Hawaiian libertarian

Inflation Escalation

2012-02-02T17:25:00.000-08:00

Think about the past 5 years, when the Great Depression 2.0 began to ramp up as the real estate bubble burst, auto manufacturers in Detroit were co-opted by the Federal Government, the Federal Reserve gave us a couple of rounds of "qualitative easing" and both Bush and Obama approved Tarp bailouts for the Banks too big to fail.

Is it just me, or does inflation appears to be escalating at a quicker pace in the past several years?

Just three years ago, I distinctly remember you could buy a plate lunch in downtown Honolulu for $6. Now, the exact same meal averages $9.

While I almost never eat at national corporate chain restaurants anymore, I did stop off at one after work the other day for an after-work beer with a co-worker. I looked at the menu while waiting for my beer to be poured...the price of appetizers are all around $10-$12 a piece, and typical entree's were around $15-$19, $22-$28 for seafood. About 4 years ago, I used to eat at such places like Chili's, Outback Steakhouse, Ruby Tuesdays, etc. pretty regularly as our "weekend" entertainment activity.

I certainly remember the average prices for such fare. But $12 for a burger and fries? 4 years ago, I remember thinking $9 for a burger and fries was ludicrous!

I also recall that a six pack of Micro brew beer was around $7. Now, it's typically $9-$12 for the same brands I favor.

Same goes for whiskey. A bottle of Glenlivet or Glenfiddich 12 yr. single malt used to average around $24 for a 750ml bottle. The same bottle is typically $32-$35 now.

Even more dramatic has been the price of bulk items I have been regularly buying at Costco for years now. Toilet paper, dog food, laundry detergent, coffee, artisinal cheese, bacon....the list goes on.

I think everywhere you look at today's prices, most of them are 2-6 dollars more for the same amount of product or service you used to pay for just several years ago.

Gee...you think all that the Federal Reserve's qualitative easing programs may have had an effect? What exactly is getting eased here?

Paleo Cult Conspiracy Proselytization

2012-01-24T16:58:00.000-08:00

As a proud member of the Paleo Cult Conspiracy, I often receive comments and emails from folks asking me how to get started, what's a good book or blog to read up on and other means of getting initiated into the cult.

I usually refer folks to Mark's Daily Apple, Dr. Kurt Harris' Archevore blog, and Richard Nikoley's Free the Animal.

All great sources, all packed full of details, extensive explanations, and anecdotal experiences with literally hundreds of others who have joined the cult.

More importantly, they are all free.

You absolutely do not have to buy books, dvd's, cds, mp3 downloads or attend seminars to learn about the tenets of our cult, nor are they required to join. That being said, if you do decide to spend your money on such things, there are certainly highly recognized, legitimate cult members who do produce such things for those cult members who wish to explore the more intensive aspects of our ideology.

You should consult many other cult members and their testimonials before you decide to spend you money to further your understanding...but again, you don't have to.

There is more than enough personal accounts out their on teh interwebz by other prominent cult members to give you more than enough information and direction to begin your initiation for the price of nothing more than your time.

So why exactly should you want to join our Cult?

Some of you who read this blog (and other manosphere blogs that also report on their experiences upon joining the cult) think it's all much ado about nothing...or a waste of time. Or that "science" has "proven" that the only thing that matters is counting calories, and eating less food while exercising more.

Cool.

This cult is are not for everyone. We don't wish to make our cult become THE ONE TRUE WAY ALL MUST FOLLOW.

We only want those who want to voluntarily join and maintain their membership in good standing.

If you think you're better than we the brainwashed, blind fanatics of a crazy cult, good for you.

We don't need your approval or your validation. As cult members, we KNOW what the cult can and does do for it's members, and we will continue with out rituals and traditions and lifestyle, regardless of what you think.

Membership is open to all who wish to join. We do not discriminate based on gender, race, creed or sexual orientation. We only discriminate against one sort of self-selected person: members of the Vegan Cult Conspiracy. They usually don't want to join anyway. The only time we have a problem with them is when they try to recruit our cult members over to their version of the dark side.

So...you've seen the testimonials, you've heard all the anecdotes. Somehow, you've managed to read these accounts of brainwashed cult members, and you are considering joining up with our cult yourself....where to begin?

First, you need to understand the dogma and faith based tenets of our cult and exactly why we are a conspiracy.

This is not simply a diet one begins to lose weight.

This is what makes us a cult and not a fad diet. Once you join this cult and you adhere to our tenets for long enough of a time to experience the benefits, most realize that it becomes a way of life.

Fad diets are based on the premise of losing excess stored body fat, and by no matter what means that are prescribed, it usually involves burning off stored fat tissue through caloric deficit...aka short term starvation.

This is a heresy to our cult. If you cannot fathom rejecting this paradigm, this cult is not for you. Move along, there's nothing to see here.

For those willing to at least consider this, than please, read on.

The primary tenet of our cult are this: Recognizing the proper foods to eat that provide Nutrient Density, and recognizing the foods that optimize the human bodies use of those nutrients. By focusing on nutrient optimization, over time, we can experience optimal genetic expression - or how the human animal's body is supposed to look, feel and function.

The corollary to this tenet, is learning to recognize the foods that inhibit the use of the nutrients, foods that deplete your body of those needed nutrients, and foods that actively damage the body. Once you learn to recognize these characteristics of all the things found in our world that people call "food" we than adjust our daily consumption choices to maximize optimal nutrition and minimize or outright eliminate those foods that interfere with attaining that goal of optimal nutrition.

Once you gain this knowledge and apply it over time, you may experience a whole host of differences and changes in your health and well-being.

Overweight people lose weight...and keep it off. Other folks who want to gain weight and change their overall body composition also experience the benefits of cult membership. Others who have no desire either way to change their weight, are cult members because they discover other ways in which cult membership changes their lives.

Members with severe allergies and chronic conditions like gout, type II diabetes, arthritis, chronic migraines, asthma, rashes, eczema, insomnia, wildly fluctuating energy levels, depression, acid reflux, acne, chronic diarrhea, and other sorts of maladies experience relief, lessening of the symptoms, and many cases outright disappearance of these conditions.

Some folks criticize our cult by claiming we offer our lifestyle as a panacea, a cure all. It is not. Some people may have in fact have damaged bodies so badly they are incapable of experiencing the benefits that many other cult members do.

One former cult member (whose blog I used to read regularly until he stopped blogging), had damaged his bodies ability to handle consuming any form of fat by taking the pharmaceutical acne drug accutane when he was younger. His experiences in our cult lead him to form his own cult (The Aquatic Ape Conspiracy Cult) with a far more rigid protocol to follow to heal himself. But experiences like his are relatively rare. Needless to say, discovering our cult and it's tenets did help him find the path to healing he was looking for, and he is better off for having joined in the first place, even if he did end up leaving. I also believe anyone who joins his cult would be far better off than your average non-cult member in the Anglosphere eating anything and everything the corrupted culture has to offer.

See, probably the most important aspect of our cult is the principles of self-experimentation and finding what tenets and dogma of our cult work for you.

Our mantra is YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.

A sub-tenet to this mantra is: LET NOT PERFECTION BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD.

A variation on this theme is the 80/20 principle.

We are not strict or obsessive.

Certain individual cult members may be fanatical in applying our tenets, but it is certainly not necessary to do so, should you decide to join.

We do not cast members out for failing to adhere to our belief system to perfection. We recognize that every cult member is in a unique situation, and that diet and exercise are merely parts of the sum total of living a complete life.

There are tradeoffs for which we can calculate the risk/reward ratio of a certain behavior, and recognize that for other aspects and areas of our life outside of just diet and exercise may take precedence.

For instance, if a cult member is getting married, he or she is not a heretic to be cast of the cult because they ate a piece of their wedding cake, even if it is nearly an article of faith in our cult that cake is sinful.

We are a CONSPIRACY Cult, because many of our tenets and proscriptions are based on the realization that there does in fact exist entities and organizations that are in fact profiting off of making sure the average person eats the wrong foods and suffers the ill effects so that they can make themselves rich selling you pharmaceutical treatments that alleviate or mitigate the symptoms for those conditions. These entities are in the Government, the media and the educational institutions, as well as various industries.

By joining our Cult, you lessen their ability to trap you in their conspiracy. Does this make us cult members paranoid?

Sure, if you're a cult member long enough, it comes with the territory.

Every time I'm offered food from an unknown origin, I contemplate what poisons it may contain, and whether or not I'll make the judgement as to whether or not I ingest it. In my own experiences, I find that minor transgressions of cult orthodoxy, like small amounts of refined sugar have little to no ill effects on my health, so I will occasionally eat some ice cream or some dark chocolate. On the other hand, when I eat almost any amounts of Omega 6-imbalanced, partially-hydrogenated oils, it usually instigates an inflammatory reaction that require medication to alleviate.

In short, eating a regular sized serving of french fries or a typical doughnut fried in "vegetable" oil, always results in myself suffering an asthma attack within an hour or so. But that's just me. Other cult members may not experience any such reactions, so they can decide for themselves on when, where and why they decide to ignore the tenets of our cult.

YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY

If you're the sort of person who believes that anything labelled as a conspiracy theory is crazy, and only lunatics and crackpots believe in said theories, than membership in our cult is certainly not for you.

If you cannot comprehend the notion that certain toxic substances are manufactured, packaged and sold for massive profits, and that the regular person eating such fare regularly for a long period of time will eventually become sick, than quite frankly, you are not smart enough to belong in our cult.

Yes, we can be a bit elitist like that.

After all, calories in < calories out is all that matters, anything more is deranged fantasy!

Trust me, looking at people who tout such beliefs emphatically, we who come from the perspective of being a Paleo Conspiracy cult member, consider you to be the brainwashed, ignorant fool.

That makes us even.

I'll stick to my fanatical cult outside of the mainstream, conventional wisdom.

Feel free to stick with yours, I and my fellow cult members really don't care.

But if you're interested in joining up, stay tuned...

Up Next: Paleo Cult Conspiracy Initiation

Finding Your Freedom

2012-01-22T13:28:00.000-08:00

This post is long overdue, and for that, I owe Frost an apology. I've had a lot of eventful things happen to me in the past several months, and I simply haven't found the time to sit down and read his advance review copy of his book, Freedom-Twenty-Five: A 21st Century Man's Guide to Life that he emailed my last November.

Thanks to some bad weather cancelling a planned hunting excursion for today, I decided to finally get around to doing what I promised Frost I'd do before he departed for Thailand in search of freedom and personal fulfillment.

So here I am, two hours later, having sat down and read Frost's first foray into publishing self-help lit, in a single sitting.

I must say, it was better than I anticipated. His style is easily accessible, and it's a relatively quick read at 152 pages. Frost's literary voice comes across like the personal advice from a big brother or a wise old uncle, sharing his hard won knowledge with a member of the younger generation over a few beers.

This, I think, is the right tone for him to take, given his goal he states quite clearly in the opening chapter:

This book is a wake-up call for our generation. Its goal is to set you free.

From what exactly? Well, that's where things get interesting. The first step on your path to freedom is identifying the chains that bind you. This is difficult if you've been bearing their weight for so long that you no longer notice the burden.

Some chains are easy enough to recognize. Are you fat and weak? You probably already know you'd rather be fit and strong. Are you poor? You already know that you want to make more money.

Other chains are more subtle.

If you buy this book and read it (and I certainly recommend it, especially for young men in their teens and early 20's), whether you agree or disagree with Frost's premises and proscriptions, one thing is for sure: his book will certainly make you think about things in a new light and perhaps identify patterns and behaviors that you mindlessly engage in. It may make you realize just how many things in your life are nothing more than playing the role of a script that someone or something else has written for you. As he wrote:

This book will ask you hard questions like these, because they are catalysts for introspection and lifestyle changes.

Frost, like many of us in the alternative blogosphere, had an epiphany: that the people who write the script of our Brave New World Order that directs us on how we SHOULD live our life, are not really interested in having we the sheeple develop true health, independence, self-reliance, and the confidence and self-esteem that comes from true personal achievement.

No, indeed, it is quite the opposite - unhappy, distracted, unhealthy, confused and incapable of forming meaningful relationships in the real world IS the script they want us to follow. This leaves us susceptible to the true motive: to make we the sheeple nothing more than consumers and human resources.

It is the script that is both consciously and subconsciously directed by our mass media society, government and ~~educational~~ indoctrination institutions.

In short, Frost is relating to the reader how he realized how much of his existence was going according to this script written for him by the social engineers of our Brave New World Order, and how he decided to rip it up and write his own script.

I had a crisis. I realized that I had spent my entire life working towards pre-defined goals: Making other people think I'm cool; getting good grades; getting this or that degree; getting a good job. But I had never stopped to consider whether they were worthy or not. I had never actively considered what my goals were, rather than what other people decided they should be.

I'm more than a decade older than Frost. In this respect I envy the time he has gained in comparison to my own epiphany that I had in my mid-30's. Frost discovered these hard truth's at an earlier stage in his life, and he quickly realized that life is too short to simply follow the standard script. So he went about acting upon the revelations he gained and put a plan into action to find his own freedom.

BEWARE: Reading this book may give you similar inspiration and cause you to radically alter your life.

The most appealing aspect of the book Frost does not come across as an insufferable know-it-all telling you that there is only one path to happiness and success, and that he's got it all figured out. The best advice he gives in the entire book is this:

No single guru will be able to give you all the tools you need to create a set of systems and routines that work best for you personally. Instead, you'll have to mix and match advice from a variety of sources and tailor your own approach.

Freedom-Twenty Five is about how one man did his own research and self experimentation to find what works for him. With this hard won knowledge, he created his own set of systems and routines that work for him personally. He offers you an example of how he did it for himself, and he urges you to do the same and experience the same positive results he has.

If you take away just one idea from this book, I want it to be this: You have more options available in your life than you think. Many of the paths that you've ruled out only seem impossible or difficult because you've been conditioned to see them that way. Break free from the mental prison, and alternatives to mediocrity start to appear everywhere.

If this is the primary goal Frost set out to achieve in writing this book, IMO he succeeded. This book may very well be the wake up call a young man needs to avoid conforming into the typical life of a virtually disconnected, mindless consumer and corporate human resource.

I have a few young men in mind who I think could greatly benefit from reading it, and I shall be giving it to them in the hopes that they too realize that their own freedom and chance at personal fulfillment is in their hands. Take a chance and give it read, you might too.

The Last Bastion of Freedom of Speech is Under Threat

2012-01-18T01:18:00.000-08:00

UPDATE - January 19, 2012

Ironic that Google's anti-spam bot censored me for using the SOPA strike java script to participate in the blackout yesterday. Gave me a nice preview of what it would be like if such a law were to be passed and the Government decided to take me offline without warning. lOZLZOLOLZLOL

Ah well...gotta run off to work now.

Think He Knew What He Was Talking About?

2012-01-16T15:31:00.000-08:00

Vox Day makes the case in his recent World Net Daily column that Ron Paul is the only candidate who knew what was going on 10 years ago, so he must be the only current candidate in the election one who is actually qualified to be the President given our current situation.

Let's take a closer look at the quote Vox used to start off his column:

"Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse."

Check.

"Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money."

Despite claiming otherwise, the Central Bankers seem to think so...

"Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act."

Check, check, check and check.

"The Congress and the president will shift radically, expanding the size and scope of the federal government."

Check.

"This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives. Military and police power will grow, satisfying the conservatives."

Check.

"The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals."

Check.

"Both sides will endorse military interventionism overseas."

Check and check.

"During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free while they become more dependent upon the government for economic security."

Check

"I have no timetable for these predictions, but keep them around and look at them in five to ten years. I hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts.”

– Rep. Ron Paul, April 24, 2002

Think Ron Paul knew what he was talking about?

For those who recognize the truth of Paul's predictions, you may ask yourself "How did he know all this?"

Simple.

Ron Paul understands the truth of our system. We in the West (not just the USA Inc.) are a globalized welfare-warfare state.

The amalgamation of the left-right political dialectic.

"Two-Party" politics.

Have a look at Duane Colyar's The Evolution of the Welfare-Warfare State and you just might realize that in fact all of Paul's "predictions" were based on understanding the truth of the following flowchart:

Following the progression of this flowchart, we can see that our current system has gone through a multitude of iterations here on a variety of fronts. Think of this chart in terms of all the ideological wars declared by the Government in the last several decades:

War on Poverty -> War on Drugs -> War on Terror

With some minor modifications, this flow chart from Duane Coylar nicely applies to all of those welfare-warfare state expansion platforms.

In short, the "New World Order" is the spread of these idealogical wars of the globalized welfare-warfare state to all shores of the planet.

At this point in time, we are at stage 8 with regards to Iran, the latest front in the "War on Terror."

Understanding the architecture of this evolution of the welfare-warfare state is precisely how Ron Paul was able to accurately forecast the realities of 2012, back in 2002.

Like Ron Paul, Vox Day also knows what he's talking about when he writes:

Let me be blunt. If you do not actively support Ron Paul’s campaign to be the next president of the United States of America – if you do not pray on a daily basis for his success – then you are a fool. You are a complete, unadulterated and unmitigated fool. It doesn’t matter if you are a liberal Democrat who bought into Barack Obama’s fraudulent hope and change propaganda or a conservative Republican who is still reeling with the shock from eight years of ceaseless ideological treachery by George W. Bush. If you have even a modicum of concern for the survival of America, either as a nation or as a constitutional ideal, there is demonstrably only one candidate who has any understanding of the size and scope of the challenges presently facing the American people.

Pau Hana

2012-01-11T23:18:00.000-08:00

Been earning my living and fulfilling the provider obligations to my family by the sweat of my brow, 6 days a week. Hard work makes for thirsty work. Here in Hawaii, when a hard day's work is done, we say "Pau Hana!" -- the work is done.

Pau hana means it's almost time for the ritual imbibing of libations enjoyed by most blue collar workers everywhere. You know, that time of day one looks forward too while laboring for hours under the sun's radiant heat: BEER:30 PM

Those of you in colder, wintry climes reading this, it may same like I'm complaining...e kala mai {excuse me} but I'm not. I love the heat of the sun, but it is tiring to work long hours in 80 degree tropical sunshine with my shirt off at mid-day, working on my tan in the middle of January.

Hard my life, yeah? lozlolzlol

By the time I get home after a day of labor in the tropical sun, I've already had a couple of micro-brewed, high alcohol content (typically 6-9%) pale ales. The fasted exertion of working 8 hours without consuming anything but morning coffee, water and a cigar at lunch break, leaves me with a vague sense of hunger...but it quickly dissipates after the first gulp of a cold brew. The buzz starts to kick before the first ale is finished.

Imagine that. All those liquid carbs made from fermented grain mash on an empty stomach. I imagine it causes my blood sugar to spike pretty high. Shhhh...don't tell anyone! Wouldn't want to get kicked out of the paleo conspiracy cult by the more zealous paleo diet adherents!

By the third ale, I'm at home and freshly showered and playing with paleo baby - who is now more like paleo toddler. Then the wife serves dinner and suddenly the sight and smell of a hot plate of home cooked, real food, reawakens the ravenous beast in my belly. I devour my food, than finish with a dram or two of either Scottish single malt or some of Kentucky's finest straight whiskey, and then it's time to log on and check the email and read up on the blogroll with a nightcap.

Ideas for blog posts come to mind, but lately I've just been too tired and buzzing pleasantly from the ale and whiskey to feel the mental energy required to go through with signing in here and start composing a new post.

I'm no longer a cubicle desk jockey in which I'm logged on to teh interwebz 8 hours a day of alternating between my old virtual work and blog reading, commenting and writing. I've also had ideas for some more Spearhead and IMF entries. The old cliche about the older you get, the less time you have seems to take on new meaning. I'll get around to those ideas eventually.

As much as I enjoy the extemporaneous composition of writing posts, I enjoy reading more. Sometimes I read blogs and comment threads til I'm nodding off. Blogging ideas oft come to mind when I first log on, but they remain unfulfilled and filed away for future effort when I lose the time in reading other people's posts and comment threads.

The only reason I'm writing right now is because I decided to do a quick check today on the level of substance dependence I may or may not have developed as of late. I abstained from my now customary stop at the grocery store on the way home for some micro-brew. Nor did I indulge in a dram of my modest collection of cask-aged firewater.

No problem.

No feel of "need" or that I'm missing something.

Good. I may drink a bit too frequently, but I know it's still not hit the point of being a mental or physical crutch that I HAVE to have. But I do begin to suspect my lack of inspiration for blogging about the same old - same old has something to do with my now customary post-work libations. It's either have some drinks, relax, and go to bed and get ready for another day of hard work to support the family...or sobriety and the increase in inspiration and motivation necessary for blogging.

Given such a choice, I don't expect to resume regular posting anytime soon.

Cheers!

Proud Member of the Paleo Conspiracy Cult

2012-01-06T01:45:00.000-08:00

Interesting debate thread over at PMAFT's discussing Alek Novy's activities on teh interwebz. (Hat tip to Chuck at GLP for bringing it to my attention.)

Novy once wrote a very good post about why he links to blogs that other people may find objectionable.

I agreed with his premise, and like I do with any blogger who writes something I find interesting and/or compelling, I added him to my blogroll.

In 5 years of blogging, he remains the sole person I've ever bothered to remove from my blogroll.

His hysterical, over-the-top, ALL CAPS rantings against "gamers" and "paleo diet cult members" annoyed me to the point that I actually got off my ass and actually bothered to log in to my blogger control panel and delete him.

When it comes to "game" I really no longer give a shit about the entire "game" vs. "anti-game" arguments.

I have always supported, linked to, and regularly read MRA/MGTOW bloggers like Fidelbogen and Paul Elam, even if I disagree with their stated positions on game. Game is a personal, individual thing. A tool. Use it or not, YMMV.

If you read about the concept of game, and ruminate on it and reflect on your personal experiences...you either get it, or you don't.

Some folks are simply incapable of wrapping their mind about what Game theory actually represents. Because anyone who has an ounce of logic and critical thinking skills, can find the basic fundamentals of game theory for free on teh interwebz, and figure out how it applies to their own lives, their own history and experiences.

That's what I did. Hell, I did not pay a single dime to anyone for a damn thing related to game. The only game books I've ever read where Roosh's books...and I got those for free from some generous IP pirate that emailed me .pdf versions of Bang and Dead Bat in Paraquay. (Sorry Roosh...I'll at least say they were both good books and advise others that it would be worth their time and money to buy them!)

Other than that, everything I learned about this thing called "game" was from blogs and forums I found on the internet for free...before I ever heard of Roissy and his now infamous blog. (That's not to detract from Roissy at all...but Novy and his crew seem to think anyone that enjoys Roissy's blog is a cult member mindlessly worshiping him and incapable of thinking for themselves).

Gee, what a scam and conspiracy theory, eh? Reading some advice for free on teh interwebz, experimenting with it on my own to see if it works or not, than sharing my own results with others (for free) and comparing notes with others who tried the same sort of experiments.

My, how cultish, diabolical and conspiratorial.

But when it comes to Novy's unhinged diatribes against PUA community "gurus" and "masters," I actually agree with about half of his criticisms. There most certainly does exist a subset of slick marketers, fraudsters and charlatans out to make a quick buck off of sexually frustrated men who are simply clueless about how to attract and seduce women. You don't need seminars, DVD sets, books, or e-newsletter subscriptions from so-called gurus. Just some self-awareness and critical thinking skills to digest and comprehend what so many other folks are discussing - for free - on blogs and forums throughout the manosphere.

But Novy's anti-game jihad is not why I'm writing this post. He really goes off the rails when he shoots off about the paleo diet being a "cult" and just another "fad diet."

Here's what Novy wrote about the "Paleo cult" -

“You end up eating less calories while believing calories don’t matter, and lose weight, and then attribute it to a conspiracy theory that tricked you into eating less.”

I responded over at PMAFT's:

How about I eat 3000 calories of meat, egg, cheese and veggies sauteed in butter every day for a month.

You eat 2500 calories of twinkies, cookies, crackers, cake, soda, ice cream and candy every day for a month.

We can both follow the exact same exercise regimen, with you eating 500 calories less than I.

What does logic and scientific inquiry lead you to understand what would happen where we to conduct such an experiment?

No response yet.

The more I think about it, the more I've come to revile this simplistic, idiotic notion that the be-all-end-all consideration when it comes to diet, is based on counting calories, and burning more calories via exercise than you eat.

See, the Paleo "cult" is not concerned with WEIGHT LOSS as it's ultimate goal. This is why it is not a "fad diet." The primary concern is eating real food that is nutrient dense. Nutrient dense foods allow the body to function the way it was designed/evolved to. Weight loss is just one aspect of the health results one gets when they remove modern, processed junk food from their diet.

When I "joined the cult" back in 2007, I was overweight and approaching the obesity point (despite a regular regimen of weight lifting, martial arts and other physical recreational activities like surfing, diving, hiking and hunting). I was certainly starting to transform into a "Hawaiian blob." I was trying for years to eat healthy according to the conventional wisdom - low-fat/whole grain/lots of fruits and vegetables. Didn't matter, still got fatter.

Just like "game," I discovered the Weston Price Foundation, and than later on the Paleo "cult" blogosphere. Again, I paid exactly $0.00 to read and apply the principles of the WAPF Nourishing Traditions & Paleo diet concepts. Within the first 3 months, I lost all the excess weight. My growing "beer belly" shrank to nothing. I went from 225 lbs. to 185.

That was over 4 years ago. When I stepped on the scale tonight, I was 186. At 38 years of age, I look, feel and perform in better shape now than when I was 28.

Must be the "placebo effect" of being a brainwashed cult member.

Since then, I've come to understand that "paleo" is about so much more than simply losing weight. It's not a "fad diet." It's simply about understanding the difference between real, wholesome foods and how they provide nutrition for the body....versus man-made, mass processed crap that makes you sick when you consume enough of it over a long enough period of time.

Aside from the weight loss, and keeping it off for 4 years and counting (gee...some fad diet there), I've experienced a number of other health benefits that come from eating a nutrient dense diet and avoiding the modern, manufactured, processed junk foods. But I'm sure those dramatic changes in health, stamina and strength are just more iterations of the placebo effects that only happened because I've been brainwashed by the paleo conspiracy cult!

I mean, why would I question the tenets of my cult?

Do you think 500 calories of fresh caught wild fish from the Pacific ocean, eaten raw, would have the exact same effects on your health as eating 500 calories of a factory farmed fish fillet, seasoned, breaded in white flour bread crumbs, flash-frozen, wrapped in plastic and shipped thousands of miles away...then deep fried in partially hydrogenated soybean oil typically used in most restaurant's deep fat friers? Do you really think there's no nutritional difference between the two?

500 calories is 500 calories!

How about 800 calories of grass fed beef steak, pan-fried in grass-fed butter...versus 800 calories of lean chicken breast fried in non-stick, non-fat (aka soybean oil) cooking spray? No difference? Really?

After all, calories are calories?!?!

Just eat less and exercise more!

Anything more than that means you're just a delusional cult member fooling yourself with the placebo effect!

Ah...but don't take it from me.

I'm just a "Hawaiian blob" and a "conspiracy theorist."

How about this recent article from the Vancouver Sun: Trans fats linked to brain shrinkage

Some trans fats are found naturally, in small amounts, in dairy products, beef and lamb, but the trans fats in the study are hidden in cakes, flaky pastries, potato chips and other fried, frozen and processed food. Trans fatty acids increase inflammation, make arteries harder and decrease heart rhythm, increasing the risk of cardiac arrest.

Only a handful of studies have looked at the relationship between trans fats and brain function, Bowman said. "I think our study is one of the first to look at blood levels of trans fats related to brain health."

Evidence suggests that trans fats can replace good fats in cell membranes, "and when that occurs it changes the structure and chemical properties of the cell in an unfavourable way," Bowman said.

"Trans fats are known to be bad for cardiovascular health," he said. "It makes sense that they're probably bad for the brain, too."

He recommended avoiding processed foods that list "partially hydrogenated oils" on the ingredient list. "That's trans fat," Bowman said.

This article sums up the difference between us paleo cultists and regular, sane folks like Novy and his crew of pro-establishment sycophants.

See, it doesn't take a genius to understand that our distant ancestors would have never eaten something like trans-fats created in an industrial facility from rancid, oxidized vegetable oils.

But hey....taking Novy's expert pronouncements to it's logical conclusion, why ingesting 500 calories of partially hydrogenated soybean oil (aka margarine) is no different than 500 calories of Grade AA grass-fed butter! To believe otherwise is just the placebo effect caused by the delusions that come with joining a cult!

If that's the case, than I am happy to say that I'm a proud paleo-conspiracy cult member. Wouldn't you like to join the cult too?

Let me know and I'll set up your initiation ASAP.

There Are Two Abusive People in Every Abusive Relationship

2012-01-03T12:44:00.000-08:00

A commenter at Henry Makow's website (Doh! A CONSPIRACY THEORIST WEBSITE REFERENCE! MOVE ALONG FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE HERE!) made a very profound statement in response to the following article: "My Marriage is a Living Hell," - Tender-hearted man

"There are two abusive people in every abusive relationship - the abuser and the person abusing themselves by staying in the relationship."

In effecting the dramatic changes of society to forge our Brave New World Order, the social engineers struck at the root by attacking Patriarchal Marriage, and the biggest blow came from convincing people that if they are in "an abusive relationship," they are blameless victims justified in destroying there homes through divorce.

Any spouse unhappy with their situation can then interpret anything they like as "abusive" to rationalize vindictive divorce battles, infidelities, and other ruthless, family destroying behavior.

This mentality is the primary driver of frivolous divorce.

It is based on ignoring a basic principle of what constitutes a mature adult: personal responsibility.

Recognizing and accepting the consequences for your own behavior.

Take the initial article that inspired the comment -

I have been married for 35 years, most of which have been a living hell. I've stayed married for the sake of my children and now that they are in their early twenties I still stay because I've been here so long.

At 58, with a shitty pathetic economy, it's hard to imagine being able to sustain myself alone. I've left my wife over the years, three times in all. I always came back. My last exit was in 2008; I just couldn't take the brash hatred, angry aggression and abusive lashing out verbally any longer.

I'm ashamed to say a few weeks later I had a panic attack and I thought I was losing my mind. I went back again but this time I was forced to go to "wife batterer's" meetings for six months. In their eyes, any affront to a woman is abuse, no matter how much she screams, throws things, gets in your face, drives you to the point of insanity.....it's still your fault. I found out later the instructor had an abusive father and could not believe a woman could be abusive. My thought was, "What a freaking idiot!"

My wife is a full blooded Irish, with a temper from hell. You're so right as to how a woman who forces her way to control the home, her children and her husband castrates her husband.

I feel weak, depressed and just wait to die. We haven't had sex in four years even though she says she wants to but the thought of it makes me want to puke. My wife is a wonderful woman but a horrible demon for a wife.

Women who have borderline personality disorders or bipolar disorder should never be allowed to marry anyone. I think that's what she has, that and being the daughter of one of the biggest bitches I ever met....thank God she's dead now. I watched her father get nagged to death. My wife is a control freak who constantly complains about everything I do or don't do. She never shows me any respect and never has anything good to say about me. Conversely, she is convinced I'm the control freak who's tried to control her, her whole married life, the source of her unhappiness and so on. Some of our friends have seen a glimpse of what she's like but she hides it when anyone is around. Personally, I don't know any man who is in control of his home. Just as soon as you want to do something they don't like, you'll find out how much control you don't have. I also believe women are the most evil creatures God ever created.

