GROIN

Men, when you go out into this world, you must keep an eye out for the parasites. You will find them in every form and every place (although in different degrees, perhaps: you’ll find more in ghettoes, the third world, prisons, criminal haunts and government offices).

A drone is someone who cannot defer gratification. They prefer a result right now, even if they could get one that is twice as good just a few days or hours later. They are ruled by their pursuit of pleasure and leisure, or at least so Plato tells us in his Republic.

This mentality more than anything else defines the drone. When they win a lottery, they waste it. When put in charge of something big, they wreck it. And if you marry one, she’ll do nothing but bleed you dry and then suddenly turn into a weeping victim who will use the kindness of others to steal from you.

So, what are prostitutes planning?

Usually, they have no plan, except to find a rich foreign guy willing to support them. They live day to day. They don’t make much effort to think proactively. They just follow and react to others in their environment, passive.

If they have a plan, then it is to sit at home and watch TV all day, gossip with their friends, and go shopping.

If you expect them to cook special food for you or do other considerate things — for them to put out the same level of effort for you that you put out for them — then you’re usually setting yourself up for disappointment. In fact, you will be lucky if they can even manage the maid and gain the respect of one for long. – “Good guys trying to help often get burned,” by Mark Evan Prado

He might as well have written, “so what are drones planning?”

The answer: nothing.

They have no plan, and no intention to make one. They only care about doing what they want and not doing anything else. When that doesn’t work and they end up broke, they will embark on a series of scams and possibly self-sale. Drones become prostitutes in one form or another.

If you meet a woman who has prostitute-like tendencies, including those toward casual sex or using her sexuality to manipulate others, watch out. You have found yourself a parasite-becoming-prostitute. She knows nothing except her own desires. You have now become the person to pay for those desires.

When you notice what’s going on and stop paying, her only thought is for herself. How do I make the money come back? The answer is that our society is full of sad saps who hate their miserable lives and love to “white knight” to distract themselves from their own lack of meaning.

These white knight saps will immediately rush to her aid, whether in a courtroom or elsewhere, and create a narrative — like a movie script, but told through gossip. In it, she is assumed to be the innocent victim and you, since you have the money, take the role of evil oppressor.

These well-intentioned useful idiots will promptly hand her all of your money and/or throw you in jail as their form of “moral” repair to the situation. In a sense, you deserve it. No good man will settle for a whore or something that acts like one.

If a man’s ego is so beaten he needs to feel like a hero by adopting and supporting some neo-prostitute, he is probably headed for the ripoff bin either way. Parasites outnumber honest people because societies breed parasites through that well-intentioned stuff I mentioned above.

Be careful when you meet women. If they like drugs, drink and casual sex more than studying, working, learning, and long-term romance, you’ve probably run into a drone. Once you allow her to attach, she will become a parasite-prostitute and drain you of money in addition to your fluids.

They call it “passive aggression” because under the camouflage of being the victim, you’re on the attack.

You find some reason why you are at a disadvantage through no fault of your own — usually, the universal right to be doing anything anywhere at any time because you’re equal too — and then use this to force yourself onto others.

The dark side of consumerism and democracy is that they are two sides of the same coin. One is voting rights, because you’re equal; the other is the right to behave in any manner you can afford (keep going to that day job, prole) because you’re equal.

What they don’t tell you, however, is that by making yourself reliant upon this external image of yourself — this equal person who can force others to do things, and thus derives meaning from that — you’ve bonded yourself more closely to the mass herd mind than you could in an authoritarian regime.

You’ve done it to yourself. By chasing your own freedom/consumerism, you have made yourself an advocate and agent of the post-totalitarian state. You have become a salesperson for a lifestyle that represents a political decision that now has taken over your brain.

Such is what happened to women. Society literally convinced them to become whores with a quick sleight-of-hand. It went this way: our men are off at war (WWI & WWII) and now you have “freedom” since you have a job and money. That’s the only way you have freedom, selling yourself for money. If you don’t do it, you’re a prude and old conservative fossil.

As a result, women launched themselves into this new politicized lifestyle. They refused to learn home arts, because that meant being a prude, and they tossed away sex to any man who made a minimal effort at conning them into it. They also set up a mythology of being victims.

But as mentioned above, if you call yourself a victim — a passive act — you’re inevitably going to discover passive aggression. When women crusaded for “equality,” what they really meant was a chance to get ahead. They did it at the expense of the traditional family.

And the results?

• Divorce. Most marriages end in divorce. Divorce shatters children’s trust in the world so thoroughly it turns them into low-grade sociopaths who evade all commitment forever.
• Slutness. It’s hard to find women who are anywhere near virginal. This means a lack of trust because you know that you and your partner are both gaming each other, just like you gamed sex in the past. It’s not surprising many if not most people end marriages by cheating.
• Lack of rewards. If you stumble out of high school or college into some dumb job, and get an apartment and some dumb hobbies, that’s about as good as life gets. Not much will change until you die. You might try marriage, but you probably hate your divorced parents and thus hate the idea of family, and why marry a whore anyway?

