It seems that everywhere you look these days there is someone telling you to “Stock up on gold and silver, that’s the only real money!”

Oh really…

Look, anybody with half a brain knows what governments around the world are doing - printing money as fast as they can to devalue their currencies against the others in an attempt to inflate their way out of their debts. Thus, the spike in gold and silver prices. According to inflation figures, gold and silver haven’t gone up that much in value, it’s just that a dollar buys less and less of everything every day. And it’s not going to be long if governments keep this up that we are going to see worldwide  hyperinflation of Zimbabwean proportions. Those little green slips of paper aren’t going to look so good…and won’t buy much, if anything at all.

All the while the pundits and analysts and individuals who make a percentage on the spot price keep up the chorus – “Buy gold and silver!”

As I see it, it’s the biggest scam going today. Money can be anything that two parties entering into a transaction agree it is.

Now I’ll admit that I’ve got some gold and silver stashed. Not a lot but enough to trade for essentials while it’s still worth something. But that’s the rub, if it gets as bad as I see it getting, other things are going to be MUCH more important…and valuable.

Like food…or the ability to grow food. When things go bad, the grocery store shelves will empty rapidly. Like ammunition and firearms. Even little things that you wouldn’t think of like toilet paper, batteries, disposable lighters, waterproof matches, water purifiers and the list goes on and on. Those are the types of things that are going to be in demand in the aftermath and if you’ve amassed a pile of this type of stuff, you’ll be able to accumulate all the gold you could want.

But why would you want to?

Just an example, you’ve got a pile of food stashed and the ability to defend it (I’ll discuss more about this later in this article). Someone you know comes to you and asks to trade an ounce of his stashed gold for some of your food. He just happens to be a mechanic and you need some work on one of your tractors. What are you going to want more, that ounce of gold or help repairing a piece of your equipment. Since you need that equipment to feed yourself and your family, you’re going to make a counter-offer – some of his knowledge and labor for some of your food (or whatever else you agree to). I know, maybe a bad example for the majority of people out there, but I own a farm so it makes sense to me.

From what I’m seeing, there’s going to be a HUGE shift in priorities among people when this period in our history is complete. And even though gold and silver will probably be one of the mediums of exchange, it’s not going to be the most important one. Knowledge of how to do things will be the currency of choice during the dark times. If you know how to fix a roof, dig a well, grow food, hunt and fish, weld or repair a vehicle amongst myriads of other things, you will be in incredible demand and will be able to name your own price because so few people these days know how to do any of these things.

But all of these skills aren’t going to do you a bit of good unless you can get out of the suburban and urban areas. In these areas, when the grocery store shelves go bare, the food stamp cards don’t work or won’t pay for food because of inflation and the welfare checks dry up, what we saw in London is going to look like a state fair in comparison. In that situation, if you were stuck in one of these areas, what would you rather have – a pile of gold or an AK-47 and a few thousand rounds of ammo? Personally, I’ll take the AK-47 every time. Even though I’m bugging out (waaay out) to a rural area, the survivors of the initial carnage are going to be roaming in packs, looking to steal anything they can get their hands on. Give me guns over gold anytime in the urban meat grinder.

Speaking of that scenario, once the hordes leave the urban and suburban areas decimated and start to spread out over the countryside hoping to pillage everywhere else, there is going to be a bloodbath of epic proportions. They won’t know what hit them. There is a huge pent-up well of anger in this country and our minority and white trash problems will quickly be taken care of. The same goes if the government tries to disarm the law-abiding during these times. Don’t say I didn’t warn you…

So why the steady drumbeat of individuals trying to persuade you to buy gold and silver? It’s all about trying to squeeze more loot out of you than they already have. It means they’re hoping you’re stupid enough to be one of the unfortunates hoarding gold and silver when the bottom falls out. If you really believe in this collapse of society stuff and I do, what are you going to want more during the inevitable fallout; a big pile of gold or some food and weaponry? You’ll probably want to go with the latter.

What it breaks down to is that the value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. If you want something to trade after TEOTWAWKI, stockpile food, cigarettes, bullets and toilet paper. Bling will not be a priority when the barbarian hordes come…

Originally published at Veritas Aculeus and Apocalypse Cometh on August 15, 2011.

First Casey Anthony and now this. I don’t know what is up with my home state of Florida, but some of the weirdest court cases seem to originate there…and this one could possibly be a game changer if we lived in a different world. But given the feminist court system that has been foisted upon males in this country, probably not…

Seems that there is a guy in the Tampa Bay area that is defending himself  from a child support case with an accusation of female rape. This is from tampabay.com:

Here’s what’s certain about the Hudson High School romance of Kris Bucher and Jessica Fuller: They dated, on and off, for three years. On Jan. 6, 2006, when he was still 17 and she was 18, they had sex in the back seat of a car and made a baby she named Joshua.

A paternity test confirmed Kris was the father.

Kris was not present at Joshua’s birth.

He did not contribute anything — not time, not money — to Joshua’s care.

Jessica never asked Kris for help.

In March 2009, Kris got a letter from the state of Michigan. Jessica had moved there and gone on welfare and Michigan wanted Kris to start paying child support.

Kris hired a lawyer. He said he shouldn’t have to pay child support because he never wanted the baby.

Jessica, he said, raped him.

It occurred to me almost immediately that this guy was nuts to even consider this type of defense against a child support case. We all know that a man can’t be raped by a woman, right? Well, not so fast…

This is his account of the encounter at his hearing:

On Jan. 6, 2006, Jessica and Kris fought and she broke up with him again. He was in love, he said, and he begged her not to leave him. So she invited him to her church youth group meeting that night. Their friends drove, but the church was closed, so they headed to Hudson Beach in Pasco County. The other couple went for a walk.

Kris and Jessica sat in the back seat. He said he was looking out the window at the smooth water when she got on top of him and said: “You know you want me.”

The passenger seat in front of him was tilted back at a 45-degree angle. She used one arm to pin him down, he said, the other to unzip his pants. At the time, he said, he was 5-foot-7 and 150 pounds and she was heavier. (emphasis mine, Simon)

“At any time do you make a statement to her about you will not have sexual intercourse with her?” asked his lawyer, Kerry O’Connor, at the hearing.

“I told her, ‘No, I do not want this.’ And that’s when she said, ‘It’s going to happen.’ ”

“And did you specifically use the word ‘no’?”

“Absolutely . . . several times.”

He said he tried to push Jessica off. He said he tried to pull the door handle to open the car door. He said she slammed her hand over the lock. He said it was over pretty fast.

He got out of the car, sat on the tailgate with his head in his hands. Their friends returned and he said nothing. They dropped him at his house.

What, he had to get a boner to impregnate her, didn’t he? If he got a boner, it can’t be rape, can it? Well, maybe we are being a bit too quick to judge…

From a Salon article about this story:

But the notion that a woman cannot rape a man has been around for quite a while and still persists. In the late ’70s it was argued in the book “Sex, Crime and the Law” that “for obvious biological reasons, a woman cannot be guilty of raping a man … certainly a woman cannot bring about sexual intercourse with a male against his will.” What’s certain is actually the opposite, that it’s physiologically possible for a woman to impregnate herself by raping a man. (Also, note that rape doesn’t have to include penis-in-vagina penetration.) Researchers have studied this very thing, in fact. A study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “the belief that it is impossible for males to respond sexually when subjected to sexual molestation by women is contradicted” and it also corroborated “previous research indicating that male sex response can occur in a variety of emotional states, including anger and terror.” Much as woman can experience lubrication and even achieve orgasm during rape, men’s physiological response can act independent of consent or desire — and in neither case does it make it any less rape-y. [emphasis mine - Simon (that's the subject of another article)]

Given the facts from the earlier parts of this story that Kris doesn’t seem to be exactly a male that understands the hypergamous nature of women plus being very young, the previous paragraph makes perfect sense. Another paragraph of the article confirms what we’ve already suspected.

Kris had never had a girlfriend before. He wore glasses and was kind of geeky. She was outgoing and had auburn hair and hazel eyes. His world shrank. She was it.

Typical inexperienced geeky teenaged boy meets she-devil…

Their relationship was tumultuous. They fought, broke up and always reconnected. In between, she dated other boys.

More like she rode the local cock-carousel…

They joined the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps at their high school. They talked about one day getting married, having kids. They first had sex in early May 2005 in the back seat of his 1997 Mazda 626. He was 17, she was 17.

I guarantee this was his first time. It definitely wasn’t hers…

She got pregnant later that year, but miscarried two months later. She remembers the hospital, Kris standing there. He looked pale, scared.

And like most guys that don’t know the essential nature of woman, he thought it was his…just because she told him so…

And it most likely wasn’t his child…and most likely she didn’t know whose it was…

What happened in the weeks after the miscarriage, and specifically on the night of Jan. 6, 2006, is where the couple’s stories begin to diverge. Kris told his version at a child support hearing in Brooksville in 2010. Jessica was not present.

Kris testified he wasn’t ready to be a father. And the doctor told them Jessica would now be particularly fertile, so they decided to avoid sex. [emphasis mine - Simon]

She actually told his parents that she did it:

In February 2006, Kris said, he and Jessica sat down on the soft brown couch in the living room of his parents’ home in Brooksville.

They told his parents that Jessica was pregnant.

How did this happen? his mother asked. The doctor had told them to be careful. They had agreed to refrain from sex.

Kris, his mother and his father all say that at that moment, Jessica admitted that she forced Kris to have sex against his will.

“I made him,” Connie Bucher recalls her saying.

