For the last few months, political and other public figures in the USA have been making a lot of noise about “creating middle-class jobs,” ”creating new jobs” and “bringing jobs back.” While the upcoming 2012 election cycle is the temporal cause of this sudden increase in expressed concern for the jobs and livelihoods of Americans, I am going to use these fake expressions of concern to ask a real question:

Where are these new and well-paying jobs going to come from?

I mean, don’t all jobs exist to create a product or deliver a service- regardless of whether it is useful, useless or harmful? You might have noticed that better machines, faster and more versatile computers, very high levels of automation, overseas slave labor and a host of other factors have made it very easy to increase productivity without employing more people. Employment in the US private sector has either stagnated or decreased since the late 1990s, even though the gross and working-age population has increased by more than a few million in that period. Then there is the issue about quality and stability of newly created jobs.

You might also have realized that inflation-adjusted wages for the vast majority of people have either stagnated or decreased since 1973. This has, however, not affected the still rapidly rising cost of medical “care” or “education” or a host of other big-ticket items. While the relative cost of certain items like laptop computers and clothes has decreased, one cannot live in a laptop or in a house made of cheap clothes or subsist on Hamburger Helper and pink slime beef.

So let me repeat the main question posed in this post:

Where are these new and well-paying jobs going to come from?

Remember that our system is largely based on jobs = money = existence, so having no jobs or only poorly-paying jobs is equivalent to killing people. People who have nothing to lose will likely take those who put them in that situation with them- actively or passively. Moreover, the demographic profile and distribution of power and technology in the world today makes it extremely unlikely that were will be any marginal victors, let lone clear ones, in a meltdown.

I hope that you realize that this problem cannot be solved based on previous experiences and beliefs, because human beings have never lived in a world that was as populated, interlinked, interdependent, complex and peculiar as the one we have today.

What do you think? Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

Writing at Slate, Jacob Weisberg realizes the horrifying truth that I’ve been pounding the drum on for a month now — CONservatives are idiot proles:

I have never said this before, but most CONservatives, LIEbertarians, alt-righters and other assorted morons have one thing in common. Are you ready?

They are from the working class.

That is right! People ranging from Chuck Rudd, OneSTDV, Half Sigma, Mangan, Unamused, “Sober” and probably even Roissy are working class men who were born in the right country at the right time. Now, you might wonder how I came to this conclusion. So here it goes…

You see, I am not from the working class. None of my ancestors had to perform physical work to make a living for least a few hundred years, or likely much longer. While they often did manual work for amusement and dabbled in new technology and learning, they never had to depend on working with their hands to put food on the table.

The typical professions in my extended family include doctors (many in my immediate family including a few of my uncles, aunt and three first degree cousins), engineers (many including my grandfather and uncle), lawyers (definitely too many including at least two of my 1st degree cousins), judges (a few including one of my more illustrious ancestors), army and air force generals (one and one), CEOs (one of my fathers cousins), senior executives (too many including my cousins), academics (a few including my grandmother), architects (many including one my great grand-mothers).

Therefore, I have a rather unique perspective on what it means to be born at third base.

Let me tell you something- all of this talk about IQ, meritocracy, hard work, personal responsibility, pulling yourself by your bootstraps and the like is disingenuous bullshit which working-class men are dumb enough to believe in. Do you really think that somebody from my social class is privileged because they are especially talented at anything other than ripping off working-class morons?

Do you seriously believe that my ancestors achieved their status and lifestyle through anything other than previous advantages, some luck and a little hard work?

Do you really think that the upper classes in Western countries are any different? Do you really think that IQ, hard work or merit is the major factor behind the success of most people? That is what people from my class like to tell people from your class. Deep down. more than a few of us know that there is no worthwhile difference between us and you- but most of you don’t.

That is why working-class morons are far more likely to be true believers in slave ideologies such as CONservativism, LIEbertarianism, nationalism etc.

But keep on enthusiastically digging your own graves. People like me certainly don’t mind profiting from your stupidity.

Comments?

Cross-posted at Playing the Devil’s Advocate.

The remainder of my book reviews are here. If you’ve written a book, send me a review copy by going here.

***

Sex 3.0 by JJ Roberts

Eons ago, back in my sophomore year in high school, we received an assignment in our religion class — create a presentation examining a big political/moral issue and giving our take on it. I ended up giving a presentation on nuclear weapons. For all the leftist whinging about the Big Bad Catholic Church, most liberals would actually end up agreeing with Catholics on non-social issues — the official Vatican line is anti-war, pro-social welfare (if not outright socialist), pro-illegal alien, and anti-nuclear proliferation. I was going through my gung-ho neocon stage at the time, so naturally I relished the opportunity to bloviate about my evil right-wing views to my more liberal classmates.

When it came time for us to present, I went through the non-opinionated portion of my presentation with gusto, winding through the history of nuclear weapons from Hiroshima to the various treaties signed by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. to the threat of nuclear proliferation in the world today. And when my teacher, a homely spinster with a sanctimonious lilt in her voice (a Catholic archetype), asked me what I thought about nuclear weapons, whether they should be banned or we should keep them around, I gave the most honest answer anyone could. It was something to the effect of “human beings have never willingly renounced technology, so asking questions about the morality of nuclear weaponry is a moot point — they’re not going to be banned.” End of.

All Luddite arguments fail because of this. There is not a single recorded instance of humans choosing to give up a technology to go backwards in time, if not because they didn’t choose to, but because peoples and nations with superior technology always destroy those who don’t have it. There have been numerous instances of humans accidentally losing access to technology (for example, how post-Roman Europe completely forgot how to make concrete until the 1700′s), but never have they given up scientific advancements when they had a choice in the matter. Why would we? The entire purpose of technology is to make our lives easier, more pleasurable, less stressful. Who wants to go back to a past in which people did backbreaking labor sixteen hours a day, threw their shit out of their windows into the street, and dropped dead in their early fifties? No one does.

For that matter, what’s so bad about nukes? Nuclear weaponry has made the world a safer place. Were it not for the threat of mutually assured destruction, the Cold War would have lasted all of a decade before going hot. Aside from the brief Belle Epoque, the reality of pre-Hiroshima life was that there was always war, somewhere, sometime, and you stood a damn good chance of getting killed in it, either as a soldier or as a civilian caught in the crossfire. In the same way that widespread gun ownership promotes politeness and civility, widespread nuke ownership promotes a less-bloody world.

