Friday, May 28, 2010

Red Pill Reality Dispelling Blue Pill Delusions: Sunscreen

An installment in a series: Red Pill Reality Dispelling Blue Pill Delusions


Living in Hawaii, I frequently engage in activities and attend social events and functions that involve being outdoors in the bright sunshine for an extended period of time. Surfing, skin diving, hiking, fishing and hunting are all recreational activities I do on a regular basis that have me exposed to the sun for hours.

I guess I should be worried, eh?

Afterall, "everyone knows" that sun exposure leads to skin cancer!

Our local TV Newscasts frequently urge the viewers when doing weather reports, "Don't forget the sunscreen today! It's gonna be a hot one!"

We frequently are bombarded by media admonitions and reminders to always "cover up" with wide-brimmed hats and scarves, and to slather on the sunscreen whenever we go to the beach or any kind of daytime outdoor event or festival. If we do want to do any kind of outdoor activity, we should also consider only doing it in the early morning and late afternoon, to avoid the suns damaging rays when they are at their strongest.

It's almost like our mass media considers we the sheeple to be a variant form of vampire...

TAKE THE BLUE PILL: Avoid the sun as much as possible, or you'll die of skin cancer!

For the fear of skin cancer -- the least fatal and easiest to treat of all cancers -- many people are endangering their health by developing vitamin D deficiencies because they follow the narrative of our mass media and public health "experts" over-hyping and exaggerating the dangers of sun exposure.

Note the recommendations of the American Cancer Society on how to avoid skin cancer:

The best ways to lower the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer are to avoid intense sunlight for long periods of time and to practice sun safety. You can continue to exercise and enjoy the outdoors while practicing sun safety at the same time. Here are some ways you can do this:
  • Avoid the sun between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
  • Seek shade: Look for shade, especially in the middle of the day when the sun's rays are strongest. Practice the shadow rule and teach it to children. If your shadow is shorter than you, the sun’s rays are at their strongest.
  • Slip on a shirt: Cover up with protective clothing to guard as much skin as possible when you are out in the sun. Choose comfortable clothes made of tightly woven fabrics that you cannot see through when held up to a light.
  • Slop on sunscreen: Use sunscreen and lip balm with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 or higher. Apply a generous amount of sunscreen (about a palmful) and reapply after swimming, toweling dry, or perspiring. Use sunscreen even on hazy or overcast days.
  • Slap on a hat: Cover your head with a wide-brimmed hat, shading your face, ears, and neck. If you choose a baseball cap, remember to protect your ears and neck with sunscreen.
  • Wrap on sunglasses: Wear sunglasses with 99% to 100% UV absorption to provide optimal protection for the eyes and the surrounding skin.
  • Follow these practices to protect your skin even on cloudy or overcast days. UV rays travel through clouds.
  • Avoid other sources of UV light. Tanning beds and sun lamps are dangerous because they can damage your skin.
Note the catchphrase here:  practice sun safety.

Sounds awfully familiar, eh? 


The actual science is revealing a completely different paradigm when it comes to sunscreen and sun exposure.


From the Washington Post article, for which I got the illustration at the top:



Sunlight is crucial to the body's natural production of Vitamin D, but exposure to ultraviolet-B light has been greatly reduced through use of sunscreens and spending more time indoors for work and play, especially in northern latitudes. Some scientists say a deficiency in the nutrient may contribute to many diseases.

Even *MSNBC reported on sunscreens role in preventing your body from producing Vitamin D from sun exposure:

We looked at individuals that always wore a sunscreen before they went outside. ... And we found that, indeed at the end of the summer, they were deficient in vitamin D," says Holick. "And so we have shown over and over again that adults, even if they're on a multivitamin, and drinking milk, if they always wear sun protection, or avoid any direct sun exposure, they're at high risk of developing vitamin D deficiency.

*Just a quick note: many times corporate media like MSNBC will publish articles contrary to the conventional wisdom.  By mixing in the truth with all of the propaganda and lies, it simply sows confusion and cognitive dissonance in the casual media consumer. However, the overriding narrative of deception still saturates their coverage.

So what does this all mean? First of all, a simple observation. If you have pets that have access to the sunshine...or you live in an area with abundant wildlife, or if you go to your nearest Zoo in the middle of the daytime (don't forget to cover up and use sunscreen with a minimum SPF 15!), you will notice something about nearly all animal species: they all take time to bask in the sun.

Humans (We the Sheeple) are the only one that puts a chemical substance on our skins to "protect" us from the suns rays. Just think about that for a moment.

The Sun is the source of all life on this planet. Our bodies were either designed, or evolved (whatever you believe), to get the majority of the vitamin D that we need from our sun exposure.

The problem is not sun exposure...it's sun over-exposure. Repeated sunburns can definitely lead to skin cancer when you get older (my grandparents have both had melanoma's removed when they were in their 70's).

But you shouldn't rhetorically cut your nose to spite your face...which is what following the conventional wisdom inevitably leads to! If you ALWAYS slap on the sunscreen before going out in the sun, and you never get any natural, uninhibited UV exposure, you are in danger of developing chronic vitamin D deficiency - which could give much worse cancers down the road.

In short, like animals that bask in the sun, pay attention to your body's signals. Bask in the sun with minimal covering and no sunscreen until you start to feel a little too hot...THAN head for the shade or cover up and/or use the sunscreen. (Personally, I quit using sunscreen altogether after reading articles like these...I simply cover up with clothes/hats or head for the shade after getting enough sun.)

Depending on the complexion of your skin, you have a variable amount of time to sun bathe for which your body produces all the Vitamin D that you need before you start to get over-exposed and at risk for sunburn. Figure out what amount of time is optimal for you and your complexion. You'll quickly figure it out if you pay attention to how your feeling.

It may even be worth it to get a mild sunburn just to find out where your threshold is.

If you review the reporting from most media and sources like the American Cancer Society, their recommendations are all uniform: avoid the sun during the hottest part of the day, and always use sunscreen whenever you do go out into the sun.

Paradoxically, it's when the sun is at it's zenith in the sky in which it is easiest to get the proper angle of exposure to maximize your vitamin D production in your skin!  Talk about blue pill delusions...

TAKE THE RED PILL: Regularly sun bathing at high noon for 10 - 20 minutes without sunscreen may be one of the best ways to prevent all forms of cancer!

Ruminating on this topic starts to make me wonder: how much money has the manufacturers of sunscreen given to the American Cancer Society to promote incessant use of it's products like this? See, this statement may make you think of popular sunscreen brands...but I highly doubt they'd be so transparent and open about their interest. Nah, while I haven't looked into it, I'll take a wild guess that the parent chemical companies that manufacturer the basic chemicals that go into all the brands of sunscreen probably have something to do with the financing of non-profit PSA's and journalist articles promoting the "always use sunscreen and avoid the sun during the hottest part of the day" mentality. Of course, I could be even more cynical with my speculations...

...since understanding how much Vitamin D deficiency plays in causing so many other types of cancer...and noting that the cancer treatment industry based on chemotherapy is highly profitable...

...I'm sure you get the picture.

Take the Blue Pill; Take the Red Pill


Morpheus: "I imagine that right now you're feeling a little like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit-hole… I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees, because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth… Let me tell you why you are here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But, you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?"


Neo: "The Matrix?"


Morpheus: "Do you want to know what it is?"


Neo: {nods}


Morpheus: "The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when you go to church, or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth."


Neo: "What truth?"


Morpheus: "That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. {Produces a box containing two colored pills, one blue and one red}. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you awake in your bed, and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

I never tire of the Matrix allegory. Sorry to all those of you that read this blog and may think I'm overdoing it...but it's such a perfect metaphor for the reality of life versus the distorted projection of life portrayed by our corporate media and government/educational institution-designed matrix.

As columnist Lorie Kramer wrote , the media is the matrix. This is precisely why Nancy Levant's columns are full of references to "tell-a-vision." The corporate commercialization of science and the emergence of mass media influence combined with institutional reinforcement -- aka the Government-Media-Education complex --has lead to our modern day existence of the masses of people mindlessly following along with the messages of "conventional wisdom" that everyone "just knows."

How many times have you encountered a person that seeks to share some knowledge with you, prefaced by the statement "They say..."

Who's "they?"