Kris’ dad, Steve Bucher, was initially skeptical, but he didn’t say anything.

“How does a girl rape a guy? I just couldn’t see that,” he said in a recent interview.

I’d bet half my yearly paycheck that it was Kris who finally grew a set and decided to avoid sex, much to the dismay of the now more fertile Jessica, who figured that his being in the ROTC might end with Kris as a military officer providing a good income and being gone for long stretches of time, while his “loving wife” at home rode whatever and whomever she felt like. Being a beta however, he couldn’t resist spending time with the beast that he was formerly in love with. Well, she got by force what she wanted – a child, a future income, and no “geeky” Kris. Then she decided to move to Michigan and suck on the public teat. That’s when her plans started to finally come together.

Let’s see what she’s doing now:

Jessica Ann Fuller’s Facebook page says she is a proud mother of two. A Christian who likes to go to church. A community college student who hopes to be a special education teacher.

So she got some other dumbass to father another bastard. I wonder if she used the same tactics on him? Remember, this is a woman on welfare in Michigan, the welfare capital of the world. And a self-proclaimed Christian to boot. I’ve been around enough self-proclaimed Christians to know that you should watch your back around these individuals – they are some of the most sleazy, self-absorbed people on the planet.

In a phone interview from her home in Michigan, Jessica, now 23, pregnant and engaged to another man, acknowledges a lot of things.

23, mother of two, pregnant and engaged to another man. Says a lot doesn’t it?

That she got on top of Kris in the back seat of the car and initiated sex that night.

That Kris stopped them in the middle and raised questions about whether they should continue. “I didn’t get off him and he didn’t push me off.”

They remained together, Jessica said, for about a month afterward, until Kris discovered that Jessica had had sex with another guy that same night. They didn’t see each other much after that. [emphasis mine - Simon]

Seems that she was pretty determined to get laid by any means necessary that night. And I doubt that Kris hung around for long after what she did to him…

I have to post a picture of this seductress:

Yep, she looks big enough to subdue a 5’7″ 150 pound beta man. I blurred the face of Kris’ son for obvious reasons. The article has a picture of Kris which I’m not going to post because I hope he can move far enough away from Tampa to never have anyone recognize him as the “guy who got raped by that warpig.”

Now, we all know that poor Kris doesn’t stand a chance in this case. He’ll be judged in arrears for back child support and will have to give away a significant portion of his future earnings to this harpy. But you’ve got to admit it took a set of balls to try to turn the rape laws against their intended beneficiaries.

Too bad it made him look even worse…

Originally published at Veritas Aculeus on August 8, 2011.

This government is quickly becoming so indebted, so ravenous for revenue that any action is going to be justified. The United States has hit its $1.43 trillion debt ceiling hard and the Wuss Party Republicans in the House of Criminals Representatives refuse to raise it (supposedly) until equal spending cuts are approved. The Secretary of the Treasury has already instituted the raiding of government pension funds. From NewsMax.com:

As Congress squares off over a debt ceiling vote, Treasury is scrambling to find cash in the couch cushions. One of the ways it will scare up extra money is by putting off saving for the retirements of federal workers — in effect, short-term “borrowing” from public pension funds.

By suspending investments into the civil service retirement and disability fund, as well as putting off reinvestments into another big retirement bucket known as the G-Fund, Treasury could “claw back” up to $202 billion, estimates Reuters. That sounds like a lot, but it’s just 10 percent of the $2 trillion the agency says it needs to stay afloat until after Election Day 2012, and it will have to be put back.

This is just kicking the can down the road. Note in the second paragraph the statement “it will have to be put back.” That means that the Treasury is just delaying the inevitable. However, the government has other plans.

Holding off public pension payments could be cast as prudent short-term scrambling to avoid a serious problem with U.S. Treasury holders. Taken another way, such moves could instead be seen as the first step toward an eventual tax or outright seizure of private savings in tax-favored retirement plans.

It can’t happen here, you might say. But it has happened in plenty of indebted countries, such as Argentina and Hungary, and it just happened last week in Ireland. Hungary seized $14 billion from private pensions, reported The Christian Science Monitor, while Bulgaria and Poland demanded partial government control of private savings.

Earlier, Ireland dipped into state pension funds to bail out banks and, more recently, finding itself unable issue new debt, the Irish finance ministry announced it would tax private savings at a rate of 0.6 percent of assets over a four-year period, a decision it expects to raise $668.2 million per year.

It’s already started in other countries. How long do you think it’s going to take for the U.S. government to do the same or worse? So what could Treasury and Congress target in the coming years? Hold on to your hats.

Despite reports that Americans are woefully unprepared for retirement, Americans with access to private 401(k) plans have been good about saving. Americans held $3.1 trillion in 401(k) plans as of Dec. 31, according to the Investment Company Institute.

Fidelity Investments, which manages 11 million participants in 16,500 employer-sponsored plans, says savings are at the highest level in years. The average account balance is at $74,900, up 12 percent from the previous year and at an all-time high, Fidelity told Bloomberg News.

Vanguard Investments said of its 3.5 million participants’ average account balances hit $79,077 recently. For long-term savers, the average was higher, Fidelity noted, at $191,000 for those who had saved for 10 continuous years and $233,800 for those over the age of 55 who had saved for 10 years consecutively.

That’s a hell of a lot of money out there in retirement accounts growing for individuals. And until now, it was tax-free or tax-deferred. That’s money the government desperately wants for its own purposes.

While those savings are technically tax-free until their holders take distributions, the government could easily force earlier distributions and then simply tax them more heavily. Currently, the “minimum required distributions” age is 70½. That affects all IRA-type funds except tax-free Roth IRAs, including SEP and Simple IRAs commonly used by small business owners.

That’s right, force you to take your retirement funds earlier and tax the shit out of them. How would you like to be a fifty year old with a couple hundred thousand dollars saved in your 401K and the government tells you that they’re going to force you to start withdrawing the money? And oh, by the way, they’re going to tax it at 30%, 50% or an even higher rate? It gets worse!

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic believes both traditional IRAs are in danger due to normal tax increases and that tax-free Roth accounts eventually will be tapped, too. “I think that Congress is going to go after all of it,” McArdle writes. “But Congress doesn’t have to do anything special to get money out of traditional IRAs; it just has to raise income taxes.  (401ks and traditional IRAs are taxed at ordinary income tax rates).  Roth IRAs, on the other hand, represent a sizable pool of tax-free assets.”

It gets even worse. From Bloomberg:

The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.

Encourage workers? Now, exactly how would they do that? More like force workers to buy these so-called annuities. Notice the use of the term “guaranteed income streams”. And what would these guaranteed income streams be invested in? You guessed it, government debt or in nicer terms treasury bills. With one fell swoop, everyone who has an individual retirement account will have all of their life savings stolen by the government. Then what happens when the government defaults on its debt? Sorry suckers…

Don’t think that this could never happen. In my well-informed opinion, it’s very nearly a certainty. Look to the media to very quickly start a frenzy of panic when the possibility of government debt default draws closer in August. Of course the Republicans are grandstanding with this charade of wanting spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. As soon as the hysteria gets to a certain pitch, they’ll cave and raise the ceiling.

But by then, the climate will have been set for just such a scheme as the one I’ve outlined here to actually gain some traction among the sheeple. Security and all, you know, the government is here to take care of us. The sheeple will love the idea of a guaranteed income stream even as he’s being robbed blind.

Pay close attention to the news in the next few months and be ready to get your savings out of your retirement and bank accounts as quickly as possible, the taxes be damned.

I’d rather have my after tax savings than none at all…

Originally published at Veritas Aculeus on May 24, 2011.

I’ve written before here and here on my thoughts about the legal criminal gangs called the police. Now, a state government has done the unthinkable. The Indiana Supreme Court, Fourth Amendment be damned, have made it legal for police to enter your house at any time, for any or no reason at all and if you resist, they can shoot you dead. From Will Grigg:

The Indiana State Supreme Court has just nullified the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent provision of that state’s constitution, in addition to “a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215,” notes a wire service report. In a 3–2 decision, the court has ruled that Indiana residents have no right to obstruct unlawful police incursions into their homes.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” wrote Justice Steven David. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Actually, the “risks” to a government-licensed bully in such an encounter are vanishingly small. But we must remember that “officer safety” is the controlling priority in any conflict between a State-sanctified enforcer and a mere Mundane. This is why, as Professor Ivan Bodensteiner of Valparaiso University School of Law observes, “It’s not surprising that [the court] would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer.” No, that “right” belongs to the costumed thug; the Mundane has no choice but to submit to whatever invasion or injury his tax-sustained assailant sees fit to inflict at the time.

A victim of criminal police aggression “still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system” — that is, the same court system that has conferred its unconditional benediction on criminal violence by the police. This assumes, of course, that the Mundane survives the initial encounter.

Note how the court assumes — correctly, in my view — that an unlawful arrest is the all-but-inevitable product of an unlawful police incursion. This tacitly recognizes that the right to resist an unwarranted search is derivative of the common law right to resist unlawful arrest.

It’s not only Indiana – Michigan wants to get in on the action. Figures, considering that the state and specifically Detroit are bankrupt.

A similar case explicitly dealing with the right to resist unlawful arrest  (People v. Moreno) is working its way through the bowels of the judicial system in neighboring Michigan, and will most likely result in another decision pulled from the emunctory aperture of a robe-wearing sophist on the state Supreme Court. A state appeals court in Michigan has observed that “we find no reference to the lawfulness of the arrest or detaining act” in the state’s statute dealing with resisting arrest, which “states only that an individual who resists a person the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his duties is guilty of a felony.”

