Wednesday, December 28, 2016


Globalism is being promoted by those who have the most to gain from it, those who already hold power and wealth. Ancient pharaohs, emperors and kings would most likely unite for globalism in this age of overpopulation, environmental decline and information technology. Globalism is not science. Globalism is top-down population and resource management, justified by economists, the grand wizards of crony capitalism. They twist statistics and corporately controlled money into magical formulas to justify greed and exploitation of labor and the environment. Economics of this age is not science. It is a monolithic mathematical religion, based in evil assumptions.

The misdirected rage of extreme Islamists and their extreme counterparts on the political Right in The West is based, I believe, in the frustration of people with the assumptions of capitalism and power politics of our age. Their opposition is engineered by a media which is owned and operated by the powers who promote crony capitalism, or capitalist aristocracy. Their propaganda brings great profits to military establishments, in which the power brokers are deeply invested. This serves the dual purpose of uniting the masses behind the capitalist aristocracy and neutralizing any opposition to it. 

Globalists seek to merge all their subjects (the people) into a vast mass of exploitable labor and investors into their aristocratic wealth machines. This mass of humanity must be stripped of all identity other than world citizenship. They must be stripped of ideas of individual race or ethnicity, once lovingly referred to as "roots". They must be stripped of nationhood. They must be stripped of ownership. Everything they use to survive must be bought on credit or rented. Ownership will be the privilege of the capitalist aristocracy. 

The illusion of "a better life" must be promoted, according to the globalist agenda. This enables the global elite to promote mass migration after waging war to strip millions of home and national identity. The aristocrats promote the wonders of The West through their media in the Third World while promoting sharing and caring in the First World. This is social engineering on a massive scale. It is obvious to anyone with open eyes. 

The promotion of religion by corporate media is a catalyst, or perhaps a sweetener. Appealing to fear and superstition of the impoverished is simple. Proposing religious ideals to the educated is not very hard, since most have come from some religious tradition. It taps into their earliest psychological conditioning, by-passing their frontal lobes. Merkel promotes mass migration with Protestant Christianity. Putin maintains control with Orthodox Catholicism. Obama plays both ends of Christianity and Islam against the middle. And Jews, highly invested in the corporate-banking machine,  form alliances with apocalyptic fundamentalist Christians under the pretext of protecting Israel. Meanwhile, some wealthy Chinese mimic The West by adopting religion despite the success brought to them by a secular Communist state, which they are slowly dismantling from within with their wealth. 

Educational institutions are being reduced to nurseries for regressed children of the privileged. Coddling them eliminates student protest against the roots of their privilege. Encouraging protest by dysfunctional neo-feminists and affluent members of racial minorities does not threaten capitalist aristocracy because the objects of these protests are those whom the corporate elite wish to cow and bully, the working middle class. That aristocracy knows that the working middle class, the bourgeoisie, have always led economic revolution by mobilizing the poor. By hammering them with cries of "racism, "sexism" and "White privilege", the corporate media and their minions in education can neutralize the working middle class as a threat, while promoting the false ideology of everyone's success through entrepreneurship, the Gospel of Prosperity.

The gradual moderation and control of electronic communication and self-publishing is next. The corporate aristocracy have plans for the Internet. By unitizing charges for Internet use, they will gradually limit the Internet to people who cooperate with and depend upon corporate control. After all, they will be the only people who will be able to afford broadband. "Free" or "inexpensive" media will be dumbed down to the level of pure mass manipulation. Freely uploaded content to the Internet will all but cease. Information technology experts will collude with the aristocracy to develop censoring tools which will further divide and conquer the masses. Oligarchic governments will have all the tools necessary to quietly eliminate troublemakers (Think Snowden, Manning, Assange, Anonymous).

This is not paranoid science fiction. This is beginning to happen right now. And the obvious complicity of religious leaders, the educated and the mid-level financial classes glides along without wide criticism. Major media outlets have been gutted of anti-capitalist writers. "Socialism" and "communism" and "nationalism" have been turned into dirty words. How long will it take for "democracy" to fall to the same fate? Not long. How long will it take before blogs like this are extinct? Not long. The inevitable merging of technology and globalism will allow the corporate aristocracy to do whatever it takes to try to drastically reverse environmental degradation for their own sake. And, we all know from history what science in the hands of totalitarian control looks like. 

