Wednesday, August 24, 2016

"Why Everything You Know About Wolf Packs is Wrong"

I think I'll run this again.

Ever heard the phrases "A house built on sand" and "By your fruits you will know them"?

I run across some truly bizarre stuff in the Manosphere, like Alpha/Beta, which has nothing to do with humans, yet some people have spun this nonsense into huge tangled webs that gets further and further away from reality the more complex they get.

And if you want to talk about primate Alphas, just remember they murder infants and are cannibals.

The only time "Alphas" exist as "top dog" is in prison (zoos) and among tame, neotized dogs - human-bred dogs that never grow up and in some ways are always puppies.

This is from the site io9 and was written by Lauren David.


Why everything you know about wolf packs is wrong.

"The alpha wolf is a figure that looms large in our imagination. The notion of a supreme pack leader who fought his way to dominance and reigns superior to the other wolves in his pack informs both our fiction and is how many people understand wolf behavior. But the alpha wolf doesn't exist—at least not in the wild.

"Although the notions of 'alpha wolf' and 'alpha dog' seem thoroughly ingrained in our language, the idea of the alpha comes from Rudolph Schenkel, an animal behaviorist who, in 1947, published the then-groundbreaking paper 'Expressions Studies on Wolves.' During the 1930s and 1940s, Schenkel studied captive wolves in Switzerland's Zoo Basel, attempting to identify a 'sociology of the wolf.'

"In his research, Schenkel identified two primary wolves in a pack: a male 'lead wolf' and a female 'bitch.' He described them as 'first in the pack group.' He also noted 'violent rivalries' between individual members of the packs:

A bitch and a dog as top animals carry through their rank order and as single individuals of the society, they form a pair. Between them there is no question of status and argument concerning rank, even though small fictions of another type (jealousy) are not uncommon. By incessant control and repression of all types of competition (within the same sex), both of these 'α animals' defend their social position.

"Thus, the alpha wolf was born. Throughout his paper, Schenkel also draws frequent parallels between wolves and domestic dogs, often following his conclusions with anecdotes about our household canines. The implication is clear: wolves live in packs in which individual members vie for dominance and dogs, their domestic brethren, must be very similar indeed.

"A key problem with Schenkel's wolf studies is that, while they represented the first close study of wolves, they didn't involve any study of wolves in the wild. Schenkel studied two packs of wolves living in captivity, but his studies remained the primary resource on wolf behavior for decades. Later researchers, would perform their own studies on captive wolves, and published similar findings on dominance-subordinant and leader-follower relationships within captive wolf packs. And the notion of the 'alpha wolf' was reinforced, in large part, by wildlife biologist L. David Mech's 1970 book The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species.

"Mech spent several years during the 1960s studying wolves in Michigan's Isle Royale National Park as part of his PhD thesis work. Mech's book echoed Schenkel's notions of 'alpha wolves' and competition-based pack hierarchies. Readers of Mech's book were led to believe that dominance played a key role in the lupine social order, and that wolves were naturally inclined to dominate one another. And Mech's book became a hit; it was republished in paperback in 1981 and remains in print (much to Mech's chagrin) to this day. It popularized a lot of our modern ideas about wolves, including competition-based hierarchies. Although Mech has since renounced the notion of the 'alpha wolf,' he admits that if you've heard the term, it's likely thanks to his book.

"In more recent years, animal behaviorists, including Mech, have spent more and more time studying wolves in the wild, and the behaviors they have observed has been different from those observed by Schenkel and other watchers of zoo-bound wolves. In 1999, Mech's paper 'Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs' was published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology. The paper is considered by many to be a turning point in understanding the structure of wolf packs.

"'The concept of the alpha wolf as a 'top dog' ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots,' Mech writes in the 1999 paper, 'is particularly misleading.' Mech notes that earlier papers, such as M.W. Fox's 'Socio-ecological implications of individual differences in wolf litters: a developmental and evolutionary perspective,' published in Behaviour in 1971, examined the potential of individual cubs to become alphas, implying that the wolves would someday live in packs in which some would become alphas and others would be subordinate pack members. However, Mech explains, his studies of wild wolves have found that wolves live in families: two parents along with their younger cubs. Wolves do not have an innate sense of rank; they are not born leaders or born followers. The 'alphas' are simply what we would call in any other social group 'parents.' The offspring follow the parents as naturally as they would in any other species. No one has 'won' a role as leader of the pack; the parents may assert dominance over the offspring by virtue of being the parents.

"While the captive wolf studies saw unrelated adults living together in captivity, related, rather than unrelated, wolves travel together in the wild. Younger wolves do not overthrow the 'alpha' to become the leader of the pack; as wolf pups grow older, they are dispersed from their parents' packs, pair off with other dispersed wolves, have pups, and thus form packs of their owns.

"This doesn't mean that wolves don't display social dominance, however. When a recent piece purporting to dispel the 'myth' of canine dominance appeared on Psychology Today, ethologist Marc Bekoff quickly stepped in. Wolves (and other animals, including humans), display social dominance, he notes; it just isn't always easy to boil dominant behavior down to simple explanations. Dominant behavior and dominance relationships can be highly situational, and can vary greatly from individual to individual even within the same species. It's not the entire concept of wolves displaying social dominance that was dispelled, just the simple hierarchical pack structure. In response to the same piece, Mech pointed to a 2010 article he published detailing his observance of an adult gray wolf repeatedly pinning and straddling a male pack mate over the course of six and a half minutes. 'We interpreted this behavior as an extreme example of an adult wolf harassing a maturing offspring, perhaps in prelude to the offspring's dispersal.'

"As research on wolves, both captive and wild, continues, we develop a more complex, nuanced picture of wolf behavior. But the easy notion of the 'alpha wolf' still persists. Certainly in entertainment it has made for some nice stories; plenty of books and movies center around the notion of wolf—and werewolf—ranks. However, the outmoded idea of the 'alpha wolf' still has some legs in a real-world area: dog training.

"Just as, more than six decades ago, Schenkel extrapolated his wolf studies and applied them to domestic dogs, so too have many carried the notion of the 'alpha wolf' over to dog training. Certainly, just as parent wolves hold dominance over their cubs and human parents hold dominance over their children, owners hold dominance over their dogs. Until my pup gets himself a credit card and a pair of opposable thumbs (and stops dissolving into delighted wiggles every time I tell him what a good little man he is), I'm pretty much the boss in our relationship. But some trainers take the idea of pack rank to the extreme; dog owners are given a laundry list of rules of how to maintain alpha status in all aspects of their relationship: Don't let your dog walk through the door before you do. Don't let her win a game of tug. Don't let him eat before you do. Some (famous) trainers even encourage acts of physical dominance that can be dangerous for lay people to execute. Much of this is a legacy of those old wolf studies, suggesting that we're in constant competition with our dogs for that pack leader position.

"But, you might ask, mightn't domestic dogs behave much like wolves in captivity? Despite being members of the same species, wolves (even human-reared wolves) are behaviorally distinct from domestic dogs, especially when it comes to human beings. Take the famous experiment in which human-socialized wolves and domestic dogs are both presented with a cage with food inside. The food is placed inside a cage in a way that makes it impossible for either wolf or dog to retrieve it. The wolves will inevitably keep working at the cage, trying to puzzle out a way to remove the food. The dogs, after a few seconds of struggle, will look to a human as if to say, 'Hey, buddy, a little help here?' Even if the hierarchical ranks were some innate part of lupine psychology, dogs have behaviors all their own.

"Canine ethology is actually a very rich area of study. Researchers like Karen B. London and Alexandra Horowitz constantly contribute to our understanding of the domestic dog, and researchers like Mech (who has an updated book, Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation) continue to expand our knowledge of wild wolves. And perhaps someday, our popular culture will more closely resemble our modern behavioral science rather than the results of outdated research."

The Rise of Trump is Nothing New and Instead is Something Very Old

"You fight and die to give wealth and luxury to others…” - Tiberius Gracchus

Tiberius Gracchus was a Roman who was around before Jesus was even born. He was speaking to those oppressed by their government (Rome, which rose because Greece destroyed itself).