In a 2004 ruling (People v. Ventura) dealing with a self-defense claim against an unlawful arrest, the same Michigan Court of Appeals, in prose laden with disingenuous mock humility, wrote that “it is not within our province to disturb our Legislature’s obvious affirmative choice to modify the traditional common-law rule that a person may resist an unlawful arrest.” Actually, that modification came about because the state judiciary begged the legislature to change the state code to eliminate statutory protection for the long-established individual right to resist unlawful arrest.

In a 1999 ruling (People v. Wess), the Michigan Court of Appeals, citing the state legal code, admitted that citizens had a right, explicitly protected by state statute, “to use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent an illegal attachment and to resist an illegal arrest.” In the dicta of that ruling the court pleaded with the legislature to change the law:

“We share the concerns of other jurisdictions that the right to resist an illegal arrest is an outmoded and dangerous doctrine, and we urge our Supreme Court to reconsider this doctrine at the first available opportunity… we see no benefit to continuing the right to resist an otherwise peaceful arrest made by a law enforcement officer, merely because the arrestee believes the arrest is illegal. Given modern procedural safeguards for criminal defendants, the `right’ only preserves the possibility that harm will come to the arresting officer or the defendant.” Of course, the requirement that a police officer obtain a warrant is the only “procedural safeguard” that matters — and it’s the one effectively disposed of once the court authorizes police to invade a home on a whim.

In 2002, the Michigan state legislature complied by modifying  the relevant section of the state code (MCL 705.81d) by removing the clause recognizing the common law right to “use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent” an unlawful arrest (that is, an armed kidnapping) by a police officer.”

Say a police officer wants to rob you. He, now in the state of Indiana and soon in Michigan, can kick in your door, rob you and in the process kill you if you resist. And there will be no repercussions, since it’s well known that police departments keep “framing stashes” to make sure they have evidence of your wrongdoing. Suppose a bunch of these knuckle-draggers get together and decide that they want to pillage and loot their neighborhoods? Nothing to stop them.

We all now have to realize that a turning point has been reached. I guarantee this will spread nationwide before it’s over with. Municipalities and states can no longer afford to pay the exorbitant salaries, benefits and pensions that these parasites demand. The alternative? Turn them loose on the public. The politicians and the people who can afford to pay will be protected, the rest of us be damned.

Be prepared, these bastards are coming…

That was the first post. I predicted that the ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court would spread nationwide. I didn’t anticipate that it would happen so quickly – just four days later and on the federal level. From the Los Angeles Times:

“The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.

Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who “attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment’s “core requirement” is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and …forcibly enter?” Ginsburg asked.

Now that’s a first, Ruth “Buzzie” Ginsberg dissenting on the side of the citizenry.

An expert on criminal searches said the decision would encourage the police to undertake “knock and talk” raids.

“I’m surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I’m even more surprised that nearly all of them went along,” said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark.

In the past, the court has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, “The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house.” One exception to the search warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence.

The Kentucky case began when police in Lexington sought to arrest a man who had sold crack cocaine to an informer. They followed the man to an apartment building, but lost contact with him. They smelled marijuana coming from one apartment. Though it turned out not to be the apartment of their suspect, they pounded on the door, called, “Police,” and heard people moving inside.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in and broke down the door. Instead of the original suspect, they found Hollis King smoking marijuana and arrested him. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

The Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky vs. King that the officers’ conduct “was entirely lawful,” and they were justified in breaking in to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

“When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do,” Alito wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant.”

Illegal drugs my ass. That’s just the excuse they’ll use when they break down your door to rob you blind. Or rape your woman. Or kill you because you looked at one of them the wrong way.

And this was an eight to one ruling. If that doesn’t prove to you that the government has officially now determined that you are nothing but a slave dependent on their whims, you’ve got your head up your ass so far that you’re seeing out of your mouth.

The threshold has been breached; it’s now painfully obvious that the parasites are coming for anything that they can rob, pillage or steal. The difference is, now the Supreme Court has made it legal.

Bastards can say or try to make legal any damned thing they want, but when the cops start busting in doors for no other reason than to steal, rape or kill, there’s going to be an inevitable backlash.

I hope those assholes enjoy being targets…

Originally published at Veritas Aculeus on May 16 and 20, 2011.

The bureaucracy takes itself to be the ultimate purpose of the state.
Karl Marx

The ten most dangerous words in the English language are “Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Ronald Reagan

How many of you know just how much of your life is determined by multitudes of nameless, faceless bureaucrats? You might think that the politicians in Washington D.C. have the ultimate authority when it comes to day to day decisions about how the government runs and how it treats its subjects, but if you have any belief in that illusion, you are sadly mistaken. The real power of the government is with the petty bureaucrat, the one you might see from time to time. Think the DMV clerk, the IRS auditor, the tax collector – any one of these individuals has the power, backed by government, to ruin your life at the point of a gun if they so decide.

It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere, to assume…that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking, for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen, John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him.
H. L. Mencken.

Anyone who has taken an airline flight lately knows exactly what H. L. Mencken’s quote means. You are treated as a suspect from the moment you enter the airport until you get on your plane. And it’s not just airports – has anyone tried to renew their car tags or driver’s license lately? How many different layers of proof is one citizen expected to have anymore? It’s quickly degenerating into the old Soviet question, “Papers, please.” Now with the Real ID Act, it’s going to be even harder to prove who you are without the microchip that’s embedded in most forms of ID today. Mark of the beast, anyone?

A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures whom bureaucrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureaucrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?
Marcus Tullius Cicero

That quote comes from his writings in early A.D. Rome (click the link to see when – for the purposes of this post, it doesn’t matter). But even though he wrote that quote very early in our civilization’s history, Cicero identified the central problem with bureaucrats and bureaucracies. The people who are attracted to bureaucratic or government jobs know that thay are unsuited for any social success or productive work and it infuriates them, so they want payback. What better way to get payback than to fuck with people who they know are their betters? They relish their jobs because every time they can make someone wait, audit their tax returns, place a lien on their property or in extreme cases cause someone to die, they feel that their revenge is taken.

Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.
Milton Friedman

No truer statement was ever uttered and if you don’t believe me on this, just fuck with one of these dickheads. They will ensure that to all extent of their government bestowed powers, anything they can do they make your life as hellish as possible, they will do, and make you pay even more of your hard earned money than you do presently. Fuck with them enough, or just be in the wrong situation at the wrong time and they’ll ruin your life…or get you killed.

The threat of people acting in their own enlightened and rational self-interest strikes bureaucrats, politicians and social workers as ominous and dangerous.
W. G. Hill

Having no enlightenment, no rationality and only self interest, bureaucrats see us individuals who want to live our lives without their interference as alien, almost as if a green extraterrestrial had walked into their office. They have no reference for what it is like to live as a person, much less a free individual with hopes and dreams and the means to attain them. And so, we are dangerous. We don’t behave “by the book.” And we have to be controlled. It’s all for our own best interests, isn’t it? Why should anyone be allowed to follow their individual talents and drive for the life they wish to live? That might make someone else feel inferior, just like they do. So we must be at the least controlled, and at the extreme destroyed.

The purpose of bureaucracy is to demolish face-to-face social groups, to break instinctive and emotional social ties and obligations, and to subordinate people to the power of the state. It is cruel, it is wasteful, and it is unjust.
Christopher Chantrill

So now we get to the true purpose of the bureaucracy that surrounds us today. The bureaucracy is impersonal, attracting to its ranks people who have no interpersonal relationships, no social aptitude and inferior abilities. It is intended to splinter free associations among free individuals. It promotes subservience to the state through obstinance, humiliation, propaganda, obfuscation, outright lies and examples of individuals exposed for the most minor of infractions in its medias. It relies on destroying reputations, besmirching integrity, turning social networks away from individuals under its scrutiny, and separating families. It is, in my opinion, the most destructive force that we are exposed to on a daily basis. I’ll take my chances with the Taliban before I will with any bureaucracy I’m liable to be exposed to in my daily life. At least with the Taliban, I know where I stand.

Should we believe self-serving, ever-growing drug enforcement/drug treatment bureaucrats, whose pay and advancement depends on finding more and more people to arrest and “treat”? More Americans die in just one day in prisons, penitentiaries, jails and stockades than have ever died from marijuana throughout history. Who are they protecting? From what?
Dr. Fred Oerther

“Whose pay and advancement depends on finding more and more people to arrest and ‘treat’?” That one statement explains the entire reason for the War on Drugs. And make no mistake, it is a war. But the name is misleading, it’s not about drugs at all, because if they ever succeeded, there would be millions of tax parasites out of work. It is a war to ensure that the parasites continue to get fed and expand. Nothing more, nothing less. How is that working out for Mexico where the government there has just about lost control of their country because of U.S. interventionism? And why, since the U.S. military is supposedly in control in Afghanistan, is their opium crop still being grown and exported? No, it’s not about keeping people from consuming drugs; it’s about ensuring that people continue to consume drugs. Without that demand, the taxpayer trough would soon empty. Can’t have that now, can we?

[I]f we won’t choose to pay the price of liberty, then by default we shall suffer the cost of servitude — whether it be the iron chains of a tyrannical oligarchy or the regulatory chains of unelected, faceless bureaucrats. When we witness our neighbors abused by tyrants, will we skulk away and hope we’re not next? Or will we stand by them and challenge — as freedom-loving Americans — the tyranny of lawless leaders.
Phil Trieb

Anyone reading the quote above already knows the answer. Everyone hopes they’re not next, so they hang their heads and refuse to get involved, even when they know their neighbor is innocent. And there’s a reason why. You WILL be the next target, because the bureaucracy never forgets and definitely never forgives. The iron chains are unnecessary in the society we live in today. Regulatory chains serve the same purpose just as well.