The nameless, faceless entity of "conventional wisdom."

Deliberately mis-formed disinformation to benefit the bottom line of the propagators of these deceptions.

I've previously applied the allegory in: Game is the Red Pill.


Given the suitability of applying the Matrix allegory to so many other topics, I've decided to create a series of posts, with this serving as the index first post for future reference.

Red Pill Reality Dispelling Blue Pill Delusions: A Series

Sunshine, Vitamin D & Sunscreen

Fluoride

Relationships & Communication

Veganism

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Feminism and the S.A.D.


The connection between feminism and the Standard American Diet (appropriately referred to as S.A.D.), may not seem apparent to most. Bear with me in this rather long piece, as I belabor to make the point in showing this connection, and how it's contributed to so much ill health in America today.

Laura Wood, The Thinking Housewife, wrote a short post in which she quoted a Salon.com feminist's reaction to a great article by Michael Pollen in the New York Review of Book, The Food Movement, Rising.

The feminist's complaint?

Michael Pollan blames the movement for our fast-food culture. What about untold men who've never tied on an apron?

Laura Wood responded to the feminists complaint humorously:

Men have been doing nothing all these years while women slaved away in the kitchen. Here’s an all-points bulletin: Do not accept a dinner invitation from anyone named Anna Clark. Unless you like chicken nuggets.

While I found Laura's quip in response hilarious, these two articles have a lot more content worthy of consideration. Pollan's first mention of how the feminist movement changed the food culture of America was to tie it to the rise of fast food:

Besides drawing women into the work force, falling wages made fast food both cheap to produce and a welcome, if not indispensable, option for pinched and harried families.

Of course it did. Women who chase the chimera of "having it all" live in denial of the fact that their are only so many hours in a day, and when you invest your time in one area - like your career - you simply don't have the time to dedicate to the other areas of your life, like homemaking and cooking. This is common sense. Than again, no one would accuse feminists for having an abundance of that particular virtue...

Many anti-feminists correctly recognize that feminist ideology is essentially a cult-like belief with articles of faith that are accepted at face value without question...and if any facts or evidence is presented that contradicts a feminist tenet, than the facts or evidence must surely be wrong, falsified, or just not relevant. The standard method of dealing with the cognitive dissonance of reality contradicting feminist doctrine is to simply shift the focus of debate.

Note the Salon feminist Anna Clark is a self-described fan of Pollan's work:

 I'm a fan of the journalist who has become the food movement's top chronicler. I pass on copies of "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "An Eater's Manifesto" like it's my job. I social network the living daylights out of Pollan's articles.

That is of course until Pollan dares to skewer one of Anna's sacred cows...note her reaction:

So while reading Pollan's latest piece in The New York Review of Books, I was nodding along as he articulated how the local food culture manifests the good kind of movement fragmentation -- threading together diverse interests to create a powerful force. I was nodding, at least, until I got to the part where he discusses Janet A. Flammang's new book, "The Taste of Civilization: Food, Politics, and Civil Society." Pollan writes:

"In a challenge to second-wave feminists who urged women to get out of the kitchen, Flammang suggests that by denigrating "foodwork" -- everything involved in putting meals on the family table -- we have unthinkingly wrecked one of the nurseries of democracy: the family meal."

Pollan chooses not to challenge the assertion that second-wave feminists are responsible for "wrecking one of the nurseries of democracy" because they urged women to explore possibilities outside of cooking the family meal. Nor does Pollan question the notion that feminists are to blame for "urging" women to leave the kitchen, when one might imagine that those who left the aprons behind were thinking beings who made their own choice to leave, regardless of the persuasions of feminists and family alike.

Now why would he challenge or question those assertions? The second-wave feminists did in fact demean the role of the American housewife...this is indisputable. And is it really a stretch to say that cooking and feeding the family was one of the primary chores the housewife role entailed, for which the feminists so bitterly attacked? The famous feminist description of the domain of the housewife in her domicile as a "comfortable concentration camp" comes to mind...

Note that instead of recognizing the truth of Pollan's indictment, Anna does what all lefty femi-nazis do when confronted with the truth - blame men!

My take, as a feminist and local foodie? Blaming feminism for luring women out of the kitchen, stealing the ritual of the family meal, and thereby diminishing "one of the nurseries of democracy" is both simplistic and ridiculous. It's true that shared meals are powerful spaces for building relationships and "the habits of civility." But if we're going to talk about who's to blame for our current culture of processed food, why not blame untold generations of men for not getting into the kitchen, especially given Pollan's characterization of the family meal as having a meaningful role in cultivating democracy? If it's so important, why is their absence excusable?

Because those "untold generations of men" were out working to earn the money to pay for the house and the appliances and the food that the women were cooking for the family to eat, you deluded dolt! Feminism preached that women should get out of their "concentration camps" and get into the workforce and compete with the men...equality bayyybbeee!

This didn't result in the mass exchanging of gender roles...it just made life harder and more difficult for both men and women. But I digress...

Pollan concluded his article with some points I wish to expand upon:

...perhaps the food movement’s strongest claim on public attention today is the fact that the American diet of highly processed food laced with added fats and sugars is responsible for the epidemic of chronic diseases that threatens to bankrupt the health care system. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that fully three quarters of US health care spending goes to treat chronic diseases, most of which are preventable and linked to diet: heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and at least a third of all cancers. The health care crisis probably cannot be addressed without addressing the catastrophe of the American diet, and that diet is the direct (even if unintended) result of the way that our agriculture and food industries have been organized.

As I've covered before, there is an almost synergistic relationship between feminism and the industrialization of our food supply. The industrialization of the food supply was every bit as important for the cultural-Marxist, social engineers that carried out the long march through western institutions, as was the advent of feminist ideology to subvert and destroy the Patriarchal nuclear family. The two have gone hand in hand, and we've all suffered for it in both our physical, spiritual and mental health...it literally affects every area of our modern lives.

That being said, I have a small bone to pick with Pollan's conclusion:

the American diet of highly processed food laced with added fats and sugars is responsible for the epidemic of chronic diseases that threatens to bankrupt the health care system.

While this is technically correct, the distinction between the types of fats that are added has a lot to do with it as well. This topic is fast becoming a pet peeve of mine, as I notice so many people that regurgitate the lipid hypothesis-based memes regarding "fat" as the primary culprit in causing heart disease.

Not all fats are equal.

More precisely, one of the primary contributors to ill health is the ratio of Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids in your bodies cells...and the Standard American Diet contributes to a massive imbalance in the average person, with way too much Omega-6 fatty acids and not enough Omega-3's. This is why you sometimes hear about the need for eating more fish from some health "experts," to increase your Omega-3 intake.

What most people don't know, is that eating more fish won't make a bit of difference in your Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio if your diet is still heavy in Omega-6 fatty acids...and the S.A.D. which is largely composed of the Federally subsidized grain and seed oil crops is THE single biggest source of Omega-6 in the S.A.D.

So why do the health "experts" always talk about fish as the necessary food to boost your Omega-3 levels?

One scientific researcher, Susan Allport, did extensive research into the differences between Omega-3 and Omega-6's and the role they play in human health. She wrote a book entitled The Queen of Fats: Why Omega-3s Were Removed from the Western Diet and What We Can Do to Replace Them.

While I've yet to read this book, I've read an excellent interview (pdf)  she conducted in promotion of this book, in which she gave some eye opening insight into the topic.

First, she discussed the major difference between these two essential fatty acids and why they are related to our biology and the changing of the seasons:

We finally began to understand that the omega-3s are predominantly concentrated in the green leaves of plants and the omega-6s are concentrated in the seeds of plants, and that basically what we’re talking about here is two families of fats that allow us animals to prepare for the changing seasons, to either speed up, get ready for times of activity and reproduction when green leaves are available and abundant — or to slow down, hunker down, get ready for times of survival — when the fats of seeds are more prevalent.

It’s really a cool system. Plants use the changing light as the Earth makes its orbit around the sun — they adapt to the changing light, and then we adapt to the change in plant food. It really is an amazing thing, but it’s not generally understood. We just think, oh, we’ll eat this food, if we eat enough fish we’ll be healthy. There is a much bigger story than just how much fish we need to eat, or which seed oils to eat.

