Blog Archive

Friday, December 12, 2014

Why Can't the Media Talk About Something Actually Important?:

In America, the deaths of some 200 or so blacks a year due to violently confronting the police, an issue less important than death by lightning strikes, is consuming 100% of media attention and derailing our major cities with ridiculous protests.

Meanwhile, this world now has a population of 7 billion, 174 million, 611 thousand, 584 people (and counting).

The per capita GDP of these people, in purchasing power parity, and as always adjusted for inflation, is now $13,100, up from $12,800 of just last year.  That means an average household with the minimum number necessary to continue human life on Earth, 2 parents and 2 children, should be earning $52,400 a year.  Just look at that number.  That's a princely sum.  More than enough to take care of everyone, even in the most expensive places like New York City.

So why is the world still full of so much poverty?  Why are 800 million people still malnourished across the planet?  Why do people still freeze to death because they can't afford home heating during the winter?  Why are there people dying of treatable diseases because they don't have access to health care?  Why is 60% of the world's population still lacking flush toilets?  Why do 783 million people still lack access to clean water?

200 black thugs who got what was coming to them are paralyzing the world's greatest country while outside our borders billions of innocent people, mainly children, suffer and die for no possible reason.  We can easily afford to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone in America, and together, the world could chip in to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone in the world.  Our collective GDP is now high enough to let everyone on Earth live like a prince.  This sin of omission dwarfs any possible sin of commission Obama is ranting about by our beleaguered police forces.

Look at the difference between our President Obama and Russia's President, Vladimir Putin.  Obama has spent the last month dickering around with various domestic grand jury cases and disagreeing with their verdicts, inciting riots to sprout up all across the country and paralyze our economy.  Meanwhile Putin just went to India to secure $100 billion dollars worth of new trade agreements, after a previous meeting in China where he secured $300 billion dollars worth of new trade agreements, all in the same year.  Putin just made $400 billion dollars for his country, a sizable portion of their entire GDP, through his own personal leadership skills.  While Obama sides with 'Burn this bitch down!' thug stepfathers of 'fuck what you have to say' thug stepchildren, Putin is bringing lost Russian territory back into the fold and liberating oppressed Russians living abroad who finally get to rejoin their natural homelands again.

Shinzo Abe may not be going about things very effectively, but at least he's trying to improve Japan's economy.  He isn't worried about criminals' rights to defy the police.  He isn't legalizing illegal immigrants in an unconstitutional power grab against the will of 70% of the people.  He's trying to grow the economy through increased workforce participation, the resumption of nuclear power (it was mere environmental paranoia to stop using the plants in the first place), the trans pacific free trade agreement, and tackling the ridiculously high national debt through monetary easing.  While Obama refuses to build the Keystone pipeline after endless years, Putin negotiates a new pipeline into Turkey in a few days.

The world's economy would increase by trillions overnight if we passed the two free trade agreements on Obama's desk -- The Trans Pacific Partnership and the Trans Atlantic Partnership.  The main impediment to passing the TPP is that America keeps insisting on draconian copyright laws.  Drop those demands and we could pass the bill tomorrow.  And the copyright laws are not the reason the TPP would generate so much extra business for the world.  They're an unimportant side issue.  The important, main issue is to lower tariffs and regulations forbidding investment in each other's economies.  The same issue as it's always been.  Meanwhile, the Trans Atlantic Partnership is a slam dunk, one of the most obvious decisions in human history.  NAFTA has a free trade agreement, the EU has a free trade agreement, so why not just combine the two and have the USA trade freely with the EU?  The entire developed world trading freely with each other, what could be a more obvious good idea?  We're already partners in military cooperation under NATO.  We've already worked together on multiple other fronts like Iraq and Afghanistan.  Why can't we work together economically as well?  What is stopping this trade agreement?  Obama is refusing to export oil and natural gas out of this country, even though our shale gas deposits are nigh endless and there's no way we can consume all this stuff ourselves.  Every other world leader understands that it is his job to improve the economy for the country as a whole.  Only Obama seems to think it's his job to play golf.

