gotten your dick wet in six months and are suffering a bad case of oneitis, is the height of foolishness.

Furthermore, look at the reasons for dissolution of marriage: traditional marriage came with mutual obligations from both parties (Love, Honour, and Cherish versus Love, Honour, and Obey), and while there were justified, at-fault divorces back in the day, the basis of the divorce was Logos – Reason – that is to say, one of the two had broken the contract.

Nowadays?  It’s ’til death do us part… or we fall out of love.  Feeeeelings come first, and it’s up to the courts to sort it all out.  ‘Nuf said.

Caritas (Charitable Love)

1. Aumann’s Agreement Theorem

Throughout the Alt-Right you’ll find dozens of opinions and ongoing debate; we’ve got Libertarians, Monarchists, Anarchists, Reactionaries, Austrians, Goldbugs, Bitcoiners, Minarchists, and plenty of others I’ve neglected to mention.  Unlike Left-wing diversity – where people look different but all say the same thing – we’ve got a real diversity of opinion over here.  And yet all of us – every single person on the Right who’s picked a horse in the race – bases their opinions on logic and reason.  Gut instinct plays a role in telling us what to research, and none of us have yet discovered Solomon’s Key, but at the end of the day it’s facts and provable theory that guide us.

That we agree on so much is a testament to the fact that we’re doing something right.

Contrast to how the Left organizes – Feminists, Democrats, and even Neocons – they start with a feeling, a Caritas attitude about loving your neighbour and not judging, and yet they can’t agree on anything.  They form their little cliques, support groups for the amygdalae deprived, with extreme out-group/ingroup viciousness, and yet their beliefs are incoherent.  There’s a party line which they all toe, but if there’s one thing writing about feminism has taught me is that it’s as variable as the weather.  Sex-positive sea-cows, vs All Sex is Rape lesbians; and yet somehow they’re all on the same side.

Our allies are those whom we respect and trust; theirs are whoever makes them feel safe.

2. The Wealth of Nations

When it comes to matters of industry, economics, and charity, once again, us on the Right use our brains first.  Oh, there’s debate – there’s plenty of debate! (the funny thing about the Laffer Curve is that you can never know where you are on it) – but our approach to the matter is tough and fatherly, enabling intelligent conversation.  For example, take the following statements:

• Raising taxes may be necessary, but it will stifle business
• Large companies and vested interests shouldn’t have too much regulatory power
• You want the input from major players when you write regulations affecting them
• Some people – through misfortune or inability – will require charity
• Welfare naturally breeds dependence (people respond to incentives)

Though we all agree on these premises, they result in hours-long conversations, full of facts and historical examples, where everyone involved learns a thing or two.  But though we’re all trying to figure out the best result, none of us will shy away from doing something that’s uncomfortable, so long as it’s necessary.

Do I even need to talk about how the Left thinks about matters economic?  I think this lady covers it well enough:

Feel-good outcomes are the premises they start with; Helicopter Bernanke will take care of the rest.

Agape

This is the big one; selfless love.  Your love of your fellow man, and your willingness to forgive those who trespass against you.  For a civilized society to exist we must be more than vengeful brutes, and though the Manosphere loves to advocate Randian selfishness, this is mainly a response to the misandry which holds us guilty for everything; quite frankly, it would be more accurate to call it enlightened self-interest.

Those who treat us well, we treat well.  We don’t hold others up to standards which we don’t hold to ourselves.  And should anyone show true contrition, we would be willing to forgive them.

Maybe this is all too obvious.  Let’s look at how the left behaves, instead.

Their version of selfless love is White Guilt.  A perpetual mea culpa, opening their arms wide and refusing to judge any of the masses who rush in.  Did somebody murder your daughter?  Forgive them – even if they didn’t plead guilty, or make any effort to apologize.  Hand over your economy, your country, your physical body for their usage-

Let them kill the goose that lays the golden egg.  Because you love them.

Love yourself, too, and take whatever is needed for your benefit – after all, isn’t mankind one big happy family?  Is this word a giant pot-luck?  Eat whatever you want, protest whatever you want, sue whomever you want, and fuck whomever you want – with no regard for yourself, for your children, for your country, or for what the future consequences are.

Don’t judge, just live!

And always be true to yourself.

Conclusion

All of reality boils down to a simple theological distinction – which came first?  Truth – or Love?

Those who answer Love turn the world into their oyster – no action is questionable, no lust immoral. “Do what thou wilt, and that shall be the whole of the law.” Inevitably, every society is infested by a few such creatures, but seldom before has an entire civilization embraced such a system.

The early adopters get 1969, and never suffer for it; the single mothers get to blame patriarchy, the AIDS patients get to blame homophobia – and besides isn’t pain just a different perspective?  But over time, when the whole society rejects Truth and Natural Law (whether it be morality or economics), degeneration is inevitable.

That’s the world we live in, Men of the West; a rampant orgy of violence and drug addiction, mortgaging the future to pay for the present.  A world without reason – a feminized world – a world of feelings.

But some of us – many of us – have always held Truth as sacred, deep in our souls, and despite all of their brainwashing they couldn’t tear it out.

We bear the Light of Civilization, Men.

You’ve heard of animals chewing off a leg to escape a trap. There’s an animal kind of trick. A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death that he might kill the trapper and remove a threat to his kind.
~Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam, Dune

I know it’s been a while since I’ve had a written post on here; expect one by the end of the week.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

Aaron Clarey’s Podcast
Women in Norway

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

Destroid – Raise Your Fist
Nydwracu’s discussion of aesthetics.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

Karl’s having a contest right now to win a Commie Obama Hat – you just have to guess how many one-dollar bills are in his Swear Jar – the deadline is tomorrow at noon, so hurry!

Go hear to check it out, and then you too can look as stylish as Aaron and myself.