I'm a sensitive man, tender-hearted and kind. This is not to say or imply I'm a weak kneed wimp, far from it. I spent 12 yrs in the Navy and I have no problem getting in somebody's face if its needed.

But I, like many men, am starving for affection, kindness, respect and an ounce of tenderness from their spouse or any woman for that matter. This is one reason, so many men cheat on their wives...no affection at home. On the other hand, it's also one of the reasons why some men turn out to be crazy killers....don't worry, I have a conscience and couldn't ever do it. I'd be quicker to do it myself just to stop the pain. The Illuminati is doing a damn good job of destroying men.

One bit of advice I give people who are considering being married is this, "Look at how your girlfriend or boyfriend's parents treat each other. Watch how the mother treats her husband, because if you're a man....that's how you're going to be treated. It's also how she is going to expect to be treated, good or bad." I wish I knew then what I know now.

This poor sap's story is sad on so many fronts...but the worst of it is to see how thoroughly he's adopted the "I'm a victim" mindset. Any woman who has ever filed for a restraining order for domestic abuse, or has gone through numerous break ups and reunions with an abusive man could have written this entire complaint verbatim.

I've heard many a dissembling woman tearfully relating a litany of emotional and verbal "abuse" from her "controlling" boyfriend or husband, seeking to gain the sympathy of the listener. Back in the blue pill days, I'd fall for it too. Poor abused woman, trapped by an abusive asshole man!

In any case, this sort of victim sees nothing here for which he was responsible for. The only point he even comes close to it, is his advice at the end about observing a woman's parental relationship dynamics as a portend for how she will end up treating you.

While that certainly is good advice, it still doesn't absolve this guy from the responsibility he has to himself. The true abuser in this guys sad tale is the abuse he is inflicting on himself by rationalizing and justifying the reasons as to why he's stayed in the relationship, and why he continues to stay.

He calls his marriage a living hell.

It's a self-made hell.

Man or woman, you can only be as abused as you allow yourself to be.

Voting For Our Perpetual Enslavement

2011-12-31T14:39:00.000-08:00

Up until the second George W. Bush term, I took the "lesser of two evils" approach to voting. I registered, I stood in line, and I "exercised my freedom" to "do my part" to chose my new set of rulers for the next period of time.

A single trite statement at Vox Day's blog woke me up from this dialectical belief in voting I had been brainwashed with: voting for the lesser of two evil's is still voting for evil.

Since abandoning the voting booth, I've only become more steadfast in my belief that abstaining from voting is the only logical course of action under the two-party system. Now...if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, and he actually makes it alive to the General election, I'll re-register, get in line and cast my vote for the man who represents literal good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny...or to put it more starkly - the first non-Federal Reserve/Council on Foreign Relations stooge to have a realistic shot at the Presidency in my lifetime.

Because unless you vote for someone who stands for obliterating the status quo and ending the Bankster Party's 98 year stranglehold on political power (they've run the show since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913), voting for any other candidate than one opposed to the Bankster party's agenda is simply assenting to our collective Slavery.

Gary North describes it plainly in his latest post:

Whenever any would-be borrower approaches a lender for a loan, he must be prepared to offer collateral, just in case he cannot repay the loan. If he defaults, the lender wants to be able to gain possession of the collateral, and obtain it quickly.

Every government that uses bond sales to maintain its level of expenditures must offer collateral. This collateral is its ability to extract sufficient revenue from those people under its jurisdiction so that it can make interest payments on the bonds.

As North titled his article: YOU ARE WASHINGTON'S COLLATERAL

Think comparing a typical American voting tax payer to slaves is a bit over the top hyperbole?

North makes an analogy that clearly shows that in fact calling voting taxpayers complicit in their own slavery a literal statement of fact:

In the South of 1850, a planter could buy slaves on credit. He pledged the future productivity of his slaves as collateral for the loan. He made sure that he extracted sufficient wealth from the slaves to pay off his loans. He lived well. They didn't.

Why did he borrow? In order to buy more slaves. He used leverage. He built his plantation with borrowed money and the heirs of kidnapped victims. It was good business.

The typical voter thinks of himself as a free man. After all, he has the right to vote. He does not think of himself as a slave. While trade union organizers – a truly hopeless career these days – still use the phrase "wage slave," it never made any sense, either legally or economically. A worker can legally walk away from his employer. A slave cannot.

What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes on money you earned with your own labor? Our slave masters will show up with guns in your face and convert you from a productive slave into another make-work project for the Industrial-Prison complex.

Washington has borrowed more heavily than any planter ever dared to or could do. Why so much debt? To get more leverage today. What is being leveraged? Promises. Voters trade votes for government promises. This system requires an ever-increasing supply of slaves in order to pay the interest on the debt. Problem: the rate of population growth is slowing. There will not be enough slaves to pay off the debt.

Voters have not thought through the implications of government debt. They do not perceive themselves as collateral for loans. But they are. This is the meaning of the phrase, "the full faith and credit of the United States government."

This is the reality behind the admonishment of those of us who see "democracy" for the illusory lie that it is. "The Right to Vote" is nothing more than a mass delusion of implied consent to the systemic enslavement of the people to the State.

If you vote, and you base your vote on the idea that the politician you are voting for has suggested some policy or platform that involves using tax dollars to achieve it, you are complicit in your own slavery.

Often times, when I write a post like this, I often get negative feedback from commenters that I'm condescending or coming across as thinking myself superior to the average citizen. The phrase "sheeple" seems to offend many.

My fellow tax slaves, I'm no better off than you. When I say WE THE SHEEPLE, I am including myself in that statement.

I'm every bit the slave you are.

The only difference is, I've decided I will no longer go along with it as much as possible. I will resist wherever and whenever I can.

As long as we have a Central Banking Cartel system based on fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, and a government that finances it's operations by borrowing from that cartel using WE THE SHEEPLE's future labor earnings extracted by force as it's collateral, a vote for any politician who is NOT seeking to end the Federal Reserve Banking system and the Government borrowing endlessly from it, is a vote assenting to your own slavery.

I am a slave like anyone else in today's Brave New World Order. I do not vote, because I do not wish to be complicit in my own slavery.

In the 2012 election, Ron Paul is the only vote that would be a vote against our collective enslavement.

I'd like to wish all my readers a happy new year. I can't believe I've been doing this blogging thing for 5 years now. Thanks to all for your reading, and thanks to all for your commenting.

Hau'oli Makahiki Hou

BTW

2011-12-24T13:31:00.001-08:00

Merry Christmas

The Sun Rises in the East

2011-12-24T13:08:00.000-08:00

I started writing this comment, than realized it reached post-worthy length, so here it appears, rather than where it was originally composed.

I like Susan Walsh and her blog, Hooking Up Smart.

Interesting blog, interesting perspective, unique comment section.

That being said...after reading this entire thread and it's comments, Dalrock's take on this entire conflict looks accurate to me:

Susan appears to have taken my repeated efforts to keep any disagreement from becoming personal as a sign of weakness. Instead of debate the issue, she scolded me like a dog which just soiled the carpet. She has never yet either defended her claim or withdrawn it. In place of debate, she kicks up dust and makes accusations. She wanted to make it personal; she outright insisted. So be it.

Logic has cornered Feminine emoting.

Is Frivolous Divorce Overstated in the Manosphere?

Not just no, but HELL NO.

In the face of indisputable logic, dissembling is the female's primary defense.

This is what Susan is doing here.

Saying so does not mean I am "piling on" or "attacking" her (please note the first line of this post).

I'm just pointing to the rising sun and saying - "The Sun rises in the East."

When a woman engages her emotions because she feels attacked, this is what she defaults to. I've been married for 14 years and counting now, and believe you me, I understand this perfectly.

It's a very hard earned wisdom to learn to recognize this dynamic in action between your wife and yourself. Ignorance of this nearly lead to a frivolous divorce of my own on several occasions.

All women do this when they FEEL attacked...and it's obvious that Susan feels attacked here.

Dalrock has consistently reminded her (and everyone else) that he's endeavored to keep the debate impersonal and respectful, and focused solely on the conflicting ideas:

@Susan Walsh

I’m no victim, just a realist. Dalrock has had me in front of the firing squad several times before, lol.

This only makes sense if your definition of “firing squad” is “challenged me to back up my statements in a non personal way”. I’ve gone out of my way to frame any disagreements we have as not personal, and have repeatedly asked my readers to offer you the same courtesy. I only wish you had responded in kind. This is a sphere of intellectual debate, sometimes involving strong intellectual disagreement.

That you can’t separate this from the personal suggests to me that you aren’t cut out for what you are doing. You have a worldwide platform, are mentioned in the national media, and I’m sure have thousands of hits a day on your site. Yet you want to be allowed to say whatever you want as “your own truth”, and anyone who challenges this (even while taking pains to make it non personal) is a mean man who hurt your feelings.

IMO, Susan has failed to refute Dalrock's logic and he has accurately called her out on her dissembling.

All that being said, I'm not commenting here to declare a winner.

(I still like Susan, her blog and I still endorse that others continue to read her.)

Rather, I'd like to make an observation:

This entire debate is similar to an argument between a husband and wife, in which the husband is arguing with logic and the wife is arguing with emotion.

Logic vs. Emotion = masculine frame vs. feminine frame

The thread is an excellent example of Dalrock demonstrating "married man game" in this debate.

Of course, for a happily married father in a post-feminist world, he makes it look effortless.

It's much harder for a husband who is not aware of the subtext of his logic-based argument vs. her emotion-based response frame of interaction with his wife, and mistakenly thinks that they are both discussing a point of logic.

Husbands don't like to see their wives upset or angry. When we don't know any better (take the blue pill), we seek to appease and end the emotional onslaught, even when we know we are logically correct.

This is precisely how the AMC (Average Married Chump) often finds himself "winning" an argument, but still losing it in the long run. That's because he acceded to her frame instead of reaffirming his own.

You proved your point, you were 100% correct...yet you're still sleeping on the couch.

See the similarities with this current debate?

Because Susan is generally well regarded in the manosphere (note regular manosphere commenter Clarence's vigorous defense; note once again the first thing I wrote in this comment,) and has had good will and a history of positive interactions with Dalrock and many other manosphere bloggers, Dalrock could have relented his frame and offered Susan an easy out here and not held her feet to the fire of his logic in an effort to soothe this all over.

"Can't we all just get along?"

This is the temptation husbands face with upset wives.

Take note men. When you are right, and you know it...act like it, no matter how upset she appears to get, no matter how much of a soft spot you may have for her. That is the only way you both "win" an argument.

Blue Collar Blues

2011-12-17T12:01:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned previously, I've been working the blue collar trades again to make ends meet. Been meeting a whole bunch of new guys I work with, and like most men who labor together for hours, we start to share our life stories.

I literally work with an entire crew of men who are all forced to work under-the-table just to survive, because working above board and on the books would result in garnishment of their wages by the State of Hawaii child support enforcement bureaucracy.

These are guys in their mid-40's with ex-wives getting 60% of their unemployment checks garnished...and unemployment checks are only a fraction of what these guys used to make before joining the swelling ranks of laid off workers in our Great Depression 2.0.

One guy's story is especially maddening.

He came home one day because a job had gotten rained out, only to find the mother of his two children getting her ass nailed to the bed by their neighbor. He went nuts punching holes in the wall and breaking things (but never touched her) while the neighbor ran out of the house. The cops got called and he ended up getting arrested for domestic violence.

She ended up with the house and a child support settlement.

He drives an old beat up pickup truck, she drives a lexus.

He lives in a small apartment, she a three bedroom house in an upper middle class property in suburbia, and her never employed loser boyfriend lives with her and the two kids.

She hasn't had any kind of job in 20 years. He's essentially paying her to live a comfortable life for her and her live-in surf bum fuckbuddy.

She gets 60% of his unemployment check, forcing him to find under-the-table work just to pay his own rent, food and transportation bills.

She regularly denies him visitation. He's filed more petitions than he can count to force her to allow him time with the kids he's supposed to have under their court adjudicated divorce settlement. They never enforce her violations of his visitation rights. The only thing he ever gets told is to file another petition. He finally gave up in frustration.

His son is now in his late teens...and he, like so many other boys raised in the typical broken home of our brave new world order, has gone off the rails and gotten involved in petty crimes, drugs and is now in rehab.

And now the ex-wife is telling him that once the boy turns 18, she thinks it would be better for the boy to come live with him in his one bedroom apartment.

While he is like most guys, a blue pill dude all the way, he fully comprehended the injustice of it all. He noted that of course, as soon as the son was no longer going to bring her child support revenue, only then does she now want their son to spend quality time with him.

In my new-coworker's words "Unreal, yeah? I'm basically a slave to her! I'm barely making ends meet, and she's buying jewelry and a new car ever few years...all paid for with my sweat and hard work!"

That's when I quipped "Now you know the truth. They call it No-fault divorce, but they treat it like it's "his-fault."

He laughed when I said that. He said he could only laugh now, because he'd spent so many hours just driving around the island while crying.

I assured him that I indeed knew very well precisely what he was talking about. His story is all too common nowadays. But he is finally hopeful. Despite realizing his ex is playing the system to the hilt, he's still happy to finally have a chance to get to know his son again and try and help him regain a shot at a productive, non-criminal life. And his daughter is only 13, so he's only got 5 more years left of his unjust peonage to his cheating whore and parasite of an ex-wife.

The real travesty of it all is just how common this whole system is. The family court system is a vampire, sucking the life blood of civilized society, one broken family at a time. This is unsustainable in the long run. I've seen this story so many times now in friends, family and acquaintances. Most people never grok the big picture of it all, because they are so consumed with the personal details of their own personal tragedies the system mires them in.

My co-worker told me "the system is broken."

I disagreed. The system is doing precisely what it was designed to do. He asked me what I meant.

Time to hand out a red pill.

I told him that the Federal Government literally matches the funds for every dollar taken from his check in child support. He knew that...he just never considered the implications of it. I said "Think about it...the Federal Government is literally paying the State of Hawaii to break up families like yours. It's an industry unto itself. It's official government policy to break up families. All those social workers and courts...they make their entire living doing what they did to you, to men all over the country."

He was speechless for quite awhile, working while thinking about our conversation intently.

Despite becoming a commonplace experience, most people fail to realize the larger truth that the broken family subsidized by the garnished wages of the working man is the Government preferred family model of our Brave New World Order.

Quiplinks V: Anti-Christ 2012 Edition

2011-12-14T11:48:00.000-08:00

Down-low brother getting the lowdown on the down-low, 666 style. - Tex Arcane

There are actually only two distinct candidates in the 2012 election. There is Ron Paul, who represents the U.S. Constitution, and there is Newt Romney O'Bama, who represents the Bank Party. - Vox Day

I’m happy to announce that I’ve declared jihad on fat American women. - Roosh

There is no way the Prophet could have predicted, with all his infinite wisdom, that one day a single woman would have the girth of two. - Muhammed V

By raising women’s status and emphasizing “equality,” feminism has performed the psychological equivalent of a clitoridectomy on our society’s women. - Welmer

The female strategy has always been to nag and manipulate until men stop doing what men want to do and start doing what women want them to do. - Jack Donovan

The military is really looking for stupid individuals who haven’t figured out what Empire wants from them so they’ve taken the example of video games and turned their recruiting into, “Join, it’ll be just like a video game!” - Simon Rierdon

Off the clock, who cares how you spend your time? My life away from work is my own. Only the slave concerns himself with the value of his non-earning activities. - An Unmarried Man

How can so many people not notice what is going on? - Alte

In other words, Jesus ain’t the reason for our present tumultuous and discordant season. - Ulysses

Most ‘professional’ women are forced into an uncomfortable choice in life. - Rollo Tomassi

The only way game works is if it takes a realistic appraisal of human nature. - Roissy

Roissy was the voice that clarified a unified theory of these three separate fields: Seduction, Sociobiology, and Conservatism. - Frost

One way to look at the history of feminism is consider it as men and women working to remove women’s fears. - Dalrock

For those waiting for my endorsement (and I know you are) it is, of course, Ron Paul. - Default User

There’s no point in trying to band-aid the bullet holes on this country gasping for its last few breaths of greatness. - Terry

People are funny creatures. They don’t care about real things nearly as much as they care about imaginary things. - Delusion Damage

And remember everybody - violence against women must be stopped...violence against men - like a man being drugged, tortured, abused and sexually mutilated - gets good ratings. - Scarecrow

Get ready for some amazing parenting advice from a dude who doesn’t actually have kids! - Bronan

Men should remember that when a woman’s reaction to something is out of all proportion to the stimulus, there is something deeper that is troubling her. - 7man

In the matriarchy, breast cancer is not about breast cancer any more than rape is about rape. - Alcuin

What patriarchy built, hypergamy has tore down. - Peacemaker

Makes me wonder what the remaining 60% are smoking. - Johnny
MILFquest

As with health care, costs rise when the government distorts the market. - G.L. Piggy

We have set up a system which guarantees that everyone will have their heart broken at least once. Why the hell did we do that? - Cassandra Goldman

If you start running from the truth no matter how ugly, you’ll have to keep running and it’s very tiring in the long run… - Omnipotron

Quit Being a Quitter

2011-12-13T13:43:00.000-08:00

In my post advocating Newt Gingrich becoming the GOP Presidential Nominee, I stated that I quit voting. I haven't voted since 2004.

I just read latest post from Wes Messamore, the Humble Libertarian:

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.

Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he's also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he's now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.

Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul's strength in Iowa and Barack Obama's in 2008- he's doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters:

-59% of likely voters participated in the 2008 Republican caucus and they support Gingrich 26-18. But among the 41% of likely voters who are 'new' for 2012 Paul leads Gingrich 25-17 with Romney at 16%. Paul is doing a good job of bringing out folks who haven't done this before.

-He's also very strong with young voters. Among likely caucus goers under 45 Paul is up 30-16 on Gingrich. With those over 45, Gingrich leads him 26-15 with Romney at 17%.

Looks like Mitt Romney has gone the way of Hillary Clinton, the establishment party pick in the 2008 Democratic Primaries:

Like the great, fallen front-runner of 2008, here is another well-funded, Establishment-blessed, presumptive nominee whose supposedly firm hold on his party’s greatest prize seems to be slip-sliding away.

There are differences to be sure, most centrally that Romney has yet to face a Barack Obama-like, central foe (though Newt Gingrich is now auditioning convincingly for that role) but instead has fought a series of rear-guard actions against a series of candidates-of-the-moment.

Right: Mitt Romney is going the way of Hillary Clinton. Wrong: Romney does face a central foe who will unseat him-- Ron Paul. The media-- including the article quoted above-- simply isn't reporting it. But it's happening.

If by some miracle Ron Paul does win the GOP nomination, I will quit quitting on voting. I'll get off my ass and re-register and go and vote. I'll even get my wife to re-register and vote for him too.

END THE FED!

Comparing 1.0 to 2.0

2011-12-12T11:59:00.000-08:00

Vox Day was at the forefront of the blogosphere and most of the mainstream Rockefeller Economists several years ago when he predicted the recession of 2007 would turn into the Great Depression 2.0. He even wrote a book entitled The Return of the Great Depression that came out in 2009, long before most other economists even began to have an inkling that the housing bust would lead to the return of the big D. Here we are, 2 years later, and the premiere Rockefeller Economist cheerleader and partisan hack, Paul Krugman, is finally getting around to admitting what Vox has been forecasting for years now.

I was in agreement with Vox back when he first began predicting this. I've been calling it "Great Depression 2.0" to my family, friends and acquaintances for a couple of years now. Many of them laughed when I first began using the phrase. Many no longer laugh when they hear me use it...and a few have begun using it themselves.

Yet many folks still remain oblivious. They don't understand what the huge fuss is. Things SEEM to be not too bad.

It got me thinking about the differences between Great Depression 1.0 and the current iteration:

- Unlike the 1.0 era, we now have a near majority of Americans who are Government employees. In Hawaii, the State Government is THE largest employer. While Government employees are supposedly paid their salaries and collectively bargained benefits with tax revenues raised from the private sector, we are now in a state for which Governments are simply borrowing astronomical sums of debt-based fiat currency to keep the illusion of running an already broken and unsustainable system going.

- During 1.0, the American society was a far different structure than it is today. The nuclear family was still the foundation of society. Men were by and large family men and dedicated providers. Women were housewives and mothers, and they supported their men as they struggled to find work to provide for their families. The lack of work led to mass migrations of families, with Heads of households looking for work to provide for their households. When there was no work to be found, they depended on charities (most of which were religious-driven) soup kitchens. Now, everyone is living off of extended unemployment benefits and the EBT food stamp system. No one need look for work, just wait for the government check in the mail.

- In our current era, we have an almost infinite supply of technologically driven distractions to keep the masses mollified. Some of the greatest entertainment spectacles available through mass media broadcasting offers mass distraction to every corner of the globe. During the decline of the Roman empire, citizens had to travel to the nearest arena to see the latest spectacle. Now, you just have to turn on a tv or computer or your "smart" phone.

- While Government debt financing has helped to keep the illusion of our unsustainable system going, the same holds true on a personal level. Many folks are living off of their credit cards and equity credit on their houses to keep up the urban and suburban lifestyle appearances of the 21st century.

Despite the many differences between then and now, I still think the end results are still going to be horrific and ghastly.

1.0 purportedly ended with World War 2. Millions of lives were ended, many cities, homes and societies were utterly devastated in the last great war.

We are now in approximately the 5th year of Depression 2.0. If History truly does repeat itself, we are only about halfway through this, and things are going to get much, much worse. The hard times are going to get a lot harder in the near future. When the welfare state ultimately collapses, mass starvation and civil unrest is assured.

I believe that there is no politician or political party that we can elect that is going to make a damn bit of difference. The system is what it is, and this economic disaster is the unavoidable results, regardless of who is in power - CFR Donkeys or CFR Elephants will continue to run the script that got us to this point, and is leading us to a predetermined outcome.

Something more spectacularly disastrous than WW2 is going to be the catalyst the ends the our Great Depression 2.0. Some sort of disaster which leads to permanent changes for society and the way we all live our lives - a New Order of the Ages.

I want Gingrich as the GOP Candidate

2011-12-11T18:14:00.000-08:00

Does this mean I plan on voting for him?

Hell no. I quit voting.

Got better things to do with my time than register and stand in line on election day to carry out a symbolic gesture that really amounts to nothing but reaffirming the status quo of our Brave New World Order and it's current trajectory.

Yes, I support Ron Paul and his "End the Fed" platform.

But I also believe we would be best served if Newt Gingrich were to become the GOP candidate to face Obama in '12.

Why?

If Ron Paul is exactly who he portrays himself as - a strict constitutionalist and avowed enemy of the federal reserve system - a legit electoral win by him will only end up with the good Dr. sharing the fates of JFK and Lincoln: those who control the fiat currency cartel system will never allow a substantial challenge to their monopoly on manufacturing debt-based money for their profit and our servitude.

I want Newt to be the candidate, because I believe his candidacy would wake up a hell of a lot more people to the reality that our "two-party" political system is nothing more than a charade designed to divide and conquer the masses. He's got plenty of baggage that would make many Social Conservatives stay home in disgust, or perhaps wake up to the truth of our so-called "two-party" system.

In either case, it really doesn't matter.

See, whether Obama or Gingrich "win" the presidency, their victory really represents the only true party in today's system: the Council on Foreign Relations party.

Now just exactly who are the primary founders of the CFR? Why, it appears to be the same folks who helped found the Federal Reserve system.

From John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s Wikipedia page:

"...crucially funded the formation and ongoing expenses of the Council on Foreign Relations and its initial headquarters building, in New York in 1921."

Imagine that.

From Newt Gingrich: Cashing In On His Political Connections

Every administration since Woodrow Wilson has staffed their major cabinet positions with members of the CFR, and Newt Gingrich has been right there since 1990 as one of their most articulate and distinguished members and spokespersons. He was already a member of the CFR for five-years before he became the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

We either vote for the CFR Donkey candidate or the CFR Elephant candidate. In either case, we end up with a CFR President and the CFR agenda continues as it always has.

Vote for change?

Not possible when your only available options all come from the same place.

Rockefeller Economics

2011-12-05T11:03:00.000-08:00

Lew Rockwell columnist, Gary North, published a piece today that explains exactly how colleges, Universities and the mainstream media eventually anointed Keynesian economics theory as the only "legitimate" economics theory to be studied, discussed and implemented as official government policy. Everything else is considered fringe, or irrational supporters of an "already proven to have failed" Gold standard money system.

In short, the so called "conspiracy theory" is true.

In the exact same way the Rockefeller Foundation funded the feminist movement through Womynz Study Programs, and the funding of Albert Kinsey's research and report that mainstreamed and normalized sexual deviancy, as well as funding Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, so too did this entity buy out the study of economics.

Gary North points out how:

Higher education in the United States was transformed by Rockefeller money, beginning in 1902: the General Education Board. The GEB made grants to colleges only if they hired Ph.D-holding graduates of a handful of universities, which alone granted the Ph.D. This way, the universities could indirectly take over the rest of the colleges, which were mostly church-related. The strategy worked.

Rockefeller's academic empire included the University of Chicago, which he founded. From the turn of the 20th century, the University of Chicago's department of economics repudiated the use of gold in monetary affairs.

From 1902, the Rockefeller foundation used it's immense wealth to essentially buy higher education in this country. From that point on, it only took 11 years for the Rockefeller-bought PhD economists to promote a paradigm that eventually led to the creation of the Central Banking Cartel, the Federal Reserve.

This is why, as North points out:

There has never been a college textbook in economics that called the FED a government-created cartel that exists for the sake of the largest banks. This outlook shapes the thinking of the students who get certified to teach. They are literally unable intellectually to apply the economic theory in the chapter on cartels to the Federal Reserve System, despite the fact that the theory in the cartel chapter fits seamlessly onto the facts of the FED. Support of central banking is basic to the entire curriculum in modern economics.

The Rockefeller Foundation did more than use grant funding in the early 20th century to influence the entire study of economics. The Federal Reserve Cartel itself has continued the practice as well. North explains:

For decades, the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors (government) and its 12 regional banks (privately owned) have spent tens of millions of dollars (created out of nothing) handing research jobs to academic economists. The FED has literally bought off the profession. This story was concealed for years by the FED and its bought-off defenders, but it has recently surfaced.

North then links to the following Huffington Post article, Priceless: How The Federal Reserve Bought The Economics

The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession, an investigation by the Huffington Post has found.

This dominance helps explain how, even after the Fed failed to foresee the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, the central bank has largely escaped criticism from academic economists. In the Fed's thrall, the economists missed it, too.

"The Fed has a lock on the economics world," says Joshua Rosner, a Wall Street analyst who correctly called the meltdown. "There is no room for other views, which I guess is why economists got it so wrong."

Of course, it must be pointed out here that the Rockefeller's were instrumental in the creation of the Federal Reserve...not just by buying out the economics academic establishment, but also through "supporting" politicians who pushed through the Federal Reserve Act in the first place. This connection is noted at Wikipedia (for which I will not link to, but only point out here that Wiki does represent the so-called mainstream, politically correct source of info, and they too note the Rockefeller/Fed connection). This connection is not just in the minds of what useful idiots and misinformation disseminater's would claim is nothing more than the fevered imagination of "conspiracy theorists." The key politician behind the Federal Reserve Act was Senator Nelson Aldrich, John D. Rockefeller's son-in-law. From the Wiki article on the Federal Reserve:

In early November 1910, Aldrich met with five well known members of the New York banking community to devise a central banking bill. Paul Warburg, an attendee of the meeting and long time advocate of central banking in the U.S., later wrote that Aldrich was "bewildered at all that he had absorbed abroad and he was faced with the difficult task of writing a highly technical bill while being harassed by the daily grind of his parliamentary duties".[25] After ten days of deliberation, the bill, which would later be referred to as the "Aldrich Plan", was agreed upon. It had several key components, including a central bank with a Washington-based headquarters and fifteen branches located throughout the U.S. in geographically strategic locations, and a uniform elastic currency based on gold and commercial paper. Aldrich believed a central banking system with no political involvement was best, but was convinced by Warburg that a plan with no public control was not politically feasible.[25] The compromise involved representation of the public sector on the Board of Directors.[26]

Aldrich's bill met much opposition from politicians. Critics were suspicious of a central bank, and charged Aldrich of being biased due to his close ties to wealthy bankers such as J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Aldrich's son-in-law.

The Federal Reserve is not just a banking cartel with the exclusive rights to create money out of nothing - fiat currency - it has also established a cartel in economics research and study in both higher education and in the media. This is how they control the narrative to maintain their hold on the ability to enslave We the Sheeple with the modern day system of Bankster-run Serfdom.

As Ron Paul continues to gain momentum with his End the Fed campaign, he's not just taking on the Federal Reserve system, he's taking on the entire establishment of academic and mainstream media economists and think tanks...an establishment that should rightly be identified as Rockefeller Economics.

Fasted Exertion

2011-12-01T13:55:00.000-08:00

A Successful Hawaiian Hog Hunt

Ferdinand just reviewed Frost's book, Freedom Twenty-Five: The 21st Century Man’s Guide to Life over at In Mala Fide. I'll have my own review as soon as I get the time to sit down and read the whole thing and render my own assessment of Frost's work. That being said, I found a quote Ferdinand cited interesting, since it's something I've been experimenting with lately - intermittent fasting.

As Frost wrote:

I eat 1-2 meals per day, and I’m almost never hungry. The conventional wisdom states that you should eat five meals a day, which is true if you’re eating a typical American diet and need to constantly snack to maintain your blood sugar. On a high-fat Paleo diet, your body gets used to using dietary and stored fats as its primary energy source, meaning you can go long periods without feeling tired, “hangry” (hungry + angry) or like your stomach is eating itself.

I now frequently go 18 hours without a meal, and by the 17th hour, I feel a vague sense of “Oh yeah, food would be nice right now, wouldn’t it?” But I could just as easily work out, play a game of hockey, or take a nap.

I've been on both ends of this. When I was overweight and following the conventional wisdom that preached avoiding red meat, saturated fat and eating as vegetarian as possible, I was eating 5-6 times a day, and I had wildly fluctuating energy levels, a continually expanding waistline, and late afternoon energy crashes, and a feeling of being befuddled and groggy that required a 30 minute nap just to try and function normally.

Before the weight loss, it was the steady energy levels and no longer having to take a daily nap that was the first major change I noticed once I gave up the SAD and began eating primal. The weight loss took a few months to notice.

But for the first several years, I basically would call my diet "low carb" rather than paleo. I cut out all carbs except for cruciferous veggies. No potatoes. No rice. I still ate 3 meals a day. When I went hiking or hunting, I'd make sure to carry a bunch of snack food (paleo-type stuff, of course - jerky, nuts, cheese, meats etc.).

Upon encountering the practice of Intermittent Fasting in the paleosphere, I didn't really pay much attention to it at first. I basically skipped over any post I came across regarding the topic. After all, I had stabilized my energy levels, lost a bunch of weight and never felt better, why should I fast?

But the longer I stuck to eating primal, the less I felt like eating 3 square meals. Without consciously doing it at first, I began to skip my lunch and start only eating breakfast and dinner. Being a (former) cubicle jockey in business to business sales, I used to pack a daily lunch to eat at my desk.

After several days of not eating my lunches, I started paying attention to the intermittent fasting blogging from the various paleosphere luminaries like Mark Sisson, Richard Nikoley, et al.

