Tuesday, December 29, 2009


First and foremost, commenter Patrissimo invited me to co-author on a new blog, PUA for LTR. I have politely declined, as I have a hard enough time writing here on my own blog as well as regularly contributing to the Spearhead. This was the first time I heard of this blog...and was somewhat amused to see a post dedicated to my own commentary I had contributed to Roissy's blog in the past.

You can read it here - as well as see the commentary of a bunch of people that criticized me, had no clue what they were talking about, and had made judgments of me, my wife and our life, of which they really know nothing about.

I've written a rather extensive response broken up into 4 different comments (that are currently awaiting moderation).

I'm going to re-post them here, as my FINAL say on this topic. I'm sick of people making judgments about my wife and I based on the little snippets of my life that I decided to share in an attempt to help other men who were in a similar situation as myself.

Before I get to my responses to the commentary on that blog, I want to make a few things real simple and clear:


I have never claimed to be one. Rather, my entire point in contributing to Roissy's blog at that time was to relate my experiences in identifying my own behaviors and mindsets that were, for lack of a better term I was aware of at the time, "beta." By focusing on "beta" behaviors and how to avoid or correct them, perhaps many people have mistakenly thought I was claiming the mantle-hood of "Alpha."

For lack of a better term, studying "game" (which is what I referred to previously as "taking the red pill"), gave me insight into what behaviors and attitudes were attractive to a woman's hypergamous instincts and what behaviors and actions were repellent to that same instinct. Once I stopped the repellent behaviors and incorporated the attractive behaviors, I guess you could say I DID become an "alpha" -- for my wife, within the bounds of our marriage.

But other than that, my previous use of the term "beta" and "beta-ization" has nothing to do with claiming to be some kind of "Alpha" or a "PUA" that could have women eating out of the palm of my hand.


I've been married 12 years now. I love my wife more than my own life. We have made a family together, and I am determined to raise my own children to benefit from the knowledge that I had gained from making all of the mistakes I hope to help them avoid when they grow up. If I am any label, I would proudly wear that of PATRIARCH. That is what I aspire to, and what I believe I now fully live up to.


On the contrary, the only real difference studying "GAME" has given me, was to learn the most important lesson of all: Do not let your wife's emotional state control, manipulate or intimidate YOU. I no longer live my life as if my wife were my authority figure. I am my own authority figure. She accepts my authority because she wants to be a part of my life. That is how a complementary relationship between a man and a woman should work. That's what Patriarchy USED to be, but has now been socially engineered nearly into oblivion.


No, I learned to see my own behaviors and actions and how they interacted in dealing with hers. I learned what worked and what didn't. I also learned that the things I did that were causing her to be upset with me WHERE CONTEMPTIBLE, WEAK and UN-MASCULINE. I learned from my mistakes and have changed my entire outlook on life and the way I interact with ALL people, not just my wife.

At this point in time, I am NOBODY's bitch. I live MY LIFE how I want to. I AM going my own way. It just so happens I have a wife who is going that way along with me.

All that being said, here were my various responses I gave to the critical commenters there. I hope this clarifies things:

First and foremost, I have to respond to this:

Personally, *I* would be living a lie if I was married to Dave’s wife and felt I needed to treat her the way he does all the time in order to maintain the marriage… but then, I’m not him.

Oh really? And just what do I do “all the time” in order to “maintain” my marriage? Just how do I “treat” her that you find so hard, difficult or objectionable? Some of you guys are talking out of your asses in trying to assess my reality based on what limited, subjective and contextual scenarios I’ve described for you all.

To tell you all the truth…once Roissy assembled everything I’d written into one long post, I decided to simply step back from his blog and let others contribute their own stories similar to mine. I had written enough, and I had gotten to the point where I was starting to reveal a little too much personal info on the internet. Hawaii is a small place, and the last thing I really want to do is have my writings on the internet somehow be used against me in real life. I have taken the red pill…and nothing makes blue pill takers angrier than confronting a person who tells them everything they believe and do is based on lies, propaganda and indoctrination. I’ve had this discussion one too many times in real life with friends and family members and seen too many people desperately determined to cling to their version of blue pill truth and won’t even contemplate a contrary viewpoint.

My study of “GAME” was NOT my attempts at becoming a “PUA,” nor was it simply “faking” a personality to “become” attractive to my wife.

It was an awakening to the truth.

I finally was able to see through the illusions and lies propagated by a lifetime of indoctrination by the mainstream media, and educational institutions I’ve spent most of my life attending.

Also, the biggest thing I had to overcome was seeing the truth of my own parents relationship with each other and how it set me up with a blueprint for failure when I myself grew up and got married.

Where it not for their devout faith and devotion to their church, my parents would have been divorced many many years ago. I do not doubt this in the least.

And the biggest thing I had internalized from being raised by parents bound together by religious doctrine rather than true love and respect for each other was the total pedestal-ization of women in my mind. Till this very day, metaphorically speaking, my mother says “jump” and my father says “how high.” And she has seething contempt for him, and she shows it in a myriad of ways.

And yet my Father is an upstanding, devout, religious, honorable man who is always ready to take the shirt off of his own back and give it to a stranger in need.

His entire life is devoted to his church, and he spends considerable amount of time helping church members in need.

And he has ALL women pedastalized in his own mind.

He has a twisted, Christianity-warped notion that women are the “pure” sex, and that all men are debased, sexist pigs with evil lust that can only be controlled by submitting to female authority in the covenant of marriage.

And in THEIR church (I haven’t attended since I was 14, and I never will again either.) the “herbivore white knight” mentality is almost virtually the 11th commandment.

Mothers are feted on Mother’s Day in that church. All mothers are asked to stand amongst the congregation during the service, so that all the young men of the church can give them flowers in honor of being sacred mothers.

On Father’s day, the Preacher gets up and administers a harangue and excoriates Father’s for failing to make the sacrifices necessary to make their wives and their children happy.

And I notice in this church, most of the men are like my father, and most of the women regularly get together and gossip about their own husbands like they are all schmucks to be manipulated and treated contemptuously. The women in this church will regularly berate and chastise grown men in front of a group, and these emasculated men only trying to live “righteously” take it like simpering, sackless wimps.

THIS is the kind of indoctrination I was raised with.

THIS is what I learned to overcome through great introspection, experimentation and observation. By stumbling across the “PUA”-sphere of the internet, I came across a multitude of viewpoints on the female gender and my own perception of male gender roles and how they complemented each other when each lived out their role according to the laws of attraction, rather than the false lies of cultural misandry, feminist ideology, and a Feminized, Matriarchal Christian Chivalry mindset I had been brainwashed with my entire young adult life.

I also learned precisely what behavior I had when I was dating my wife that caused her attraction to me….and how once I got married, I stopped acting that way and had fallen into the template of my parent’s unhappy marriage. My wife had begun the long, slipperly slope of falling out of RESPECT for me…just as my Mom has none for my own hard working, “nice-guy” father who will bend over backwards to help and serve EVERYONE in his life (not just my mom.)

I also recognized that many of the behaviors and attitudes espoused by the PUA-sphere were basically a lesson I had never been really exposed to growing up…on how masculinity roles complement feminine roles to inspire attraction…and that you cannot beg, plead or convince a women to love, lust and respect you. You can only get that by being true to yourself and fulfilling your masculine role in a complementary relationship.

And I saw many of these “traits” in my wife’s father. Not just in his relationship with his wife (my mother in law) but also with all the women in his family. He was a “natural.”

I also recognized the way in which my FIL treated my wife was basically the entire “game” mindset I had studied on the internet.

He constantly “negs” my wife, his wife, and my sister-in-laws. They eat it up, and eagerly engage in verbal “one-upmanship” matches of mildly insulting putdowns (never really mean things). It’s playful banter.

I also noticed that my FIL basically ruled his house with quiet, confident power. He almost never really ‘laid down the law’ and basically let my MIL make most of the mundane, day-to-day decisions…but if he felt ANY issue was in need of his input, his word was LAW. Not because he was oppressive, demanding and overbearing…but because my MIL and his children all respected him, and they all lived in fear of HIS emotional state, not my MIL’s.

This, of course, was the exact opposite situation of my own household, where my Father lived in perpetual fear of my Mother’s emotional state…and how I had let my own relationship dynamic devolve into.

By learning to recognize the “pretty lies” that had lead me to following out a dysfunctional relationship dynamic, I was able to turn it around and recognize the ugly truths.

When I saw how dramatic it turned my own relationship around, I almost couldn’t believe it. But it was not just with my wife…it was with my own self and how I interact with the rest of the world as well.

I have not “faked” anything. I do not live a lie. I do not put up a front.

Was I some spineless wimp that “magically transformed” by studying game? Hardly. In fact, being raised by a doormat of a father and a domineering mother, I was a doormat that was harassed and picked on mercilessly by bullies and contemptuous girls until my early teen years.

Than one day, something inside of me snapped.

I got sick of being a spineless, sack-less wimp, and I took up martial arts, weight lifting, fishing, hunting and other recreations with groups of older men. I “toughened” myself up with regards to other men. I eventually went in the completely opposite direction from my early teen years. In my early 20’s, I fought in some amateur fights, became a nightclub bouncer and learned precisely what it means to have some balls and suck up your fear and ‘man up.’ I’ve kicked ass and had my ass kicked.

But relating to women? I was still clueless….but I was also a man with a mission. When I met my wife, I was going to college, training martial arts 3 times a week, and always hunting, fishing, surfing, hiking, camping…something. I basically invited my wife into MY world, and she fell in love with me. I constantly took the “leadership” role and she followed without question. I wasn’t “gaming” her, but neither was I a spineless suck-up being a doormat in an attempt to gain her approval. I tried my hardest to be entertaining by being active and planning and carrying out activities for us both, and she loved doing all these different things with me.

She eagerly accepted my proposal of marriage after we dated for several years. After graduating from college and getting my first job, and getting married, all that changed. Her biggest complaint for years was “we don’t do anything anymore.”

But instead of taking the initiative and re-focusing on my mission…I made my “mission” the endless and fruitless attempt to supplicate and please her in a bid to try and make her happy…just as my father has done for my mother her entire life. And it did nothing but slowly kill her attraction and respect for me.

“GAME” made me see the truth of my situation, and helped me reverse it in dramatic fashion.

In short, here was my former mindset…an example of my pathetic, supplicating spinelessness when trying to deal with an upset wife I had way up there on my mental pedestal:

Her: “We don’t do anything anymore!”
Me: “Well…what would you like to do than?”
Her: “I don’t know…why do we always do the same thing every weekend? Dinner and movies…dinner and movies!”
Me: “Well, what would you like to do than? What would make you happy?”
Her: {in complete disgust with me at this point} – “Nothing!”

I cringe just writing that…but that was my reality for a long, long time.