Saturday, December 24, 2016


I am developing a working hypothesis concerning the dysfunctional neo-feminism which is plaguing college campuses and political campaigns. Simply put, I am questioning whether the social justice war of neo-feminism is actually a form of unconscious sadistic-masochistic sexuality wherein the social justice warrior seeks to assert himself/herself/themselves as dominatrix. 

I have spent some disturbing hours studying social justice warriors (SJW's) and neo-conservatives (Alt-Right) on Youtube. I believe many extremists on the Alt-Right, while consciously asserting traditional values, qualify as participants in an obsessive sado-masochistic (S&M) relationship with these extremist SJW's.  

For example, let's think about gender dysphoria. About 4 people in 1,000 statistically, counting birth males and birth females,  suffer pathological discomfort with their birth gender. That is about one half a percentage point of the human population. On a purely statistical basis, it is simply provocative to highlight gender dysphoria as a key feminist issue, representative of half the human population. It is over 125 times out of proportion. I see it as a form of enticement to reject a premise that all equality or justice for all human beings should hinge on special accommodation for transgender human beings. It is an irrational proposition. Yet, SJW's react with predictable fury when this is addressed in any fashion. Why? 

I speculate that the extremist SJW movement is a reaching out for limit-setting by a sexually frustrated/frightened and sexually dysfunctional minority who have exploited the Christian concept of justice for "the least of my brethren" to justify their impulse to provoke disapproval or perhaps even violence. Their cause is definitely not anti-sexist. The evidence for this is obvious. What is more sexist than the fixated gender-obsession of transgender people? What is more sexist than the segregation of many gay men, lesbians and transgender people into self-imposed same-sex cliques? What is more sexist than cliques of SJW's who intentionally alienate and demean confidently heterosexual men?  Integration is a basic element of equality and justice. To claim to profess devotion to equality and then to isolate into exquisitely minuscule cliques is a behavioral contradiction of purpose. It is hypocrisy at its worst or immature cognitive dissonance at its best.

The readiness of female SJW's who walk around in bedroom garb in public to scream "Rape!" when given the least bit of male attention is, in my speculation, an outward evidence of repressed sado-masochistic desires. It used to be called "cold-cocking","cock-teasing" or "blue-balling". It is famously attributed to Roman Catholic virgins. It has always been the practice of a small element of the homosexual male population. These flirts are usually sexually dysfunctional in any number of ways. They also tend to be self-loathing. It has been a more common practice of heterosexual males or closeted bisexual males in the presence of known homosexual men. Alluring someone with the bait of partial or full nudity, combined with a feigned indifference, places the seducer in control. The seducer may then vent his/her repressed sexual tensions/anger/frustrations on the allured, who may be far from a sexual aggressor. Thus the seducer then becomes the oppressor of the seduced victim. This form of sexual dysfunction is often seen as symptomatic of childhood sexual abuse. 

Two videos triggered these thoughts in my mind. One was the famously absurd and pathetically funny "Hugh Mungus" video (above). This exhibits the adoption by a mentally ill person of a marginally acceptable ideology to cloak her own mental dysfunction. In other words, she does not see herself as needing help for her mental illness. She sees herself as a victim of an external threat or injustice. The reality is that the internal threat of her brain dysfunction is just as dangerous, if not more, than the external threats around her. But it may well be easier for her to yield to her denial and avoidance of getting professional help. I see this process in many of the SJW videos. It saddens me deeply to see treatable mental illness being justified by groups who collude in mutual denial. It is not dissimilar from groups of codependent alcoholics/addicts.

The second video which provoked my thoughts was of a young woman in skin-tight clothing and wearing a bra under an open jacket as she strutted around a city during the day. She was intentionally being filmed as she attracted male attention and repeatedly rebuffed it. Most of the male attention was complimentary and appropriately heterosexual, given her outfit. She was not repeatedly manhandled, yet her responses to the attention were often hostile and demeaning. Why would she do this if she was not acting out some form of sexual dysfunction? What "justice" was being served? I doubt she was settling the score of being enticed by men who walked around half-naked and rebuffed her advances. Does she see cold-cocking as some kind of equal right? It is impossible to figure out what she thinks from her behavior. This is a large part of her problem in a social context.