The result has been a destruction of the family. As a subset of that, it has been the destruction of both women and men. Men have figured it out halfway; women are still riding the high of thinking they’re in a Virginia Slims commercial. “You’ve come a long way, baby!” — but to what?

Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? – The Atlantic

Because The Atlantic hires mostly liberals, it has a de facto liberal bias, which means it takes the side of whoever is perceived as the “underdog”; liberals love underdogs because it allows them a teachable moment to expound on democracy, the classless society, equality and other pleasing notions.

As a result, this article is a hit piece on men. They don’t ask the vital question: if society has become a giant Habitrail tube where we attend stupid jobs that don’t fulfill us so we can buy stuff so we can prove we’re equal to other, who wants to be adapted to that?

The problem is that such thinking leads men straight into the victimhood complex that we see in most MRAs. They tend to reason this way: “well, the goal is equality, and women are ahead, so men need to assert their rights” — in effect, becoming victims and slaves to the mental concept of victimhood. Right.

Forget that. What men need is to think outside the box, step outside the rule-system that our leaders have drawn for us, and to re-define life as more than a bureaucratic job, an apartment and personal drama that imitates Sex and the City,Friends and other thoroughly neurotic lifestyle showcases.

When men become victims:

If you are forced to use public transport, you see them all the time. Soppy young blokes in skinny jeans, hair artfully arranged to mimic a guinea pig in a hurricane, being mollycoddled by a domineering, post-Spice Girls vixen who, if figures released last week are correct, also earns more than him.

If he’s allowed to travel alone, he’ll be reading Harry Potter or playing with his phone, spreadeagled like a giant baby in its cot, scratching his crotch and yawning so brazenly you fear being sucked into the gaping chasm of his mouth.

It’s not just young bucks. Men who would once have been called middle-aged are behaving like teenagers, faces nourished by some male consumer-targeted unction (because he’s worth it), huddled over their Nintendo Wii or iPhone, desperate to ignore the spectre of maturity tapping on their shoulder. – The Daily Mail

Don’t get me wrong: this world is a neurotic mess. It drifted away from reality-based thinking (now called “conservatism”) into pie-in-the-sky fantasies driven by a Soviet desire for absolute equality — but you can look that up elsewhere.

Suffice it to say, women “succeeding” isn’t because women have leapt ahead; it’s because civilization, in its process of falling apart, has turned jobs into bite-sized make-work do-nothing clerkships where people hang out in offices, go to meetings, and do a whole lot of simple nothing. Interchangeable cogs.

As one commentator wrote:

I could not help but notice that the women’s jobs were things like family therapist and other “elevator music” stuff of quiet office life.

In short, no wealth or prosperity being created there, only tended and administered (or perhaps redistributed). Good luck with that culture you are creating, gals. – Snowguy

Women have destroyed their own futures so much that jobs and a man-whore are all they have left. They view jobs as power, and being a homemaker as a failure, and so they throw themselves into these jobs — 50, 60, 80 hours a week — and society loves a good obedient whore so it rewards them.

I’m not sure they’re more effective. In my experience, most of these jobs are bureaucracy serving itself and they tend to crush these same women’s minds and make them into neurotic automatons. At some point, they wake up and find gray hairs, realize they’re single and have so many treadmarks in their sex organs that a true-blue, honest-love, man-and-woman together forever marriage is out of the question, and freak out.

What’s Your Number?, the new Anna Faris comedy about a 30-something woman named Ally Darling who is fixated on the fact that she’s slept with 20 men, is a critical and box office failure, with reviewers slamming the film’s retrograde sexual mores. For those of you who missed this flop, here’s a quick synopsis: Ally, who has just lost her job and hit bottom, becomes obsessed with the significance of a woman’s “number”—the number of men she has had sex with—after reading in a women’s magazine that women who have sex with more than 20 guys are much less likely to get married. As Slate movie critic Dana Stevens notes, the film doesn’t really argue with the notion that Ally is a capital-S slut. As Entertainment Weekly’s Lisa Schwarzbaum put it, “Whore is the kind of descriptor the creators of What’s Your Number? think is hilarious for a woman to apply to herself, one whose only ‘scandal’ involves a head count of her sex partners. And by the way, who in this day and age is counting?” – Slate

I had something of value, and instead of saving it up and putting it all on one big decision, I frittered it away over the years and now I don’t have it: my innocence, the positive outlook (the opposite of “gaming the system”) which enables me to fully bond in love with a man.