Me: I have plans for us this weekend, Woman. (Or Wife. or Wench. or Mate. Something playfully misogynistic never fails….)
Her: What do you mean, husband? (Or “my Man” she really does respond to this…)
Me: I mean, don’t go making plans with your friends, you have a date.
Her: {Getting excited} Oooh, what would that be?
Me: You’ll see.

This, I hope, illustrates the fundamental difference in MY mindset that has changed the entire dynamic of our interpersonal relationship.

Do some of you get it now?

I simply revel in masculine behavior, rather than try to suppress it and live in perpetual apology for being male – which is by and large the cultural paradigm of our modern day society…except in my own case it was reinforced and magnified by a “Christian” church community that preached implicit misandry as a tenet of their religious doctrine.

THAT is the summation of what I tried to convey by contributing my anecdotal experience at Roissy’s.

As for Lady Raine…LMAO.

I’m highly amused that you presume to be some sort of expert on people’s relative happiness based on internet interactions. You have no clue, and furthermore, it is your own personally revealed details of your own sordid life, your own endless rationalizations and justifications for your mistakes you’ve made that not only impact your own life, but that of your child’s…that are more than enough evidence to KNOW your disapproval and conjecture more than verify to my own mind how right I am and how deluded and shameless you are.

But have no fear. The day will come when you will most likely realize that your poor choices in life have negatively affected your son. Will you still tell yourself your pretty lies…or will you ever face up to the ugly truths?

You truly are the penultimate representation of the contemptuous, obnoxious and self-righteous modern american female that is INCAPABLE of forming a stable, happy family with a worthy man who would be the ultimate role model for your boy to mold his own life after.

No…that would infringe on your own selfish narcissism. Having children is supposed to be a sacrifice BY BOTH PARENTS to benefit your children. You are not willing to sacrifice your sense of independence and empowerment you have by being a hard working single mom paying her own way and asking nothing of men to help you fulfill your life other than as a masturbatory sex toy hook ups or kitchen bitch mangina’s who still long for your affection, and which you shamelessly exploit.

You know nothing of me other than what I’ve written here and elsewhere…and there is far more to my story than I’ve let on. I tried to focus on the key points of my own realizations SIMPLY TO HELP OTHER MEN.

I see many, many men that were raised with the exact same mindset that hindered me and nearly sabotaged my own relationship with my wife.

You, on the other hand, have related your entire life onto the internet out of some strange desire to achieve some sort of reality show-type of fame. A shameless attention whore who thinks she’s smarter than everyone else…but can’t even recognize her own faults and mistakes although everyone else can plainly see them in your self-absorbed writings and rantings on the internet.

My story is one of having learned from my mistakes, correcting my behavior, and turning my life around.

Yours is a story of how everyone else has done you wrong, but you still managed to overcome it all through sheer awesomeness, hard work and superior intellect.

I’ll give you the hard working part…at least you are not another parasite welfare queen, nor do you use the biased family court system to trap some man into becoming your provider against his will.

But you really are not as brilliant and intelligent as you think you are.

Quoted from Lady Raine:

I hate to be so crass, but that’s at the root of it. Guys like Dave seem to think that “controlling” a woman is what makes you manly.

No, a masculine man has no need to intimidate, manipulate, or control his partner. He is confident enough to want her to be with him because she WANTS to be……. and is also confident enough to get another woman if she DOESN’T want to be.

It’s pretty entertaining of you to take a potshot at me that has no basis in reality, but rather you constructed a caricature of my life based on your own biases and misconceptions of “GAME” and the “PUA” community.

See, you actually have the TRUTH of my experience here in the latter part of your comment…but got it completely wrong in the first part in which you’ve mistakenly judged that I had done nothing other than adopt a PUA mentality to “control, intimidate and manipulate” my wife.

No, I learned how to be that confident man that she wants to be with. My wife has the extended family support system and the means to leave me at any time. She always has…and she almost did leave me on more than one occasion.

I do not “intimidate, manipulate or control” her. I simply no longer have her up on my pedestal.

I’ve become the man on her pedestal – which is what satisfies her hypergamous instinct. This is why we she proudly brags to her friends and co-workers that she’s been happily married for 12 years now (funny how her current feelings about me and our marriage have extended to her overall opinion of our entire marriage experience. heh.)

You, on the other hand, have YOURSELF on your own pedestal.

Quote from Miles Anderson:

It appears to me that Dave and Roissy both share immense fear leading to hate. This is amusing given both writers focus on their “alphaness”. I think this is sad. Both are articulate and occasionally have moments of intense clarity. It is sad both are associated with the Spearhead as most writing there is sophomoric.

No fear…and no hate here. And I have NEVER claimed to be an “alpha” or “focused” on my “alphaness.” I merely have endeavored to show how my personal experience illustrates how our society and cultural institutions inculcate “beta-ness” in men that lead them down a path of dysfunctional relationships with women.

If you read that last sentence and don’t understand that, you never will.

Quote from Nicholas Weininger:

Agreed. This is what gets me about so much PUA advice: it *does not treat women as fully reasonable and reasoning beings*. And so, even in this supposedly more “constructive” LTR situation, “Dave” is playing stupid little games with his wife, being a cocky bullshit artist, instead of doing the hard work of communicating with her honestly about what each of them actually want and need, of laying bare deep insecurities and weaknesses in an atmosphere of trust and forgiveness.

Ooooh, you got me all figured out, don’t you?

Let me tell you something, Nicholas, you have the exact mindset I used to have. I thought being open, trying to communicate honestly and laying bare deep insecurities and all the other pretty lies you have internalized where the keys to making her happy. I would constantly BEG her to “communicate.”

Guess what…that “happy” relationship only exists in your deluded, blue-pill-addled mind.

You and all the other white knights that sum up my anecdotal experiences as “playing stupid little games with his wife, being a cocky bullshit artist” are fools.

Watch just about any drama, TV, movie or play that involves a seduction by a leading man and a female character…take note of the playful banter most such scenes depict. Note the spark…the sexual energy that is generated between the two when a woman verbally challenges him, and he is more than enough to meet her challenge. That’s called “flirting.” That’s what “playing stupid little games with my wife” involves. It’s PLAYFUL. It’s FUN. And it leads to true bonding. Because I am able to bond with her like that, I literally seduce her repeatedly over and over and over again…and it never fails to keep her happy.

Does that constitute the entirety of our relationship? Hell no. One thing I’ve learned is that by learning how to verbally and psychologically seduce my wife by “playing these stupid games” I’ve made my wife fall in love with me all over again. So now, if I choose to “reveal my deepest insecurities” she has enough respect, attraction and admiration for me (because I entertain her with my “bullshit” as you so naively call it”), it does not diminish my stature as a man in her eyes.

A man that a woman does not respect, (which in turn means lust and love), is man who will only experience her contempt if he tries to bare his “deepest insecurities and fears” to her.

If anything this style of acting is even less attractive as an LTR maintenance technique than as a pickup technique. It may not be so bad to act full of shit like this if all you want is to get laid, and all the other people you’re hitting on want is to get laid, and that’s tacitly understood by all. But if you cannot be fully emotionally open and honest with your life partner– if you cannot be fully yourself with her, but have to put on a face of “social dominance”– then you can’t be fully emotionally honest with anyone, ever, and that’s a terribly sad thing.

Oh go choke on your own self-righteous, high-minded solipsism.

The entire point I’ve been endeavoring to impart is that men shouldn’t “put up a front” or “be something they are not” or “act full of shit.”


By catering to her, being subservient and supplicating, you CANNOT earn her respect, only her contempt.

Women NEVER respect men they can rule.

Instead of begging her to let me into her world, I now live to excel in my world, and she’s welcome to be a part of it.

It’s not an act. It’s not a front.

It’s a mindset.

A way of life.

One final thing to all:

Everything I wrote about at Roissy’s were my experiences before I ever heard of his blog.

Everything I studied and learned from was free resources on the internet regarding “dating advice” for men and other such things. Many of these sites no longer exist. One in particular, the Reality Method, was the real key in opening my eyes to social relationship dynamics.

When I began to comment at Roissy’s, I decided to simply contribute to the unique melting pot of ideas and personalities that his blog had attracted at that point in time. Men would constantly beg Roissy to give them advice on how to use “game” in the LTR’s they were in. Along with a few other commenters there, I helped to point those men towards the light of truth that I had discovered myself.

Much of the people I found to be in concordance with on many of the related topics that were such great discussions in Roissy’s commentary section are the same contributors and commenters over at the Spearhead now.

That is why I spend my time over there now, rather than Roissy’s so much anymore. I still read him every day, but don’t contribute hardly anymore commentary there.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Children of the Soy

From the SpearheadFiles
December 17, 2009

Learn to fear She Who Walks Behind the Rows.

There is a lot of confusion when it comes to the health effects of Soy in the human diet. There are some things people need to realize before they conclude whether or not they should include this substance in their daily diet….but for most of you, it already is.

Unless you read labels religiously to purposely avoid eating soy products, chances are you have eaten some form of soy in just about every meal you’ve eaten – especially if you regularly eat at restaurants (fast food or not) or any kind of food that comes boxed, wrapped or pre-prepared for convenience.

First thing to consider is that the Soybean plant is similar to all other legumes: in their natural state, right from the plant, all legumes have a host of anti-nutrients in them. Traditional cultures around the world have intuitively understood this, which is why preparing legumes in traditional cuisines almost always involved pre-processing of the legumes to neutralize these anti-nutrients.

This is a very important point to remember – the traditional uses of Soy by Asian cultures was almost exclusively based on soy foods made through fermentation, which rendered most of the anti-nutrients harmless and even beneficial. Miso, Shoyu (traditionally brewed soy sauce), Natto and Tempeh are all examples of traditionally fermented soy foods that were a part of traditional Asian cultures diets.

So what anti-nutrients are a part of the Soy legume, and how do they affect the body? From Soy Online Service:

High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking.

High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.

Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.

Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.

Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer.

In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body’s requirement for B12.

Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D.

Fragile proteins are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.

Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.

Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and added to many soy foods.

Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.


Babies fed soy-based formula have 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen compounds in their blood than babies fed milk-based formula.

Infants exclusively fed soy formula receive the estrogenic equivalent of at least five birth control pills per day.

Male infants undergo a testosterone surge during the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those of an adult male. During this period, baby boys are programmed to express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of their sexual organs and other masculine physical traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male behavior.

Pediatricians are noticing greater numbers of boys whose physical maturation is delayed, or does not occur at all, including lack of development of the sexual organs. Learning disabilities, especially in male children, have reached epidemic proportions.

Soy infant feedings which floods the bloodstream with female hormones that inhibit testosterone cannot be ignored as a possible cause for these tragic developments. In animals, soy feeding indicates that phytoestrogens in soy are powerful endocrine disrupters.

Almost 15 percent of white girls and 50 percent of African-American girls show signs of puberty such as breast development and pubic hair, before the age of eight. Some girls are showing sexual development before the age of three. Premature development of girls has been linked to the use of soy formula and exposure to environmental estrogens such as PCBs and DDE.

