Healthcare to Remain Unaffordable

Now that the Obamacare repeal is dead, the Republican party has effectively decided that they want to lose their seats next November.

Apparently, disdain for President Trump trumps actually winning for them.

I am disappointed in Congress and I hope that President Trump blasts them hard in the State of the Union.  My health care premiums are now about 650 a month after the 50% my company pays for.  Just a few years ago, I had a plan that was 250 a month total.

Republicans aren’t leaders.  They are losers who wish to absolve themselves of all responsibility while trying to pretend to be leaders.

This is the same thing I’ve seen in the corporate world.  No one wants to stand for anything because to do so would mean you are engaging in leadership and would have to be responsible for the decisions you make.

This is all part of our cultural rot.  Everyone wants to have the freedom to have fun and enjoy life but we refuse to take responsibility for our actions.

The Republicans and Democrats would rather rape children than provide affordable healthcare for the ever-dwindling middle class.  Keep that in mind when more leaks about the degenerate behavior they engage in comes out.  They would rather dry hump cocktail waitresses instead of protecting this country.

We are living in an aristocracy, not a democracy or a republic.  The mere fact that Donald Trump is a miracle from God.  He’s never been an aristocrat, which is why the Republicans oppose him and undermine him.

Fuck those guys.

Civilized Tribalism

A few years ago, I would have told you that the individual is sovereign and that government policy should respect and reflect that.

I believe this was because I myself am a naturally extreme introvert, enjoying the songs of silence and taking solace in loneliness despite living in a two bedroom condo with a family, and so I think I was projecting my own personality traits on others.

Unfortunately this is not the case.  People, by and large, find comfort in group dynamics and communities.  I realize that now.  While someone like me can survive without human contact for extended periods of time, not many people can.

In short, people were meant to be social creatures.

In light of this realization, I have since modified my stances on various ideas to fit this epiphany I’ve had.  As such, I now view many conflicts in modern society as nothing more than a form of civilized tribalism.

When you see the black lives matters riots, it is an expression of tribal loyalty, nothing more.  Gangs are formed as a result of innate tribalism.

As such, I have nothing but contempt for the Left these days.  While I don’t believe in the superiority of any race, I don’t believe in racial equality either.  Such concepts are subjective based on location, community, and culture.

This is not a moral judgment or assessment of a group of people.  Unfortunately, the morlocks on the Left tend to make only value judgments when it comes to racial identity or any kind of identity for that matter.

So when you bring up the idea that gay men are largely hyper-sexual and destruction based on their own observed behavior, you are “homophobic” at best.

When you say that blacks in the US are more likely to commit crimes based on criminal statistics, you are racist, at best.

And when you believe that women would be better served staying home and raising children, you are sexist.

There is nothing wrong with breaking up into identities based on common community, race, culture, religion, or some combination of those things.  It is how people provide security, stability, and order with each other.

But if you happen to be a Christian, white, straight man like I am, well, you’re shit out of luck.

Valve Takes Measures Against SJWs and Other Trolls

This week, Valve’s chief product, Steam, had a client update to its software, specifically changing how user reviews are viewed and filtered for a video game.  Basically, they’ve set it to filter out all reviews from users who do not have a Steam key.

This means that while the user who reviews the game may have the game, Steam can’t verify this as the user didn’t buy the game through Steam.

Many indie devs have expressed concern over this as many of them develop and sell their game before getting it released to Steam.

However, I see this is as a step in the right direction.  In many cases, user reviews of games can make or break it as players often times have limited funds and a large set of positive reviews may cause a player to buy a game he nominally interested in.

So having legitimate user reviews means potentially more revenue for developers who create good games.

Conversely, we have seen the rise of the armchair (basement-dwelling) communist in recent years.  What these people do is find any avenue to marginalize and isolate anyone who openly defies them or produces content which is counter to their narrative.

This has been happening at Amazon for a long time now.  I’ve seen many posts from Vox Day where he gives out Amazon reviews from such yahoos who clearly have not read his or his clients’ books.  Amazon has yet to remedy this issue, although I am under the impression that they will ban the user from making reviews if a false review allegation is proven true.  Vox himself also has zero problem with doxing and sicking his legion of followers on said user.

Most non-creative types who produce no entertainment content usually don’t care about this kind of thing.  But what you have to understand is that negative fake reviews are basically like stealing money from the creator’s income.

What Valve has done here is allow users who haven’t bought the game through Steam to review the game, but basically refused to show it by default as they may potentially be trolls or SJWs with a Marxist mission.

In other words, if gamers want to negatively review a video game, even for political reasons, they’re going to have to buy it first.

While it doesn’t eliminate the problem of trolls or SJWs entirely, it at least adds a layer of protection which wasn’t there before.

The Government Doesn’t Stop Hedonism

Watched Ben Swann’s report on CDC corruption today.  Got into a bit of a spat with a moron.  I basically stated that the gay mafia caused the CDC to become politicized in the 1980s due to the AIDS “epidemic”.  This person disagreed saying that conservatives stopped the CDC from doing its job.

I’m guessing this commenter was a gay rights activist of some kind who believed that government could have stopped the spread of AIDS while allowing gay men to continue to have 10+ anonymous sexual partners a day.

In other words, the government was suppose to do its primary domestic job: protecting people from the bad consequences of their actions.

The spread of AIDS in the United States was primarily due to the extremely sexually promiscuous culture that underlined urban gay men.  They made it so that a gay man could go to a specific location and have sex with another man without attachment.

It is pretty much the dream of many young heterosexual men to have such a world for them.  But women, despite their best efforts to imitate men, remain very selective in their sexual partners, even when it is anonymous.

So of course, by committing wanton acts of sodomy, gay men are more likely to contract many serious diseases.  I doubt even AIDS is the most rampant among gay men.

The bottom line is, AIDS was the fault of irresponsible sexual behavior among gay men and that continues to be the case to this day in the Western world.

Of course, this is considered homophobic.  It is homophobic to urge fellow human beings to act with the virtue of moderation and it is not homophobic to promote hedonism among sexual degenerates.

Such is the world we live in.

The Unmen Among Us

In the past, I have written about the moral code of the Left.  Basically, it boils down to classes, where people of a certain class are able to commit horrible crimes while people of another are not allowed to do so.  When you apply this standard, the logical conclusion is to demonize those of us in the other class.

This is why hate crimes are considered more heinous than their equivalents when done by members of a minority class.  So when you read or hear about black people murdering and/or raping other people, even non-black people, you do not get the same response from the Left as when a group of white people hurls the word “niggar” at a black person.

Indeed, women and minorities can do no wrong in the eyes of the Left.  Unless, of course, they refuse to tow the ideological line of the Left, which usually involves honoring the overlords of Leftist thought and a hatred of human liberty.  Then they are considered to be part of the majority.  For the Left, race and gender are attitudes and behaviors, not necessarily genetic, which is something that science supports.