What’s left are more political relationships, more negotiating around the failures of another person because I can tolerate him because I can manipulate him. He allows it to happen; like Ashton Kuchner, he can always walk away. Dudes are OK with their solitary lonesomes.

The tragedy for modern American women is that people aren’t counting in public, but they are counting. At some point, you’re blown out. You’re no longer marriage material. What you are is convenient sex material, and since you still think your certificate program paper-pushing job is important, you’re a disposable cog at work and in bed.

What’s the solution? We know what the solution is not — don’t become feminists in reverse like most MRAs, who make themselves into victims and basically adopt the feminist platform for men. Then you’re falling down the same path that made women insane.

Instead, “man up.” This doesn’t mean some dumb macho ritual; it means that you recognize that this civilization is failing, and instead of passively bending over, you start fixing it. Get invested; get responsible, develop a career, find a good woman instead of date-fucking idiots, and rebuild.

Here’s the classic view that MRAs take, which is that manning up is impossible because everything sucks and well, you might as well just chase vapid pleasures instead of trying to fix the mess that others have made:

I will man up and find a wife on eHarmony. She’ll be my age, a handsome woman tired of being pumped and dumped, with a masculine sensibility that South American and Eastern European women don’t have. She will drastically shorten her hair six months after the wedding, and in spite of my disapproval, she will gain one pound a month until finally exploding like a whale for our first of two kids. She’ll never make the effort to lose the pregnancy weight, no matter how many subtle gym membership gifts I get her for Valentines Day, Mothers Day, her birthday, and Christmas. She will lose interest in having sex with me. The most humiliating moment of my life will be when she tells me to pump her hand while she reads a woman’s magazine. I will feel unattractive and unloved.

Once the kids are in middle school, my wife will initiate divorce proceedings because “the feeling” is no longer there. The feeling was no longer there for me either, but I was willing to make it work for our children. Nonetheless, I will man up and let her take the property, the cars, and the kids. I will pay her steep child support payments that leave me on the edge of poverty. My kids will be brainwashed against me, and hate me for the rest of their lives. I’ll hate them too, but if I stop paying child support I will be sent to prison. With little fatherly influence in their lives, my son will become a little bitch and my daughter a slut who loses her virginity at the age of 14.

I will not give up on life. I will work even harder and make wise investments until my kids are 18 and the burden of child support payments are lifted. Once eligible for social security at the age of 67, I will take my modest nest egg to a modern country with a cheap standard of living, maybe Poland. Once there, no one will count on me and no one will expect anything of me. There will no reason to wake up before noon. I’ll spend my days writing, reading, drinking, and purchasing pussy. – Roosh

Life is just horrible.

Actually, it’s not, but we’re in a bad time. The angry lynch mob who would have hunted witches in the past has learned the trick of passive aggression. Instead of calling you a witch, they claim you’re intolerant of witches. Their goal is to tear down those who rise above and humble them.

The feminist movement is part of this, as are various other victim movements. They are those who destroy civilizations. Under the guise of doing things “for the good of humanity,” they’re selfish, because they really have only one goal:

Make sure no one can tell them what to do, so they spend all of their time on themselves.

Have we heard this before? Scroll up, a bit — oh yes, this is the same democracy/consumerism lie that turned women into the horror of the modern administrative slut who thinks her paper-pushing, web-designing, do-nothing job is important. Do we want to follow that lie?

Break out of the cage; think outside the box. Man up; don’t “grow up” in the way that beaten, hopeless, and angry people do. Use this world to find something you are good at, and use it to make the opposite principle of victimhood: the principle of strength. The principle of manliness. Vir.

Why hasn’t the men’s rights movement (MRM) taken off? After all, there seem to be plenty of dissatisfied men.

My supposition is that no one wants to hitch themselves to a self-defeating movement. In particular, MRM has not adopted any viewpoint that will solve its problems and worse, it has attached a parasite to itself.

When in the course of creating revolutionary change, you bring with you the ideas of those you claim are your enemies, you’re defeating yourself — and the parasite you have attached is their ideology, which lives on in you.

How does MRM fail?

When presented with an ideology like feminism — the idea that men are oppressive, and women need zero obligations to men, e.g. “equality” — you have several options:

• Women win. Yep, we’re all equal, men and women. We should each have zero obligations to the other. This starts to break down when kids are involved. Do the woman and man contribute equally to raise the kid? Thus men pay more, and women get more power.
• Men win. It’s us versus them, and we need some kind of position of power. Men have more obligations in the marriage, so need more consideration, which reverses the current divorce courts/legal attitude that women need protection from men.
• Re-frame. Men and women have different biological, social, and cultural roles, and thus are hard-wired to need different things. Equality is a pipe dream, so instead of focusing on men win versus women win, we focus on the similar interests of both parties and protect that.

The first two options give you unending internal conflict. If you favor men, the next generation will over-correct and favor women, and vice-versa. You will fight this until your society collapses.