Yet if you look in mainstream media sources, all you ever hear, see or read is how Soy is a health food, how it can help prevent cancer, is good for heart health, is healthier to eat than meat, etc.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

What is really going on is this: Soy is the second biggest crop being farmed by Big Agriculture. It’s a multi-million dollar crop, and industrial food processing corporations have found innumerable products, by-products and additives can be created and used from this legume. The multiple uses of this crop are precisely why it is so profitable to grow and market it to the food processing industry. And the soybean producers have certainly spent a pretty penny to fund research to promote their marketing efforts.

The important point of using methods like fermentation to neutralize the anti-nutrients in soy IS THE KEY TO THE BAIT AND SWITCH used by the Soy industry that they use to produce biased research results to promote Soy as a “health food.”

Here’s what Soy Nutrition ( a pro-Soy website, most likely funded by the Soy lobby) says regarding Soyfood and Cancer:

Current views on soy and breast cancer stem from several comprehensive statistical analyses of epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology is the science of studying populations in order to determine the frequency and distribution of disease and measured risks. In the epidemiologic soy studies, investigators ascertained the quantity of soyfoods consumed by study participants to determine if high-soy consumers were more or less likely to have (in case-control studies), or to develop (in prospective studies), cancer.

In the most recent analysis, which was conducted by Anna Wu and colleagues from the University of Southern California, high-soy consumers were found to be about 30% less likely to report having breast cancer than Asian women who consumed relatively little soy.67 This second study purposely included a high percentage of vegetarians, who typically consume more soy than non-vegetarians. However, in a separate large study in the United Kingdom, there was no evidence that soy intake was protective.

What might account for the protective effect of soyfood intake in the Asian studies but not in the UK study? One explanation is that soyfoods are protective against breast cancer only when consumed early in life – during childhood and/or adolescence.8 In the UK study, it is likely the vegetarians adopted their dietary behavior as adults, and may well have consumed little soy prior. In contrast, because soyfoods are part of the traditional Asian diet, it is likely that Asians who consume soy as adults also did so as children.

That’s a deliberate misdirection.

The real reason is because Asians who eat soy, generally eat soy foods prepared in their traditional methods – fermentation to render the anti-nutrients harmless. The majority of soy consumed in the US and the UK…not so.

No, here in the west, the majority of Soy that we consume comes from all of the additives created by soy and put into the food supply.

Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein
Textured Vegetable Protein
Soy Protein Isolate
Hydrogenated or Partially-Hydrogenated Soybean Oil
Soy Lecithin
Soy Flour
Soy Milk
Soybean Oil (if you ever see a listed ingredient as “Vegetable Oil” it’s almost a certainty that Soy is the “vegetable.”)

These are some of the products created from the soybean that are in nearly EVERYTHING you buy from the grocery store nowadays. If a food product has an ingredient list of more than 5 things, chances are, there is some soy derivative in it somewhere. Also, unless you’re eating fried or sauteed foods from restaurants that specifically state the oil they are using to make it, you can assume the oil they use is “vegetable” oil…the cheapest cooking oil in mass production.

Also, soy protein isolate and hydrolyzed soy are often used as meat filler. Public School lunches, and cheap fast food often have soy-filler in their meat. Ever wonder how a fast food Mexican restaurant could sell you a half- pound burrito for a $1 and still make a profit?

But I digress…

So these “researchers” can than look at a culture, and do an epidemiological study (see my previous post here, In the Name of Science, to see the other means of misleading the consumer through such study methods), than make statements like “Studies Show Higher Soy Consumption Can Help Prevent Cancer!”

Except they make NO distinction between traditional soy foods in Asian countries versus the manufactured, processed and toxic sources of Soy that predominantly are the source of soy consumption in the West.

To summarize – the amounts of Soy products in our food supply were almost non-existent prior to the 1980′s. It’s now in everything.

Some scientists wonder if that has anything to do with the rise in girls who enter puberty at very young ages, the rise in male babies with genital birth defects, and perhaps even in the rise in homosexuality…

If you ever do some research into body-building and sports nutrition, you can also find a lot of different weight trainers and sports nutritionists that explicitly advise limiting your soy consumption and to avoid using soy protein isolate in your protein shakes, as it inhibits your bodies testosterone production…which is what every body builder needs in order to see any kind of results from all of that hard work in the weight room.

While many of us here at the Spearhead focus on the myriad of ways in which the media, pop culture, and the educational establishment have worked to “feminize” society, bet you never thought the most subversive way was to sneak some food on your plate that would boost your estrogen and suppress your testosterone…eh?

Here some excellent reading on the topic for you to peruse should you care to:

Soy Alert

The Whole Soy Story

Newest Research on Why You Should Avoid Soy

Soy Online Service


Notable Commentary from the Original Post

slwerner December 17, 2009 at 07:55:

Personally, I find it very disconcerting that so few men know and understand the dangers of soy’s endocrine disrupting constituents (in environmental science, we refer to plant derived estrogen-mimicking endocrine disruptors as “phyto-estrogens”).

Of lesser overall consequences (due to far lower usage), but of potentially equal impact to individual men is red clover (often used in teas) The phyto-estrogens in red clover also have a significant chemical emasculating effect.

DF December 17, 2009 at 12:16:

Soy has been a marketing coup for agribusiness, already heavily subsidized by law. They've managed to market this product as a Far East cancer fighting health food miracle food to the New-Age/SWPL set. The SWPLers are the standard bearers of upper middle class living to which all Americans unfortunately aspire so naturally, human susceptibility to the herd mentality has created an unforeseen health risk.

The US is the world's largest producer of soy and with such a large supply it is no coincidence that it makes its way into virtually everything in the American food supply, a food supply that seems increasingly inferior to many other countries around the world despite our abundance. Anyone who has travelled abroad on a frequent basis can taste the difference. Anyone that walks around the country can see the difference clinging to the waistlines of the average American.

whiskey December 17, 2009 at 15:00:

Excellent post. I generally use olive oil in cooking, and try to avoid soy whenever possible. Though I love soy sauce on pretty much everything.

Keoni Galt December 17, 2009 at 15:14:

Oh, I love soy sauce too. Just make sure the brand you are using is brewed in the traditional method – i.e. fermentation. There are brands that do not ferment the sauce, they use different methods to simulate the flavor of traditional fermented soy sauce.

crella December 17, 2009 at 17:37:

The ad campaigns for green teas, soy and things like Okinawa coral calcium* would have you think there is little or no cancer in Japan, which is far from the truth. While there are relatively fewer cases of breast cancer and colon cancer, the rates for stomach cancer and esophageal cancer are very high as compared to the US. While diet is important, this type of marketing ignores the role of genetics. Certain populations are more prone to certain cancers. Eating sensibly is of course important, but there are no magic foods or supplements, despite what the media says. The average Japanese drinks nearly an liter of green tea daily, as well as consuming soy sauce and miso every day, and it doesn’t seem to be preventing cancer here.

In the US this past fall I saw the wall of sweetened flavored soy milks in the supermarket and just shook my head….I just don’t get it. Green tea comes with sugar in it. Way to get healthy! Why, in the 80s, when pediatricians were looking for an alternative to cow’s milk for allergic babies did they not advocate breastfeeding more strongly instead of putting everyone on soy? Parents jumped for it too, I knew parents who decided themselves to use soy, as it was supposedly ‘safer’.

I don’t know what to think of the tofu-brain degeneration study….I don’t see a correlation here. Japan’s Alzhiemer’s rate is a good bit lower than that of the US, despite tofu consumption.

* The Okinawans do not make any special effort to utilize coral in their diets…it is not ground up on food, not in the drinking water. The reefs are protected, so although the people on the US infomercials claim to be using Okinawan calcium for their supplements they can’t possibly be supplying that large a market by gathering only coral that has fallen off the reefs due to wave action, as they claim. I wonder where they are getting it? The infomercial also claims that there is no cancer on Okinawa…..doesn’t quite explain the existence of the Okinawa Cancer Center.

z December 17, 2009 at 17:44:

As soon as I learned what “phyto-estrogens” were, and found out that soy had a great deal of them, I started trying to avoid soy. Its much harder said than done though because food companies sneak that stuff into everything. Anything that can mimic estrogens and stimulate estrogen receptors is going to make you more feminine and less masculine.

Keoni Galt December 17, 2009 at 17:48:

I would venture to guess the increased tofu consumption is probably offset by the much higher ratio of fish and other seafood consumption…whereas Japanese American’s in Hawaii eat far less fish and seafood and eat a lot more Western processed foods.

The problems with tofu appear to be the anti-nutrients actually deplete the body of it’s nutrients…but if your diet is also rich in those nutrients, the effects of tofu may be somewhat mitigated. Whereas in Hawaii, we have a much more deficient, S.A.D. (Standard American Diet…such a fitting acronym) overall diet than most typical Okinawan’s or Japanese would have.

December 18, 2009 at 01:51:

“Excellent post. I generally use olive oil in cooking, and try to avoid soy whenever possible. Though I love soy sauce on pretty much everything.” – Whiskey

I don’t think olive oil is the best thing to use for cooking. Though it’s extremely healthy in things like salad dressing, that kinda fat doesn’t react well to heat. More stable, saturated fats like coconut oil, butter and even lard and bacon fat are a better bet. Of course, going this route requires getting over some fears deeply embedded in western culture. Think about it, we once thought that trans fat was good for you. The research that saturated fats are so awful is sketchier than the mainstream would have you believe.

Like HL said, soy sauce is fine, though it’s worth it to buy the good stuff which is properly made.

Welmer December 18, 2009 at 02:38:

"I don't think olive oil is the best thing to use for cooking. Though it's extremely healthy in things like salad dressing, that kinda fat doesn't react well to heat." -cayalx

True. Using olive oil for frying food is a bad idea because it burns so easily. However, it’s perfectly fine for anything below a certain temp.

More stable, saturated fats like coconut oil, butter and even lard and bacon fat are a better bet. Of course, going this route requires getting over some fears deeply embedded in western culture.

Fears? lol. My Northern European-derived family consumes so much butter and animal fat that they must be in constant terror! I cook with bacon drippings all the time, but you’ve got to admit that the taste doesn’t go with every dish, and it gets old after a while.

Keoni Galt December 18, 2009 at 14:33:

On another note: Purportedly it is common Japanese housewife folklore that when a woman hit menopause and had her sex drive disappear, she could start feeding her husband as much tofu as he would eat, as the Japanese women knew this would reduce his sex drive so he would not bother them for sex as much.

wallace December 19, 2009 at 00:34:

The traditional diet of Buddhist monks in East Asia is tofu. A huge part of their diet is comprised of plain tofu. A major reason for this is the emasculating, drive inhibiting/lowering effects it has, as detailed above. Since this is a big part of what Buddhist monks are about, trying to eliminate natural desires and urges to reach enlightenment. This is pretty common knowledge in East Asia. People there know that this is the traditional diet of Buddhist monks, and that tofu and soy products can have these effects.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

The Matriarchal Ghettos in Hawai'i

I have oft read many an anonymous commenter on various websites indulge in racial denigration and racial superiority debates, often backing their racist assertions with race based crime statistics. I believe there is in fact a large segment of white Americans that are absolutely sick of having all the blame for all that is wrong in the world today in politically correct mainstream society, laid at their doorstep...and many embrace racism out of anger and out of a sense of wanting to fight back from their mass indictment by our Brave New World Order.

Many don't even really realize it, but the primary point of the issue of criminality and what kind of people are predisposed towards it is NOT race. It's about the destruction of the nuclear family through the loss of the role of Fatherhood for males, and dependence upon the Government by females. One can look at ANY 'poverty-stricken' community or inner city ghetto, and you WILL notice the common denominator if you look for it: the lack of an intact, Father-headed family.

Whether one looks at the inner city denizens of New York City's worst areas, to a Southern States "white trash" trailer park, the common denominator of single mother headed households, violent and abusive boyfriends, welfare recipients, and the majority of older men in their communities are either dead, maimed or incarcerated. The particular ethnic race of the community doesn't mean a damn thing.

The Matriarchal-modeled community funded by the Government's welfare system is THE single biggest determinant of whether or not a community will be mired in crime and an endless cycle of poverty.

Racism is but one grand distraction meant to misdirect people into thinking the source of their communities pathology is related to systemic oppression of a minority class by a racist majority.

The truth is that both the "minority" and the "majority" are BOTH under the oppression of the elite power brokers of our corrupt system...and playing the race card is one of the most effective ways they have for implementing the OLDEST strategy in the book: Divide and Conquer.

The same principle plays out just the same, even here in Hawaii.

On the island of O'ahu, we have several areas that everyone "knows" is the "bad" part of the island. Yes, even here in tropical paradise, we have our matriarchal ghettos.

Most infamous on O'ahu is the entire Western Coastline of this island, known as the district of Wai'anae. (That's pronounced "Why-uh-nigh")

In the days before Western contact, Wai'anae was prized for it's mullet fish ponds, as the name translated from Hawaiian means "Mullet Waters." Like all of the other main Hawaiian islands, the Leeward coast is home to some of the most beautiful beaches in the world. However, tourists are advised to avoid going there, and many local residents do as well. As a song from a local group that world famous "Bruddah Iz" first got his start in the Hawaiian music biz with, the Makaha Sons of Ni'ihau, recorded a song about Makaha, a town in Wai'anae that had this refrain:

"But beware, the Boys will be there to set your cars free! It no matter if you lock your door...the Boys will still score."

That song was written back in the 70's...and nothing has changed as far as that observation goes in 30+ years.

I've known avid surfers who specifically bought old, run down jalopy cars just to go surfing, so they could park at some of Wai'anae's best surf spots so they could paddle out and not worry about their cars getting broken into and/or stolen.

The real problem, as I see it, is that Wai'anae is home to the largest population of Native Hawaiians on the island...but like everywhere else in Hawaii, it also has a large population of other minorities that live there. But the reason why I mention the Native Hawaiian population is because for the most part, much of the Native Hawaiian population is deeply rooted into the ideology of victimization by the colonialization of the West. Yes folks, the exact same resentments and hatreds of "whitey" are nourished by the Hawaiians of the 21st century, just like they are in any Black ghetto in America today. Their personal lives, the decay of the social order of their community, the crumbling infrastructure...none of that is anyone's fault..but the 'haoles' that "took all the land and left the Hawaiians with nothing!"

Now...I write this as a man who is in fact of part Native Hawaiian blood. I've also spent serious time in the home base of the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement - the Hawaiian Studies department at the University of Hawaii. I've taken classes from the foremost proponents of the 'hate haole's' Hawaiians. In some ways, Hawaiian activist Haunani Trask is the Hawaiian equivalent of Al Sharpton.

I've been through hours of "education" regarding the "deconstruction" of Western Colonialism. I've endured endless lectures and speeches by activist teachers that tirelessly preached about the injustices the haole have done to the Hawaiians and indigenous peoples the world over.

And while I considered this education as quite eye opening, there was one thing I also understood: these people were trying to create activists to effect cultural revolution to gain political power. I took Hawaiian Studies to learn more about my heritage, my history and my culture. I was looking to find my familial roots. And in those regards, I learned plenty. I don't regret for a single moment, taking all of the Hawaiian Studies courses that I did when I was in college. But I also was fully aware of the ideology of victimology that permeated almost everything we had to study. While I was cognizant of this subtle indoctrination, I also saw many of my classmates embrace it full on, and become angry activists just like our professors.

I, on the other hand, have been raised on the ideology of personal responsibility. My full blood Tutu (Hawaiian Grandmother) used to scoff at the Hawaiian activists whenever they were portrayed in the media, usually in full diatribe mode about the injustices Hawaiians have endured under the greedy, evil haole. She would tell us kids "You mess up, you got no one for blame but yourself. Don't blame da Haole."

And this, in a nutshell, describes the social conditions of the Matriarchal community that is Wai'anae. It's never anyone's fault but 'the haoles.' "Fucking Haole" is used as gratuitously and openly in public as "Nigger" ever was by prejudiced white folks in mainstream American society prior to the Civil Rights movement.

Women justify their welfare dependence - their section 8 housing subsidies and their WIC food stamps - as simply getting something back from what the haole have stolen.

Just as other minorities in other community ghettos across the world, "Racism" is the tool to create a class of dependents easily controlled by their own hatreds and petty bigotry. Rather than focus on what they themselves are doing, they always have "the man" to blame for any and all behaviors they partake in.

One could read Dr. Daniel Amneus' description of the Matriarchal Ghetto and see all of the exact same characteristics he describes in the Wai'anae coast communities.

Now, the reason I bring this entire topic up was because the local, left wing, socialist/collectivist/communitarian "underground" weekly bird cage liner/fish wrapper, community paper, the Honolulu Weekly, dedicated this weeks feature story to the problems of Wai'anae as seen through the eyes of a few of the Wai'anae high school students. When one has his or her eyes opened to the realities of how the Matriarchal welfare State BUILDS the kind of ghetto community that is Wai'anae today, it's fascinating to detect all of the cultural marxist, socialist, left wing progressive attitudes and indoctrination in their featured story, Inside Wai'anae.

Let the Fisking Begin...

Ask kids at Waianae about what high school is like and most of them bring up fighting before anything else. To some, it’s a necessary distraction. If you don’t know how to fight, you get teased or, worse, beat up. Sticking up for friends is a must, too–it’s what led Crystal to get punched in the jaw by one of her male classmates.

“I was trying to hold this boy back because he was trying to mob one of our friends,” she says. “So I was holding him back and he punched me. It’s scary but we’re used to it."

Why of course you are. Men beating women is something every denizen of a Matriarchal ghetto the world over is used to seeing on a regular basis. In a place where it's common to have a welfare mother with four kids from three different fathers and a convict on parole boyfriend living with her and her brood in her section 8 housing, her kids have an upfront and personal view of men hitting women all the time.

This girl continues,

...Plus, people never use guns or stuff like that. It’s not the mainland, just straight-up Waianae.”

I suppose there is something to be said for this. Unlike most other Matriarchal ghettos in the US, gun violence is not a significant problem compared to elsewhere.

However, I'd also like you to take note of her last phrase: "...just straight-up Waianae." That is community pride.

Most people from Wai'anae know damn well that their community is a criminal haven full of domestic and gang violence, drugs, run down homes, decrepit infrastructure...yet they still have a strong sense of pride. I suppose there's something to be said for people that take pride in coming from a rough, lawless place.

But what gets me is more than few folks are PROUD of being welfare dependents. I once saw a bumper sticker on a truck driving towards Wai'anae that declared


I also noted that this truck that proudly declared their welfare recipient status was also sporting very expensive rims, off road tires, a lift kit, tinted windows and a loud stereo system. Thousands and thousands of dollars in modifications to create a "G" ride...yet proud of the fact that the driver takes tax dollars from working people to pay their rent.

I wanted to run that truck off the road.

One can also see a similar phenomenon in the grocery stores too. Women pushing their broods of bastard kids from multiple fathers, purchasing groceries with their WIC debit cards...all while sporting thousands of dollars of Hawaiian Heritage gold jewelry and having hundreds of dollars worth of tattoo artwork adorn their bodies.

But I digress...

“If you look at Waianae, and specifically the high school, there are some indicators from the school and within the community that speak to the fact that this is a low-income area,” says Sylvia Yuen, director of the Center on the Family at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. “We know that being of low income can lead to a lot of poor outcomes for teens: a higher dropout rate, more kids not going on to college and so on.”

Oh the irony. A woman who is the director of the "Center on the Family" has to look at "indicators from the school and within the community" to indicate Wai'anae is a "low-income area." It is a "low income area" PRECISELY because the FAMILY composed of a Father and a Mother is NOT the center of the community. That "Center" is the single mother and her provider, the Welfare State.

Waianae High School has posted the highest drop-out rate of any high school in Hawaii since at least 2001. Last year’s drop-out rate–as tallied over four-years starting with the graduating class’ freshman year–was 30.6 percent, compared to a state average of 11.9 percent for public high schools that submitted data to the Hawaii Department of Education. That’s compared to 7 percent nationally.

This drop out rate probably corresponds also to a higher rate of incarceration of young boys and the higher rate of teen pregnancies...all hallmarks of the Matriarchal Ghetto.

But to get at the root of these problems, the students at Waianae are right to insist that adults must attempt to understand the complexities of the world as teen’s today experience it.

The students have no clue about getting to the root of the problem. That's because the root of their problem is the social breakdown that is endemic to any community that is comprised of single mother homes subsidized by the State Welfare system.

When it comes to sex, the girls say it isn’t as easy to say no. They say a lot of girls in their class started having sex in eighth grade, when they were still at Waianae Intermediate School.

“I even knew some seventh graders,” says Tina. “Most of it’s pressure from the guys. And you’re not going to go home and talk to your parents about it!”

Note the female rationalization at work here: MOST OF IT'S PRESSURE FROM THE GUYS.

Remember folks, it's always the guys who pressure for sex! Young girls don't want sex...it's the GUYS who are at fault.

Students at Waianae say that it isn’t for lack of education–or access to birth control–that their classmates end up getting pregnant.

“There’s a lot of pregnancy here,” says Erica, a sophomore at Waianae. “Like, a lot. The majority of people have sex, I think. They taught us all about condoms, but sometimes people just don’t use them. I don’t know why.”

“We learned how to put a condom on a pickle,” laughs Robert. “And a banana!” Heather chimes in.

Students at Waianae talk openly about sex, and say some of their peers see parenthood as a means to celebrity, and babies as accessories.

“For some people, having a baby is popular, yeah?” says James. “Because everybody will start knowing them and everybody will start recognizing them. It’s a status symbol, definitely.”

Others say teen pregnancy begets teen pregnancy–that girls see their teenaged older sisters with babies and envision themselves as mothers, too.

“Babies who are born to teens are most likely to have a lot of issues,” says the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Beavers. “They’re more likely to be born into families that aren’t economically stable, they’re more likely to have a low birth-weight, the list goes on and on.”

These are 14 year old girls, exposing the LIES of secular lib-tards that insist SAFE-SEX EDUCATION is the only way to combat teen pregnancy.

The key to be gleaned from this article written by your typical left wing progressive retard is this: INCENTIVES MATTER ON INFLUENCING HUMAN BEHAVIOR.

Young teens in a Matriarchal Ghetto community don't really see a downside to having children while they themselves are still children. Why not? It's not like they're gonna have a hard time with shelter (Section 8) or food (WIC). In fact, it gives them status amongst their peers.

But remember...the crime, the pathologies...these are not the results of the Welfare State! It's the "fucking haole!"

Whether your black, white, red, pink or green...and whether you live in an urban inner city or on the coast of some of the most beautiful beaches in the world...the socio-economic state of your community will predominantly depend upon the foundation of that community - the family structure. Is it a community built upon Patriarchy, or the welfare-state Matriarchy?

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Eddie Would Go

I awoke this morning and turned on the boob tube to watch the morning traffic and weather reprot, only to find out the Quicksilver Eddie Aikau Surf contest at Waimea Bay was on!

This is THE Big Wave surfing contest. The waves must be 20 feet high or bigger for them to even consider holding the event. The last time it was held was in 2004. It's pretty much a once or twice a decade event when the ocean conditions are good enough to hold this event.

The reason why I titled this post: Eddie Would Go is because that is a phrase that has become a popular bumpersticker and saying here in Hawaiian which refers to Eddie Aikau, a renowned waterman and lifeguard. He rescued innumerable swimmers from drowning in Hawaii's waters as a lifeguard, and actually gave his life trying to swim for help as a crew member of the voyaging canoe Hokule'a that was capsized when they were caught in a severe storm. While he's venerated and honored for his lifeguard heroism and self sacrifice, the event for big wave surfing held is held in his honor because he was one of the pioneers in the sport of big wave riding. You can read more about this great Hawaiian Waterman here.

Anyhow, while I was watching the TV news reporters go on and on about the event and it's history as well as discussing the man for whom the event is held to honor, there was one thing I couldn't help but notice:

In our world of Gender Equality...there were no women surfer's who are official invites for the contest.

Is this Sexism in surfing?

C'mon ladies...why don't you load up your boards and paddle out and show us how you can do anything a man can do...

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The Hammer & Sickle Diet

Many MRA bloggers have taken great pains to make the connections between feminism and communism and there role in undermining Western Civilization to prepare the way towards global governance. Rob Fedders from No Ma'am recently connected all of the dots regarding feminism, communism, suffrage and the lie of democracy on a recent comment over at the Spearhead.

But there is another connection between the goal of the social engineers who are carrying out the long march through Western society...

Mary Sparrowdancer, an investigative reporter for Rense.com, recently published an article entitled US Communism, Food, Healthcare, which discusses in part what she calls the Sickle & Hammer diet:

It was the industrialization of grain agriculture that should have eventually given us a very clear clue of the identity of those taking over the United States from the inside. Our clue should have come from the flag of the former USSR, which contained the symbols that represented communism: a hammer and a sickle. The hammer represented industrialization and the sickle represented agriculture. The combination of industry with agriculture is one of the ten steps toward achieving a communist state as outlined by Marx and Friedrich Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

I've spent an innumerable amount of time researching the various tangential points regarding diet and industrial mono-cropping and the propaganda for which the big, agricultural corporations have financed and disseminated...but I never once thought to try and make the same connections to the ill health of our modern conventional wisdom regarding diet and nutrition, are the same ones connected to the very same cultural Marxist social engineers fomenting of the gender war and the feminist movement!

By the early 1900s, the Communists had succeeded in putting a Comrade in the White House, who, acting as a dictator then helped them establish Marx's income tax on Americans' labor, thus now redistributing private wages that belonged to the laborer to others who the State felt "needed" them. This was unconstitutional and historically forbidden in this Republic. He also created a banking monopoly called the "Federal Reserve," and established State terrorists called the Internal Revenue Service who would enforce and carry out the confiscation, redistribution and abolition of private property. The U.S. also witnessed the finalization of the compulsory state "education" of all children in all states throughout the nation. The "demoralization" phase was well underway as the dreams and individuality of the nation's children were snuffed out, their creativity dampened while they were given an abysmal "standardized" education that would prepare them to become a nameless laborer working 9-5 for industry. Changes and amendments were also made to the Constitution to better suit Communist goals, and the Communist party gained complete control of the media. At that same time, the nation's diet changed when Americans began to rely upon the "standardized" grain-based diet of Marx's industrialized agriculture.

No wonder we have an unconstitutional bureaucracy such as the US Dept. of Agriculture's "Food Pyramid" that recommends 8 or more servings of GRAIN based foods at the base!

As recorded by the US Census Bureau, industrialized corn production went from 7.5 hundred million bushels in 1870 to almost 27 hundred million bushels in 1900. Just as communism focuses on the importance of the State and its redistribution of wealth to the masses than it does on the individual, mass production in industrialized agriculture cannot waste much time concerning itself with the quality of any particular product. There was a problem with that mass produced corn.

I wish it WAS a problem...in fact it's actually gotten worse since than. Look at your ingredients on almost any packaged, processed food product in your grocery store. There's a good chance there is some form of corn in it: Dextrose, maltodextrin, High Fructose Corn Syrum, corn oil...other than Soy, Corn is in everything!

The new "progressive" farming goal was to grow a limited variety of grain and cereal crops on vast tracts of land. Chemical fertilizers were used to force crops from the exhausted earth without concern for that impact. Heavy machinery replaced the once important farmers who, in the past, represented over 90% of the US workforce. This progress of industry was also without concern for the damage to the earth, topsoil, farming or families. Local family farms were absorbed by agricultural monopolies, and processed grain and cereal products became massively available, as planned.

Remember this the next time you read some propaganda or some useful idiot repeating the lies about how everyone should go vegan to "save the Earth!" Mono-cultured industrialized agriculture has been one of the most environmentally destructive practices ever inflicted on the face of the Earth!

In the process, however, many Americans lost their former easy access to local, fresh fruits and fresh vegetables. Therefore, the industrialized grain movement not only changed America, it also drastically altered the diet of Americans. For the first time, like laboring peasants elsewhere, Americans became largely dependent on a diet of grains.

This new diet was not based on the nutritional needs of individual, but on the needs of the grain-agriculture industry. The new American diet suddenly went from a varied diet with plenty of fresh, locally grown fresh fruits, and fresh vegetables, fresh clean local dairy and meats, to a diet based on cheap, mass-produced, starchy grain and cereal products that had long shelve lives and could be easily transported over vast distances.

Bacon and eggs was once the ubiquitous mainstay of the American household for breakfast. It still is in the UK. But not America. Grain based foods have become what people consider a "healthy" breakfast, no? Corn flakes, bran flakes, bagels, pastries, breads, pancakes, whole grain cereals...

...What's for breakfast, Komrade?!?!

The food industry was no longer local, decent and trustworthy, but was now "standardized," dangerous and frequently filthy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would eventually issue a piece of propaganda called the "Food Pyramid," which advised Americans that their diet should have a foundation consisting of starchy breads, cereals and pastas, "6 to 11 servings a day." It was a recipe for disaster.

Indeed. She than goes into greater detail about how the first experiments in mass producing corn products resulted in a pellagra epidemic because the industrialization process removed much of the nutritional content of corn grains, which caused widespread malnutrition. But the milling process that devitalized the corn was too profitable for the industrialized production...so they "enriched" the resulting products with synthetic vitamins so that pellagra would no longer be caused.

Remember this little piece of knowledge the next time you go grocery shopping. Note the wide variety of products with the label "enriched" on there.

Understand that "enriched" means the processing the food has undergone has devitalized it and eating it in it's processed state will cause malnutrition...so they've 'enriched' it.

That's because REAL food that nourishes and strengthens your body is food that is fresh, naturally produced, AND IT SPOILS. It is not conducive to mass production in a central location and transportation over long distances and for long term storage!

Coincidentally, this is also why Milk is pasteurized - which destroys the vitamin and nutrients in the milk, and why it has to be homogenized and fortified! All so it can be mass produced, stored and shipped!

This is what has been done to the American food supply, writ large!

The resulting systemic symptoms experienced by an entire nation of Americans on a hammer and sickle diet would also be chemically treated, just as they are today, by the wealthy, industrialized "medical" monopoly machine, which was also created during the Progressive Era.

Which is precisely why the medical industry almost always focuses on pharmaceutical solutions to alleviate symptoms rather than actually taking a good, hard look at dietary effects on degenerative diseases, and recommending changes in eating habits to restore health...

...there's no profit in that!

In 1901 the American Medical Association (AMA), reorganized, establishing a new policy-making body, and "policy-making" as well as "regulations" would soon become a form of new power and wealth opportunity for the industrialists. In perhaps one of the most unique methods of securing a monopoly and eliminating competition, Fred Kilmer, the Director of Scientific Affairs for Johnson & Johnson, gave his expert opinions regarding public health to the government in order to help formulate a law that would become known as "The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906." This would eventually become the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This law prevented the sale of "adulterated or misbranded" foods, drugs, medicines, etc. According to the American National Business Hall of Fame, while the "less scrupulous" competitors of J&J were forced to change their methods and products, "all of Johnson and Johnson's products and processes met the new regulatory standards" that their employee, Mr. Kilmer, helped write.

Gee, this sounds familiar too! See how that works? Large, industrial corporation funds the creation of a regulatory agency that produces guidelines that penalize or eliminates competition. Remember the equation I came up with last month: Government Regulation + Industry = Cartel.

Medical journals dating back to the 1800s reveal that physicians were well aware then of the dangers of a starchy diet. Physicians also knew then about the need for catalase and other enzymes from fresh raw foods, and that the diet must optimally be based on a wide variety of foods producing the slightly alkaline pH in which many diseases, including cancers, cannot thrive. Catalase converts the extremely toxic (and flammable) hydrogen peroxide that accumulates in our bodies to harmless water and oxygen, but catalase is destroyed by high heat and an improper diet. Without catalase and other enzymes from fresh raw fruits and vegetables, foods are not properly digested.

Decent diets consisting of colorful fresh fruits and vegetables were important preventative prescriptions in the 1800s, along with plenty of fresh air, sunshine and exercise.

First, they corrupted our food supply. Than they told us that the Sun would kill us all with skin cancer. Only now studies are showing that vitamin D deficiency is one of the primary causes of ALL forms of cancer!

By the mid 1800s it had been "proved beyond question" that eliminating or even reducing "starchy and saccharine substances" ­ most notably white bread ­ from the diet of a diabetic, would result in a decrease in urinary sugar output. The elimination of starch, therefore, was already being used as a treatment for diabetes. It was also known in the 1800s that if the diet contained dairy it must be in the form of unadulterated, raw, chilled, and scrupulously clean dairy, rather than industrialized dairy because only fresh and raw foods contain the full matrix of nutrients needed for optimal health.

All of the nutrient-based knowledge once available to us in the 1800s was thrown out the window during the Progressive Era, when, as monopolies were being established in the U.S., propaganda told us that modern is always better and new is always improved. We can now see that this was and is a lie. Deaths from heart disease and cancers have continued to climb since Americans were switched to the hammer and sickle diet. According to "The War on Cancer," in the year 1900, there were 12,769 deaths blamed on cancer. The number of deaths blamed on cancer during the year 1940 was 158,335. The number of deaths blamed on cancer during the year 2001 had reached 553,768.

According to a report written in 1960 by the American Association for Cancer Research, "Cancer patients had a 22 per cent lower liver catalase activity than cancer-free patients." According to a National Institutes of Health report, a 1996 study of breast cancer risks found that "Vegetable and, particularly, fruit consumption contributed to" a decreased risk of cancer. They concluded, "thus, the preventive potential for fruit consumption has widespread implications." According to a report found on the American Academy of Periodontology, "Research has shown, and experts agree, that there is an association between periodontal diseases and other chronic inflammatory conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer's disease."

Industrialized medicine, however, pays almost no attention to basic nutrition and the effect it has on the human body. According to the AMA's "Concise Medical Encyclopedia" of 2006, they were still advocating the USDA's now slightly revised Food Pyramid, which is still promoting a hammer and sickle diet but with new emphasis now on "whole grains."

As those of us that have discovered the Primal Diet know full well...the difference between processed grains and "whole grains" in terms of dietary health is like the difference between smoking filtered and un-filtered cigarettes. One will kill you faster than the other...but you're just as dead if you smoke 'em long enough.

While the government refuses to acknowledge its own folly, the FDA recently sent warnings to 29 fruit growers for claiming health benefits found in their fruits, including reports of pain relief that many experience after drinking tart cherry juice. According to the FDA warning, "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man-are drugs." Cherries are now drugs, and therefore they are now in need of more regulations.

Isn't it wonderful that we have an organization such as the FDA looking out for us and protecting us from unscrupulous fruit growers who would DARE to make unfounded and non-peer-reviewed-researched health claims for their produce?!!?

Friday, November 13, 2009

Sheeple Watching - FUPA

The second in a series of random observations and fleeting thoughts that flit through my mind lately whenever I walk about in public and observe the average, brainwashed, indoctrinated and oblivious American Sheeple.

The Definition of Insanity

Most people have heard of the old "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it to come out different."

The old maxim popped in my head the other day while I was standing in line at the grocery store, watching a FUPA in front of me loading up her purchases onto the checkout stand's conveyor belt.

For those unfamiliar with the term, FUPA stands for Fat Upper Pubic Area. In other words...not typically overweight people, not even obese people...but morbidly obese folks.

And it seems like there are more and more of them everywhere I go.

Now lest you think I'm taking this opportunity to cruelly point the finger of ridicule on the morbidly obese, let me make myself clear: seeing such people makes me sad and angry. I'm NOT engaging in an exercise of cruelly indulging in personal character-diminishing schadenfreude here.

I'm sad and angry that we live in a society and culture for which lies and propaganda propagated for a wide variety of reasons, has resulted in a populace of people that have been slowly poisoning themselves to death on foods under the mistaken notions of what is and what is not a nutritious and healthy diet.

And while I do feel pity at the victims of these lies and propaganda, I still hold people to a standard based on my own values of personal accountability. Which brings me back to my observations of the FUPA lady piling up her assorted grocery choices onto the conveyor belt at the checkout stand and my opening quote about the definition of insanity...

Why can't this lady, like millions of other people out there who are morbidly obese, make the connection between all of the food products she's buying and consuming, and her state of extremely ill health?

Her cart was overflowing with diet cola, fat free frozen "Weight watchers" dinners, fat free dessert cakes and crackers and chips, and fat free yogurt and fat free ice cream, along with meat and produce.

How many years can such people continue to buy and eat this garbage, and see the kind of results that look back at them in the mirror every day? Is it not INSANE?

Take a look at any packaged, processed food item found on the shelves of the grocery store...most of these products have some sort of label indicating "fat free" or "Lite" or "Low Fat."

As I've written extensively on in the past, one of the biggest lies ever promulgated by the giant Food processing industry was the implications via marketing slogans and promotions on their labels that eating "FAT" makes you fat. There are literally thousands of products in grocery stores that all promote this absolute lie.

Hell, you can actually buy ground meat that is CHEAPER because there's more fat in it's content.

And you have people, herded to their grocery stores like sheep, mindlessly buying these products and eating them...thinking they are at least trying to do something about their dreadful health problems associated with morbid obesity...and actually contributing further to their problems.

Than they get desperate and resort to literal modern day butchery procedures like bariatric surgery, to try and fix a problem...rather than actually deal with taking an objective look at their dietary choices and come to the rational conclusion that eating all of this fat free and lite foods ISN'T WORKING!

But I guess the conventional wisdom and current zeitgeist as promoted endlessly by our mass media culture is too powerful a force to overcome.

There's a reason why large scale dairy producers have a vested interest in selling and promoting all of this 'fat free' and 'lite' dairy products: all of the butterfat is the primary ingredient in producing the highest quality ice cream and butter..which of course sells at a premium price.

And what better way to make a fortune off of both ends of the spectrum than to take the fat from the dairy to produce a premium priced dessert foods and taking the leftover, de-fatted, de-flavored, and de-vitalized by-products, add a bunch of sugar and perhaps natural and artificial flavors, and than sell it as health food? And millions of fat and obese people buy this stuff thinking it will help them in their futile battle of the bulge that they are so obviously losing...

The situation here is absolutely ludicrous...I still have a hard time accepting that people are so deluded and brainwashed by marketers and duplicitous government agencies that have colluded with processed food manufacturers and giant agricultural corporations into promulgating such dietary lies, that they are unable to make the connection between their ever expanding waistline and all of that fat free, lite "food" they're buying and eating?

I almost wanted to grab this lady by her shoulders and point to her grocery choices and than point to her FUPA and ask her if she can't figure out why she's buying all of this "health" food and not getting healthy? HELLO?!?!? IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

It disgusts me.

Worse yet, I cannot be too judgemental, because it was only about 4 years ago that I myself awakened from the blue-pill reality of our matrix-like existence.

I was developing my own unhealthy deposit of belly fat and a double chin while shopping exactly like this lady I was observing.

I was drinking diet soda every day.

Eating "low fat, low sodium" turkey bacon.

Ground Turkey substituted for all of our recipes that called for ground beef...because they were "leaner."

Sustitute sour cream. Fat free yogurt. Substitute sour cream that was "lite." Fat free Coffee Mate "cream." Fat free soy milk instead of real milk. My wife and I were buying and consuming this artificially produced CRAP for YEARS.

I graduated from High School weighing 155 lbs.

Only when I hit 220 lbs. at 32 years of age, and had to begin contemplating buying new clothes to accommodate my expanding waistline, did I finally take a good hard look at my diet and come to the conclusion that something wasn't quite right...I finally asked the questions about the conventional wisdom I had unwittingly followed for years:

What if it had all been a big fat lie?

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

A Woman's Nation Changes Everything

From the SpearheadFiles
November 4, 2009

Welcome to our Brave New World Order folks, because it’s certainly a very different world for everyone than it was just one generation ago. James Brown once soulfully wailed “This is a MAAAAN’S WORLD….but it wouldn’t be nuthin’ without a woman to care!”

My how the times have changed.

We now have Maria Shriver exultantly declaring “It’s a Woman’s Nation!”

Isn’t that special, dear.

The Center for American Progress (Put a CAP in the country, she’s done for!) just released The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything.

Jack Donovan has already taken an in depth look at Oprah Winfrey’s epilogue to this piece of femi-nazi propaganda, I’m going to focus on the forward by John Podesta and the first Chapter by Maria Shriver.

Now, the first thing one must notice, is that the tone of this report is one for which many people have been trying to point out for years now – that this is in fact a nation that has certainly become a society that promotes Matriarchal values and denigrates Patriarchal ones.

That masculinity in men has been castigated and demonized for decades now, while masculinity in women has been relentlessly promoted and inculcated into the mainstream, cultural consciousness. And one of the memes that has been relentlessly promoted is this idea that women are oppressed, inequal and downtrodden, which is what necessitates all of the laws, tax-funded programs, divorce court industries and welfare programs…to “fix” all of the problems of a “Male” nation.

On the face of it, it sure seems like they’re declaring victory now, doesn’t it?
But of course not. This is in fact a literal cultural revolution, and this is merely a momentary pause for the social engineers to reflect on their past successes in overthrowing the old world order of Patriarchy, on their ever increasing march towards “equality.”

Let’s have a look at what this report is citing as turning points in their campaign to win this gender war…
First, from the Preface, mangina feminist lackey and former Clinton White House member, John Podesta, writes:

"Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress decided to closely examine the consequences of what we thought was a major tipping point in our nation’s social and economic history: the emergence of working women as primary breadwinners for millions of families at the same time that their presence on America’s payrolls grew to comprise fully half the nation’s workforce. In addition, we were watching the Great Recession amplify and accelerate these trends. We are in the midst of a fundamental transformation of the way America works and lives."

Indeed, change is what this is all about. From a Patriarchal focused society in which men worked and women raised the next generation, we now live in a nation for which men and women work…and the afterschool program , the minimum wage day care worker, the retired grandparent, or as in many cases, the television and the computer are raising the next generation.

Is this really a change for the better?

"When we look back over the 20th century and try to understand what’s happened to workers and their families and the challenges they now face, the movement of women out of the home and into paid employment stands out as a unique and powerful transformation."

Unique? Hardly. Matriarchal cultures are as old as humanity itself. What we really seeing is a decline in civilization, since Patriarchal culture is what built civilization in the first place.

"Women becoming primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners changed everything. But, even though we were all witness to this phenomenon’s slow emergence over many years, these changes seem somehow to have snuck up on us. As a result, our policy landscape remains stuck in an idealized past, where the typical family was composed of a married-for-life couple with a full-time breadwinner and full-time homemaker who raised the children herself."

Well that seems to be certainly true. Even though this report celebrates women now comprising 50% of the workforce, 60% of college attendees, and a huge increase in the number of women now serving as the primary breadwinners of their family…divorce laws, child custody and alimony awards are still based on the assumptions that women are economically disadvantaged by their full time homemaker roles…even when they are not full time homemakers!

Of course, I hardly think Podesta is arguing for true “equality” when it comes to Family law…

No, what his argument consists of is to basically make a case for more Government programs to support the continued dismantling of Patriarchal family structures to promote the new ideal “Woman’s Nation:”

- Updating our basic labor standards to include family-friendly employee benefits
- Reforming our anti-discrimination laws so that employers cannot discriminate against or disproportionately exclude women when offering workplace benefits

- Updating our social insurance system to the reality of varied families and new family responsibilities, including the need for paid family leave and social security retirement benefits that take into account time spent out of the workforce caring for children and other relatives

- Increasing support to families for child care, early education, and elder care to help working parents cope with their dual responsibilities

- Updating these government policies so that they account for the reality of the overwhelming majority of today’s workers and families is the challenge we address in the pages that follow.

See, what women are really finding out is that entering the world of work did not make life better or easier. Instead, it gave them a whole new means of stress and responsibilities in their lives, so now we must use the government to ease the burdens of responsibilities that pursuing “empowerment” through careers has given them.

As one goes beyond Podesta’s preface and into the first chapter of the report, penned by Shriver herself, that it becomes glaringly obvious that while Shriver and many other women are celebrating the so-called advancement of women’s “equality,” they are also documenting the ways in which the new reality is negatively impacting both men and women.

Not once does she or any of the other progressives (who are really nothing more than cultural revolutionaries and social engineers) ever stop to consider that the problems they are highlighting are caused directly by the cultural expectations that gear women towards careers rather than homemaking?

No, we must implement MORE government programs to make it easier on women to “Have it all.” Here’s what Shriver writes:

"Together, the results of these efforts provide a fascinating window into the changing American landscape. What we heard loud and clear is that the Battle Between the Sexes is over. It was a draw. Now we’re engaged in Negotiation Between the Sexes."

It was a draw? But you’re declaring victory by calling it a “Woman’s Nation!” If it were a draw, wouldn’t it simply be “A Nation?”

Doesn’t sound like a draw to me. Oh, and what is this “negotiating between the sexes?” You mean where career mom tells her husband if he doesn’t toe the line, she’ll take him to divorce court, enslave him into peonage and take him away from his children? That kind of reality certainly doesn’t look like a “draw” to me.

"Virtually all married couples told the pollsters they’re negotiating the rules of their relationships, work, and family. An overwhelming majority of both men and women said they’re sitting down at their kitchen tables to coordinate their family’s schedules, duties, and responsibilities, including child care and elder care, at least two to three times a week. Men said it was more like every day!"

"Indeed, during my conversation with powerful businesswomen on the West Coast, one told me she and her husband “are constantly renegotiating our agreement about what gets done, who does it—or do we hire somebody as opposed to doing it ourselves.” And a man in Seattle told me he and his wife have to work out “who’s gonna take care of the light bill? Who’s gonna pay for the mortgage? It doesn’t matter who’s bringing the money in. The money is coming in, but decisions have to be made about how the money is going out.”

Isn’t wonderful to see all of this “PROGRESS?” See how a “Woman’s Nation” promotes marital harmony? What a wonderful, Brave New World!

"In the Rockefeller/Time poll, more than three-quarters of both men and women agreed that the increased participation of women in the workforce is a positive change for society."

Pay attention folks! The very foundation that is the largest funder of Women’s studies programs and population control policies, the very foundation that is the primary mover in socially engineering this “woman’s nation” has conducted a poll that supports their goals? You don’t say?

"Both sexes also agreed that men are becoming more financially dependent on women. And both women and men said they’re still adjusting their lives, their expectations, and their assumptions to the change."

"The findings matched what I heard in the street. Everywhere I went, people talked to me about how overstressed and in crisis they feel, especially when it comes to financial security. Women said that never before has so much been asked of them, and never have they delivered so much. Divorced mothers talked to me about trying to make do without child support. One single mother who had just lost her job told me she was utterly dependent on her family and friends just to stay afloat."

This folks is what this report refers to as PROGRESS…but it’s not done yet, we need more of it! Now, note that one of the themes Shriver and the author’s of this report repeatedly make is the need for the Government to ensure that women get “equal pay for equal work.” Yet the entire premise of that argument rests on the unfounded assumption that the reason for unequal pay is based on “inequality.”

Yet…Shriver reports the following:

"And women often define that power differently from men. One woman who had made it to CEO chose to give up the corner office and downgrade to a lower-rung position. She told me, “I will admit, it was fun, it was power, and I was dealing with a bunch of top dogs. But now I get to hang out with my kids when they come home from school. For me the definition of success is not being a CEO and not being the biggest dog and frankly not making the most money. It’s living a balanced life.”

This is the very reason WHY we have the so-called “gender wage gap.” But this is not acknowledged at all. In fact, while the authors of the report are calling for “equal pay for equal work” what they are actually arguing for is MORE pay for women for doing LESS work!

"One female corporate executive told me, “Women don’t need equal pay. They actually need to be paid more, because the fact of the matter is that we typically are responsible for more within our families, and we have to pay to outsource more. Most of the men I have competed with for positions have had a stay-home wife at some point and many have had a wife throughout their entire marriage.”

Here we have a female corporate executive, whining about having to compete with a man who has a stay-at-home wife, making it unfair for her to compete with him for positions? Sorry lady, nothing is stopping you from finding a kitchen bitch husband who would give you the same advantages a full time man has with a stay at home wife!

Nothing that is, except for your own hypergamous instincts which cause you to shudder with revulsion at the thought of being married to a househusband who you’d have to support financially!

Yes Maria…all that you and the elite activists and social engineers that have promoted this cultural revolution, you can see all of the changes that have wrought havoc and confusion amongst so many people…yet you think that all that is being done is a good thing? That we need more of the same?

This report is full of inconsistencies. Women are now more equal than ever…but so much more work needs to be done…sexism is still rampant… but women have succeeded and we are a Women’s Nation now…the cognitive dissonance is readily apparent to the objective reader that understands the full ramifications of the cultural and social upheaval we have all experienced in transforming our society into a “Woman’s Nation.”
Just look at Shriver’s conclusion:

  "As we move into this phase we’re calling a woman’s nation, women can turn their pivotal role as wage-earners, as consumers, as bosses, as opinion-shapers, as co-equal partners in whatever we do into a potent force for change. Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table—at the head of the table."
Wait…in the name of “equality,” women now have a seat at the head of the table? This is a case in point for what Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm: “Some animals are more equal than other animals.”  Look at the logical inconsistency of this argument! This is proof positive that the idea of “equality” is nothing but a lie! In the name of pursuing “equality” a Woman’s Nation is about woman becoming MORE EQUAL than men.

"Back in 1960, President Kennedy talked about the torch being passed to “a new generation.” Well, five decades later, the torch is being passed . . . to a new gender. There’s no doubt in my mind that we women will lift that torch. We will carry it. And we will light a new way forward."

A NEW Gender?

President Kennedy talked about the torch passed to a new generation…a term which includes both men and women. But now, Shriver and the elite social engineers that have created this “woman’s nation” have disenfranchised men and they call it progress!

Note the celebrations that women now comprise almost 50% of the breadwinner role…through Men losing their jobs in record numbers thanks to the current recession!

This is progress?

Translation: Woman are “advancing” because men are suffering! It is indeed a Woman’s Nation…and we are worse off for it – both women, men and especially children.


Notable Commentary from the Original Post

The Fifth Horseman
November 4, 2009 at 14:58:

Women earn 75% of what men earn, for generating 70% of the productivity that men generate. Feminists like to leave off the second half of the sentence, and parrot only the first half.

Of course, this makes women’s jobs more vulnerable to outsourcing, given the higher costs per unit of productivity.

All this does is decrease the competitiveness of the US economy, which leads to men Expating, women’s jobs being outsourced, and a shrinking of the tax base that women depend on.

No ‘woman’s nation’ will be economically competitive in a globalized economy. Hence, it is sort of self-correcting, except for the strife in between.

Keoni Galt
November 4, 2009 at 15:06:

Note how Shriver is declaring this “it’s a Woman’s Nation” in triumph…yet the substance of her content reflects nothing but conflict, struggle and turmoil in everyone’s lives as a result of the push to turn this into their vision of utopia.

Furthermore, it’s all well and good for Shriver to talk about her mother as a serious role model…and about her own success as a career woman and as a mother. Yet the average mother has nowhere near the struggles or problems associated with a career mom, as she’s married to the Governator, one of the wealthiest actors of our generation, and comes from a family of immense wealth and political connections.

Her and her mother get the best of these social changes they are celebrating, with none of the struggle, conflict or turmoil all of the masses are experiencing.

Limousine liberalism at it’s finest.

The Fifth Horseman
November 4, 2009 at 15:19:

A niece of a President and two Senators, who marries Arnold Schwarznegger, has just about the easiest life around. Cushy gigs like her anchor position did not arrive her way due to merit. And I dare say she is the one preventing her husband from making the tough reforms needed to save a state that contains what was once the most dynamic private sector in the world.

November 4, 2009 at 16:22:

"Her and her mother get the best of these social changes they are celebrating, with none of the struggle, conflict or turmoil all of the masses are experiencing.
Limousine liberalism at it’s finest."

Exactly right, HL. To paraphrase a comment I saw on another blog: ‘working women’ is often touted as meaning more women in medicine, law, high-powered careers, etc. In reality, it usually means middle- and working-class moms have to take crappy jobs at Wal-Mart instead of staying home with their kids. Only a relatively few women benefit; most get screwed.

November 4, 2009 at 17:03:

The government is just a wealth transfer mechanism from men to women. And yet losers like Shriver want us to believe all these women, with their preferential treatment in education, grants, employment, marriage, custody, divorce, alimony, child support… female sentencing discount, on and on – all of this was inconsequential and they got their on their own because they’re “strong”, independent women. Sorry. It’s to the point where the only people I know have earned their way are the straight white guys. They don’t have any allies or discrimination in their favor; in fact, it’s exactly the logic of these systems favoring women that make the (evil) straight white guy the sucker in this picture.

If more females had a brain they might realize the implications of all this preferential treatment; the few women who actually do achieve on their own will be lumped in with the rest who, actively or passively, accept the female-first benefits in this “Woman’s Nation”.

The Fifth Horseman
November 4, 2009 at 18:55:

Western Feminism has done more to boost the economies of India and China than anything those countries’ own governments have done.

November 4, 2009 at 19:02:

"Western Feminism has done more to boost the economies of India and China than anything those countries’ own governments have done."
-TFH, I know exactly what you mean, but a lot of people won’t interpret that statement correctly. Elaboration would be helpful for the confused masses.