What the hell does nuclear proliferation have to do with a book called Sex 3.0? Well, more traditionalist elements in the alt-right/mano-/ortho-/whateverosphere have fantasized about ending the current sexual dystopia and returning to the pre-Sexual Revolution world of marital monogamy and family values. The problem with this is that one of the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse, the very cause of our current dilemma, is the result of technological progress — the advent of cheap and effective contraception (the Pill, condoms and abortion). If the traditionalists want to return the West to the good ol’ days, they’ll have to find a way to get humanity to willingly renounce technology, a feat that has yet to be accomplished in millennia of human history. What’s the likelihood of that happening?

This dilemma is the focus of Sex 3.0. JJ Roberts’ message is this — our pre-1960′s conception of sexual relationships is dead and buried. We need a new way of structuring relationships between men and women, a way that maximizes personal happiness within the confines of our social and technological development. While I quibble with some of his claims and conclusions, Sex 3.0 is a more than worthwhile read because it forces you to think about this issue deeply, going beyond thought-terminating cliches of both the left (“Don’t judge me! It’s my body and I can do what I want!”) and the right (“You’re an evil nihilistic degenerate and you’re going to burn in HELL!”)

JJ has been a contributor to In Mala Fide for the past couple months, offering up excerpts from Sex 3.0 that lay down his terminology and allow you to better understand the concepts in the book. Before you read Sex 3.0, you’d be well-advised to plumb through his archives both here and at the official Sex 3.0 website to familiarize yourself with his thesis.

For example, what does “Sex 3.0″ mean? The “3.0″ implies that there was a 2.0 and a 1.0. JJ describes each of these concepts, these eras in mankind’s sexual history, as follows. This is a gross oversimplication of his ideas, but it captures the gist of it:

• Sex 1.0: Pre-Agricultural Revolution (8,000 BC). There was no concept of property and human tribes had an egalitarian social structure. Consequently, there was no concept of marriage. In this environment, alpha males got most of the pussy, leaving betas high and dry.
• Sex 2.0: 8,000 BC to the present day. With the advent of agriculture, men began settling down in one place, and the concept of property was invented. Marriage came along with it, a contract in which a woman would surrender her sexuality (ability to bear children) to her husband in exchange for physical and economic protection.
• Sex 3.0: The future. With effective and cheap contraception and women’s economic emanicipation (through both work and educational opportunities and government welfare), marriage has been rendered null and void; women no longer need men to provide for them and men no longer need to put a ring on it to get laid. In Sex 3.0, the default sexual relationship is whatever every individual man or woman wants it to be.

What’s stopping Sex 3.0 from coming into play? Sex 2.0 may be obsolete, but it’s not going down without a fight.

JJ’s book is an exhaustive analysis of human sexuality and why Sex 2.0 is ill-suited to govern relationships in our post-Sexual Revolution world, using such things as the prevalence of adultery and divorce to make his points. He defines the term “relationship duress” to describe the social pressure put on people to make them conform to Sex 2.0 norms, usually in the form of slut-shaming when it comes to women and bachelor-shaming when it comes to men (i.e. all the exhortations for men to “man up,” get married and have a family that are always in the news).

While JJ’s conclusions are unique, his underlying analysis will be familiar to manosphere denizens, as he talks about alpha and beta males and the nature of female sexuality. He also analyzes feminism’s role in transforming the sexual marketplace, and his comments about “type 2″ radical feminism are eerily similar to Schopenbecq’s thesis of feminism being a “sexual trade union.” JJ’s prose is just like his blog posts — simple and direct, low on flashiness but high on readability. While it would have been very easy for him to fall into the liberal/feminist trap of lamenting “Sex 2.0″ as EVIL PATRIARCHAL MISOGYNY, he mostly avoids that, maintaining an opinionated but evenhanded tone throughout.

Some people will likely pause at this point to exclaim, “Oh, bullshit! JJ is just another stupid liberal advocating polygamist relationships! I’ve heard this crap before!” You would be wrong — his conception of Sex 3.0 is a world in which anyone can be in any sexual relationship they and their betrothed want to be. Swingers, bachelors and patriarchal households are all acceptable in this brave new world. Indeed, in a Sex 3.0 excerpt published here at IMF last month, JJ elucidated his methodology for classifying relationships:

There are a million different kind of sexual relationships, surely?

No, there are only two.

And these two encompass all possible kinds of relationships leaving nothing and nobody out, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.

These two relationships are:

• Fenced.
• Unfenced.

Simply put, fenced means a based on the concept of sexual ownership and unfenced means not based on the concept of sexual ownership.

So, examples of fenced relationships include things like conventional boyfriend and girlfriend or husband and wife relationships.

I can’t give away too much more without spoiling the book, but I will delineate where I dissent with JJ — his defining unfenced relationships (Sex 1.0) as “natural.” I don’t object to the concept of an unfenced relationship per se (I’m in one right now, though I didn’t realize it until I read Sex 3.o), but to the idea of defining it or any relationship as “natural.” JJ is correct that the institution of marriage is a relatively recent phenomena, accounting for maybe 5% of human history (a swipe at Christian conservatives who bleat about “traditional values”), but he builds his thesis on evolutionary psychology, a “science” I dismissed years ago because it’s on the same level as the Bible in terms of veracity. What is “natural” for humans is constantly changing because humans themselves are constantly changing due to technological progress. Men may not be “infinitely malleable,” as Orwell claimed, but they ARE malleable. Sex 1.0 was “natural” for pre-Agricultural Revolution humans, Sex 2.0 was natural for pre-Sexual Revolution humans, and if JJ is correct, Sex 3.0 will be natural for us living today.

While I walk a different intellectual path than JJ, I arrive in the same location he does — the realization that the old ways are not coming back. In an argument with OneSTDV a couple months back, I made the point that technological progress negates traditional values by its very nature. Since the trajectory of science is always towards making life easier and less painful, lessening or removing altogether the consequences of “immoral” behavior, hedonism and social liberalism will always win out in the end. Most human beings, whether they admit it or not, are morally utilitarian — they will only do things if it benefits them or those they care about, and will avoid doing things only so long as they (or those they care about) are hurt by them:

• If there are no consequences to sleeping around, why not fuck everyone you find attractive? Sex is fun, and who doesn’t want to have fun?
• If the cost of having children outweighs the benefits, why not live your entire life without marrying? Children suck. They’re expensive and time-consuming to raise. Who wants to dedicate 18+ years to rearing some ungrateful brats?

While three of the Four Sirens are the result of leftist social engineering and can (and will in the coming years) be undone, that still leaves you with the first — cheap and effective contraception, which makes the consequences of sexual immorality negligible at best. JJ also names paternity testing as another recent technology that upends the sexual marketplace, by allowing men to be a hundred percent certain that their children are theirs, a certainty men of the past never had. You gonna ban both of these things? You think you can try and reverse technological progress, something that no one has successfully accomplished in the entirety of recorded history? You’re really that arrogant?