Two important points regarding the distinction between the two - your not going to get enough of the Omega-3 you need by eating a bunch of leafy plants. This is where animal foods play an important role in getting enough Omega-3 in your diet. To put it succinctly - in plant form, Omega-3 fatty acids are largely in the form of ALA -- alphalinioleic acid -- for which the human body's digestive system is very poor in using. Our bodies need docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid...aka EPA and DHA.

While the human digestive system doesn't do a good job of converting ALA into the needed DHA and EPA that we need (it will do it somewhat...but nowhere near as much as we require), other animals are very good at it...cows eating grass (the leafy greens rich in ALA) and convert it into DHA and EPA and store it in their meat and fat. This is precisely why free range, pastured cows (and other ruminants like buffalo) contain Omega-3 fatty acids while the feedlot produced meat and dairy contains almost none.

Feedlot ruminants are predominantly fed o6-rich grains. Same goes for factory farmed chickens and pork. The quality of food products that come from animals raised on feedlots versus open pasture is affected dramatically.

From The Health Benefits of Grass Farming.

When cattle are taken off grass and shipped to a feedlot to be fattened on grain, they lose their valuable store of LNA as well as two other types of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA. Each day that an animal spends in the feedlot, its supply of omega-3s is diminished.

When chickens are housed indoors and deprived of greens, their meat and eggs also become artificially low in omega-3s.

Eggs from pastured hens can contain as much as 20 times more omega-3s than eggs from factory hens.

Switching our livestock from their natural diet of grass to large amounts of grain is one of the reasons our modern diet is deficient in these essential fats. It has been estimated that only 40 percent of Americans consume a sufficient supply of these nutrients. Twenty percent have levels so low that they cannot be detected.11 Switching to grass fed animal products is one way to restore this vital nutrient to your diet.

The CLA Bonus: The meat and milk from grass fed ruminants are the richest known source of another type of good fat called "conjugated linoleic acid" or CLA. When ruminants are raised on fresh pasture alone, their milk and meat contain as much as five times more CLA than products from animals fed conventional diets

This is why we are told to eat more fish (but not too much...mercury poisoning!), or to take fish oil pills to boost our Omega-3 intake. It's not because fish are the only source...just the only source left in the S.A.D. that still eats leafy greens at the base of their food chain. (Which, of course, brings to mind the difference between farmed fish versus wild caught fish...).

As Allport noted:

All the omega-3s in seafood come originally from plants. Fish are so important to us because they’re one of the last animals in our food supply that still eat greens. That is one of the reasons why fish have become so important.

Another is that because they live in water, they require more of those omega-3s in their tissues in order to move around in that much colder environment, under pressure. So they require omega-3s in their diet, and because we now feed the majority of our animals grains instead of grasses, they’re one of the last animals we’re eating in any kind of quantity that eats greens.

Eating fish is one way to correct this imbalance of 6s and 3s in our food supply. But it’s not the only way, and it is not the best way. We have to eat 10 times as much fish to get a really healthy balance of those two families of essential fats is we would if we were eating healthy amounts of the omega-6s. If our omega-6s were at healthy levels, we would need just tiny amounts of fish or omega-3 enriched eggs or cattle that have been raised on grass.

So we now understand why American diets are so deficient in Omega-3's...because most of our meat and dairy comes from animals fed Omega-6-rich grains. Why is the ratio between Omega-6 and Omega-3 so important anyways? Allport explains:

These two families of fats compete for enzymes, for positions in our cell membranes, which don’t care whether they get loaded up with omega-6s or omega-3s. They don’t care for a reason — because they’re built that way so that they can change with the changing seasons and the changing food supply. They’re meant to go through these seasonal changes, slight seasonal changes. The reason we’ve run into problems is because we eat this high omega 6 diet year round.

So we know why the S.A.D. doesn't have enough Omega-3 in it because of the Omega-6 rich feed for our food animals...but that's not the only reason why we the S.A.D. has such a dramatic imbalance in Omega-6 vs. Omega-3's. Thanks to the marketing efforts of agricultural corporations and their incestuous relationship with the US Government to promote propaganda like the USDA food pyramid and the whole "saturated fat causes high cholesterol which causes heart disease" meme, Americans began shying away from animal fats and began using o6 rich vegetable oils instead.

From the vegetable oils that have replaced butter and lard, from other fats in our diet, from the processed and packaged foods that use vegetable oils as a convenient and inexpensive fat, from the process of partial hydrogenation, which specifically eliminates omega-3s, turning them into 6s as well as trans-fats, from the fact that our livestock are no longer fed grass and other greens but are fed grains, which are much richer in the omega-6s. . . . I don’t know how many ways! We wouldn’t need to eat as much fish if we’d stop eating those high omega-6 vegetable oils.

So what vegetable oils specifically? Corn, soy, sunflower, safflower, peanut, cottonseed and canola are typically the most widely used oils in the SAD. Not only is most manufactured, processed  junk food made with these oils, but so too are most fare cooked in restaurants (fast food and slow food alike), and many Americans have also responded to the USDA/Pharmaceutical industry propaganda by substituting "non-fat' and "low-fat" cooking oils and margarine instead of the traditional oils like butter and lard in their own cooking.

So what specifically are the long term effects of having an Omega-6 rich diet year round? Remember Allport's initial explanation regarding the seasonal role of these two essential fatty acids: Omega-3's are kind of like a lubricant, meant to get things flowing and operating at a higher metabolism on a cellular level - which is why fish living in cold, dark water are so dependent on Omega-3's to move about - while Omega-6's slow down your metabolism, and promote inflammation. It's this overabundance of Omega-6 that contributes to inflammation on a cellular level. Over a long period of time, this inflammatory condition begins to contribute to a whole host of degenerative diseases. Allport expands on this, here:

Remember, we’re talking about every cell in the body — and we’re talking about these fatty acids first winding up in the cell membrane, every cell, which is why every day you see a new disease that’s being linked to this imbalance.

The last one I saw was Parkinson’s disease. I’ve seen recent reports on autism, obesity, Type 2 diabetes, macular degeneration, all of those. OK, so you’re picturing every cell, and every cell likes a certain amount of polyunsaturate in it,
and that’s what keeps it moving optimally, right? But that amount can be made up either of omega-3 or omega-6 fats, so it’s got that discretion, which is meant to work with the changing seasons.

The rest of the fats in those cell membranes will be fats of the saturated and the monounsaturated families. Those are fats that we make ourselves, depending on what we need. So, given anything that we eat, we can make whatever saturated and monounsaturated fats we need, but the polyunsaturated fats we need have to come from the diet, and each different cell type is going to want a slightly different
ratio of polyunsaturated than the others, but the family that it comes from
depends upon what you’re eating.

As detailed earlier, we know what kind of polyunsaturated fatty acids predominates in the S.A.D....Omega-6.

And this effect of having way too much Omega-6 and not enough Omega-3 in the body?

Let’s say that omega-6s are a little stiffer, and omega-3s are a little looser. That looseness enables all those enzymes in the membrane — and that’s where most enzymes live, in cell membranes — it enables them to go about their business that much faster. You can imagine it is kind of a WD-40 for the entire body, or you can think about doing jumping jacks in the air versus doing them in a thicker medium like water — that’s what the difference is. You have this slowing-down effect when the omega-6s have replaced the omega-3s, and that fits in with that hunkering down for times of leanness and survival. You’re putting on weight, and you’re slowing down.

These two families have different overarching effects. They are also snipped out of the membrane and used to make important cell messengers called prostaglandins. The first thing that we knew about these two families of fats was the fact that they made very different cell messengers. The ones made from the omega-6s are highly inflammatory, highly likely to promote blood clotting or increased blood pressure — they affect all kinds of bodily processes linked to diseases such as heart disease, obesity and diabetes. The omega-3 messengers are far less likely to promote inflammation.

So remember this the next time you read, see or hear someone blaming high fructose corn syrup for the American obesity epidemic. Yes, HFCS definitely contributes...but it's not the only thing behind the epidemic of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. You have to factor in the chronic inflammation caused by too much Omega-6 in the S.A.D. America's too fat, because we eat too much sugar AND too much inflammatory Omega-6 fatty acids.