If you pick the third option, you have some wiggle room. In this, men and women have complementary roles and cooperate in order to make things work. This reduces some “freedoms” but gives you an outcome other than perpetual enmity.

To adopt men win versus women win is to adopt the viewpoint of feminism. That means that no matter how many laws you change, your assumption is still the same, and you’ll end up in the same place.

I hope men’s rights activists (MRAs) have more sense than that.

The blog you are now reading (still) may never be as popular as many other Men’s Rights blogs simply because it does not tell you that you are a victim.

There is nothing less masculine than deciding to consider yourself a victim. By doing so, you place your fate in the hands of others — at least, you take it from your own hands.

Masculinity is the principle of forward motion: vir being the root of the Latin word for man, it means the principle of men, which is warlike aggression to fix problems and establish a moral self, family and society.

Vir is what propels people to get off their lazy butts and set aside seed for next year, to plant crops and cut rocks from the earth, to chop down trees and grind their stumps, to build vast architectures, to wage war against disease, filth and cowardice. Vir is what defines men.

You give that up when you say, “Man, I really wanted to be big, but life screwed me out of it.” You’ve just told yourself that you cannot do what you want to do, and it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It feels good at first. Why? You probably have a legitimate reason for complaint; for example, family court judges may be biased against men. But it’s deeper than that.

Being a victim lets you off the hook for having to fix the issue and move forward. It makes you feel OK about self-pity, and about telling yourself that it’s not your fault, but someone else’s.

It gives you someone to blame and lets you claim that person holds you prisoner and oppresses you, thus all those dreams remain on paper and never realized.

Hilariously, the entire Men’s Rights Movement seems to want to emulate feminism and with it, the principle of victimhood. It’s like a group of men deciding to cut their balls off and cry with each other.

Your grievances are legitimate; your methods — well, let’s just say that emulating a failed movement like feminism is not the brightest of ideas. It’s emotionally comforting. But do you really need a teddy bear?

Victimhood is the one great ill of our modern society. Because we give preference to victims, everyone wants to be a victim. That means no one takes responsibility for fixing problems. Vir is in short supply.

If there is a true masculinist movement, it will be one that rejects all thoughts of victimhood and instead demands not equality but parity, or a necessary role for masculinity in the universe.

It won’t be popular with those who have already decided to give up, however.

Our legions of teachers, pundits, entertainers and government employees love teachable moments.

These occur when you get an example of something so obvious that every person in the room, no matter how stupid, can see the point (e.g. trigger of mental control) you wish to communicate.

“See, class. When Johnny comes into the room and sees the nuclear device, he presses START and everyone in the whole world dies. When Jimmy comes into the room, he sees the nuclear device and goes to find a teacher or responsible adult. Which would you prefer? World destruction agony, or a few moments to find Mrs. Hauser or Mr. O’brien in the hall?”

In order to have teachable moments, you need very simple mental viruses that have two components:

1. Universal. They need to be simple, and highly vague in scope, yet very clearly delineated. Thou shalt not kill functions because it is vague, but it’s easy to pass on.
2. Dramatic. They must have emotional appeal, by showing us on one hand the happy ending where everyone is friends, and on the other, the boatload of dead orphans surrounded by crying parents.

It’s no different than writing a television commercial: you want to show your audience two options, one of which is really good and the other of which guarantees they will never have sex again. (For all our pretense, we are just silly little animals underneath the suits, laws, tech and verbiage.)

The problem with teachable moments is that while they appear to be highly valuable principles, the process of making them teachable has made them limited and vague, which means they inevitably clash with other needs and leave the student confused.

Each of these teachable moments must be abstracted into an easily-remembered and dramatic principle. Here are some good examples you were taught in school:

• Share. If someone comes up to you and you have a toy, share it. This doesn’t take into account relative need or whether you were actually doing something and he’s just screwing around.
• Non-violence. Violence always leads to suffering, and suffering is bad (and we like to pretend, socially, that it is avoidable) so never violence. Again, no scope or need considered.
• Materialism. The love of the dollar is bad. So is “keeping up with the Joneses” or buying stuff just to impress others. Good citizenship award winners don’t do this.
• Tolerance. No matter how crazy someone else’s lifestyle, you should tolerate them, because you would want to be tolerated. Never mind that you put many hours into behaving sensibly and so do not need “tolerance.”
• Power. Teachers like pithy statements like “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” which is their way of blaming leadership for bad leaders. Good citizenship students don’t want power, they want love.
• Unity. We are all the same under the skin, in the soul, we all bleed red, etc. They don’t want you to shut down your classmates who happen to be idiots, so they force this idiot subsidy on you. But we’re all one! Fearful people love this, because it appeals to their terror of conflict.