Let’s take the specific case of abortion as an example of how technological progress dictates social mores. The legalization of abortion in the West in the 60′s/70′s (Roe v. Wade, etc.) is decried by conservatives as an example of what’s wrong with the world. Here’s an alternative view: abortion wasn’t legalized because of any moral decline, but because abortion technology became safe enough that there was no reason not to legalize it. Before the 20th century, abortion was an unbelievably risky procedure for women to undergo; you can joke about coat hangers all you want, but that method and others killed countless women. If having your unwanted baby snuffed out in the womb was a death sentence, no surprise that most women would avoid it.

When abortion became largely safe for women to undergo, its decriminalization was not far behind. All of the pro- or anti-abortion arguments (“All life is sacred!” “My body, my choice!”) are nothing more than after-the-fact rationalizations. If you protest abortion or hold out any hope of it being declared illegal again, you’re as deluded as the hippie-dippie types who dream of a world without nukes. End of.

The same with sex in general. With rubbers and the Pill, sexual degeneracy is the new normal and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Some traditionalists unconsciously realize this, which is why they jack off to Mad Max-esque visions of total societal collapse or wax gleefully about “evolutionary dead ends.” The former is nothing but a nerd’s pitiful revenge fantasy — “Just you wait! I’ll be on top one of these days and you’ll regret not listening to me!” The latter necessitates either a fundamental misunderstanding of demography or a radical belief in determinism that has zero bearing on reality. For that matter, do you REALLY want to go back to the old ways? A world in which men are bound in chains, pack mules for women and children? A world where comfort is scarce, pain is ever-present and relief never comes? Yeah, right.

No, the current dystopia will not last. No, not every single person on Earth will become a drooling vegetable plugged into the Orgasmatron at all hours. But the idea that we’re headed back to some Norman Rockwell America (or whatever image of the past you prefer) is laughable, tilting at windmills in the truest sense. Pockets of traditionalism will survive (hell, the Zoroastrians are still around after all these years), but for the rest of us, the future is more individualism, more social atomization, and more mindless pleasure-seeking. Coming technological developments will only accelerate the arrival of Hedotopia.

Sex 3.0, for all its various flaws, challenges your prejudices and makes you think. To put it in JJ’s words, it helps you redraw your map. Not many books can do that. Regardless of what you think, if you want to read a well-argued analysis of human sexuality, you owe it to yourself to pick this one up.

Click here to buy Sex 3.0 for Kindle. Click here to buy the paperback edition.

The press decries systematic rape of women in African war zones while keeping quiet about the deaths of even more men in those same war zones.

When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.

Women’s Suffering Emphasized, Men’s Suffering Ignored: An Evolutionary Mechanism?

Women have a special talent to paint themselves as victims and engage men as “white knights” to help them in that endeavor. The even higher level suffering and plight of men gets ignored. Human-Stupidity suspects that this manipulation skill is due to evolutionary built in mechanisms that women learned in the gender war, to counter men’s superior strength. It is to be noted that the limiting factor for child production (and thus inclusive fitness) is the number of women’s wombs, not the number of men. As Angry Harry puts it: men are dispensable.

Women are always the victims. In rallies, women “take back the night” at safe campuses, requesting safety for women no matter how drunk they get. Nobody mentions that statistically men are more frequently the victims of violence and homicide. Women stress rape culture, re-defining rape to include ever more minute transgressions like 5-second rape (failure to instantly stop consensual sex).

Women, with the help of men, manage to raise public awareness about rape while ignoring prison rape. Prison rape is extremely violent, and often entails years of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Prisoners who “consent” to years of sex to avoid violence don’t even count as rape victims.

Media focus on rapes and other female miseries while ignoring male executions, worked-to-death laborers, tortured prisoners, and nine-year-old boy soldiers trained to kill and be killed.

An excerpt from Tim’s new book Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics:

‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

A case in point is provided in an editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof, published June 5, 2005 in the New York Times under the heading, “A Policy of Rape.” Says Kristof, “More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp—a teeming squatter’s camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages—still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.” Now, of course, this is an abomination that demands attention. It is also an abomination that receives attention. My concern with this article comes from what’s missing—at least up until the very end. “I’m still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they’re the ones who are raped,” says Kristof. “‘It’s simple,’ one woman here explained. ‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

Inside Story – The Silent Victims of Rape | Al Jazeera Video

The above movie focuses on male rape. It still ignores other types of violence that is selectively anti-male. It mentions that 20% of male combatants got raped vs. 30% of women. It does not mention how many men got killed, nor that there probably are not many female combatants.

Well, that new information changes things a bit, doesn’t it? So why then could this editorial not be titled “A Policy of Murder”? Why is all its emphasis on the rape of women and none of its emphasis on the murder of men? Why is this revelation thrown away as a tagline at the end of the article and offered only as “an indication of how utterly we are failing the people of Darfur” rather than as an indication of how utterly we are failing to direct equal compassion and attention toward the atrocities inflicted upon men?

“this policy of rape flourishes only because it is ignored” while the death of men simply does not matter

Adam Jones, author/editor of Gendercide and Genocide (2004), has studied these issues in depth. Genocide may be defined as the attempt to exterminate a given population. Gendercide is the selective mass killing of one gender. As Jones makes clear, the gender of choice for extermination is nearly always the male gender. In part, males are selected because males are more easily assumed to pose a threat, but also because males may be slaughtered without over-burdening the slaughterers with guilt and trauma. Moreover, you can slaughter males and provoke only minimal world outrage. In fact, the media will focus mainly on hardships faced by the women deprived of men. [...]

“One of the best indicators of the special vulnerability of men and boys is the frequency with which relatives and friends sought to disguise them in women’s clothing,” asserts Jones. “The African Rights report ‘Death, Despair and Defiance’ cites a number of examples of such procedures, which are reminiscent of similar practices followed in the Bosnian and Kosovan conflicts of the 1990s.”[5] Clearly, if females were specially targeted, males would not be donning female clothing. Yet, as the media reaction to Rwandan atrocities makes plain, women will be presented as the victims almost no matter what the truth. Source

• Feminist rape laws don’t apply to male prison rape victims
• “Rape is rape is rape” is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different types of rape!
• Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago
• Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing you are raping?
• Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language
• Way over 50% of rape accusations are false. 7.4% blatantly enough to prosecute (Bavarian Police research report)
• What’s so terrible about rape? Rape is not as bad as it used to be!