And of course, lets not forget the pivotal role the feminist movement had in creating the society wide demand for fast and convenient foods, which have now become the mainstay of the S.A.D. Since Feminism was one of the primary cultural and political drivers of promoting the types of foods that promote Omega-6 fatty acid imbalance in our diet, one could say that feminism has certainly been inflammatory in more ways than one.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Gleaning the Meaning


Roissy's blog, Citizen Renegade, is a rich resource for the convergence of various ideas that have gained traction in the Masculinist-themed blogosphere.The comment sections in his blog posts are a literal hotbed of ideas and insights that cut through all the lies and misinformed disinformation of our present culture. Roissy initially entitled his blog "Where Pretty Lies Perish," and he's lived up that billing...along with the help of an outstanding cast of commenters he's managed to attract over the last couple of years.

Last Friday's thread Why Game Will Continue To Be Relevant brought out some excellent commentary. This is my attempt to glean and distill some of the great points made in a post that has garnered close to 500 responses (is there any other blog in the MRA/Game area of the Interwebs that gets even half that number of comments?!?!)

The following touch upon topics of interest to most most of you that read my blog: Game, the cultural indoctrination of both men and women that lead to dysfunction and divorce, and how fiat masters like Bernanke uses the fiat dollar to desoul women by secretly taping teh butthex.

llolollzlzlolz.

First up, Epoxytocin No. 87, on trying to explain Game to a skeptic:

“Game” is not a set of tactics. Game is the attitude, the mindset, that underlies those tactics.

You are absolutely correct: cheesy show tactics will accomplish little. Putting on a top hat, black nail polish, swim goggles, and shiny shirts won’t make a success out of you. But the organism-level sea change in ATTITUDE required for some scrub to do these things — and to affect a certain degree of panache in doing them — will change everything. Everything from sales, to relationships, to negotiating, to avoiding fights, to starting fights, to applying for grants, to raising children, to …

The reason you think of “game” as a set of tactics is because you’re listening to people who SELL things.

You can sell tactics.

You can’t sell good old fashioned masculinity, the kind that is born of imperfect circumstances and tempered by challenges and adversity.


For every person that takes the red pill and sees things clearly, this description by Epoxy is the distilled essence of this thing we call "GAME." It's a paradigm shift in the way you see yourself, the way you see other people, and the dynamics underlying all of our social interactions.

I would also add that "Game" recognizes the fundamental truths of the human sex drive based on gender: Males are hardwired for polygamy, Females for hypergamy.

Understanding what this means and how this affects all human relationships is the key to achieving the sea change in attitude Epoxy refers to.

When another female commenter accused "Game" practitioners of faking masculinity. Commenter TG set her straight with an even more concise explanation...so clear that maybe even a woman could understand it:

You don’t get it…90% of when men learn from blog/tapes/game seminars etc….

ISN’T how to fake who they are….

BUT...how to understand and respond to the situations they’re in…

...it’s more about understanding the female psyche…why women respond to certain behaviour, why do nice guys get less women than bad guy…when a woman says X…what does she really mean?…also why are women so mean to nice guys?

NO ONE can consistently fake who they are…if this material required you to do that….it wouldn’t work.

For example many of Roissy’s posts regarding Betas, Herbs and Alphas, gives men insight into how women see men…which is different than how men see other men….


Excellent point, TG.

The next commenter I'm excerpting, who goes by the name Gorbachev, than goes into extraordinary detail on how his study of Game effected his own sea change in attitude:

I was raised by my truly wonderful, equalist mother to be a good mate. Treat women with respect. Always compromise. Avoid conflict. Be a Chivalrous Man, but not condescending. Be a Good Man, not just a Man. Women are to be adored.


Same here...except I was also raised by a Father who embodied all of that - and my Mother is contemptuous of him for it - yet she still indoctrinated me to be a compliant beta pedestalizing all women as angelic paragons of moral virtue. As the old saying goes, Men, don't ever take relationship advice from a woman...especially your Mother.

Gorbachev continues his narrative where he had a LTR with his eventual ex-wife:

We dated for 2 years. I was hard to convert, but was ensnared and became what her family thought was an ideal husband. Her mother thought I was a gift to her family. I loved her. Really. Not just because she was pretty; because she was a good person.

A Good Woman.

I was the classic devoted, adoring Beta. I never argued; I considered her feelings at all times; I asked her opinion on everything, and we compromised based on a sensible middle ground. I cooked. I did 50% of the housework; we pooled our cash and I consulted her on even minor purchases. I was a skillful and patient lover, as was she, and we had an excellent sex life. She told friends she was glad she had the best of all worlds.

I had some annoying flaws: some weird friends; nights out with the guys, which she didn’t like (loss of control?); a penchant for buying cool toys; an unwillingness to pay for plastic surgery for her; not keeping up with the Joneses; weird work hours; but by her stated expectations, I was a good husband and her best friend, always.

She and I had lots of flaws. We were both human.

I was the same as most of the men I knew. As people, we’re all very similar.


That sounds like an uncomfortably familiar situation...

After 3-4 years, she started to get annoyed at small things. I spent more and more time enduring nagging over things I couldn’t affect or was too time-pressed to deal with. Friction started to develop. She became listless and uninterested in activities together (in retrospect, it’s possible she was cheating on me. Given my last few years of experience, I’m almost sure of it). Sex became less interesting. We tried to spice it up. I tried. She was the woman I loved.

It was bizarre: For a year, the more I tried to accommodate her (what she *told* me she wanted), the progressively more frustrated and annoyed with me she became. In hindsight, the pattern was obvious.

I became absorbed in household tasks; involved in activities outside home; I was domesticated; we went to counseling.


If your wife drags you into marriage counseling, and you go, and your experience is like Gorbachev's...

The counselor blames everything – absolutely everything – on me. It was like being in an interrogation room with lights pointed in my face. The counselor – PhD Harvard, still practicing – thought I was the root of all of our troubles. Seriously, when my wife acted out (threw a temper tantrum, smashed a dish), the counselor asked me what I could have done to help my wife emotionally. I couldn’t believe it: If I did something, it was my fault. If my wife did something, irrational and even insulting, it was also my fault.

I’m not making this up.

The counselor demonstrated that I was just inadequate.
(This was true, just not for the reasons she said).

We did counseling for 6 months. I went to every Cultural Revolution Self-Criticism Examination despite the fact that I had to cut work to do it because other times were inconvenient for my wife.


...your marriage is already doomed. Lawyer up and beat her to the punch. Gorbachev tried to salvage it the best he could...but he was hampered by the ubiquitous blue pill delusions of our feminist warped culture:

I did *everything* that Oprah Winfrey and the Self Help industry demanded men do for their wives.

So after another 6 months, she actually said: I am no longer in love with you, but you’re still my best friend. We amicably divorced.


This is the essence of our cultural zeitgeist and demonstrates exactly how and why so many Men fail to have a happy and meaningful long term relationship with any woman in our Brave New World Order. This is the uphill struggle men must now contend with in coming to terms with our culturally oppressed masculinity. Our cultural cues are all based on feminist ideology, that run afoul of her hypergamous hard-wiring.

Next up: commenter Badger Nation, responding to a presumably female commenter lamenting the proliferation of "Women Bashing" at Chateau Roissy:

This is equal time. if you want to hear about how bad men are, you can watch Dr Phil, Oprah, Maury Povich, read any number of advice columns, watch American sitcoms, sit in an American family law court…

As evidenced by posters here and elsewhere, a lot of guys are invested in a Victorian fantasy that women are the higher, perfect sex and that men are “civilized” by women. In fact it appears to be the opposite – matriarchal subsocieties are dysfunctional and have frustrated, out of control male populations. Breaking them out of this fantasy is crucial for their happiness.

But we should all be warned…red pill-ing can be bad for your psyche. It is disturbing to see the world as it is.


Certainly. If you see just how deep the rabbit hole goes...you will never be the same. Share enough of your red pill insights with blue pillers, and they start thinking your a "Conspiracy Theorist!" llololzlzolzlolz!!