The welfare state that is built upon this conception seems to prove precisely away from the conservative conception of authoritative and personal government, towards a labyrinthine privilege sodden structure of anonymous power, structuring a citizenship that is increasingly reluctant to answer for itself, increasingly parasitic on the dispensations of a bureaucracy towards which it can feel no gratitude.
Roger Scruton

This is the inevitable end of the path that started over a century ago. Look around you. How many of your friends, co-workers or families have their eyes open to what is obviously happening around them? I bet you can count them on one hand. They probably know deep down inside how much has been taken away from them, but for most people it’s easier to stay oblivious and collect their miniscule paycheck or if they’re like one third or more of the population, their government benefits. Watch some TV, drink some beer, play a video game, it’s all good as long as the checks keep coming in.

Bureaucracy is that dreadful state of when more emphasis is placed on the process than the actual resolution of a problem.
William Powell

The problem is that the bureaucracy is entrenched. From Ask.com:

How many government employees are there in the US?

21,292,000.

There are a total of 21,292,000 government employees in the United States as of February 2010. This is according to the Employment Situation Summary published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics on March 5, 2010. This number shows an 0.6% increase in the number of US government employees compared to February 2009.

That was in February 2010. I would dare say that with government expansion at the rates they are today, the number approaches 22,000,000. Those are people who are unelected. The huge majority of them are career bureaucrats, with huge incentives to keep their annual pay raises and future pensions. Think they give a damn about you? Think again. These are the people who still have their jobs after each election. Elected officials are a miniscule portion of the government and as such have very little impact on the overall policies that the bureaucracy relies on to preserve its power. Any elected official who tries to initiate reforms is quickly taken care of. Just look at the truth about John F. Kennedy’s assassination and you will see that the bureaucracy has become a monolithic threat to all Americans, no matter how high the elected office.

So I know you are all asking, “What can be done?” My answer is ‘nothing,’ because it would be pure futility to try. The beauty of it is we don’t have to do anything. The bureaucracy has set itself up for the most spectacular fall of any organized group of people since the Soviet Union, if not the Roman Empire. It’s going to be fast, and it’s not going to be pretty. As a matter of fact, just by staying out of their clutches, you can exacerbate the downfall.

I call it “Starving the Beast.” I’ll explain that in more detail in a future article.

Originally published at Veritas Aculeus on April 27, 2011.

Take at hazard one hundred children of several educated generations and one hundred uneducated children of the people and compare them in anything you please; in strength, in agility, in mind, in the ability to acquire knowledge, even in morality — and in all respects you are startled by the vast superiority on the side of the children of the uneducated.

Count Leo Tolstoy, “Education and Children” (1862)

What many people don’t realize is that what is happening in our society today, with its decay and eventual collapse, has been planned for more than a century. With this article, I hope to at least give some background of how this reality we now live in was conceived of, why it was necessary for the advance of the Industrial Revolution and who’s responsible. Certain individuals, families and corporate foundations have been at this for a long time, they started by introducing their ideas of instituting compulsory education at the beginning of the twentieth century and were successful in their pursuits. The results of their actions resulted in the public school systems that are in place today. Now, they are at their endgame with the drugging and ostracization of the little boys in our society in the twenty first. They have not been shy about telling us all that the end goal is a general population that accepts its almost feudal existence in supplication to the government-corporate elite. I think just the quotes and excerpts from past speeches and mission statements from the guilty parties will be worth it as long as you get a little taste of how the twentieth century was the worst in human history when it comes down to advancing the elevation of our species.

This is from the first mission statement of Rockefeller’s General Education Board as they occur in a document called Occasional Letter Number One (1906):

In our dreams…people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple…we will organize children…and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the huge amount of wealth it generated for some significant families such as the Rockefellers, Fords, Carnegies, Morgans and probably no more than two dozen more, the heads of these families turned their attention to how they could proceed to protect their wealth and their status in society and they turned to this task with a vengeance. Huge, well-funded foundations were established by these families to research and fund projects that would advance their aims all cloaked in the guise of philanthropy:

How can a nation endure that deliberately seeks to rouse ambitions and aspirations in the oncoming generations which…cannot possibly be fulfilled?… How can we justify our practice in schooling the masses in precisely the same manner as we do those who are to be leaders? Is human nature so constituted that those who fail will readily acquiesce in the success of their rivals?

James Russell, dean of Columbia Teachers’ College, 1908 at a National Education Association national convention.

Nicholas Murray Butler, one of the founders of Columbia Teachers’ College, was tied closely to the Carnegies. So it’s not surprising that the education of teachers in this college would follow the philosophy of the patrons footing the bills. The aim of these wealthy industrialists was to establish a permanent oligarchy, or more fittingly, a “corporatocracy,” which would control the aims of education, buy the cooperation of government officials through campaign contributions and outright bribery, co-opt the scientific community by way of awarding grants to research that advanced their goals especially in the social sciences such as psychology and sociology, and effectively stifle any dissent through control of media outlets. They wished the common populace to be effectively slaves, but slaves who embraced their slavery and consumed what the corporatocracy had to sell. What’s not well known is that all of these prominent families were avid eugenicists. Want to see their real goal?

Arthur Calhoun’s 1919 Social History of the Family notified the nation’s academics what was happening. Calhoun declared that the fondest wish of utopian writers was coming true, the child was passing from its family “into the custody of community experts.” He offered a significant forecast, that in time we could expect to see public education “designed to check the mating of the unfit.”

A lot of it came down to lowering the birth rate of what these elites considered the “unfit”. When that didn’t exactly work according to their plans, they modified them. They couldn’t keep the “unfit” from breeding, so they changed their goal to forming a permanent uneducated underclass. This statement was actually spoken by an American President. In a speech he gave before businessmen prior to the First World War,Woodrow Wilson made this unabashed disclosure:

We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.

Ben Franklin was born on Milk Street, Boston, on January 17, 1706. His father had seventeen children (four died at birth) by two wives. Ben was the youngest. Josiah, the father, was a candlemaker, not part of the gentry. His tombstone tells us he was “without an estate or any gainful employment” which apparently means his trade didn’t allow wealth to be amassed. But, as the talkative tombstone continues, “By constant labor and industry with God’s blessing they maintained a large family comfortably, and brought up thirteen children and seven grandchildren reputably.”

Writing to his own son at the age of sixty-five, Ben Franklin referred to his circumstances as “poverty and obscurity” from which he rose to a state of affluence, and to some degree, reputation. The means he used “so well succeeded” he thought posterity might like to know what they were. Some, he believed, “would find his example suitable to their own situations, and therefore, fit to be imitated.”

At twelve he was bound apprentice to brother James, a printer. After a few years of that, and disliking his brother’s authority, he ran away first to New York and soon after to Philadelphia where he arrived broke at the age of seventeen. Finding work as a printer proved easy, and through his sociable nature and ready curiosity he made acquaintance with men of means. One of these induced Franklin to go to London where he found work as a compositor and once again brought himself to the attention of men of substance. A merchant brought him back to Philadelphia in his early twenties as what might today be called an administrative assistant or personal secretary. From this association, Franklin assembled means to set up his own printing house which published a newspaper, The Pennsylvania Gazette, to which he constantly contributed essays.

At twenty-six, he began to issue “Poor Richard’s Almanac,” and for the next quarter century the Almanac spread his fame through the colonies and in Europe. He involved himself deeper and deeper in public affairs. He designed an Academy which was developed later into the University of Pennsylvania; he founded the American Philosophical Society as a crossroads of the sciences; he made serious researches into the nature of electricity and other scientific inquiries, carried on a large number of moneymaking activities; and involved himself heavily in politics. At the age of forty-two he was wealthy. The year was 1748.

In 1748, he sold his business in order to devote himself to study, and in a few years, scientific discoveries gave him a reputation with the learned of Europe. In politics, he reformed the postal system and began to represent the colonies in dealings with England, and later France. In 1757, he was sent to England to protest against the influence of the Penns in the government of Pennsylvania, and remained there five years, returning two years later to petition the King to take the government away from the Penns. He lobbied to repeal the Stamp Act. From 1767 to 1775, he spent much time traveling through France, speaking, writing, and making contacts which resulted in a reputation so vast it brought loans and military assistance to the American rebels and finally crucial French intervention at Yorktown, which broke the back of the British. As a writer, politician, scientist, and businessman, Franklin had few equals among the educated of his day — though he left school at ten. He spent nine years as American Commissioner to France. In terms only of his ease with the French language, of which he had little until he was in his sixties, this unschooled man’s accomplishments are unfathomable by modern pedagogical theory (emphasis mine – Simon). In many of his social encounters with French nobility, this candle maker’s son held the fate of the new nation in his hands, because he (and Jefferson) were being weighed as emblems of America’s ability to overthrow England.

From The Way It Used To Be by John Taylor Gatto

Here’s another example:

David Farragut, the U.S. Navy’s very first admiral, had been commissioned midshipman at the ripe old age of ten for service on the warship Essex. Had Farragut been a schoolboy like me, he would have been in fifth grade when he sailed for the Argentine, rounding the Horn into action against British warships operating along the Pacific coast of South America. Farragut left a description of what he encountered in his first sea fight:

‘I shall never forget the horrid impression made upon me at the sight of the first man I had ever seen killed. It staggered me at first, but they soon began to fall so fast that it appeared like a dream and produced no effect on my nerves.’