In another irrational context, the same women who profess their allegiance to the SJW movement defend Islam and its prescriptions of body-covering for women. The woman in the second video could easily accomplish relative sexual invisibility by walking urban streets in a burka or by dressing like a Mennonite. However, she chose a revealing costume for the exercise. The point of the exercise was obviously to seduce and rebuff. This is a common form of sado-masochistic sexuality. 

I am not broadly judging consensual adult S&M sexuality as a symptom of mental illness or sexual dysfunction by any means. On the contrary, intentional and playful S&M or B&D (bondage and discipline) sex may actually be therapeutic under certain conditions between certain individuals. But that therapeutic component requires understanding and verbalization by the participants of their needs. This usually comes from some internal evaluation of where those sexual desires originate and what purpose they serve. The mindless S&M, fueled by amphetamine addiction, in the 1980's gay club scene drastically propelled the spread of HIV, even after warnings were clearly made about the viral transmission of that disease. Mindless sadism and mindless masochism are indeed dangerous.

Perhaps the word "viral" is more applicable to social media and streaming media than the current use of that word implies. Perhaps these outlets of expression and consumption by the broad public can spread some forms of mental dysfunction, like communicable diseases. At the very least, these media can bring together numbers of people who suffer from the same delusions or mental maladies. Consolidating those people into virtual or actual communities may provide support, but, unless that support is moderated with sane leadership or mentoring, the result can be the spiraling of destructive currents into society. The extremes of both the SJW and Alt-Right movements are perhaps examples of those currents (vectors) of epidemic insanity. 

Friday, December 23, 2016


This is a good primer on 'Respect'.

Parenting a child without any negative reinforcement (criticism) is unhealthy. How that negative reinforcement is bestowed definitely matters. But always applauding everything a child does creates an addiction to validation (dependency) in that child. Proponents of 100% positive reinforcement don't have much to show as evidence of this approach's benefit to society as children progress into adulthood. The current wave of narcissistic and parent-dependent millennials of the dwindling middle class in the U.S. has been widely criticized by educators and employers.

Socio-economics determine the nuances of child-rearing in a capitalist society. This is a layer of influence which enhances or detracts from the personalities involved in child-rearing. A stressed single mother who is struggling to function will not have much to give to a small child, despite her perception that she is doing everything right. The child will be imprinted by her stress and insecurity in some fashion. If she chooses to applaud every behavior the child does, good or bad, she will instill a sense of entitlement that child will carry for life. Since poor children statistically become poor adults in capitalist societies, the entitled adolescent and adult is more likely to be exploited by criminals or abusers if they provide the validation upon which that child depends. This has been shown in studies of gang members, for instance.

The concept that respect is earned by respect requires some firm limits on childish selfishness, combined with education. Positive reinforcement for respectful behavior can then cement the lesson into good habits for a lifetime. The shrill demand for respect by the uneducated as they bully in an attempt to gain it belies poor parenting, which may well be perceived by the bully as a norm in his/her social context. This does not make it respectable. The current trend of multiculturalism tends to deflate higher standards of behavior for those from poorer groups in society out of a misguided attempt to be compassionate. This is not compassionate. It is disabling. Hence the high rates of incarceration and unemployment in those groups.

The most valuable validation is self-validation for a life which has been lived ethically, nonviolently and generously. Ultimately, self-judgment is the key to happiness or misery.

Thursday, December 22, 2016


This random Web photo illustrates unhealthy ideology.

In the wake of the deadly Christmas market attack in Berlin, Germans are finding that their government has abandoned them to fend for themselves in the face of violent jihad and criminal exploitation by invaders. German media and European politicians have colluded in foisting a fraud on the German people. Greed has led to the undue influence of Saudi Arabia and Turkey on European politics. Turkey has led the push of Islamic states into European politics in its attempts to join the European Union, despite wide discrepancies in human rights standards.

Germans interviewed by various international news outlets after the Berlin attacks exhibit the confused minds of the indoctrinated. Clear-headed Germans firmly state their disappointment in their government and security services. They state their intent to support political change away from Merkel's mismanagement of Germany's national security. The confused whine shrill assertions of living with the status quo with a stiff upper lip. "We cannot be afraid. We must go on." 

Anyone who is not afraid after random mass murders in his/her community is in denial, at best, or is simply out of touch with reality. 

Politicians in Germany, Britain and Europe generally have been bought by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo of mass migration and loosened security. Here in the U.S. politicians and police management have all but surrendered to elitist pressure to curtail adequate security on our streets. Media have colluded. Rather than vigorously countering allegations of generalized racism and police brutality, these community leaders have taken a passive-aggressive stance of near silence and reduced responsiveness on the streets. Ask anyone who has called 911 in your neighborhood, if you live in a low-income area of a major city. Response times are long. Dispatchers, who are not even trained law enforcement personnel, try to push you off. 

The inevitable backlash against this trend should be much more frightening to all citizens. Trump's election is a symptom of that backlash. If the tide of violence and criminality is not kept at bay consistently in dense populations, the reaction to the resulting anarchy is authoritarianism. History has proven this over and over again. Pushing the mind-numbing form of narcissistic Liberalism of recent times, as seen on college campuses and in Liberal media, only accelerates the backlash. This is not a White backlash, as some would label it for shock value. This is a backlash by decent citizens who are victimized by crime, governmental failure and economic hardship. 

It is foolish masochism to advocate for anarchy (illegal immigration, flooding our society with mood-altering drugs, deregulating education, deregulating industry, and promoting individual isolationism, facilitated by information technology). Anarchy puts everyone at risk. Laws exist to help and protect the socially responsible. That standard of law in society helps and protects all citizens. Once the dangers created by anarchy reach the wealthy, military-style oppression will follow. The tipping point is closer than most of us wish to consider when we look honestly at the urbanized world around us. 

Monday, December 12, 2016


The downfall of many relationships is the entrenchment of two or more personalities who are unable or unwilling to compromise. This concept in divorce law is called "irreconcilable differences". It is a propensity of many human beings to resist compromise. This is most likely due to primal aggression, triggered by hormonal and subsequent brain responses to subconsciously or consciously perceived threats. The old fight-or-flight thing in various degrees.

The key to maintaining any peaceful relationship over time is the conscious and intentional recognition/discussion of potentially irreconcilable differences before the triggering of a flight or fight response. In sexual relationships, for example, lack of intercourse is a marker. If a relationship is based in sexual attraction initially, it is likely that there will be issues over time with that sexual relationship. Most of us fall subject to the old adage, "Familiarity breeds contempt.". Put more tactfully, our brains/nerves become desensitized to the familiar and non-threatening. Going from cuddle to orgasm usually demands some exciting stimulation. If the brain/nerves are desensitized to the familiar smells, tastes, touch of a routine partner, that acceleration from cozy to orgasmic is lacking. It's just chemistry, literally.  

In this light, perhaps irreconcilable differences are simply healthy cues to a mindful brain, not necessarily overwhelming triggers for conflict or separation. A wake-up call to get creative and change routine behaviors. Relationship therapists use this concept frequently. The problem with this process is that it requires ongoing change as sustained treatment of boredom, a symptom of other processes in a relationship. Once creativity is introduced into a stale relationship, the partners display their capacity for creativity and change. That capacity is seldom equally matched. If it were from the beginning, the need to use creativity as intervention to keep the relationship alive wouldn't have been necessary. Long-lasting relationships are built on sustained inventiveness (or stultified depression and/or dependency, in some cases). 

The recent election of Donald Trump, in my opinion, is an attempt by a large portion of the American voting population to work past irreconcilable differences between the cultural status quo and their cultural bias. Many who voted for Trump have openly stated that they acknowledge his unpredictability and potential instability, but, they say, they voted for him to throw a wrench into the machinery of the status quo. While this may parallel a Mennonite constructing a B&D dungeon in his basement to invigorate his marriage, it does speak to the level of dissatisfaction in the relationship between those voters and the prevailing media-fueled culture as it now stands. 

Countries and populations can be like large extended families which break up into clannish subgroups. If irreconcilable differences simmer under the surface long enough, a brawl at a wedding or funeral is inevitable. Sometimes the brawl, like a military skirmish on a larger scale, brings issues to light that can be dealt with around a peace table. More often skirmishes escalate into outright war. Once aggression and violence rise up to defend the opposing sides of perceived irreconcilable differences, you have the Israeli-Palestinian or Russian-Ukrainian relationship of chronic conflict built upon resentment and revenge. 

I believe there is a line between the "It's all good" miasma of the current regressive-Progressive media culture in America and the "Make America Great Again" culture of the Alt-Right and Trumpeters. This line hardened during the recent election into what may seem now to be irreconcilable differences. I think it will take more than making deals, the famous Trump mantra, or bestowing unrealistic "justice" to every minority who feel victimized to pass through those potentially irreconcilable differences to some creative compromise. In the past, Americans chose a bloody Civil War through their misguided political leaders. The Sexual Revolution and Peace Movement of the 1960's-1970's proposed another solution: Make love, not war. Somewhere in that past may be a clue to a solution to the current impasse and to keeping the culture of America relatively healthy and happy for everyone. 

The great lesson of September 11, 2001 for me was this: The differences in American society melted away after an attack by an unknown external force on America's materialist icon, Manhattan. A violent attack on the prosperity and material comfort of Americans is one sure way to bring us together and put the sex back into our enthusiasm for our nation. The great challenge of our day is to step above that level of violence and revenge to a better creative solution to our differences. If we manage to do this, our differences will not be irreconcilable. They will be the stimuli which make us stronger as a nation. 

Thursday, December 8, 2016


I have intentionally excluded myself from most of mainstream heterosexual life. I am a 100% homosexual man with no marriage yearnings or parenting desires. I am happy to be living in post-Stonewall times in the USA, but I doubt my life would have been so much different if I had lived more of it before Stonewall. Hiding or repressing my sexuality never really occurred to me as an adult. I always understood instinctively that doing so would be unhealthy.

What is this modern obsession with inclusion? I have given it some thought. 

I sometimes think inclusion is confused with affirmative action, for instance. This doesn't make any sense. You may want to include your mentally impaired cousin in a family wedding, but you don't appoint him to be the wedding planner. You may want to hire a male wedding planner of color as a form of affirmative action, thereby giving him a chance to further his resume. But this does not automatically mean you will include him in the wedding party. 

Immigration is an area where the concept of inclusion often gets raised. Some addled social-justice advocates feel that illegal immigrants should be allowed to cross national borders and then be included in legal society with all the benefits of citizens. This is not inclusion. This is simply an advocacy for anarchy by those least likely to have to pay for its repercussions. 

Inclusion is always framed as a good thing in today's pop culture. But is it? As a homosexual man, I would not like including women in certain sexually centered venues, like gay steam baths. I would like to have the option of going to all-male gay club or to belong to an all-male gym. Likewise, I would not expect or desire to be included in some all-female activities. There is no need to include me in bridal shower or baby showers. I'm good, thanks.

So much of this inclusion obsession is specific to millennials. I often wonder if they can manage to go to the bathroom alone without separation anxiety. All this inclusion must come at the expense of reflection, self-examination and concentration. Hence the superficial materialism and susceptibility to addiction of the millennial culture. If you have had no time to figure out who the hell you are, it feels right to rush through life from one group experience of physical gratification to another. 

The false morality of inclusiveness-preaching in media aimed at millennials annoys me. What the hell is inclusiveness anyway? Should it entail wearing a T-shirt saying, "I'll fuck anyone?" While crying rape whenever someone innocently tests a sexual boundary in a non-aggressive manner, some millennials would feel compelled to participate in an orgy if it included a prerequisite number of transgender people of color, attractive or not. 

As I said at the beginning, I exclude myself from most of mainstream society. That does not make me antisocial, a potential terrorist or serial killer. It is called "choice",  and it also entails my Constitutional right to privacy. I know when and where I am welcomed and accepted. How do I know that? I have spent a lot of my time alone discovering who I am. I have used my time outside to look skeptically into society. I have learned to smell the stench of hypocrisy and can spot insincerity in the human eye. Like most things, if you are always immersed in a sea of hypocrisy and insincerity, you no longer are able to discern it from anything else.  

Thursday, December 1, 2016


I know too many people who refer to their middle class lifestyles as "blessed". Really? Blessed? Want to know why I dislike organized religion? There's one good reason. 

Walking in my neighborhood entails sharing sidewalks with poor Black and Latino kids who are mostly passing through along a bus line from the subway to their neighborhoods. While they have ample bus service, one of the most frequent I have ever seen in Boston, my fellow pedestrians are most likely walking home or to the subway to avoid paying bus fare. Many of them look too tired to be doing it for recreation. They most likely don't feel blessed. They feel poor and tired.

Is it their fault they are not blessed? The arched eyebrows of a well-off Liberal are easily visualized in response to that question. That same Liberal cheats on his taxes through an accountant and votes for those who have consistently gutted public health and public education funds. He/she may own stock in for-profit hospitals or for-profit private schools. That same Liberal may be religious, possibly Roman Catholic, and does not support sex education, free birth control and abortion for impoverished women. Perhaps he/she would preach against single parent homes or the importance of the nuclear family. And other bullshit. I don't even have to review what a Conservative Republican would say. 

Many of my fellow pedestrians are the products of failed education and poor public health. They are more likely to suffer from addiction, obesity, diabetes, asthma, hypertension, malnutrition. Their poorly educated mothers have used their food stamps to buy carbohydrate-rich foods and liquids in a well meaning attempt to give their kids a sense of being nourished, or at least full. Their mothers have little time to cook nutritious meals.

Those same mothers have been forced to take low-paying jobs after having multiple children with the encouragement of government infancy-support programs. In other words, some of those mothers had one child after another to keep their ongoing welfare payments for children under two. Subsequently, as their children age, they are more burdened and less likely to be able to fund their children's education and general well being.

The leaders of the world should be ashamed. They know all this. They have known it for generations. But honest shame is not a component of megalomania. Just follow Trump on Twitter. Just look into Clinton hypocrisy. 

I am neither blessed nor ashamed, but I did luck out with parents. My mother was not lucky. Her father was an alcoholic immigrant laborer whose pay transformed magically into beer and then evaporated. Her mother was an illiterate sweat-shop worker, also an immigrant, whose anger over her bad luck in her parents, peasant farmers in Eastern Europe with fifteen children, sat around her like a black Jovian cloud, bristling with lightening.

My father was luckier. His father was a humorous Irish-American who was sober, self-educated and wise. His mother was born to immigrant bourgeoisie. She had a nanny as a babe and was educated in fine convent schools. Then she eloped with my traveling salesman grandfather. And that was that. Due to my grandfather's crippling accident at a young age, my father's family lived a very modest life on fixed disability payments, supplemented by my grandfather's post as church sexton. They lived joyfully and with generous hearts. 

I know that I have profited from the coincidences of my birth. I had nothing to do with it. My parents worked hard and made me work hard from an early age. That was a gift. They taught me the balance between money and happiness, in part by negative example. And, now that I am in my older years, their scrupulous management of their finances has provided me with some additional resources. The bulk of my resources, however, is the cumulative product of my own hard work, investment and saving. I was able to develop those resources because I had a good early education which taught me self-education methods and lifelong-learning habits.

There is nothing to be done for the too-numerous children of the too-numerous poor other than educating them not to duplicate the poverty of their own births. But society all over the world is doing the opposite. Capitalism is lecturing us on "growth" rather than conservation. Capitalism is the new religion of destruction of the greater quality of human life in support of the luxury of the blessed few. As long as the mythology of "more is more" exists in media, from pulpits and in universities, the quality of overall human life will diminish. Parents shape the world, indeed. They just aren't doing a great job. And the more "blessed" they are, the less interested they seem in stopping the madness.