Commenter INTP weighs in with a nice succinct explanation of where our society is ultimately headed and how the changes to marriage explain why we live in a declining Civilization:

Modern civilizations provide other ways for men to leave a legacy. Men can write “Great Books for Men”, build great companies, attain great personal achievement, etc. But that creates another problem. If men are off doing all that self-enriching cerebral work, and not raising stable families, then the civilization dies via the demographic suffocation of its high-value gene pool. In other words if great men are too busy to raise great offspring then where will the great men of tomorrow come from? That didn’t used to be a problem under Marriage 1.0 (every man was pretty much guaranteed a wife + be king of his own castle). Now, under Marriage 2.0, not so much. Marriage now officially sucks for men. Bye, Bye West.


INTP forgot to add that the Great Men of yesteryear didn't really raise the next generation...their wives at home did. But they served as the examples and positive role models for the next generation of men to follow. The difference is the great men are now laboring in a workforce where all the womenz are competing with them and the minimum wage daycare workers are raising the next generation...

Marriage 1.0 is necessary for stability. Marriage 2.0, our current still-born botched-abortion product of Feminism, is long-term dating with an obscene divorce rate and tri-fecta payout for women. Marriage 2.0 is the FARTHEST thing from stability. Marriage would have to roll back to pre-1960 standards, along with the rest of the culture, for it be remotely viable.


Marriage 1.0 gave us the foundation that forged greatest Superpower in the history of the world.

Marriage 2.0 gave us The Garbage Generation.

INTP Concludes:

The cultural elites have different plans. They seek to consolidate their power under 21st Century Feudalism (i.e., destroyed middle class, ignorant but happy drone workers, 1% controls 99.9% of the wealth). High-technology serfdom.


Welcome to the club. Pull up a chair and don your tinfoil hat, my friend.

Consider Epoxytocin's next point, regarding the presumptions of entitlement men and women assume are their just due in a relationship:

Specifically, I can’t count the number of times I’ve read, from various MRA types, that, in return for beta-style material provision / a roof over their heads / a father for their children / etc, they deserve a slender, trim nymphet-o-matic.

That’s not how it works.

What these guys fail to realize — probably because most of them are the type that has never been on the receiving end of intense attraction — is that attraction and economics are orthogonal.

Economically:
I provide the material goods and the father-figure role, she provides the housework, cooking, mothering, childbirth, etc. I take care of the financial shit, you fix the computers.
Etc. etc.
You scratch my back, I scratch yours.
Admittedly, feminism has fucked with this part of the equation, especially with couples who are so foolhardy as to outfit a kitchen with 2 refrigerators and no sink (i.e., two breadwinners and no helpmeet).

In terms of attraction:
I provide the alpha, she provides the hot physically fit nymph-o-matic.
This is still how things work; feminism hasn’t touched this equation with a fourteen-foot pole, and probably can’t since it’s too biologically hardwired.

The MRAs’ problem arises when they feel entitled to the attraction-side goods, even though they are only bartering with the economic-side goods.

The women’s problem (not just feminists’ problem, although that’s the ultimate origin) arises when they feel entitled to the economic-side goods, even though they are only bartering with the attraction-side goods (and that only temporarily).

The situation is in fact more symmetrical than many in this sphere would like to think.


That was an excellent breakdown on how Feminist social engineering corrupted the complementary gender roles of traditional Patriarchy. The entitlement mentality corrupts everybody that internalizes it, men and women alike.

Finally, no review of Roissy commenters would be complete without getting to the most amusing commenter to arrive at the Chateau recently, the estimable GreatBooksForMen...llolzlozlzolz!

This guy has found the most annoying, but simplified way of explaining the NWO conspiracy theory in teenager styled txt lingo. Many people get annoyed with him, and they repeatedly ask Roissy to ban him. They don't realize that there is a method to his apparent madness.

"yah dude rights nbow i am soo far ahead of america that i needs 2 repeat myself a bit until everything gets caught up."

Within reading his first 5 or so posts when he first arrived at the Chateau, I got this immediately...of course, I'm well read in everything he refers to in his disjointed rambles.

Eventually, some people try to understand just what the hell GBFM is talking about with all of his references to fiat currency, neo-con butthex, etc. and how it all corrupts America. Than he drops the knowledge, by quoting Mises.org:

“The linkage between character and money has everything to do with self-ownership. Aside from one’s body, the most personal property one may possess is the fruit of one’s labor. In a capitalist society, typically, this labor gets rewarded in the form of money — a paycheck. Hence, a person’s sense of value and self-worth is significantly influenced by how society values his labor — with money not only being that most personal asset, but also being the measuring rod. In days gone by, an individual developed character by learning that an honest day’s work would be rewarded with honest money (i.e., gold). Never has there been a more stable measure of value than gold.

In 1913, at the behest of the richest and most powerful banking elites in the world, an agent of social decay was established in the United States. Indeed, the Federal Reserve was founded. The stabilizing influence of gold money, gradually, was replaced by government fiat. Consequently, the character of Americans depreciated in lockstep with its fiat currency.


With his spastic act, he no doubt has gotten more than a few people to at least begin to look into just what the hell he's rambling on about with his constant references to fiat currency, the Federal Reserve and how the banksters have financed the social engineering of our feminist-warped society betwixt all the gratuitous typos and references to neo-con butthex.

lolzlzolzolzolzz!

Friday, May 21, 2010

Why Tea Parties Are a Waste of Time



My favorite anti-communitarian Alaskan outdoors-woman, Niki Raapana, wrote a post that made a great point regarding what We the Sheeple can do to protest our out of control fascist, emerging Brave-New-World-Order-Global- Government....and public protests and demonstrations 'aint it.

Watched Aaron Russo's Freedom to Fascism last night. It was the best explanation of the Tax Honesty movement I've ever seen, but then it's the only one I've ever seen. While I don't trust several of the "our side" experts he interviewed (Ruppert, Fitts, etc) it didn't detract one bit from his presentation of the story. How the bankers seized covert control over the United States is essential knowledge for Americans who choose to resist the emerging harmonization of norms. I did not like his recommendations for action at the end, but I never like the suggestions that we get organized and march on Washington DC. I don't believe we can restore constitutional govt using Marxist street actions.


I agree wholeheartedly....have the Tea Parties made one iota of a difference? Nah...Sarah Palin and the neo-con faux conservatives hijacked it to serve as the right wing of dialectic propaganda events.

Demonstrations and rallies and such are nothing more than literal manifestations of the farce known as DEMOCRACY. Mob rules. Claiming authority not by what is righteous or just, but based solely on the appearance of massive support.

The original Tea Party wasn't a public rally with attendant placards and assorted people dressed in costumes with the presumed leaders haranguing them into an emotional frenzy with bullhorns chanting trite slogans.

No, it was a bunch of saboteurs that disguised themselves as Indians, snuck aboard the British merchant ships and threw the merchant's wares into the harbor water.

Nowadays, the Media/Government Corpratocracy would have labeled them as terrorists and than instituted a whole new Federal bureaucracy to deal with the danger of the Homeland tea supply, and will henceforth require strip searches and questioning before allowing the average citizen to buy a permit for the privilege of purchasing the carefully measured, taxed and dispensed teabags.

But I digress.

Niki makes another great point:

If we really are the masters here, then why would we stand outside our servants' offices and protest their erroneous policies and laws?


Great point. Isn't it obvious? Our media and educational institutions all have brainwashed generations of We the Sheeple into believing the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" fairy tale that we live in a country with a Government by the people, for the people. That hasn't been true since at least Abe Lincoln's time.

Why wouldn't we draft a resolution and vote/pass a people's initiative? If protecting our property and prosperity is the only legitimate purpose for govt and we have the power to fire them and restore the rule of law, then why would we need to protest in the streets? To me it's the sign of our corrupted nation.


Yes, it's also a sign of just how far the idea of "Democracy" has now been inculcated into the mainstream consciousness. When the masses think a mob demonstration is the only way to "be heard" and "raise awareness," it's a sure sign that the Representative Republic is dead.

Long live our new Communitarian Democracy!

I wish Russo would have ended the film with a contact address to help instigate a statewide national referendum to put a cap on the feds... revoke executive order privileges, end the federal reserve, nullify the IRS, abolish Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and fire every Czar and office created to outmaneuver the US Constitutional requirements for separation of powers. We are the law here, that is our only power... and that is the only way we can restore our power.


I agree....but also don't believe it's going to happen.

This whole thing is gonna crash and burn.

