Sunday, April 29, 2012

Feminist Churchianity is Christian Population Control

From: The Cost of Delaying Marriage

In this sense, we lead lives that are exactly the inverse of our grandmothers'. If previous generations of women were raised to believe that they could only realize themselves within the roles of wife and mother, now the opposite is thought true: It's only outside these roles that we are able to realize our full potential and worth as human beings. A 20-year-old bride is considered as pitiable as a 30-year-old spinster used to be. Once a husband and children were thought to be essential to a woman's identity, the source of purpose in her life; today, they are seen as peripherals, accessories that we attach only after our full identities are up and running.
Instead, like lords or sailors of yore, a young woman is encouraged to embark upon the world, seek her fortune and sow her oats, and only much later — closer to 30 than 20 — consider the possibility of settling down. Even religious conservatives, who disapprove of sex outside of marriage, accept the now-common wisdom that it is better to put off marriage than do it too early.
The 33-year-old single woman who decides she wants more from life than her career cannot so readily walk into marriage and children; by postponing them, all she has done is to push them ahead to a point in her life when she has less sexual power to attain them. Instead, she must confront the sad possibility that she might never have what was the birthright of every previous generation of women: children, a family life and a husband who — however dull or oppressive he might have appeared to feminist eyes — at least was there.

Several years ago, I used to work with two women who were born again, evangelical Christians who both had teen-aged daughters. Both of them talked endlessly about their worries for their daughters getting the best education and career they could get as soon as they graduated from high school.

I once made the mistake of suggesting that the most important thing such young girls needed to consider was choosing good men to marry...far more important than what college they were trying to get into, what degree they would try to attain and what career path they wanted to pursue. I tried to explain to them that the biggest decisions with the most far reaching consequences for their lives that their daughters would ever face would be who they decide to mate with. Both ladies didn't even consider my points. Both immediately argued that their daughters needed their educations and careers first and foremost, just in case they did get married and "it didn't work out." Of course, both of these ladies were the primary breadwinners in their family, so it's not surprising they would feel this way.

They were simply following the new ideal of 21st century Churchianity - changing the Church's prime directives to accommodate Feminist ideals.

The infiltration of Christian culture and morality by feminism (Cultural Marxism) is nearly complete.

Population control measures are successfully keeping the population replacement rate down amongst the demographic most likely to promote marriage and large, Patriarchal families.

Not only was this effected by pushing the idea that young women need to pursue education and career "just in case" marriages fail, but also that they must only consider marrying men in their own age group.

Note the lament of a Protestant Preacher's wife over at Dalrock's:

"Do you really believe it’s easier for young women? IDK. My daughter is having problems getting men her age to even approach her. They all seem really shy won’t even make eye contact, most of all they seem to be lacking in basic manners or the social graces (ironically talents women taught their children when they actually about the business of parenting.)"

Why do Christian parents who want their children to wait until marriage to have sex, blindly follow along with the cultural value that women must meet and mate with men their own age?

Why do Christian parents who want their daughters to wait until marriage to have sex, push their young girls to make sure they go to college and start a career before even considering marriage - all while telling their girls they need to remain virgins until marriage?

Do Christian parents consider it ideal to raise virtuous girls who save themselves for marriage, really stop and think it perfectly reasonable to expect their daughters to be completely chaste from the age of 14 to the age of 24-25? Over a decade of abstinence after reaching puberty in this sex-saturated culture? Combine that with the expectation that they must only consider potential husbands in their own age group to boot, when such men are incapable of providing for a family until he's approaching 30, is a recipe for Christian Sluts and the inevitable growth of the Christian spinster populace.

Marriage 1.0 was the original foundation of society. It promoted the formation of families and most families were large. Prior to the "sexual revolution" (or as I like to call it: The deconstruction of civilization by reversion to Matriarchal morality), it was normal for people to get married and commence popping out multiple offspring.Women got married shortly after their bodies were ready, Men got married shortly after their abilities to provide for those women and their children were ready.

Before the imposition of collectivist schemes for supporting single motherhood en mass, this meant that men needed to find the means for supporting his offspring as soon as possible. There was no "teenage" stage to life. Men went to work to develop skills and the means to support his family as soon as possible."Teenage" males were working. "Teenage" females were marrying the older males and starting their families.