The poise a young boy is capable of was tested when a gun captain on the port side ordered him to the wardroom for primers. As he started down the ladder, a gun captain on the starboard side opposite the ladder was “struck full in the face by an eighteen-pound shot,” his headless corpse falling on Farragut:

‘We tumbled down the hatch together. I lay for some moments stunned by the blow, but soon recovered consciousness enough to rush up on deck. The captain, seeing me covered with blood, asked if I were wounded; to which I replied, “I believe not, sir.” “Then,” said he, “where are the primers?” This brought me to my senses and I ran below again and brought up the primers.’

The Essex had success; it took prizes. Officers were dispatched with skeleton crews to sail them back to the United States, and at the age of twelve, Farragut got his first command when he was picked to head a prize crew. I was in fifth grade when I read about that. Had Farragut gone to my school he would have been in seventh. You might remember that as a rough index how far our maturity had been retarded even fifty years ago. Once at sea, the deposed British captain rebelled at being ordered about by a boy and announced he was going below for his pistols (which as a token of respect he had been allowed to keep). Farragut sent word down that if the captain appeared on deck armed he would be summarily shot and dumped overboard. He stayed below. So ended David Farragut’s first great test of sound judgment. At fifteen, this unschooled young man went hunting pirates in the Mediterranean. Anchored off Naples, he witnessed an eruption of Vesuvius and studied the mechanics of volcanic action. On a long layover in Tunis, the American consul, troubled by Farragut’s ignorance, tutored him in French, Italian, mathematics, and literature. Consider our admiral in embryo. I’d be surprised if you thought his education was deficient in anything a man needs to be reckoned with. (emphasis mine – Simon)

From The Way It Used To Be by John Taylor Gatto.

Just one more:

Thomas Edison left school early because the school thought him feeble-minded. He spent his early years peddling newspapers. Just before the age of twelve he talked his mother into letting him work on trains as a train-boy, a permission she gave which would put her in jail right now. A train-boy was apprentice of all work. Shortly afterwards a printer gave Edison some old type he was about to discard and the boy, successfully begging a corner for himself in the baggage car to set type, began printing a four-page newspaper the size of a handkerchief about the lives of the passengers on the train and the things that could be seen from its window. Several months later, twelve-year-old Edison had 500 subscribers, earning a net profit monthly about 25 percent more than an average schoolteacher of the day made. When the Civil War broke out, the newspaper became a goldmine. Railroads had telegraph facilities so war news was available to Edison as quickly as to professional journalists, but he could move it into print sooner than they could. He sold the war to crowds at the various stops. “The Grand Trunk Herald” sold as many as 1,000 extra copies after a battle at prices per issue from a dime to a quarter, amassing for Edison a handsome stake. Unfortunately, at the same time he had been experimenting with phosphorus in the baggage car. One thing led to another and Edison set the train on fire; otherwise there might never have been a light bulb. (emphasis mine – Simon)

From The Way It Used to Be by John Taylor Gatto.

These men are just three examples among many. Even with inefficient  means of communication when these men were alive, their exploits were well known. These men were looked up to, emulated and were inspiring to young boys of the day. The Industrial Revolution however, had no use for these types of men except at the top, and only if you happened to be connected. Young men being an asset to society at a young age? This just couldn’t stand. A young man who could educate and think for himself was a potential competitor.

The 1934 edition of Ellwood P. Cubberley’s Public Education in the United States is explicit about what happened and why. As Cubberley puts it:

It has come to be desirable that children should not engage in productive labor. On the contrary, all recent thinking…[is] opposed to their doing so. Both the interests of organized labor and the interests of the nation have set against child labor. (emphasis mine – Simon)

I might word it a bit differently; I might say “child accomplishment.”

Now reread the beginning of this article; do you think there would have been any Franklins, Farraguts or Edisons if the elite families had their way? I think not. And the elites have no qualms in letting us mundanes know in uncertain terms what they’re up to:

Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well — by creating the international child of the future.

Harvard psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, 1973 Childhood International Education Seminar.

Do you like what you see from these “international children of the future?” Like I stated earlier, this has been going on for longer than any of us has been alive. It takes some digging to find this stuff; most of it has been scrubbed from the archives of the institutions that originally published it and sometimes from the internet. Here’s another little gem from the past:

In 1962, an NIMH-sponsored report, “The Role of Schools in Mental Health,” stated unambiguously, “Education does not mean teaching people to know.” (emphasis added) What then? “It means teaching them to behave as they do not behave,” a clear echo of the Rockefeller Foundation’s “dream” from an earlier part of the century. Schools were behavioral engineering plants; what remained was to convince kids and parents there was no place to hide.

The report was featured at the 1962 Governor’s Conference, appearing along with a proclamation calling on all states to fund these new school programs and use every state agency to further the work. Provisions were discussed to overturn resistance on the part of parents; tough cases, it was advised, could be subjected to multiple pressures around the clock until they stopped resisting (emphasis mine – Simon). Meanwhile, alarming statistics were circulated about the rapid growth of mental illness within society.

The watershed moment when modern schooling swept all competition from the field was the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 (ESEA). The Act allocated substantial federal funds to psychological and psychiatric programs in school, opening the door to a full palette of “interventions” by psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, agencies, and various specialists. All were invited to use the schoolhouse as a satellite office, in urban ghettos, as a primary office. Now it was the law.” (emphasis mine – Simon)

From The Underground History of American Public Education by John Taylor Gatto.

Now they had us. It took only the advent of psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin to seal the deal.

There have been some but very few mainstream authors that have addressed these issues. Thomas Sowell has to be one of the most unabashed truth-tellers out there at least of my generation. This is his take on the subject, from his article in Forbes Magazine in 1991:

The techniques of brainwashing developed in totalitarian countries are routinely used in psychological conditioning programs imposed on school children. These include emotional shock and desensitization, psychological isolation from sources of support, stripping away defenses, manipulative cross-examination of the individual’s underlying moral values by psychological rather than rational means. These techniques are not confined to separate courses or programs…they are not isolated idiosyncrasies of particular teachers. They are products of numerous books and other educational materials in programs packaged by organizations that sell such curricula to administrators and teach the techniques to teachers. Some packages even include instructions on how to deal with parents and others who object. Stripping away psychological defenses can be done through assignments to keep diaries to be discussed in group sessions, and through role-playing assignments, both techniques used in the original brainwashing programs in China under Mao.

In 1991, this subject went completely under the radar. There were individuals screaming in the wilderness, but few were listening. Could you imagine the impact that article would have today if published in the blogosphere?

Heres another good quote that was published in of all places, the New York Times, from Judith Warner:

There’s a sense that greater powers, profit-driven and amoral, are pulling the strings in our children’s lives. There’s a sense that those who should best protect us — our government and our doctors — are so corrupted that they can no longer do the job. There’s a sense that childhood has, in many ways, been denatured, that youth has been stolen, that the range of human acceptability has been narrowed for our kids to a point that it has become soul-crushingly inhuman.

I’d postulate that it’s become soul-crushingly inhuman, inhumane, sub-human and any other hyphen-human sociopathy that you can name. And now with psychiatric diagnosis as one of their weapons, they are now reaping the rewards. The only thing that was impeding the creation of this permanent lower class in society was the behavior of young boys. And with the introduction of psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin, that problem was addressed:

Even as infants, boys have higher levels of testosterone, which stimulates aggressive behavior, and lower levels of serotonin, which inhibits it. Researchers have found that infant boys cry more when unhappy while girls tend to comfort themselves by sucking their thumbs. Even at this early stage, girls seem to have more control of their emotions.

And that can present a problem. Nowadays, many educators regard the normal play of boys with disapproval. Picking up on the Steinem theme, they have done their best to disrupt boys’ natural patterns of activity, attitudes and behavior. Many schools, disregarding boys’ need for decompression time, have scrapped free-play recess for more structured activities with no competition.

Ritalin is a “drug of choice” amongst many parents of high-energy children. This drug is used to combat a disorder known as ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). The above excerpt describes the differences between men and women even at a young age. Because we live PC society, there are many in the public school system that will see the differences in men as a threat to the progress of women in our society. I am not saying that there aren’t any cases that justify the use of Ritalin; however, I do wonder why has the issue of high-energy children (especially boys) only been an issue within the last decade or so. Public schools have also been doing it part in recommending this drug to parents of children that seem to be hyper-active.

From “How to Make Boys Docile: Ritalin” (part of The School System: A National Lab Project)

Have you ever watched a young boy play a video game or do something he’s interested in for hours at a time? Don’t tell me that the average boy can’t concentrate, he’s just bored out of his mind in the typical public school. I remember being bored as hell when I went, and because of that I got in quite a bit of trouble. These days I’m sure I’d have been prescribed Ritalin or something worse. The problem is, once you’re prescribed Ritalin, there are severe consequences for your future:

In a society that’s supposed to accept and even value differences, drugging shy children reflects an extreme of enforced conformity… We are the first adults to handle the generation gap through the wholesale drugging of our children. We may be guaranteeing that future generations will be relatively devoid of people who think critically, raise painful questions, generate productive conflicts, or lead us to new spiritual and political insights.