All of these miss the real point. Not sharing is a form of putting personal needs before anything else, pointless violence is focusing on means not ends, materialism is a lack of forward motion, hatred of the person distracts from fixing the pattern that produced them, power must not be used for selfish means and group survival is how civilization works. Each of those is too abstract for the teachers much less an assembled group of students ranging widely in ability.

“Keeping up with the Joneses” is one that we are taught by our movies, government propaganda and academic instructors. The classic example is Mr. Smith who sees that Mr. Jones just bought a new wide-screen TV, so Mr. Smith runs out and buys an even bigger one. A pointless consumption race ensues.

But where they fall down is telling you about the abstraction. It’s more complex than buying consumer goods. What about when you decide to put in extra hours at the food bank because Mrs. Jones did? Or gossiping about how crass and trailer trash Mrs. Cook is?

Or even my favorite example, and the point of this article: human consumption. Not the fun kind that involves an open spit and flame, but comparing your “baby bangles” — your loin-fruit that you are certain are smarter, cuter, nicer and more enlightened than the little simians Mrs. Jones popped out.

Ever since WWII, parents have treated children as an extension of themselves. This is equal parts consumerism, moral superiority (mimicking their governments) and conspicuous success, where each person is able to shout down others by showing them wealth, good breeding and possessions all in one.

The results on children have been catastrophic. They experienced both fawning helicopter-parent love and the sickening realization that it is not about love for them, but love for self. The parents want children to show off, “proof” they can use to remind their neighbors that they are indeed inferior.

Generation X got accustomed to being unimportant while the parents had TV to watch, but suddenly vital to the family when neighbors or relatives showed up. We were paid actors — free rent and food — whose purpose was to make the parents look good. And if we didn’t?

Well, I’m sure you’ve all seen the teachable moments about child abuse.

If you say the term “banksters” out loud, you are immediately lowering your IQ.

It’s a clever contraction of “banker” and “gangster” designed to make you feel like a victim. Those evil banksters, they did it to you!

The truth is that bankers are what bankers have always been, which is relatively plodding people who look for ways to make money. That’s…their…job.

If you give them an opportunity through your own vast stupidity, they will take your money and send you a bill for services rendered. Shame on you.

This reminds me of the great secret about snake bites: most of them occur to males 18-29 when alcohol is involved. Most snakes won’t bite until your drunk ass picks them up, probably while a friend tries to snap a picture with her iPhone.

Wall Street does what any money-maker should, which is look for opportunities. It wasn’t their fault the economy collapsed. After two presidents told the regulators to ease up on the rules for house loans, a new market emerged: millions of credulous people willing to sign up for absurd debt loads.

Now many people are feeling hurt. They don’t want to face the real problem, which is that our society is in the hands of a gang of dangerous idiots known as voters. Instead, they want to blame some Satan or Sauron character.

When you blame the scapegoat, everything else is OK or at least assumed to be.

If you want to lower your IQ, go around talking about banksters. It will make you popular. It will also push the truth farther away from your pudgy little hands.

Many people in this world are self-hating. When your society is based on illusions, and requires you to spend a lot of time humbling yourself to those illusions, you tend to hate yourself.

This increases the more you succeed, which is why our wealthy elites are so self-destructive.

Women in the west have it pretty good. If they stumble out of high school with a degree, and stumble down the street to community college to get some kind of certification, they are basically guaranteed a middle class income.

Then the question becomes what more they want out of life. On this point, women are confused.

In comes feminism. A splinter of liberal ideology, feminism demands equality for women. Well, sort of — what it really demands is what men have, under the guise of ideology.

The problem is that it destroys women as well.

From repeat domestic violence calls to Los Angeles car chases, hit-and-run drivers and the balloon-boy hoax, worthless louts consume vastly more law enforcement resources than the rest of us.

{ snip }

Various studies have shown that children raised by a single mother comprise about 70 percent of juvenile murderers, delinquents, teenaged mothers, drug abusers, dropouts, suicides and runaways. Imagine an America with 70 percent fewer of these social disorders and you will see what liberals’ destruction of marriage has wrought.

{ snip }

A 2008 study led by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi conservatively estimated that single mothers cost the U.S. taxpayer $112 billion every year — in addition to asking the rest of us to keep an eye on their kids while they go clubbing.

We could have had two Iraq wars — Obama could have “saved or created” half a million stimulus jobs — at that price. – Human Events

We have single mothers because all things in nature follow the path of least resistance.

In the case of relationships, this is divorce or perpetual singleton status. When this happens, the children grow up with single moms. If those moms are insane, the dads bolt. If those moms were so drugged on feminist logic that they didn’t realize that not all men are equal, and hooked up with a scumbag, he’ll bolt too. Either way, the single mother ends up bearing the brunt of the burden — because of her own poor life choices.