But it was J. Stanton's seminal post, Eat Like A Predator, Not Like Prey that finally gave clarity to the theory behind IF for me.

Most importantly, now that you’re no longer eating huge plates of sugar (‘carbohydrates’) and greasy seed oils, you’ll find that big, hearty meals don’t make you fall asleep. You’ll also find that it’s much easier to go without food now that your body is re-accustomed to burning fat.

Aha! This must be why I no longer had an appetite for lunch, given my daily breakfast of bacon, eggs, sausage, mushrooms etc. (fried in butter of course). I had now primarily become reliant on burning fat instead of carbs for my energy, and no longer needed to eat 3 square meals to keep my energy levels steady.

So I settled into a 2 meals a day routine for the past year. Than around August, Stanton posted another piece in which he wrote about hiking Mt. Whitney in a single day completely fasted.

Prior to this post, I had the idea that fasting while working at a desk all day was one thing...but taking on a rigorous physical activity while fasting?

So I thought I'd give it a try.

The next time I went hunting, I didn't eat my normal breakfast, and I didn't pack food.

The hunt lasted for about 8 hours, we caught a pig, and I had to pack it out with my partner...for the most part, carrying it uphill on our backs. Very intense exertion...with the only food in my belly coming from dinner the night before. When I was done, I was hungry, but not to the point of that shaky, sick feeling one gets when you are on the blood sugar roller coaster of a high-carb, SAD.

My experiences jibed with what Stanton related. So I weighed in with my own anecdotal commentary at his site to let him know I appreciated how his insight helped me gain my own:

I laugh at my younger self…when my boar hunting was defined solely as nothing more than a recreational pursuit to engage in with my friends. I did not understand what I was really experiencing by participating in the most primal act of being alive. The experience of fulfilling the naturally ordained role of the human as an omnivorous predator.

I used to pack my bag full of chips, nuts, candy, crackers, granola, energy bars, and gatorade, and have to continually snack while hunting Hawaii’s mountainous rain forests to keep my energy levels up to deal with the rigors of hunting boar with a pack of dogs in rugged terrain.

Now I hunt with only water in my pack. Like other predator species, I hunt hungry. To think an idea so simple — that a primal diet is optimal to engage in the most primal of pursuits — eluded me all those years as a young hunter. My former ignorance speaks to the level of propaganda and misinformation in our culture and its influence regarding our self-awareness of being a predator species.

I was acting like a hunter, but still eating like prey.

We live in a world socially engineered to indoctrinate the masses to make them ignorant of our species’ ecological niche as an omnivorous predator in the cycle of life.

Instead, we are inculcated into a mindset of being cattle in the great domesticated herds of “civilization.”

While hunting taught me the skills and knowledge to kill, clean and butcher prey, I did not embrace the logical conclusion of the hunt. I was squeamish about eating game when I had been raised on a lifetime of factory-farmed, manufactured feed products. I would only cut the most desired cut of meat from the pigs we caught (the tenderloin) and feed the rest to the dogs (they still get there share as their reward for catching it…but I take way more portions for my own family’s use now), and throw the offal and bones away. I used to use heavily flavored and sweetened sauces to try and mask the game flavor of the meat.

I was a squeamish hunter that did not truly relish the fruits of labor from the hunt.

Now, I harvest the liver and heart. I boil the bones to make stock. My only seasoning on the cuts of meat I harvest, is salt and pepper.

I relish the life sustaining harvest of the land.

As an omnivorous species, we all have a choice to make: eat like a predator, or eat like prey.

Now I prefer to eat my 2 meals a day - breakfast and dinner, but the point is, I don't feel like I have to. I'll frequently do things like yard work or repair projects first thing in the morning, hours before eating the first meal of the day.

As Frost pointed out, going paleo actually freed him up from constantly thinking about, planning and preparing numerous meals.

Predator species hunt, kill and gorge. It may be many hours or even days before they have another successful kill. If they required food to fuel them up for every single instance of physical exertion, most predator species would die of starvation, as one failed hunt would quickly lead to the lack of energy to successfully try to hunt again later.

Is "paleo" a "fad diet" as many detractors continually say? Last I checked, a "fad" diet CAN'T be adhered to for 5 years and counting like I've experienced.

A fad diet is typically nothing more than changing the type of foods you graze on or how often you graze. You may temporarily lose weight, but as long as you do not eat in accordance with your physiological design, you will always experience health problems.

Similar to the cows put into feedlots that require massive doses of antibiotics so that they do not sicken and die while being fattened on feed they were not designed to eat...eating foods you were not evolved or designed to is a recipe for ill health, and premature death.

Eat like a predator and find out for yourself.

Happy hunting.

Tolerance & Slow Motion Poisoning

2011-11-26T20:16:00.000-08:00

In response to my Turkey Day post in which I resolved to avoid partially hydrogenated tainted food at my family's celebration feast, finndistan guy made a point for which I myself have contemplated as well:

About your memories on hydrogenated oily poisons.

First memory: Three years ago got bronchitis related to dust allergy and my laziness. did not go away for two weeks so I went to the doc. Got some antibiotics; and even if the bronchitis went away after a ten day regimen, those ten days were pure suffering. Talk about bloody diarrhea and such.

Second memory, a recent one.

I am lazy with dusting the house, so there was dust in the house, but I had no problem, zilch. Then one sunday; after a saturday party at a friend's, including little alcohol, and lots of "healthy vegan food" like whipped cream from oat milk, and milkless butter (took some questioning to get the words margarine out); I went to eat at a local ethnic diner. Lots of food. Almost binged.

The system did not recover from this assault, and for a week I was down, until few days ago; then I got a sore throat.

Realizing what is happening, I cleaned the house, but the throat turned into similar symptoms as the bronchitis three years ago.

I will not take any antibiotic I said to myself.

Since the binge, I had been eating clean, so there was not much to do there,

Took off from work, popped 15.000 ius of vit d every meal (2-3 meal per day), slept 12 hours, ate only food that I made (now am thinking of 100% my way (except the weekend alcohol) till christmas);

The same symptoms that took me ten days to clear three years ago, that took another friend two weeks, another three months (yea, this one is a grain lover); took two nights of 12 hours of sleep with enough tea and vit d, coconut oil, good butter and no processed crap.

The lungs went to crap on wednesday morning, now it is friday afternoon, and I have them running at 95%.

Definitely a placebo effect. Both on the negative effects of the vegan/processed stuff, and the positive effects on what i did to cure.

Placebo, yea.

I have distinct recollections of my health and well being prior to discovering the Weston A Price Foundation and the Paleo blogosphere and figuring out unconventional, anti-establishment truths regarding diet, health and nutrition.

I frequently lament to myself, "If I had known then, what I know now..."

From my mid-20's to my early 30's I thought I knew what eating healthy was, and I thought I knew what foods I should avoid. Yet I was overweight, had frequent allergy attacks, caught every cold and flu bug that I happened to come into contact with, and always took a really long time to recover. I frequently had chest colds turn into bronchitis and occasionally turn into walking pneumonia.

I also suffered from chronic asthma. I could not live without daily doses of asthma control medicine. I've had asthma since I was a young child, so I've always lived with it. I've become used to frequent attacks, and always carrying a rescue inhaler with me 24/7.

I used to also get an asthma attack every single time I exercised. Every single time. Usually withing 5 to 10 minutes of commencing some sort of physical activity or recreation, I would inevitably feel the tightness in my chest and immediately have to stop whatever I was doing and take a few puffs of my meds, hack out a few coughs and finally feel good enough to resume whatever I was doing.

My entire life, I was told by my HMO GP Doctor to avoid dairy, that my asthma was most likely related to milk allergy.

In hindsight, I now realize the truth is that I ate a grain heavy diet ('heart healthy whole grains!'), and the primary source of fat was Omega 6 rich vegetable/grain and legume oils. Margarine, low-fat/non-fat food products, and cooked with Canola, Soy and Olive oils.

Also ate a lot of commercial peanut butter brands, most made with partially hydrogenated oils.

When I first read the good folks at the WAPF article Know Your Fats, it was the first time I ever came across this piece of knowledge:

Saturated fats play many important roles in the body chemistry. They strengthen the immune system and are involved in inter-cellular communication, which means they protect us against cancer. They help the receptors on our cell membranes work properly, including receptors for insulin, thereby protecting us against diabetes. The lungs cannot function without saturated fats, which is why children given butter and full-fat milk have much less asthma than children given reduced-fat milk and margarine. Saturated fats are also involved in kidney function and hormone production.

My first thought here was "well fuck me." Then I kept reading:

The crux of Dr. Price's research has to do with what he called the "fat-soluble activators," vitamins found in the fats and organ meats of grass-fed animals and in certain seafoods, such as fish eggs, shellfish, oily fish and fish liver oil. The three fat-soluble activators are vitamin A, vitamin D and a nutrient he referred to as Activator X, now considered to be vitamin K2, the animal form of vitamin K. In traditional diets, levels of these key nutrients were about ten times higher than levels in diets based on the foods of modern commerce, containing sugar, white flour and vegetable oil. Dr. Price referred to these vitamins as activators because they serve as the catalysts for mineral absorption. Without them, minerals cannot by used by the body, no matter how plentiful they may be in the diet.

An honest assessment of my overall dietary patterns brought me to the point of realization: while I didn't oft eat white flour, I ate plenty of whole grain flour and bread based products like pasta. I also ate a lot of sugar, and yes, all the oils I was eating where largely the so-called "healthy" vegetable oils. I was following the mainstream advice to avoid saturated fats, minimize your animal foods consumption, and that a plant based diet was optimal for human physical health. This WAPF stuff was the very antithesis to everything I thought I knew.

And yet it also jibed with my personal studies regarding Hawaiian history and culture. I've read numerous history books, oral traditions, and observations made by Europeans who first came to Hawaii. They were full of references to tall, muscular, very fit, healthy looking people. And they ate plenty of animal foods - fish and all other sorts of seafood, dog, chicken and pig.

This is why I investigated further into the WAPF...and eventually coming to the Paleo Blogosphere, and began a massive turnaround in my diet, health and well-being.

I've been basically eating a nutrient-dense, traditional-based diet while doing my best to avoid neolithic agents of disease for close to 5 years now. The transformation in my health has been dramatic.

While I still have asthma (I will probably always have it), it has nowhere near the same effects on my life like it used to. I no longer carry a rescue inhaler wherever I go, and it took me 10 months this past year before I had to refill my prescriptions...prescriptions for which I used to have to refill every single month, 12 times a year at a minimum.

This was not a placebo effect. It can't be. The difference between then and now is just too dramatic.

This was discovering the difference between a diet rich in inflammatory-promoting foods, and anti-inflammatory foods. As I've frequently stated in the past, I basically follow Mark Sisson's 80/20 paradigm. In other words, the occasional indulgence of junk food for things like special occasions.

For the most part, that's been my occasional dessert after dinner indulgence. I've never noticed any problems or residual effects when I have done this. But even in these cases, the primary NAD I'm indulging in is sugar. Even on my "cheats" I try to avoid partially hydrogenated oils. (I really do miss the local Hawaii favorite, the Malasada - A type of doughnut in which Portuguese sweet bread batter is deep fried and coated in sugar).

But there have been a few times where I did...like eating deep fried appetizers at a restaurant or party. I began to notice whenever I did this, I'd start to get asthma attacks within an hour or so.

Onion rings, french fries, or deep fried chicken (chicken katsu), doughnuts, all the stuff fried in partially hydrogenated oils (which is to say 99% of you eat anything deep fried from a restaurant), I always get asthma attacks within an hour or so, and sometimes multiple attacks over the course of the next 24 - 48 hours. But I never really paid much notice, as over the past few years in which I indulged on such occasions, were really few and far between.

But last year, I simply threw all caution to the wind and just pigged out at my family's partially hydrogenated Thanksgiving. I ate bread, dinner rolls, salad dishes containing mayo (soybean oil), loads of gravy (made with partially hydrogenated oil and wheat flour), and various desserts for which I know the crusts contained the crap too. Up to that point, having eaten "clean" for up to 3 years prior, it was quite the Omega 6/Hydrogenated oil indulgence.

I spent days with constantly recurring asthma and allergy attacks - which was how my life used to be on a daily basis when I ate the SAD. I had forgotten just how miserable I really was when I ate the neolithic agents of disease on a daily basis.

Is this nothing more than a placebo effect?

From my recollection, my attitude at the time was "I eat so good now, I'm doing so much better, this one time holiday gluttony won't affect me much! This is my cheat day, I'm with my family, let's just eat it all up and enjoy this without any worries."

Prior to that, the occasional indulgence like a few fries or onion rings or a piece of fried chicken may have caused me to have a small asthma attack, so no biggie, I'll just dose up on the meds and go back to eating good again.

So now I'm left having similar thoughts as finndistan guy. Am I having a placebo over-reaction? Or is it that when I used to consume these oils and other neolithic agents of disease regularly, did I have some sort of tolerance to the continual ingestion of inflammatory food products? Did largely removing this poison from my diet make me that much more sensitive to it when I actually do "cheat" and eat it again?

Of course, prior to changing my diet, I basically had to use asthma medication every several hours, both night and day, 24/7/365. I used to always double check to see if my inhaler was in easy reach whenever I went to bed so I could simply reach out and grab it for use when I would invariably wake up in the middle of the night with another asthma attack...usually several times, every night. So maybe I always had that same reaction to these oils, but simply managed my reactions to it by a constant dose of medications?

Now I'm not trying to make the case that my asthma is solely linked to the food I eat. I think it's more complex than that. I now believe my asthma is related to my immune system response to environmental allergen exposure (I'm hyper-allergic to dust mite allergens which are plentiful in Hawaii)...but my diet also affects my immune systems ability to deal with allergen exposure as well.

In other words, when I eat pro-inflammatory foods, my immune system becomes more susceptible to reacting to allergens, making it more likely I'll experience the bronchial tube spasms of an asthma attack.

For my own experience, the vast improvement in my asthma and allergy condition is the ultimate proof I need to validate the principles of the paleo-type diet. This is why I get annoyed when clueless people call the paleo diet a "fad."

There's so much more to your diet than simply your weight.

Ah, what the hell. Maybe I really am just a loon, and it's all just a placebo effect.

Thanks

2011-11-24T12:27:00.000-08:00

I've been away from blogging for a bit because things for myself have taken a turn for the worse on the economic front. My company has gone out of business and myself and all of my colleagues have been laid off. My occasional foray into blue collar side work to supplement the income has now become my only option to keep the roof over our heads and food in our mouths. I've been working long hours doing hard work, and still sticking to my martial arts training regimen in the evenings. I've been too tired to blog.

That being said, it's Thanksgiving, and I'm grateful that I've still got the opportunity to work. Since the hard times began over 3 years ago, I swore I'd do all I can to avoid going on the dole and signing up for food stamps and other welfare programs I am morally and principally opposed to. I will do whatever it takes to stick to my principle of independence.

Deansdale requested I and a few other bloggers write a piece about "The top 10 things you can do to improve your marriage." I take it this question is based on providing advice for men already married, so things like "carefully pick the right woman" doesn't apply, since you've already made your choice.

I'll do this David Letterman style and countdown from 10 to 1:

10) Read Roissy's entire archives. All of it.

9) Read Athol Kay's blog archives and buy his book.

8) Now that you've read these works, take a hard and honest look at your situation. Face the ugly truth about your issues. Are you an AMC? You can't fix your problems if you don't even recognize what they really are in the first place.

7) Live your life so that you can be 100% honest at all times. This does not mean you have to tell her everything you are thinking or feeling at all times. Discretion and circumspection are the keys to being honest while keeping the peace. Live so that you do not have to ever lie out of fear of upsetting her, or lying to yourself with rationalizations so that you justify behaviors you may do that will hurt or destroy your marriage. When it comes to marriage, honesty is the best policy.

6) Understand the concept of FRAME. Avoid playing into her frame. This is especially important if she ever issues you an ultimatum of any sort. The minute you take her ultimatum at face value and make a choice, you've submitted to her frame and you've lost either way.

5) Learn to recognize when she's "shit testing you" or "fitness testing you."

4) If you've fallen into a pattern of begging her for sex STOP THIS IMMEDIATELY. COLD TURKEY. NEVER, EVER BEG FOR SEXUAL RELATIONS FROM YOUR WIFE, EVER AGAIN.

3) Their are two sorts of relationship patterns men develop with their wives over time, especially if you have children together - a woman's basic nature to act as a mother will begin to apply to you. She will begin to act like a motherly authority to you. You have to be aware of this dynamic and shut it down as soon as she starts to treat you like you're one of her children. Remember this saying, "You are not MY Mother. I have one already. You are my wife."

2) Learn to say No when you have good reason to. Make it stick in the face of resistance and emotional outpouring of anger, sadness and/or tears.

And finally, the number one thing you can do to improve your marriage:

1)Realize that the only person you can change is YOURSELF. You can't change her. You can only change your behaviors, your patterns and your routines and hopefully see if she responds favorably to the changes you effect in yourself.

Finally, for this year, I resolve to avoid any and all partially hydrogenated feed products at my family's Turkey feast. I'll probably indulge in some sugary dessert, but the memory of how shitty I felt for several days last year after eating all the grains and partially-hydrogenated crap should be enough to help me resist temptation.

Happy Thanksgiving to all who read this.

Bureaugamy

2011-11-15T10:27:00.000-08:00

The word for today is "Bureaugamy."

You won't find this word in any dictionary. I picked up a couple of weeks ago from some commenter at some manosphere website. I've since forgotten who wrote it where (if someone points it out here, I'll edit this post and attribute it to it's orginator -- I think it may have been Zed over at Dalrocks...I'm not sure.)

The word is used to describe the modern cultural practice in which a women essentially mates with the State welfare bureaucracy to provide for her children, since she does not have a man fulfilling the role of provider for her offspring.

Great word. What else is there to say about it?

Until now, not much else...which is why I didn't bother trying to write about it after I'd already forgotten who I first heard it from in the first place.

But an article over at LewRockwell.com that I was reading with my morning coffee, made the word come to my mind once again. The article dealt with the result of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit against the TSA for violating his Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizure. The article made a salient point that helps to clarify the big picture of the how and why we are going through so much cultural upheaval, economic distress and an ever expanding leviathan police state - and it's certainly related to the concept of Bureaugamy.

Becky Akers writes in Ventura's Venture Against the TSA:

He called it the "The Fascist States of America" and thrilled patriots everywhere when he promised, "I will never stand for a national anthem again. I will turn my back and I will raise a fist" after "a U.S. District Judge dismissed [his] lawsuit against full-body scanners at airports" on a technicality.

In that suit, "Governor Jesse Ventura, a/k/a James G. Janos … [sought] a declaration that the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and DHS [Department of Homeland Security, the TSA’s über-bureaucracy] have violated Ventura’s Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to airport security searches."

Mr. Ventura added, "It’s really sad … [The judge] claimed her court didn’t have jurisdiction. But this is a constitutional question…"

Actually, it isn’t – at least to Our Rulers. And not just because they’re evil tyrants who spit on the Constitution. They are and they do, but what Mr. Ventura bumped up against is monstrously worse, something far more dangerous, entrenched, and systemic. Yet it remains so incognito and unsuspected that our hero might want to investigate it for his series, "Conspiracy Theory," on TruTV.

The culprit is a totalitarian nightmare known as "administrative law." And when we victims assume the Constitution reigns supreme, Our Rulers laugh: they legally (even if unconstitutionally) replaced it about a century ago with administrative law.

You’re undoubtedly more familiar with "administrative law" by its acronyms: IRS, BATF, DHS, DEA, SEC, FDA, FCC, FAA, TSA…in other words, bureaucrats.

Light bulb moment! This Judges rejection of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit ripped back the curtain to reveal the beast behind it, pulling the levers of the machine that has ripped the Constitution to shreds and became the primary impetus in forging our Brave New World Order dystopia.

The bureaucracy of "administrative law" is the actual law of the land! By invoking administrative law, the Government has effected an end run around Constitutional law. This is why we are all in some way or another, in a bureaugamous relationship with our Government, whether we want to be or not.

Still not sure how this works?

Aker's explains:

..."administrative law contains all the statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations that govern [bureaucracies]. It is the body of law created by administrative agencies to implement their powers and duties in the form of rules, regulations, orders, and decisions," says West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Astounding, isn’t it? Agencies write the laws that empower them to write laws. They set the rules of the game they play against us, enforce those rules, and judge us when we violate them in "administrative hearings." Meanwhile, a single agency in a day can churn out more laws – euphemized as "regulations" – than Congress can all year.

Do you get it now?

This is precisely how so many citizens Constitutional rights are regularly ignored and blatantly violated by the various Bureaucratic Agencies who truly rule our land with an iron fist and unreasonable and unflinching cruelty.

The bureaucratic agencies under "administrative law" jurisdiction are the literal tentacles of the leviathan police state deliberately violating our rights and our freedoms and turning the USA from the land of the free and home of the brave, into the land of the fee and home of the slaves.

So where do these agencies derive their powers from? Most of these bureaucracies have their powers delegated to them by Congress. And therein lies the rub: Congress is specifically prohibited from delegating it's powers to a third party entity.

US Constitution, Article 1, sec. 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

How to get around this Constitutional restriction? Easy, set up a Bureaucratic agency, who than makes and enforces regulations instead of legislating laws. The names are changed, but in practice they are the same. In fact, regulations now carry more weight than most laws passed the old Constitutional way via legislative deliberation!

The rejection of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit claiming the TSA violated his Constitutional rights clearly shows we the sheeple where the true power is being wielded in this country. The precedence is set.

Administrative Law of the Bureaucratic Agencies trumps the Constitutional Law of the individual citizenry.

Aker's concludes:

What would have happened had the court heard Mr. Ventura’s case? The same thing that has happened in other, similar ones: it would have ruled in the TSA’s favor, implicitly relying on Congress’ delegation of power it never had – power that is virtually limitless under the administrative regime. The TSA can do as it pleases, providing it asserts such criminality helps it carry out Congress’ mandate to "protect" transportation – and its perverts take care to constantly prattle just that preposterous justification.

So long as we sue the TSA – or any bureaucracy – for violating our Constitutional freedoms, courts will rule against us and smirk while they do. The remedy for administrative law’s totalitarianism lies in abolishing bureaucracies, not pleading with Our Rulers to defend us from them, pretty please.

There you have it. Bureaucratic violations of Constitutional rights are based on the stated agency's justifications for some form of so-called safety and security on some person or entities behalf. This holds true across the entire spectrum of bureaucracy and the administrative regime that truly rules the country.

If bureaugamy is the marriage of citizen to the bureaucratic state (like the single mother relying on the State to redistribute taxes to provide for her Fatherless household), than what we really have is an arranged marriage shotgun wedding. We had no choice, and we had to say "I do" with the business end of a firearm wielded by a uniformed representative of the Bureaucratic State at our back.

If only we could use divorce to destroy the institution of Bureaugamy as surely as the Bureaucrats used it to destroy the institution of Monogamy.

False Prophets & Teachers

2011-11-11T17:59:00.000-08:00

Matt 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

I'm not a member of any Christian church's denomination.

I don't attend a church service.

But I have read the Bible (KJV) multiple times. While I'm certainly not a biblical scholar, I do believe I understand the overarching morality and guidelines the Bible seeks to impart on believers.

Dalrock has been on a tear lately in going after Christians who teach subversive, false doctrines that appear on the surface to be "Christianity."

As someone who doesn't have a dog in the denomination-competition hunt (who's got the true doctrine, who's worshipping traditions are true to God's command, etc.), my interpretation of the Bible is based solely on my own quest to understand truth.

I haven't stepped into a church and listened to a sermon in over 16 years - save for the occasional wedding, baptism or funeral of a family member or friend I've had to attend.

Yet Biblical principles are the foundation of my moral belief. The Golden Rule, the 10 commandments and all that. I guess part of my brainwashing I endured for the first 14 years of my life did have some positive influence on me.

Many writers and commenters in the anti-establishment/politically incorrect sphere of teh interwebz oft note how feminized many Christian church's have become. That was the case of the church I grew up in, where men are demonized and women lionized on their pedestals of spiritual purity and moral superiority. Where the men commonly talked about their wives and referred to them as "their better halves."

This state of affairs is precisely why men have been driven from the church. It's why I left as soon as I was a teenager tired of being shamed and branded with the scarlet M in my particular sect I was born into.

But something happened to me today that gave me another epiphany. While driving and listening to my ipod (more specifically, the new Chickenfoot album...kickass!), when the album finished, and I didn't choose a new album to listen to, my ipod automatically shut off. The radio transmitter I use to listen to music on the car radio shut off, and I discovered that the frequency I was using now picked up the local Christian talk radio channel.

And apparently I tuned in right in the middle of some evangelical mangina blowhard raising holy hell from his broadcast pulpit, exhorting husbands for their failures in leadership and not taking care of their wives is the root of so many marital problems. It contained all of the stereotypes regularly pointed out in the manosphere regarding the feminization of the modern church.

I tuned in right as he began to discuss Ephesians 5:22 and how it doesn't mean what men "thinks it means." He then went on to explain what the verse means: that men and women in marriage are to be in mutual submission to each other.

In my opinion, there is a key point of discernment in understanding which preachers and pastors are teaching the false doctrine of Feminism disguised as Christianity - any preacher or pastor that seeks to soften, change or redefine the verse of Ephesians 5:22 to mean something other than what was plainly written: Wives sumbit to your husbands as unto the Lord so as to shame men and appeal to women, is a false teacher.

My understanding of the core message of the Bible, is that Traditional Christianity is a cultural program, designed to build strong families to form a strong society. A code of morality to build a community bound by faith and adherence to the same principles. It is Patriarchal to it's core.

In my view, Ephesians plainly lays out the hierarchy of leadership in marriage and in the home. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, and husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

This authoritative sounding preacher, than made the case that this meant a husband and wife were to have mutual submission to each other, and not that the husband is the leader. He basically equated the command to love their wives, as just another way of saying husbands and wives are to submit to each other.

But than, this is what I get for reading the Bible and thinking for myself, rather than rely on someone else to interpret it for me.

He than went on a tirade reiterating repeatedly about how men are responsible for the sad state of marriage in the modern day, as they don't pay enough attention to their wives, and that by exerting any sort of authority makes him an unjust, domineering tyrant and that he's not loving his wife, like Christ loved the church.

This kind of sermon is female rationalization hamster superfood. No wonder the kind of Churches that preach this crap are full of women without nary a man in sight.

In practice, mutual submission doesn't work. You end up with a submission deadlock. Couple this with the modern Christian's warped view of the intrinsic virtue of the female simply for being born with a vagina, way up on her pedestal, and what do you have when husband and wife are practicing "mutual submission?"

You end up with a female-headed household.

This is not traditional, Patriarchal-based Christianity. It is the abomination and corruption that has driven men away from the many denominations that ascribe to this anti-Patriarchal shibboleths in droves.

This man, preaching from his pulpit and having a national broadcast by a syndicated radio network, was subtly and subversively distorting the Bible to shame men into becoming beholden to their wives authority, as well as the sole reason marriages are foundering in today's church. According to this broadcaster, anything less than mutual submission would mean he was being a domineering tyrant and not loving his wife like Christ loved the church.

Immediately following the sermon, a commercial came on, urging listeners to buy DVD's of the sermon just broadcast. It also included "kits" including visuals and supplemental materials for Pastors, Reverends and other Christian leaders to help SPREAD THE WORD.

Immediately after the sales pitch, another sermon began by some other sanctimonious holy roller, who began preaching on how anyone should feel guilty for not paying tithing to the church.

It brought to mind one of my favorite old school Metallica songs, Leper Messiah:

Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet...make your contributions and get the better seat!

I turned off the radio in disgust.

When I got to work, I googled the name of the evangelist's radio program and found his website.

The website is shallow, littered with feel good phrases of psuedo-spirituality. It was just a showcase for all of it's content - TV, Radio and Magazine articles, that were all "subscriptions" that required fees (accepting all major credit cards) to access. In addition to mulitiple links to become a subscriber, it also had "donate to the ministry" buttons all over the place.

SPREAD THE WORD.

Here's the problem as I see it. Mass media broadcasting evangelists seem far more concerned with raising donations, selling books and DVDs and pimping for speaking fees and guest appearances at Churches than they are in actually preaching Biblical TRUTH.

This is the worship of Mammon. Worst of all, they've commercially packaged the materials that subvert Biblical truths and promulgate false doctrines to sell it to Pastors, Evangelists, Reverends and any other leader that listens to Corporate Christian radio and lets these lying liars lead them astray so they in turn can lead their own congregations astray.

I think this is one way in which feminism was able to weasel it's way into the doctrine of many corrupted Christian denominations. Feminism sells well, because it tells many women the lies they want to hear. Women who otherwise believe they are good Christians, and that submitting to their husbands has nothing to do with being a good Christian. And these women rule their homes and seethe in contempt for their beta-ized husbands and their "mutual submission."

In my humble opinion, if you ever hear any Preacher, Pastor or any other proclaimed Biblical authority make the case that Ephesians 5:22 does not mean Men are not the authority in the home, you are listening to the false doctrine of a church dedicated to the worship of Feminism and of Mammon, and not God THE FATHER.

Verisimilitude

2011-11-10T11:50:00.000-08:00

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it, 'cause I got no reason to lie..."

- lyric from the Black Sabbath song, The Thrill of it All

The word for today is Verisimilitude.

In a recent discussion I was in with The Bombastic Bardamu , he made a point that resonated with me regarding blogging:

Verisimilitude and ethos are nearly impossible to fake. Indeed, verisimilitude is practically the coin of the realm in the blogosphere - without knowing who each other are, we have to judge each other based on the truthfulness (intentional and/or inadvertent) in each other's writing...

...indeed, the best writers in the manosphere - has this verisimilitude.

I agree, not only is it the coin of the realm...it is the defining trait of any blogger in any sphere of teh interwebz. As I wrote in A Salute to Conventional Wisdom:

I learned far more about the world as it really is, and about myself and my place in the real world, from the influences and insights gained from blogs, message boards and websites that inspired true introspection and productive ruminations…than I ever did watching tell-a-vision, the movies, or from the approximately 13 wasted years I spent in the State of Hawaii’s institutionalized public schooling system.

I discovered that everything I thought was real and true, were nothing but lies, misconceptions, misdirections and misinformation designed precisely to capitalize on, and exploit my health and my productive capacity, all for the benefit of the system…at the expense of my mental, spiritual and physical well-being.

It was never a case of simply falling for any old story found anywhere on the world wide web. Like everything else in so-called civilization, it’s full of bullshit and lies as well.

But the difference is, you can actually read something that may sound crazy on the internet…

…but ruminate on it…and observe various manifestations of those ideas in real life…or even experiment on yourself…

…and eventually discern which virtual tirades, manifestos, declarations or diatribes are justifiable and based on truths…and which ones are crackpot lunacies and monomaniacal mental disorders vomiting their mental wastes into the virtual ether.

There is nothing more convincing than experiences and anecdotes from anonymous authors who may be writing thousands of miles away from wherever you are logged on…who can describe behaviors, results or phenomena exactly the way you perceive or experience these things too. Similarities in human experiences that cut across cultural, socio-economic and religious differences are compelling anecdotes that can override the powerful influence and the illusory authority of so-called conventional wisdom.

Verisimilitude is the defining factor in determining the veracity of any particular writer's advice or observations that run counter to the conventional wisdom.

Before becoming an avid blog reader, I was an avid mass media consumer.

I used to read a variety of newspapers, magazines, and watch a lot of television "News" and "Journalist Investigation" type shows. I used to think I knew a lot about a whole range of topics. I did not realize just how much of what I thought I knew was nothing more than literal Mass Media PROGRAMMING.

When I first began reading anti-establishment blogs and alternative media articles, I often encountered a writer saying "everything you think you know is simply what has been told to you by those who control the mass media narrative." I used to have a knee jerk, defensive attitude towards that observation: "Whatever...I think for myself!"

Except that up until I discovered the vibrant underground of politically incorrect blogging (on a whole host of topics), my thoughts were completely influenced by the TV and all of the reinforcement of the mainstream narratives from the mainstream print media.

Thanks to the verisimilitude of many excellent bloggers, I've discovered just how extensive and pervasive this programming was. I now recognize so many lies and deceptions the moment I see them...on TV, in the movies, in advertising and in print.

Lies. Everywhere you look in our Brave New World Order.

It's why I no longer read newspapers, nor watch any kind of news shows or any other sort of TV programming that's supposedly "FACT BASED REPORTING."

Thanks to the verisimilitude of people who blog, I've embraced a radical, anti-establishment lifestyle.

By eschewing commodity crops and advocating the consumption of grass-fed meat, pastured eggs, and local produce, we are making several very, very powerful enemies.

The medical and nutritional establishments hate paleo, because we’re exposing the fact that they’ve been wrong for decades and have killed millions of people with their bad advice.

The agribusinesses and industrial food processors hate paleo, because we’re hurting their business by not buying their highly profitable grain - and soy-based products.

The mainstream media hates paleo, because they profit handsomely from advertising those grain- and soy-based products.

The government hates paleo, because they’re the enforcement arm of big agribusinesses, industrial food processors, and mainstream media—and because their subsidy programs create mountains of surplus grain that must be consumed somehow.

Is anyone surprised that a government which spends billions of dollars subsidizing the production of corn, soy, and wheat, would issue nutritional recommendations emphasizing the consumption of corn, soy, and wheat?

And this is why, despite all their rhetoric, the vegans end up on the same team as Monsanto and Pepsico: their interests are aligned. - J. Stanton

I used to minimize my consumption of animal foods, and try to avoid saturated fats as much as possible. And I kept steadily gaining weight and trending towards obesity in my late 20's and early 30's. Thanks to the verisimilitude of bloggers in the "paleosphere", I now eat a diet heavy in animal protein and saturated fat. I avoid processed convenience and fast foods, and I've lost all that excess weight and find myself trim and in better shape at 38 years old, than when I was 28 years old.

I use salt at nearly every meal. I eat eat fried foods all the time too. The difference is I use naturally derived, minimally processed sea salt and I deep fry with coconut oil and pan fry with saved bacon grease and lots of butter. According to mass media conventional "wisdom," I'm supposed to be fat and suffering from high blood pressure. My latest blood pressure measurement from a couple of days ago? 116/72. I've been eating like this for years now.

Verisimilitude. The mass media narrative doesn't have it. The problem is that it is so pervasive, and broadcast through so many various mediums that reinforce each other, that it induces the illusion of verisimilitude. It took extreme cognitive dissonance to finally face the ugly truths after a lifetime of being steeped in the pretty lies of mass media programming. In other words, after years of eating non-fat dairy, vegetarian meat substitute products, non-dairy creamers, non-fat/non-stick cooking sprays, and a daily diet of whole-grain products and 'cholesterol free' spreads, I hit the point where I could no longer close the top button of my pants because my belly was sticking out. BUT I'M EATING HEALTHY?!?!??!?! WTF?!?!? So I logged on to the internet and began googling diet and weight loss, and eventually discovered the Weston A. Price Foundation...which eventually lead me to the Paleo Blogosphere.

Other ways in which the verisimilitude of certain writers in the blogosphere have influenced my life:

~ I avoid fluoridated water and use fluoride-free toothpaste.

~ I avoid using sunscreen, and sunbathe at every possible opportunity during the window of time for which conventional wisdom deems most dangerous - 11:00am to 3:00pm.

~ I occasionally smoke tobacco.

~ I eat as much red meat as I can afford.

~ I quit chronic-cardio exercise in an attempt to control my weight, and focus solely on weight lifting and high-intensity/interval training exercise.

Oh, and of course, thanks to the verisimilitude of guys like John Ross and other anonymous bloggers, I figured out my former attitudes and beliefs about gender and relationships were a recipe for failure. I didn't even grasp how I put the female gender on a pedestal and followed the mass media's emasculation program.

Verisimilitude.

Recognize it when you see it. It just might change your life.

To Love, Honor & Vacuum...unless he looks at teh Pr0n!

2011-11-08T11:25:00.000-08:00

Dalrock is continuing his one man Jihad against frivolous divorce, and his latest action is to warn Men seeking wives to pay careful attention and not assume that just because a potential wife is a Christian, she would be less likely to divorce you in the future.

He issues this warning in a post entitled Warn men: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce.

This issue is so important I’m asking my readers and other bloggers to do whatever they can to help spread the word and protect men and their future children. Any blogger who wishes to is free to repost this entry in part or its entirety on their own blog with a link back to this page. Literally millions of men are at risk here, and we can help them understand the reality they face.

Happy to help, D.

I'll excerpt and comment on the most salient points here, but you really should click over and read the whole thing.

One of the more dangerous assumptions I see men making is that if they marry a Christian woman they will be somehow shielded from the epidemic of divorce. I’ve stated in the past that most churches talk like Christ but act like Oprah on the issue of divorce.

For men looking for a church to attend, this would be a good measuring stick on whether or not any particular church would be worth your time and investment in joining. If you get the vague sense that sermons resemble the emotive, feel-good environment of the Oprah show or any other female coffee klatch type of show like the View, get thee to a different church!

In my post Promiscuity is good, so long as it is done on the woman’s terms I pointed out that there is no backing for the popular belief that the female preferred form of promiscuity (serial monogamy/ serial polyandry) is more moral than the male preferred form of promiscuity. I used the example of Christians arguing that the wife in Fireproof was justified in her attempt to swing from marriage to marriage:

This is similar to the argument by the Christian women that the wife in Fireproof wasn’t being whorish because she planned on divorcing her husband and marrying the other man she was after before having sex with him.

Sheila Gregoire is one of the Christian women I had in mind when I made that statement, and she noticed the post and defended her position:

"But I just want to clarify: I do believe that she had grounds for divorce because of his pornography addiction....

...And so in the movie Fireproof, she was in a relationship where divorce was permitted, and she was planning on divorcing, and planning on remarrying. Thus, I wouldn’t say that’s whorish. He’s the one who cheated."

Viewing teh Pr0n is now the exact same thing as cheating? Dalrock got it exactly right when notes:

The fundamental problem is that Christian women are being given get out of marriage free cards while Christian men are being told man up and marry these Christian women. This selective moral softness from Christians combines with our legal system which rewards women who commit divorce theft and creates millions of fatherless children. Your husband looked at porn? Dump him and find another man! Keep in mind this isn’t some corner case example I’ve made up. This is from the movie Christians profess shows their views on marriage.

Moreover, Sheila isn’t just another commenter on the internet, she is a respected author and speaker on the topic of marriage for Christian women. All men need to understand this; if your wife decides to divorce you for another man, there will be well respected Christians lining up to justify her decision and place all of the blame on you. If that means conflating viewing pornography with actual adultery, so be it. This is true even in cases where the wife was withholding sex in an effort to control the husband.

She even excuses the wife lining up the other man while still married!

I've visited Sheila's blog before, To Love, Honor & Vacuum, and I've also seen her comment at various blogs like Terri's and Alte's. I never found anything she commented on to be so objectionable...

...until now.

As Dalrock implores...spread the word.

On second thought, a thought just popped in my head. Sheila is a feminist....the worst kind. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

She appears to be "pro-marriage" but she's spreading marriage and family destroying memes amongst the very people who are supposed to be the last vanguard of the bedrock of Christian-based civilization.

Think I'm making an overblown charge?

Let's take the title of her blog - To Love, Honor & Vacuum.

On the surface it appears to be a call for Christian women to be better housewives. But exactly what is that title really imply? It's a distortion of the common Christian marriage vow a wife makes at the altar - Love, Honor and OBEY.

Whether it was deliberate or subconscious, I still think it's a subversive meme that aims at one of the Bible's direct, unambiguous tenets regarding the institution of marriage...wives, submit to your husbands.

Just as the newly married, "modern" Princess of England had the word's OBEY taken out of her Anglican Church vows -- just like her adulterous, scandalous, deceased mother-in-law did -- this "pro-marriage" Christian has replaced the vow of wifely obedience to her husband with a trivial domestic household chore using a modern appliance.

The problem is not Pro-marriage Christian women. It's pro-Divorce justifications couched in the veneer of pro-Marriage Christianity.

Got Game?

2011-11-07T02:48:00.000-08:00

Well, it looks like the "Great Game Debate" has wrapped up over at A Voice for Men. Rather than weigh in on the various points and counter-points made, and throw in my own opinion on who I think "won," I think I'll take a different approach, and go over my initial introduction to "GAME" on teh interwebz.

Fair Warning - this one's gonna be long.

My entire support of this thing referred to as "game" has never been about "teaching guys to get laid" or how to "pick up chicks." I support the continuous, ongoing discussions of this topic, because it does help many men open their eyes to the realities of how the human mating game works.

Before the advent of our current Brave New World Order, much of what is considered "GAME" was simply advice older men gave to younger men who reached the age where they found themselves suddenly attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Thanks to a generation shaped by sexual revolution, re-defined gender roles, and the pervasive influence of a mass media culture, many males are left clueless about how women think, how women's sexuality works, and even what masculinity is.

For some, discovering these online discussions in forums and blogs regarding "Game," they usually have a moment of clarity. The proverbial light bulb that goes off. Understanding and awareness dawn on the formerly befuddled mind.

Suddenly, given the insights gained from studying this theory, many men realize how and why events and relationships in their pasts turned out the way they did, where they went right, and in most importantly, where they went wrong.

One of the first online sources that I encountered Game theory, was the articles written by an author and shooting instructor by the name of John Ross. I found his online archives (that covered a whole range of topics) about the same time I found several obscure "PUA" blogs that discussed this thing called Game. I immediately saw the connection of what Ross was discussing in his articles and what the PUA bloggers like "The Reality Method" were talking about. This was around 2007, a good year before I ever even heard of Roissy in D.C.

Ross was never a self-proclaimed "guru" or "pickup artist." Just a real guy, who had a Father who steered him in the right direction when he was a teen. He was essentially a "natural." In none of his writings did he write the word "game" or "pickup artist" or any of the other lingo many of us are all familiar with now. But everything he wrote about was describing the use of "Game theory" applied in real life.

His first article in which he addressed the topic, was based on some advice he was trying to give to a young man in an online forum for gun shooting enthusiasts. The young man had met an attractive girl he wanted to ask her out on a date to take her the shooting range, and he was asking for advice from the forum members on how to go about it. Ross weighed in with his advice, playing the role of advice columnist, in a piece entitled: Women, Teasing, Tests, One-itis, and Hope

Keep in mind, he wrote this in 2003.

If this really is "the girl of your dreams" I have a few suggestions that don't have to do with what guns to bring, as others have given you good input on that score.

1. Maintain an air of quiet competence. People in general dislike motormouthed know-it-alls but are impressed when they see knowledge and skill at work. This is doubly true when the activity in question has the potential for danger if safety concerns are ignored.

Explain, don't lecture, and early on say something like "If I see you doing something dangerous I'm going to stop you immediately. You probably won't, but I'm telling you this now so you won't get upset if I raise my voice. I don't much care about your marksmanship today but I care a great deal about safe gun handling."

Inner game. Confidence. Dominance. Taking the lead. Demonstrating Higher Value.

2. Do not fawn over her. Pretty girls get this so much they lose all interest in the guys who kiss up to them. New mindset: You are LETTING HER join you in something exciting. I hope the invitation was "I'm going shooting this weekend--it's going to be perfect weather and there's a great range I use. If you'd like to join me I'll pick you up at 8:30, if you've got something to wear that you won't cry about if it gets a little dirt on it" (said with a grin.)

The concept of establishing frame. YOUR frame. Note his advice using a "neg," said with a grin. Cocky humor showing confidence and putting her in the position to qualify herself to you - if she's interested, she'll want to let you know that she's not like all the other girls that would "cry" if they got their clothes dirty.

When she said "yes," I hope you added "I'm assuming you're not one of those flaky women who thinks 8:30 means 'sometime before noon.' I intend to be at the range by 9:00."

More dominance. Reinforcing his frame. Showing leadership, and letting her know he has standards.

3. Pack up and quit shooting while she's still having a good time. Do not wait until her shoulder or hand hurts or she's tired.

4. After shooting, do not make plans right away to do something else next weekend, no matter how well you think things went. I cannot stress this strongly enough: DO NOT SELL TOO FAR IN ADVANCE. Not even if she rips your clothes off on the ride home. End your first date with her while she's still wanting more, and don't be too eager to plan the next one. This holds for future dates as well. And don't think of them as "dates," think of them as "I'm doing this and I'll let you join me if you behave." New mindset: Welcome to MY world.

Is this being "manipulative" or "putting up a false front" or "supplicating" and being a "pussy beggar?" Nope. All of this advice from Ross essentially boils down to a man developing skills and confidence - aka "inner game." None of this advice is based on trying to be something that your not to manipulate a woman into dropping her panties because you pulled a fast one on her. It's about displaying masculine confidence, assurance and social dominance.

5. Be prepared for a test. (Men call this a "shit test," which is a more accurate term, but from now on I’ll avoid the vulgarism for the sake of Internet decorum.) You may get such a test before you pick her up for the date, a phone call at the last minute telling you her best friend just broke up with her boyfriend and needs consoling, so she has to cancel. It may be an attempt to get you to do something different than what you planned. Do not accept this. Call her on any attempt to change plans. Make it clear such behavior is unacceptable. Be ready to say "Next."

Man. Too bad John Ross has a day job as a shooting instructor. He could make a fortune holding workshops or selling DVD's to gullible, hapless guys desperate to get laid.

Pretty girls have a different reality than you or I have. Their reality is that men almost always do whatever they demand. Believe it or not, the women are tired of this. The "test" is a way to cull out the mediocre males and find the ones with backbone. It's instinctive for women, because it works so immediately and so well. When you pass one test, you will get another, sometimes right away, sometimes later. This usually goes on as long as you remain involved with a woman, but as you keep passing her tests, they become less and less frequent. Be aware of this, and act accordingly.

This was the very first time I ever heard of this thing called a "shit test." Yet, as soon as I read this, I had that "light bulb" moment. I immediately recognized how this applied to my past interactions (and failures with women in relationships).

6. Whenever you find yourself wondering what to say or how to act, and wanting to avoid screwing up because you think this girl is THE ONE, imagine how you would treat the hottest babe in your zip code--who happens to be your little sister. You'd tease your little sister, right? You'd laugh at her and call her on it every time she tried to get YOU to behave the same way she gets all the other guys to worship her and do her bidding. When she was acting exceptionally princess-like, you'd tell her of your surprise that she'd wear such a tight skirt when it made her ass look so fat, or a hairstyle that made her ears stick out. Then you’d tell her you liked the way her nose wrinkled up when she got mad, and would she bring you a soda from the kitchen? If you don't think this works, you've never tried it.

More advice on how to neg. Note: No mention of wearing amulets, feather boas or eye liner.

7. Don't get "one-itis." Talk to EVERY girl that catches your eye. Tease them. Let others come shooting with you on other weekends (if they promise to behave.) Pretty girls have lots of options--it just happens. You can have lots of options, too, but it won't just happen. You'll have to see to that yourself.

The final advice - you have to take responsibility for yourself and maintain your state of calm, cool and confident masculinity, and not put a pretty woman up on a pedestal for worship...but tease her and treat her like your kid sister.

I found this stuff fascinating. At that point, in 2007, I had already been "MRA" blogging for a bit, and had fully immersed myself into the subject matter of the divorce industry; the travesty of single mother households and a welfare system that subsidized it; why feminists are sluts and ball busters; the rampant misandry of our system and culture; and all that other MRA topics we are all familiar with.

The MRA blogosphere was my first "Red pill."

Finding John Ross and a few PUA blogs were the next "red pill" I took.

Ross' follow up column to that initial advice gave me another "AHA!" moment of clarity, and it marked the moment where I first began to analyze my own life and my own relationship with my wife and began my personal transformation I eventually related in all those comments at Roissy's blog in 2009.

From Understanding Women & "The Rules" For Men

Judging from my email traffic, a lot of you are absolutely clueless when it comes to dealing with your wives, girlfriends, and women in general. I get more praise for the 7/7/03 column than all the other ones put together, and "Give us more!" is a common refrain. Okay, here goes. It's Women 101 at John Ross University and class is now in session.

Who knew he could've charged these men thousands of dollars by holding a seminar or selling them a DVD set...wait, did we even have DVD's in 2003? I don't remember....

Anyhow, his follow up article is so good, I'm reposting it in it's entirety:

1. Women process (and act on) information completely differently than men. Never forget this. Stop thinking of women as screwed-up men and start realizing that their minds were built from an entirely different blueprint.

Just as a hawk can discern details at distances that a man needs a ten-power scope to see, a woman is many times more capable than a man at reading the emotions of other women. (Women may be equally capable at reading men's emotions, but have never seen a need to.) Walk into a large party with a woman. You, the man, will see a bunch of people in a room, talking in groups of two to five. You'll see where the food and bar is, and notice any exceptionally attractive women in the room. That's it. Your companion, however, will be able to tell you which woman is angry, which one is lonely, which is happy, which is upset, which ones feel self-conscious, which ones are jealous, and (probably) which ones are having affairs and with which men. Your female companion will be able to accurately tell you these things within ten seconds of entering the room.

This ability comes at a price: Women are many times more sensitive than men to emotional pain. Imagine a man whose skin was so sensitive that ordinary contact was painful. Whenever someone shook his hand in greeting or clapped him on the shoulder in congratulations, it would feel to him as if boiling water were being thrown on his flesh. Now turn that disparity in physical sensitivity into emotional sensitivity and you'll get a good picture of a fundamental difference between men and women.

Men seldom if ever need to know what a group of other women is thinking, so they usually experience a woman's heightened sensitivity from the negative perspective. They hurt their wives' feelings without realizing it (just like the handshake in the above hypothetical) and then are baffled when their women are upset with them, often for days or weeks at a time, for seemingly no reason. (I'll discuss what to do about this later. Keep reading.)

2. Men and women have very different definitions of integrity. Men have integrity to their word, but because of the heightened sensitivity as explained above, women have integrity to their feelings.

Women base their actions on how they feel at the time. This means that if something no longer "feels" right, they won't do it, period. It infuriates most men when a woman "flakes" on them. ("Flaking" is the term that men who study this sort of thing use to describe when a woman who has eagerly made plans with them doesn't show up, or calls at the last minute to cancel because her girlfriend needs consoling etc. Roughly speaking, a woman's tendency to flake is proportional to her options and inversely proportional to her age, although I did meet one 38-year-old single mother of two with this habit.) Understand that the need to be true to one's feelings is an extremely powerful force with women. Look at the dominant theme in all romance novels: The woman is "swept away" by emotions too powerful to be denied, and has an affair when everyone knows she shouldn't. Another example is the adage "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Even the former First Lady (according to the Secret Service) regularly threw things (lamps, etc.) at her husband when angry. Can you imagine a man doing this, instead of saying "Next"? The idea is ludicrous.

If you're a man, you probably do what you've agreed to do (help someone move, etc.) because you said you would. However, you wouldn't go through with your plans to help your acquaintance move if it had suddenly become a felony with a mandatory 10-year prison sentence to do so, would you? Of course not. Ten years in prison trumps a promise to move furniture. Well, that is the kind of aversion that women have to doing things that no longer "feel" right. Later I'll explain how to make this "integrity to feelings" work to your benefit.

3. Most women are much more rational than most men at the initial meeting. For all of men's complaints about "screwed-up 'chick logic'," it is men who unconsciously fall into a very irrational pattern of behavior when they first meet a new woman that interests them.

Upon meeting an attractive and perhaps interesting woman for the first time, most men behave as if they are thinking about...wait for it...marriage! Hollywood has bombarded us with "love at first sight" stories, but what kind of message does it really send to a woman you've just met that you've already decided she's the one? It screams pathetic loser who couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful of pardons. "One-itis" is the absolute death knell to any person's chance with someone new. Women know this. Men, as a rule, don't.

There's an old saying that "To meet her handsome prince, a girl has to kiss a lot of frogs." Given that few American women age well or are financially self-sufficient, this adage is much more appropriate for men aspiring to marriage than it is for women.

4. What women say they want and what they actually do want are two different things. Men need to be keenly aware of this and act accordingly. The crap that women claim they want in the personals ads is exactly the kind of thing that would have the same women running for the nearest exit out of boredom if the men actually provided it.

Women want to feel attraction for someone, and attraction doesn't come from finding a man who is sensitive, or caring, or likes long walks on the beach, cats, and candlelight dinners, has a college education or a good job. Attraction isn't a choice. Attraction comes from that little shiver of anticipation of not knowing what's coming next, of not being able to pigeonhole the man she's with into any one category, of being just a little bit off-balance and not in total control.

5. Women read things into men's actions that aren't there. Accept that, and make it work for you, if possible. This phenomenon probably comes from women's heightened emotional sensitivity. It may also come from the need many women have for drama (and for some women, chaos) in their lives.

What the above things mean for you, and how to stop screwing up like you've been doing:

Dealing with a woman's heightened sensitivity: When a woman complains about a problem in her life (she will see it as "sharing," not complaining), never offer a solution to the problem. She doesn't want to fix it, she wants to relive it, over and over. Show sympathy but suggest that only another woman could truly understand what she's going through. This acknowledges women's superior emotional capacity. Depending on how you say it, it may send another unspoken message if the complaining was a test (and it probably was): You're trying my patience here. I don't fall for that BS. Watch it.

Integrity to feelings: If you can keep a woman in the state of feeling excited, anxious, off-balance, and emotional when she's around you, you can pretty much lead her wherever you want. An extreme example of this is the group of attractive young women who did anything they were told by a homely little runt of a man named Charles Manson. I'm not advising that you turn into a sociopath, but it's kind of fun getting the girl you met this afternoon to slip off her thong during dinner and hand it to you. Learning how to keep a woman's emotional state at the desired level takes a lot of practice and experimenting (which is fun) and can't be described in a one-page column, but here's a start: Women are attracted to Mystery, Uncertainty (not the same thing), Confidence and Arrogance when combined with humor, and believe it or not, Indifference. Observe the desirable women you know that are obsessed with their boyfriends and you will see that the boyfriends invariably exhibit these qualities, irrespective of whether they are decent guys or total jerks.

Gifts: Gifts can be good at eliciting emotions and even smoothing the rough spots, but don't make the mistake of giving the wrong kind. You'll go broke and not accomplish what you intended. Since women's emotions are so powerful, realize that all gifts to women have a soothing effect and "goodwill time frame" that is proportional to the emotion evoked. This has nothing to do with the value or utility of the gift, believe me. Whether you're in the early stages of a relationship or have been married ten years, never give expensive gifts, agree to extensive home remodeling that you don't particularly want, expensive trips, etc. in the hope that it will improve her feelings for you. If you do, you'll be paying for the expenditure long after your girlfriend or wife has stopped smiling at you for what you did. Instead, give little nothing gifts like a funny card, or a stuffed animal holding flowers, and say "I was thinking of you today." Do this at unexpected times. A week later (or maybe even the next day), the $12 stuffed Dalmatian with the heart-shaped spots will be forgotten, and your woman's attitude will probably (and understandably) be "What have you done for me lately?" But guess what? The same thing will happen a week after you agree to pay for her eight-year-old's private school tuition, which is a $120,000 tab over ten years. You do the math. The exception to this rule is if you decide to give an expensive, useful gift to a woman who needs it and who has been exceptionally good to you already. Few men do this. Men usually give presents, take women to expensive restaurants, etc. in the hope that the recipient will be grateful. THIS DOES NOT WORK. Expensive gifts should always be unexpected rewards. They should never be attempted inducements.

Testing: Reread my 7/7 column's comments on tests. Remember that testing will continue until one of you dies. Even if you break up, she will probably test you if an opportunity presents itself. Plan for this accordingly.

Flaking: The younger and hotter the girl, the greater the chance she will flake. Hotties and flaking are like alcoholics and drinking: If they can, they probably will. The only way to completely prevent an alcoholic from drinking or a hottie from flaking it is to create an environment where it cannot occur, like sending the alcoholic to live in the Saudi desert. To prevent flaking, only offer an activity if it is something you can do right now. Get her to do something fun and exciting with you right at that moment. If she demurs, end the conversation as quickly as possible and eject--don't coerce. When she stops you from leaving and says to call her so you can make plans, don't believe her, and call her on it. Tell her you like talking to live people, not voicemail. Tell her that maybe you'll offer something else if you run into her again. Unspoken message: Seize the day.

What if you absolutely have to plan a "date" in advance with someone you suspect may flake on you? When you make the plans, give the girl something specific to do, like to be sure she's wearing a silk scarf around her waist when you pick her up. Don't tell her why, but make sure she realizes that she has to do it, or you'll turn around and leave if she opens the door and isn't wearing the scarf. She will spend all her time before the date wondering about this, selecting the perfect scarf, etc. She'll be caught up in the mystery, drama, and anticipation (women love these things) and she won't be thinking that "going on this date doesn't feel right anymore."

Initial meetings: Follow the three second rule. You've got three seconds from the time you first notice a desirable woman to the time you say something to her. If you take longer than that, cross her off the list and move on, because she's crossed you off her list of possibles. Never work up your courage to talk to a girl that you've been looking at across the room for ten minutes. Women hate this. And for God's sake, never use some service to track down the girl you lusted after in high school or college. This is called stalking, and unless you graduated within the past 6 months, chances are she now looks nothing like the goddess you worshipped from afar. There are better women who don't have any bad preconceptions about you as close as the nearest Starbucks, Borders, Safeway, or QuikTrip. Unless you live in a remote area, pretty girls are everywhere. Always operate from a theory of abundance. There are more available women in your area than you could ever meet, but they're not going to come looking for you. Get out and chat up as many of them as possible. Most will turn out to be frogs. Expect it. (And realize your high school dream girl that you were thinking about tracking down is probably a frog.) You won't find a princess by convincing yourself that the one girl you've met in the last month is one. Meeting and dating lots of women gives you a much more accurate perspective and has the added benefit of making you more attractive to women, not less.

Dating multiple women: If you don't want a woman to think of herself as your one and only girlfriend, don't do things that would make her think that way. Don't call her every day. Don't see her three or four times a week. Be up front, and say "I think too many people get into exclusive relationships far too quickly, and it's not healthy. I wouldn't even consider having an exclusive relationship with someone I'd known less than six months." Most people, and women are no exception, will accept most anything if it is not a surprise. Don't lie and sneak around. If you see other women and she has a problem with this when she's only recently met you, she is NOT the one. Next.

Enjoy women for what they are, and don't imagine them to be something they aren't. It may sound harsh or negative, but real women are seldom like what we see in movies written by male screenwriters or read about in novels written by male authors. The cute waitress where you eat lunch may visually remind you of Meg Ryan (or whoever) in the movie where she played a waitress, but don't for one second imagine the real-life waitress to be as intelligent or interesting as the writers who gave Meg her lines. Flirt with the waitress and let her presence make your lunch more pleasant, but don't start going there every day and turn her into some fantasy of yours ("One-itis"). At best, you'll waste a bunch of better opportunities mooning around her at lunchtime, while she smiles at you but otherwise blows you off. At worst, she'll eventually accept your advances, and (since you were fixated on only her and had no other women to compare her to) you'll end up married before you figure out that aside from being nice to look at (for now), there isn't much else you really enjoy about her.

Don't be ordinary. Talk about your job, school, hobbies, etc? Forget it! If she launches into the same old questions, accuse her of husband-hunting, and tell her you're not ready for that. Be teasing and mysterious. Never give a straight answer unless it's "No." Women will complain that they "can never figure you out and it's driving them crazy." This is evidence that you are doing the right things.

Spank her. Spank her bottom lightly when she does something you don't like. Spank her harder when she does something good. I discovered this years ago and the worst results I've ever gotten were neutral. The best were volcanic. (I don't do this unless I know at least her first name, but that's just me--it's probably not necessary.)

When in doubt, tease. Keep the "Bratty Sister Frame" firmly in your mind (see 7/7 column). Call her on her girl-like behavior. If she mentions modeling, say, "Oh, you mean like a hand model?" Tell her that her long fingers remind you of E.T. If she's cute but her clothes are odd-looking to your eye, ask her if she got dressed in the dark. You get the idea.

Sex in long term relationships: If a good long-term sex life with one woman is important to you, never get into a committed relationship (such as marriage) with a slender woman unless she is genetically slender. 200-lb. women who have always been heavy are usually comfortable with themselves and have good sex drives. Former 125-lb. hotties that gain 75 pounds after saying "I do" often lose all interest in sex and are a very bad bet for the long haul. I know dozens of men who found this out the hard way. Conversely, no man I know with a fat partner who has always been fat (I actually prefer the word "plush") is dissatisfied with his wife or girlfriend's level of desire. The old admonition about taking a long look at the mother before proposing is sound advice.

If you want to marry a rich girl: Rich women are no different than other women in that they are turned on by a man's passion for his work. Keep in mind that not just any kind of work qualifies. Women are attracted to artists, especially musicians. Rock stars don't get just high school groupies, they get rich actresses like Pamela Anderson and rich supermodels like Rachel Hunter and Paulina Porizkova. Singers in local bands do equally well on a smaller level. Women (including rich ones) go for other passionate artists such as actors, dancers, painters, and sculptors.* If you are a passionate artist, you're a good bet to snag a rich girl, who will likely be happy to support you and your passion. If you go this route, keep the rich girl interested by pursuing your passion WITHOUT going through all her money! Live comfortably but don't start to believe your own bullshit, getting her to fund your big (and inevitably money-losing) dreams of grandeur. NEVER let her dip into principal. If you do, be prepared to be thrown out on your ear. Any successful investment professional can tell you horror stories about rich women clients with artist husbands who cooked the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Maybe this will hold you clueless guys for a while. More later.

Man, he wrote this in 2003. As far as I can tell from reading all of his other articles, Ross didn't attend PUA seminars, buy Mystery's book or subscribe to David DeAngelo's newsletter. Yet every last piece of advice he gives here jibes with most of what we commonly call "Game Theory." Note: no mention of the words hypergamy or social dominance or manipulation. It's just straight up advice, the kind that used to be transmitted from older males to younger males.

As I later found out, Ross got his game advice the old fashioned way: from his Father.

I talked to Dad about how this girl made me feel when I looked at her. He smiled knowingly.

"Son, she probably won't look that way for long. She might, but don’t count on it. Enjoy looking at her for now. But here's some advice: If you want to do more than just look at her, then don't ever talk about her good looks or tell her she's beautiful."

"Why not?"

"Because everyone else is always doing that, and it gets old. Girls want a challenge, just like boys do. They don’t want the same old compliments, they want a challenge."

"I don't understand."

"When you play shortstop, do you want the boys on the other team to all strike out every time? No, that would be boring. You want them to hit the ball to you, so you can throw them out at first base. Maybe you'll bobble the ball, and the batter will get on base, but you want the chance to make a good play, right? If you tell a pretty girl she's pretty, you're not hitting the ball to her. You're not giving her any challenge at all. You aren't in the game. Get in the game. Hit the ball to her. Give her a challenge."

"How do I do that?" Dad grinned at me when he heard this.

"Tease her about something. Say something about her that makes her jaw drop, and then act a little surprised at her reaction. But always be calm. Don't ever be mean, but give her brain a little tweak, see how she reacts, and then do it again. You're good at thinking on your feet. When a fellow sees a girl he likes, he plays with her, only not with a bat and a baseball glove, but with words and body language and facial expressions. Do that with this Jenny girl. And never back down, no matter what happens. Never break eye contact with her while the two of you are talking—let her be the one to look away. Think about it." He saw my face register some comprehension, and he added another thought. "Don't worry so much about her. Make sure you have fun. Figure out a way to tease her. And have fun."

Many critics of "game" call "negs" and "cocky/funny banter" as manipulative, wrong, evil, dishonest, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Many people who seem to understand and support game are often troubled about using the term "GAME" itself, making it sound un-serious, or trivial, or whatever other criticisms they may use because they really just don't get what it's all about.

It IS a Game.

Like any other game, if you know the rules, know how it's played, and you can discern the many variations and permutations that can arise during the course of the game, you will certainly enjoy playing the game. Even if you end up losing, a well played game can be enjoyed despite coming up short.

Unfortunately, some people simply can't grasp the strategies and tactics, they never understand the subtle nuances of the action, and they simply write it all off as a waste of time. Others try to play, but don't have the patience or self-awareness or humility necessary to learn from initial failure. Game is not for everyone.

But the entire point of blogging, talking, discussing and writing about it, is to at least make some men wake up to something they never even considered in the first place - that there is actually even a Game going on at all.

It's a game called the human mating dance.

Nobody said you HAVE to play.

You are perfectly within your rights to take your balls and go home.

Quiplinks IV: The Evil Patriarchy Edition

2011-11-04T19:38:00.000-07:00

Bronan:

"The Vikings had shit figured out. Basically they got wrecked on mead, fought everybody, raped and pillaged, and when they died, they got to do it all again in Valhalla. Now that’s the sort of party religion I can get behind."

Roissy:

"Some may ask why I so confidently assert that the female rationalization hamster is stronger and speedier than the male rationalization hamster. The answer is simple."

MikeCF:

MY NAME IS BARACK OBAMA, AND I AM THE 1%.

Dagonet:

"When your eyes are opened to certain truths– that all interactions are value transactions, that our relative status is embedded into every conversation, that every woman’s subconscious is constantly analyzing relative value, status, and social position– you learn to operate from a place of greater influence."

Dalrock:

"I think the core problem is that modern Christians are so incredibly bereft of wisdom when it comes to issues of love and marriage."

Danger & Play:

"I’ve long noted that the biggest haters of game are not women."

Donlak:

"If you don’t understand one of the fundamentals of keeping women happy, that is keeping mystery, than you’re doomed to getting dumped or cheated on. If you aren’t creating some mystery, she’ll get it from somewhere else."

Flyfreshandyoung:

"It really is pretty amazing how much different all of your social interactions become once you lose this imagined need to conform to shaming dynamics and social pressure to behave in approved ways."

Frost:

"Women’s sexual liberation has turned the sexual marketplace into a winner-take-all jungle, and we have been dropped into this quagmire dick-first."

G.L. Piggy (Chuck):

"In past decades the U.S. borrowed from its future prosperity. The future is now."

Gmac:

"Men should strive to become better men through self-improvement and self-discovery… not with a $2,000 mortgage, 2.5 kids, a cubicle 9-to-5 job, and a miserable marriage."

Ferdinand:

"The only thing more pathetic than white knighting for a woman who won’t sleep with you is white knighting for a plutocrat you don’t work for, who actively holds you in contempt."

Johnny Milfquest:

"Common criminals, after all, are not bailed out in the way that corporate criminals are."

Roosh:

"Man is being turned into obsessive-compulsive victims who are nothing more than glorified pushers of smartphone buttons, unable to live without the constant distraction of beeps, noises, and moving images."

Simon Rierdon:

"In order not to get swallowed up by the system, you have to learn to Game it."

Chad Daring:

"The 1% do not make six-figures a year, they dont make seven-figures a year. The 1% is a group so far past us that they do not measure their wealth the way we do."

Badger:

"Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get away from people for a few minutes."

The Private Man:

"The unintended consequence of independence is loneliness."

Rollo Tomassi:

The great and powerful Oz that was feminization is finally having the curtain pulled back on it.

Virgle Kent:

"Every man does it his own way through trial and error and in his own time."

Mutually Assured Destruction

2011-10-30T19:45:00.000-07:00

**DISCLAIMER**

The contents of this post are simply an exercise in dealing with a theoretical situation. It in no way constitutes a threat or some kind of ominous portend of some pending action on my behalf, nor is it related to any possible real life situation at this time. It's simply ruminations on a horrible topic I've oft wrestled with in my own mind.

In the comments to my last post, I made a statement that might seem a bit hyperbolic or perhaps a bit of false bravado. I responded to J. Dantes of Koanic soul,who made the argument that nothing is worth a man losing his honor, including his own children.

I disagree vehemently with this sentiment.

As a young Father (well, I'm not young, but certainly young at Fatherhood), I now realize there is nothing I would not sacrifice for my child, including my honor.

Because I love my child more than my life itself.

I've been at this blogging thing in the manosphere for almost 5 years now, and over all this time, I've thought long and hard about the various topics we discuss regarding marriage, divorce, and the entire racket of child support designed to enslave men and force them to subsidize the destruction of their own family, while enduring alienation and kept from even minimal contact with their children.

What would I do, faced with the same scenario?

How could I handle going through the kind of hell Bill Price has painfully documented at the Spearhead?

I am fully aware of the risks I undertook in purposefully having a baby with my wife.

She could one day fall out of love, and play the "I'm just not haaaaapppy!" card and take my child away with the assistance of the law. And there is nothing legal or law abiding that I could do to stop it. I don't think it's highly likely, yet I'd be foolish to think it was impossible.

So what would I do?

I've come to the conclusion that the only remedy to this potential scenario is a policy of mutually assured destruction.

This is not something I need to ever say or do IRL. I would never threaten it as some means of trying to scare or manipulate my wife. And no, I have no intent to ever lay out the specifics of my planned response either here, nor anywhere else.

This is only something that would become expressed in real life should the worst case scenario occur first. I will only say this: my plans do not involve murder, wanton destruction or any other sort of random act of psychosis that seems to be increasingly more frequent in occurrence in our rapidly declining civilization.

For instance, where I to discover my wife were having an affair and she were contemplating divorcing me -- or any of the other scenarios we in this sector of teh interwebz regularly write about and discuss -- I have already determined my course of action in response to the potential loss of custody and a basic rights as a Father to my child. I hope this never happens, but I'm mentally prepared for it just the same.

If you take my child from me, you have effectively taken all meaning from my life. I will have nothing to live for. You will have destroyed me. I will have nothing to lose. Faced with such a scenario, I will issue Fair Warning....and no, I would not lash out at innocent bystanders. I would focus my actions on the people solely responsible for which I can identify and actually reach.

As I wrote in the last post's comments:

I'll tell you this much, if anyone tries to take my kid from me, you'll hear about the "crazy dude in Hawaii" who went out with a bang.

What do I mean by "bang?" May you never find out, but rest assured, I am not going to blow anything up.

But I digress.

The chances of this happening based on my current assessment of my relationship with my wife and my family make this scenario extremely improbable, if not near impossible. But if there's one thing I've taken from immersing myself in the anti-establishment sector of teh interwebz, it's that I now know that faced with the possibilities of a system that is designed to chew up and spit out any Father at any moment, and to use his own children against him, I know that I must always consider the worst case scenarios and plan.

But don't worry. At this stage, it's purely theoretical...but the convictions behind it are strongly held after close to 5 years of rumination on this particular subject.

What would I do?

I'm curious to know if any other married with children bloggers read my blog have ever thought of the possibilities and what you would do if you suddenly found yourself faced with the impending horrors of the Divorce/Family Court industry? And please, no specific references to illegal actions...but I wonder if anyone else has reached the same conclusions I have?

Many Game/PUA proponents will say "it won't happen to me because I understand Game and how to manage my LTR." I've implied that myself. But I'm not foolish enough to believe it could NEVER happen to me...because it could. I've seen it happen up close and personal to family and friends. I had a long time friend commit suicide over these precise issues, and I had to clean up the mess he left behind.

I've seen little children's entire worlds come crashing down on them because one or both parents decided to destroy their families through the "family" court system.

I'd be a fool to think I've got it all figured out and delude myself into thinking "it couldn't happen to ME!"

I'll do my best to try and ensure it won't, and I do think having the kind of awareness gained from blogging and reading in this part of teh interebz would make it much more likely that I could recognize trends, patterns and behavioral changes that would give me an early warning that the chances of my family destruction are increasing, and that I'd be able to address the problems head on, with a clear mind and wide open eyes, and that I'd face ugly truths head on and not fall prey to rationalizations.

As I've written before, my personal motto is Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

To reiterate, this post was nothing more than a mental exercise of planning for the worst-case scenario. It's nowhere near close to being a real situation...but one never knows what the future holds, eh?

Rest assured, unless you ever log onto this blog and find I've changed my blogging name from "Keoni Galt" to "Keoni Kaczynski," chances are this post may be the first and last time I ever feel the need to express such a dark, nihlisitic sentiment ever again. God willing.

PUAMRAMGTOWFUCKALLTHEBS

2011-10-28T15:33:00.000-07:00

Most regular readers of my humble little blog are probably aware of the recent spat between PUA & MRA sectors of the manosphere.

I think I'm in a rather unique position on this topic, as I initially started this blog as an MRA blog...and as I eventually discovered the PUA blogosphere and began to study Game theory, I incorporated it into developing a "big picture" in my mind and in my writing here regarding our current Brave New World Order dystopia.

I never saw any inherent fault line or schism between the two spheres. I think it's entirely unnecessary....I believe they both serve important spheres of influence for men (and women) to learn from, and that men should simply learn all that they can from the multitude of views on the various topics and see how they apply to their own lives and their own situations and do the best they can in dealing with the challenges and obstacles our modern dystopia presents us.

Then again, I'm the guy that doesn't believe MRA should mean "Men's Rights Activism" since I've come to the view that our current state of affairs has been deliberately effected, and the political system doesn't need to be "fixed" because it's doing exactly what is intended.

Activism in the confines of the current political system is a dead end.

Which is why I've always said that I identify myself as a MRA - an advocate for Men's Rights Awareness.

No, it is my firm contention that the only real and meaningful way in which the MRA blogosphere CAN effect real change, is on an individual level:

AWARENESS.

To raise awareness of the truth of the reality that we all live in.

To enable people to see things clearly, so that when they make goals and try to direct their lives towards achieving them, they do so knowing the full score so they can avoid many of the pitfalls our Brave New World Order has created to entrap us all in our deliberately distorted and contorted understanding of the gender roles and how they affect our lives.

MRA/MGTOW blogs gave me a complete understanding of just what the hell is going on in the system; the injustices of the divorce court industry and the true affect the feminist movement has had in socially engineering our modern dystopia.

PUA blogs gave me an understanding of the basic, primal nature of male/female gender roles.

To be perfectly clear here - one of the biggest agitator's on this topic has been a guy who goes by the handle Alek Novy. He conflates anyone and everyone who tries to advocate for GAME THEORY as the exact same thing as PUA shucksters and snake oil salesmen. Yes, there are guys that have sought to make a quick buck off of men's frustrations in today's sexual marketplace.

Understanding GAME THEORY is not the same as promoting $10000 boot camps and seminars or selling $600 CD sets. Alek's entire argument rests on the premise that men don't need to "pay" anything to learn how to have success in trying to hook up with women.

Of course. Most folks who are regular readers/commenters/bloggers in the manosphere don't pay for this shit, and at most are trying to sell E-books like Roosh's Bang. It's not the same as the PUA "industry" that Novy seeks to condemn any and all "gamer" bloggers and commenters.

Guys like Alek are causing disputes where none are necessary.

Now we have people on both sides attacking each other, to no one's benefit and everyone's detriment.

MRA - calling anyone that recognizes the value of Game theory as "pussy beggars" and "Gamers" calling MRA "spineless pussies."

I don't think anything good is going to come from the pending debate between Frost and Elam. It's just going to further fracture the manosphere.

But that's ok.

There's no "winning" here.

What it will do, is provide clarity, so the onlookers can decide which "side" here offers them the viewpoint to improve their own lives and their own struggles.

See, when you look at all of the problems Feminism has given us all to deal with, the root of this evil is collectivism.

Collectivism in a response to the problems of feminist/cultural marxist collectivism is destined to fail.

If you're a newcomer to this section of teh interwebz, my advice to you is to read all these various viewpoints, and figure out for yourself what will give you the best tools to live your life the best you can.

Take for instance, Commenter CaslteD at AvFM's "Chateau Bullshit" article:

Although the term is “Game”, I just simply look at it as dating and relationship advice for men. What’s so bad about that? Good, useful advice, not the crap we’re taught by the women (and white knights) in our families or the lies from mainstream society. Good game advice puts the man first, for once, and modern men need that badly. Feminist brainwashing has done extensive damage to male psychology and I think good game helps men understand the whys and hows of knocking the pussy off the pedestal and keeping the upper hand in relationships.

If you already know how to do that, then congratulations, but don’t act like it’s just a matter of being confident, acting aloof, being yourself, and you’re done! Yeah, right. Meeting women and getting laid isn’t easy for most men, otherwise we wouldn’t have tons written about the subject. Maintaining a healthy relationship isn’t easy either. I’ve seen countless men and young men over the years fuck up chances with girls who showed interest in them because they hadn’t a clue what to do. Some of you guys are older, so perhaps you forgot what it’s like to be a young and horny 20-something year old. They want girls and no amount of, “eh, you don’t need pussy, it’s not a big deal” is going to work on them.

There’s a lot of snake oil out there to sift through of course, like $600 CD sets, and one can bury themselves in the minutia of breaking down female psychology to the sub-atomic level, but if you’re smart you just learn bits and pieces that seem useful and appropriate for you and leave the rest.

Then again I’ve only read a few sites, mainly Roissy of course because he’s also anti-feminist and an entertaining writer. I’m not surprised there’s antagonism between gamers and mras, that’s just men being men and hating each other. It’s why we’re in this position to begin with.

He gets it...and I'm sure he's a lot better for it in his personal life, having discovered both MRA and PUA blogs, and taking the info from each side relevant to his own life and problems. It doesn't have to be either or, no matter what guys like Novy insist.

Think for yourself. Make up your mind, but above all, do so with complete awareness of all the various factors that come into play here.

Forget the Red Pill. Forget the Blue Pill.

2011-10-14T17:36:00.000-07:00

Take the Purple one instead. This purple pill will give us deep insights into the corruption that is endemic to our current system of corporatist fascism and the role it plays in ruining our lives by profiting off of our sickness and misery.

The first step to take on our purple pill journey, will be the consideration of an allegory: the production of feedlot beef.

When young cattle are taken off the free range pastures and put into feedlots to be fattened for slaughter, they are given feed manufactured specifically to accomplish fattening as quickly as possible.

This Feed is largely based on Corn and Soy derivatives, usually genetically modified so that the Big Agricultural Corporations can utilize pesticides like Round Up on their vast fields of grains to maximize their harvests and eliminate losses from insects and rodents that would normally take there share of the crops before harvest.

Since ruminants like cows were designed (or evolved - whatever you believe) to eat and thrive on grass and not corn and soy products, the first feedlot ranchers discovered that most cows eating grains would get sick and die before they reached prime slaughter weight.

So they started incorporating pharmaceutical engineered antibiotics into their feed mix, and discovered that they could keep the cattle alive long enough to achieve maximum weight at slaughter time.

Regardless of concerns about health or the nutritious quality of the meat produced by this system -- or even humaneness of the process in mistreating living creatures in this way -- you still have to admire the scientific achievement such an effective system of getting maximum productivity out of the meat production industry represents.

It's so effective, they use the same system on We the Sheeple in our own Feedlot USA Inc.

Monsanto is the top producer of genetically modified commodity grains: primarily soy, corn and wheat. Food manufacturers like Kraft, Nabisco, Nestle, Pepsi etc. buy their grains in bulk to generate the cornucopia of food products that make up the bulk of the food supply consumed by the masses.

Many people that regularly consume these feed products develop digestive system problems like heart burn, ulcers, acid reflux, etc. It's even got a scientific sounding acronym like GERDS to help you understand you believe it's just a "condition" that happens, not because your eating artificially created, genetically modified FEED products instead of real food.

So just like the feedlot managers adding antibiotics to keep the cattle eating just healthy enough to stay on Feed for fattening, we have the pharmaceutical Corporations to ensure we have the medicine that keeps us JUST healthy enough to stay on Feed.

Companies like Pharmacia who gave us the glorious purple pill; the number one, best-selling brand, Nexium.

Oh by the way.....guess who is the largest share holder of Monsanto's ownership stock?

Pharmacia owns 85% of Monsanto's corporate shares.

These corporations are the managers of our very own sheeple feedlot called "SOCIETY."

Forget the Red or Blue Pill. Take the purple pill, that way you can continue to consume the FEED found in most of the feeding troughs of our sick society.

Those Who Are Responsible

2011-10-08T14:45:00.000-07:00

Been awhile since I read a Citizen Roissy Heartiste comment thread and saw GBFM make another Adderall-inspired rant worthy of contemplation.

Many people skip right over his commentary as soon as they see his trademark lozlzolzolzol.

It can be hard to read his disjointed, scatological and downright bizarre syntax, but the overall points he makes and observations of our Brave New World Order certainly have merit.

So, to provide a public service to this corner of teh interwebz, I offer a translation of his latest work. It's a masterpiece!

LMAO

Yes, all the wall street nitwit protestors are forgetting to protest the right people.

Who are these forgotten malefactors of our Brave New World Order?

They are the Neo-cons; those warmongering, debt-creating, honor-hating, federal reserve-owning, private bankers who create fiat currency out of thin-air by placing everyone in debt; who privatize profits and socialize risk.

Those who fund feminism and war (as feminism is war).

Those who fund moral degeneracy of the spirit and the permissive acceptance, celebration and normalization of homosexuality.

Those who finance the mass media popularization of promiscuity and the reduction of women to nothing more than sex objects and "empowered" career feminists dedicated to the pursuit of career success as Human Resources in Corporate America instead of preparing for marriage and family formation.

Those who fostered this society to create confused, dysfunctional individuals to make them servile and controllable through mass media and public school indoctrination.

Those who fund the pharmaceutical companies who profit off of treating young boys like their natural energy, curiosity and rambunctiousness as a disease that needs to be drugged into conformity.

Those who funded feminism and effected the long march through Western Civilization by disparaging and marginalizing the great works of Classic Western literature -- like Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and the Bible -- and replace them with Women's Studies curriculum and liberal progressive doctrine promoting cultural Marxism to instill a mentality of entitlement to support class warfare and wealth redistribution ideals as the new morality.

Who are these people? The Federal Reserve private banksters who implemented the ten planks of the communist manifesto; who created all of the wealth transferring bubbles: the dot-com bubble, the real estate bubble, the marriage bubble, and the college student loan bubble.

By funding higher education, they ensure that the professors promote a curriculum that support Central Banking's role in society, supporting their fiat dollar monetary policy, and the creation of meaningless, overpriced degrees that dumb down the students and trap them in debt in exchange for credentialis not worth the price of the parchment they're printed on.

And it all goes back to the basic goals of these elite who promoted cultural Marxism to destroy the family to remake society for their benefit.

Thanks to these bastards, we are all screwed.

While the openly liberal, left-wing useful idiots play their role in advancing this agenda, the right wing media pundits and talking heads play there role as well. Here's how they contribute to this agenda:

*By making the following section of his comment a list, I think the meaning is very easy to discern, so I only offer minor grammatical editing here:

1. deconstruct the great books on university campuses
2. tell men they need to man up
3. dumb down the entire schools system
4. tell men they need to man up
5. ass-rape men in divorce court
6. tell men they need to man up
7. send men to die on foreign shores in foreign neo-con wars
8. tell men they need to man up
9. drug boys with ritalin/adderoll for being boys
10. tell men they need to man up
11. encourage women to give their a-holes and 'gina-holes early and often to douchebags
12. tell men they need to man up
13. destroy the classical, heroic character in their neo-con movies, replacing them with ass-cocking gay cowboys
14. tell men they need to man up
15. print money from thin air and inflate and deflate bubbles to seize a man’s home and property
16. tell men they need to man up
17. encourage women to become fat, whiny bitches
18. tell men they need to man up
19. publish, promote, fund, and finance ass-cockers like tucker max who film secretive taping of ass-cocking sessions without the girl’s consent (tucker max rhymes with goldman sachs), repeating tucker’s lies that he is six feet tall in the neo-con mag, the weekly standard.
20. tell men they need to man up
21. transform the church from an institution where a man could once go to meet a virginal, exalted wife, into a front for the divorce industry, where single mothers with three children from three ass-cockers go to rope in a beta male to pay for the ass-cocker’s spawn
22. tell men they need to man up
23. castigate, attack, and impugn men for acting like men
24. tell men they need to man up
25. transform the noble, exalted university into a nursery, ruled by neo-con women exalting ass-cockers, asscocking, and good grammar, exiling and deconstructing the great books and men, and rewarding the servile future nannies of the nanny state with fiat dollars delivered fresh from ben beranke’s helicopter
26. tell men they need to man up
27. remove all men from the publishing industry, so that priscialla painton of simon and schuster sodom and scheister can publish tucker max rhymes iwth godlman sax’s stories on how he asscoked a girl (somone’s future wife who will asscock her future huspband in divorce coutrt as revenge for having been assocked by a neocon) and taped it secretly without her consent. Remove all men from the publishing industry and replace deep, profound, real great books for men, with twilight vampire asscocking female rape fanasty “romance” novels.
28. tell men they need to man up
29. conceive of a hundred government programs to criminalize men and force them to hand over their assets to women
30. tell men they need to man up
31. financially incentivize womem to file for divorce, promising them that their former husdband will have to pay for all their future assocking sessions, and that they get the kids/house/car/assets
32. tell men they need to ma up
33. fill the law schools with fat, embittered, burned-out, nasty (in looks and spirit) post-asscoked lawyeresses, and replace Moses’ and Zeus’s law with Bernake’s Banker laws which exlats theft via the inflation tax
34. tell men they need to man up.

lzozoozozol

what aalalz am i mizssing here:???

35. Tell men they need to man up?

Adderall is a helluva drug.

Quiplinks III

2011-10-07T21:25:00.000-07:00

Max gives a stirring eulogy for Steve Jobs:

"Steve Jobs sold ice to eskimos."

Professor Hale reminds us about the Basic Rules of Economics:

"If you want something for free, what you are really saying is that you want someone else to pay for it."

In response to the Occupussies, Default User offers us a Populist Manifesto:

"If corporations were truly persons they would probably be classed as “asshole.”"

Flyfreshandyoung defines the experiences of being Male in our present generation:

"We Millennial men have nothing to live for."

Richard Nikoley revises his "Free the Animal" manifesto:

"You must craft your own diet, health and fitness paradigm from your own trial and error experience. Modern society only wants to sell you stuff."

Dalrock offers some advice for employers who hire employees afflicted with BWV:

BWV is a genetic condition and those who have it must deal with it their entire lives.

Ferdinand gives credit where it is due:

In a world built on pretty lies, every public teller of ugly truths is hero for a day.

Gmac writes a letter to his future ex-lovers:

"Unfortunately, if you are reading this it means that I no longer have any use for you."

The Angry Dad reveals an excellent tactic when you have to return an expensive purchase after having buyers remorse:

"Whenever I am returning something, and Customer Service is giving me a hard time, I blame it on the wife."

Rollo Tomassi asks answers a very important question:

"How important does the role of attraction play in a relationship?"

Vox poses a hypothetical to women who think intelligence is one of the most important traits she needs in attracting a man:

"The first thing a smart young girl should contemplate is how sexually attractive she finds Stephen Hawking."

Simon Grey makes an observation about Americans:

"Americans are, by and large, a rather soft people, at least these days."

Roosh is starting to have second thoughts about his hedonistic lifestyle:

"I’m convinced that the solution is to grow up and do what society expects of me, to be a man as defined by my middle-class peers."

Divided & Conquered: Tea Baggers vs. Occupussies

2011-10-05T15:19:00.000-07:00

Never forget that any and every political movement, protest, action or manifesto that gains any sort of attention, will ALWAYS be channeled into the two-party dialectic. It is the primary way of keeping We the Sheeple perpetually at each other's throats and distracted from our overlords who continue to use and exploit us for their own benefit.

The template is simple.

"Right" - Against Big Government, For Big Business
"Left" - Against Big Business, For Big Government

Every single iteration comes down to a "right" or "left" person attacking the other side's "For" or "Against" argument or defending his or her own side's "For" or "Against" argument.

Trapped in this template, none of them ever realize that in fact the real problem can be essentially summed up like this: Big Government and Big Business are inseparable. They are in an incestuous, symbiotic relationship in which both entities serve each other at the masses expense...and the masses never wake up, because they are too focused on opposing one side or the other, that they never notice that these two "sides" are nothing but charade.

Take, for instance, a recent Taki mag article, 99% Wrong.

Note the author, Jim Goad, essentially derides the Occupy Wall Street protestors as communist/marxist libtards, who are "99% wrong."

So what in the name of Friedrich Engels is all this about, anyway?

As with the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street is a big circus tent hosting a hodgepodge of disparate recurring themes—many that appear sensible, many that sound wacky, and not all of them reconcilable. But whereas the Tea Party agitated largely against Big Government, the bogeyman here is Big Money—specifically corporations and “the rich.”

Thus, the OWS protests are channeled into the "Left-Right" dialectic and immediately marginalized. The anti-Left People's Cube website labeled them Occupussies.

The Tea Party agitated against "Big Government" while supposedly stood for defending "capitalism" and opposing "socialism" that supports Big Government. Except defending "capitalism" in our current status quo essentially means defending corporations, who buy cartel monopoly powers from the Government under the guise of "Regulations.

Now the Occupussies agitate against "Big Business" while supposedly defending "liberalism" and "progressive politics."

This shit never ends. In this way, 99% of the people who pay even marginal attention to the media coverage of either event, immediately adopt a set of attitudes, ideas and beliefs regarding the movement - no need to waste anymore thoughts on who, what, when, where or why these protests may be happening.

The Tea Baggers are just greedy, upper class rich folks that don't care if the poor die starving en mass, while the Wall St. Occupiers are dirty hippy socialist commies who don't want to work and just want the Government to tax the wealthy to pay for everyone's basic living expenses.

But more and more people are waking up to the scam.

Here's one commenter, 1RW, over at the Taki mag, who gets it, and points out the truth. He or she avoids contributing to the continuation of channeling the debate into the two-party dialectic:

Yes it does have to do with big government, because big government creates big regulations, which favor big business. They favor big business because a multi-billion dollar corporation can have a standing army of accountants and attorneys, and other compliance officers to make sure regulations are followed and taken advantage of. A hundred thousand dollar business can't.

Also big government creates treaties like NAFTA and WTO which favor big business because they can offshore labor, rendering american labor too expensive, because americans have to live like americans.

Finally, when big business drops the ball, big government apparently bails them out lets them continue with their financial shenanigans. Or have you not been paying attention?

1Rw missed one nuance here: Big Government favors Big Business, because Big Business finances the politicians campaigns.

Other than that, protesting Big Business is no different from protesting Big Government.

They are essentially two sides to the same Fascist coin.

The Only FOXNews Pundit Worth a Damn

2011-10-02T19:21:00.000-07:00

From about 1998 til approximately 2006, I was a religious FOXNews viewer. I watched it every single day. If I was doing something else around the house, I'd turn on FOXNews just to listen to it while I was busy doing something else.

The reason why I really became a fan of the channel, was because when it first came on cable programming, it felt like I was sticking the middle finger at the liberal/Democrat-hack mainstream media news channels. I used to enjoy reading and watching TV shows in which liberals lost their collective minds at the very idea that a FOXNews channel even existed.

At some point, I don't even really remember when, I realized that this 24/7 exposure to GOP propaganda was influencing my thoughts and beliefs, and got me to blithely accept things that I used to think were against my core principles.

I have always been a fiscal conservative minded person, opposed to the welfare state, income taxation and a strong, centralized Federal Government. But as I subjected my mind to FOXNews on a steady basis, I began to experience cognitive dissonance as I began to notice the number of pundits and reporterettes that would defend George Bush Jr's. and the GOP congress' profligate borrow-and-spend-like-drunken-sailors platform, as well as a continual justification for the advancement of the PATRIOT 1 and 2 Acts scope and power, continually encroaching on We the Sheeple's civil liberties.

At some point, I simply turned it off. But it wasn't just FOX News, I also quit listening to talk radio, cold turkey. If I wasn't at home watching FOXNews, I had talk radio on my car stereo or at my desk on tiny speakers in my office. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Dennis Prager, Tom Leykis (LOL not right wing...I'd call him the Roissy of Talk Radio). I stopped listening to talk radio period, and only listened to music on my iPod.

I also quit reading the daily newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, Townhall.com, The National Review, and even the Drudgereport.

In short, I unplugged from mainstream, so-called "conservative," right-wing media on all platforms. I couldn't take the lies or continual subversion of conservative principles any longer.

But today, I came across a link from Lew Rockwell.com, that transcribed Judge Andrew Napolitano's closing argument from his FOXNews show, Freedom Watch. Somehow, the good judge is speaking truth to power on the GOP's primary propaganda organ. He asks the questions that all Republican voting viewers should be asking of their own party that they often blindly support.

Here's some excerpts of a few of the questions he posed that I think are the most relevant in dealing with our current problems in this country and throughout the world.

Does the government work for us or do we work for the government?

Of course, we work for the government. More precisely, we work for the Banker's who our Government has indebted us all to on our behalf.

Is freedom in America a myth or a reality?

Neither. It's a deliberate illusion promoted ad nausea by the mainstream media (both right wing and left wing outlets) to keep We the Sheeple from noticing that our freedom is being taken away at an exponential rate, regardless of which party controls the executive and/or legislative branches of the Federal Government.

What if the merchants and bankers who financed the American Revolution bought their way into the new government and got it to enact laws that stifled their competition?

From mercantilism at the nation's founding to full fledged corporatism of the present, this has always been one nation, under god. But it was not the God of Abraham and Isaac. This god's name is the bottom line - otherwise known as Mammon.

What if our political elites spent the 20th century importing the socialist ideas of big government Statism from Europe?

Why, we'd have a Federal Government and State Government's all across the country going broke as the entitlement spending grows larger than the money they "raise" through taxation. What if, indeed.

What if you had to produce your papers to get out of or into our once-free country? What if you couldn't board a plane, a train, or a long-distance bus without providing documentation telling the government who you are and where you're going, without paying the government, and without risking sexual assault?

From sea to shining sea, we now live under a Brave New World Order. Do you have YOUR papers, to move throughout the country, Komrade?

What if government agents could write their own search warrants, declare their own enemies, and seize whatever property they want?

As long as this is what it takes to win the War on Drugs....well, I guess this must be alright, right?!?!?

What if the feds could detain you indefinitely, with no visitors, no lawyer, no judge, and no jury?

What if, indeed. But why should they bother, when they can now simply have a military drone blow any US citizen to smithareens without due process, as long as they are identified as a potential "terrorist."

What if you were required to purchase a product that you didn't need, didn't want, and couldn't afford, from a company you never heard of, just as a condition of living in the United States?

Like car insurance? Or was that health insurance?

What if the government tried to cajole and coax and compel you into behaviors and attitudes it considered socially acceptable?

I think I'll step outside and smoke some tobacco right now. For some reason, I feel it's wrong to smoke indoors, even in my own home...

What if the government decided how much of your earnings it will keep and how much it will permit you to have?

I'd thank God every day that I live in the FREEEEEE-IST nation on the face of the Earth!

What if the government took money from you and gave it away to its rich banking and corporate friends whose businesses were failing?

Such a thing could never happen in a DEMOCRACY! Surely we are simply getting the government that we deserve! Besides, if you didn't vote, you can't complain!

What if you worked for the government and the government didn't work for you? What if freedom were a myth? What if we don't live in a free country? What do we do about it?

Pray for revolution.

Discerning Between Food Produce & Feed Products

2011-09-29T14:46:00.000-07:00

Continuing from my last post:

Delusion Damage revealed his strategy for finding food to eat at odd hours while on the road:

I have a few guidelines when I travel:

- when it's 2am and fast food is the only option, choose Subway above any other fast food place

- when I have to carry food with me and survive on it (ex. overnight flight where food isn't served for 8 hours but I'm awake and hungry because I'm coming from a different time zone)
choice #1 is hard rye bread
if that's not available,
choice #2 is trail mix
if that's not available,
choice #3 is granola/protein bars

I think this sort of strategy is commonplace amongst the normal person who at least understands that vending machine snack food like chips, crackers and candy bars are junk, so you have to try and make the best of the situation when hungry and faced with limited options.

Unfortunately, while these options DD lists are marginally better than say potato chips or chocolate bars...they're not much better, and will in the long run have the same effect as the kind of stuff most people readily recognize as junk food: short term satiation that leads to stronger hunger later (which could also lead to binging on even more junk food), and essentially the same bad effects on your health.

And it all gets back to the theme of DD's blog & book - nearly everything you've been told about food and diet is a lie. The most common lies that are used to misdirect people into making choices favoring feed products over food produce are: Saturated fat are cholesterol raising and bad for your heart, that too much meat (especially red meat) will cause cancer, that plant based foods are healthiest, and that fiber is absolutely vital to having a healthy digestive system. As I quoted yesterday:

The State’s primary tactic in mind control is FEAR...

...FEAR of saturated fat. FEAR of red meat. FEAR of salt. FEAR of the sun. FEAR of not getting enough “fiber” in your diet.

Some of these things I've just mentioned are based on half-truths - some plant based foods are certainly healthy for you, and some kinds of fiber are also good for your digestion...but other plant-based foods are literal poison and some forms of 'fiber' can downright destroy your digestive system. Your biggest concerns in eating a healthy diet should be to eat plenty of animal based fats and proteins, eating plenty of vegetables, some fruits (treat fruit as a dessert after having eaten a full meal of protein and fat...don't eat fruit as a meal unto itself,) and avoiding grain and flour products as much as possible.

So let's start off with what I believe is the most important factor one should realize is the biggest delusion promoted by today's feed product industry - I've come to the belief that the single most important thing anyone should do when trying to discern whether any kind of food you eat is a real food produce item or an industrially manufactured feed product, is to determine the type of fat.

The most important thing to understand here is this: the oils/fats that as healthy (especially "Heart Healthy") are not, and the oils/fats that we are all warned to avoid or minimize are the fats that are best for your health and well-being.

The most common fat found in feed products is Polyunsaturated vegetable/grain/seed oils high in linoleic acid, are typically rancid from the production process which involves very high heat and the use of industrial solvents like hexane to extract as much oil from the plant matter as possible.

Canola. Cottonseed. Sunflower. Safflower. Soybean. Corn. Peanut.

These industrially produced oils are the primary culprits for why the Standard American Diet is dramatically imbalanced in terms of Omega fatty acids. From a cellular level, your body needs a 1:1 ratio of Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acids to function properly. The problem is that all of these "vegetable" oils have a very high Omega 6 (n6) fatty acid content and no Omega 3 (n3) fatty acids.

In their natural state, most plant material has both n6 and n3 fatty acids in varying ratios...but n3 are fragile, and the heat and solvent extraction methods destroys the n3 fatty acids, while the n6 is not affected.

So if you look at a bag of potato chips or your bag of trail mix (or even your granola bar), you will typically find one or more of these aforementioned oils in the ingredients. This is the primary problem with most processed snack foods (but the establishment would have you believe it's the salt. It's not.)

But even worse than these n6 unbalanced, rancid oils, are the partially hydrogenated oils, aka "trans fats." The most common place you will find this literal poison is in baked goods (in which the bakers/manufacturer's substitute margarine for butter in the recipes) and deep fried foods; from fast food, to deli's to, high-end restaurants. This is because the cheapest deep frying oil that lasts the longest in the deep fat fryers without needing to be changed often is partially hydrogenated soybean ("vegetable") oil.

Most people already have the idea that "deep fried" foods are bad for you, so I don't have to go much further on that topic, other than to say that deep frying can be a perfectly tasty and healthy food choice - if you use a healthy oil to deep fry with (coconut oil, lard or tallow).

But the real subversion is the use of margarine (partially hydrogenated soybean oil) in all baked products. Hamburger buns, hot dog buns, sandwich bread, crackers, cookies, pie crusts, pizza crusts, flour tortillas...the vast majority of these products you'll find at restaurants, food stands, convenience stores and delis. Why? Because it's cheaper, and it resists spoilage far better than real food made with natural fats. A large bag of partially-hydrogenated buns at a fast food restaurant or a hot dog stand that is vacuum sealed, can last for months without spoilage.

The truly healthy fats/oils, are the ones most demonized by the establishment - the saturated fats. Butter. Lard. Tallow. Coconut oil. I could go on and on about this, but let me just put two reference links here if any reader is interested in digging into the details - Know Your Fats and The Queen of Fats (pdf).

So why are fats the most important consideration with regards to having strategies for trying to eat healthy while traveling? Short answer: fat is the key to satiety.

Healthy fats contain vital, nourishing fat soluble vitamins such as D, A and K. These are substances your body needs to survive and thrive. This is why your body's digestive signalling system is cued to the FAT in your food. Natural fats slows down your digestion, leaves you feeling full longer, and supplies your body with needed nutrition for proper function. This is why you can eat a meal of bacon and eggs, and you can eat as much as you'd like until you feel full. At that point, you can easily stop and feel pleasantly satiated.

Industrial oils in most feed products? They don't contain any of the vital fat soluble vitamins or fatty acids, so they don't trigger your satiation signaling or that "feeling full" response properly. This is why one can sit down with a bag or box of "fat free" or "low cholesterol" chips, cookies or crackers, and eat the whole thing in a single sitting and still feel hungry - or worse, temporarily "stuffed" almost to the point of nausea...but hungry again within an hour or so. This is because your stomach is full, but your body is still starving for the nutrients that are missing from the feed products.

So, to come up with a strategy for dealing with hunger while traveling, a complete understanding of fats and how they play a role in digestion and satiation is the primary consideration in choosing your food. While composing this post, I considered just writing this next section...but I believe understanding fats is too vital to skip over.

So, given the differences in fat content and quality, what are the strategies to use when traveling?

I think we have 3 strategies here, best simplified into these concepts: the 80/20 principle, Intermittent Fasting, and Making Do.

The 80/20 Principle

This comes from Mark Sisson over at Mark's Daily Apple. The idea is that a person who eats wholesome, healthy foods 80% of the time will be able to eat the occasional splurge on junk foods without suffering much (if at all) from bad health effects. For the person who eats a healthy diet in day to day life, the occasional feast of junk food while on a short travel trip won't really hurt. This is also a good principle to follow when you have social/familial obligations that supersede being a militant diet nazi - aka screw dietary perfection when your at your sister's wedding. Just shut up and eat the cake. Or...if you're a dinner guest of someone you care about, just eat what you're served to be polite. Obviously, for someone with DD's situation of constant traveling, this approach could quickly lead to a 60/40 or 50/50 ratio of junk food, so it's not really relevant to his concerns as a long term strategy here.

Intermittent Fasting

This is my favored solution here, and it is the reason why I focused the first part of this piece so much on Fat. Because natural, healthy sources of saturated fats are so satiating over the long term, a diet rich in these fats will make fasting relatively easy. The best explanation I've found is at blogger J. Stanton at gnolls.org. His advice can be summed up in a single phrase: Eat Like A Predator, Not Like Prey:

Predators gorge and fast; prey grazes.

Rephrased for modern humans: predators eat meals, prey grazes on snacks. This means you need to eat meals which will carry you through to your next meal, but that won’t make you tired or sleepy.

Think about predators like Lions and Tigers. They catch some grazing ruminant, gorge themselves, than lie around, mate, sunbathe, and play...until they get hungry again - many hours later. Than it's time to go hunting again - and they are hunting hungry.

When you observe someone (or yourself) who is dependent on carbohydrates and plant foods (and most likely believe the lies regarding meat, saturated fats, fiber, etc.), and they often have to eat every two to three hours to keep their energy levels up, because their blood sugars are unstable. People who experience this, are on a roller coaster ride of dramatically fluctuating energy levels. These are the folks who couldn't conceive of taking a 6 hour plane ride without eating. The idea of fasting is terrifying. That's because they eat like grazers.

What I would do if faced with the impending 8-10 hour long plane ride? I would eat a massive meal just prior to going to the airport, full of fats and proteins. Bacon, eggs, sausage, all fried in butter. Or Steak and eggs with a baked potato smothered in butter, bacon bits and sour cream. Eating a massive meal focused primarily on proteins and fats can leave you satiated for quite a long time.

And this is not just some theoretical suggestion I'm making here. I've done it. I flew from Dublin, Ireland to Los Angeles. I did not eat the crap-in-a-box meal they served, nor did I eat the snack foods they provided on the in-flight service. I didn't go to the vending machines or food stands at the L.A. airport while waiting to connect to my Honolulu flight either. I just ate a large steak dinner in Dublin prior to going to the airport.

That was roughly an 18 hour fast for me. Of course, when I got home I was ravenous and I ate like a beast...but the point is, I didn't HAVE to break down and buy some crap from a vending machine or airport fast food joint. And as hungry as I got, I never got that "shaky" sick feeling, grazers stuck on the blood sugar roller coaster get. I didn't even start to feel hungry until about an hour into the flight back to Hawaii, and I'll admit that the food service on the L.A. to Honolulu flight was tempting...but it was not an uncontrollable hunger at that point.

I do need to state a caveat here: intermittent fasting will only be a viable option if you already eat a nutrient-dense diet of real food and are used to deriving your energy from animal meat and fat. If you are a person who starts to feel sick and "shaky" after only a couple of hours of having eaten, fasting is obviously not an option for you.

Making Do

If you must eat at a restaurant, convenience store or food stand, but you want to avoid the worst of industrially manufactured feed products than try to pick your poison.

- Order pizza and eat the toppings and not the crust.

- Order hot dogs or hamburgers and eat everything but the buns.

- Taco salads with those deep fried tortilla shells? Just don't eat the shell. Order extra meat and sour cream to help fill you up.

- When ordering meals at fast food joints, skip the value meals (you don't want to eat the fries made with hydrogenated soybean or canola oil, and you don't want to drink the high fructose corn syrup laden soda either). Better to order two bacon cheese burgers and eat them without the buns. Beef, bacon, cheese, onions, tomatoes and lettuce. Think of it as a cheeseburger salad.

- If you're eating at sit down restaurants that are a little more upscale, most offer the option to substitute steamed vegetables in the place of fries. Ask for a side of butter and smother your vegetables with it. Far more satiating, and the fat will help you absorb the nutrients from the vegetables as well. Avoid anything deep fried at a restaurant. Also, if you're not overweight or dealing with other digestive issues, don't worry about carbohydrates like rice or potatoes. Most starchy vegetable carbs are fine in combination with plenty of fat and protein.

- Nuts can be a good, satiating source of fat and protein, but most trail mix or nuts sold in packages and vending machines are fried in crap oil. Stick to roasted nuts. And definitely get the salted varieties...they taste better, and salt is not the health hazard it's been demonized to be.

- Avoid low fat and fat free dairy...most of those substitute sugar to make them palatable. Embrace full-fat cheeses, yogurts etc., with the knowledge that full fat foods are not only not bad for you, but downright good.

As for portable foods that you can pack for yourself - again, focus on the proteins and fats. Beef jerky, string cheese, roasted nuts (make your own trail mix), hard boiled eggs. Another option is preserved meats like pepperoni and salami. Now meats preserved with nitrates/nitrites are somewhat controversial...I've seen arguments going both ways. I used to try and avoid any meats with nitrates or nitrites listed on the ingredients. But I was referred to the following pubmed abstract from Dr. Michael Eades blog: Food sources of nitrates and nitrites: the physiologic context for potential health benefits.

Apparently many vegetables and some fruits are rich in nitrates and nitrites, so I'm not longer concerned about this preservative. I buy sausages, bacon and other processed meats - as long as they don't contain other additives like MSG, corn syrups (dextrose, maltodextrin, etc.) and other such garbage.

In summary, the important thing to take away from all this, is to understand which foods provide long term satiation and nourishment, and which feed products actually don't do, and leave your body still starving for nutrition.

Food Delusions

2011-09-28T12:24:00.000-07:00

Excellent blogger Delusion Damage commented on my last post regarding my "special diet" and my n=1 experience in noting that my skin's tolerance to sun exposure has improved dramatically since I quit eating the S.A.D. (Standard American Diet).

I don't consider my diet a "special diet" but rather learning to recognize and differentiate between real food and food products. I eat real food and avoid or limit the food products of corporate agriculture and industrialized mass production as much as possible.

My response to DD was the following: "I'm surprised that a guy like you who's blogged extensively about recognizing the lies of society designed to mislead us all hasn't taken note with regards to food"

Delusion Damage responded with the following:

I travel light. I can't cart around much real (that is, perishable) food. I have to eat at whatever fast food joint is open at 1 a.m. at the airport. I can't cook a healthy meal in a hotel room where the equipment consists of two plastic cups and a single-serving packet of instant coffee (which I don't drink). I can't even peel a fruit because the TSA takes away all my knives.

I don't write about food because I don't know much about food. I don't know much about food because I focus on learning about things I can do something about.

I hope I can help Delusion Damage here and focus on one of the things he most certainly can do something about.

It's true that no individual can change the big picture of our current unnatural food production system...but you can certainly control what you ingest and understand the differences and how they affect you. The issues surrounding food is the primary delusion damage inflicted on the citizenry of our Brave New World Order.

Delusion Damage recently wrote a great post that hit on a similar theme to the blog posting I've written about in the past: Farming People

People are farm animals. They are being farmed. From breeding to raising to milking to slaughter and packaging for consumption, every step of the human-farming process is streamlined to yield maximum profits to the farm.

Oh yes, DD. And one of the primary ways in which our current farm operates, is to ensure that the Sheeple are ON FEED. As I commented over at Richard Nikoley's:

The State’s primary tactic in mind control is FEAR. And the worst fear they’ve instilled in we the sheeple, is the fear of not having the State around to protect us.

This fear leaves most utterly incapable of recognizing that the greatest threat to their health and well being is in fact the very same State they are so afraid of even contemplating the idea of living without.

FEAR of saturated fat. FEAR of red meat. FEAR of salt. FEAR of the sun. FEAR of not getting enough “fiber” in your diet.

Is this not what this entire “primal/paleo” living is all about? Discovering that the fears of these things are nothing more than lies promulgated by the financial interests in the government, media, establishment and corporations who want everyone to buy and eat PRODUCTS, not PRODUCE. And after a lifetime of eating PRODUCTS, your sickness will than turn you into a revenue stream for the medical-pharmaceutical-insurance complex to keep you drugged up and unhealthy until your money runs out and you die.

Primal living is about emulating the wild animals who live free. The State is all about herding us and domesticating us into collective herds and keeping us ON FEED so that we can be harvested of as much value as possible before we die.

Our current society is a metaphorical feedlot, with the managers of this lot giving us feed, medication and keeping us confined so as to fatten us all for slaughter. There primary means of confinement is not literal barbed wire or fencing…but fear in our minds, inculcated by a culture shaped through mass media propaganda and educational indoctrination curriculum.

The fear of anarchy, is the fear of feedlot cattle afraid of life on the open range.

Like many folks who start to gain weight and get out of shape as we get older, I came across the low-carb movement on teh interwebz, and discovered that yes, indeed, low carb dieting resolved my expanding waistline issues quite nicely.

But it was the "paleo" blogosphere and the Weston A. Price foundation who really got me to change my personal dietary paradigm and begin to change my focus on the foods I eat and the foods I try my hardest to avoid. In short, I learned the truth about our industrial mono-crop agriculture system and the endless array of products they produce that are designed to appeal to our tastebuds and have near indefinite shelf life so as to extract maximum profitability and realize economies of scale through mass production manufacturing.

These feed products are not real food. They do not nourish and strengthen the body. They merely delude the body into thinking you're eating real food, when in fact it just damages your body. To learn the difference, you're first step is to learn to differentiate between PRODUCTS and PRODUCE.

My next post (when I can get to it...got a lot on my plate at the present,) will cover strategies to specifically address DD's dilemma - how to avoid Feed Products while on the road.

For You, Oh Glittering Sun

2011-09-24T13:15:00.000-07:00

'Ia 'oe e ka la, e alohi nei...

...Mana welelau a o ka honua

For you, oh glittering sun...

...there, on the summit of the world

A Farewell to the Summer Sun

Some of you may be wondering what the hell this posting is about.

It's about one of my newly acquired, favorite past times - the best way to dose up on your vitamin D.

Nude sunbathing.

It seems to me that our species is the only terrestrial species for which many actively avoids the mid-day sun, or if they do go out in it, most cover up or slather on all sorts of chemical concoctions to "protect" the skin from the sun.

Every morning, here in Hawaii, whenever the local TV newscast starts off it's weather segment predicting a sun drenched day, it's always accompanied with an admonishment to "put on the sun block, it's gonna be a hot one today!"

Yet, if you listen to the array of advice put forth in the mainstream mass media, you get conflicting messages regarding vitamin D and it's role in cancer, and the role of sun exposure and Vitamin D levels, and the never ending sales pitch to use sunscreen whenever you head outdoors.

The standard advice is that if at all possible, cover up with clothes and sunglasses, wide brim hats, and above all else, avoid the sun between 10:00am - 4:00pm - the time of day when the sun is directly overhead and at it's most intense exposure. Look at the very first suggestion from the American Cancer Society's page on Skin Cancer Prevention Activities:

Limit the amount of time spent in direct sun when the sun’s rays are most intense, generally from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Ah well, we all know the conventional wisdom promulgated by the likes of the American Cancer Society is nothing more than lies designed to get us to become unhealthy so we can than become revenue streams for the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance complex, right? I mean, think about it....Vitamin D deficiency is related to a whole host of illnesses, including nearly all forms of cancer - but the American Cancer Society advises everyone to get out of the sun from 10am - 4pm daily - the only time of day in which the sun is at the right angle so you you can actually get enough UVB rays for your skin to produce your badly needed vitamin D!

Gee...you think the American Cancer Society has a vested interest in making sure cancer is a problem that is never solved so that they will have a perpetual reason to exist?

Nah....couldn't be.

Look at all the pictures of all the animals above...all are sunbathing in the mid-day sun. Think they intuitively or instinctively know something many of us do not?

To put this all simply: Vitamin D is one of the most important substances your body needs.

You only produce it when your skin is exposed to UVB sunlight rays. The sun generally emits two spectrum of ultraviolet light - UVA and UVB. UVB only reaches those in it's direct line of exposure - mid-day, that 10am-4pm window. UVA is ambient, penetrates cloudcover, and is the UV responsible for causing sun burns. You're exposed to UVA anytime you're outdoors and the sun is in the sky, though early dawn and late dusk, it is minimal. UVA is why you can get sunburned on a cloudy day, or if you're wearing a wide brimmed hat and sunglasses, and your face still gets burned when your on the water or snow. UVA can be reflected and still burn you from long time exposure to it.

Another important factor to consider is that sunscreen and sunblock may prevent you from getting burned from long exposure to the sun...but it also blocks your skins ability to produce Vitamin D from UVB exposure.

So what was that advice again? Avoid sun exposure between the hours of 10am to 4pm, but if you must go out during that time, make sure you cover up and slather on sunscreen.

Follow this advice religiously, and you too can become a beneficiary of the cancer industries services when you're older!

Some people have jokingly said that whatever Doctor's and conventional wisdom recommends, you should do the exact opposite, and rest assured, you'll be better off for it. In terms of sun "safety" I think this advice may have merit.

Prior to this summer, I had been taking liquid Vitamin D3 capsules on a daily basis. After exhausting another bottle, while I was at the store contemplating another $20 bottle of D3, I thought to myself "Why am I paying for this when I live in Hawaii, where the latitude means I can get it for free year round? So I passed on the bottle of D3 and resolved to begin a sun bathing regimen.

Here's my "Vitamin D-for-free" strategy:

- At the beginning of this summer (around May), I began to deliberately sun bathe around 12 noon without any sun screen or clothing, for about 15 minutes front and back. It helps that I live in a rural area and do not have neighbors who can see my yard...but if you're an exhibitionist, than go for it!

- After a couple of sun bathing sessions, I gradually increased the time I stay out in the sun - from 15 minutes, I began to stay out for 20, than 25, so on and so forth. I can currently sun bathe for about 2 hours in the mid-day sun without sunscreen and not get burned. Tolerance to the sun takes time to build up, but if you do it right, you'll develop a nice tan and not get burned at all. I get comments on my tan from people all the time now.

- If I do have to spend a long time in the sun (like when I pick up some extra blue collar side work, or go to an all day event at the beach), I will cover up with clothes and a wide brimmed hat and sun glasses for the majority of the day - but if I'm able to, I'll take off the hat, sunglasses and shirt around noon and expose my skin to the sun while working for about an hour and than cover it all up again for the rest of the day. My co-workers think I'm crazy, as they're slathering on the sunscreen and keeping covered all day long.

- If I'm at the beach for say a picnic or barbecue with family and friends, I'll stay covered and in the shade, and only venture out into the sun to jump in the water for a swim or play a game, than head right back for the shade when I'm done with the activity.

- If I'm going surfing or diving or some other activity that has me in the water for hours, I'll usually either go at dawn or dusk (in other words, actually follow the conventional wisdom and avoid the 10-4 window). That way I don't need to use sunscreen and still avoid getting burned. I can honestly say that this is the first time in my entire life living in Hawaii in which I did not get sunburned or had peeling skin during the summer months, and I have yet to even use a single dab of sunscreen.

- Diet plays a huge role in developing sun tolerance as well. Prior to cutting glutenous grains and industrial vegetable oils out of my diet and dramatically reducing my sugar intake while increasing the saturated fats, I would get sunburned within 15 - 20 minutes of of mid day sun exposure. Now, even if I do happen to stay out in the sun a little too long, I may turn red...but within 12 hours, the redness fades and my tan is darker, and I don't have the pain of a sunburn, nor does my skin peel. When I used to eat SAD, redness meant days of pain and eventual peeling for sure.

- One of the things I've always wanted to acquire, was a hot tub. I'm frequently sore and bruised all over my body from my martial arts training regimen. I've often longingly thought of sinking into a hot tub to relax my sore muscles many a night after my classes. I have noticed lately though that about an hour after sun bathing, my previously sore muscles feel relaxed and rejuvenated...as if I had been in a hot tub, or I just had a deep-tissue massage. So I googled the other day...sure enough, Vitamin D levels and muscle soreness, injury recovery, cramping and body building definitely appear to be related!

Dang. Seems like all the other terrestrial species on the planet who sunbathe at mid day may be on to something...why waste money on things like sunscreen, massages and such, when all you need to do is sunbathe on a regular basis? In these tough economic times, the Sun is one of the best ways to cut your healthcare costs!

I still want a hot tub though.

Quiplinks II

2011-09-17T01:06:00.000-07:00

Been so busy these past few weeks, I haven't had much to write about. But I still read a lot when I manage to get online, so I decided to do another installment of Quiplinks - this time with my own commentary thrown in.

"Modern government is the most ingenious form of slavery ever invented."

- Stephen Nichols at Strike the Root

This article was similar to a post I wrote in February, Feedlot USA. Nichol's calls it the 5 Pillars of the modern day slave system. In my own analogy, those pillars he refers to are the metaphorical barricades that keep us trapped in the system.

"Vagina is not authority. Don’t accept that her sexuality is the authority of the relationship."

- Rollo Tomassi at The Rational Male

It's great to see the highly respected Game commenter and SoSuave guru, Rollo Tomassi, decided to finally start blogging. In this piece, he discusses one of the ways in which Men who start out in good relationships with women, slide into being the Average Frustrated Chump doing her bidding: by allowing her to use the promise of either future sex or the threat of not having sex to control the relationship.

"Although it may be counter-intuitive given contemporary politics, the best way to restore a respect for fatherhood would be to emphasize the difference between mothers and fathers."

- Welmer at The Spearhead

In which W.F. Price points out that one of the ways the Feminists marginalized Fatherhood was to redefine the meaning of parenting to only encompass the nurturing and care usually provided by a mother. This deliberately and quite destructively ignores and marginalizes the different but equally important contributions that Father's make in raising children.

"Sadly, most Americans know very little about the Federal Reserve. In the United States today, most Americans graduate from high school without ever learning much of anything about the Fed. But if you really want to understand what is going on with our economy, it is absolutely critical that you understand the Federal Reserve."

- From "Unelected, Unaccountable, Unrepentant: The Federal Reserve Is Using Your Money To Bail Out European Commercial Banks Once Again" at The Economic Collapse blog.

End the Fed.

"We’ll just pause here for a moment so the men in the audience can enjoy the idea of a Victoria’s Secret model using coconut oil as an all-over moisturizer."

- Tom Naughton at Fat-Head

*pause*

“God helps those who help themselves”

- Clarence at Traditional Christianity

Another good case for disaster preparedness...one of my favorite topics du jour. I've never forgotten the Boy Scout motto, despite being a BSA drop-out: Be prepared.

"Who would you trust can solve bad situations better? the guy crying, or the guy who doesn't seem to be that bothered?"

- Yohami

Men should never, ever cry in front of other people, except for under the most extreme of circumstances. Like the death of a parent...or your favorite team winning the Super Bowl.

"Equally, the conventional liberal and conservative legions are mere slaves to someone else’s whim, living reactionary lifestyles consisting of defending vague ideas and flinging mud at the other side."

- Edward Wallin at In Mala Fide

This quote seems to perfectly describe the format of the split-screen television cable news program political debate. You know, the one with the right-wing talking head flinging verbal Pachyderm poo at the left-wing talking head; who in turn responds by flinging some donkey dung of it's own back at the right? This is how the television PROGRAM, programs us all to behave. Pick your side and defend it mainly by attacking the other side. And some wonder why civil political discourse is next to impossible in this country?

"Living in a world of polluted air, polluted water, polluted toys and other things we handle, and food polluted with commerce and science, renders each and every one of us very different from each other."

- Peggy at The Primal Parent

n=1. Find what works for you, and never simply follow the herd.

"In an age of blinkered specializaton perhaps we should revive the idea of the Renaissance man."

- Fred Reed at Fred on Everything

Fred is famous for his optimism and faith in the average intelligence and cultural tastes of we the sheeple. Pure philanthropic misanthropy.

"'Choice', the greatest freedom of all, separates libertarianism from all the other political philosophies. Libertarianism is the belief in and practice of self-governance, the freedom to choose while simultaneously accepting responsibility for the consequences of that choice."

- Brian Wilson at LewRockwell.com

Amen.

Registered!

2011-09-12T16:37:00.000-07:00

While I'm a little late to the party (been really busy this past week), I didn't want to miss out on the fun of Ferdinand's latest google bomb.

I support Paul Elam and his effort to create register-her.com as an online repository to name and shame the worst misandrists of our Brave New World Order.

And Jessica has been at the forefront of the misandry-in-the-name of feminism and equality for the past decade, she definitely deserves this naming and shaming...even though we know she's basically shameless.

Now I've got a question for Paul...where's Mz. Amynda Marcotte's entry?

What does F.E.M.A. stand for?

2011-09-08T11:57:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the mass media and liberal/left wing punditry had a field day in blaming the so-called ineptitude of the FEMA response on George W. Bush.

I heard a very liberal/progressive friend re-tell the following joke:

Q: "What was George Bush's position on Roe vs. Wade?"

A: "He didn't care how the poor, Black people tried to get out of New Orleans after Katrina."

I admit, I laughed when he told me that one.

Funny thing is many people consider FEMA's post Katrina response to be an utter failure...and that hasn't changed. Years later in the response to Hurricane Irene, Ron Paul recently commented:

In the wake of hurricane Irene, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is expected to come hat in hands asking for more money from Congress. Like the rest of the government, it is broke. It has been suggested that any additional funds allocated to FEMA should come from cuts elsewhere. This seems harsh and lacking in compassion to big government advocates who do not understand economics, but I would go a step further. FEMA should never have been established.

Hear, hear Dr. Paul!

Anybody know what Obama's position on Roe vs. Wade is?

Dr. Paul then goes on to site examples from Katrina on the supposed "bureaucratic incompetence" of FEMA:

Victims of disasters should get any and all help possible, and there is virtually no limit to the generosity and compassion of good American people after devastation hits. One only need to remember the outpouring after Katrina to know this is true. FEMA, however, did more to get in the way of relief than to actually provide and facilitate it. The examples are numerous. When the call was put out for volunteer firefighters, they volunteered by the thousands. It was FEMA, for reasons of control and bureaucratic ineptitude, who made sure they were not, in fact allowed to actually help. When a group of firefighters arrived from Houston, instead of being put immediately on the job, they were told to sit around and wait. After waiting for two days doing nothing, they were simply sent home. One thousand volunteer firefighters were sent to Atlanta to undergo sexual harassment training while fires actively raged in the city. The ones that remained through this stupidity were sent to escort the president around or to distribute fliers instead of putting out fires. Computer engineer Jack Harrison was told his skills were needed to rebuild technological infrastructure. After being given the runaround for about two weeks, he was misallocated as head of security on the cruise ship FEMA had leased, when he should have been using his skills to help. All manner of help was turned away or mismanaged by FEMA while people suffered and waited. Even the Red Cross had its hands tied by FEMA.

Now why would I put "bureaucratic incompetence" in quotations here? Everyone knows that FEMA botched the response to Katrina, right? It would seem like I'm disagreeing with Dr. Paul, right?

That's because I am.

The response to Hurricane Katrina was an absolute and complete success.

What does the acronym F.E.M.A. stand for again?

Federal Emergency MANAGEMENT Agency.

FEMA's mission has NEVER been about bringing aid, relief or help to the masses of people affected by a catastrophic event.

The mission is about MANAGING the situation. FEMA officials could give a flying fuck about civilians who are injured, endangered, starving or dying of thirst after a disaster. No, their primary concern is to set up a zone of control and disarm the sheeple before they even consider the option of allowing charity and first aid responders access to the area to help those in dire need of assistance.