The more help we give to the economy, the more help we can give to the poor.  The more we grow our economies, the more we can alleviate suffering worldwide and here at home.  We should be ambitiously growing our energy sector, not slamming it with impossible regulations.  Every dollar we make in the oil industry, or the gas industry, is a dollar in some newly employed person's checkbook, which he then goes on to spend at some other store, employing someone else, who then spends that dollar elsewhere, and so on.  With oil and natural gas, we can trade evenly with the outside world.  With a strong dollar due to our energy abundance, we get a discounted price for all our manufacturing imports we get from abroad -- cars, tvs, playstations, iphones, steel, you name it.  This gives every American more buying power at the same time it lowers prices at the pump, giving us more disposable income to buy with.  If Romney had been elected, he promised he would have opened up oil and gas exploration and exporting into a bonanza.  Because we chose the wrong horse, we're frittering our opportunities away while discussing how many thugs dance on the head of a pin.

There are well documented, well known ways to improve the economy for free -- reduce burdensome regulations, build more infrastructure (especially power plants, ports, and refineries, but also roads, bridges, subway tunnels, dams, etc), and pass more free trade agreements.  Eisenhower did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it, even Bush did it with CAFTA.  Each time the economy grew, predictably, like gangbusters.  Obama is doing the reverse of all of these things.  Imposing ridiculous ozone requirements nobody can comply with, refusing to trade even with our most valued natural partners the Canadians by not building the Keystone pipeline, picking fights with other nuclear superpowers and imposing anti-trade sanctions on an important portion of the whole world's economy, Russia, and letting his 'shovel ready work' promises wither on the vine as our infrastructure crumbles.

Obama's American dream is that anyone who wants can come here and get work, without corruption or ethnic bias getting in the way of merit and ambition.  That's all America means to him, a place where individuals from all over the world can come here and get ahead.  He doesn't seem to understand the purpose of collective action, of the head of state actually leading the state towards shared prosperity and shared ideals.  As President for six years, he's passed only one major new act of legislation, the byzantine and deeply unpopular Obamacare which will probably be repealed the moment he leaves office anyway.  He's led the House of Representatives to its largest Republican majority in nearly 100 years, the presidency switching Republican can't be far behind, and all because of his failed leadership.  There were endless things he could have done instead, ways to improve the country for the generations that come after us -- he could have reformed social security and to be means-tested and thus solvent.  He could have restricted medicare spending to only hopeful cases and thus cut costs by 1/2, falling into line with the public health care costs in Europe, Japan, Australia and the rest of the civilized world.  He could have cut the military and stopped foreign military adventurism, saving trillions on useless weapons that can't actually achieve any of the political and diplomatic objectives we set for them.

He could have reformed the tax code by implementing a flat sales tax, the fair tax, that is combined with a citizen's dividend so that it doesn't regressively hit the poorest Americans the hardest.  The money saved just by not having to comply with the IRS would have been trillions with the elimination of the income tax and the estate tax.  The elimination of the corporate income tax could have launched a boom in exports and domestic corporate investment.  The elimination of the capital gain's tax would have launched a boom in domestic stocks and bonds.  Bold tax reform plans have been offered time and time again, with wide bipartisan support, but Obama refuses to act on any of them.  Instead we struggle just to complete the normal workings of government, always passing simple budgets at the last second before midnight.

Despite inheriting a recession from Bush, Obama has had six years of remarkable economic and foreign policy tranquility.  No terror attacks have hit the USA during his entire term of office.  No important countries have gotten involved in any wars with each other.  When the waters are calm and everyone can look at things rationally, that is the best time for dramatic reforms to improve everyone's quality of life.  During a crisis, all we can do is focus on the crisis.  Bush's entire presidency was derailed by 9/11.  Clinton's presidency was derailed by his own and his agencies' criminal misbehavior and all the court cases related to such.  Obama has no excuse for his do-nothing presidency.  Everything is working fine except Obama himself.

While he's wasting time on Ferguson, Missouri, the whole world and all of its opportunities is passing us by.

There is something much more important than blacks happening in America these days.  It was mentioned in an article recently as 'The Sexodus,' a series of articles at Breitbart news.  This is not unique to America, it's referred to as 'herbivores' in Japan and it surely has the same trend everywhere else in the developed world as well.

Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.
Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.
Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.
Some might call these statistical trends "female privilege." Yet everywhere and at all times, say men's rights advocates, the "lived experiences" and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that women haven't just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect. What inequalities remain are the result of women's choices, say respectable feminist academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, not structural biases. 
And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege. The bizarre but inevitable conclusion of all this is that women are fuelling their own unhappiness by driving men to consider them as sex objects and nothing more, because the thought of engaging in a relationship with a woman is horrifying, or too exhausting to contemplate.

The balance between the sexes has swung horribly wrong.  In school, women are given preference universally, from kindergarten all the way up through graduate school, despite men actually performing better at high-IQ jobs.  When you want excellence, you call in a man, whether it's a CEO, a scientist, an artist or even a cook.  Everyone knows this.  History is littered with examples of men beating women at all intellectual pursuits, from bridge to chess to go, where winning and losing is completely objective and anyone who wants can learn the rules and play the game.  Nevertheless, paradoxically, all the genuinely talented men in the education system are crapped upon and abandoned, while the women keep on rising up the ranks to nowheresville, earning degrees in 'lalaland studies'.  How does this help our country?

Virtually all male behavior is criminalized, such that natural healthy instincts among men -- like being brutally honest, defending your honor, coming on to women, enjoying risky hobbies, or not getting bogged down in pointless nitpicky details, are all grounds for arrest.  Meanwhile women are not held to any standard of behavior whatsoever.  Their sex can basically do anything it instinctively desires without any check or bound.  If you're a single mother, you're 'heroic.'  If you're a teen mother, you're 'courageous.'  If you get an abortion, you're a 'freedom fighter.'  If you take drugs and alcohol and then engage in an orgy, you're a 'rape survivor,' on par with a freaking Holocaust victim as a full fledged hero of suffering.  If you divorce your husband, you 'made the hard decision,' like some sort of gritty veteran who led his troops against a pill box.  If you cheat, you 'learned about yourself and your needs.'  If you confess your undying love to someone, and then change your mind a few months or years later, you 'meant it at the time,' and 'went through a journey.'  If you lie about something, manipulate someone, or divert blame that should have fallen onto you onto someone else, 'it was my felt experience.'  If you say something batshit stupid or crazy and are called on it, you're 'being silenced.'

Anything anyone says about women is 'vile,' 'outrageous,' 'sexist,' 'harassment,' or 'abuse,' and should be banned by law.  Alternatively, anything anyone says about men, even the most ridiculous charges like blond beasts are gang raping women on top of shattered glass tables at the University of Virginia as an annual fraternity pledge ritual, must be 'believed' for the sake of the accuser and only an 'asshole' would object to the 'serious problems' women have with everything men are purported to do to them without any iota of proof.  A catcalling video reveals that men are constantly harassing women every time they walk outside their door -- no wait, only blacks and hispanics are doing that, white men treat them like perfect gentlemen.  Then we are told that white men were just as nefarious off screen, it's just that somehow the camera never caught them at their vile wiles.  So two more camera walking experiments are done, in Aukland New Zealand and Riga Latvia, where only white men are around to catcall women -- crickets chirping.  Nothing.  Not one offensive event in ten hours.  Still, the 'serious problem' has to be addressed.  More sensitivity training is required, no doubt.

The majority of taxes are taken from men.  The vast majority of government spending goes to women.  I would say at least 2/3 of spending if not 4/5.  This is a terrible injustice to men everywhere, who could use the money just as much as women but are deemed somehow innately unfit for any sort of assistance from anyone.

If you marry a woman, she will spend the majority of the money you make.  A lot of it will go to the things you would never think to spend on if you were still single.  However, not a dime of the money she makes will be spent on you.  If a man tries to live off of a woman's salary, he is a deadbeat and human trash, and she needs to get rid of him immediately.  If a woman lives off of a man's salary, she's a 'partner' who deserves, apparently, in divorce court, over a billion dollars in severance pay for doing positively nothing her whole life.  A woman, just by happening to hit the jackpot with who she marries, and who she subsequently divorces, can propel herself to the ranks of a few tiny elites, who founded businesses, helped improve the world, supplied millions of people with jobs and incomes, etc.  She gets to rank herself among the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs because she had sex with a man for a few years and that's it.  She certainly didn't provide any love, given that she's now suing the guy for all he's worth in the divorce court.  Just how much is a vagina officially worth?