From Dr. Peter Breggin in “Ritalin: Violence Against Boys”

There are worse consequences:

The average age of those abusing Ritalin today? 10 to 14, ladies and gentleman. In that age group, Ritalin is more popular than Cocaine, no doubt due to it’s availability. Our schools tell them “Just Say No” to drugs, and then hand Ritalin out like it’s candy. They may treat it like aspirin, but it most definitely is not. Ritalin is a controlled substance. What that means, is that every time your doctor writes a prescription, he must fill it out in triplicate. He keep a copy, he gives you a copy to have filled, and that third copy is sent directly to the DEA, where they keep it on file. The DEA puts manufacturing limits on controlled substances – all of the drugs must be accounted for each year- and the manufacturer is only allowed to make so much (although every year that limit is raised higher and higher). Also important to know, is that anyone filling that prescription is registered in the DEA database as a Class II drug user. Did your doctor tell you that? I bet not. If your child uses Ritalin, according to the 1999 Military Recruitment Manual, Class II drug users may not join the Air Force, Army, Marines or Navy. Ever. Never ever. They are Class II drug users. So much for Johnny being an Astronaut. If your child uses Ritalin, the State or Federal Government can not hire them for any job that requires security clearance, or involves state or national security. They are a Class II drug user. They can be turned down for life and health insurances, or be charged higher rates or even have a pre-existing condition clause added to their policy – because they are Class II drug users. How nice.

From “What Do You Really Know About ADHD Drugs?!” by Barbara Norden

That’s right, as soon as you fill that first prescription for your child, he becomes a Class II drug user in the DEA database. And I know damned good and well that your doctor never told you that did he? Turns out that not only is the government and educational system drugging your child into a permanent stupor, they are ensuring that those same children are relegated into a class of people that even the government won’t hire and also giving reasons for insurance companies to charge higher rates. Now do you see why women are the highest growth category in governmental hiring? Little girls are rarely prescribed Ritalin or its equivalent and so are not subject to being added to the DEA’s databases. Eventually the government is going to be so feminized (if its not so already) that any abuse of boys or men can be justified.

It’s no wonder to me why the rates of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, suicide, withdrawal from society, violence and general anti-social behavior are on the rise among boys and young men. They have been effectively socially and medically castrated, all for the purpose of making them the type of individuals who will not cause trouble for the elites and will consume the latest gadgets and toys that are placed on the market. Those that avoid the crushing weight of modern society get pissed off at what’s being done to them. Others break, they know what has happened but succumb to the overwhelming sense of loss and futility that characterizes their lives and drop out, sometimes violently and permanently. While I was researching this article, I came across this poem that was written by a little boy who has resorted to cutting to ease his pain:

This sad boy goes and hides                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The world yet again pushed him aside                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Should I scream or cry which ever I can’t decide                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I slowly cover up my scars                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           I feel so isolated trapped around with bars                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     More I cut the more I lie                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I think I should come open or try                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         It’s me only me I take the blame                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I have so much inner pain                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        My poor broken heart                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Which has stopped leaves me falling apart                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        All I see is blood                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Why am I so misunderstood?”

“The Sad Little Boy,” a Poem by Dalebear

Even with all that has been done to him, he blames himself. This is a personal social pathology that has purposefully been inflicted on the boys and men in this modern society for over the last one hundred years. I hope the elites are pleased with what they have wrought, because it’s not going to last very much longer.

And I have the feeling that the barbarian hordes that are sure to come for them won’t be very forgiving…

I’ve seen on the news here in Germany stories about how German men are commiting suicide in record numbers. And it seems it’s not isolated, the numbers are up in every non-third world country. Since I’ve never had any desire to self-inflict the celestial dirt nap myself, I figured I would do some digging and see what was up.

It didn’t take long, I found this sentence in an article posted on P R Newswire and it set me to wondering:

Between the ages of 20 and 29 suicide is three times as common in men as in women and the number of attempted suicides amongst young men has doubled in 10 years across most developed countries.

We don’t hear much about men who attempt or commit suicide from any of our media outlets. Even the majority of the information on the internet is surprisingly repetitive, superfluous and condescending. The statistic quoted above that suicide among young men has doubled in the past ten years is troubling to say the least. There are however, a few sources that have some good (maybe I should have said bad) information about the subject.

From Jerry Kennard, former About.com Guide:

In countries like the USA and the UK there has been a steady increase in the numbers of men who elect to end their own lives prematurely. On average in the USA one person (male and female) takes their own life every 18 minutes. Of those who attempt suicide the completion rate for men is four times higher than for women. Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for all U.S. men according to National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Young men and older men are particularly vulnerable groups. The suicide rate peaks in men between the ages of 20-24, which if isolated from the general statistics on suicide, places suicide as the 3rd ranking cause of death [emphasis mine - Simon]. Older people suffer from the loss of loved ones and friends and can feel isolated, ignored, valueless, or overly dependent on others. In the USA, the leading method of suicide is by firearms whereas in the UK where guns are illegal, exhaust fumes, hanging and overdoses are most commonly employed.

The third ranking cause of death in the 20-24 year old age group? Good grief, this is when an individual is supposed to be having the most fun in his life. This should be a man’s college years or at least when he sets out on his own to make his way in the world. What is causing this phenomenon of young men killing themselves? I looked some more and found this article from Dr Ciaran Mulholland, MRC clinical scientist, senior lecturer and honorary consultant psychiatrist writing for NetDoctor:

A worrying recent trend is the increasing rate of suicide among younger men (a trend not seen among young women). The majority of these men have not asked for help before their deaths.

The reasons why the number of men taking their own lives has risen in recent years are far from clear. All of the proposed explanations share a common feature – the changing role of men in society [emphasis mine - Simon].

• Adolescence has been prolonged, with adulthood and independence reached at a much later age than previously. Two generations ago, work began at the age of 14; one generation ago at 16 years for most; now many men only achieve financial independence in their mid 20s.
• Men have a more stressful time in achieving educational goals than in the past and are now less successful in this regard than women.
• Work is much less secure now and periods of unemployment are the norm for many (psychologically the threat of unemployment is at least as harmful as unemployment itself).
• Alcohol use, and abuse, has increase markedly since the Second World War. Such use is often an attempt to cope with stress and to self-medicate symptoms.
• Illegal drug abuse has become much more common (a correlation between the youth suicide rate and the rate of convictions for drug offences has been demonstrated in some countries).
• Changes that are assumed to be symptoms of the ‘breakdown of society’ are associated with a rising suicide rate (examples include the rising divorce rate and falling church attendances).

Did you notice in that excerpt that the suicide rate among young women is not rising? Notice also that Dr. Mulholland stated that all the factors listed above have one common denominator - the changing role of men in society. I have a different take, I say it’s the marginalization of men’s role in society. The educational system is completely skewed towards females, many professions are now being taken over by women because of affirmative action, sexual harassment laws make it intolerable for a normal man to work in a profession that also employs women and layoffs and long stretches of unemployment are now the norm. It’s no wonder that many men turn to alcohol and drugs to ease the stress such unbearable conditions impose upon men.

But it turns out it’s not just young men. From “Divorce Doubles Suicide Risk in Men” by Michelle Beaulieu writing for Menstuff.

In addition, divorce or marital separation more than doubled the risk of suicide in men, whereas in women, marital status was unrelated to suicide [emphasis mine - Simon]. Kposowa suspects that this difference is related to the social networks men and women form outside their marriages, which may be stronger or more meaningful in women than in men. ‘Women have better ways of communicating,’ Kposowa told Reuters Health in an interview. ‘They may have more social support networks, friends and relatives that they talk to, whereas men don’t have social support networks.’

So, a woman’s marital status is immaterial to her propensity to commit suicide? And what’s all that crap about “social support networks?” The truth is, generally it’s the woman initiating the divorce and she probably couldn’t be happier about it. Whereas the man is generally much more emotionally invested in the marriage and the family and becomes devastated when the divorce happens.

It’s actually worse than the previous paragraph states. From Katie Drummond writing for AOL News:

Dr. Justin Denney, a sociologist at the University of Colorado, is studying the relationship between family structure and suicide rates. He’s using national data collected on over 1 million people, and their households, to pinpoint how family dynamics can precipitate, or protect against, suicide mortality.

Denney’s research is the first to examine so many cases at a national level, but experts have been aware of the link between divorce and men’s suicide risk for decades. According to a compilation of research published by J. Rank and confirmed by Denney, suicide rates are higher among divorced men, and lowest among those still married. Single men fall somewhere in between.

Denney’s research, published last year in Social Science Quarterly, concluded that men who are divorced are 39 percent more likely to commit suicide than those still married. The difference increases to 50 percent when a man is a widow. Among women, differences in suicide risk among those who were married, divorced or widowed were statistically insignificant [emphasis mine - Simon].

Another study that shows that men suffer much more than women when marriages break up. And another that shows that women don’t give a shit. It was kind of surprising to see that widowers have it worse, but I think that they suffer more because they weren’t left, the one they loved died.

Finally from James Walsh writing for Articles Base:

Men tend to feel more shattered than women after the divorce because in most of the divorce cases involving children, the custody of the children is awarded to the mother. Therefore, all of a sudden, men find themselves to be a mere visitor in their child’s life, which can be a very tough emotion to deal with.

Children tend to act as stress busters during the divorce process because they become a source of love and support after divorce. While custodial mothers are able to reap the rewards of this love and affection and cope with divorce easily, non-custodial fathers tend to feel very lonely because they not only lose their status of being a husband but also of being a father.

It is common for men to blame themselves after the divorce because they feel that divorce could have been averted if they had been more sensitive to their troubled marriage. Truth is, no matter how much a wife complains about problems or concerns in a marriage, husbands mostly never understand the importance of these issues. For that reason, when wives file for a divorce, most husbands are in state of shock. When men are unable to deal with their feelings of guilt, bitterness, loneliness, and anger, suicide seems to be the only alternative.