The only thing left to do is get ready for it and enjoy the show.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Frontier Feminism




Conservative female columnists have gone gaga over Sarah Palin. She's a "conservative" feminist...aka a "pro-life feminist" that still believes women were oppressed by men, didn't have "equal rights" and that suffrage and the social engineering that has propelled women en masse into what was once the male sphere of gender roles are all still "good" things.

Left wing, or right wing, "feminism" is still an ideology of female pedestalization....female superiority. It promotes the same myths of female "Strength and independence."

One "conservative feminist," Townhall columnist Maggie Ghallagher, wrote about a recent Palin speech she attended, in a column entitled Sarah Palin's Girl Power:

Palin understands that she is building not just a new political movement, but a new cultural identity. She dubbed it "frontier feminism," and it was the theme she carried through from beginning to end.


Well isn't that special. Palin is not just a feminist...she's a FRONTIER FEMINIST.

She speaks emotionally as a mother, from the heart of motherhood, and she makes it what it should be: a source of power, not an admission of weakness or dependency, and a bond, the deepest bond among women.


See..."conservative" women are no different. The appeal of herd bonding through the sharing of emotional experience is a "source of power." Note how dependency is associated with weakness.

This association is precisely how the feminists appealed to the solipsism of the female mind to get them to embrace the ideological platform to destroy the dynamics of the Patriarchal nuclear family.

Sickening. Oh Maggie, you are just as much the useful idiot for feminist's goals as any left wing abortion fanatic.

Marriage is supposed to be a partnership...and what is a partnership but a relationship based on CO-DEPENDENCY? Where one partner is weak the other partner's strength meets the need. That's a complementary relationship! Dependency is a hallmark of any successful relationship...not a weakness.

Maggie than quotes a particular passage from Palin:

And I thank the SBA List, too, for being a home to a new conservative feminist movement, is how I look at this. It's an emerging conservative feminist identity. Far too long, when people heard the word 'feminist,' they thought of the faculty lounge at some East Coast women's college, right? And no offense to them, they have their opinions and their voice, and God bless them; they're just great."


Do Pro-Life conservatives get that? Palin says the left wing, abortion supporting, left wing feminists are just great!

"But that's not the only voice of women in America. I'd like to remind people of another feminist tradition, kind of a western feminism. It's influenced by the pioneering spirit of our foremothers, who went in wagon trains across the wilderness, and they settled in homesteads. And these were tough, independent pioneering mothers, whose work was as valuable as any man's on the frontier. ... They went where no woman had gone before."


How in holy hell was a pioneer woman a "feminst" tradition? I must have missed reading about all those women that INDEPENDENTLY braved the travails of settling the wild west. This is pure, revisionist bullshit by Palin. And so-called "conservative" women eat this shit up.

Tough? Hell yes. The pioneer women were indeed tough...they had to be. But "independent?"

Hardly.

The pioneer women were absolutely dependent on their men...just as the men were dependent on their women! It was a tough, rigorous and dangerous life...and each played their role in building a new life so that their next generation could succeed. IT TOOK BOTH MEN AND WOMEN WORKING TOGETHER TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE IN THE HARSH ENVIRONMENT OF THE FRONTIER.

The right wing version of feminism is just as subversive as the left. Note that the implications of Palin's line of thought is just as divisive of men and women as any left wing version of feminism. After all, isn't this the logical conclusion of the idea of "Independence?" An "independent" woman doesn't need a man. Hah.

Maggie than summarizes Palin's speech, while quoting an especially egregious line Palin used:

A speech that began with women as "mama grizzlies" defending their children's economic interests ("My kid is not your ATM") ends with a call for a new kind of feminism:


My kid is not your ATM?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!

That's right....Palin, why don't you just go ahead and say it...that you agree with your left wing sisters (they're great! God bless them!) YOU, the unfortunate sperm donor for MY kid is MY ATM. Child support for 18 years BAAAYYYYBBBBEEEE!

"As an Alaskan woman, I'm proud to consider myself a frontier feminist like those early pioneering women of the West."


LMAO. Why yes Sarah...your 21st century experiences in Alaska, your experiences are JUST LIKE what those frontier women of the West!

She proceeded to thank one of the largest and most effective pro-life organizations in the country, the Susan B. Anthony List, named for a key 19th-century leader who opposed abortion. "I'm grateful to have a place like this, full of sisters who are not put off by a gun-toting, pro-life mom of a fun, full family -- never dull."


Ah yes. Now "conservative" women are hailing that wonderful Susan B. Anthony, the primary change-agent to institute women's suffrage. Just because she was "anti-abortion" means Susan B. Anthony is an "acceptable" feminist icon for "conservative" women.

What a farce.

Here's what Susan B. Anthony wrote about abortion:

She blamed men, laws and the "double standard" for driving women to abortion because they had no other options. ("When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." 1869) She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion.

Hahahaha...the jokes on you, Susan! We have more abortion now than you probably ever thought possible in your time...but I'm sure, now, just as back than, this is all the fault of "men," right?

But I digress...

Back to Maggie Gallagher's finishing paragraph:

Women can do anything.


Right. Try writing your name in the snow with your piss.

We can bear children under less than ideal circumstances.


Hilarious. When you are pregnant, your biological directive will make you go into labor whether the circumstances are ideal or not. This is like being proud of the fact that women can take a shit in less than ideal circumstances. GIRL POWER!

But Maggie's last line is a real hoot:

Like Sarah and her "strong and independent" daughter Bristol.


Why yes....she's so strong and independent, she's still living at home with mommy and daddy helping to raise her little kid...and her parent's are filing a lawsuit to get Bristol's baby's daddy to pay child support. Now THERE'S strength and independence for you!

"2010," Sarah Palin announced exuberantly, is the year "when commonsense conservative women get things done for our country."


Frontier Feminism and commonsense are an oxymoron...and Sarah Palin, you are no "conservative."

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The Reason We Have A "War on Drugs"


From US Drug War Has Met None of It's Goals

- $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

- $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

- $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

- $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

- $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.


4/5ths of all the money spent in 40 years in fighting this "war on drugs" has been spent to militarize and increase our police forces, and to create a literal gulag of Federal Prison detention facilities across the country.

I think the article's title has got it completely wrong...it's met all of it's goals.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

He Who Controls the Money, Controls the World


The words "population control" bring a thought process to bear on any person contemplating the phrase...usually connected to the idea of simple demographic overpopulation. But that is only one part of the equation - population control is not just limiting the overall number of humans that exist on the planet at any given moment to "sustainable" levels. It's also about CONTROLLING the behavior, thought processes, attitudes, and beliefs of the population as well.

And the most powerful means of controlling the people, is to control the primary means of interacting and exchanging goods and services amongst each other to obtain the necessities of surviving...control the money, you control the people.

Which, of course, is the primary contention of the "Conspiratorial view" of history.

Two quotes, one idea:

- Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws.

- Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Many NWO conspiracy theories have speculated that the recent economic downturn was deliberately instigated by the International Central Banker's deliberate manipulation of the interest rates for institutions to borrow and lend out their fiat currency. Combined with fractional reserve lending and an exacerbated business cycle due to "Bubbles" of mal-investments (the dot.com bubble, real estate bubble...), inflation and economic recessionary conditions all contribute to the destruction of the American dollar.

The idea is that once the dollar is no longer meaningful as a medium of exchange, we the sheeple will than be ready to except a new currency, paving the way for our international banking elite to than introduce the "Amero" - the North American Region's version of the Euro.

This is a synthesis of the popularized view of the NWO "conspiracy theory" regarding the current economic crisis.

Niki Raapana, founder and of the Anti-Communitarian League, linked to an article on her blog, Living Outside the Dialectic, that digs a little deeper, and reveals that perhaps our financial overlords won't even bother with implementing the Amero...instead, they plan to destroy the Euro (Apparently, Greece is the first domino to begin falling...) destroy the dollar, and institute an entirely different scheme of "money."

And it ties in oh so neatly with the environmentalist agenda. It's called Carbon Currency.

Critics who think that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by some new global currency are perhaps thinking too small.

On the world horizon looms a new global currency that could replace all paper currencies and the economic system upon which they are based.