If you don't marry a woman, most of your money will still be taken and spent on single women you know nothing and care nothing about.  Your property tax will go to affording their children's schools, your social security tax and medicare tax will be spent mainly on their social security and their medicare (because women have more health problems than men and live longer than men, all such old age benefits overwhelmingly benefit women instead of men.)  Medicaid, funded from men's income taxes, goes to single women with children.  No one else can even get on this gravy train.  Food stamps, HUD housing, welfare?  Single women with children.  Everyone else can kiss their luck goodbye.  So whether you marry a woman or not, you're stuck paying their bills.  It makes no difference no matter what you do.

If you stay single and have a child, you're hit with child support payments, even if you asked for an abortion and she refused.  If you have children while married, they divorce you and you're stuck with child support plus alimony, while also losing your car and house for good measure.  In both cases you never have any real chance at a real relationship with your own children, getting at best the chance to see them once a week in artificial makeshift 'dates' which can't be timed to when children really need their parents which could happen at any time of the day, anytime of the year.  Why would any man want to risk women being involved in the procreation of his children?  If you give women any claim to your child, she'll get sole custody of it soon enough.  Divorce is inevitable, and then all the emotional and financial investment you put into your child is gone, your entire life's work evaporates into thin air.  Buying an egg from an egg donor and then buying a surrogate mother to gestate the child is cheaper than marriage in the long run, and it gives men sole custody of their children, such that no police force or court system can take them away from you.  What do wives even bring to the table anymore?

There are no laws against adultery, no restrictions against divorce, and child custody always goes to the women.  There's not even a guarantee that your child will actually be genetically related to you (unlike with women, where the children are all definitely theirs, so cheating on women isn't nearly as big an issue as cheating on a man), and yet still you have to pay child support for it, financing your own cuckoldry like the utter fool you are.  There is nothing men gain from the system -- no security, no promises, no contracts whatsoever.  It's just a one-sided obligation from men to women for life.  Even the wedding is a giant expensive party that only women enjoy.

If you date a woman, all the expenses are supposed to be paid by the man, even though supposedly both sides are supposed to be enjoying each other's company equally.  Men are supposed to buy the women endless expensive gifts as tokens of their esteem, but women never have to show any proof of their love for the men.  Men are supposed to go out of their way to appreciate and understand the women in their lives.  We must listen to all of their complaints, conform to all of their demands, and entertain them beyond their wildest dreams with all sorts of romantic and charming behavior.  Women, meanwhile, don't even have to stay thin for their men.  They can chop off all of their hair, wear business suits, have zero ribbons or accessories, and be too tired from work to consent to sex even once a month, but we must still be grateful for the wonderful privilege we have to be dating them.  For women, if a man doesn't take you out on a date to the beach because he doesn't enjoy beaches, that's grounds for cheating on the man (I am not making this up, this was an account told in a news article on why women cheat).  However, when it was discovered that General Patreus was having an affair, it was no excuse that the general's wife was a gray haired, crop haired blob that had taken absolutely no care of her own looks, such that not even a Cthulu tentacle beast would have strayed to within 50 meters of her.

When men retreat from women, as shown in the sexodus article, by saying it's just too much of a hassle for too little gain, they are pursued by the harpies and harridans right into the middle of their alternative hobbies.  Women rush into the middle of things they know nothing about and have no stake in and try to destroy it -- like by criticizing video games, criticizing sports, criticizing All-male clubhouses and fraternities, criticizing Silicon Valley and tech jobs, criticizing male-only church positions, criticizing anything and everything a man might do to get away from them and not have to listen to them anymore.  Every job field and hobby must be integrated fully, 50-50, whether it's the military or firefighting.  Meanwhile, women-only jobs like nursing and teaching are fine, there's no need to change any of their percentages.  Boys must be forced to play with girl's toys, because they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy play fighting or to run around in recess anymore.  Women are attempting to keep a monopoly power over our attention because they realize how terrible their bargaining position has become and are afraid their power over men and ability to extract blood from us is all evaporating before their eyes.  Instead of competing to provide a better product than a video game, they're just trying to ruin video games for men by restricting what can be included in them (ie, everything that might appeal to men in a video game).  They're like the United Kingdom, who declared war on the Netherlands and destroyed its merchant fleet for daring to carry cargo at a lower price than the English could manage, one of the most anti-human, anti-progress acts ever recorded in the history of the world.