I won’t argue that the Leftist is a science-denier, because they will use science to work in their favor.  Like any other ideological group, if it favors their ideals, then it holds up in their ideology.  To deny them is to be a science-denier, despite the fact that the do deny science when it suits them.

An example of this is the idea of transgender individuals.  According to genetic science, most people or either male or female.  Yes, there are abnormalities, but those instances are incredibly rare and usually such people are female.

But most people who are transgender, claim that their genetic code is wrong and that they “feel” like they are of another gender.  The Left currently supports these claims, despite our advanced knowledge of genetics and the mapping of the human genome.

In other words, knowledge is meant to serve them in their minds, not change their minds.  This is the very essence of the Unman, the demon-possessed scientists in C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra, who used its wit and vast knowledge merely as a tool.  When it wasn’t tempting the queen to defy God, it was behaving like a small sociopathic child brutally torturing the animals.

That is the way the Leftist thinks and feels.  They may be well-read, intelligent, and generally likable.  But this is a mask.  Left on their own, they behave like rabid, abhorrent animals.  We see cracks of this once in a while when they do performance art where women will menstruate on canvas or men will place a cross in a jar of urine (here’s a hint: it isn’t art if everybody can do it).

They are so full of hatred, paranoia, envy, greed, and pride that anything good or wholesome is oppressive to them because it is supported by those not like them.

If evolution were true (I am an evolution skeptic), then it would be in our interest as a species to out-breed them, out think them, and ultimately banish them to some other continent and see what creatures they become in a million years.  But that would be inhuman and the vast majority of us who see these people look upon them with pity, not hatred or contempt.

Yes, their actions are contemptible, like when they got rid of health insurance plans so everyone could afford them, but they themselves are to be pitied.  They are broken people, wicked to the core but at the same time desperate to get out without knowing how.

So when you encounter a Leftist, be sure to not hold them in contempt.  Don’t let them get away with their contemptible actions, but remember that they are the Unmen among us.

Understanding MGTOW

Men who are going their own way (commonly known as MGTOW) are becoming more and more common even as many of the men doing so don’t realize it.  The core idea behind MGTOW is that men are simply checking out of society by not marrying, not working harder than they need to, and spending their time doing things for themselves.

The response of the Baby Boomers and the early Gen-X’ers has been a resounding “man-up” call to them.  In many cases, video games, pornography, and other hobbies are blamed on a man’s lost interest in doing what societies generally desire them to do.

Yet for all of this, I cannot help but wonder why these people do not even bother to question what it is they are doing or have done to make young men want to check out of society altogether.

In the first place, consider that divorce rates are anywhere between 30% to 50% depending on the study you look into.  Also consider that women who are not virgins when they get married are much more likely to divorce than women who are.  Finally, consider the toll that divorce takes on men like perpetual alimony (at the time of Robin Williams’ suicide, he was paying six figures to two ex-wives if I recall the facts correctly), child support, and just losing half of your stuff.

The risks for most men getting married are incredibly high right now.  Men love a good challenge, yes, but not one where the risk-reward ratio is next to nothing.  It would be one thing if a man was guaranteed sex, home-cooked meals, and pleasant company most of the time with his wife.  But these days many women are incapable of doing those simple things and instead desire to browbeat men using emotional and verbal abuse.  Effectively, the average maturity level of women is that of a ten year old girl.

So men would rather not sign a contract with a woman which is treated like a perpetual dating contract rather than a serious commitment backed by an oath made before God.  A wife’s love comes with conditions while a husband’s love is supposed to be a given.

On top of that, we have a stagnating or depressing economy right now.  Many younger men are not seeing prospects beyond the retail outlet jobs they picked up as a summer job while at school.  More and more these type of jobs are requiring college degrees of some kind, which means a man needs to be in debt to the government before he can be hired to be a cashier, flip burgers, or make coffee.

So with those bleak economic prospects, many men have little to offer women who are more attracted to wealth and status rather than looks.  Yes, women do appreciate a good looking man.  But slap a Starbucks apron on him and suddenly his attractiveness drops 5 points on the 10 point scale.

So men are checking out of the procreation game entirely.  For them, it simply isn’t worth the time, the trouble, and the risk involved.  Who wants to be married to someone and be unhappy?  Who wants to be married to someone who has a good chance of running off with half your shit and demanding payments to fund her pornographic lifestyle while his kids are left at home with no babysitter?  Who wants to get married with no guaranteed sex or comfort from his wife?

I’m not saying they are necessarily right to do so.  Hell, I’d say take risk and know that most men who get divorced ultimately end up better off than their ex-wives in the end so long as you fight her in the divorce proceedings.  And the economy is only as good as the number of productive people engaged in it.

But I understand them and their attitude.  I’m tempted sometimes to take my own route that would lead me to that lifestyle as well.  No, I will not abandon my family, but I do enjoy solitude from time to time.

But for our society to combat this growing trend, we need to understand that it is us who are driving men to this.  Porn and video games are the easier route right now as having sex with a real human being is much more desirable but produces way too many risks for men.

Be Careful What You Demand of Government

All laws are backed by the threat of death.  Even the little ones like loitering or selling something that is illegal to sell.

This argument is always painted as ridiculous and an anarchist one.  In fact, sometimes people respond that because it is an anarchist argument, then it is automatically invalid (looking at you John C. Wright).

But it is the truth.  The God’s honest horrible truth about laws.  Every law that is passed is to be enforced with lethal results if necessary.

This is why it is very critical that we carefully evaluate all laws that are passed by our crony legislatures.  Because the regulation that tells you whether or not you can own a pig on your property will be met with deadly force if you refuse to comply.

Government is an institution designed to handle protection from external threats and maintain justice domestically.  The only method at its deposal is the use of force, which is its social contract with the populace.

This is why even minor laws are backed by lethal force.  Because there is no real alternative to coerce people to obey them.

Granted, most people follow most laws because they aren’t bad people in general.  Sinners, yes, but not bad people.  Our desires are mostly to make money and live a decent life without bringing harm to others.  But there are select few for whom these laws are made.

And then you’re choked to death for selling cigarettes in front of downtown shops.  All because the police have two settings when you resist: chase or kill.

The Disney Princess Movies Were For Boys, Not Girls

I wonder if all those older Disney movies like Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast were not for little girls, but for little boys.  While it is true that most of Disney’s output has been targeting girls of late, it seems to me that this has not always been the case.  The phenomenon of the “Disney Princess” is something that appeared within the last decade or so when Disney saw a opportunity.

Think about those older animated movies.  In many of them, the male protagonist is usually thrown in at the end or a side show compared to the princess, who is usually the central character.  This is not to denigrate the male character or Disney’s portrayal of him, but to highlight that the central character is usually the “princess.”