Why Discrimination Against Males, Exaggerating Female Suffering to Ridiculous Extremes?

Human-Stupidity strives to look behind the facts. We want to understand WHY things are as they are. Why is male hurt, male suffering and male victimization actively ignored to the point of falsifying statistics? Why wasn’t the Violence Against Women Act shot down as unconstitutionally sexist by the Supreme Court?

How can Hillary Clinton get away with saying that women are the main victims of war, because their husbands and brothers die in war? Not to even mention that there are credible sources that Hillary Clinton battered Bill Clinton in the White House, of course going unpunished.

Even in China, Special Protection for Women,Ignoring Men

Well, you’ve absolutely got to admit Female Victimization in Bosnia, or Arabia, or China, or whatever . . . right?” People look at me then as if to say: Either he admits MP/FV or his credibility is totally shot. Well, I could be wrong but the best evidence I know of does not support the MP/FV paradigm anywhere at all. My research indicates that matrisensus influence is always a match for patriarchal influence, and brutal places are brutal to both sexes. China? Over a ten-year period, 59,543 men and no women died in coal mining accidents alone![19] Male slaves trafficked into China find prosecuting their slavemasters particularly difficult because Chinese law only protects women from being trafficked in as slaves.[20]

You can go to a brutal place, catalogue only the brutality toward women, and on that basis conclude that women are the victims, but if you don’t research conditions for men, if you don’t compare the female victimization against male victimization, your conclusion is logically bankrupt. Even worse, our perceptions of gender reality are further distorted when the only comparison that is regularly made is the comparison between conditions experienced by the average woman vs. conditions experienced by the elite male. source

Footnote [20]       See, Kang Yi, “Some human traffickers may walk away in ‘slave’ case,” June 15, 2007, www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm. “‘Those traffickers who lure migrant workers, mainly adult males, to do forced labor will not be convicted as the criminal code only covers those who traffic women and children,’ Guan Zhongzhi, a lawyer with Zhonghuan Law Firm told chinadaily.com.cn. The legal loophole has put male victims in an awkward position when fighting against their traffickers in the court of law.”

Cross-posted at Human Stupidity.

In yesterday’s post, I left out a prediction on how the Florida primary results would go based on the South Carolina results. I figured that Newt Gingrich would win big in the rural, northern part of the state, which demographically still resembles the South. Gingrich dominated rural South Carolina, with Mitt Romney only eking out wins in the urban centers of Columbia, Charleston, and Hilton Head. Unfortunately for Gingrich, the influx of damned Yankees and Cubanos into the Sunshine State over the past decades has tipped the demographic balance against prole CONservatives. As it turns out, I was right — virtually all of the counties Gingrich won in Florida were in the north, while Romney racked up huge margins among the urban degenerate transplants in the central and southern part of the state (including a 35-point spread in Miami-Dade County).

Because I’m sick of writing about this crap, I’m going to offer up demographic-based predictions on who’s going to win the remaining races this month to save myself some work.

Nevada (Feb. 4): Romney will win this easily because of Nevada’s high Mormon population, while Ron Paul will come in second due to the state’s libertarian streak.

Maine (Feb. 4-11): Again, another easy win for Romney because of favorable Northern demographics. And again, Paul will probably place second, though this isn’t guaranteed.

Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri (Feb. 7): Colorado and Minnesota will likely be Romney wins due to, again, favorable demographics, though Gingrich and/or Santorum will likely do better here than in Nevada or Maine. Missouri is a toss-up as it’s a demographically diverse state like Florida, split between Southerners and Midwesterners.

Guam (Feb. 18): Who cares about pseudo-colonies?

Arizona and Michigan (Feb. 28): Romney will easily win Michigan because of name recognition; his daddy was governor back in the sixties. Arizona is, shockingly enough, a toss-up. While the demographics strongly lean towards Gingrich’s favor — Arizonan whites are largely ignorant, hateful Calvinist hicks — his nonstop Hispandering will seriously hurt him, as Arizonan CONservatives actually use their brains when voting thanks to the illegal alien crisis.

Pointless aside: I hate Arizona. Every non-Latino I’ve ever known from that state was an obnoxious prick; living in an area where the mean summertime temperature is over a hundred degrees seems to kill brain cells. Phoenix is a stinking shithole, the worst major city in America, a nightmare of suburban sprawl with no culture to speak of. I’d say let the Mexicans have the whole place, but since the Arizonans are the only ones interested in fighting illegal aliens, they’re at least useful. Much like how the Serbs were the bulwark against Turkish expansion in Europe, Arizona is America’s first line of defense against the barbarians from the south.

The ultimate conclusion of all this bullshit? Stop thinking about this pointless pageantry, grab yourself an ice cold beer from the fridge, and profitez de la baisse.

Here’s a perfect example:

This would seem to jibe with popular laments about why Apple can’t make its products domestically. There are a lot of reasons, but a significant one is the lack of necessary skills for higher-end manufacturing. This is in no small part because American students shy away from the training necessary to do these kind of jobs even if they originally think they want to be engineers. Why? Because American college students don’t like doing homework.

So, America is doomed, right?

To be honest, this sounds like a lot of pious baloney. As Michael Beckley points out in a new article in International Security, “The United States is not in decline; in fact, it is now wealthier, more innovative, and more militarily powerful compared to China than it was in 1991.”

Yep, and the Roman Empire saw continuous growth right up until it declined. A trend line is not a guarantee of future performance, as anyone with half a brain knows. Yet this clown somehow thinks that this particular trend line will continue on its path. The best way to predict the economic future is to look at fundamentals of the economy (e.g. legal system, regulatory system, tax policy, etc.) and see what effect the current policies and practices will have on the future. Of course, this is significantly more difficult than identifying a trend line and extrapolating (probably because fundamental analysis requires thinking whereas trend analysis requires Excel and rudimentary data entry skills, which many trained monkeys are capable of performing), which is why most mainstream economists never bother with it.

1) The United States is successfully deleveraging. As the McKinsey Global Institute notes, the United States is actually doing a relatively good job of slimming down total debt — i.e., consumer, investor and public debt combined. Sure, public debt has exploded, but as MGI points out, that really is the proper way of doing things after a financial bubble.

Sweet Maynard but these modern Keynesians are completely unfamiliar with Keynesian theory. The rule is that government raises taxes and saves money during the boom years and then lowers taxes and spends (from its savings) during the busts. But, and this is important to note, the two go hand in hand. If the federal government doesn’t raise taxes and save during the boom period (which it most certainly did not), then there is no point in increasing federal spending, particularly if it requires debt. As a side note, Keynes’ theory did not inherently rely on debt for economic smoothing, although it was certainly not opposed to it. As such, any policy that relies on increasing debt is going to fail in the long run.