These norms ensured long lasting marriages because the age difference between older, experienced and capable provider husband and younger, fertile and inexperienced wife leveraged the females biological directive - hypergamy - while also satisfying the males desire for younger/hotter/tighter - peak fertility.

When these were the norms, most marriages were really for "til death do we part." And barring infertility, usually resulted in multiple children.

From the perspective of elite social engineers who desired a dramatic curb in population growth of the sheeple...the useless eaters...the foundation needed to be altered to stop all this reproduction. The multiple child family as the base unit of society needed to be altered.

To do this to a society that used to be overwhelmingly Christian,  the twin tactics of "empowering" females in education and career, combined with normalizing the idea that people should only marry in their own age group, appears to have been quite effective in reducing the growth of the Christian demographic.Christian women are least likely to use birth control and/or to have abortions...two of the most important planks of the feminist population control program. But they sure seemed to have accepted the idea that women need to pursue education and careers before "settling" down.

Christian or not, putting education and career over marriage and child bearing puts many women on the path to either small families (2.1 children) at best...or spinsterhood and cat collecting at worst.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

* Disclaimer

The Hawaiian libertarian blog is a work of fiction. It's entire contents is nothing more than the fevered imagination of an individual who is anonymous and therefore not accountable for any advice he or she appears to advocate.

This blog is nothing more than a means of self-entertainment for the writer who likes to explore ludicrous and insane ideas that no normal person would ever consider rational or logical.

There is no advice given at this blog for which you should follow, as the author is not a certified nutritionist, a medical degree-holding Doctor, nor any other sort of authority on any topic that has been written about here.

This blogger is actually a huge, obese blob with diabetes, gout and skin cancer. You didn't REALLY think this blogger actually lost weight, kept it off, improved health and found a better way of life following all the ideas written about here? Of course not!

Compelling fiction is fun to write. That is all you need to know about the motivations of this blogger.

All that meat, salt and saturated fat and sunbathing without sunscreen have taken obviously taken it's toll on this blogger's physical and mental health...obviously.

I mean, COME ON!!?!?!?

Only a lunatic would ever write about such topics as government-corporate fascism and corruption, conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve and a ruling elite that purposely control mass media and educational institutions to mislead the masses so that they adopt lifestyles that are unnatural and unhealthy, so as to become revenue streams for various government-enforced cartel industries!

Raving lunacy! UFO's and Reptile Aliens!

Pay no attention to this blog, it advocates nothing.

The only real piece of advice this blogger recommends for which you should follow is this:

You should never make important life decisions based on the fevered delusions of anonymous internet bloggers!

Trust ONLY the certified experts and Government approved sources of lifestyle information.

They only want what is best for YOU!

After all, they are the Government...the very reason we have the privilege of living in the Greatest, most Free-est Nation in the History of the World!

Thanks for helping me see the error of my ways, Will S!

Monday, April 23, 2012

This is your brain.This is your brain on teh Pr0n. Any Questions?

I have a very good memory despite years of constantly bombarding my brain with mind and mood altering substances. I've always thought I had a good memory, but now I know for certain that my memory is better than most people.

I'm now approaching an age for which many of the folks in my circle of family and friends don't remember a lot of shared experiences. I usually remind them, and only after supplying a lot of little details of the memory do they remember the event or thing I'm talking about.

Because I have such a vivid, detail-oriented memory, I still "feel" like I'm a young man, because I remember my youth so well.

Perhaps I'm simply experiencing the calm before the storm of the "mid-life crisis" all humans supposedly experience in their 40's. Perhaps not. But I recently came across a website that made me realize I was mistaken in thinking I perfectly understand the experiences of life in our bravenewworldorder by Gen Y/Millenials

Sometimes, I discover a website/blog/forum, and the content gives me a personal paradigm shift in attitudes and beliefs. A game changer.

For instance, I remember the first time I read Roissy in D.C. Back in those days, the archives were not that extensive. I read the entire blog in under two hours. This was about 6 months before his comment threads turned into the breeding grounds for what we now know of today as the manosphere.

On the other hand, when I first discovered the Weston A. Price Foundation's website, that took me over a week to make it through every single article on their voluminous little library of traditional diet and nutrition research. That was back in 2006. It would take even longer now.

It's been awhile since I've found a site for which I was compelled to devour the websites archives in a single session of furious speed reading...similar to reading an entire book in a single sitting.

Today, I came across such a site:

Holy shit. I had no idea how big and bad this beast has grown.

I remember when the entire "pornography experience" was girly mags some friend stole from some relative, and we young boys eagerly thumbed through it, thrilled that we were doing something we were not supposed to...looking at the pictures of naked women and feeling the rush of dopamine and testosterone the simple sight of nude females effects on the pre-adolescent male brain.

Then, in my early teens, I became friends with a guy whose parents owned a few hardcore porn VHS tapes. When they were at work, he would sneak a tape from his parents room and play it on the living room tv.

We could only watch it when we did, it was even more exhilarating. It's effects on my teen age brain were dramatic. I still remember the cheesy plots and specific dialog that were in all Pr0n before the interwebz metastasized into the pervasive, society wide mind-fuck that it is today.

I remember real vividly, the early days of the interwebz, when teh Pr0n industry was first raking in credit card subscription fees (I used to have one) and when most of the "actresses" sported "glorious natural pelts" and did not have tattoos or belly piercings. Even back in those days, when I became a frequent consumer , I was keenly aware of it's effects on me...I recognized it was similar to a drug.

In the first few years of being married, I regularly looked at teh Pr0n several times a week. I hid my credit card statements that showed the billing company info. I consumed it in secret. It was a forbidden thrill.

Than one day, I was ruminating while lying in bed, in a post-coital haze after consummating marital relations with her, and I realized something: Teh pr0n was ruining my enjoyment of the real thing. It was corrupting my marriage. I had begun feeling like no matter what sex act or novelty we tried, it wasn't enough...more...More....MORE.

Now when I used to look at girly mags or watch videotapes, I never had any problems or sense of dissatisfaction with my real life carnal experiences at all. I had a flash of insight.

Teh Pr0n was insidious. Fuckin' evil.

Soon thereafter I quit cold turkey. I cancelled my subscription and stopped visiting the then just emerging free sites. Within a week or so, my attitude and satisfaction with marital relations improved dramatically.

It's been years since I deliberately consumed teh pr0n on teh interwebz. Yet when I discovered, I was utterly fascinated. It brought back vivid memories of my feelings, emotions and attitudes about sex and how the early days of teh pr0n had begun to affect me mentally.

But reading the archives of that site and some of the forum entries also made me feel like an old man.

I never truly considered the idea that my Gen X experience with the advent of Pr0n on teh Interwebz was only the beginning stages of some very real dysfunctions it can apparently inflict. I vastly underestimated the depths of the problems it could cause for all those who've grown up with it as a way of life. Apparently I quit using just as it exploded into the mainstream.

Now I understand why Mr. Bardamu had felt the need to publicly swear off masturbation and eventually write an e-book about the topic.

Apparently teh Pr0n turns masturbation from an occasionally necessary release for all men youngdumbandfullofcum that involves an exercise of the the compulsive and nearly uncontrollable habit of fapping  in front of a computer monitor multiple times per day.

Apparently old school smut and it's medium of glossy photo mags and clunky VHS tapes that interspersed five or six sex scenes with fictional plots and cheesy dialog doesn't literally change your brain the way the instant access to an endless variety of sex acts and a near infinite variation of participants are on teh interwebz, does.

It seems the old porno mags and VHS tapes where the equivalent to doing a line of coke or smoking a joint...whereas today's norm of opening up multiple windows of 30 second clips and viewing them in rapid succession while furiously fapping is the equivalent to smoking crack laced with PCP.

There's a kicker though. The capacity of our teen to wire up new sexual associations mushrooms around 11 or 12 when billions of new neural connections (synapses) create endless possibilities. However, by adulthood his brain must prune his neural circuitry to leave him with a manageable assortment of choices. By his twenties, he may not exactly be stuck with the sexual proclivities he falls into during adolescence, but they can be like deep ruts in his brain—not easy to ignore or reconfigure.
Sexual-cue exposure matters more during adolescence than at any other time in life. Now, add to this incendiary reality the lighter fluid of today's off-the-wall erotica available at the tap of a finger. Is it any surprise that some teens wire semi-permanently to constant cyber novelty instead of potential mates? Or wire their sexual responsiveness to things that are unrelated to their sexual orientation? Or manage to desensitize their brains—and spiral into porn addiction?

Incidentally, are you a guy remembering your own adolescence—and how you could never climax enough during those years? Perhaps you're supposing that Internet porn would have been a splendid innovation. If so, read these two articles: Porn, Novelty and the Coolidge Effect‏ and Porn Then and Now: Welcome to Brain Training. Porn, its content, the way it's delivered, and its potential effects on the brain have changed radically. For today's users, more orgasm can lead to less satisfaction

 I think I now understand David Alexander a little bit better.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Escape the Zoo

I have never tried to define this blog as a certain type, or as a member of any particular genre. I thought doing so would simply put self-imposed limitations on what I felt inspired to write about at any given moment. That doesn't mean I look down on blog genres or 'spheres' like the manosphere or the paleo blogosphere, the conspiracy theory sphere etc., it's just that I never wanted to typecast myself. I've always been on a personal quest for finding freedom through seeking truth. That is my only "Theme" if you will.

To follow the rabbit hole wherever it may go.

I first titled this blog "Hawaiian Libertarian" when I stopped drinking the Republican flavored kool-aid of the American two-party political Democracy sham. I used to think supporting the Libertarian party and Libertarian candidates at the local level of elections was the answer to much of what ails our society, while voting for the "lesser of two evils" at the national level.

As I continued to learn more and more truths and see through more and more of the deceptions, delusions and lies of our mass media/public education indoctrinated society, I soon realized there really is no true solution working within the system.

The system is NOT BROKEN.

There's nothing to fix.

There is no "solution" because the system is doing precisely what is was designed to do.

We can't "fight" for recognition to reverse the injustices of the family court regime that feeds like a vampire on the lifeblood of society, destroying the nuclear family one divorce at a time.

Feminism was nothing more than a social engineering program to effect population control.

On that front, mission accomplished.

Many folks in the manosphere are proclaiming the end of feminism's influence is near. I think so too...I just don't believe the end of feminism will mean a restoration of men's equality under the law, Father's rights or any of that.

No, once the useful idiots have outlived their usefulness, they will be cast aside when the new paradigm is put into place.

There is no "media campaign" or political candidate you can vote for to change the system. Even if a politician were to run on such a campaign and gain enough support to win an election, he'd be marginalized, compromised or straight up assassinated.

Voting is a fools game of mass self-deception. Participatory Democracy is assenting to your own enslavement.

After coming to all these realizations, I changed this blog title to "Hawaiian libertarian" - "small l" libertarian, and I removed my linkage to the Libertarian Party's website. I no longer wish to participate in exercising my "freedom to vote for my rulers."

It's taken years to reach this point. It's a developed philosophy that encompasses all aspects of my life, point of view, attitude and behavior. Being a participant in the Manosphere and blogging about the "paleo" diet, conspiracy "theory" topics and other interests are simply part of the bigger picture - seeking personal solutions to systemic problems.

I've oft tried to write a post like this, putting all of these ideas into one coherent, yet concise point...a manifesto. But always found such attempts would end up being all over the place.

But this morning, I read the latest post over at Richard Nikoley's "Free the Animal" and one particular commenter going by the name of "Brent" put everything I've come to believe into some brilliant, concise comments. The first was his response to some brainwashed Statist whore using the same old, lame ass argument that someone who doesn't love the US Government and political system should leave the country. Brent dissects this old trope -

First, you’re making the first logical misdirection that politicians love: a country is its government and political system. That leads to the ridiculous argument that if you don’t like your government or political system, then you don’t like your country.

Nations are human abstracts that do not exist in reality. If you don’t believe me, take an international flight and look for the lines you see on a map. This is my home, regardless of who has been placed in charge of the civilization that sits on top of it. It’s a bit like the Europeans invading the land the Native Americans were living on, declaring it part of (England, France, Spain, U.S., or whoever has the most guns at the time) and saying, “If you don’t like it, leave.”

The difference in this case is that the invasion into every aspect of our lives wasn’t carried out blatantly, because the citizens outnumber the zookeepers. Instead, the keepers worked over time to convince the masses to vote for an invasion, one issue or politician at a time. Now I’m being told on one hand that if I don’t like the civilization the invaders have set up, I should leave; on the other hand, I’m being told that if I don’t help elect new zookeepers, I’m part of the problem, and can’t complain about them. I love my country (my home) and I hate what the government (propped up through elections) is doing to it. Therefore, I’m the problem and should leave.

The question at that point is: go where? To stay in the geographical region that is my home, I would have to go out into the wilderness to escape the civilization that the zoo animals have voted for. Ted Kaczynski tried that and he ended up blowing people up out of frustration because civilization kept invading him anyway. I don’t condone the methods but I can understand the sentiment. {Me Too!}

I could move to another developed country. If you can point one out that is working at becoming less socialistic, I may look into it, but I am not aware of any. Also, there are usually immigration restrictions for which I may not qualify – the good places like to keep the populations down. A less developed country? As you point out, the problem is the people, not the location. Trading in mobsters posing as “public servants” for warlords is not an upgrade.

So, you say, that is the point. Our government may be shit, but it’s the best shit out there. You may enjoy indulging in shit, but I don’t – even if it’s the most aromatic around. Sure we’re living in a zoo, and sure it’s getting more and more restrictive every day, but it’s still a really nice zoo (for now). More importantly, it’s better than the others. That’s your argument?

Let’s say I become a political prisoner someday – for instance, for posting on the internet that I can understand Kaczynski’s sentiment without condoning his actions – and let’s say I’m lucky enough to be placed in one of those “swank” federal prisons reserved for white collar criminals. Should I not complain about the prison or even about being in prison because it’s better than those that muggers and rapists go to?

Should I focus on how much better off I am than political prisoners in other countries?

This is my home. I don’t plan on leaving. I’m not like Alec Baldwin and will not stupidly say I’ll leave based on the result of an election – and if I did, I’d follow through. The political process in this country (especially at the federal level) is a joke. I am not living my life based on what happens within it. In fact, I try my best to ignore it. The best I can do is live my life and pursue happiness to the best of my ability, within the parameters my keepers allow me, because real prison is worse (another reason not to complain – at least I’m not in prison!). Part of that pursuit of happiness includes ignoring, and abstaining from, the election of the next mob boss.

I've come to a similar conclusion - except I used the feedlot as my metaphor as opposed to Brent's reference to a human zoo.

Later on in the comments, some other commenter wonders if there's a way to make "paleo" meals convenient and easy to sell as a pre-packaged product. Brent hits another out of the park:

I am reminded of some investment advice I got a while back, which is basically: when the mainstream jumps on an investment idea, sell. Now, a paleo lifestyle is not something I’m going to leave, but – like others – I may have to leave the label behind as it starts to become a marketing term instead of a lifestyle concept.

I saw the same thing happen with low carb when it became a “fad.” One thing I will always be grateful for, from my low carb days, is heightening my awareness of what I was eating, as opposed to just how much of it. In addition to cutting down on carbs, Atkins admonished his readers to also cut out hydrogenated oils and some artificial sweeteners, like aspartame. Suddenly I was checking food labels for ingredient lists instead of just macronutrient content. It made me laugh at ludicrous products like Better’n Peanut Butter, with its inch-long ingredient list of processed additives that made it “healthier” than a product that was made of “roasted peanuts and salt.” That kind of thinking led me to paleo/primal living.

Paleo is (was?) a concept, not a brand, not an ingredient list, and not shorthand for gluten and/or dairy free. The latter is what the food industry wants it to be, because they can make their crap without gluten, and simply use a whole bunch of other potentially toxic crap to make the same foods palatable. They did the same thing with maltitol, which made products sugar free and “low carb,” but also caused diarrhea.

You may or may not have seen the report on the gorillas in the zoo whose health improved when they were taken off their diet of standard-issue gorilla food pellets. The which were high in sugar and other processed crap, but met all the “nutritional requirements” for gorillas, but was giving them heart disease and making them lethargic. Their health and energy improved when they were given whole foods more like what they would eat in the wild: fresh leafy vegetables and fruit. Sound familiar?

A “healthy Paleo frozen dinner by Lean Cuisine” is contradictory. Frozen dinners are the equivalent to food pellets for zoo humans. I’m looking at my copy of Paleo Magazine and I see an ad for “Paleo Coffee Creamer” – which is an oxymoron. Paleo creamer is called “cream” – preferably raw from 100% grass-fed cows. The act of sourcing fresh, quality ingredients, “wasting time” by preparing them properly, and enjoying them with good company is what makes the meal Paleo, not just its gluten/dairy content. Paleo is about changing our attitudes about our food – its quality and preparation – and our lifestyles. I think Richard’s point is that it is also about changing our mindsets towards life in general. That is, breaking away from the mindset of civilization – aka, the zoo. In other words, free the animal.

Richard gave Brent an A++ for that post. I agree. "Civilization" is really the domestication of humanity. Once you understand this, you are then free to make a choice: are you going to live life like a lap dog...or more like a free range wolf? I know which end of that spectrum I prefer.

To conclude, I'll end with one of the more profound quotes from one of Bob Marley's timeless classics:


Monday, April 16, 2012

The Key is D

Vitamin D is a group of fat-soluble secosteroids. In humans, vitamin D is unique both because it functions as a prohormone and because the body can synthesize it (as vitamin D3) when sun exposure is adequate (hence its nickname, the "sunshine vitamin").

American Medical Association Adopts new policies:

“All patients regardless of race or ethnicity should use the same sun protection measures including sunscreen of at least SPF 15, avoid the sun during peak hours and regular exams,” said AMA Board Member Peter W. Carmel, M.D."

Back to Wikipedia:

Sunscreen absorbs ultraviolet light and prevents it from reaching the skin. It has been reported that sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 8 based on the UVB spectrum can decrease vitamin D synthetic capacity by 95 percent, whereas sunscreen with an SPF of 15 can reduce synthetic capacity by 98 percent (Matsuoka et al., 1987).[95]

The American Cancer Society Recommends:

Limit direct sun exposure during midday

Another way to limit exposure to UV light is to avoid being outdoors in sunlight too long. UV rays are strongest when the sun is high in the sky, usually between the hours of 10 am and 4 pm. If you are unsure about the sun's intensity, use the shadow test: if your shadow is shorter than you, the sun's rays are the strongest, and protection from the sun is most important.

Why, if the American Cancer Society recommends it, it must be true! Than why are there conflicting reports about this?

Time in the Sun: How Much Is Needed for Vitamin D?

In the winter, it's impossible to produce vitamin D from the sun if you live north of Atlanta because the sun never gets high enough in the sky for its ultraviolet B rays to penetrate the atmosphere. But summer is a great time to stock up on the nutrient. When the sun's UV-B rays hit the skin, a reaction takes place that enables skin cells to manufacture vitamin D.

If you're fair skinned, experts say going outside for 10 minutes in the midday sun—in shorts and a tank top with no sunscreen—will give you enough radiation to produce about 10,000 international units of the vitamin. Dark-skinned individuals and the elderly also produce less vitamin D, and many folks don't get enough of the nutrient from dietary sources like fatty fish and fortified milk.

What does the ACS say about UV rays from the sun?

UVA rays cause cells to age and can cause some damage to cells' DNA. They are linked to long-term skin damage such as wrinkles, but are also thought to play a role in some skin cancers.

UVB rays can cause direct damage to the DNA, and are the main rays that cause sunburns. They are also thought to cause most skin cancers.

Can? Also thought? Glad to see the ACS using definitive, scientifically proven facts to save us all from the evils of UVB exposure!

Back to the USNews Report:

The sunshine vitamin may protect against a host of diseases, including osteoporosis, heart disease, and cancers of the breast, prostate, and colon. What's more, sunlight has other hidden benefits—like protecting against depression, insomnia, and an overactive immune system.

Given all the upsides of basking at least briefly in the summer sun, many experts now worry that public-health messages warning about skin cancer have gone overboard in getting people to cover up and seek the shade.

Gee...what would happen if we had a populace that sunbathed at mid-day regularly without sunscreen, and ate lots of Vitmin D rich foods like grass fed dairy, meat and poultry? Surely the rate of cancers would decline.

This cannot be allowed to happen! The profits of pharmaceutical companies producing sunscreen and cancer treatment drugs would plummet! Donations and Non-Profit funded careers for organizations like the American Cancer Society would dry up! Giant Agricultural Food manufacturers would lose out on all the cholesterol free and fat free food products they sell! This would be an unmitigated disaster across a wide variety of industries! This cannot be allowed to happen!



Saturday, April 14, 2012

Here Come the Bastards

We literally live in a Bastardized society.

Our civilization was built by men invested in earning resources to provide for their families and leaving their earned wealth to their offspring. Only children legitimized by marriage to the offspring's mother could inherit his wealth.

The real destruction of marriage as a lifelong institution did not begin with No-Fault divorce, but rather the cultural shift in attitudes regarding who should receive child custody in the event of divorce. The real changes to our society began with the changing attitudes of the culture towards what the institution means and why it existed in the first place.