The new currency, simply called Carbon Currency, is designed to support a revolutionary new economic system based on energy (production, and consumption), instead of price. Our current price-based economic system and its related currencies that have supported capitalism, socialism, fascism and communism, is being herded to the slaughterhouse in order to make way for a new carbon-based world.


No wonder the primary doomsayer for global warming is invested so heavily into carbon trading.

Forces are already at work to position a new Carbon Currency as the ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and blanket distribution of economic wealth.

Unfortunately for individual people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.


What is Carbon Currency and how does it work? In a nutshell, Carbon Currency will be based on the regular allocation of available energy to the people of the world. If not used within a period of time, the Currency will expire (like monthly minutes on your cell phone plan) so that the same people can receive a new allocation based on new energy production quotas for the next period.

Because the energy supply chain is already dominated by the global elite, setting energy production quotas will limit the amount of Carbon Currency in circulation at any one time. It will also naturally limit manufacturing, food production and people movement.


Population CONTROL.

He who has the gold...errr, I mean carbon, makes the rules.

Local currencies could remain in play for a time, but they would eventually wither and be fully replaced by the Carbon Currency, much the same way that the Euro displaced individual European currencies over a period of time.


When the day comes that our Government tells the masses that they are instituting a "carbon" or "energy" based currency or monetary system, you will surely know that the NWO was not just a silly fantasy of paranoids on the internet.

Does this all sound like madcap insanity? The article also provides a variety of links to articles published within the last decade, all contemplating the idea. But I would perhaps not call them speculative guesses...but trial balloons to get the masses used to the idea that will soon be our reality.

From 1995: Towards a single carbon currency

From 2004: A New Currency

From 2007: When Carbon is Currency

From 2008: Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the prospects for integrated global carbon markets.

From 2009:Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance

Here's the official website of the folks pushing this idea: Technocracy Inc.

Of course, the real goal here is total population control...which is what the controllers of doling out carbon currency would eventually gain.

If you study the card above, you will also note that is serves as a universal identity card and contains a microchip. This reflects Technocracy’s philosophy that each person in society must be meticulously monitored and accounted for in order to track what they consume in terms of energy, and also what they contribute to the manufacturing process.


This idea of a carbon currency certainly seems to tie all of the "cospiracy theory" angles together quite nicely. Still think the conspiracy theories are not true? I'll bet you a million carbons...

The article's conclusion:

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there is talk, there is action....

...This article intended to show that

* Carbon Currency is not a new idea, but has deep roots in Technocracy

* Carbon Currency has grown from a continental proposal to a global proposal

* It has been consistently discussed over a long period of time

* The participants include many prominent global leaders, banks and think-tanks

* The context of these discussions have been very consistent

* Today’s goals for implementing Carbon Currency are virtually identical to Technocracy’s original Energy Certificates goals.

Of course, a currency is merely a means to an end. Whoever controls the currency also controls the economy and the political structure that goes with it.

Friday, May 7, 2010

The Matriarchal Paradigm is Ascendant


Dr. Daniel Amneus wrote the Garbage Generation in the late 1980's.

It was a seminal indictment of Matriarchy and about the long term, societal results of the feminist platform's loosening of sexual mores and the institutions of no-fault divorce and family court system becoming normalized.

It's now been two decades since he wrote about the inevitable results of instituting Matriarchy to replace Patriarchy. He predicted that the more Matriarchy became ascendant, the more America would resemble the matriarchal ghettos of the inner cities.

We're almost there.

Four in ten babies are born outside marriage in the U.S.


The number of children born outside marriage in the United States has increased dramatically to four out of ten of all births.

Figures show that 41 per cent of children born in 2008 did not have married parents - up from 28 per cent in 1990.


Remember this the next time you encounter the "conservative" argument that is passionate about "saving marriage" from the gays.

Researchers have concluded that although Christian values still play an important role in American society, public attitudes have changed.


Hah. Most "Christian" values have changed to accommodate the public attitudes.

Having a child out of wedlock does not carry the stigma and shame it once did, they say.


Anybody remember the huge media brouhaha when VP Dan Quayle criticized the portrayal of single motherhood as no big deal on the TV show Murphy Brown? He was lambasted, ridiculed and had all sorts of insults directed at him.

Oh yes, Dan Quayle was absolutely right.



Let's take a look at some substantial excerpts of the speech that contained the criticism of the TV show that got so many feminists and liberals panties twisted in a bunch...and put it into the overall context of the accurate points Quayle was making.

This country now has a black middle class that barely existed a quarter-century ago. Since 1967, the median income of black two-parent families has risen by 60 percent in real terms. The number of black college graduates has skyrocketed. Black men and women have achieved real political power -- black mayors head 48 of our largest cities, including Los Angeles. These are achievements.

But as we all know, there is another side to that bright landscape. During this period of progress, we have also developed a culture of poverty -- some call it an underclass -- that is far more violent and harder to escape than it was a generation ago.

The poor you always have with you, Scripture tells us. And in America we have always had poor people. But in this dynamic, prosperous nation, poverty has traditionally been a stage through which people pass on their way to joining the great middle class. And if one generation didn't get very far up the ladder -- their ambitious, better-educated children would.


We see the exact thing here in Hawaii. I've seen it play out amongst Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Samoan, Chinese and Micronesian families that migrate here. They often live in poverty-laden areas, with 10 family members living in a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment, with the parents working long hours at menial blue color jobs...saving money to put their kids through school. Within a generation, these families go from penniless immigrants to middle and upper-middle class citizenry, when their educated kids become doctors, lawyers, bankers or small business owners.

This, of course, is a stark contrast to all those families that come here and instead of working hard and saving to invest in their children's future, they opt to go on the welfare, become dependent on hand outs and adopt the matriarchal ghetto lifestyle. I've seen families of all races take one or the other path, with reliably predictable results. The underclass really has nothing to do with race.

Nevertheless, the Black family in America leads the way in manifesting the societal results that occur when you adopt Government policies and laws that offer incentives for single mothers to have children out of wedlock. The black American family was the canary in the coalmine in terms of what happens when you effect social policies that impact the structure of the nuclear family.

As Dan Quayle noted:

The inter-generational poverty that troubles us so much today is predominantly a poverty of values. Our inner cities are filled with children having children; with people who have not been able to take advantage of educational opportunities; with people who are dependent on drugs or the narcotic of welfare. To be sure, many people in the ghettos struggle very hard against these tides -- and sometimes win. But too many feel they have no hope and nothing to lose. This poverty is, again, fundamentally a poverty of values.

But the underclass seems to be a new phenomenon. It is a group whose members are dependent on welfare for very long stretches, and whose men are often drawn into lives of crime. There is far too little upward mobility, because the underclass is disconnected from the rules of American society. And these problems have, unfortunately, been particularly acute for black Americans.
Let me share with you a few statistics on the difference between black poverty in particular in the 1960s and now.

* In 1967, 68 percent of black families were headed by married couples. In 1991, only 48 percent of black families were headed by both a husband and wife.

* In 1965, the illegitimacy rate among black families was 28 percent. In 1989, 65 percent -- two thirds -- of all black children were born to never-married mothers.

* In 1951 9.2 percent of black youth between 16-19 were unemployed. In 1965, it was 23 percent. In 1980, it was 35 percent. By 1989, the number had declined slightly, but was still 32 percent.

* The leading cause of death of young black males today is homicide.

It would be overly simplistic to blame this social breakdown on the programs of the Great Society alone. It would be absolutely wrong to blame it on the growth and success most Americans enjoyed during the 1980s. Rather, we are in large measure reaping the whirlwind of decades of changes in social mores.

Of course, these changes in social mores didn't "just happen."

Unless we change the basic rules of society in our inner cities, we cannot expect anything else to change.

Indeed.

Instead of changing the basic rules of society in our inner cities, we've adopted them society-wide, which is precisely why we are now living through the decline of Western Civilization and entering into a Brave New World Order: Global Socialism Based on the Matriarchal family model; controlled and manipulated by dependence on the Ruling Elite.


For the government, transforming underclass culture means that our policies and programs must create a different incentive system. Our policies must be premised on, and must reinforce, values such as: family, hard work, integrity and personal responsibility.

But that would be racist, sexist and homophobic!

I think we can all agree that government's first obligation is to maintain order. We are a nation of laws, not looting. If a single mother raising her children in the ghetto has to worry about drive-by shootings, drug deals, or whether her children will join gangs and die violently, her difficult tasks becomes impossible.