Where else can a man who is hard working, faithful to his wife, non-abusive and a good father to his kids, while sitting in his living room in the house he’s paying for, have the cops knock on his door, forcibly remove him from his own home, subject him to the woman-centered justice system, take a majority of his income, isolate him from his children, evict him from said home when all the while, he never saw it coming. Only here in the west. No wonder men feel shattered.

This trend isn’t isolated to the United States. From Bob Ellis writing for ABC News in Australia.

Young and mid-aged males are most of those who suicide, during high school exams, failed love affairs, unemployment, retrenchment, divorce, bankruptcy, small business ventures going bust.

Five Australian men suicide each day and only one woman. Why is this so?

Well, men have images of themselves, as conqueror, provider, breadwinner, football star, self-made billionaire, chick magnet, local hero, which, if they fail at, darken their mood. There are so many things they can fail at, so many contests they are in, so many medals they will not win, so many promises to keep, that the gun in the drawer comes to mind pretty frequently, or its equivalent.

How many deaths by car crash are witting acts of suicide by mid-aged males, self-slaughter? We will never know.

The American concept “loser” has a lot to do with it [emphasis mine - Simon].

And most of the time that feeling of being a “loser” has to do with a man’s interactions with women. Either his inability to attract one, keep one or find one to have sex with. Even if the man is married, a stretch of unemployment will strain his relationship with his wife sometimes to the breaking point. At the extreme, the feeling of being a loser can manifest itself with paroxysms of violence and mass murder.

The statement made by his second to last sentence, “How many deaths by car crash are witting acts of suicide by mid-aged males, self-slaughter?” gave me pause to think about it. So I did some research. The only study I could find about auto fatalities that actually differentiated between men and women is from 2006. I don’t think much has changed – here’s the article from CarAccidents.com:

“Men are more than twice as likely to die in a car crash than women, consider the yearly statistics shown below. In fact, studies have shown as many as 73 percent of all people killed in car accidents are male. Since record keeping began: male fatalities significantly outweigh female fatalities. However men and women do not drive the same number of miles under the same conditions- men do about 60-65% more driving than women. Studies show that woman take shorter trips and female drivers have a greater number of minor crashes than do men. However men are still 70% more likely to be in a serious crash.”

Car Crash Stats:

Persons Killed, by Sex: Male, Female in 2006
Male Drivers Killed	Female Drivers Killed
29,722	12,747
Total Both Sexes: 42,469
	173 Drivers Unknown Sex Not Included

 

What accounts for this disparity?

Some researchers believe the explanation is to be found in hormones related to aggressiveness, others put more emphasis on data such as the measurably greater alcohol use among men while driving.

Men die in car crashes at a rate more than double that for women. I don’t think male aggressiveness or the use of alcohol can explain away that statistic. It appears that Mr. Ellis may have made the correct assumption. What I think is men kill themselves in car crashes to avoid the pain and stigma of a suicide to their families and relatives. Also, the life insurance company will pay death benefits for a car crash victim when generally they won’t for a suicide. How many other types of accidents are really just men checking out from this life? I think if we knew that, we would all be shocked.

I have to say that this is one of the more depressing articles I’ve ever written but the subject had to be addressed. Raliv’s article about 4chan and anonymous is all the proof we need to determine what is going to happen in the future if we don’t engage and tell the truth to younger men in society. What can we do to reverse this trend? We have to keep doing what we’re doing, exposing the misandry, male marginalization and a government that is determined to make being a man at the least uncomfortable, and at the worst unbearable. We have to keep writing, dispensing our knowledge and wisdom to anyone we can get to listen. And we have to stick together, no one of us can do this alone.

And good grief guys, tell every man you know, come in contact with, or just pass by on the street about Game, especially if he’s married. Maybe then we’ll have some hope…

From Simon: “In the interest of fairness and to reveal my own biases, I am an unapologetic tobacco user.”

I know this article is going to be completely politically incorrect, but I’ve always had a problem with the demonization of completely legal and in some ways beneficial substances. I’ve always known that if everyone I was exposed to in society and the media was telling me the same thing, they were most likely lying. And ninety nine percent of the time I’ve been right. Amid the growing absurdity and increasingly hysterical pogroms against substances such as tobacco, alcohol, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup and many others, modern scientific studies are refuting the ill-informed and ignorant prejudices against many of these substances.

Anyone remember the hubbub about coconut oil a few years back? What happened was a couple of nutritional busybodies from The Center for Science in the Public Interest started a propaganda campaign against coconut oil, blaming it for everything from increased obesity rates to increased risk of heart disease. Thing about it was, coconut oil is what gives movie theatre popcorn its unique aroma and flavor. It’s also a natural preservative; popcorn popped in a large popper like you find in movie theaters will stay fresh all night. The FDA moved to ban the oil but public outcry stopped them in their tracks. So what’s the verdict now? Coconut oil has become the darling of the health food and natural remedies set, a pretty liberal bunch is there ever was one. Well, I think the same thing is about to happen with tobacco.

I just happened to run across this article in Associated Content from Yahoo. From “The Smoker’s Paradox“ by Juniper Russo:

Thanks to Surgeon General’s Warning labels, public smoking bans, strict regulation of advertising, excise taxes, and public service messages, nearly everyone in America is fully aware of the many health risks associated with cigarette smoking Ongoing research has continuously proven smoking causes lung dysfunction, cancer, SIDS, heart disease, birth defects, preterm birth and other serious health problems. Knowing this, the idea that cigarette smoking may offer health benefits may seem utterly absurd.

Now why would such an assumption be totally absurd? Tobacco has been used in this country for hundreds of years. Any time I hear a statement like “ongoing research has continuously proven,” I know good and damned well that nothing has been proven.

However, cigarette smoking has been confirmed to provide numerous benefits to the health of smokers. Surprisingly, the tobacco plant appears to have more to offer our bodies than a guarantee of certain death. Although the health benefits of smoking are far outweighed by the many very dire risks, tobacco may provide alternative relief or prevention for some diseases in certain individuals.

After this statement, I can tell the tone this article is going to take. Here is a writer who has stumbled across some facts that just don’t fit in with their worldview. The phrase “many very dire risks” is a bit of overkill to counteract the health benefits being reported on.

The most fascinating and widely recognized health benefit of smoking is its ability to seemingly alleviate symptoms of mental illnesses, including anxiety and schizophrenia. According to an article published in 1995 in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, schizophrenics have much higher smoking rates than people with other mental illnesses, and appear to use it as a method of self-medicating. The article postulates that nicotine found in cigarettes reduces psychiatric, cognitive, sensory, and physical effects of schizophrenia, and also provides relief of common side effects from antipsychotic drugs.

I’ve seen this personally. When I was much younger I worked for an AC and refrigeration company. One of our customers was an assisted care facility for people with schizophrenia and mental illness. Everyone there smoked, and I mean everyone.

The treatment of schizophrenia isn’t the only positive effect that nicotine has on the brain. A series of very interesting studies from multiple academic sources confirms that the risk of Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease is surprisingly higher in non-smokers than in smokers. Doctor Laura Fratiglioni of Huddinge University Hospital in Sweden states, ‘Cigarette smokers are 50% less likely to have PD or AD than are age- and gender-matched nonsmokers […] cigarette smoking exerts an undefined biologic neuroprotective influence against the development of PD and AD.’

The first time I heard this, I think I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (that was a while ago before his being a tool for the neocons got to be more than I could bear). He said something to the effect of, “if it weren’t so politically incorrect, doctors would prescribe cigarettes at age sixty.”

The University of Melbourne confirmed the claims made by many smokers that tobacco itself is a strong appetite suppressant, and many use it to self-treat compulsive overeating disorders or obesity. Many smokers experience weight loss and decreased appetite after they begin smoking, and the Melbourne study found similar results in lab rats and mice exposed to cigarette smoke. While tobacco-influenced pharmaceuticals may at some point be an available option to treat obesity, smoking as a self-treatment is very ill-advised, since the negative effects of tobacco and obesity tend to compound and create interrelated conditions.

After my divorce while I wasn’t obese, I was carrying around about fifty extra pounds. I smoked when I was younger and in the service, but I quit when I got out. After the divorce, I really couldn’t think of any good reasons not to so I started smoking again. Whether the change in my diet or the smoking is the reason, I lost those fifty pounds within eight months.

Cigarette smoking has also been linked to a decrease in risk of certain inflammatory disorders, since nicotine itself appears to be an anti-inflammatory agent. The department of gastroenterology at the University Hospital of Wales conducted a number of in-vitro studies to confirm and explain the decreased risk in ulcerative colitis (a potentially severe digestive disorder) in individuals who smoke cigarettes.

I was kind of wondering why I never got heartburn again after I started back smoking.

Perhaps most shockingly, tobacco smoke’s anti-inflammatory effects may actually provide some benefits to children who are exposed to secondhand smoke. While this is certainly not worth at-home experimentation, one astonishing study conducted in Sweden observed two generations of Swedish children and found that the children of smokers had lower rates of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema, and food allergies. The studied groups included 6909 adults and 4472 children, and the findings remained consistent, even when adjusted to reflect other variables.

What? Second hand smoke is good for the kiddies? How the hell can that be when we are bombarded with news stories, newspaper and magazine articles and every other media story imaginable that just being in the general vicinity of someone who smokes will lead to an agonizing, completely preventable death?

It occurs to me that we’ve been fed a complete line of bullshit. I’m not going to quote any more from Juniper Russo’s article, it predictably falls into a warning to all of us children that we shouldn’t take the benefits seriously, after all smoking is “vewy, vewy bad“ (my words not hers?, his? What kind of name is Juniper?) and we shouldn’t even think getting near any tobacco, much less think about consuming some. Before all you cigarette haters out there start piling on, let me recount a little story.

I grew up around smokers. Mother (but not father, he had quit before I was born.), grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles and my parent’s friends. I know for a fact that my mother smoked throughout both mine and my sister’s pregnancies and from what I can tell; (I was ten pounds eight ounces when born, my sister was seven pounds six) there were no ill effects except maybe making me a little more susceptible to smoking when older. The only incidence where anyone had any adverse effects was my maternal grandmother. And, the effects were only incidental. My maternal grandmother smoked two packs a day of Winston’s from the time she was fourteen years old until her death. When she was seventy five years old, my mother talked her into going in for a chest x-ray. The doctors found a spot on her lung about the size of a dime. Again, my mother talked her into having surgery to have the spot removed; two weeks later, she was dead. Not from any lung cancer, not from the smoking, my grandmother had no cardiovascular disease, no coronary heart disease; she died from blood clots the surgery she should have never had released into her bloodstream. The way I figure it, she probably would have lived at least ten more years if she hadn’t listened to my stupid ass mother. Stupid people put their faith in institutionalized medicine, I don’t.

The evidence is starting to accumulate that tobacco consumption is not bad for you, contrary to all the media and governmental hysteria over the last five decades. The link from the first of this paragraph lists twenty three separate scientific studies that present evidence to back up my premise. There’s even a doctor who wrote a book titled The Health Benefits of Tobacco: A Smoker’s Paradox, which I highly recommend.

I know I’m going to get the question, “So Simon, why did you write this when you know that you’re going to get all kinds of knee-jerk, anti-smoker reaction to your article?” Well, my answer is this. When a nanny society or government starts telling me what’s good for me against my better instincts and then takes it upon itself to force me to change my behavior, it becomes a personal matter to prove them wrong. I just can’t sit back and take it; bring on the anti-smokers, the second hand smoke fearers and anyone else who wants to tell me what I can do with my life…with faulty evidence to back up their positions.

And also, anyone who knows the truth about nutrition and vitamin supplements knows that taken properly, vitamins D3, non acid C, CoQ10 and resveratrol will nearly completely eliminate the chance that you might get cancer.

Read this study to see what really WILL get you in the end…

I’ve got the truth on my side…   

Everyone who reads this or any other blog in the manosphere knows where the majority of writers represented here stand on the need to eradicate feminism and all of its manifestations from modern society if we are ever going to salvage what is left and rebuild. I contend that there is another facet of modern society that dovetails with feminism and is nearly as responsible for the decline and eventual destruction of civilization as we know it – multiculturalism.

My thoughts on this have been reinforced since I arrived in the western part of Germany. In this area is a community of an almost completely ethnically homogenous people. It’s safe here, clean and the people are polite. It’s one of the only areas of the world where I can honestly say that I wouldn’t be afraid to walk the streets of any area at any time. Why is this? In one word, tribalism.

Why do I say tribalism? Let’s define the term. From Wikipedia:

The other concept to which the word tribalism frequently refers is the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from the members of another group.

In other words, I match the physical, mental and temperamental characteristics of the dominant ethnic and cultural component of the people in this area. I fit in, and so I’m welcomed into their community. If I were different ethnically or culturally, I feel the people here would still be polite, but I sincerely believe that my interactions with them would be significantly different.

It’s human nature to want to congregate with, mate with and live in communities with people who mostly resemble themselves. We’re genetically programmed for just that. Again from Wikipedia:

People have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages.

Tribalism has a very adaptive effect in human evolution. Humans are social animals, and ill-equipped to live on their own. Tribalism and ethnocentrism help to keep individuals committed to the group, even when personal relations may fray.

The only national commentator that I know of who writes on this subject is Pat Buchanan. Personally, I figure he’s a tool for Leviathan but in his anti-war stance and on his observations about tribalism, he’s got it nailed. Here are two of his articles on the subject:

“Tribalism Returns to Europe”

“The Wars of Tribe and Faith”

Still don’t believe me that given the opportunity, different ethnic and cultural groups will voluntarily segregate themselves? Look at the map of Chicago below generated by information taken from the 2000 census and posted at Radical Cartography by Bill Rankin:

I picked the map of Chicago because it’s where the career of our illustrious dear leader, Barack Obama, was launched amongst the city’s political machine. Look up the website, Bill Rankin has done this with every major metropolitan area in the country and the results are the same. I’m unaware if he’s started generating maps from the 2010 census data, but I’m pretty sure not much has changed.

Multiculturalism is a relatively new term in our political vernacular but its roots originate in the sixties civil rights movement. From The Making – and Remaking – of a Multiculturalist by Carlos E. Cortez:

Emerging from the civil rights movement, ethnic studies and multicultural education began in the late 1960s. The political mandates of people of color, influenced by educational reform movements on the K-12 level and inspired by young college activists and professors, demanded the inclusion of their history and culture in the school curriculum. They expected a transformed curricular content which examined political, social, and historical events from multiple perspectives. A goal of the movement was to help individuals and groups function more effectively in their own ethnic culture, in other ethnic communities, and in the national, culturally-pluralistic society.

Notice that the overall theme of this paragraph is political? Read very carefully the goals stated above.

Why is multiculturalism as dangerous as and why has it merged with feminism to advance their mutual agendas? To put it simply, multiculturalism seeks to mitigate if not eradicate the beneficial effects of tribalism.

You see, tribalism has its benefits. When individuals are surrounded by people who share their ethnicity, culture, interests and goals, cooperation to achieve those goals becomes much easier. Tribalism also has the tendency to value strong family bonds and generally develops strong bonds between neighborhoods and subsections of communities. Tribalism also tends to bolster a sense of pride among the group; it rewards the successful endeavors of individuals and families of the group. It also has the benefit of facilitating cooperation between tribal groups, what one group cannot procure or accomplish will be sought for in or from another. As long as there are plenty of resources, tribal groups will generally coexist peacefully in near proximity. The one downside to tribalism is that a group may develop a sense of superiority. That is why throughout human history empires have risen and fallen. A sense of superiority at first enables a tribe to conquer its neighbors and plunder their resources but eventually affluence and hubris take their toll on the cohesion of the tribe. The empire falls and another tribal group becomes dominant.

Multiculturalism aims to break the bonds between individuals of tribal groups. When a person is indoctrinated to believe that his own group has no individuality or traits unique to the group itself, or that if he is a member of a dominant group every ill that afflicts any other group is his fault, bonds between individuals are weakened at best and marginalized at worst. That’s what is so insidious about multiculturalism, it preaches that every culture is no different than the next, there’s no uniqueness. It also aims to break cooperative actions between groups and pit them against each other by making the dominant group the source of every other group’s problems even though the dominant group may be responsible for raising the living standards of everyone.

From early in the twentieth century when this country saw mass waves of immigration from Europe until approximately the middle of the sixties, there was one thing as an individual that you could count on. No matter what your ethnicity, you were surrounded in your neighborhoods, places of worship, schools, businesses and where you took your recreation by people who looked like you and had the same objectives as yourself. If you’re as old as I am, you still remember knowing everyone in the neighborhood if not the entire town. If your family needed help, there was always someone or a family there. It didn’t matter if it was something small like babysitting or big like building a barn or a house, there were always resources available. And you or your family returned the favor in kind. I remember as a kid mowing the elderly next door neighbor’s yard every summer, not for pay, but because my father told me, “That poor old lady lives alone and can’t do it herself. Now get over there boy, it’s the neighborly thing to do.”

The town I grew up in was divided into two distinct communities, the white community and the black community. There were two large industrial plants there that were the main source of income for both communities. The opportunities offered by their employment enabled the maintenance of two different but vibrant communities. Both had their own schools, doctors, businesses, recreation centers and sports teams. The men of both communities worked in the plants side by side, but when their shifts were done, they returned home to their families in their respective neighborhoods. I don’t remember any emnity between the two communities, every man from both was a hard working family man; if you weren’t, your own peers would take care of that no matter which one you were from. I think the men working side by side engendered a respect from both sides that we rarely see today. And we weren’t exactly separate, every year the sports teams from both communities whether it be football, baseball or basketball played each other. And even though the black community wasn’t as large as the white, they were good; it was a matter of community pride that they fielded the best sports teams possible. It was a positive for us also, it kept us from getting complacent because we knew that if we slacked off, we’d get our asses handed to us. It was almost a festival atmosphere every year when the annual football game was played. Both communities shared the local football grounds and no matter who won, there was always a huge barbeque and cookout held afterwards at alternating recreation centers. You might say that I’m waxing nostalgic but I never saw any overt racism, there was no racial violence, no one thought they were better than anyone else, we were just different.

Multiculturalism is responsible for that kind of world disappearing. Multiculturalism is responsible for affirmative action, lowering of test standards, establishment of the welfare system that has for all intents and purposes destroyed the black family and is in the process of destroying everyone else’s and the resentment and downright anger that different ethnic and cultural groups feel for each other today.

When I grew up, feminism wouldn’t have stood a chance. The men in each community were too strong; they supported and depended on each other. And, they defended each other. Multiculturalism broke those bonds and what stepped in afterwards?

Feminism.

We all know how that worked out, don’t we?