Marriage used to be the contract in which a man and a woman exchanged their productive capacities to benefit the family unit their marriage produced. The female traded her reproductive abilities for the male's abilities to provide material support for her and their offspring. The offspring of their marriage were HIS. That's what he traded his provisioning capacity for.

That was the original deal.

Of course, feminists have derided that original arrangement as "Patriarchal Oppression." Like most other feminist ideas, it was, of course, a lie.

The real defining facet of marriage that lead to the use of Patriarchal marriage as the primary vehicle to build civilization, was the legitimacy of the right to inherit a Father's wealth. This is why the wife took the man's last name when she took that their children would have legitimate claim to the provisions their Father acquired.

Women were never FORCED to sign this contract to have sex or to have children. They could simply have sex out of wedlock and have bastards. They just couldn't make the man who had sex with her support HER offspring, because she did not enter into the marriage contract with him in the first place.

See the difference in the original contract that served as the foundation of civilized society?

Children created in Wedlock = HIS
Children out of Wedlock = HERS

This was the true incentive that promoted monogamous marriage, which resulted in the investment of men into the building up of society. They had something to work for - their heirs. When Men OWNED their children through marriage, they work themselves to death to make sure his heirs are taken care of when he is gone.

The biggest subversion to the institution of marriage was not no-fault divorce. Nor was it the changing of cultural attitudes that shifted the idea of default custody from men to women.

The real blow came from the loss of stigma for illegitimacy.

The equalization of legal rights to a man's provisioning capacity, in the name of his offspring whether he was married or not.

Now, Child Support means women can get pregnant under any circumstances and decide whatever she wants to do...and the law says he pays, legitimate or not.

We now live under a system of Bastard Subsidization.

And like anything else you subsidize, you will get more and more of it.

How's that been working out for us all, eh?

We now live in an age for which any woman who finds herself in the vicinity of a rich and famous male, has the opportunity to hit the Bastard Subsidy jackpot....just get him to have sex and get pregnant and voila, a court ordered payment for at least the next 18 years.

Take for instance, the recent case of most likely future Hall of Fame football player, Warren Sapp.

“Do you think I wanted to declare bankruptcy?” Sapp tells Gary Shelton of the Tampa Bay Times. “Do you think if there was any other way possible I would have done it? It was either this or go to jail. Those were my choices.”

Sapp explained that a construction deal gone bad resulted in 100 percent of his NFL Network earnings being garnished for 11 months. “You tell me what to do,” Sapp said. “Do you keep working without a check? If you don’t pay your child support, you go to jail. This wasn’t something I wanted to do. This was something I had to do.”

Here's a former Super Bowl Champion who played close to a decade and earned millions of dollars. Forced into Bankruptcy because child support was taking 100% of his present earnings as a NFL Network TV Analyst and Pundit, after he lost his initial money earned when he was a player.

This is a stark example of how "imputed income" literally traps men into poverty and indentured servitude. There is almost no possible way for Sapp to ever again earn the kind of money he made when he was a high profile star player in the NFL. Ever since he retired, he's been working for far less money as a TV personality than he used to make as one of the best Defensive Tackles in the game.

But the family court system that enforces the Bastard Subsidy system requires him to keep paying the unmarried women who bore his illegitimate children levels of child support as if he were still an active NFL player capable of earning millions of dollars annually.

It seems like the default attitude of most people influenced by mass media society who hear about the cases of the likes of Sapp, automatically assume that he deserves what he gets, HE SHOULD'VE KEPT IT IN HIS PANTS.

This is the cultural attitude that feminists have fought long and hard for - to give women the ability to have all the choices of reproduction, and men all of the responsibilities and consequences for whatever choice she makes.

Of course, this is not going to change anytime soon. To suggest otherwise would a) hurt illegitmate children's feelings (the poor little bastards), and b) make women responsible for their own choices once again.

Thus, we await the inevitable collapse of the formerly civilized Patriarchal society that has been irrevocably bastardized.


Sunday, April 8, 2012

The Age of Dystopian Transition

Will future generations look back on the present times and recognize that this current era was a key transitory phase in the History of so-called "civilized society?"

Probably not.

Whatever the future generations think about our current experience, it's going to be whatever the ruling technocratic authoritarian elite want them to think.

I've come to the conclusion that we are currently living through a transitory stage.

It will have an official sounding title in the annals of politically correct history, like THE FALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S EMPIRE.

I'm sure most future proles will believe whatever the Ministry of Truth tells them happened in this anachronistic age of "Democracy."

The WAR ON TERROR will have been "won."

They will no longer hate us for our freedom, because we will not be free.

If there is one thing the future citizenry of the Brave New World Order will know, it's that the inherent instability of this age required the TOTAL SURVEILLANCE STATE and COMPLETE POPULATION CONTROL. You know, the one that is currently under construction...

...and nearing completion.

My conclusion is that we are at the end phase of the dystopia Huxley described in Brave New World and transitioning to the world Orwell described in 1984.

Orwell's foretelling of the age of Big Brother's totalitarian boot stamping on the face of humanity forever was only off by about 30 years, give or take a decade.

Make no mistake....some event or event is coming soon to give the President (whoever he or she is) the excuse to declare Martial Law. Whether it's a manufactured "false flag" like 9112k1 or a naturally occurring catastrophe, those who are preparing for the coming new age will surely follow the "rules for radicals" and let no good crisis go to waste.

When they are ready, all the Executive Orders that have been signed into extra-Constitutional law by Presidential pawns and puppets for the past several decades will kick in. Our current epoch of idiocracy, defined by the ubiquity of soma-addled indulgences in an endless variations of technologically advanced bread and circus distractions, will be over, just like that.

The comfortable part of our hidden-in-plain-sight enslavement will come to an end.

Illegal Immigration will no longer be a problem.

Big Brother will be more concerned with illegal emigration

Blogs like this will get disappeared.

If you think I write that because I've got some inflated sense of self-importance, pardon me, but you misread my sentiment.

I'm merely extrapolating from Orwell's description of our pending future: In the coming age of total surveillance, any expressed idea, observation or opinion that doesn't adhere to the party line, will be censored and/or punished.

They might even send those of us who attempt to write subversive truths anonymously on teh interwebz for an all-expense-paid camping trip, courtesy of the nearest regional Federal Emergency Management Agency resort.

The only thing we can really be sure of, is that change is coming, and it is coming soon.

You may not believe it, but the Federal Government sure does:

While the majority of Americans are oblivious to the warning signs around them, recent actions taken by our government and the governments of other industrialized nations suggest The Powers That Be know very well where we’re headed. They are and have been taking steps for quite some time to prepare for what is coming next.

Why, this stuff sounds positively crazy, no?

As I've written both here and elsewhere in the past, I've seen with my own two eyes, a training area built to resemble a typical American suburban neighborhood, in the middle of the mountainous rainforests of a military training area here in Hawaii that I used to regularly go hunting at, until the security got beefed up on all the access roads. It's been about 2 years since I've seen the training area. I know what I saw.

I've talked to National Guardsmen and Police Officers who have undergone training at similar training grounds.

I've heard them express doubts and reservations about the kind of training they've been taking part in for the past 5 years or so.

One high-ranking police officer I know well, has attended a regional law enforcement conference a couple of years ago, for which the entire topic was civil unrest and the implementation of martial law, and the role Honolulu Police Department will play in cooperation with Federal Agencies like FEMA, DHS, etc. in suppressing Hawaii's populace; not if, but when it becomes necessary.

That was precisely the point that bothered him so much.

What bothered him the most was that the entire conference treated the topic as if it were a done deal. They did not even bother to present a half-assed cover story of "preparing for a worst case scenario" and "in the unlikely event" disclaimers as they conducted the seminars and discussion panels.

Sounds to me like the organizations that deal with the local law enforcement agencies by region, are using the Delphi Technique to condition the officers to internalize the idea of the inevitability of the collapse of civil society, and that suppression and oppression of the masses will not only be their job, but their patriotic duty.

As blogger Bill Powell states in the byline for his new joint: The Apocalypse Cometh:

You Are Not Going to Like the Future

No, I don't believe we will.

If I must live in a dystopia socially engineered and constructed to mislead the masses into living artificial and unnatural lives, I'd prefer the comforts of the Soma and Circuses of Huxley's version versus the paranoid, inhuman and inhumane Surveillance State of Orwell.

It's not like we're getting a real say in the matter.

Enjoy the home or poolside.

There may come a time soon for which even the simple pleasures of life are no longer allowed or logistically possible (your regions FEMA camp(s) may or may not have a pool).