November 4, 2009 at 19:16:

The problem is not so much women or feminists but we men ourselves. Basically a vast majority of western men are brainwashed chivalrous idiots sweating blood to support the parasitical states that in turn take a crap on us daily. Look at all those men who went to Iraq to fight some phony “war on terror” in the process killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s while getting killed themselves to enrich the people who run the fembot state known as the US. That right there is a shining example of the idiocy of a good number of western men, how many of the US casualties in Iraq were women (1%?), compare that to the fact that they makeup over half of the US population, what it basically means is that US men serve as cannon fodder for US women & their gov’t.

As long as men don’t get out of the Victorian worship of women & chivalrous garbage we will always be slaves to western women & their governments. I feel no obligation to defend this so called “civilization” when it tells me everyday that as a man I am worthless & asks me to bow down to worship the vagina.

Those men who are smart will leave a sinking ship like the West & move to countries less hostile to men, most of Latin America is still not overrun with fembots, same with eastern countries like India, Philippines, Thailand etc. Costa Rica has a Libertarian Party which has been gaining influence & got 10% of the vote last elections, a libertarian state is a mans best friend which is why the fembots will always try to oppose it.

I am considering expatriating there so that I can contribute in building a free society (real freedom not just phony “free” like the US) by supporting the Libertarian Party & educating the men there about the dangers of feminism. Many men who are aware of the situation still want kids & a wife (MGTOW not withstanding) but not with western women, for those guys its best to expatriate to peaceful places like Costa Rica where the chances of you building a family life are much better while supporting Libertarians there who want to get the gov’t out of the peoples lives.

I have no intention of spending much longer in this matriarchal hellhole called the West & plan to put my skills to better use in a place where men are not crapped on daily. In fact everytime you pay taxes you are giving your money to western governments so that they can spread the filth of feminism to the rest of the world (like Iraq under the guise of “democracy”) & destroy any society that does not put women on a pedestal, i have no intention of contributing my money to such disgusting schemes & hence my expatriation soon enough.
Western women can defend themselves & their “womens nations”, I want no part of it.

The Fifth Horseman
November 4, 2009 at 19:39:

"Elaboration would be helpful for the confused masses."
Step by step :

1) Women, due to their litigious nature, earn more per unit of productivity than men, contrary to the lies that they tell themselves.

2) Feminists also lobby to get taxpayer money (mostly paid by men) to create more public-sector jobs of no economic value, to maintain women.

3) No-fault alimony and child support=alimony=slavery have confined 10-20% of the male workforce to a situation where they have no incentive to strive for wealth, since 70% of it would be taken away from them. Thus, they have no reason to invent new technologies or start new enterprises. To have 10-20% of men disincentivized this way, cannot be good for the economy.

4) More females voting, and brainwashed by feminists, leads to more taxes and an anti-business climate.

5) All the above 4 points combined lead to the US economy becoming less competitive in an era where capital and labor are mobile.

6) Hence, countries that have done nothing other than be less accomodating to feminism, receive a windfall of wealth that is fleeing the US.

7) Hence, the US tax base shrinks, and jobs that overpay women relative to their output get outsourced. Feminists try to sue, which only hastens this process.

8) Feminism implodes upon itself, leaving many women poor, unsafe, and with no prospects for marriage either. As soon as 2020.

This is Horseman #3, of the Four.

November 4, 2009 at 21:31:

Paradoxically, this situation also makes it harder for women to get married. Why?

Men in the situation I find myself in (educated, wealthy, and with at least some game) are hip deep in women; they are all competing to “date up”, and when, through success, there is less “up”, I essentially have my pick of most people, don’t put up with shit, and have no reason to commit to someone long-term. Why put my assets at risk, give someone else control over my life, and lock myself in with a depreciating asset when I can always trade in for a new one instead?

In the end, this will turn out badly for everyone, but I intend to be long gone from the U.S. by then.

November 4, 2009 at 23:38:

So much of what modern women are doing reminds me of how modern Zimbabwe was brought to its knees.
Only 30 years ago, it was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, and its prosperity was a direct consequence of its strong and well managed agricultural sector – unfortunately though, it was white farmers at the helm, and compared to the black population, they were very much a minority. Over its more than a century of European immigration, white settlers developed a complete lack of confidence in Africans being able to govern themselves, and no matter how much wealth they brought, no matter how much better life in Rhodesia may have been for the average African compared to life in, say, Zaire or the Central African Republic, the superior attitude of the whites was their undoing – and the locals didn’t give a damn what it cost them to be rid of them.

For those amongst us who haven’t noticed, Western women have developed a hatred of men that runs every bit as deep as the hatred black Zimbabweans developed for white farmers. As soon as they get a strong sense of their complete dominance over men politically, they will probably do exactly what Zimbabweans did: they will quite happily see the law of the land suspended for the hated group. They will cheer on any politician who promises them the proceeds of confiscation of their assets. They will make emigration possible only if they leave with nothing more than the clothes they are wearing. They will be deaf to any argument that the economy will suffer and that they will end up starving – it will be something too abstract and too far off to counter the more immediate pleasure of seeing the enemy take a beating.

And then one day they will realize they live in a police state presided over by a dictator, their currency will be worthless, nearly everyone will be living in abject poverty, and public health pandemics will be routine. Everyone will have long forgotten their hatred, and will privately wish for the old days back again, but no-one dare say it. Instead, they will try to re-create it by quietly leaving and going to another country where the wealth and comfort can be found, and they won’t care who rules, or be too concerned that they will be accepted only into the lowest social caste. They will be that grateful simply to be fed.

Western men are in a similar position as the white farmers of Zimbabwe in the late 70s. Although still politically in charge, and still influential in the country’s economy, the end of that power is very near. As soon as it is lost, their wealth will be stripped from them, special laws will be enacted specifically aimed at restricting them, and the power that replaces them will have a popular mandate to do whatever it pleases to them.

The only two major differences are that we are not the same significant minority as the white farmers were, and we are not as disconnected in terms of family relationships. Whether that’s enough to avoid the same fate remains to be seen.

November 5, 2009 at 04:11:

Laws pervade and intrude upon every area of life in us. From spanking your kids to every facet of how to raise them to how you treat each other in home to where you can smoke to when you can drink to what you can do. What drugs you can take and who you can fuck. Cradle to grave already. You think its not already carried away? You think it won’t get worse?

Then they intentionally bring in people to take jobs from people who where born and educated in the us for same job. Then you have an ad for intel with a picture of their employees and it is completely diverse along with pictures of workers from every other company except whites still make up 70 percent of population but only represent 20 to 33 percent or 0 in what is supposed to be the picture perfect hiring practices of major corporations.

I mean shit they tell you how much money you can give away. How in the fuck can people seriously call that a free country in any way shape or form?

November 5, 2009 at 05:33:

Gunslingerregi is right, the whole notion of being “free” in the US is just a facade, it may have been true 150 years ago & even then only for certain groups of the population, its definitely not true today. The US gov’t regulates almost every aspect of your life from the size of your toilet bowl to your marriage arrangement. Jefferson already foresaw the future of US when he said that the nature of government is to grow.

November 5, 2009 at 23:16:

I wonder what the history books 100 years from now will look like when documenting this “advancement” of women in American society.

November 6, 2009 at 22:00:

"That masculinity in men has been castigated and demonized for decades now, while masculinity in women has been relentlessly promoted and inculcated into the mainstream, cultural consciousness."

“Masculinity in women”? What do you mean exactly? I ask this because for a while I’ve been thinking that some traits that were considered traditionally “masculine” weren’t really “masculine” at all but could be found in both sexes.

"It was a draw? But you’re declaring victory by calling it a “Woman’s Nation!” If it were a draw, wouldn’t it simply be 'A Nation?'"

That’s true. Ideally, or at least to me, this wouldn’t be a “Man’s World or Nation” (however you want to call it) or a “Woman’s Nation”. Just “the Nation or “the World”. My question is, do you want it to be like that or do you want it to go back to being a “Man’s World/Nation”? I’m just trying to get a sense of what you’re ultimately saying overall. I have an idea, I just want to be sure.

Keoni Galt
November 9, 2009 at 13:42:

“Masculinity in women”? What do you mean exactly? I ask this because for a while I’ve been thinking that some traits that were considered traditionally “masculine” weren’t really “masculine” at all but could be found in both sexes.”

The promotion of masculinity for women has been an ongoing, gradual process that has been pushed on a wide variety of fronts. From gender neutral clothing, to the portrayal of masculine behavior by celebrity women in the mainstream media…behavior for which no “LADY” in the past when social shaming was the norm, would never engage in cursing, spitting, and openly and proudly sexually aggressive.

“My question is, do you want it to be like that or do you want it to go back to being a “Man’s World/Nation”? I’m just trying to get a sense of what you’re ultimately saying overall.”

One of the things I believe is that “A Man’s World” of the past was really no such thing. The idea that in the past all of society was structured to benefit men and that women where oppressed and downtrodden and treated as second-class citizens is nothing more than a big lie fostered by the cultural marxist/social engineers to foment the gender war and promote feminism.

When it was a “man’s world” it was really a well ordered world of social expectations and behavorial mores that most people were raised to ascribe to. The feminist movement made it’s gains in shifting the culture by pushing propaganda that focused on all of the benefits men attained in fulfilling there gender role expectations, and ignoring all of the responsibilities…and conversely focusing on the responsibilities and negative aspects of the female gender role and ignoring the benefits accorded women in their expected gender roles. It was never a “man’s world.”

It was simply a world with clearly defined gender roles that were encouraged and enforced by social pressure and a culture that had a clear moral grounding. It was just as much a woman’s world back then as it was man’s. Whereas now, “It’s a Woman’s Nation!”

November 10, 2009 at 01:12:

HL, you are right about the Rockefeller Foundation. That group is both funding population-control advocacy groups and feminism. It becomes obvious the latter was cultivated as a arm of the former when seen in this light. Its apparently the Rockefeller Foundation’s, or whomever is running it, belief there are way too many human beings in the world, and they seek to get us to voluntarily lessen our numbers each generation.

Would it have not been more logical to just -ask- people to limit themselves to two children per family on the basis of reason rather than to underwrite a ideology (feminism) that has caused so much unhappiness and unmet expectation instead? I think it would have been. Funny how its only working in the West, and not where population control was truly out-of-hand anyway. The best-laid plans of mice and men, etc.

Kamal S.
November 17, 2009 at 15:37:

“Its apparently the Rockefeller Foundation’s, or whomever is running it, belief there are way too many human beings in the world, and they seek to get us to voluntarily lessen our numbers each generation.”

Does this actually shock anyone?

Do serious research in the SOCIAL history of Progressivism, the Liberal Left, Fabian Socialist, Eugenics, and Social Biology.

A good bit of research into the history of the Rockefeller Funds and Foundation is also relevant..

All too often we inherit ideas without an inquiry into their historical development and origins.

Fascinating indeed, is the history of ideas.