The root paradox of feminism is equality. It believes that men and women should be equal, except that women are more equal because women, as the “underdog,” need more help to be equal.

For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: Men are naturally batterers, and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).

Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men.

Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits.

{ snip }

Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty and in many cases are not afforded the right to confront their accusers. – Town Hall

Like all liberal ideas, feminism favors the underdog and so becomes a jihad/pogrom against those who are doing just fine. That means men.

Unfortunately, this forces the issue. Men now have no recourse except to treat all women as sociopathic parasites and avoid entering in contract with them. Goodbye, marriage. How many Gen Xers managed to get married again?

Here’s typical liberal logic — wanting to have it both ways:

Over the past few years, an alimony reform movement, of sorts, has taken shape across the nation, and now many consider “lifetime alimony” a thing of the past — a relic from the days when very few wives worked outside the home. Indeed, most states already have revised their alimony laws, setting limits on the duration and amounts of payments.

But, do these alimony reforms go too far?

In many cases, I think they do. Sadly, it seems that stay-at-home moms and other women with little or no income of their own have lost their voice in state legislatures largely controlled by men.

For me, the arguments in favor of alimony are straightforward. If a woman has been in a long-term marriage, and she has either been out of the work force for decades or has an income that is substantially less than her husband’s, I believe she needs –and deserves –alimony in order to maintain a post-divorce lifestyle that’s at least somewhat comparable to the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage. – Forbes

Either men and women are equal, or they’re not.

If they’re equal, neither one should be expected to bear the burden of the other. Child support, maybe; alimony, no.

The woman can go back into the work force and earn a living just like the man is doing.

If the marriage failed, it took two to make it fail. She is as guilty as he is.

Feminism and liberalism don’t want you to think about these things. (It’s paradoxical for a man to be a liberal. Liberalism is defense of the individual against reality; men who are masculine embrace reality and view it as a joyful challenge. If you sit down to pee, by all means be a liberal. But masculine men, gay or straight, have no business being liberal.)

Instead, they want to continue what they do best, which is destroying those who do succeed in order to subsidize those who fail.

Neurotic lonely women everywhere go home to their mold-infested townhomes, pay they children’s bail and the drink wine as they surf dating sites alone.

Feminism is female self-destruction. In the name of equality, it has put men in a position of assumed guilt. The male response is withdrawal. The female consequence is loneliness, schizoid neurosis and self-hatred.

A good way to destroy your kids is to pass your doubt, fear and frustration on to them.

One way to do that is to provide a neurotic home life, which produces unstable children. In part, their only mode of survival is to shrink away and do the minimum, avoiding conflict.

That creates people who cannot deal with life, need constant reinforcement, and so flock to liberalism and other ego-salves.

Is your kid a “dove” – cautious and submissive when confronting new environments, or perhaps you have a “hawk” – bold and assertive in unfamiliar settings?

These basic temperamental patterns are linked to opposite hormonal responses to stress – differences that may provide children with advantages for navigating threatening environments, researchers report in a study published online July 8, 2011, in Development and Psychopathology.

“Divergent reactions – both behaviorally and chemically – may be an evolutionary response to stress,” says Patrick Davies, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester and the lead author of the study. “These biological reactions may have provided our human ancestors with adaptive survival advantages. For example, dovish compliance may work better under some challenging family conditions, while hawkish aggression could be an asset in others.”

{…}

Doves with parents who fought violently produced elevated levels of cortisol, a hormone that is thought to increase a person’s sensitivity to stress. Hawks from such stressful home environments put the breaks on cortisol production, which is regarded as a marker for diminishing experiences of danger and alarm. – Medical Xpress

If you fight in front of your kids, or just produce a neurotic and unwelcoming home life, don’t be surprised when you end up with dropouts or criminals.

This was common sense a century ago, but we’re “enlightened” now.

The popular opinion on this topic: make drugs legal or decriminalize.

I believed that once. I figured that if people wanted to do drugs, let them and we could stop this crazy cat-and-mouse game called the War on Drugs.

Years later, and having spent a lot of time studying secondary effects, I have reversed that opinion. Drugs are an idiot magnet and we should not only keep them illegal, but prosecute users.

If you are poor, a minority, unsatisfied with your life, or are mentally ill, you are likely to become addicted to drugs. – In Mala Fide

If you want to attract more of these people, be sure to legalize drugs.

They will show up and bring their friends. Since they are not sterile, and they love to copulate (high correlation in pleasure-seeking behaviors across the board), you will soon have many more of them.

Let us flood our streets with urban trash.

Most crimes are committed by minorities—most victims are white. Most crimes are committed by poor people—most victims are better off. And about half of all rape accusations are false. – VDARE

Do we want to invite more of this behavior?

Legalizing drugs would make drugs cheaper, which would encourage people to spend more of their time on drugs. In turn, it would make discrimination against drug users a possibly illegal act. If the behavior isn’t illegal, how can we not hire or rent to them with any legal standing?