Safety is absolutely necessary. But it's not sufficient. Our urban strategy is to empower the poor by giving them control over their lives. Empowering the poor will strengthen families. And right now, the failure of our families is hurting America deeply. When families fail, society fails. The anarchy and lack of structure in our inner cities are testament to how quickly civilization falls apart when the family foundation cracks. Children need love and discipline. They need mothers and fathers. A welfare check is not a husband. The state is not a father. It is from parents that children learn how to behave in society; it is from parents above all that children come to understand values and themselves as men and women, mothers and fathers.

And for those concerned about children growing up in poverty, we should know this: Marriage is probably the best anti-poverty program of all. Among families headed by married couples today, there is a poverty rate of 5.7 percent. But 33.4 percent of families headed by a single mother are in poverty today.

The system perpetuates itself as these young men father children whom they have no intention of caring for, by women whose welfare checks support them. Teenage girls, mired in the same hopelessness, lack sufficient motive to say no to this trap.


That Dan Quayle sure was a stupid, moron, wasn't he?

Answers to our problems won't be easy.

We can start by dismantling a welfare system that encourages dependency and subsidizes broken families. We can attach conditions -- such as school attendance, or work -- to welfare. We can limit the time a recipient gets benefits. We can stop penalizing marriage for welfare mothers. We can enforce child support payments.
Heh. I wrote too soon...note the inherent contradiction in that last paragraph. He first calls for dismantling the welfare system...than immediately makes proscriptions that reform the welfare system, not dismantle it. And in fact, all of those conditions he mentioned were eventually effected with "Welfare Reform" during the Clinton administration. The Daily Mail article now shows us just how effective that was. American bastardy is at an all time high.

They should have ended it, not "mended" it.

This is what happens when you get "compromise" by "conservatives" so they can appeal to the "left" to achieve "bi-partisan consensus."


Ultimately, however, marriage is a moral issue that requires cultural consensus and social sanctions. Bearing babies irresponsibly is, simply, wrong. We must be unequivocal about this.


Too late, Mr. Quayle. They reformed welfare and normalized babies born out of wedlock. The Matriarchal paradigm continues it's ascent.

It doesn't help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown -- a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman -- mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another "lifestyle choice."

I know it is not fashionable to talk about moral values, but we need to do it. Even though our cultural leaders in Hollywood, network TV, the national newspapers routinely jeer at them, I think that most of us in this room know that some things are good,and other things are wrong. Now it's time to make the discussion public.

Our cultural "leaders" in Hollywood, network TV and the national newspapers have won that particular debate.

Sounds to me like Quayle was well versed in Senator Moynihan's report about the destructive effects of Matriarchal policies and programs on the black American family.

No wonder the liberal mainstream media, talking heads and late night comedians had to continually push the meme that Quayle was barely above the intellectual level of retardation because of his dispute with a grade schooler on the spelling of the word potato(e).

Dan Quayle was right, and he certainly was no dumbass when he made the argument that Murphy Brown's single mother storyline was in fact a glorification of single motherhood, a marginalization of the role of Fathers, and that it would subversively influence the viewers by normalizing bastardy in our culture.

Can anyone now say it with a straight face that Dan Quayle's predictions didn't come true?


Wednesday, May 5, 2010

"Changes in Family Life"


Roissy commenter dragnet wrote a brilliant, succinct post about the breakdown of gender roles and family values in our current society.

The presumably female commenter, Skadi, got him going with this offhand remark:


“dragnet, I understand your point very well. The problem is that today the family life has changed immensely since the times of your grandmother.”


dragnet rebuts:

Let’s stop right here for a second because this is really where the shit starts. You write that family life “has changed” — as if we all just woke up one morning and the shit was totally different. That’s not what happened and you fucking know it. What happened was that a minority of discontented women were no longer content to exercise traditional female power (their sexual power, and then their power as wives and mothers)and instead wanted to be able to wield traditionally male power in addition to that which they already had.

The idea that a woman had no power before feminism was always bullshit — women had tremendous power.


Women who were attractive to men had tremendous power, thanks to the social code of chivalry. It was the bitter, bitchy and ugly harridan feminists who had no sexual-based manipulative influence over men that resented their more attractive sister's feminine power. They resented watching women who were able, with a mere batting of the eyelashes or a seductive smile, get men to do anything they desired. These jealous, unattractive women coupled with angry lesbian marxists were the real agitators for changing the gender roles of society.

But they wanted more than power—they wanted authority which is the masculine form of power. And to get it, they made their personal grievances into a sociopolitical movement which the majority of women either tacitly supported or at the very least did nothing to hinder it.

In doing so, they necessarily emasculated and marginalized men & boys. The acquisition of power is a zero-sum game—it can only be obtained at the expense of someone else. The more traditional male power women obtained, the less men would be able to wield it.


Female Empowerment = Male Dis-empowerment.

Not that many men are “marriage/boyfriend prospects” because our society has rendered the vast majority of them undesirable partners by making them unable to satisfy the demands of hypergamy.


Hell, unable? Our society makes men completely unaware and clueless about the female's hypergamous sex drive. Everything in our culture and educational institutions tells men how to be "nice guys" so they can be "suitable" mates for women...and most guys follows these societal cues, and are confused and befuddled when they are told "Lets Just Be Friends."


Women can now wield traditional masculine (authority) and feminine (sexual) power while men most men are left with diminished masculine power. Men with diminished power are never attractive to women — but that’s what our society signed up for when we let women wield traditional masculine power in addition to what they had before.


Yup.

dragnet than excerpted another fallacy written by Skadi -

“Too many men avoid commitment, marriage, having children. Many men postpone these duties for as long as they can… Too many men are not fit to be husbands and fathers. The real masculinity is almost gone.”


Sounds like Skadi is taking the Kay Hymowitz Child-man in the promised land attitude. dragnet gives her a much deserved rebuke:

The real masculinity is gone because it’s become so heavily stigmatized and suppressed. Real masculinity — the determination by men to wield traditional male power — is persecuted by women as being oppressive and misogynistic.


Not just by women...don't forget the politically correct, SWPL mangina's and liberals who spout the same bullshit. I want to retch every time I read yet another male journalist, pundit or columnist...or hear some TV or radio talking head referring to violence or aggression, who condescendingly denigrates 'testosterone.'

We aren’t raising our boys to be confident and masculine because doing that is perceived as a threat to women being able to wield traditional male power in addition to traditional female power.

So many men are ill-equipped for commitment/marriage, because we’ve decided that to give them power that would make them fit for these institutions is to infringe upon the freedoms of women.


I think while this is a great point, it does need to be expanded on a bit. Along with the privilege that comes with the exercise of power, also comes the responsibility that it entails. The feminist social engineering of society has no problem giving men the responsibilities of power...so long as women receive the privileges and benefits...without any of the responsibilities.

Women and feminists have created a society of men bereft of the things women consider attractive — and are now complaining that the men are undesirable. Words fail.


It appears that words have failed Skadi. She has yet to respond.

“Good men” aren’t born, Skadi. They are made—and women have a place in creating them.


Let's not forget that much of the women creating today's men, are the single mother's whose only male role models they bring into the lives of their young boys is abusive, thuggish boyfriends.

Cultures create good and responsible men by giving them wives, children, and families—by giving them a reproductive investment. My grandfather didn’t become a “good man” until he married my grandmother and attended to the responsibilities of his family. Before that, he was just a “guy”. But he didn’t learn the full meaning of self-sacrifice, unconditional love, reliability, and steadiness until after he had a family and was able to bring traditional male power to bear in the service of caring for his household. Men these days don’t have that option because they don’t have traditional male power, and because women aren’t interested until marrying until much later when they have less to offer men. You couple that with misandrist divorce/family laws & VAWA and it’s really no wonder men aren’t marrying. Most men aren’t sitting it out waiting their turn on the casual sex carousel—because they know it’s not happening for 80 percent of the guys out there. They would have signed up for wives in their early 20s in a heartbeat if women were marrying that early…but they just aren’t because they’d rather pursue careers, graduate degrees, and alpha cock for 10-15 years first.


It's a brave new world of socially engineered gender roles.

You go girl.