2) Manufacturing is on the mend. Another positive trend, contra the Harvard Business School and the GOP presidential candidates, is in manufacturing. Some analysts have already predicted a revival in that sector, and now the data appears to be backing up that prediction.

While this is certainly a positive trend, it is actually evidence that the negative consequences of free trade have come to fruition. The current free trade setup, wherein domestic businesses are severely hamstrung by the federal government while foreign businesses are allowed to trade freely even if they aren’t similarly hamstrung, has effectively subsidized foreign businesses at the direct expense of domestic businesses. As such, foreign businesses have increased their productivity, thereby increasing their prices (since demand for highly productive labor tends to be high). As the prices of foreign labor increased while the prices of American labor remained stagnant, businesses began to domesticize production once again. Thus, the recent increase in domestic production is simply proof that the federally mandated transfers of wealth from domestic producers to foreign producers is complete.

3) A predicted decline in energy insecurity. British Petroleum has issued their Energy Outlook for 2030. The Guardian’s Richard Wachman provides a useful summary:

Growth in shale oil and gas supplies will make the US virtually self-sufficient in energy by 2030, according to a BP report published on Wednesday.

This is simply another iteration of stupid extrapolation. What’s to say that the rapidly growing cult of environmentalism won’t start demanding legislation that tamps down on the production of shale oil on the grounds that Mother Earth is too fragile to handle a good, hard fracking? Again, any idiot can use a spreadsheet application to make a pretty trend line. But trends do not prove or guarantee anything. The more relevant question is that of incentives: does the current incentive structure encourage the continuation of this trend? What is the likelihood that the current incentive structure will change? This guy is obviously unfamiliar with environmentalists, else he would know better than to predict that the US will manage to have access to more domestic oil in the future.

At any rate, this article is pretty representative of the problems plaguing mainstream economic analysis. There’s a lot of happy talk based on short-sighted extrapolation coupled with a healthy dose of very shallow analysis that often neglects to account for a host of relevant variables. Really, this isn’t economic analysis; it’s economic propaganda.

A few people have been coming around to the thesis that CONservatives are motivated mostly by spite and hatred of LIEbrals, and not by any ideological or moral principles. And when I say “a few people,” I really mean “Chuck Rudd,” because his post was the only one I bothered to bookmark. Following Newt Gingrich’s come-from-behind landslide victory in South Carolina a little over a week ago, Chuck claimed that the Newt’s success came from his ability to seduce the GOP’s base:

Of course, this turn of events could be more a function of a power vacuum than a specific shift in voters’ values. Without much to grasp on to, in their eyes, the Republican base has veered towards the guy that causes tingles and gets their juices flowing. Seduction: that is Gingrich’s strong suit.  Seduction isn’t rational; it is visceral.  “Hope and Change”, “A Shining City on a Hill”, “Still Believe in a Place Called Hope”: these are seductive images that beat out jargon-filled wonk-speak. Seductive messages have the most power when the ‘animal spirits’ rule and ideological tectonic plates are most active. Obama came after 8 years of Bush; Reagan came after a generation of liberalism; Clinton came after 12 years of Reagan/Bush; Newt comes after an (perceived) epoch of liberal media control which lead to Obama’s anointment. The South Carolina result suggests that the base has a set of issues they say they care about, and then they have a set of issues theyactually care about – sound familiar?

This is a more charitable explanation of the base, low urges that drive CONservatives. Let’s stop fooling ourselves and face the facts: CONservatism in the U.S. is an ideology of the proles, by the proles, and for the proles. (Or, more accurately, white proles, as the proles of other races have hopped aboard the liberal gravy train.) American conservatism has no thinkers with any intellectual gravitas, only imbecilic lightweights like Jonah Goldberg or shrieking harridans like Ann Coulter. The retardation of conservatism is yet another byproduct of the bifurcation of America into intelligent faggots (liberals, SWPLs) and masculine morons (proles). Every objectively measurable metric, from the Whole Foods/Cracker Barrel divide to what liberals and conservatives watch on TV, shows that conservatives are by and large unsophisticated proles. And when you let proles run something, shock! horror! surprise! it crashes, burns and fails in every way conceivable.

The modern American, regardless of ideology, is a raging narcissist; when he looks into another man’s eyes and doesn’t see himself reflected in them, he becomes angry. Both LIEbrals and CONservatives select their politicians on the basis of how much they remind them of themselves. LIEbrals, being smug, patronizing pedants who think they’re smarter than they actually are, voted for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton because he was a smug, patronizing pedant who seemed like he was smarter than he actually was. Obama being a sainted minority was also part of it. CONservatives swarmed around George W. Bush because his public image was of an uneducated, cowardly yokel. If given the choice between a well-groomed, articulate success and a fat, slovenly failure, CONservatives will pick the failure every time.

That’s why Mitt Romney was felled by Newt Gingrich in South Carolina. Logical thinkers question why a state with a socially conservative, Christian voter base would support a flabby, corrupt, draft-dodging, serially monogamous adulterer over a healthy, well-spoken, committed family man and dutiful husband. The problem is that proles don’t think logically, they think emotionally. To the average South Carolina GOP voter, Romney looks like one of those damned “elitist” Yankees who thinks he’s better than everyone else. Gingrich looks like a down-home good ol’ boy, the kind of guy you could break bread with. The fact that Romney lives up to conservative values while Gingrich shits all over them doesn’t matter. Add in the fact that Gingrich was getting piled on by the media at the time, and the victim programming of CONservatives ensured a victory for stupidity and ignorance. “Those big meanie liberals are making FUN of us! Well, I’ll show them!”

Romney should have seen this coming; it was this fatalistic, anti-everything mentality of CONservatives that doomed his first presidential bid in 2008. In the South Carolina primary that time around, Romney was bested by the shambling corpse John McCain. GOP voters flocked to support McCain over Romney because the former hit all the CONservative emotional buttons of ugliness, hypocrisy and failure. McCain’s record as a “war hero” is a complete and utter crock — his story is one of total, unrelenting cowardice:

John McCain was no fucking war hero. He was a war traitor, according to all countries’ martial cultures. He broke under beatings, confessed, he named names, he even denounced America over prison loudspeaker, to demoralize his fellow American prisoners, for Vietnamese propaganda and psychological purposes. Here is some things that he said, it is all on the internet, for any brainwashed American dumbfuck who cares to know some truth:

“I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors.”

Don’t shit on my shoes and tell me it’s a Snickers bar, and don’t try and tell me that breaking down like a little bitch is “heroism.” It’s something, but it’s not heroism. Combine this with McCain having ditched his crippled wife for a girl twenty years his junior (sound familiar?), and you’ve got a candidate every CONservative can secretly love while he rationalizes his choices to himself like a woman. Don’t forget Mike Huckabee, who also blindsided Romney in several races; he filled the Santorum role of “credulous hick,” another beloved CONservative archetype.

If Mitt Romney really wanted to clinch the Republican nomination, he should have spent the last four years dumbing himself down. He should have hired Bush’s voice coach so he could start mispronouncing “nuclear,” gotten himself a bit of a beer belly, maybe even started porking some vacant-eyed intern young enough to be his granddaughter. Then, he’d be an unstoppable force. As it stands, however, he’s too smart-looking, too “elitist” for the artery plaque-ridden, grit-eating GOP base. If he gets the nomination, it’ll be because of his incompetent opponents, not because of any virtues on his part.

Found at this site, and started making lulz:

Here are a couple of past masterpieces of trolling:

Apparently, liberalism isn’t just a political ideology, it’s also an alternative lifestyle where men are subordinated to women. I have seen examples of this at Crooks & Liars and Democratic Underground as well.

Moar caption suggestions, please!

Cross-posted at Mindweapons in Ragnarok.

This is a personal post. I have reached a stage in my life where I am face-to-face with total and complete failure. No job. No career. No money. According to many a Western mind, if you add in no car, no smartphone and no wife or children, I would be the textbook definition of a loser and many here may even think as much.

Over the past month, I have attempted to re-energize my foray into a creative field in attempting to become self-employed over the past seven years. I am a “failure” because I have not been able to establish myself full-time at it, never will be, and because I have not made lots of money at it. This belies the fact I have made money, good money, but just not enough it seems according to our society’s now insane appetite for displays of wealth, status and privilege to even belong to said society as a member. There is also now a kabillion competitors in my industry who are willing to do anything to earn a buck. In order to stand out, I must once again compete in that high school farce of “Who’s the Coolest,” which of course I was never a contender for in my youth. Ironically, it is also females that are the ones driving up the numbers of competitors and the push toward style over substance in my creative medium.

So, as I face the coming week with rent due, no money for food, any hint of income a good four months away and having to go to my parents for support at an age I would traditionally be supporting them, I find myself at a loss as to what to do. In these times, I always look for some inspiration to stoke the spiritual fires to carry on and surmount all obstacles in my path.

Enter the life story of Genghis Khan.

I found him at my local library on excursion for what has now become my regular weekend entertainment splurge… an out-of-date DVD movie rental for $1.10 and a bag of microwave popcorn.  I was perusing the well-worn jacket titles when what should stand out… but the Sergei Bodrov film Mongol.

What was the ultimate source of all this man’s failures?

Stubbornness.

The man was just plain stubborn.

He know what he wanted and he would take nothing less. No one owned him. No one commanded him. In taking such an attitude toward life, he was bound to encounter nothing but hardship and blowback from all those around him who wanted to quash such an outrageous and insubordinate spirit.

“A man must choose his wife.” That was the response of his father in the film to young Temujin, tricking him into a trial run with a neighboring clan for choosing his bride that was supposed to be of another clan for political purposes. Temujin did this in order to choose the woman HE wanted that would be his main love for the rest of his life… Borte. Stubborn is what his father called him after this surprising action at a young age, and stubborn is most definitely in my family history.

That is why I am a failure. I am too stubborn to go back to the chains and manacles of a cubicle or retail/service job because of the indignity it imposes on a man who wants to be free of the “excessive tribal violence, including murder, kidnapping and enslavement” (Weatherford, pg xvi) that is work in the 21st century fiat/corporate/bankster world we live in. Like Khan’s time, we now live in an age where it is every man for himself… finances, family, politics, you name it. Where the cold blooded murder of heads of free states and peoples (see Iraq, Gaddafi and soon to be Iran), tribal violence (police state vs. the 99%), kidnapping (see NDAA and indefinite detention without trial now in force all over the globe) and enslavement (the mortgage/debt consumer shackles to the banksters) is now the norm. Like Temujin, I have been running for my life to escape my so-called masters, and I find myself once again cornered and forced back into wage-slave bondage.

I am a failure… but I am free. Free like Temujin where it counts… in my mind and heart. No matter the shackles they impose on me nor the shame they denounce me by for being a “loser,” I am free… because I am not one of them. I am not one of those who have traded slavery for security, hypocrisy for authority, fraud for wealth. I did what no one in their right mind would do… attempt to become wholly and completely self-sufficient in a creative field and risked all… EVERYTHING… I had to do so. In the process… something I am still trying TO process… I lost something that most people never do.

I have lost all fear.

From the film where Temujin is being asked a question by his now conquered blood brother to become Great Khan of all Mongolia…

Jamukha: All Mongols fear the thunder… but not you.

Temujin: I had no place to hide from the thunder… so I wasn’t afraid anymore.

After being chased, persecuted, locked up and written off by all, Temujin realized there was no place a man can run to hide from those that wish to take everything from him. That to continue to run in fear is pointless for what is he truly running to escape from? Loss? Death? Enslavement? Fear is nothing more than a state of mind that one has something to lose when the reality is that we never had anything to lose in the first place. We come into this world with all that we will ever have — our spirit, our talent, our character and our will — and that is all we will ever need to succeed in life. No one can take that away from you. You have nothing to lose, you have nothing to fear.

We men here in the manosphere are all of the same kind, our differences are matters of degree. We see the thunder of our times for what it is — the fire and brimstone of those that wish us to be their slaves as they do everything in their power to convince us they are our masters — but we refuse to cower in fear of them. We know their thunder is not real. My path is now marked with utter failure for the first time in my life (having already come very close many times in the past seven years) but I am not cowed. I am proud of the fact I faced a fear most individuals never will… to go it alone and make my own way and not be dependent on an employer to make my daily bread. In those seven years, half of them were on my own and I would not trade even a single day of that freedom for the security I might now have of a regular pay cheque and “career.”

I am not writing this to make myself out to be some example to follow, far from it. My story can be taken as stark warning to all who contemplate the path I have chosen for myself and the consequences that lie ahead if you fail. Maybe I am a fool for making the life choices I have so far. Very few would call them genius or learned.

But I have never strived to be one of those men approved by the many.

Words are powerful things and I wish to share with you words of an author I want to introduce to you in future pieces.  THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS… for they are words that have no author in being truth. Fool or not, I found them to ring true for me and I took a leap of faith seven years ago in myself, my talents and my future.

The Gamesmaster asked, “Monsieur Pook, how much are you willing to bet on the throw of your dice?” Pook looked at his dice. They were the dice of Talent, Dreams, and Endurance. He looked at his stack of chips, one color being whatever property and ‘things’ he had, another being his societal connections including that of his family and friends, and the most treasured type of chip of one’s most awesome resource: time.

Pook told the Gamesmaster, “Put it all on the table.” The Gamesmaster looked alarmed. “But if you do that, you may lose all your property, all your society, and all your time, and thus, your life. Are you willing to bet all that on your Talent, Dreams, and Endurance?” Everyone in the Casino was looking at Pook now. Very very few people bet it all.

“All on the table,” Pook repeated, rattling the dice. Laughing, he rolled the bones and said,

“The greatest risk you can take in life is not to risk it all!” 

“You can be the smartest person in the world, the most talented, the most persistent, but you will never win in the world or with women unless you embrace the glory of RISK.”

“But Pook, I am scared of risk. What if I lose?”

Pook slapped the youth. “You cannot lose! Everyone wants to define your life, to shape it to their ends. From politicians to your friends. Everything is all right as long as you stay you. But if you break out of the mold, everyone, and I do mean everyone, will try to stop you.”

“So how can we not lose?”

“Just as on the battlefield, the valiant warrior losing in glorious battle is honorable. It is not the victory that defines the Man, it is the fight. There are some people who somehow have this curse or bad luck and must eat an excrement sandwich everyday. They win every time they struggle against that.”

Are you struggling against eating the excrement sandwich being force-fed to you?  If you are not, why are you still alive?

Do not scorn a weak cub.  He may become the brutal tiger.

Mongolian proverb

We men who value truth, justice and a return to natural male-female relations of partnership, trust and love are the weak cubs of the litter. 21st century western society has scorned our values and held our beliefs in utter contempt. The summing up is upon us and a brutal tiger may soon be unleashed on the world — men who will no longer take the excrement sandwich they are served up any longer and who will demand the world be set right again on the pillars of truth, justice and the family.

I know many young men here are living the hedonistic life and have no want or drive to try and make the world right.  But that is as it ever was… as it ever was… until a man like Temujin comes along and says no more.

“Vastly more progressive than his European or Asian counterparts, Genghis Khan abolished torture, granted universal religious freedom and smashed feudal aristocratic privilege.”

Weatherford, from the back cover

That is the task before us gentleman… if we ever wish to be free. Living it up in Thailand with Asian girls or wherever you think you can run to escape the coming onslaught of global oppression is no longer an option. “They” will find you, and you will be put into chains. No matter how far Temujin ran… they always found him.

The only option we have is to fight back. To show these pathetic, psychopathic fools who is the real tiger of the clan, who are the Great Khans of men.

But Temujin did not accomplish what he did alone. He had three important relationships in his life… that of his blood brother and friend Jamukha, his love Borte, and his relationship with his god, the Eternal Blue Sky.

I have always been missing the first two in my life and I am only now working on the third, but I have no doubt in my mind that when all three relationships that are key in the life of a man come together, there is nothing I won’t be able to accomplish. Until then, I struggle. I continue my fight against the excrement sandwich being served to me. I will be planning my escape every second of the day, asleep and awake, for I will be free one day to live life on my own terms and no one will tell me otherwise.

Temujin had another character trait I might also possess that may have contributed to my failure — a dual capacity for friendship and enmity, the ability to make friends and enemies alike, usually in the same person. I am both the easiest and the hardest person to get along with and I think that is because, like Temujin, I am bound to no one in my thinking, beliefs and values and therefore do not fit any single mold that allows a person to have relations that are wholly congenial or forever at crossed swords with one’s so-called avowed enemy.

To wit… the third most important relationship in Temujin’s life, if not the first and only one for I included it above in Temujin’s life where Jack Weatherford did not in his book on the life of Genghis Khan…

Man’s relationship to a higher power than himself.

My Man vs. God series will return and I will continue to highlight man’s spirit in most of my writings as I think this is the key to winning the war the psychopaths that are currently waging against free humanity. It is also a war that we seem to be waging even here within the manosphere. To believe, or not to believe, that is the question.

The religion of Temujin was that of the Eternal Blue Sky.

… that stretched from horizon to horizon in all four directions.  God presided over the whole earth; he could not be cooped up in a house of stone like a prisoner or a caged animal, nor, as the city people claimed, could his words be captured and confined inside the covers of a book.  In his own experience, Genghis Khan had often felt the presence and heard the voice of God speaking directly to him in the vast open air of the mountains in his homeland, and by following those words, he had become conquerer of great cities and huge nations.

Weatherford, pg 6

Temujin became Genghis Khan and launched an empire that conquered more lands and people in 25 years than the Romans ever accomplished in 400. He did this with a firm belief in the Eternal Blue Sky — a God that watched over him, protected him, aided him and guided him all his life. If what Weatherford attests above is true, Genghis Khan would technically be considered a prophet, albeit one who kept God’s murmurings in his head to himself. Whatever the Great Khan heard spoken to him, it had a profound affect on his life and his accomplishments that only a naive person would dismiss as antiquated superstition.

For all of my talk of Islam, if the Prophet Muhammad has a rival for the greatest man the world has ever known, it would be Genghis Khan. The only thing he did not accomplish was found a religion and that is because he had no need to. While everyone else fought wars over divine words in books, Genghis Khan relied on one simple belief — that while being the author of his own life, he was not solely responsible for his defeats or accomplishments. There is a greater power at work in the world of man. If you look at some of the greatest men for positive change in the world, they all had strong faith and belief in a power beyond this world that man could not ignore. Martin Luther King and the Christian message of love and universality of man’s inalienable rights. Malcolm X’s rejection of racism and his intellectual push to turn the civil rights movement into a human rights movement that would encompass all the worlds oppressed minorities, an intellectual argument based on the sound principles of Islam as revealed in the Koran. Gandhi, who borrowed widely from Hinduism, Jainism, Tolstoy (The Kingdom of God is Within You) and Plato (Apology) to create the non-violent civil disobedience movement that brought about the end of not only British rule in India, but as a hegemonic globe spanning empire of oppression (at least overtly). All of these great men, men who truly impacted human history for the better, had faith and belief in a power greater than themselves they could rely on for assistance and guidance and perhaps ultimately, for their very success.

If I have failed where Genghis Khan and all the above men went on to eventually succeed, it is because I have not formed the relationships with my fellow men, women and with God to the point of synergy that allows the creative spiritual force of each human being to be unleashed to its fullest. Let’s once again read Pook on life & risk…

“So to risk is to fight. Then all this knowledge and ‘insights’ are merely the sword, shield, armor, and weapons we fight with? And those who fight, unarmed, are more worthy than those who sit there completely clad with the finest of weapons?”

“Yes. Paradise, spoken slowly, is literally a ‘pair-of-dice’. Gamble what you have. For if you bury your talent and dreams to sit on it, you will receive the wrath of heaven. ‘Unworthy servant!’ will be screamed at you.”

“But what if the situation itself seems IMPOSSIBLE? What if ALL ODDS SEEM AGAINST YOU? What happens then?”

Pook, exhausted from this post, began to vanish towards the Pook Place where all Pooks come from. “Just remember…”

“Opportunities are brilliantly disguised as impossible situations!”

It is time now for me to dig deep. To find the opportunity that is brilliantly disguised in this impossible situation I now find myself in, and it is nothing compared to the tests Temujin faced in his young adult life. To forge the relationships I require to unleash my spiritual force and accomplish something in this world, great or humble.

Many will laugh at the idea of upon death, having “unworthy servant” screamed at you by some great power. Mock it you may, but make no mistake — whether you believe in God or an afterlife or not, you have been given talents, skills and a will to choose how to live your life. It is up to you how you wish to employ them. If you sit on them, if you do not employ your soul to its utmost expression, how can that not be an insult to even chance and evolution that created you?

Genghis Khan focused his entire being… physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual… on one dream — to unite his people into the largest empire the world had ever seen. Some of his accomplishments were (Weatherford, xix):

• Smashing the feudal/aristocratic system to replace it with one based on individual merit, loyalty and achievement;
• Creating the world’s largest free-trade zone, linking Europe to China and vice versa when neither knew the other existed;
• Lowering taxes for all and abolishing them for doctors, teachers, priests and educational institutions;
• Establishing a regular census for sound governance and the first international postal system for communication and commerce;
• Widely distributing all wealth and treasure to ensure hoarding did not bring down economic activity (shades of Europe and America’s crisis of Wall Street hoarding and corporate fraud)
• Setting down international laws that no person, slave or king was above and to which no human law was above the supreme law of the Eternal Blue Sky;
• Total religious freedom;
• Abolishing torture while enforcing the suppression of banditry and terrorist assassins;
• Refusing the practice of holding hostages and implementing the beginning of international diplomatic immunity for all ambassadors and envoys, even for those of whom he was at war.

This… this is the legacy of Genghis Khan’s life.

A stubborn man who feared dogs as a child and cried easily, who was weaker and less physically skilled than his young brother, who was bullied and picked on by his half-brother and in general left to die of hunger, humiliated, was kidnapped and enslaved and who physically encountered no more than a few hundred people his entire childhood and who could neither read nor write (Weatherford, pg xvi, xvii). Despite all those handicaps, Genghis Khan went on to found the largest empire the world has ever seen, whose foundations were so strong that it kept growing for another 150 years without him.

So, what are you doing with the time and talents given to you by no one other than He (or what) who created you? For you certainly did not acquire them yourself, they were given to you… for a purpose.

Sarging women in the clubs, playing the Game and living the player life?  Is that the mark you want to make on the world?  Do you honestly think if you dedicate your life to the ideals and convictions Genghis Khan lived by, that you will be able to accomplish all that you want and desire fully and wholly on your own or that it is entirely up to you?

Fate did not hand Genghis Khan his destiny — He made it for himself.

Weatherford, pg xvi

So he did. But like most secular, educated and intellectual individuals, Weatherford completely dismissed Temujin’s deep spiritual connection to the one power he knew, when exposed to the elements, the cruelty and the thunder of this world, was the only power that could grant him the reprieves, the victories and the accomplishments he eventually went on to achieve. Bordov beautifully illustrates this connection of the spirit in the film and something I myself only saw more clearly watching it for the second time after the past year and a half exploring God and Islam.

While the idea that a higher power has a say in your success or failure in life might put you off, the idea that it was also Temujin’s love for Borte that played a pivotal role in his endurance will also shock you.

Ferdinand wrote an article on the testosterone reducing affects of marriage, how being involved with a woman brought many a man low and snuffed out all of his creative life force.

I say Genghis Khan (and the Prophet Muhammad) stand out as clear refutations of such an attitude or belief.

For you see… at the end of the film, Genghis Khan tells his wife he chose her. She reminds him that SHE chose him first.

While many men here have taken the Game pill and now view women for the most part as fun and entertainment, eschewing love and marriage and children, it was these very traditional/religious values/beliefs that actually enabled Genghis and Muhammad to accomplish what they set out to do in their lives. These women clearly gave them strength, they did not diminish their masculine and testosterone fueled exploits to conquer and reform society for the better.

This was so because these men CHOSE the women they were involved with as much as those women chose them. It is a wholesome and loving PARTNERSHIP based on mutual respect and trust that is missing from relationships today that is bringing so many men and women down. This of course is precisely what the elite want… a drained and apathetic society of willing slaves focusing on nothing but their own material and bodily pleasures.

A woman can’t be a drain on a man’s masculinity or testosterone if that man had neither of them to exert in the first place.

There it is… that stubbornness thing again, friend and enmity, which is really nothing more than simply standing up and challenging people on what they believe to be true and not caring if it offends someone.

Genghis Khan was stubborn and masculine enough to know no woman chooses him unless he also chooses her and no woman can bring him low.

That no man can claim lordship as Khan over him because he is the only Khan there is or ever will be over his life.

That unless you live your life for something greater than yourself — for God, a dream, an ethic or simply a personal goal — you will never accomplish truly great things and, despite success in this world, may one day be forced to submit to someone who lives for that greater world to come.

So… I have failed in being stubbornness. In this writing, I am hoping to delude myself that there is some great future success ahead for me in my life. Heh.

I tried my best to establish myself as a self-employed person but fate it seems, or God, has other plans for me. I am going back into wage-slavery. I will be going back with a clear heart and mind, for I know most around me will have never even tried what I attempted to do because of the fear that grips them of thunder and lighting in failure. I can punch a clock knowing I tried to live my dream, not lived in denial of it. I will be focusing more on my writing and see where it leads me. My goal now is to take the small savings/investments I have managed to save up over the past seven years, work off my small personal/business debt, and continue to save up my Fuck You Money (props to Ferd for coining an awesome life motto) to embark on a global travel adventure when I hit mid-life. If society is going to reject me and all I stand for, I am going to go out into the world and reject said “society.”

Be stubborn. Become someone no one wants you to be.

That is the life lesson of Genghis Khan.