Even more, we see the social consequences of drug use. Whether drugs are legal or not, we have mothers spacing out on their kids, people passing out and driving in a stupor, incompetence at work, and any number of other problems.

If you said to me, “Can we legalize drugs for the independently wealthy and idle?” — I’d approve of that plan. No harm and no foul.

Everyone else has to earn a living, raise families, and keep themselves out of trouble, none of which they can do while on drugs.

Cops know this. They defend the drug war not just for the fat overtime paychecks, but because they know that people who tend to use drugs also tend to commit crimes and have evasive personalities.

I am no fan of modern society. I’d like to evade it too. But that’s a dead-end path, and telling good people that it’s OK to follow it is tantamount to telling them we don’t care if they live or die.

That just makes the bad stronger, just as legalizing drugs makes them think they’ve found paradise for parasites: a willing host with fat welfare checks, lax laws, cheap drugs and no consequences for their actions.

From the first article:

I’m in favor of legalizing drugs at the federal level but allowing individual states/municipalities to ban them if they like, and ending the government’s meddling in other countries’ drug policies.

Instead, let’s do it the other way around: pick a test area and legalize drugs there.

The Netherlands found their legal drug culture encouraged a total tourist mess. For the last five years, the trend has been toward increasing restriction of drug culture in an attempt to channel it into red light districts and away from the rest of the population.

Portugal legalized drugs, and while the usual suspects are trumpeting how successful the program is, I find that anything with lots of “true believers” (pre-debunking “useful idiots”) attracts lots of journalists and social workers willing to fudge statistics.

In the meantime, Portugal is going broke, its government is near collapse, and one reason for lowered drug use is that anyone who can leave is hitting the road. You don’t want to be the person stuck paying taxes when a regime collapses.

None of these people have come up with a working plan. Here’s Ferd (whose writings I normally enjoy) again:

For most of the history of European and Western civilization, people began working and raising families in their mid-teens, and those teens built the greatest culture the world has ever known. Now, in the twilight of our empire, we don’t let kids work, we don’t let them drive, we don’t let them smoke or drink or fuck or assume ANY adult responsibilities or privileges. We shuffle them into an educational system that caters to the dumbest and weakest instead of the strongest and smartest. We force them to spend four years in college, racking up tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that they’ll be paying off well into their thirties. We stand over their shoulders at all time, never letting them do anything on their own.

And then we sit around and complain about “kidults” and how the younger generations are immature and won’t grow up. HELLO! They won’t grow up because their parents and guardians and teachers won’t let them.

He has a point here, but he draws the wrong conclusion.

Fixing education is a matter of making it competitive again. College is expensive because every student carries the load of affirmative action and dumbed-down students. Make it harder to get into college, get rid of these stupid quotas, and watch the prices fall by half.

Finally, let’s let kids make more adult decisions. The problem is, as he notes:

The more degenerate and immoral a society becomes, the more obsessed it becomes with mollycoddling its youth.

Most of the options available to them out there are pitfalls. Parents are busy with work and failing marriages.

Until we clean up our society, our youth aren’t making “decisions” — they’re following impulses from media, rock star “role models,” and their peers.

I suggest we give the kids some choices to make, but only when we’ve cleaned up the mess. Further, instead of choices like “what drugs do I take?” (a moronic question) let’s give them more choices in what they study and what other activities they participate in.

You want adult decisions? It’s not how you party. It’s how you spend your time: take up an instrument, or a martial art? Double major or not? Join the officer corps?

Claiming that we’re giving kids more adult decisions by dangling drugs and alcohol in front of their faces is just silly.

People who are fucked up will always find a way to fuck up. If it’s not drugs, it’s alcohol. If it’s not alcohol, it’s overeating, or video games, or obsessively following celebrity news, or writing Wikipedia articles. If you want to stop drug abuse, you have to stop people from being fucked up.

He runs afoul of this knowledge:

The falsely-accused black man and the guilty white man form what is called a “trope”—a “storytelling device” or convention.

{…}

For example, in the case of the African immigrant hotel maid who accused Strauss Kahn, everyone has banished from their mind any previous stereotype about women in her position making things up, and replaced it with the stereotype of the vile white racist who takes advantage of minority women. (VDARE)

The pity-the-victim trope encourages us to think that people are broken, so they need some way to express their brokenness.

In realityland, we see that instead, we’re encouraging their brokenness by tolerating it, thus ensuring that we’ll get more of it.

I wish there was a nice easy answer like “legalize drugs and the problem will go away.” However, as with alcohol, drugs remain a problem and always will be. Any time you can get to a happy place in your head and leave reality behind, there’s a risk.

The solution is not to coddle that risk, but to make a clear statement: dropping out of reality is a terrible idea, and we’ll fight it wherever we find it.

If people want responsibility of an adult nature, how about this: moral choice. Drug use leads to bad things. It’s a moral choice to avoid it.

Society should not waffle on whether it’s good or bad. We should make it clear from the start: drug use leads to degenerate behavior, makes you into a wimp, and is a path to decay.

Life is a series of jumping through hoops to prove you are a worthy candidate.

Why? — most people are idiots who are barely above the level of chimpanzees, if at all.

What defines us in this life are the exclusive choices we make, not the inclusive ones. Of course idiots are inclusive; what else would they be? They want to be included.

Exclusive choices include choice of mate. If you marry a girl, you should not be saying “OK, you’ll do,” but celebrating her as the best of the best and the right one for you.

Manners help define us. People who behave well show they are honestly considerate for others, and invested in a pattern of behavior that makes social interaction elevated, not animalistic or (worse) falsely humanistic and flattering.

Apparently, this nice little old lady in the UK decided to bawl out her son’s intended wife because the girl lacks manners:

It is high time someone explained to you about good manners. Yours are obvious by their absence and I feel sorry for you.

Unfortunately for Freddie, he has fallen in love with you and Freddie being Freddie, I gather it is not easy to reason with him or yet encourage him to consider how he might be able to help you. It may just be possible to get through to you though. I do hope so.

If you want to be accepted by the wider Bourne family I suggest you take some guidance from experts with utmost haste. There are plenty of finishing schools around.

Please, for your own good, for Freddie’s sake and for your future involvement with the Bourne family, do something as soon as possible.

Here are a few examples of your lack of manners:

• When you are a guest in another’s house, you do not declare what you will and will not eat – unless you are positively allergic to something. You do not remark that you do not have enough food. You do not start before everyone else. You do not take additional helpings without being invited to by your host.
• When a guest in another’s house, you do not lie in bed until late morning in households that rise early – you fall in line with house norms.
• You should never ever insult the family you are about to join at any time and most definitely not in public. I gather you passed this off as a joke but the reaction in the pub was one of shock, not laughter.
• You should have hand-written a card to me. You have never written to thank me when you have stayed.
• You regularly draw attention to yourself. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.
• No one gets married in a castle unless they own it. It is brash, celebrity style behaviour.

I understand your parents are unable to contribute very much towards the cost of your wedding. (There is nothing wrong with that except that convention is such that one might presume they would have saved over the years for their daughters’ marriages.)

If this is the case, it would be most ladylike and gracious to lower your sights and have a modest wedding as befits both your incomes. – The Daily Mail

Undoubtedly the sender of the email is a little bit bitchy, clearly does not think highly of her future daughter-in-law, and may resent her son marrying anyone. However — she’s correct.

Manners are useful things. Young ladies who chuck them out the window are saying “Me first, me first before the rest of you all!” and while it’s not pleasant to say so, it’s necessary.

You are the company you keep, your family and your own behavior. Let us listen to one of the most honorable characters in the most romantic book ever written, Pride and Prejudice:

“The situation of your mother’s family, though objectionable, was nothing in comparison of that total want of propriety so frequently, so almost uniformly, betrayed by herself, by your three younger sisters, and occasionally even by your father.

Pardon me. It pains me to offend you. But amidst your concern for the defects of your nearest relations, and your displeasure at this representation of them, let it give you consolation to consider that to have conducted yourselves so as to avoid any share of the like censure is praise no less generally bestowed on you and your eldest sister, than it is honourable to the sense and disposition of both.” – Fitzwilliam Darcy

Throughout the novel, we see the same theme: people without manners lack common sense because they are oblivious to the world outside of themselves.

Jane Austen’s book — nicknamed “the eugenics novel” by my professor at college — tells a tale of a few inwardly beautiful people in a world of selfish, solipsistic, manipulative whores disguised as gentry.

Whether or not Carolyn Bourne is a raging bitch, her email landed some soft punches bearing the reality that young women should face today.

You are in a society that rewards hedonism, selfishness and the pursuit of meaningless desire, but that is a control mechanism that keeps you docile and sabotages your true potential.

Instead, you should be working toward long term goals and beautiful things, in lieu of competing with your fellow future proles for the affections, attention and drama of your social circle. That is transient.

You may think you are clever and that you have gotten away with something, but what you have done instead is to broadcast that you are self-centered, which makes it easy to manipulate you.

Whether that’s some smarmy pick-up artist telling you how beautiful you look, a con man telling you how educated you are, or politicians telling you that you are too elite to not have the “right” ideas, it’s a sham.

But you do it to yourselves. Manners are a way out of the abyss that is the self, and you should listen to your (possibly bitchy) elders and pick up on the solid reasons why we have manners, not the simple fact that they bother you and might muss your hair.