The “princess” is usually portrayed as virtuous and without fault.  She is perfect in her own way and as such, no character growth is required of her.  This would make for a boring movie, so in place of portraying a flawed individual overcome her own personal demons, she instead falls victim to (or fights against) external evils.  In many cases, she is a victim of curses or evil forces beyond her control.

Contrast that to the male characters who are almost always portrayed as flawed or, in some cases, the cause of the misfortune that falls on the “princess”.  In Beauty and the Beast, for example, the “Beast” is cursed because he is selfish and nasty.  It is only through Belle that he is made into a “proper” man.

This theme is common in many fairy tale-like stories, not necessarily limited to Disney.  We often see the woman, being pure and virtuous, fixing the man who is flawed and selfish.  This is pretty much the basis of most romance movies.  The woman fixes the man.  But I digress.

My point is that these movies are designed, I think, to target little boys and make them think that girls are pure and virtuous and are the ones who can save them from their evil tendencies.  As of late, this trend has pretty much been abandoned as seen in Frozen, though.  But at the same time, we now have a generation that has grown up watching Belle tame the Beast, Aladdin fighting for a rebellious princess instead of stealing for a living, and Simba reasserting the circle of life for the sake of his estranged girlfriend.

The common theme is “Men bad, women good”.  This would all be fine if it were true.  But the truth is, women are among the most deceptive and manipulative creatures on the planet.  They have to be because they are not physically stronger than men and are oftentimes intellectually inferior (not necessarily stupider, just not interested really).  So they have to find ways to survive and will use any tool at their disposal to get what they want.

Yes, even the virtuous ones may fake an orgasm from time to time in order to get the job done and keep her man happy.  And a happy man means he will continue to give her his resources that he earns through his work.

There is nothing wrong with this really.  Being shrewd is a virtue, as Jesus Himself stated, and women certainly are better at it than men are.  I think what many in the so-called manosphere really encourage is for men to be wiser and shrewder than women, which is why most women naturally resent it.

So for all of you young men who were exposed to all those Disney movies growing I say this: they are nothing but lies and misconceptions when it comes to how women really are.  Women are, like men, flawed and selfish individuals in their own right.  They just go about it in a much different way than men do.

I remember hearing about how literature and entertainment oftentimes portrays women in a dual light: either as wretches or as angels.  There is very little in-between. And it often happens in cycles, where at some points in time, they are devils, where as at other points in time, they are angels.

Perhaps it is high time that we portray women for who they really are.  Then again, it might be a bad marketing move since most entertainment is consumed by women, not men.  This would certainly explain why Disney movies get it wrong so much: they have to go through the mommy filter first.

Fascination With Evil

I once heard a story from a pastor about a man who was confronted with a murderous dictator in a court proceeding.  The man proceeded to break down and cry because he “saw himself” in the man.

Such thinking is irrational at best.  The vast majority of us, though capable of murder, are not murderous.  If anything, it repulses us, especially as we get older.

I used to be intrigued by the stories of serial killers.  Now these stories affect me deeply, usually a combination of horror and sadness.  I think of the people these bastards have killed and I think of those who remain behind.

There is no reason to feel guilt over what others have done and no need to empathize with them.  Murder is evil, pure and simple and to compare yourself to a murderer is foolish.  I don’t understand why normal people think that they can relate to a murderer.

It doesn’t help that our society uses serial killers and other assorted wicked people for entertainment purposes.  How many cop dramas, among other genres, are out there where the most watched episodes involve some kind of wicked person.

It’s this sick obsession we have with death and those who issue it out without guilt or remorse that I find repugnant.  What’s worse is that we have movies where graphic details of torture and murder or shown to us.  Usually, the gravity of what is depicted is lost on audiences, mostly because the movie-makers are interested in morality but money.

I have no problem with the depictions of such people or the gruesome actions they do, but I think the gravity of who they are and what they did needs to be captured as well.  Otherwise we turn serial killers into anti-heroes and their victims are depicted as annoying people whose deaths are not something to be mourned.

In any case, I am finding myself more and more disgusted with all of this.  I don’t know if it’s because of me becoming a mature adult or because I am connecting with God in a way I haven’t before, but I just can’t stand such things anymore.

And I have trouble taking people seriously who watch these kind of shows and movies where the murderer is considered a hero or anti-hero while the victim is someone who deserves death.  The only people who deserve death are those who have been judged so as a matter of justice.  And that only applies when they themselves have murdered someone else.

This fascination with evil needs to stop.  We must hate it, hate everything about it, and focus on what is good.

Unfortunately, we are rapidly becoming a society that has forgotten about the nature of the fruit of the Tree that caused our fall in the first place.  Instead of making us knowledgeable about the difference between good and evil, we find ourselves not only ignorant of the difference, but indifferent of it as well.

The Union of Opposites

The concept of the union of opposites has often been a common theme among humanity.  It predates Christianity and it may even stretch back past known history.  It is also one of the most spiritually destructive concepts in religion or any other spiritual philosophy.

First of all, we need to establish what exactly the union of opposites means.  It is, quite simply, the unification of two opposing concepts in order to make something better.  We often see in depictions of the unity of a man and woman, both considered being polar opposites.  The Yin-Yang symbol is a popular depiction of this.

The concept behind the union of opposites is predicated on the idea that mankind is broken and missing something that leaves us only a shell of what we could be.  This is a concept that is seen in just about every religion, philosophy, and even among more common ideas.  One would be a fool to admit that there isn’t something that is wrong with humanity.

The commonly believed problem, however, is that by uniting with our opposites, we will become whole.  Such thinking is often seen throughout many pagan cultures and, more recently, in certain rituals involving magick or other related things.  Alastair Crowley’s sex magick was an example of this.

Alchemy was traditionally another practice of this.  The idea was not necessarily turning Lead into Gold, but the idea of breaking down an element into it’s base parts and reassembling them into something different and better.

The process, breaking something down than rebuilding it, is the common process used to achieve the sacred union.  In sex, you are both destroying something (virginity) and creating something at the same time.

This kind of thing has a darker twist.  The MK-Ultra project, a project concerned with developing the perfect spies for the CIA, involved getting custody of children and abusing them, or breaking them down, in order to rebuild them in a manner that better served their masters.  In the military, the whole point of boot camp is to break you and rebuild you into a better killing machine.

The prevailing imagery associated with the union of opposites are often depictions of duality.  For example, the checkerboard tiles are often used by Freemasons in their buildings.  The black and white squares represent two opposite, and equal, ideas that need to be united.  Their patron deity, Baphomet, is a representation of the perfect union of opposites.

The reason that this is a destructive mode of thinking is because of the process of destruction followed by creation.  It is a common theme throughout many myths, legends, and even false lore.  We have stories of Satan bringing the creation of the universe when he is cast out of Heaven.  We have the stories of a god of order fighting a god of chaos and creating the world that way.