And Katrina was no isolated incident to be blamed on simple bureaucratic ineptitude. We see a pattern of behavior emerge after a tornado devastated a small town in Kansas in 2007:

On Friday, May 4, an F5 tornado wiped the town of Greensburg, Kan., almost entirely off the map. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with the National Guard and local police from all over Kansas, then systematically kept out relief workers while they went house to house disarming the residents.

Gee, George Bush must not have cared about those white folks who survived a tornado either!

FEMA’s top priority going in was clear. It was not to help people, but to establish control and cow the population. These, of course, are the same things they did during Hurricane Katrina, with much more disastrous results.

Just remember that if you're unfortunate enough to live in an area hit by a natural disaster, but fortunate enough to survive...don't expect help from FEMA when they show up on the scene. They're more concerned with MANAGING the emergency - which really means taking your guns away and rounding you up with all the other remaining survivors to make sure the situation is UNDER CONTROL!

Remember: a large scale disaster means one thing to the citizenry of the USSA: Let's go Camping!

Serfing USA

2011-09-06T13:35:00.000-07:00

My fellow Americans, it's time to recognize the reality of the system of Government and it's control of our society and see that the idea that we live in the home of the brave and the land of the free is nothing but a delusion of times long past.

Freedom is not free. It was taken away from us, one gradual, incremental step at a time, over the course of decades. What freedoms, you ask? Here's a list of a few, excerpted from Freedoms I Wish the Military Were Defending:

The freedom to fly without being sexually violated.
The freedom to purchase a gun without a waiting period.
The freedom to grow, sell, and smoke marijuana.
The freedom to sell goods and services for whatever amount a buyer is willing to pay.
The freedom to make more than six withdrawals from one’s savings account each month.
The freedom to drink alcohol as a legal, voting adult under twenty-one years of age.
The freedom to purchase Sudafed over the counter.
The freedom to gamble without government approval.
The freedom to deposit more than $10,000 in a bank account without government scrutiny.
The freedom to not be stopped at a checkpoint and have one’s car searched without a warrant.
The freedom to sell any good or offer any service on Craigslist.
The freedom to fill in a "wetland" on one’s own property.
The freedom to cut someone’s hair for money without a license.
The freedom to home-brew over 100 gallons of beer per year.
The freedom to advertise tobacco products on television.
The freedom to smoke Cuban cigars.
The freedom to not wear a seatbelt.
The freedom to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The freedom to keep the fruits of one’s labor.
The freedom of an employer and an employee to negotiate for any wage.
The freedom to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
The freedom to videotape the police in public.
The freedom of businesses to hire and fire whomever they choose.
The freedom to not be brutalized by the police.
The freedom to not be arrested for victimless crimes.
The freedom to sell raw milk.
The freedom to not have one’s child subject to unnecessary vaccinations.
The freedom to not have one’s child unjustly taken by Child Protective Services.
The freedom to not be subject to the Patriot Act.
The freedom for kids to set up neighborhood lemonade stands.
The freedom to not have every facet of business and society regulated.
The freedom to stay in one’s home during a hurricane.
The freedom to not have our e-mail and phone conversations monitored.
The freedom to travel to and trade with any country.
The freedom to be left alone.

How did this happen?

It started with the acceptance of the idea that the individual cannot have supreme property rights, and that no citizen can own their own land free and clear, to do with whatever they wish with it, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another citizen's property and their free use of it.

Many people simply shut down their critical thinking processes when they encounter the cognitive dissonance of experiencing things that don't jibe with what they were ~~taught~~ brainwashed to believe in their ~~public schools and universities~~ social engineering and indoctrination facilities.

"What do you mean America is not the land of the free and home of the brave?"

Try land of the fee and home of the slave.

"I'm not a slave!"

Technically, that's true. You're a serf.

"What do you mean?"

Serfdom

Serfdom included the forced labor of serfs bound to a hereditary plot of land owned by a lord in return for protection and the right to work on fields they leased from their landlords to maintain their own subsistence.

That, of course, was the medieval definition of Serfdom. Our ~~public schools~~ indoctrination institutional facilities would tell you that this was a practice that has long been abolished and left in the dustbin of history.

That's a lie.

Serfdom is alive and well, it's just changed with the times so that you don't recognize it even as you are laboring in your serfdom.

Instead of tying it to a piece of land to lease form our landlords to maintain our own subsistence, our Lords are the cartel members of the Federal Reserve banking system and our centralized, fascist Government. Instead of simply land, our Banker Lords have the power to create "money" out of thin air. What it really means is they have the exclusive monopoly on allowing you to put yourself into debt to them, for which no matter what occupation or entrepreneurial activity you endeavor in, they charge you interest for it. Your house, your automobile, your education...if you borrowed from a Federal Reserve cartel member and are paying interest on a loan to obtain these things, you are indeed a 21st century serf.

But the Bankers are not the only Serf lords in today's Brave New World Order.

Think you own your own property because you finished paying off your mortgage to the Banking Cartel?

Don't pay your property taxes and see your County, State & Federal Lords take away "your" property for owing a mere fraction of it's market value to the State.

Or you can try and not pay your income taxes for a few years, see what happens to your so-called freedom when men in uniform come with guns to take you away and turn you into a revenue stream for the prison industrial complex.

As the 19th century German poet, Johanne Goethe astutely observed:

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

A Proposal to Expand the Scope of the Death Penalty....

2011-09-01T00:49:00.000-07:00

....to include the creators and disseminators of malware, spyware and trojan virus programs.

Took me 4 days to get back online.

DEATH TO VIRUS PROGRAMMERS!

Marriage in Ancient Hawai'i

2011-08-19T14:12:00.000-07:00

King Kamehameha's Favorite Wife, Queen Ka'ahumanu

Reading Mucius Scaevola's post, Marriage in Ancient Rome, over at his blog Glittering Opprobrium reminded me that I promised LadyLydia I'd get around to writing a post about ancient Hawaiian society and marriage customs.

Before talking about marriage in ancient Hawaii, it is important to understand that Ancient Hawaiian society had a very strict adherence to the ancient religion - the Kapu (taboo) system - that dictated their actions and behavior in every single aspect of their lives. While Judeo-Christian-based Western societies have generally placed the most importance on religious tenets applied to sex and sexuality - and more specifically on the female gender, the Hawaiians had a much looser conception of regulating sexual behavior and it was far more rigid and repressive when it came to food and eating.

For instance, homosexuality was completely acceptable, but in practice, most were bi-sexual. It was also common for both commoners and royalty to wife swap and play sexual games similar to spin the bottle, except random pairings resulted in far more activity than just kissing. They also had a religious ceremony called hi'uwai that was essentially an orgy at night time in the ocean during a certain time of year to maintain a form of anonymous discretion between participants. Children conceived from this ceremony were considered especially blessed. As you can see, Hawaiian society was quite libertine...which is why when haole (white folk) sailors first came here, it quickly became a favorite port of call. The first sailors got laid like tile by the native women.

But food was quite a different matter. Men and women could not eat together. Women were not allowed to handle any food that was meant to be eaten by men, and for the most part, men did all the cooking. Women could have their eye put out or even put to death for eating certain foods that were considered sacred to the male gods. Certain species of banana, certain fish and pork were all solely reserved for men.

As I commented over at Mucius's blog regarding gender relation customs and their ramifications for society:

When society makes women dependent on men, civilizations arise and liberty is the norm.

When society makes women independent of men, civilizations fall, and tyranny reigns.

Hawaiians did not enforce rigorous monogamy, but their women were still dependent on their men to farm, catch, prepare and cook food...while men were dependent on their women for making the Kapa or clothing made from pounding and drying the mulberry bark.

As I will cover later in this post, the strict adherence to religious tenets regarding food and gender were a key role in the overthrow of the old Kapu system of religion after Western contact.

Hawaiian society was a strict caste system, with four basic classifications: the Ali'i (Chiefs or Royalty) the Kahuna (Priest class), the Maka'ainana (Commoners) and the Kauwa (outcasts and slaves).

Marriage was basically broken down into two categories: lifelong monogamy for everyone except Royalty. Royalty had two-way polygamy - Men could have multiple wives, women could have multiple husbands. While this was the concept, it was not really the common practice for women to have multiple husbands at the same time, though they technically could. We would recognize the female polygamy as more similar to rotating polyandry today. If a Chiefess were unhappy with her husband, she would leave and take up with another Chief elsewhere. Sometimes she'd return to her former husband, sometimes not. Generally speaking though (there are historical exceptions of rival chiefs kidnapping women from each other), marriage and sexual relations were entirely at her discretion.

Hawaiian society was definitely a Matriarchy based kinship system...which is why up until the arrival of the haole, most people, nobility included, only had a single name.

Since Hawaiian society was based on oral tradition (no writing), Genealogy records were entirely based on oral recitations. For the commoners, each family kept their own genealogical knowledge, while the royalty had the Priests who memorized chants that recited the line of ancestry for particular Chiefs going back many, many generations.

Amongst the Chief class, there were various ranks, and this ranking was based entirely on the rank of the person's mother. The more sacred the genealogy of the mother, the higher ranking the royalty.

But that doesn't mean the highest ranking royalty was the ruler.

Hawaiian society had a regular tradition of warfare, in which rival Chiefs would conquer lands, exact tribute and establish Kingdoms. If a low ranking (by birth) Chief could muster the forces and conquer the armies of a higher ranking chief, he became ruler.

As the ruler, he could than marry a higher ranking Chiefess, and any children they had would than be higher ranking than himself.

In retrospect, as seen through the lens of the manosphere's common terminology, this is classic Matriarchy. The best women went to the strongest man, so she could have the most dominant genes to pass on to her children. But no matter how strong the man, Hawaiian society was still a Matriarchy, and women had the final say in matters of hearth, home and who they decided to have sex with.

A good example would be the story of King Kamehameha (that's his portrait I use as an avatar on this blog on the upper left hand side).

He was a Chief from the Big Island who was born of relatively low rank. At the time of his birth, he was the nephew of the Mo'i (King) of the Big Island. When his Uncle, the King died, he and his cousin, the King's son, eventually fought an island-wide war in which Kamehameha eventually succeeded in conquering the whole of the Big Island. From there, he eventually went on to conquer the entire Island chain and became the first King with all of the islands under a single Chief's rule.

And, as the King, he had many wives. Studying the history of his marriages gives good insight into the polygamous, Matriarchal system in Ancient Hawaii. While he had many wives, only two are really noted in history...his favorite wife, Ka'ahumanu, and his most sacred wife, highest ranking in her time by Genealogy, Keopuolani. Even though Ka'ahumanu was his favorite, it was the son born by Keopuolani who was the heir to the throne and eventually became King Kamehameha II.

Ka'ahumanu actually never bore any children, but if she had, her children would never have been in line for the throne, as Keopuolani had the higher Genealogical rank.

Ka'ahumanu was a fiesty, head strong and fiery woman...but she was an integral player in Kamehameha's conquest of the islands, for it was several of her Uncles who were prominent warriors who brought their armies under Kamehameha's direction when he began the conquest of the Big Island and later the entire island chain.

After he had conquered the Big Island, he asked his most prominent Priest and adviser if he had any potential concerns for rebellion in his newly established Kingdom. He was shocked that when his adviser told him that his only potential source for rebellion was from his favorite wife, Ka'ahumanu. The following recount comes from the book Kamehameha and his Warrior Kekuhaupi'o:

If your wife should be attracted to another ali'i and she should love this new man, then she would turn and give the kingdom to this new man. Her uncles would also turn and help their neice, and you, e Kalani, would be in trouble. (e Kalani is the equivalent to "Your Royal Highness" - literally translated, it means "Heavenly One.")

Heeding the advice of his adviser, Kamehameha decreed at his court that Ka'ahumanu was Kapu, or forbidden to all men, under the penalty of death.

Note that the King, the strongest man of the Kingdom, had no control over his wife herself. He couldn't tell her to do anything. He could only warn all the other men that if they dared have an affair with his wife, he'd have them killed.

It must also be noted that despite Ka'ahumanu being of lower rank than Keopuolani, she wielded far greater political power than the higher ranking wife of the King's harem. When Kamehameha died, his son by the high ranking Keopuolani was only a young teenager, not ready to take the reigns of power over the Kingdom. Ka'ahumanu became the regent and de facto ruler until Liholiho - Kamehameha II - was old enough to rule.

Even when Liholiho did become the King, many historians consider Ka'ahumanu the true power behind the throne...even though Keopuolani was in fact the highest ranking Queen upon Kamehameha's death, she ended up returning to Kaua'i where her family resided, as she was uninterested in politics, unlike Ka'ahumanu.

And, as I alluded to earlier with regards to the Ancient Hawaiian Kapu system regarding food and eating, it was Ka'ahumanu who was instrumental in overthrowing the old system when she was the Prime Minister during Kamehameha II's reign.

By the time Liholiho ascended to the throne, the Hawaiian society was in the process of a dramatic cultural upheaval. They noted that the haole broke many of the Kapu regarding men eating with women and women eating forbidden foods. They noted that the Gods did nothing when such Kapu were violated and they began to question the legitimacy of their religious doctrine and it's strict gender roles.

Ka'ahumanu served as the primary catalyst when she publicly sat down with Kamehameha II and his men and ate a meal with them. Almost immediately after she did so, the general populace rebelled and overthrew the Priestly caste and destroyed the temples and idols that had been the central power in Ancient Hawaiian society for generations.

This lead to a period of general anarchy and warfare as the Hawaiians no longer had to abide by the strict Kapu system that regulated all behavior. This chaos lead to the eventual introduction of Christianity when the Protestant missionaries arrived nearly a decade later to "save the souls of the heathen savages."

The historical example here appears to have parallels to our present day cultural troubles...similar also to those of ancient Roman society: when women become dissatisfied with their particular gender roles in society and they rebel against the old order, chaos and social upheaval are soon to follow.

Ok, before that last line gets anyone upset, I was being facetious.

When the Chickens Come Home to Roost

2011-08-12T20:07:00.000-07:00

When I first changed my diet thanks to reading up at the Weston Price Foundation website, the first piece of advice I followed from them was to find free range eggs in my local grocery stores. Easy enough, there are several brands available, including "Omega-3 Eggs."

But one thing always bothered me about these "free range" eggs...all had the statements on their cartons "100% vegetarian feed." Since chickens are omnivorous, this always bothered me.

I soon learned that what that really meant was soy-based feed. Since I've been striving to eliminate as much soy as possible from my diet, this was a problem.

Transfer of soy isoflavone into the egg yolk of chickens

I also read this article at the WAPF website, Eat Your Eggs and Have Your Chickens Too, in which the following factors were cited to point out the superiority of having free range eggs -

Without a doubt, fresh, pastured eggs are superior in taste and nutrition to conventionally raised commercially available varieties. Eggs have been a highly valued foods since the beginning of time—eggs from chickens, ducks, geese, turtles and fish. Egg yolks are the richest source of two superstar carotenoids—lutein and zeaxanthin. 1. Not only are bright yellow yolks loaded with these fat-soluble antioxidant nutrients, they are more bioavailable than those found in vegetables, corn and most supplements.2,3 While these nutrients have a reputation of combating macular degeneration4,5 and cataracts6 and supporting overall healthy vision, they have a long list of other benefits, including protecting the skin from sun damage7 and even reducing one’s risk of colon8 and breast cancer.9

Besides providing all eight essential protein building amino acids, a large whole, fresh egg offers about six to seven grams of protein and five grams of fat (with about 1.5 grams of it saturated), which comes in handy to help in the absorption of all the egg’s fat-soluble vitamins. One egg also serves up around 200 milligrams of brain-loving cholesterol and contains the valuable vitamins A, K, E, D, B-complex and minerals iron, phosphorus, potassium and calcium.10 Choline, another egg-nutrient, is a fatty substance found in every living cell and is a major component of our brain. Additionally, choline helps break up cholesterol deposits by preventing fat and cholesterol from sticking to the arteries.10,14 So the bottom line is, don’t be chicken about eating eggs, especially the cholesterol-rich yolks!

Compared to the generic supermarket variety, eggs from pastured poultry are a vivid yellow-orange—proof of a richer store of healthenhancing carotenes (more specifically xanthophylls, a natural yellow-orange pigment in green plants and yellow corn).11,12 The more carotenes, the darker, deeper orange color the yolk—and the higher the levels of fat-soluble vitamins as well. Expect to find the richest orange colors in the spring, when grass is fresh and bugs are plentiful. Color also fades as the egg ages. Bear in mind, variations will be seen in these differences due to the breed and age of chickens, their diet (grass, insects, and feed) and the season.

When left to their own scavenger instincts, being the omnivores they are, chickens eat bugs, worms (and even snakes if given the opportunity), grasses and nutritious herbs such as plantain leaves and wilted nettle—both of which boost egg production and yolk hue. While these feathered friends will eat the grain and pellets left in the feed trough, it certainly isn’t their ideal food. Remember, chickens are omnivores, not vegetarians as many people assume, meaning they are designed to consume foods from both animal and plant sources.

I was sold on the idea of getting my own backyard chickens.

It's been an interesting experience to say the least, as I've been now raising chickens for over two and a half years. I've learned a lot about it, and decided to pass along some tips gained from my experiences.

- Chicken manure stinks after awhile. The chicken hatchery I bought my hatchlings from suggested this product, called EM-1 or Effective Micro-organisms Formula 1. I put a little into their daily water...it drastically reduces the smell of their manure. About once a month, I'll spray a 25% EM-1 to water solution all over their coop and egg box...which literally eliminates the manure smell entirely. This product is a must-have if you raise chickens in a small backyard close to your house.

- I feed a mixture of organic grains (barley, corn, oats, milo & wheat) bought from my local feed store. Some paleo diet proponents who are right to castigate grains for human consumption often talk about trying to find grain free chickens. This is ludicrous. Chickens are omnivorous and love to eat grains. If you let them forage in pasture, you will see them literally peck the grains off of stalks of grass. While grains make humans sick, chickens seem to be designed/evolved to eat grains as a regular part of their diet.

- I mix a small bit of ground up oyster shell into their feed. This provides calcium and grit for their gizzards. This makes the egg shells strong. Before I began doing this, my chickens eggshells were pretty fragile and broke too easily. Since I've added the oyster shells, the eggs are so strong, I sometimes have to really strike it hard to crack it open when I'm cooking. If you don't have access to oyster shell, I've heard that some egg farmers will crush up the eggshells and feed it back to the chickens. You don't want to just throw the egg shells whole into the coop though...they may start to look at egg shell as food and begin eating their own eggs as soon as they're laid.

- If you do have chickens that cannibalize their own eggs, buy a wooden egg from a craft store and put it in the egg box. After a few painful pecks of the wooden egg, the chickens stop trying to eat their own eggs.

- I also mix in flax seed into their feed. If you google it up, you'll find a lot of conflicting claims regarding whether or not this benefits the Omega 3 content of the egg. Here's one source I found on the topic, from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the U.N. : The Role of Poultry in Human Nutrition (pdf)

Elongation of n-3 fats and their enrichment in eggs

Chickens have the unusual ability of rapidly converting ALA into DHA in significant quantities, and to EPA in lesser amounts. This means that eggs can be enriched with these important fats, provided that there is an adequate supply of ALA in the hens’ diet.

The diet of hens usually contains some of the n-3 fats, and 100 g of edible egg typically contains 150 mg of total n-3; of this, DHA + EPA is about 20 mg. By adding 10 percent flax seed (2 percent ALA) to the diet of layers, the total n-3 will rise to more than 600 mg/100 g. About one-third of this will be DHA + EPA.

You really shouldn't bother trying to add more flax seed than around 10% of their scratch in an attempt to get higher levels of n-3 in the eggs, as they do not eat it all up anyhow. They don't seem to particularly care much for flax seed, but they do eat some of it. The benefit of having the scratch thrown on the dirt floor of their coop is that when it rains, they'll sprout and the chickens will eat those sprouts too.

- The fact that chickens like and eat grains does not mean that is all you should be feeding them. That should only be a portion of their overall diet. Chickens are literally pigs with wings. They eat anything and everything. Broccoli stalks, carrot peels, old rice, rotten left overs, bread, cheese, fish, meat (yes, they'll even eat chicken...I don't feed my chicken's chicken...but I could if I had to), pear and apple cores, potato peels...basically anything you would normally flush down the garbage disposal, or throw in the waste basket? Just chop it up into peck sized pieces and dump it in the coop. They won't leave a single scrap left.

- In addition to kitchen scraps and a ration of grain feed, I let my chickens wonder the backyard for every afternoon from around 2-3 pm 'til sundown. This is when they eat grass, seeds, bugs, worms and anything else they can scavenge. I've seen my chickens catch and eat mice and centipedes before.

Once the sun sets, they all come back to the coop and roost for the night. I then shut the gate to their enclosure. I do this because if I were to let them roam truly free range all day long, they find nooks and crannies and begin laying their eggs all over the property. Many times you never find them, until they go rotten. Then you find them by smell.

By keeping them in an enclosure for half the day, they usually lay all their eggs in an egg box I constructed in their coop. When I let them out of their enclosure, I than grab their eggs from the egg box as they run out into the yard to begin their daily scavenging.

- Sometimes your chickens will get sick. I had a chicken get sick, diarrhea, and she stopped eating and started refusing to leave her roost in the coop. She slowly wasted away until she died. I tried everything I could think of to save her, but nothing I tried worked. Than another of my hens started coming down with the same symptoms, I began to google frantically to try and find the answer.

I found an online forum in which backyard chicken raisers shared tips and advice. One was to put some raw apple cider vinegar (not distilled) in the drinking water, and to spray a 1:10 ratio of the vinegar all over the coop and common areas the chickens frequent.

Within a single day after doing this, she began to recover, eat, and come out of the coop and run around with her fellow hens.

- Other tips were to occasionally feed the chickens fresh garlic and onions...but this purportedly will make the eggs they produce have a peculiar flavor. I've fed my chickens garlic, but never noticed any strange flavors in their eggs.

- If you raise the chickens since they were hatchlings, frequent handling while they grow will make them very used to human presence. Certain breeds however, are more flighty and nervous than others, while other breeds are downright friendly. I had one Aracuana who literally flew up and roost on my shoulder every chance she got, like a pirate captain's parrot.

- If you make a specific noise whenever you go outside to feed them kitchen scraps, you can than use that noise as a call. I can walk into my yard and make my imitation of a chicken cackle (ba-GAWWWK!) and it's almost comical to see them come running from all corners towards you in anticipation.

In closing, I can say this: it may require a lot of initial work to set up a system for raising your own chickens, but once you have it set up and you figure out what works best in your situation, it's almost effortless to daily maintain them, with only the occasional bi-annual clean out of the coop necessary to keep them clean and healthy and producing eggs. And their eggs they produce are certainly worth it.

You don't even need that many hens to make enough eggs for your family. I have 11 hens, and they produce more than enough eggs for my families daily needs. I often give away eggs to friends and family. Besides a good food source, they make great pets to boot.

One last piece of advice - if you have hunting dogs, make sure they cannot get to the chickens. I had my best hunting dog's runner leash break once, and I came home to a yard full of feathers, no chickens in sight, and one fat and happy hunting hound. If he were not my best hog dog, I would have put a bullet in his head right then and there, I was so angry.

I had to start all over from scratch, get all new hatchlings, and resume buying store bought eggs for a full 6 months until the new flock matured and began laying eggs.

Sometimes, you learn some lessons the hard way.

$16,000,000,000,000+ in Secret "Loans" at 0% Interest

2011-08-10T09:20:00.000-07:00

According to the openly avowed Socialist Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, the first time the Federal Reserve System has been officially audited by the Government Accounting Office and the results have been made public.

You can download the .PDF of the audit here.

Or you can look at the Scribd online document here.

"As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders.

Financial "assistance?"

The blog Unelected puts this into perspective:

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is “only” $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

The Socialist Senator from Vermont raises the following point:

Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.

Sanders is right. The most relevant point here though, is that the Federal Reserve is NOT an agency of the United States Government. It's a privately owned banking Cartel, created by the International Banking elite FOR the benefit of the International Banking elite.

Sounds conspiratorial?

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

Secret loans at 0% interest that haven't been paid back, to banks all over the world? You don't say?

You mean this whole time, when people tried to point out that the Federal Reserve System was a privately owned banking cartel owned essentially by international bankers (The Rothschilds), they weren't talking about illuminati reptiles flying around in UFO's?

Sander's makes another good point while missing the forest for the trees:

In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.

For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs.

In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. "No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed's board of directors or be employed by the Fed," he said.

The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans.

The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.

Sander's entire argument here rests on the presumption that the Federal Reserve is an actual Federal Governmental Agency under the control of the Government.

Hah!

"Private contractors" like JP Morgan Chase are the de facto owners of the Federal Reserve, Bernanke is their bitch, and the entire US Government - and by extension, we the sheeple, are under it's control.

Carbs Are Not the Devil

2011-08-08T19:07:00.000-07:00

My personal thoughts on diet have been constantly evolving, and I've found that ideas of just what is a healthy diet is probably one of the most contentious issue there is amongst all people and all cultures.

There are so many variables to each person's individual situation and health...and so many differences in personal experiences, but they all lead to this idea that many people adopt, that there is ONE WAY to eat for optimal health.

To the vegans and vegetarians, it's avoiding animal products.

To the fruitarians, it's all about overdosing on fructose and exercising at insane levels of chronic cardio.

Than we have the Low Carb/Very Low Carb/Zero Carb (LC/VLC/ZC) community, the Weston Price Foundation traditional eaters, and finally, we have the Paleo camp.

From my own point of view, when discussing dietary issues, I use "Paleo" as a kind of short-hand reference. It has the benefit of being easily memorable and someone who's interested in the topic after my discussion with them, can easily use google and find the paleo blogosphere... which can be a life changing discovery for those who grasp the basic concepts and apply them. (I've had a colleague lose over 100 lbs. and reverse diabetes simply by referring her to Mark's Daily Apple.)

But anyone who's a regular reader of the Paleo blogosphere is going to eventually discover that while there is a basic, overarching framework that most agree on, there's plenty of disagreements in particular topics and food items and macro-nutrient ratios, especially when it comes to carbohydrates.

Which in my own ruminations, have brought me full circle back to the original Atkins diet proscription.

In other words, I've come to the personal opinion that there is a purpose for a LC/VLC/ZC diet, but it should not be a permanent state except for in the worst cases.

I think the genesis of so much debate and disagreement comes from this: when people first start to explore different dietary lifestyles, they usually do so because they are experiencing the negative effects from a lifetime of eating the standard fare of our Subsidized Corporate Agricultural and Industrial Feed society. Obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, IBS, Crohn's etc.

For most of these cases, the discovery of LC/VLC/ZC diets seems like a miracle, when they discover how easy it is to lose the weight and lower their blood pressure etc. while gorging themselves on bacon cheeseburgers without the bun and pizza toppings without the crust.

This leads many, many people to become carbo-phobes and protein fanatics. They embrace the legend of Two Brave Men Who Ate Nothing But Meat for an Entire Year, and look at ALL carbohydrates as the equivalent of cyanide or arsenic and people should never eat any carbs...ever.

I think the original Atkins diet plan had the basic concept right - reduce and eliminate carb consumption if your overweight or suffering from health problems caused by the Standard American Diet, and once you reached your goals and healed yourself, to slowly add starchy carbs like potatoes and rice back into your diet.

The problem here is that everyone is different.

For myself, I've never had digestion problems in terms of IBS, celiac, crohn's etc. I was simply getting overweight.

I've gone through a VLC period, and have remained LC for years.

But based on the works of people like Dr. Kurt Harris and Melissa McEwen, I've been adding more carbs back into my diet for the past 3 months or so. No weight gain, and a bit better energy levels and performance in endeavors that require endurance.

Now, I just try to minimize or avoid wheat flour and whole grains as much as possible. I'll eat a moderate portion of white rice, or use traditionally prepared (nixtamalización) corn tortillas, and I eat a lot of variety's of tubers as well - potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, etc. and once in a great while, I buy a loaf of rye sourdough bread and make sandwiches and burgers with it.

Compared to a year ago, the amount of carbs I eat is nearly tripled...but my weight and health have remained the same since I first began VLC/LC dieting and lost 35 lbs of excess fat from my frame.

This was a little surprising to me at first, especially now that I've had a complete change to my lifestyle thanks to Paleo Baby, I've never exercised LESS than in the last year of my adult life.

Yet I've had no change in my weight or health, despite eating more carbs than ever before since losing all that weight. I think this is the point both Harris and McEwen have come to - carbs by themselves are not bad. But to recover your health from a lifetime of SAD, a LC/VLC would be beneficial for a short period of time - not because carbs by itself makes one fat and sickly, but because a person who is in bad shape needs to change their metabolism and reverse insulin resistance.

As Dr. Harris wrote:

1) Reject the alternative hypothesis of saturated fat or cholesterol as a Neolithic agent – the so-called diet/heart hypothesis

2) Believe that obtaining a substantial fraction of nutrition from animal sources is necessary for health

3) Discount the absolute importance of macronutrient ratios in the nutritional transition.

4) Believe that a whole foods diet that includes adequate micronutrients is the best way to eat healthy.

5) Believe that tubers, root vegetables and other sources of starch can be healthy for normal people, but that most grains are a suboptimal source of nutrition in other than small amounts.

#3 was the one I had the hardest time accepting...but no more.

My additional thoughts to Dr. Harris though would be this:

Other than the issues with cereal grains - the glutens, WGA, phytates, lectins, and other issues found in the grain protein and bran, people who are not overweight or suffering any diet related degenerative conditions should not really focus on carbs...but most importantly to focus on the FAT in their diet.

Understanding the importance of a balanced Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acid ratio in your overall diet. One really important point people should understand is that Omega 6 fatty acids are not "bad." They are, afterall, ESSENTIAL fatty acids. The real problem is the skewed ratios in the SAD, because most Westerners get their O6 from the rancid poly-unsaturated vegetable and grain oils, and not enough O3 because most food animals are no longer raised in natural conditions eating their natural foods (grass!). You DO require some Omega 6 fatty acids in your diet...just make sure you get them from natural, non-rancid and non-oxidized sources, like roasted nuts like Walnuts and almonds.

Understanding that the fat is vital in how you handle the protein (google "Rabbit Starvation" to understand that high-protein/low-fat diets are a potential disaster).

Same goes for the carbs. What makes french fries and potato chips particularly toxic? The rancid, oxidized, poly-unsaturated canola or soybean oils that are now ubiquitous in the restaurant and snack food industry...and that's without even mentioning the hydrogenated and partially-hydrogenated oils used in most baked goods. These industrial oils contribute to inflammation on a cellular level, and combined with a blood sugar spike from eating a bag of chips, can lead to all sorts of problems. It's not the carbs per say...it's the amount of carbs and the FAT you're consuming with those carbs.

Yukon gold potatoes deep-fried in extra virgin coconut oil tastes divine, and I get a kick out of knowing that such fare actually good for you.

Oh, and one final caveat: as much as I try to avoid wheat and other "whole grain" foods, I have never fully given up on grains...I just drink them after they've been malted, roasted, fermented and in certain cases, distilled.

Quiplinks

2011-08-05T11:52:00.000-07:00

I mostly hate twitter.

But I appreciate the concept of the way many folks use it. While chuckling at ~~Roissy in D.C.'s~~ ~~Citizen Renegade's~~ Heartiste's twitter feed, I coined the term "Quiplink" in my mind to describe the aspect of twitter that I do like.

So here's my version of "tweets" -

"I’d like to play some part in changing this sense of security on the part of our black-robed would-be gods. It’s time for the courts to be held accountable." - Welmer

"If you don’t know who Rebecca Watson is, I envy you." - Ferdinand

"Ha! That proves it. Men don’t really prefer younger, hotter, nicer, less demanding women. They only date them because of their fragile male egos!" - Dalrock

"While both genders have their good sides and bad sides, society has encouraged women to view their weaknesses as strengths and their strengths as weaknesses." - Solomon

"Here’s a newsflash for women from me, on behalf of men in general: we don’t give a shit about fashion." - Badger

"As much as I'd love to see an end to modern junk food, I think this is going to have to be achieved without accepting the principle that the government should determine what we can and cannot consume." - Chris Masterjohn

"If you honestly didn't like Bush, you can't possibly justify liking Obama, not unless you ignore the facts..." - Wes Messamore

"Somehow, I don't think this was quite the gloriously liberated future that the feminists had in mind." - Vox Day

"You know what I think a Guru is? It's someone who sells you tantalizing, feel good, sound good lies or incomplete information that rarely if ever works for anyone as advertised." - Richard Nikolay

"While surveys show that women know less about politics than do men, they vote in larger numbers, and thus could demand special preference. Here we are." - Fred Reed

"While life today is indeed more complex today than it may have been a generation ago, it doesn’t have to be nearly as complicated as we make it." - Terri

"I had been waiting for this idiocy to come over here. How could the strong, independent, empowered, and of utmost importance, sexually liberated women let this one go?" - Finndistan Guy

"I for one am not willing to go through hoops to make grass babies go down easier, but the process is nonetheless extremely interesting." - Mark Sisson

"Divorce, that supreme statement of individuality over duty to husband, family, and oath, means damaged kids - no two ways about it." - Alcuin

"History has a message for us: No fiat currency has lasted forever. Eventually, they all fail." - Jeff Clark

"There is an old saying "lies, damned lies and statistics". Statistics don't lie. But liars can certainly misuse statistics for their own purposes." - Professor Hale

Know Your Enemy

2011-07-29T19:56:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know my enemies.
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise
Conformity
Assimilation
Submission
Ignorance
Hypocrisy
Brutality
THE ELITE

All of which are American Dreams...

Back in the heyday of the early 90's, at a dorm party at the University of Hawaii, a friend of mine walked over to the boom box blasting my copy of the latest Alice In Chains album "Dirt" and put in a different tape.

He said "Hey dudes....check this band out!"

It was the self-titled debut of Rage Against the Machine.

The blend of hip hop metal and rap immediately caught our attention.

I went and bought my own copy the next day.

Back in those days, buying an album was an event unto itself. My friends and I would breathlessly tear the wrapper off of the tape (this was right before I began collecting CD's instead) pop it into the stereo and read the lyrics as on the inside of the cover while the songs played.

This was back in my "Dittohead" CONservative kool-aid guzzling days.

Needless to say, Rage Against the Machine's lyrics were ripped straight out of Marx and Chomsky left-wing, anti-Capitalist manifestos. From that day forward, I had a special category for a band like Rage - "great music, idiotic commie liberal lyrics." I filed them away in by brain in the same place I put Pearl Jam.

Almost 20 years later, I cued up that first album again on my iPod while I was driving and gave it another listen...it's been close to 10 years since I've listened to that album.

My how my attitudes and beliefs have changed.

The song, "Know Your Enemy" is probably my favorite track on the album, but the ending of it always annoyed my right-wing/neo-con influenced attitude. I thought I knew what the American Dream was, and that Rage Against the Machine was just a bunch of useful idiots agitating to institute a communist revolution in the West.

Hearing that ending once again had me laughing at myself.

Within the last decade, I've now come to essentially the same conclusions that the singer, Zak Dela Rocha, is shouting about at the conclusion of the song.

While Rage has always been tools of the liberal/Democrat partisan political machine, and I've read interviews in which they basically aim all of their anger and protests at the "Right" and Republicans, their protestation of the status quo of America as it really is in today's Brave New World Order, still rings true.

I used to laugh at this band, because they used to always speak out about corporations and their influence on the government and the media...yet they were signed to a major corporation who produced, distributed and sold their albums and sponsored their tours.

Whether they were corporate hypocrites or not, they still spoke a lot of truth to power, and their lyrics are more relevant today than they were back in the early 90's, before we entered into the age of the USA Inc. Police State and our never ending War on Freedom, and Liberty in the name of Terror.

"What, the land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy!"

All of which are American Dreams? All of which are American Dreams!

As I think it was George Carlin who once said: "They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to fucking believe it."

A Hui Hou Citizen Renegade

2011-07-28T11:12:00.000-07:00

In Hawaii, we never say goodbye. We say "A hui hou" which means until we meet again.

A hui hou, Roissy.

Your blog played a key role in creating the "manosphere" as it exists today.

UPDATE - Well, that's one reason why we Hawaiians never say goodbye...you never know when we will meet again after all.

Big Brother is NOT Watching You...

2011-07-25T18:53:00.000-07:00

...but he is still carrying out surveillance and compiling data records of almost every single person in the West today.

Everything you email, text, google search, facebook, tweet, make a cell call...all of it, is stored at one of the multitude of over 40 information fusion centers that was created in the United States after 9/11.

Does this mean someone, somewhere is watching all your YouTube video clips and reading all of your emails and tweets and listening to your cell phone conversations? Nah. There's too many people generating too much data at any given moment to have a pair of human eyes and ears tracking it all.

But what it can do is compile, sort and store it in an easily retrievable record set -- this, by the way, is what I still believe is the true impetus behind Obama care -- so that should anyone in a position of authority decide you're a person of interest, they'll be able to punch in your social security number, your name, or whatever other means for which all that data is indexed, and pull it all up and begin sifting through literally years worth of your electronic communications.

Former National Security Adviser, Trilateral Commission Founder, a Council of Foreign Relations member and President Obama's top Foreign Policy Adviser (Obama was a student in Brzezinski's class at Columbia) during his Presidential campaign, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote this in 1970:

"The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." - Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970

41 years later, Brzezinski's prediction of a "gradual appearance" has come to pass.

Wonder what some bureaucrat or government lackey has the ability to look up about you?

Ho'onanea

2011-07-20T20:42:00.000-07:00

Here's the view from the last place I went pig hunting.

The mountain way off in the distance is Leahi or "Diamond Head" as it is more commonly known. The bodies of water are those of Pu'uloa - more famously known as "Pearl Harbor."

Every time I behold this view, I know there is no other place I'd rather be.

Sometimes it's good to take a break and get away from your routine.

Sometimes, you just have to enjoy life...and enjoy it to the point of exhaustion.

Work hard, play harder.

Summer has always been my favorite time of year here in Hawaii.

When you enjoy it as much as I have been for the past week, you just don't have time to even think about all this crap we contemplate, ruminate and write about in the anti-PC sector of the interwebz.

My muse has been lost amidst the deep blue waters, sparkling white sands, glittering sunshine and verdant forests in the mountains of my island home.

When it returns, so will I.

In the meantime...please enjoy some Kiho'alu, performed by a living legend, Ledward Kaapana.

Opportunity Costs Are About Much More Than Simply $$$

2011-07-12T13:17:00.000-07:00

This blog has never been one that had a lot of regulars that debate and socialize in the article comments threads. The responses are sporadic, and I think I get a lot more "Anonymous" posts than your average Manosphere blog. I am fully aware that the full range of topics I write about can be eclectic and many times "off the beaten path," and that's fine. This blog is really nothing more than an outlet for the things I don't really get to discuss in real life within my social peer group and family. It was only two months ago that I even discovered that Blogger had begun to offer traffic stats and such back in 2009...but looking at them confirmed what I have always suspected - I have far more readers than one would guess just based on the comments.

What amuses me though, is that I never know when a piece I write is going to get a lot of comments or not. Sometimes I write something that I expect will generate a lot of comments, and it only gets only 1 or 2 responses...and other times I write something I expect to get little response and the opposite happens.

My last post, Explaining Opportunity Costs to Career Women
was one such surprise. The most amusing thing about it was the response by the person who's offhand comment over at OneSTDV's inspired the post in the first place.

I wasn't really out to 'get after' her...but that her comment that "she had it all" is one for which I've heard many a career woman exclaim. A lot of women fool themselves into believing that they did in fact "achieve it all." The only real point I was making is that 'having it all' is physically and temporally impossible.

As that prolific poster Anonymous wrote:

What kind of math puts more than 24 hours in a day?

What kind of math allows you to be in two places at once (home and work)?

What kind of math will convince your kids that they're better off spending 8 hours a day with a stranger rather than their mother?

I guess such basic mathematical logic was to hard to comprehend for a successful career woman like jz.

She actually commented and confirmed precisely the point I was making, but still failed to get it. Just as I suspected, she had a Nanny perform the Mommy role for her.

For 12 years my 3 kids were cared for in our home by the same woman. She is a physician's wife whose own children had grown.

No matter how well qualified she was, she was still hired to do the things you did not have the time for while you were busy with your challenging work making all that stunning income.

Her nurturing of them included intangibles that I could not have provided,

You could have. You just chose to pay someone else to do so for you.

including occasional same age playmates (her nephews), an exceptionally playful nature, new games, and she even took them on a mini-vacation. Each day she came, we spent time talking about how the day went. As a young mother myself, I valued her advice.

Do you really think that the amount of time and effort you put into your career, had it been applied to raising your children, you really believe you could not have provided them with games, mini-vacations and same age playmates?

The years progressed, she had grandchildren, and my own daughters babysat for her grandchildren. My kids were home for Christmas and they met to reminisce with her.

She was a great nanny who grew close with your children to the point that they treat each other like family. It is great that you were able to provide this sort of influence for your children....but it is THE POINT you keep missing. This is precisely why YOU did not "HAVE IT ALL." Your nanny had all of the things that I refer to when I say you could not have had it all. That is the opportunity costs you paid to focus on your career and paying another woman to raise and nurture your children for you.

Even in my part time years, I was paid beyond my wildest expectations. Contrary to happy platitudes, money does buy happiness.

I guess you missed the point of my headstone graphic on the last post?

It buys global adventure travel, choice of schools, choice of recreation, and choice of neighborhoods.

Of course, no one can deny the advantages wealth provides. But the human relationship of nurturing and parenting your own offspring? You wouldn't know, because you outsourced it. Perhaps that bought YOU happiness, as your children "flourished" under the nurturing of the hired help...so now you have the perfect status symbols to brag about when condescendingly telling the lowly proles how you in fact "have it all!"

No family energy is wasted on financial anguish.

I'd bet when your children were little, they had another sort of anguish to deal with. I'd bet my last dollar that at one point or another, your kids asked their nanny why Mommy is hardly around.

The OP knee-jerked on materialism, which is just trivial thinking.

My perspective on materialism is anything but a knee-jerk response, and it is certainly not trivial. What is trivial thinking is that by attaining career success to afford a luxury-filled lifestyle, is that you "had it all."

You didn't. You had material success, but you did not have maternal success. You paid someone else to do that for you.

By staying in the game, I can now stockpile money for grandchildren that I hope to have someday, and I can contribute to political causes.

JZ, those are important things to work for. Someone has to earn and provide for the family. I am NOT criticizing you out of some notion that you are a bad Mom for having a career and earning lots of money. We all have to do what we have to do to put food in our bellies, roofs over our heads and clothes on our backs. That you were a financial success is obviously a great source of pride...as it should be.

The only point I'm taking pains to point out to you is that despite your claims, you DID NOT HAVE IT ALL. I am only insisting on the truth here. You had a lot...but you missed out on a lot of things that you paid somebody else to experience for you while you were out dealing with the challenging work making your stunning income.

You've internalized the lies of our modern world - that financial and career success is the be all-end all measurement for success. Deep down, some part of you has to realize that your kids are bonded with and closer to their nanny than they are to you.

Which is precisely what I mean by you did NOT "have it all."

Now I can earn for another 15 years; SAHMs experience the opportunity cost of staying out of the market.

And career women experience the opportunity cost of staying out of the home and paying someone else to make it a home for you.

So, I'll reiterate that some women can have it all.

Only if you define "ALL" in terms of materialism.

You state that my dismissal of materialism as the measure of success was trivial.

I find it incredibly sad that you trivialize the most meaningful aspect of having and raising children...actually spending substantial and meaningful time with them as they grow. I'm sure you had many a moment that you had a moment of realization buried within yourself, covered up and hidden with rationalizations and justifications...moments in which you noticed the bond your children had with their nanny instead of you. Who did they run to for comfort when they got hurt as children? I bet there was multiple occasions in which they ran right past you (if you were even there...) to the comforting arms of their nanny.

This is my final comment here, because this is a blog that I do not respect.

I'm sure I'll manage to carry on...but I thank you for proving my point for me despite missing it for yourself.

Explaining Opportunity Costs to Career Women

2011-07-10T14:13:00.000-07:00

In his latest post, The Housewife Paradigm, OneSTDV writes:

So the vast majority of women leave the home to do what: fetch coffee, take phone messages, babysit, and complain. Or, they could tend to the needs of someone they truly love instead of their irascible boss. They could prepare a nice home, pristine and comfy for their husbands and family. They can be present when their children arrive home from school, for emotional support, advice, homework help, and general supervision. They can spend many of their days socializing with other neighborhood housewives, fostering communal bonds amongst nearby families who ultimately become close friends.

Instead, we encourage women to slave away in a cubicle, convincing them that such empty work offers them satisfaction not available with her own husband and children.

Why of course...with her own paycheck, she can than participate in the official religion of USA Inc...worshiping at the alter of materialistic-based consumerism! What about all the shoes and handbags that could be bought with the extra income! Surely we must not deny women the opportunity for such fulfillment as a well stocked, walk-in closet!

But some anonymous female commenters on his thread raise some interesting points:

As a talented female academic, I disagree with you. I have no desire to "return to the kitchen." I don't think you will get women to subscribe to your idea in large numbers. And if you, as a society, don't keep your women happy, you won't be happy either.

Now just what is a "talented academic?" A womynz studies lecturer with tenure? And if society is supposed to keep our women happy, it sure seems like the current paradigm of encouraging all women to get educations and careers instead of getting married and raising children as housewives has failed spectacularly in that regard...

Never fear though...there are still a number of ladies who believe that despite the widespread decline in female happiness in the past 40 years, they've managed to HAVE IT ALL!

Take a look at another female commenter on OneSTDV's article:, jz wrote:

We tell women the conventional wisdom, "you can't have it all." In fact, some women (myself) have had it all: flourishing children, challenging work, stunning income, and a fun husband.

There are so many meme's and shibboleths that manifest in such a short statement...

First of all: "We tell women the conventional wisdom, "you can't have it all."

Oh dear. In what part of the world does jz live in? The idea that women CAN HAVE IT ALL is one of the most popular memes to permeate our feminist-driven mass media culture for close to 50 years now! Most women don't hear that message "you can't have it all!" and when someone tries to point it out, they usually respond like jz here: "In fact, some women (myself) have had it all!"

Why is such beliefs not surprising at all?

But let's look closer at how jz defines HAVING IT ALL:

"...flourishing children, challenging work, stunning income, and a fun husband."

Flourishing children

No doubt this is based on her kids getting good grades in our dumbed-down education system. She might even go the extra step here and have them enrolled in all sorts of extra-curricular activities like organized team sports or music lessons. Her kids may in fact be "flourishing." But how would she know, since she's not around while they're flourishing? She's at her career, HAVING IT ALL. I guess there's dinnertime conversation...if there not like most modern day families eating their dinner in front of the television, perhaps they do talk about the days endeavors in school.

Challenging Work

Now one cannot deny that in fact "challenging work" can certainly be rewarding...but I would point out the implications of such a statement in the context of a woman declaring that she HAS IT ALL. By describing her career work in those terms, she is also implying that a stay at home housewife's work is NOT challenging...that raising children is not as challenging - which also implies that it is not as rewarding.

But don't worry! They're getting good grades! They're on the local championship soccer team! The kidz are FLOURISHING!!!!

Stunning Income

Which probably means jz and her "fun husband" most likely outsource much of the domestic tasks and chores necessary to keep a house clean and functioning. Gardener, maid, nannies....STUNNING I tell you!

Here's one thing women like jz fail to understand until it is too late...

There is only so much time in a single day. You can only do so much with that time.

You cannot "HAVE IT ALL" because most of your time, effort, energy and attention is focused on your 'challenging work.' If it didn't require all of that, it wouldn't be challenging.

Therefore, time spent on the career, means time NOT spent in actually raising your children. You let the schools and after-school organized sports or lessons handle most of the "challenging work" in that department for you.

You may not realize it now, because your kids are "flourishing" and you get to brag to your work peers that your kids got great grades...

...but just how much of a part of their lives are you really?

Maybe one day, when you are at home and retired, enjoying your stunning income...and you realize that your kids are flourishing in their own careers, and the only time they call or visit you is when they HAVE to (like your Birthday or the Holidays), and you'll realize that you don't really know them as people (but your nanny who actually raised them does!) you'll discover that you in fact did not HAVE IT ALL.

The Ultimate Revolution

2011-07-06T21:45:00.000-07:00

On a whim, I decided to do a little background research on Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World. I found the text to a speech he gave in 1962 at The University of California, Berkley. I found that speech to be rather illuminating...as he references the differences between his vision of the future control of the masses by a technocratic elite versus Orwell's vision of an authoritarian regime stomping on a human face forever.

Huxley has been connected with the Fabian Socialists, which is generally referred to as the source of insights he gained to write his frighteningly accurate portrayal of the not-too-distant future...our current world.

While his book was written in 1931, he gave the speech at Berkley 30 years later, a lot of his prognostications had already come to pass. After hearing or reading the transcripts to this speech, can there be any doubt that Huxley was doing more than just writing science fiction?

If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent, it's exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.

Seems like 9/11 and a few other manufactured incidence have introduced an element of persuasion to get we the sheeple to consent to the revocation of our basic rights supposedly guarded by the US constitution.

It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude.

That was in 1962. I think said techniques have been developed and deployed and that their efficacy is undeniable. Most people don't even realize that they are slaves in our Brave New World Order. In fact, when you try to explain to them how they are enslaved, they get angry and denounce a truth-teller as being crazy or worse yet, a "conspiracy theorist." Yes, many present day people certainly love their servitude...

This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say, and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago, a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system. Since then, I have continued to be extremely interested in this problem and I have noticed with increasing dismay a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them thirty years ago have come true or seem in process of coming true.

Huxley said that in 1962. He'd shit himself if he saw how much of his vision of dystopia had come to pass 70+ years later. Hell, one look at a typical TSA security checkpoint and the officially sanctioned sexual assaults our 21st century gestapo performs on the mostly compliant masses would certainly verify his theory about people consenting to being controlled.

But his next point was even more interesting regarding the percentage of humans that are "suggestible":

"You'll find for example that the experienced hypnotist will tell one that the number of people, the percentage of people who can be hypnotized with the utmost facility (snaps), just like that. is about 20%, and about a corresponding number at the other end of the scale are very, very difficult or almost impossible to hypnotize. But in between lies a large mass of people who can with more or less difficulty be hypnotized, that they can gradually be if you work hard enough at it be got into the hypnotic state, and in the same way the same sort of figures crop up again, for example in relation to the administration of placebos.

A big experiment was carried out three of four years ago in the general hospital in Boston on post-operative cases where several hundred men and woman suffering comparable kinds of pain after serious operations were allowed to, were given injections whenever they asked for them whenever the pain got bad, and the injections were 50% of the time were of morphine, and 50% of water. And about twenty percent of those who went through the experiment, about 20% of them got just as much relief from the distilled waters as from the morphea. About 20% got no relief from the distilled water, and in-between were those who got some relief or got relief occasionally.

So yet again, we see the same sort of distribution, and similarly in regard to what in Brave New World I called Hypnopedia, the sleep teaching, I was talking not long ago to a man who manufactures records which people can listen to in the, during the light part of sleep, I mean these are records for getting rich, for sexual satisfaction (crowd laughs), for confidence in salesmanship and so on, and he said that its very interesting that these are records sold on a money-back basis, and he says there is regularly between 15% and 20% of people who write indignantly saying the records don't work at all, and he sends the money back at once. There are on the other hand, there are over 20% who write enthusiastically saying they are much richer, their sexual life is much better (laughter) etc, etc. And these of course are the dream clients and they buy more of these records. And in between there are those who don't get much results and they have to have letters written to them saying “Go persist my dear, go on” (laughter) and you will get there, and they generally do get results in the long run.

Well, as I say, on the basis of this, I think we see quite clearly that the human populations can be categorized according to their suggestibility fairly clearly,. I suspect very strongly that this twenty percent is the same in all these cases, and I suspect also that it would not be at all difficult to recognize and {garbled} out who are those who are extremely suggestible and who are those extremely un-suggestible and who are those who occupy the intermediate space. Quite clearly, if everybody were extremely unsuggestible organized society would be quite impossible, and if everybody were extremely suggestible then a dictatorship would be absolutely inevitable. I mean it's very fortunate that we have people who are moderately suggestible in the majority and who therefore preserve us from dictatorship but do permit organized society to be formed. But, once given the fact that there are these 20% of highly suggestible people, it becomes quite clear that this is a matter of enormous political importance, for example, any demagogue who is able to get hold of a large number of these 20% of suggestible people and to organize them is really in a position to overthrow any government in any country."

Ah, but here in the 21st century, the demagogues of our mass media culture are owned and controlled by the ever-present oligarchy Huxley referred to earlier. They've already got a solid lock on the masses of suggestible people...both the 20% who are highly suggestible and the 60% who are moderately so.

The 20% who are un-suggestible to the modern day hypnotism of our mass media culture?

They're on the internet raging into the ether of cyberspace.

Family Jewels

2011-06-30T16:15:00.000-07:00

"All this time I swore I'd never be like my old man...
...what the hey, it's time to face exactly who I am."

- From the song "Hate to Feel" by Alice In Chains

I've cried exactly three times in my adult life. The first, when I saw my own father break down (the one and only time he ever has cried as far as I know of) while delivering his Mother's eulogy.

The second, was several years later as I carried my Maternal Grandmother's casket from the church at her funeral as a pallbearer.

The third time was last night...from watching a reality TV show.

Well, technically I had tears come unbidden to my eyes for which I tried to blink back and suppress as much as possible, whereas in the first two instances, I didn't even bother trying to hold it back, but still...I've never thought that watching a reality TV show would ever ever cause such a strong emotional reaction in myself.

But it did. That show was Gene Simmon's Family Jewels.

I began recording this show on the DVR about a year ago after having found myself in a hospital bed with nothing to do for hours other than channel surf. I came across a Gene Simmon's Family Jewels marathon and proceeded to watch about 4 hours of episodes in a single sitting. While I was never a huge KISS fan, I found the show to be quite entertaining...especially when viewed through the lens of understanding social and relationship dynamics gained from studying this popular "interwebz manosphere fad" called "Game."

Simmons is the quintessential "Alpha" in every sense of the word and you can see many game concepts play out in the reality show.

But that's not why I'm writing this post.

The new season for this show began three weeks ago, and it began with the first episode in which Simmon's 18 year old daughter Sophie, leaves the home to go off to college and Gene's Girlfriend, Shannon Tweed, starts experiencing a bad case of empty nest syndrome. She reaches a breaking point when a supposed dinner in which both their kids were going to be at home, Gene missed because he was at a business dinner with the usual assortment of groupie women who seem to hang off of him whenever he makes a public appearance.

The ladies end up posting their photos with the KISS Rock star on the internet, and Shannon is greatly upset that instead of coming home for dinner with their visiting kids, he's out in public with young hot women hanging all over him.

If Athol were to diagnose this, I'm sure he'd point out that Gene was showing too much Alpha traits and not enough Beta traits to build comfort in his relationship with the former Playboy Playmate. Gene is already a multi-millionaire. He's in a place where he shouldn't have to prioritize business meetings over important, personal family moments. But I digress...

Shannon ends up moving out of there house into a hotel, and Gene gets shellshocked when the kids take their mother's side, and he begins to attend therapy by episode 2 of the season.

The show was no longer entertaining me. At this point, I considered deprogramming it from my DVR, as it appeared to begin to follow the typical mainstream media script of Man Bad/Woman Great.

It was like watching the "breaking of the Alpha" as he falls into the depths of oneitis depression. It was worse watching his therapy sessions with a female therapist.

By the end of the third episode, he manages to woo Shannon back home with promises of changing..blah blah blah.

The ultimate female fantasy. The taming of the Alpha that is desired by thousands of young women the world over.

At this point, I suspect that the entire "break up" and "get back together" is just a scripted "Reality" to drive ratings. Hell, I'm almost certain it was scripted as I started googling this morning and discovered that they made appearances on female daytime talk shows and had arguments with Shannon storming off the set in tears. Talk about calculated rating's stunts.

But in my mind, this week's episode offered redemption for the Vagenda-driven rating's stunt drama of the first three episodes. Even if the overall direction of this most recent episode was scripted, there is no way some of the reactions and dialog from this latest could have been faked, rehearsed or acted. It was as real as any "reality" show could be.

You can watch the episode for yourself here before reading the rest of this post, which, naturally, contains spoilers: http://bcove.me/02gnesdt

For those who don't know much about Gene Simmons, he was born in Haifa, Israel, and came to America with his mother when he was only a young boy of about 9 or 10. Given his tremendous success as a Rock Star and a businessman (and now reality show star) his hometown wanted to present him with an award of some sort. Shannon decided it was the perfect opportunity to make Gene deal with his personal Father-abandonment related issues.

So Shannon arranges a surprise meeting with Gene's family members, who he purportedly did not know even existed.

According to the show, Gene had always been under the assumption that his Father abandoned he and his Mother, which is why they came to America when he was still a young boy. He used that as his personal motivation and drive to succeed in life. He admits that his thoughts of the abandonment drove him his entire life to prove that he did not need his Father for anything. As far as he was concerned, his Father was dead to him, he wanted nothing to do with him...so much so that he forbade his Mother from talking to him about his Father. He never visited or talked to his Father on the phone. He only wrote a single, short letter to his Father when he was younger, and he never received a response. His Father passed away in 2002.

Gene apparently didn't have an idea that he even had a half brother and three half sisters and a bunch of nieces and nephews still living in Haifa. I would suspect that deep down, he knew somehow that he had relatives, but he kept that knowledge suppressed because he did not want to deal with his Father-abandonment issues.

Nevertheless, when Shannon and Nick (his son) accompany Gene to a restaurant and Shannon introduces him to his half-brother Jacob and his three sisters, Gene's reaction is as real as it gets. As the show progressed, his sisters begin crying as they observe him walking and talking...they keep seeing how strongly he resembles his Father in mannerisms and posture and facial expressions.

Gene is also blown away by how much his half-sibling's children resemble his own children when they were kids.

At this point, I'm totally absorbed in the show as compelling drama I can't tear my eyes from the screen.

But the heart-wrenching scene that inspired a few tears came when they all went to the cemetery where Gene's Father was buried.

It was very apparent that Gene was overcome when he realized where they were going when they arrived at the entrance. Shannon and his new-found siblings nearly had to drag him into the cemetery. When they arrived at their Father's grave, Gene's brother Jacob pulled out a letter that their Father had written, addressed to Gene, but never mailed or even completed it, and and read it to him aloud.

Gene Simmons utterly broke down.

After reading the letter to him, Shannon asks the entire entourage to give Gene a few moments alone at the graveside. Of course, the cameras backed off to a distance but continued to record, and the audio was still able to pick up Gene's lamentations and sorrow.

I cannot believe he would allow such footage to be broadcast on a worldwide TV show for such an utterly personal moment like that. There is absolutely no way the reactions or dialog could have been scripted or planned out. Perhaps the producers and such planned out the set up, knowing his reactions would be genuine and make for compelling TV.

If so, they were right.

If Gene has some desire to prove he's honest and doesn't care who sees him at his moments of greatest weakness, he certainly did so here.

Or...he knows that it's ratings gold and it's all about the money, and there is no place he won't go to whore out his personal traumas for the almighty dollar.

Probably a bit of both.

As it turns out, Gene discovers that in fact his Father didn't abandon him, his Mother took him and they left HIM to come to America. The show didn't go into much details about the split, but it was clear that Gene realized that decades of resentment for abandonment by his Father was ill-placed.

This show got to me.

It shows just how profound Fatherhood has in the life of a child and the life of a family. As a new Father myself, it brought home the realization of how much of a responsibility I have, and what role I will play in another person's life...whether I'm there or not.

In the end, we are all going to die. Money, fortune, fame...how much you get laid, or what degree of career success you achieve - it's all meaningless when you reach your final resting place and your flesh rots from your bones in your moldering grave.

The only way you achieve any real impact on this world, is by creating a family and perpetuating the cycle of life for your genealogy to carry on your bloodline.

In my view, most things in this world have no meaning other than family.

Fatherhood is a path that can lead to great heartache and pain...so much so, that some even find it better to burn himself alive in protest than continue to live with the loss and alienation of his children by the family-destroying State.

Back in my days of being a neo-con kool aid drinker, I used to listen to right wing talk radio all day long while I was at work, including the Dr. Laura show. There is really only one thing I ever really took from her show that has stuck with me all these years.

To paraphrase her: "We get two chances at family in this life. The one we are born into and have no control over, and the one we make for ourselves. The one you are born into may be screwed up, but the beautiful thing is you get your own chance to make it right for yourself."

Dannyfrom504 recently asked me if I thought marriage was worth it. I cannot recommend marriage and having kids to anyone. Every man has to make a calculated judgement of the risk versus the reward for himself. He must judge for himself if the woman he contemplates procreating with is a high-risk or low-risk gamble.

We all know of the great inherent risk it takes to get married and have children in today's Brave New World Order. The potential for great personal devastation is a very real possibility. But if you manage to make it turn out right...well, from my own perspective, there is no greater accomplishment or joy in this life.

To each his own.

ADDENDUM
07/01/2011

Upon re-reading this post, I realized there was something I wanted to add here - Gene Simmons is one of the most successful musicians in the history of Rock and Roll. He's purportedly slept with over 4000 women, is a multi-millionaire, lives in a mansion and has a former playboy playmate as the mother of his two children and is basically the epitome of secular, hedonistic success.

But none of that was able to fill the void in his life from having missed out on a good relationship with his Father.

Happiness can't be bought. Nor can it be reached through career success and financial success nor fame.

As TGP puts it in the comments:

Take it from an old wise man, family is the whole goddamn thing.

Not game. Not getting laid. Not self improvement. Not travel. Not parties. Not fun. Not fame. Not wealth. Those things only mean something when they are used in the context of and in support of your family relationships.

Find a woman who wants to have kids as much as you do, who makes that the number one central driving force of her life. Marry her. Start knocking kids out. You will be happy. Fuck all the other bullshit.
TGP

I think the point of what commenter TGP is getting at here is the lesson Gene Simmons learned when he reconnected with his family and learned the truth of his Father. He discovered too late that it did not match the caricature of a deadbeat that he had developed in his mind...but it did allow him to figure some things out. One of the most heart rendering things he said when he was left alone at the gravesite was his lament: "I am a good Father! I am a good Father!"

Obviously he sought to spare his own children the sense of abandonment he experienced growing up...and it shows in his relationship with his children. Even thought the reality show is most likely scripted, the genuine love and respect for the Simmons/Tweed family has for one another is obviously authentic.

Family...if you get it right, nothing else matters.