By the way, Gracchus took land from the thieving wealthy and gave it to homeless, impoverished Roman soldiers.

Trump is just a symptom of a pretty bad societal disease that has gone on since the dawn of recorded history and I’m sure before then (so was Jesus, for that matter, not that I’m comparing Trump to Jesus), although the idiotic Talking Heads think Trump is the disease itself. You know – because Hitler!!!!!!! (I’m sure if Jesus was around today he’d also be Hitler!!!!!!!!)

I am an amateur historian, which means I have read a lot of professional historians far more knowledgeable than I am (the study of history can make you cynical, although, fortunately, it’s hasn’t exactly worked in my case).

What anyone who studies history has found is that history repeats. It’s the same story over and over. The kakistocracy gathers all the wealth to itself though gaining control of the government and then crushes everyone. It’s the oldest con game there is. And then…

“So the services [rendered by the] aristocracy did not save it when it monopolized privilege and power too narrowly, when it oppressed the people with selfish and myopic exploitation, when it retarded the growth of the nation by a blind addiction to ancestral ways, when it consumed the men and resources of the state in the lordly sport of dynastic or territorial wars. Then the excluded banded together in wild revolt; the new rich combined with the poor against obstruction and stagnation; the guillotine cut off a thousand noble heads; and democracy took its turn in the misgovernment of mankind.”

Will Durant wrote that a long time ago.

That has been the history of the world without exception. Every historian, ever, has written the exact same thing about his culture. And since the Founding Fathers knew their history they tried to found a totally new country that avoided those old problems. It worked for a while and in some ways still does.

This oppression-of-everyone-by-the-degraded-elites is a huge problem with the U.S. today. Wars that never stop and have accomplished nothing except consume men and wealth, degraded exploiting political “aristocracies,” high-paying jobs and the middle class disappearing and becoming impoverished, all to enrich the politically connected even more…all of these things have happened over and over and over through all of recorded history.

We are repeating the mistakes of Greece and Rome and every civilization that has fallen!

And what has then happened is that the excluded rise up and overthrows their oppressors. Usually this has included baking them alive in ovens, chopping off their heads, dismembering them, shooting them and their children or hanging them from lamp posts by their ankles. Revenge is a bitch.

Fortunately we don’t do those things. We just elect new people. And thank God for that because otherwise we’d have civil war.

I’ve had people tell me the sooner it collapses the better. Nope, unless they want violence in the streets, massive shortages of food and power, and like some of the countries in South America, even no toilet paper!

“We conclude that the concentration of wealth is…periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution. In this view all economic history is the slow heartbeat of the social organism, a vast systole and diastole of concentrating wealth and compulsive recirculation.” – Will Durant

"Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a wilful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses." - Richard K. Morgan

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The Stoics Always End Up Ruling the Epicureans

“From Zeno of Tarsus to Paul of Tarsus was but a step.” – Will Durant

The farther you look back into history, the farther you can see into the future.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and about the only things I remember are a class in Buddhism and a class in Greek philosophy, which also meant Greek history. And pretty much all our intellectual ideas came out of Greece – about 2500 years ago.

The Greeks discussed everything and they figured out solutions for every problem people have. Even our country was founded on what some of the Greeks thought – and some of their intellectual Roman descendants, such as Cicero.

Epicurus was not an Epicurean, not in the degraded modern sense as someone who devotes his life to pleasure. But much of the Manosphere, as it stands today, is Epicurean in the degraded sense. One only needs to read the sites of the foul Roissy and Roosh. Both of whom are degraded (I suspect Roissy is a Jew, and there is a good reason Christianity overwhelmed Judaism, just the way Stoicism always beats Epicureanism).

Epicurus thought the purpose of philosophy was to free men from fear, although the modern degraded ones think its purpose is to free men from all responsibility.

I recently pointed out that the more ridiculous ideas in the Manosphere will never last and will be transformed by the Alt Right, which is in many ways Stoic (and what most people perceive as “Stoic” is not what it originally was). Although “Alt Right” is its current name or sooner or later it might get another one.

This is one of the reasons I think Trump will win. In some ways he comes across as a Stoic (at least compared to the brain-damaged, drug-addled, alcoholic, degraded Bush and Clinton crime clans). He certainly uses some Stoic ideas (“making America great again” is the same thing as freeing the people from fear), which resonates with the American people.

For that matter, “conservatives” (the real ones) are far more Stoic than liberals, all of whom are Epicureans. That’s the real divide between them, although today I hear discussions about the modern equivalents of K and r reproductive strategies.

What we’re dealing with here, ultimately, is ethics – what is the good life? (Not surprisingly, the Stoics influenced early Christianity). And not surprisingly, our degraded “elites” barely have any ethics, unless one wants to consider love of money and political power ethical.

The good life certainly isn’t devoting your life to sex and women as “plates” (the ancient Greeks – and Christianity even today – realizes that those who devote their lives to physical pleasure always become degraded. This I have seen more than once).

The ancient Stoics clearly saw the basic problem of their age – the collapse of the theological basis of morality. They tried to fix it by bridging the gap between philosophy and religion. It sort of worked, for a while. Then, ultimately, Christianity showed up and transformed everything.

Our degraded Epicurean “elites” – all of who have money, drug and sex problems – no longer believe in religion. That’s for the unwashed masses. Hence Brak Yomama’s comment about people in Flyover Land clinging to “their guns and religion.”

Possibly the oldest problem in the world is class warfare – when the greedy and power-mad grain control of the government and crush everyone else. This never lasts and sooner or later this kakistocracy is always overthrown. Sometimes they lose their heads or end up hanging upside down by their heels from a lamp post.

As that modern saying tells us, history may not repeat but it does rhyme. And no great nation is ever conquered until it has destroyed itself. We’re not anywhere near there yet but our “elites” are doing their best to bring it on.

Monday, August 22, 2016

"Is Hillary Clinton a Brain-Damaged Invalid?"

This was written by by Jim Goad and is from Takimag.


If you dare to question whether Hillary Clinton is physically ill, her dutiful media maidservants will smear you as mentally ill.

It matters not how many times she falls, how many speeches she interrupts with uncontrolled coughing, how many memory lapses she has in mid-sentence, how many times she cackles loudly and inappropriately, or how many apparent seizures she has while cameras roll and fawning reporters flinch. She’s not sick; you’re sick for even noticing.

“The right-wing smear machine is working at warp speed to convince the nation that Hillary Clinton has brain damage,” ululates Heather Digby Parton over at left-wing remote-controlled Clinton mouthpiece Salon.com. Sounding curiously more hysterical than the people she’s trying to depict as hysterical, she mentions “mudslinging” and “rumor mongering” emerging from the subhuman slime of right-wing “fever swamps.” Parton singles out the Alt-Right as having “gone completely over the edge with this craziness” in trying to misrepresent the former Madame Secretary as “a brain-damaged invalid.”

At the eternally punishable Wonkette, Evan Hurst casts his righteous thunderbolts of disapproval down upon “the fever swamps of the wingnut internet” where deluded Neanderthals fixate upon the discredited and debunked conspiracy theories generated solely by “Trump’s obsession with his opponent’s energy and health.”

“I am not a doctor, but this I know: Hillary Clinton is one sick bitch.” US News bemoans “a slew of conservative or conspiracy-theory themed sites” crammed with “Hillary-phobes” whose sick minds lead them to suspect without any solid evidence that Hillary Clinton may be sick.

Not to be done by her fawning minions in the realm of egregious gaslighting, HillaryClinton.com screams that “Trump Pushes Deranged Conspiracy About Clinton’s Health To Distract From Tax Return Questions.” Desperately changing the subject, it accuses Trump of “desperately changing the subject” away from the issue of his tax returns.

But that’s a separate subject. The subject at hand is whether Hillary is likely to croak anytime soon…or poop her diapers during a White House press conference…or suffer a temporary stroke and accidentally launch a nuclear war.

Clinton’s site mentions “fabricated documents” and “lies” and a “baseless narrative” and “tin foil hats” and “conspiracy peddlers” and “absurd and debunked claims” in a transparent attempt to make anyone besides Hillary Clinton look like the craziest person on Earth.

As far as I can tell, there are far more questions being asked about Clinton’s health than there are “claims” being made. One notable exception involves a series of documents purportedly from Clinton’s personal physician claiming that she suffered from “memory loss” and “blacking out” and “uncontrollable twitching.” These documents were apparently forged.

Otherwise, here are some unanswered questions about Clinton’s potential illnesses that will get you labeled mentally ill merely for asking them:

WHY DOES SHE FALL SO MUCH?

She fell in 2009 and broke her elbow. She fell while boarding a plane in 2011. In 2012, she fainted, fell, and suffered a concussion that left a blood clot on her brain. Earlier this year, either she fell and was helped to her feet by bodyguards, or Ol’ Muffin Ass had trouble scaling a small flight of wooden stairs by herself. Last week she appeared to stumble after introducing Joseph Biden in that Basset Hound bark she has while giving campaign speeches.

WHY DOES SHE COUGH SO MUCH?

It makes her look unhealthy. Extremely unhealthy. It’s as if she’s ready to hock out her esophagus like a big bloody loogie. All that cringeworthy hacking and gagging and throat-clearing and water-sipping and choking leads a curious mind to wander through cognitive meadows that allow the possibility that Hillary Clinton has a lung tumor the size of a football.

WHAT’S WITH THAT PSYCHOTIC CACKLE OF HERS?

The woman whose cold womb Bill Clinton once saw fit to impregnate has perhaps the most sadistic and inappropriate witch-like laugh mine ears hath ever heard. If that’s not a sign of severe neurological damage, I will have to presume she is possessed by Satan.

WHY SHOULDN’T WE BE CONCERNED THAT A 2011 CONCUSSION LEFT HER WITH A BLOOD CLOT ON HER BRAIN?

And it wasn’t her first blood clot, either—she had deep vein thrombosis in her leg in 1998. But after she fainted and fell in 2012, her philandering hubby Bill says his one-time sex partner suffered “a terrible concussion that required six months of very serious work to get over.” Hillary was diagnosed with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis—a blood clot in a vein between her skull and brain. She took blood thinners to dissolve the clot and still apparently takes them.

Although her campaign is now trying to dismiss the brain clot as no big whoop, back in 2012 ABC News said it was potentially life threatening. It quoted a physician who specialized in head injuries:

Imagine this vein, where all the cerebral spinal fluid inside the head and spine no longer flows through this area. You get a big back up and that itself could cause a stroke. In the long-term…the venous system can’t get the blood out of the brain. It’s like a Lincoln Tunnel back up.

IF THE BLOOD CLOT DIDN’T GIVE HER BRAIN DAMAGE, WHY DOES SHE ACT SO BRAIN-DAMAGED?

Why does she make such weird faces and space out in mid-sentence and refer to Donald Trump as her husband? If this isn’t a seizure, isn’t it at least evidence that she’s nuts? Why did Huma Abedin, her own personal Sapphic Sancho Panza, send an email to a colleague claiming that Hillary is “often confused”? If Clinton’s not brain-damaged, give that lady an Oscar!

WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE HOLE IN HER TONGUE?

Why is there a recessed hole on her tongue the width of a dime? Is it where her Council on Foreign Relations robot chip was implanted? Or is it where an especially severe oral herpes sore was removed? What about a cancer biopsy? Or an excised tumor? Or syphilitic glossitis? Or even the dreaded speckled erythroplakia? Whatever it is, I wish she’d keep her mouth shut.

MY DIAGNOSIS

I am not a doctor, but this I know: Hillary Clinton is one sick bitch.

The Head-Exploding Rage of the Leftist

A raving feminist lunatic!

The Manosphere and the Alt Right

“A nation is said to be degenerated when the virtues of its ancestry are lost.”Arthur Gobineau

I’ve been part of the Alt Right before it was called the Alt Right. Before the Internet even existed. In many ways since I was about 21. Maybe as far back as being 12 or 13.

For a while it was called “the Dark Enlightenment,” a ridiculous name and one I’m glad is mostly gone. Was it supposed to be the opposite of “the Enlightenment?” Which one? The rationalistic Scottish one that gave so much to the world?

The Alt Right was called by various names before that – paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism, etc. None of the names were quite accurate. Names never are – the name is never the thing, just the way the map is not the terrain.

I used to write about 15 years ago for LewRockwell.com, a “libertarian” site which has gone downhill in a big way. I got banned and my archives erased for pointing out some major American problems with blacks, Jews, Mexicans, etc. I wasn’t the only one banned and tossed down the Memory Hole.

Jimmy Cantrell was one and I believe another was Carole Ward. And I’m sure there have been others.

Now I’ve ended up writing about the Manosphere, which has some huge fatal flaws – which I’ve pointed out more than once. Such as the fact that the Greek alphabet soup of Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Sigma/Omega doesn’t exist, and if you truly believe in them then you have to believe in polygamy, which destroys cultures and is something that is not part of Western European and American culture, only African and Islamic cultures. And it will never make any headway in the West, contrary to the delusions of those who think it will (and if you think I’m wrong, just wait and see and you’ll find out I’m right – because Western culture is overwhelmingly a genetic thing).

Speaking of culture as genetic, I am of mostly Scots-Irish ancestry and know about that ethnic group and their attempts to get the hell away from governments, including fleeing all the way across the Atlantic and then fleeing from Appalachia into Tennessee and Kentucky and even into southern Illinois. It seems to be a genetic thing with them – and me. And that’s a lot of traveling to get away oppressive bureaucratic idiots.

In a sentence, the Manosphere promotes culture-destroying ideas and says they’re instead good, true and wholesome. What are these people – a bunch of New England Yankees? (There used to be a saying in the U.S., probably during the 1850s/1860s, that whatever problems the U.S. had were caused by Massachusetts “conquering the U.S.”).

I’ve also pointed out the fact that Roosh, Roissy and Vox Day are grifters (Roosh and Roissy are out-and-out liars and Roosh in a half-wit half-white obsessed with jerking off over white women). Now all of them are writing about the Alt Right. I knew it was going to happen before they did and started trying to run their con game again.

But if they’re going to claim they’re part of the Alt Right they have to give up the Manosphere delusions of Alpha/Beta “Dark Triad” blah blah blah.

Because the Alt Right doesn’t support those adolescent beliefs (James Bond is second-rate fiction, not a role model).

Since none of them want to give up the attention and money they’ll slowly change the definitions of Alpha/Beta/Omega and then stop talking about the psychopathic “Dark Triad” as something that makes women’s clothes fall off. Or that woman are “hypergamous” whores who only seek “cash and prizes” (have these imitative morons ever had an original thought in their lives?).

Many years ago I read some of Frenchman’s Arthur Gobineau’s books from the 1850s (“The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races With Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence in the Civil and Political History of Mankind”).

He pointed out the backwardness and poverty of Africans and Muslims – the low IQs (although he never used “IQ,” since the term didn’t exist then), the animalistic impulsiveness, the lack of civilization and culture.

So don’t think the concepts of the Alt Right are anything new. They’re not. And as I’ve pointed out several times the concepts of the Manophere are nothing new and were dismissed as nonsense hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Read the Bible sometime if you want an example.

There is an old saying: “Whites create, Asians copy, and blacks sing and dance.”

That in a sentence that is what the Alt Right is about. And why so many of the deludedleft (one word) are hysterical about the “racism” of the Alt Right. And how it’s full of old, angry, poor, lower-class, stupid white men – the ones the media convinced are Trump’s main supporters.

Fortunately the truth is never racist.

I’m not some sort of loon who believes in ZOG or Black Run America. Those are the delusions of what I call Conspironuts. Blaming all your problems on other people (who the Conspironuts actually think are superior to them) is something minorities and the inbred do.

But there are problems with Jews (otherwise they wouldn’t have been expelled over 100 times), there are problems with blacks, with Mexicans, with Muslims.

This land for us and their land for them.

And these problems wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for multiculturalism, which is one of those deluded leftist beliefs.

All of this makes the Alt Right part of the right wing – hence the name. It’s an alternative to the sickly, dying version of “conservatism” that exists – the kind the corrupt left-wing Bush crime family supports.

And I guarantee you that Trump, no matter what he says, supports the concepts of the Alt Right – otherwise he wouldn’t be so popular and the media wouldn’t hate him so much.

Trump is clearly a nationalist, and nationalism is part of the Alt Right.

The Alt Right is pretty much what the U.S. was founded upon. Only in those days it was considered just obvious common sense.

None of this means I hate the groups I just mentioned. I don’t. But what am I supposed to think about blacks who can’t make it in the U.S. and have become wards of the State? About Jews who have, as I just mentioned, been expelled over 100 times and always for the same reasons – stealing, lying, cowardice, spying, treason. About Mexicans who have their own country, can’t make it a success and instead climb fences and dig tunnels to make it into the U.S.? Or Muslims who rape women and children?

Ignoring the truth won’t make it go away.

And isn’t the Alt Right about telling the truth, no matter where it leads? The Left sure isn’t about that.

"A government retains its sway over a great number of citizens, far less by the voluntary and rational consent of the multitude, than by that instinctive, and, to a certain extent, involuntary agreement, which results from similarity of feelings and resemblances of opinions.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Monsters from CHAOS

Words fascinate me. They always have. One of my earliest memories, at four years old, is scribbling on a piece of paper and asking if I had made any words. I was told one of them looked like the word "deer" or "dear."

Judging by the way I am now (and have always been) it wouldn't have surprised me if I was told, "That looks just like the word 'monster.'" That would have pleased me to no end.

Monsters fascinate me, too, as do horror stories, myths, fairy tales, comic books and cartoons.

Let me explain.

A single word can have a great deal of wisdom in it. That half-repulsive, half-fascinating word "monster" is one of them. It comes from the root "to warn." It's the same root for "admonish" and "demonstrate." A monster is a warning, a demonstration.

If a monster is a warning, what is it a warning about?

An understanding of the horror story is necessary to understand a monster. All horror stories have the same structure: Order invaded by Chaos. You can call it Good invaded by Evil, if you wish.

The classic horror story in the West is that of Satan. Satan is the epitome of Chaos, attacking the Order of Heaven. Every horror story is pretty much based on Satan's attack.

I should point out that when I write "Order" I don't mean some sort of stale, boring Order, the way that many teenagers and the more naïve libertarians see society. Another definition of "monster" is "an offense against the natural order." A monster is that which attacks the natural order of things. In essence, a monster is an assault on Natural Law, the laws that create peace, prosperity, liberty, happiness and fun.

At the risk of oversimplifying things (although in a certain religious sense it wouldn't be), you can say that Heaven is always under attack by Hell.

Stephen King wrote an entire book about horror, called Danse Macabre. He used fancier terms – the Apollonian invaded by the Dionysian – but it's still the same as Order invaded by Chaos. And if anyone should have an understanding of horror, it would be King.

King also noticed, quite correctly, that horror fiction is essentially "conservative," in the sense that it supports Order against Chaos. This is why, in the '60s TV program, Get Smart (which was horror disguised as comedy), the Good Guys work for CONTROL, and the Bad Guys are agents of KAOS.

Horror fiction, unfortunately, mirrors human nature. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist. That's why so much can be learned from it. And horror fiction isn't just the "pop" stuff. The greatest writers have large elements in horror in their fiction, be it Shakespeare or Doestoevsky or Conrad.

One of the most well-known founders of modern conservatism, Russell Kirk, was also a superb writer of ghost stories. I've found his stories to be better than his non-fiction. He wrote a truly eerie story called, "That Peculiar Desmene," in which he made the completely accurate observation that human evil is caused by "the monstrous ego."

A true conservative is one who sees society as a thin, fragile veneer holding down all the badness that exists in human nature. This doesn't mean there isn't a lot of good in people, just that there is the potential for a lot of bad. A liberal – a leftist – is someone who sees society as bad, holding down all the goodness in humanity.

To a conservative, destroying society allows all the badness in human nature to pop up. To a liberal, destroying society frees all the goodness. Conservatives have the better of the argument. Leftists, on the other hand, are practically insane, because they have no understanding of human nature. You need look no further than Karl Marx.

A monster is an agent of Chaos (this also means that leftists are agents of Chaos, just too blind to know it). A monster is a warning that Chaos is about to follow. Imagine one day you see one of H.P. Lovecraft's monsters coming over the horizon. I can't think of anyone who would see that as a good thing. It's a warning of Bad Things to Come.

In a sense, monsters have no independent existence, because they are created by Chaos. If Chaos didn't exist, monsters wouldn't exist. But since Chaos is inherent in the universe, monsters will always exist. That, too, is the conservative position, unlike the liberal one, which believes evil can be eradicated.

Looked at that way, the people in the current US administration are not conservatives, but leftists, because they believe evil can be erased from the world.

It would be great boon to mankind if we could tell monsters by the way they look. It's easier in fiction, because all the monsters look like monsters. It doesn't matter if it's Grendl or Gollum or Brain from Pinky and the Brain. They look like monsters. Although I'd rather deal with Brain than Gollum, and Gollum rather than Grendl!

In real life, people are the only monsters that exist. Unfortunately, they don't look like Ming the Merciless. Often they wear suits and ties. If human monsters did look like monsters, it'd be a cinch to identify them.

The serial killer Ted Bundy didn't look like a monster. He was rather handsome, actually. But, afflicted with Kirk's "monstrous ego," he murdered dozens of women.

If human monsters don't look like monsters, how then, do we recognize them?

There is only one way: by what they say and do. All monsters support Chaos, both in words and action. They desire murder, theft, destruction, and power over others, and they almost always let it be known.

By their fruits you will know them. Brambles don't produce figs. The poor are always with us. The blind leading the blind.

The greatest sin of all monsters is that of Hubris – Kirk's "monstrous ego." It's the sin of Satan, which is the most accurate horror story that exists. Because of this Hubris, monsters usually can't keep their mouths shut. They're compelled to tell everyone how great they are, and just how dumb are their opponents.

Hubris is the desire to God, and to be willing to use murder, theft and destruction to achieve that goal. Some names? Herod, Caligula, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung. They wanted power over others. All were perfect examples of the saying, "Power is the horse that evil rides."

Hubris always leads to Chaos. That's why the Bible has the comment, "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Or as the Greeks put it, Hubris followed by Nemesis.

To identify a monster, look for someone afflicted with Hubris, and who supports murder, theft and destruction. It's as simple as that. Look for someone with a monstrous ego who can't shut up. These days you'll find them on TV.

Among those US forces attacked, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were monsters. In the US administration, the neocons are monsters. All, afflicted with Hubris, support murder, theft and destruction. None could shut up. All want power over others.

All monsters are cowards, liars and tricksters. They attack from behind, they try to trick others into fighting for them, and they slander and lie about their opponents.

Who are their opponents? The ones who always fight against monsters? They are the heroes. And who are the heroes? Anyone who supports peace, prosperity, happiness, liberty, fun and power over themselves as against murder, lies, destruction and power over others. The heroes support the Economic Means, and the monsters support the Political Means. Liberty against Slavery.

As monsters always support Chaos, heroes always support Order. It was Superman who supported truth and justice, not Lex Luther. It was Beowulf and Underdog who fought to restore order, not Grendl and Simon bar Sinister. Monsters and villains that they were, they wanted, just like Satan, to destroy and rule.

It is sad, but true, that since Chaos and Hubris are always with us, heroes must always fight against them. This wisdom is contained not only in horror story, but in every myth, every fable, every fairy tale, and every cartoon. And every religion.

As Edmund Burke put it, "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Heroes understand this. Unfortunately, so do the monsters.