It is further destructive in how it depicts the opposing forces as being equal to each other.  Chaos and Order.  Good and Evil.  These are often concepts that are described on equal terms with each other, yet science itself has proven this to not be the case.

What do I mean by this?  Well, for one thing, we see that darkness is merely the absence of light, not an opposing force to it.  Cold is often a lack of heat, a lack of life, not the opposite of heat itself.  In essence, polar opposites rarely show up in nature, except is certain elemental base forces like magnetism or subatomic particles.  Even then, their interactions are just about attraction and not about creating something better.

And the only religious idea where the union of opposites is largely ignored or discarded in order to bring about the salvation of mankind is Christianity where evil is merely the absence of good and Satan is subservient to God and His Son.  We see that there is no need to break yourself in order to become whole, only to humble yourself and accept Jesus’ sacrifice as being one for you as well.

Christians need to avail themselves of these pagan concepts and take the world for it is.  There is no one person for marriage.  Bipartisan laws passed by Congress are worse than the partisan laws that are passed.  Understanding the world requires a huge shift in our natural way of thinking and to view things not as equal and opposites, but as wholeness and lacking.  Only then will you begin to understand why people behave as they do.

Creatures of Dust

One of my prevailing philosophies in life is that most people are idiots. While the phrase was acquired from the Dread Ilk over at Vox Day's blog, I think it just wasn't put into words so eloquently until I read it there. I'm sure many people have had such epiphanies in a similar manner.

Understand that no one is exempt from that fundamental law of human nature. We all behave idiotically in one form or another on a regular basis. The sad truth, there are many of us who do not even know it. Keep in mind that most people are probably well-meaning individuals. We only wish to help people to become something better.

Unfortunately, this is where the problem starts. Empowered by the righteousness of their cause, they will break as many eggs as it takes to create that perfect omelet. And by "eggs", I mean people and by "perfect omelet" I mean their vision of how things should be.

We all have a vision for what the world should be like. There is nothing wrong with that really. It's about dreaming of a better world, one where there is less misery, suffering, and death. One where things are ordered in a certain, where we have control over our lives and are able to reach our full potential. The differences usually differ in the methodology of how humanity gets there.

Remember though, that these are dreams and dreams are usually selfish or self-centered. Your desires, needs, and motives are the only desires, needs, and motives that are attached to them. In many cases, these dreams are irrational and fail to meet the standards or real people with real problems.

I remember reading a famous confrontation between Milton Friedman and Senator Ted Kennedy where Friedman stated to Kennedy that Socialism has not worked in it's long history of existence so why was he trying to push it on America now. Kennedy flatly responded that Socialism hasn't worked in the past because it hadn't had him to run it. I'm paraphrasing all this, but the point is that Kennedy had a dream, a desire for the American people which could not be supported by facts. It didn't matter, though, because it would work this time so long as he was there to guide people into it. Facts be damned.

This is not a slam against Socialism, though I personally have my own major issues with it with Friedman's own assertions being one of them. It is a slam against people who have a vision for humanity that only leads to destruction, death, or widespread poverty. Senator Kennedy may have been genuine in what he was saying and may truly have believed in the need for Socialism despite all evidence to the contrary to its failings. He was a politician though, so there is absolutely no way to be sure as politicians are not known for their convictions, save a few.

For other political philosophies we find the same things. In mainstream conservatism, we see a desire to impose morality through the government, whose leaders are voted on by the people. It would make more sense to have a monarchy then. In modern liberalism, we see a push for a more centralized, regulating government in the name of protecting us from corporations. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the more regulated the industry, the more likely corporations are going to be involved in the legislation and regulations that are created. This causes less competition and more corporate cronyism, not less.

For the libertarian, it's all about less government. A fine process, but many libertarians can't even agree on how much less. Hell, some of them even want more government like the Libertarian party's support of gay marriage, which is the antithesis of limited government since the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage to begin with. Then you have the anarcho-capitalists who raise up economics as the final judge of all things related to human nature. Even justice is reduced to meaningless exchanges because in economics nothing is considered sacred. Human life is treated as nothing more than a number. And while I agree with restitution as a legitimate exercise in justice for theft or property damage, murder is something much more serious and requires a more serious response than simple compensation to the victim's family.

For the classical anarchist, authority is the problem and so any symbol of authority must be destroyed. Unfortunately, this neglects the real human need to have someone in authority in some fashion. And while our current regime is definitely abusing this natural human instinct, there is no point in trying to deny it. There will always be leaders and there will always be followers. It is the way things are. I'm not saying I like anymore than they do, but at some point you have to acknowledge this simple human need.

In these and many other cases, you find flaws, imperfections, or idiocy. Most people pigeonhole themselves into some political belief or non-belief in the hopes of achieving their dream for humanity. But not all of humanity is like-minded, even within the same race, culture, or society. To even attempt to change the natural behavior of mankind is a divine endeavor, one that a creature of dust should not strive to do.

Questions About Obamacare Three Years Later

I haven’t blogged in a while, mostly because I recently was let go from my nice, work-from-home job and had to find other employment.  Fortunately, my job profession is in high enough demand these days that it didn’t take long for me to get a couple of job offers.  On top of that, my wife and I have been working to keep my two-month-old son alive so we can keep the tyrants known as Social Workers off our backs (but I have better reasons for keeping him alive; mostly it has to do with healthy organ storage).

Through all this, I had to look into better medical insurance plans because I’ll be damned if I am going to pay 1800 dollars a month under COBRA and because the Federal tyrants will fine me for not having insurance.  Which brings me to a bunch of questions about the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) that I haven’t heard any pundits talk about:

1. If the act lived up to its namesake, then why is there a fine for people who do not buy health insurance?  Seriously, if they wanted to make it affordable, why didn’t they just mandate all insurance plans to not exceed 500 dollars a family and leave it at that?  I know that politicians have little to no grasp on economics, so I would never put it past them to do this, but at the same time, isn’t it not odd that this notion never crossed their minds?  (I know why, but that’s another topic)
2. If there is a fine for people who haven’t bought their own health insurance, then why do we still have Medicare and Medicaid government plans in place?  I mean, since it is illegal now to not have health insurance, then shouldn’t we stop wasting billions of dollars on these plans and make poor people and the elderly pay for their own plans?  And shouldn’t people who are on Medicaid and Medicare be fined because they don’t have health insurance?
3. If the whole mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions was part of the bill, then why did I have to fight with Cigna last fall to make them cover what they considered a pre-existing condition?  So either Cigna didn’t get the damn memo from Congress or the politicians outright lied to the American people and pre-existing conditions are no longer covered.  Or there is specific language in the bill that targets me or people like me (young, white producers who pay their own way).  I didn’t read it, I’m just going on what I was told.
4. If the act was supposed to make healthcare more affordable, why did they eliminate the use of Flexible Spending Accounts with over the counter drugs?  I mean, it’s bad enough that I have to be treated like a criminal every time I go to get Claritin-D (or it’s cheaper knockoff) every time I go to a pharmacy, but now I can’t get it free of taxes?
5. Why was there language in the bill to rework how student loans work?  I mean, couldn’t that have been a separate bill entirely?  I serious question the attention span of these morons in Congress given all the riders they put in their bills.

The simple fact is, Obamacare only secured the jobs and careers of major medical insurance executives and that’s about it.  The one thing you can count on when it comes to any institution, be it government or private or whatever, is that nothing changes unless the pain of keeping things the way they are is much greater than the pain of changing it.  From software development to government programs to the Catholic Church, this is probably one of the few fundamental rules of human organization.

In the end, Obamacare proved that the old saying from the late King Solomon is right: there is nothing new under the sun.

Stupidity Without Consequences

About a week ago I had an interesting conversation with my younger brother, who is currently attending college.  When I told him that a total free market involves no regulations or government oversight, he was appalled that such a thing could happen.  He worried about the “stupid people” who would be scammed by such a system.

I simply responded that stupid people need to face the consequences of their choices and not be sheltered from them by the government or any other institution.  I know this seems like a cruel and heartless line of thinking, but can you honestly say that you are helping people with inferior intelligence if they are unable to face the consequences of their own stupidity?

In the long run, with our massive welfare state where the poor and the ultra-rich seem to get money from the government while the rich and middle class (or the producers) are by and large left with the bill.  What happens is that those who receive welfare benefits stop behaving responsibly and instead are allowed to through caution to wind.

An great example in modern times are the banks here in the United States.  In a truly free-market system, fractional reserve banking would be considered fraud.  Instead we find that all banks have to engage in fractional reserve banking in order to prop up the Federal Reserve.  On top of that, we have agencies like the FDIC which shield banks from the consequences of their own actions.  If there is ever a bank run or a bank failure, the government will be there to either bail the bank or bail out the consumers.  In this zero-accountability system of banking, is it no wonder that they sold bad mortgages to consumers and investors?

With the poor, we see them spending their welfare money on things that are not considered basic essentials to living, such as food, rent payments, and gasoline, and are instead blowing their money of luxuries.  Of course, if we all voted to make such actions illegal, a Federal court judge would tell us we are violating their freedom of speech or privacy rights or whatever fallacious reasons that judges usually give.

To top that off, this country has made it much more beneficial to be poor by providing the poor with more access to disposable income than those who actually produce things and work hard and pay their own way.  The welfare system provides disincentives to be a productive American.

This is a dangerous state to live with parasites at the top and moochers at the bottom with those of us in the middle dwindling as we begin to see no point to having integrity or dignity.

What most economists fail to recognize is that human nature is directly affected by the coercive use of force with regard to removing the consequences of failure.  Failure is probably much more important than success in the market as it tells us what works and what doesn’t work.  When you distort it, you end up with a B-Ark economy running on nothing but the full force and cruelty of the State.

The Problem is Always People, Not Systems

Louis Michael Seidman recently wrote a New York Times Opinion piece about we should give up on the Constitution.  I find it particular interesting to read, but fairly predictable.  I’m not really interested in dissecting his work piece by piece, but it occurs to me that there is a fundamental premise that Mr. Seidman (or Professor Seidman?) seems to miss.

Throughout the op-ed piece, he talks about how the system established by the Constitution is not working, yet he fails to recognize that human beings, especially those who aspire to be politicians, are prone to dominate.  While correctly pointing out that the history of our nation under the Constitution is one of people flaunting it for their own preferences or gain, he doesn’t seem to understand that it is because of man’s own desire for power is what drives men in power to override the will of the people they are supposed to represent.

The fact is, we must always be aware of the Libido Dominandi or “Lust to Dominate” that is inherent in all of us.  For many, it just happens to be a larger desire than most others.  In some cases, this manifests itself in a customer tormenting a barista at a Starbucks for not getting the temperature exactly at 140 degrees, even though the barista has science on her side due to having the thermometer.  But for a small percentage of us, there is a huge desire to either “fix” the rest of the dumb masses or to simply cash in the easy way by getting the dumb masses to vote for them.

This is the primary driving force behind many of the politicians you’ll meet today, even at the local levels.  They desire to fix us to meet their own tastes and desires or they simply are looking for an easy job.

While the Constitution does have some arguable flaws, if all the men who were elected to high office took their oath seriously, we wouldn’t see much of the large messes we are seeing today.  But men are not angels and so we always look for our own angles and advantages, especially when it comes to those in power.

There isn’t much that can be done to remedy this.  Changing human behavior is like changing the location of the moon.  It can be done, but it takes an enormous about time, energy, and resources.

No Mr. Powell, Masculinity is Not the Issue

I have zero interest in football.  American football that is, although I care even less about soccer.  But I do like to analyze human behavior and this weekend was a whopper of one.  As you may know, Jovan Belcher of the Kansas City Chiefs murdered his girlfriend than killed himself in front of his head coach and general manager.  This is a very sad and tragic case, but at the same, the idiots are coming out of the woodwork to promote their social or political agendas.

One of the more idiotic posts comes from Kevin Powell of CNN.  Now, I’ve never really liked CNN, mostly because they have manufacturing news since the early 1990s, but this opinion piece really demonstrates the kind of idiots which are hired by CNN.  Here’s a brief sample of Mr. Powell’s piece:

Belcher was a man living in the supersized macho world of football, a world in which many of us American males reside, be it football or not. Too many of us have been taught manhood in a way that is not healthy. Be tough, men do not cry, man up -- these are the things I've heard my entire life, and I now cringe when I hear this relayed to boys or younger men by teachers, coaches, fathers, mentors and leaders.

Or we use derogatory and sexist or homophobic words to describe men or boys who do not meet the "normal" of what a male is supposed to be. Some of these male authority figures mean well, or are simply repeating what they were socialized to be or to do, and do not realize that they are unwittingly teaching that manhood has little room to express hurt, disappointment and sorrow.

I think what Mr. Powell fails to realize is that being tough is a symptom of manhood, not a cause.  He seems to think that feminizing men is the way to go, when clearly that is not working.  This is clearly the line of thinking in a post-modern society where man is “in touch” with his inner woman, while women get a pass for the sheer insane behavior and comments because they can do no wrong.

True story, my mother knew a doctor at the hospital where she worked who was pulled over for drunk driving.  She had her young children in the back of her car.  She then proceeded to slug the cop in the face.  During the trial, she got off scot free because she claimed to have been suffering from PMS at the time.  And men wonder why they don’t get a fair shake in family court and can be accused of assault, despite no criminal record or charges, and see their crying children dragged away from them to live with their greedy, slutty ex-wives.

And yet I’m the bad guy for being a man and embrace being wild at heart.   Manhood is not what we see on television, though the six different media companies would want us to believe that is what being a man is all about.  I have never viewed football players as generally being men or role models.  They are simply modern gladiators playing a game for entertainment.  American football is simply the modern bread and circuses of civilization, although instead of bread, we have beer and chips.

Honestly, I have no problem with men who religiously watch football, despite its rampant commercialization, pointless commentaries, and endless statistics.  You can see why I find the whole affair boring.  By the same token though, my love for video games is probably off-putting by many of the same men, especially my current obsession which is The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.  I mean, what kind of man will sit for hours exploring a Nordic region fighting dragons, vampires, draugr, and bandits using a wide variety of weapons, magic, and battle tactics.

Back to Mr. Powell, I think he’s dead wrong in his assessment.  I understand what he is saying, that manly aggression and a failure to deal properly with our emotions is what caused the late Mr. Belcher’s actions.  But when I see Jovan Belcher’s face, I do not see the face of a man, but the face of a boy in a man’s body.  The behavior that Mr. Powell describes is simply that of boys, not men.  Boys ridicule each other and throw insults, men stand on their convictions and simply call people out when they are wrong.  Boys do not own up to the horrible things they have done and instead avoid the consequences by whatever means they can.

I think Kevin Powell represents the post-modern, feminized man who sees the flaw in society as being manly.  I think American football is probably the worst example of manhood and that perhaps he should look at it another way.  I say this because our society suffers from a lack of conviction, courage, and personal responsibility, all of which are manly traits.

Bill Gates’ Toilet Folly

Found this gem from the man who wants to forcibly sterilize the population via vaccines:

Microsoft co-founder turned global philanthropist Bill Gates on Tuesday launched a search for a new toilet better suited to developing countries.

The charitable foundation founded by Gates and his wife kicked off a "Reinvent the Toilet Fair" in Seattle and awarded prizes for promising innovations.

"Toilets are extremely important for public health and, when you think of it, even human dignity," Gates said in a statement at thegatesnotes.com.

"The flush toilets we use in the wealthy world are irrelevant, impractical and impossible for 40 percent of the global population, because they often don't have access to water, and sewers, electricity, and sewage treatment systems."

My wife once spent two months in Indonesia on a mission trip.  While there, she had to throw out her used toilet paper as their septic systems could not handle toilet paper for some reason.  After a bit of discussion about it with my wife, we both concluded that the Indonesians were content to use their left hand rather than a more sanitary option like toilet paper or even a hose up their butt.

The fact is, most of these nations have no desire to make their lives easier.  I know that is a harsh reality to face, but you have to understand that no matter how much technological advancement we provide, usually at great expense to the taxpayer, these folks never seem to care for such things and prefer the old ways, for whatever reason.

At this point, given all the foreign aid, charitable organizations both religious and secular, and the various other endeavors to provide the third world a better life, I am convinced that the people who do not live in Western civilization do not share the same desires, hopes, and dreams as we do.  While there are plenty of people who live in these areas who do desire to see better things like we do, they are not in the majority.

Now, I know that many of them do not have infrastructure (code word for roads, schools, or whatever domestic agenda a Statist desires to see provided at our expense), but at the same time, if they wanted any kind of infrastructure, I suspect that they would have provided it for themselves by now, especially with all the money, time, and blood the West has poured into the Third World.

I am not saying that the Third World is ungrateful.  I am saying they simply do not care about living the complicated lives that we do in our modern, technologically driven society.  This does not cast a noble light on them either, as they are simply a different culture.

Perhaps one day in the far future, the descendants of these folks will decide that they are tired of wiping their asses with their left hands and will look to whatever power has survived the current upheaval (and any future ones to boot) and see what they are doing about it.  For now, though, I think it is time we recognized that the inhabitants of the Third World really don’t care about our technological prowess and that we stop wasting our time, money, and blood on modernizing them.  After all, as Vox Day has pointed out, it took the Brits several centuries to go from blue-assed savages to the snobbish elites we all know and love.

Bill Gates should take note of this and not waste his time or money.  Of course he will not and will try and make the toilet of tomorrow.

The Fundamentals of Human Nature

I know that my blog often comes across as negative, pessimistic, or downright angry at times, but I really don’t care how you view it.  To be honest, in real life I am optimistic about my own prospects and future.  This is because I have not tied my own well-being in with trendy diet groups (though I’ve been tempted to, as my own wife could tell you), government handouts, or media-approved groupthink.  I look at my own life and I understand that I am not worth effort it would take to control me.  On top of that, I have more to do with my own life than waste time trying to change the hearts and minds of a few pompous windbags who work just a few miles from where I live.

This does not mean I am not oblivious to the world around me.  I pay enough attention to what is going on so I can anticipate any difficulties in my own life (I literally have a nice stash of incandescent light bulbs because I despise GE and I refuse to buy anything from them anymore).  I also follow them because studying people amuses me and it is something to pass the time.  I have no natural interest in sports, primetime television, or most popular movies.  I am primarily concerned with my own well-being and none of those things really matter all that much.  I am not faulting anyone who enjoys things like celebrity gossip or reality television as I have my own pastime in video games (right now, I am playing through The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim with my sights on Diablo III and Max Payne 3 in the future).

The point is, I’ve observed several important aspects of human behavior that I don’t think many people have correlated.  I think it is best if I share some of them:

• The first fundamental truth of human nature is that most people are idiots.  I know, I’m stealing something from Vox Day, but it’s not exactly his original idea.  In any given situation with a group of people, no matter how intelligent they collectively are, most of them are going either say or do something idiotic.  This rule applies to everyone too and no one is excluded.  I’ve done countless idiotic things in my life.  Last week, I confused John Adams with James Madison in a blog post.  It has been corrected on the blog, but the RSS feed probably has locked in my brief moment of historical idiocy.  The point is, you should always keep this in mind no matter how much of an authority a person is on whatever subject you are discussing.  More often than not, you can count on people doing the stupid thing rather than the smart thing.  Just accept it, accept your own idiocies, and try and laugh it off.
• Intelligence is the sum total of three things: IQ, knowledge, and wisdom.  All three depend on each other to ensure that you are an intelligent human being.  All the book knowledge in the world makes no difference if you don’t know how to use it.  And likewise, a high IQ means nothing if you know nothing.  The Intelligence Quotient (that’s IQ for those of you who don’t know) is your processing power, knowledge is your personal data, and wisdom is your ability to employ the other two aspects to your advantage.  This is why you can have people with large amounts of knowledge and a high IQ be total and utter fools.  Many politicians and other assorted leaders and rulers are men and women who have above average IQs and above average quantities of knowledge.  Most of them lack wisdom and insight.  This is why they are mostly idiots despite having clear advantages over the average man.
• Human beings will always flock to the profession that their heart desires most.  If they truly hate what they are doing, they will not stick with it for very long, so long as they know that there are other options (and there always are, even in third-world, poverty stricken countries).  In a wealthy society, there are many options available.  This means that the kinds of people who flock to government jobs like law enforcement SWAT teams, TSA screeners, or running for public office are the kind of people who like shooting people, feeling up children, and seeking out validation from other people because they can’t function in life without it, respectively.  Do not trust people who aspire to be police officers (or LEOs in general), lawyers, or politicians.  They are not the kind of people you want to be around.  The fact that a defrocked priest, who was kicked out for child molestation, showed up as a manager of the TSA proves this point.
• The free market is a great system, but the business owners who are necessary to have a free market have no desire to work in a free market system.  This has been a great economic paradox of history.  Most business owners have no desire to compete with rivals and would rather take easy routes to mitigate risk to themselves.  In most cases, business owners will always seek the help of a government official at some level in order to help them out in this regard.  This is why we had the banker bailouts in 2008.  It was all about business owners, who were also big contributors to many of the members of Congress, protecting themselves from the extreme risk they created through their irresponsible business practices.  The closest friend of a politician is a business owner.  Woe to the business owner who does not have a friend in government.
• Human beings are naturally, irrationally selfish and will behave as such in most circumstances.  This should be obvious to most people, but it doesn’t always apply for idealists, especially the Utopian-minded people.  Everyone assumes that if only this system was like this other system that people would fall in line and everything would work out.  Unfortunately, the fact is most people will ruin whatever system of government they live under (or lack thereof), given sufficient time.  This concept, however, can work to your advantage though.  For example, most people will not do reckless things that will immediately endanger them, unless they are also stupid.
• Ignore what people say, always judge them by their actions.  While this is most important in politics, it is equally important in your personal relations.  A man’s word is only as good as the actions he takes.  One thing I have noticed is that in the political world, nearly every politician has done the opposite of what they said they were going to do.  And, like an idiot, many of us vote for them anyway convinced of what they have said to be the truth.

These are fairly obvious truths if you pay attention to what is going on in the world around you.  There is no need to rationalize or excuse other people’s behavior because their behavior is perfectly predictable, given enough information and the application of these fundamental truths about human nature.  Heck, I can’t even take credit for discovering these because I’m almost sure that other people have figured all this out.

But this is why I am not a pessimist but a realist.  I know how people are going to behave because no matter what new technologies develop, no matter how we evolve as a society, we will always have the same base behaviors lurking underneath.

A Woman Lectures Men And (Surprise) Gets It Wrong

Yesterday, I read this article about 7 things men can do to prevent abortions.  To be quite honest, I do have my problems with it, largely because it was written by a woman who obviously doesn’t understand men.  But let me first address here 7 points before I get into that:

1. Make a personal commitment today to stop looking at pornography, stop engaging prostitutes and stop visiting strip clubs.  First of all, what do those activities have to do with abortion?  If men were the heartless sex hounds that we supposedly are, would we not just turn to actual women and impregnate them more frequently?  As a Christian man, I do agree that such activities are immoral, but at the same time, I also recognize a fundamental fact: men want sex.  If a husband or long-term boyfriend is caught engaging in any of these activities, I will say that his wife or girlfriend is not satisfying his needs.  This is actually the more likely scenario as sex addiction is rare and often confused for normal male desire by most women.
2. Make a personal commitment today to stand against sexual violence, rape and incest.  No sane man would support sexual violence, rape, or incest.  Even so, abortions performed in relation to rape or incest account for less than 5% of all abortions (I dare say it is probably less than 1% but I don’t have the exact figures).
3. If you are Christian and have strong views, read this Susan B. Anthony essay and make a commitment today to be a better type of Christian husband.  As a Christian husband, being one is actually easy and doesn’t require a lot of commitment.  In any case, men require respect from their wives, not just love.  Love is easy to come by, but we need to be respected.  This means that Christian wives will have to submit to their husbands and trust in their judgments.  A submissive Christian wife, however, is not a human doormat.  None of this matters in relation to the topic of the article, though, as most abortions do not occur between married couples or couples in long-term relationships.
4. Make a personal commitment today not to pressure a woman for sex of any kind when she says, "No," "I don't feel well" or "I'm tired."  Again, nothing to do with abortions as married couples or couples in long-term relationships tend not get abortions.  At the same time, part of being a submissive Christian wife is to fulfill your husband’s sexual needs regardless of how you feel.  If he truly loves you, he will be sensitive to your needs as well.  However, he is more willing to be a better husband provided his needs are fulfilled as well.  The measure of any good marriage is how often the couple have sex.  Women shouldn’t fear this as they can have sex much more often than men since most of the time we do all the work.  Lastly, if a wife has any problems downstairs that would make sex uncomfortable, keep in mind there are other ways to satisfy your husband sexually.  Again though, we find another issue that has nothing to do with abortion or the causes for it.  If you aren’t having sex, then there is no need for abortion, right?
5. Make a personal commitment today to know a woman for at least 6 months to one year before having intercourse with her.  I can agree with this as a Christian man.  However, as an unconventional Christian man, if your intention is to marry this women, then you need not set a time limit.  My mother was a little unnerved when my brother got his long-term girlfriend pregnant two months before their wedding.  I simply told my mother that they were, in fact, married and were just waiting on the ceremony.  This is the real reason why having frequent sex with multiple people is so damaging: it damages your chances of having a healthy relationship with a single person.  You are more likely to get divorced or split up if you have more and more sexual partners in the past.  This reason, however, is a valid one in regards to abortion.  Frequent hook-ups are the primary cause for abortions, coupled with a culture that encourages women to pursue a career over motherhood.
6. Make a personal commitment today not to take advantage of any woman who has been drinking or is impaired.  No sane man would do this either.  This sin is usually the result of loners who are unable to hook-up with women from the get go.  However, I think women, especially young college goers, should be avoiding parties where they will find themselves in that situation.  I don’t cross a busy interstate and blame the car that subsequently hits me, do I?  You have to recognize the dangers of being a women, seeing as how you are the physically weaker sex.  Also, often times when this does happen, the man himself has had as much to drink if not more than the women and his judgment is impaired as well.  It does not excuse his behavior, but getting drunk around drunk men is just a bad idea all around.
7. Make a personal commitment today to stop smooth-talking and lying to women to "get in." True ALPHA men do not need to lie to “get in.”  It is the BETA males who lie about themselves in order to hook-up and the failure of women to see through it.  As for smooth-talking, it works so why should men give it up?  How about women who go to the places where the smooth-talkers are?  They know full well that the point of those places is to get banged by a smooth-talking liar.  They just like the idea of being pursued by a suitable ALPHA male.

So we have three reasons that directly relate to the reasons why abortions occur and we have four that have absolutely nothing to do with it.  There would be less abortions if there was less promiscuity, not necessarily a disrespect for women in general.  As a Christian who is morally opposed to abortion, I have quite frankly given up on the political solution and now view it as a symptom of a corrupt and decadent society, not a root cause.  The root cause is a culture that encourages and celebrates promiscuity.  You want abortions to end?  That’s great but don’t expect Republicans to ban it, the courts to change the laws, or the pro-life groups to make any headway with any Congressional member.  Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the space between a proton and neutron in an Oxygen atom.  A better solution is to drive abortion clinics out of business by creating an environment where it becomes unthinkable.

Laura Trice, the author of the article, means well, but I  don’t think she is seeing this issue from anywhere else but her own solipsistic viewpoint.  While I have many disagreements with what she said, I think we would both agree that being against promiscuity and for healthy long-term relationships is the ultimate solution to abortion.   She just needs some focus, that’s all.

Personal Note:  I thought about blogging about what has been happening to me in the past two weeks, but I don’t think it merits a full blog entry.  Basically, two weeks ago I was laid off at my job.  The next day, I had three interviews and a job offer.  I’ve taken the offer and started working this week.  I am just starting to get back into the flow of things in my life, hence the lack of blog entries for the past couple of weeks from me.

Feminist Idiocy

The stupidity of politicians is always a norm when it comes to politics.  But the stupidity of female, feminist politicians usually reaches the top of the charts:

Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. Ohio anti-abortion advocates say the two can’t be compared.

Heartbeat bill sponsor Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, said comparing his bill to Turner’s would be like comparing apples to bananas. The Heartbeat bill would prohibit abortion once a heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

The final sentence tells us how stupid this whole bill really.  Here we have a feminist idiot trying to tell us that men and women are no different, save for a minor difference in genitalia.  The truth is that men and women are very different, right down to DNA and thought patterns.

Naturally, the thought patterns of this chick demonstrates that she is incapable of having a coherent rational thought.  Even though the article doesn’t say what is really going on outright, I can guess what is happening:

The Republicans in the Ohio legislature have introduced a bill that requires an ultrasound before an abortion can be performed.  This is done as a workaround to get abortion clinics to go out of business because the men know just how emotionally attached a woman can become when she sees her baby in her womb.  Nina Turner knows this as well and wants to continue the Supreme Court approved Eugenics program that was started by Planned Parenthood and other progressives who emerged from the sewers of society at the turn of the century.

So what does she do?  Instead of acknowledging that the child in the womb is an actual person, she introduces ridiculous legislation to try and make a moral equivalence for men.  In her mind, it is because all of us men think like women in that we do not see anything beyond our own perspective.

Except that we are able to write laws tailored for women to help them understand, on their level, that abortion is murder.  In other words, the initial bill that was introduced proved that men can see things in the same manner that women see them.  The common response from many women is to circle the wagons for their “sisters” and protect their own.

It is high time that we men stand up to evil and call it what it is.  We have a group of people are devoted to evil, be they Republican or Democrat, who desire to allow women to be absolved from the consequences of their actions, namely the ability to kill their children so they can continue having unprotected sex with as many gullible men as possible.

There is a reason that the husband is considered the head of the household.  It is because he is to provide the moral center and band everyone in his household together under his moral authority.  A wife is to provide support, as God never intended an equal to be provided, but a suitable helper.  Any man who does not assert his authority as the head of the house deserves whatever henpecking, sexless marriage that results.  I have seen it with my own eyes many times over.

The one benefit that feminists have given our society, it seems, is to make men earn their rights as a husband.  And it seems to me that men do like challenges more so than women.

I went off on a tangent there, but the overall point is that we all need to stand up to these evil people and call them out.  That is why I applauded Rush Limbaugh when he call Sandra Fluke a slut and a whore because that is what she was doing.  On top of that she was lying and demanding an apology while not forgiving Limbaugh at all.  These are not the actions of a Godly person, but a wicked heart.

Evil must be confronted, even more so now than in the past because a huge power vacuum is coming due to an impending collapse and we need strong, upright people to take the place of our corrupt and decadent central planners.

(NOTE: As always, generalizations follow the 80/20 rule as any generalizations I make are at least 80% correct.)

Man is not a Robot

Yesterday my wife asked me whether I did not trust the government with the information they provide.  I did not answer simply, because my skepticism of all things government is not a simple yes or no response.  I also did not bother to highlight cases where I believed government was right.  In other words, I did not go on the defensive.

Instead, I proceeded to explain why I do not trust the government anymore than I trust most other strangers with information.  The fact of the matter is, everyone has their own preferences, biases, and beliefs.  While you may be able to categorize people depending on certain limitations, by and large we are individuals with our own desires.

A government bureaucrat is not immune to his own prejudices.  He will make reports based on his or her own preferences or the preferences of his or her superiors.  Even if it was a truthful action or statement, it still is based on the preferences of the individual.

A journalist still injects his or her personal opinion when reporting the news.  And it is not just in the words they use, but the way in which they report.  For example, I watched CNN while the whole Bush-Gore debacle was going on.  I noticed that when they reported favorable news about Bush, there were no reporters on the ground with the Bush supporters (but you could hear them in the background), however, they always had a person on the ground with Gore’s supporters.  This may seem irrelevant, but consider that this was an intentional decision by the higher ups in CNN so they could not show the number of Bush supporters but at the same time show the number of Gore supporters, all in an attempt to influence their audience.

I am not condemning any actions of bias really.  It is human nature to express that preference for Coke or Pepsi and it is part of what makes us unique.  What I do condemn is when people lie about it and claim some moral high ground by claiming to be purely objective.  The fact is, human beings are not objective and will always interject their biases, to varying degrees, into whatever they do.

One cannot look at a government, in any form, as a benevolent entity able to meet the appropriate needs of the people it governments.  You need to look at the government as a collection of selfish individuals with the authority to use legal force in order to implement their programs.  By legal force, I mean that they will kill you if you do not comply with their rules and regulations, however minor, because they are allowed to do so by the people the rule over.

As such, I always take a skeptical look at government studies because I know they are designed to make them look good.  Propaganda is always the name of the game when it comes to the government.  Why do you think they have several different standards of measurement for various economic indicators such as unemployment and inflation?  It is because government officials will seek to report the one indicator that is most favorable to them.

I do not limit this skepticism to government or mainstream media outlets either.  Talk radio show hosts, though a little more honest with their audience, tend to mask their biases as well.  Rush Limbaugh is not a conservative first and a Republican second, he is a Republican first and a conservative second.  Such abandonment of principle is one of the main reasons why I no longer listen to him.

Ultimately, I believe that we are entitled to our opinions, ideas, beliefs, and biases.  However, I have little tolerance for people who claim to not have any bias at all, especially when they are in the position to influence people or enforce a policy.  Clearly, we all need to take what we are told with a grain of salt.  And then throw it up in order to more thoroughly analyze it….