A hundred years ago women were complaining that all their menfolk were staying up late at bars drinking instead of coming home to them and helping with the housework.  So they got together and passed Prohibition, banning men from being anywhere but back at home where they could be berated for not pleasing women enough.  The same cycle is repeating itself, as women complain that they're still doing too much housework, when men typically work at far more physically demanding, risky, and exhausting labor than anything women are doing.  Did it ever occur to women that men come home to rest and relax, not work as a housemaid for their freaking landlords?  If you want more chores done, hire someone else to do it with all that wonderful money you make abroad.  If you can't afford that, then stay at home and do the chores yourself to your own exacting standards.  In any case, leave us out of it.  We're not interested in these makework chores, and we want nothing to do with them, period.  If women cannot be a comfort to men, both physically and psychically, then we want nothing to do with them.  We don't want strong, demanding women at home pushing us around.  We don't want alpha females leading hyena packs and nipping at our heels.

At home, wives should be respectful to their husbands, try to make the home environment comfortable and maintenance free, be the aesthetically pleasing centerpiece that the eye would always delight to rest upon when all else is at peace and quiet, and be capable of engaging in intimacy or conversation at a moment's notice.  In the 1700's, in the 1800's, all the way to the 1950's, women all learned the graces required to achieve this domestic felicity.  All of those skills and learned attributes were abandoned in the rush to work (largely in meaningless jobs that shouldn't even exist).  Now that women can't deliver anything pleasant at home, there's no reason left to live with them anymore.  Hilariously, women are making ever higher demands of their men for the 'right' to live with them, at a time when they are giving less and less themselves.

The tragedy of all this is, is that women, men, and children are all better off in a married environment.  They are happier, healthier, more prosperous and better behaved.  Sabotaging marriage is equivalent to habitat destruction, the source of almost all species' extinctions.  It should come as no surprise that every country with 'adultery is legal, divorce is no-fault, women get the children, blah blah blah' modern legal codes is facing inevitable dissolution as birth rates are well below sustainability.  The farce of importing blacks, muslims and hispanics into our countries to shore up demographics doesn't work either --  Either the minorities adapt to the modern legal system and their birth rates equally plummet, or they don't adapt, they take over, and they impose their primitive marriage codes on us into the future, and we're back to Muslim patriarchal masters parading over women in full burqas.

There is only one known successful model for men and women to thrive together, largely free but still expected to behave virtuously, which can have enough children to keep the world turning.  That was the relationship between the sexes typified by writers like Jane Austen and continued all the way into the 1950's.  Until we return to that system, the situation will only get worse.  In Japan, the majority of women in high school are revolted at the very thought of sexual contact with a man.  It's no wonder that the average age of marriage is 30 over there.  Once that average reaches 40 and no one is even physically fertile enough to have children anymore, it's game over for the human species, or at least any form of civilization worth preserving.  At the time of Shakespeare or Chaucer, women were marrying at thirteen, virgins, who only gave themselves for life to a single person, during the flower of their beauty, health, and fertility, providing a eugenic blessing to the generation that came after them.  The experiment in women's choice has failed.  It has failed at making men happy.  It has failed at making women happy.  (Surveys show they were happier before women's liberation than they are today).  But worst of all, it has simply failed the great Darwin in the sky.  We're on a suicide course.  Women's liberation is literally the end of the world.

If Obama could stop talking about the two hundred black thugs who were killed by police this year, maybe he could say something about the billions of 'lost children' sacrificed to abortion or birth control that should have been the bulwark of the next generation in Europe, Russia, Japan, South Korea, China and the United States.  A real leader would be addressing the real issues that confront us today.  They're every bit as serious as the troubles of our forebears, and we have to be every bit as brave and determined to overcome them, but with our collective heads in the sands, it doesn't look like humanity has much of a chance.

No comments: