2315. Where We’re Headed with Enemies at Your Door

I personify three classes of people in the world.

  • G is all governments and consists of all levels of management decision makers including the political class currently out of power but striving for decision-making roles. Their self-interest focuses on defending their best interest, building political power to influence others, and making a good income and mostly in that order.
  • F is the financial class from local bank managers up through all the moneyed hierarchies that run through the highly competitive financial industry. It includes the highly competitive billionaires that team with, guide, and support that industry and often tamper with how G operates. The self-interest of F is to stay glued to the process of dominating the supply and trading of money such that those at and near the top wield power to promote making more profit by governing both the money supply and lower order bankers to their benefit. Their primary competitors are national and international financiers and top bankers, but they use G and P to accomplish their goals.
  • P is the public, aka non-G and non-F, aka the rest of us. Our self-interest is to better ourselves and our way of life. It used to be that. Nowadays, it’s planning for survival from something we can only imagine; we tend to fear the worst because hope wilts as we observe events foreign to the American culture.

F and G compete but more importantly they depend on each other. Evidently they are now hip-locked by fear, which is the worst kind of motivation because it spreads and others are drawn in. Among elected officials in G, they fear that F will withdraw financial support in favor of political competitors. And F promotes such thoughts in order to get more mileage for the buck. Among financiers at the top, F fears G will cause economic disaster. IOW unplanned financial disaster. The top dogs work together to alleviate each other’s fears.

Consequently, G and F conduct an undeclared war on P. Oh, not open warfare as we think of it. You’ve heard it called cronyism to make it sound bad but correctable, to hide the extent and importance. But war nevertheless, because G can only gain power with F if it’s done at P’s expense. It slates us to lose before we know we’re at war or what’s happening behind closed doors.

The signs of war:

  • G expands endlessly. Top leaders have morphed the rule of law into the rule of man, political man. (Check into how the legislatures and chief executives weaken the constitution and support anti-Christian legislation in this nation founded and made prosperous by Judeo-Christian principles).
  • Laws are purposely written as general requirements, which empowers bureaucrats to interpret and make the rules for P to follow as laws. It has turned bureaucratic power into the law of bureaucratic rule. (Except in one appeal procedure limited to a particular court, most federal courts can’t overrule the bureaus and legislators are ineffective to help with appeals. Ask the California farmers who can’t get irrigation water. Or check out other bureaucratic overreach by the EPA et al.)
  • G always needs more money, so they can be controlled by F in order to hold on to whatever power G has acquired. Print money? F will do it. Borrow? F can accommodate it. Need campaign cash? F can find a way. Who worries about legalities? Only P. When G and F work together, the power is automatically absolute enough for corruption, called cronyism today to hide the nature and extent and the role of participating big business execs. IOW, huge G enables huge growth of F, who return the favor with more financial support to further grow G. It’s a closed loop because the fight has turned global with enormous political and financial opportunity. F is armed, choosing dance partners, and getting organized for the long haul battle over who will run the world during the next few decades and lay groundwork for beyond that. (G grows weaker relative to F, because F doesn’t depend on P the way G does for supportive power. To compete with F more effectively for global influence, G needs P but has to victimize P to better fight F. It’s a paradox of vital importance to top level politicians.)
  • It’s not to say that G and F don’t compete. They ‘fight’ to see who will be king of the hill. To integrate the global economy into one, politics has to follow when G wants to lead. That means that we shall see either One World Government with the politicians in charge. Or, we shall see One World Governance with the financiers on top. What’s the difference?
  • One World Government is effectively the UN on steroids. You’ve seen how that works. Internecine warfare turns P into victims over here to benefit victims over there. Theft over here, gifts over there. Men don’t appreciate unearned gifts. Also, corruption defeats the political mileage that P expects from their representatives giving away the wealth created by P. (Neither G nor F builds wealth.)
  • The UN’s efforts are a zero-sum game. Members won’t adopt the ideology of capitalism and the benefits of universal prosperity, which work to raise all boats as JFK phrased it. Universal prosperity works against the interests of individual members and member states in that G becomes less necessary and no one voluntarily gives up power. Power has to be taken or outweighed and individual self-interest religiously guards against both.
  • One World Governance is F governing all the Gs in the world. Gs are expected to govern their respective countries according to the needs of F to balance global economic conditions into success for F. You see, F has one ideology, one measure of success. It’s to prevent financial collapse that might take down the informal structure of global F and the cooperation that has been integrated to dominate Gs. So, F has to manage and keep alive all the economies of the world. They do this by managing G with money made available or not available.
  • Back to P. Everyone needs some power to protect and defend their self-interest. The best protection is more power/influence, so growing one’s power is natural. With G and F competing for power to overcome and then rule the other globally, it constantly reduces the power of P. Specifically, loss of freedom, endangered savings, weakened property rights, spreading of immorality, denial of religious practice, ever-increasing taxation, poisoning of middle class morality, G assuming responsibility for raising children, undermining parental guidance, nationalizing of education, and no end in sight.

The road looks clear to head this way. As globalism expands, F aims to eventually control each national G aka One World Governance. In the U.S., G will expand its power by nationalizing more state and local functions. Consequently, state and local power will melt behind doors closed to hide the corruptive results of individuals trying to seek federal jobs in order to retain power. As state and local Gs lose power, representative government evaporates, which means at the expense of the power of P. In the end, as F overpowers G, G will be forced to rule P in such ways as the pressure of F dictates. An ever-poorer peace will likely be maintained for P. Facing P, G has but one fear, revolution, so G does nothing more than is necessary to prevent it. At least that seems to be G’s operating model.

F has no interest in what kinds of government they deal with; dictatorships are okay. In fact, both F and G benefit from greater control over P. But that puts them at odds again. Without free economies, F eventually hits the wall of little return from stable, little-growth, zero-game economies being governed by central planners. But F and G have already found a new way in America. G central planners tell large corporations what to produce and F helps the companies. That way, economic disturbances can be blamed on the producing companies rather than the planning bureaucrats and elected officials. Thus, a potential cause of revolution can be suppressed.

For the past hundred years, under the influence of F, our society has been shifting toward more direct control by G. Now, it has arrived with more direct control of G by F. P has little influence and nothing to say. G keeps what’s happening under wraps by dominating the F-enhanced media and F and G buy off elected representatives such as members of Congress, state legislatures, and governors. Money rules and the source is F, the beneficiary is G, and the victim is P.

The American past has been migrating in this direction since 1913 following the establishment of the FED and passage of the 16th and 17th amendments (income tax and election of senators by popular vote). Our present time has been under preparation since then and we are now ruled by the bureaucratic side of the political class, G, and dominated by the big money class, F.

Closed door decisions keep P uninformed because the press is no longer free. To quote FDR again, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

I describe above the end-result of plans made daily throughout G and F and behind closed doors. P stays home to look for better ways to improve life, but G and F are hyperactive both planning and already interfering with that very thing.


Filed under Culture & Politics, dear daugher, Dear daughter

2314. Political Disasters are Planned

To understand where Americans are being dragged with little more than a whimper, we need only examine crises that flood Western civilization.

Europe has proven that these two can’t coexist: the welfare state and unlimited immigration. Immigrants with high birth rates soon overwhelm government’s ability to provide income, subsidies, privileges, perquisites, and medical care.

FDR said this: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Currently in America we fail to stop illegal immigration, while Congress and the president continue to expand the American welfare state. Why follow European folly? The answer: It’s not folly, it’s designed that way there and also to happen the same way in the U.S.

Two radical socialist professors—husband and wife—at Columbia contrived a unique strategy in 1966, and the dominant figures in both parties have pushed it on us for decades. David Horowitz, raised by communist parents but now a recovered communist, summarizes it this way:

“The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

Government leaders working together against the public good simultaneously expand the welfare state and enable illegal immigration. It floods federal and state governments with new demands designed to show capitalism inadequate and replaceable. Consequently, designed crisis follows planned crisis. Capitalism undergoes continuous modification and threat as fascist techniques sneak socialism under the door.

The political class has sunk America deeply into Marxist Socialism, which is the theoretical model Marxists think will ultimately govern the globe. It’s being called Democratic Socialism elsewhere in order to hide its origins.

In the U.S. it’s called Progressivism. It’s the molten potpourri of ideologies of Marxists, fascists, socialists, leftists, communists, elitists, and anti-constitution liberals. They combine their powers and efforts and now work temporarily with Islamists. Progressives work together to destroy capitalism, individualism, freedom, representative democracy, constitutional government, and the American republic. They have already converted the U.S. from our constitutional rule of law to the rule of political man and the law of rule by bureaucrats. It builds government power and protects politicians from the heat of public ire.

To expedite the government takeover and country tear-down process, they redistribute American wealth around the globe as if everyone else is equally or even more deserving than are we Americans of all the wealth built and prosperity generated by forebears, parents, and ourselves.

The haters of America now have all the power and are doing as they wish. All interruptions are overcome with two steps forward and one step back ad infinitum.


Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter

2313 — Desperate Females

Some Other Guy at 2311 hits it out of the park. Men are attracted to “pleasant feminine energy.” Girls especially should pay attention to what follows.

Let’s presume a couple meets. This principle governs the interaction of two people. What he figures out about her goes into his heart. What she tells him about herself only goes into his mind. Just as women do, men follow their heart first. There is, however, a sex difference. What he tells her about himself can find its way into her heart, although it depends on the whole picture she develops of who and what he means to and for her.

There are two kinds of feminine energy and one isn’t so pleasant. One works and the other doesn’t. I’m speaking, of course, against female behavior that comes across that she’s desperate to have a boyfriend.

The following are signs of female desperation that kill rather than earn a man’s respect or hold his attention after conquest.

  1. She seeks to lead the encounter with her words and seemingly wants to make the end results of their dialogue turn out her way.
  2. She talks mostly to describe her value. She tries with words and actions to prove her worth and what she can add to his life.
  3. She doesn’t act natural within her personality. She tries too hard and comes across as uncomfortable with herself, which doesn’t earn any respect and perhaps the opposite.
  4. She may act as if she’s listening to him, but she doesn’t truly hear what he says. As she listens, her mind is calculating how she can respond to win his continued attention and, hopefully, affection. It’s self-defeating but she doesn’t know it. Desperation consumes her earnestness.
  5. She overdoes whatever the situation calls for and appears to have some level of phoniness about her. Overdoing things crushes the appearance of sincerity.
  6. She shows an evident lack of sincerity that kills trust, which means that a guy’s respect does not develop.
  7. In short, he gets to figure out nothing about her except negatives, such as she’s boring, insincere, and not for his continued interest except for bedtime.
  8. If he’s a player, he says only enough to keep her talking herself right into his bed. If he’s the Marrying Man, he finds someone else.

These signs of her sincerity and his behaviors combine to add the “pleasantness” to feminine energy.

a. She enthuses him to continue talking to her, mostly all about himself. It enables her to uncover his interests, habits, and ways of thinking.

b. She doesn’t talk up her worthiness or how she can benefit him. Instead, she encourages his talking that brings out his character and personality and his good fortune that they add so much value to his persona and manliness.

c. His figuring out who and what she is in terms of worthiness to him gives him a sense of accomplishment followed by self-satisfaction. What he figures out goes to his heart as conviction that transmutes into belief for his future dealing with her.

d. He measures her worth by how sincerely interested she is and how attentively and appreciatively she follows his describing who he is and what he does. How she listens to him is a cardinal virtue when a man considers husbanding for a woman. When she proves it at first encounter and his conviction forms that she’s a sincere and interested listener for him, it brightens their future together.

e. While he does most of the talking, from feedback he figures out her character and specific qualities. Each that he admires becomes a virtue, and men want to marry a virtuous woman. So, the more he figures out, the more appealing and ultimately fascinating she becomes. It all develops in his heart from how she responds to his describing who he is and what he does.

In the course of their dialogue, each has a prime motivation.

  • She seeks to make herself important to him. Desperate women think they can do it with their words and proclaimed intention to please him forevermore. Smart women follow their nature. They make themselves important by enabling him to please himself talking about himself.
  • He’s seeks to conquer her. Rather than allowing him to pry into her and her life as the way to get her into bed, she defeats him with charming but not turn-off resistance. Examples: He mentions sex, she changes the subject to marriage. He inquires about her sexual status, practice, or past. She responds smilingly with “I don’t know you well enough,” or “It’s none of your business. Let’s change the subject.” Of course, each woman should have many ready-to-use responses that fit her own personality and determination. Her responses shouldn’t turn guys off but keep their interest up. She only diverts his interest temporarily, because his urge to conquer is always being figured out in the back of his mind.

Desperate women face desperate times during every encounter with a potential boyfriend. The cause of desperation starts with a woman’s belief that a boyfriend/husband will solve her problems. But what’s her problem? Loneliness? Keeping up with other women? Convinced she deserves better than she’s got?

The best recovery from those problems is greater belief in herself as deserving person, good woman, and potential mate. That will come with deeper study and understanding of what’s in this blog about the worth of the superior sex.


Filed under courtship, feminine, Fickle female, How she loses, How she wins, sex difference

2312. CAUSES and EFFECTS — Group 06

As women go, so goes society. American greatness arose and produced wealth like no other society because adventurous free men lived their dreams. Because they were free individuals to do so, men accomplished both great and little things simply to satisfy themselves.

Amid all the buildup of prosperity and wealth over several centuries, women tamed, married, civilized, and converted ambitious and competitive men into good husbands and devoted fathers. Through moral and religious leadership by example and constitutional empowerment of individuals, wives indirectly produced our family- and female-friendly Judeo-Christian culture out of two male-dominant religions.

That’s how it was a half-century ago. Wives led indirectly by moral and religious example. Slowly but according to the wishes of women, self-centeredness was minimized and self-interest centralized in the family. Even single men bought into the custom. Alongside husbands, bachelors inevitably married and were stimulated by how a good wife generates many benefits that encourage masculine ambitions and reinforce efficient accomplishments.

Men were convinced that marriage made them more functionally effective; providing and protecting seemed natural. Out of wifely indirect leadership, society kept evolving into more of a female- and family-friendly culture. Family life attracted all men; single men paid more attention to what wives produced and single women had little influence with men in the workforce except as bachelorettes awaited their own marriage and family.

Our representative democracy is designed to balance and smooth out the abuses of power that arise naturally because humans are motivated by self-interest. When women convince men to represent them in the daily struggles that men participate in, female interest gets promoted alongside masculine self-interest.

When life proceeds that way, wives have pillow talk and mealtime chats to make personal interests appealing to their man. That’s the marital model that enabled our American ancestors to build American greatness and avoid tyranny by the majority. In our case here, it means avoid tyranny of males over females. As wives, women held their own in the balance of gender power.

But not today. As bachelorettes and many wives are finding out, men are not all that interested in family-friendly matters. Single women choose masculine style sexual freedom, and as women go so goes society.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture & Politics, sex differences

2311. No Hymen, No Diamond

Her Highness Tooconfused has produced a clear and better description than mine of today’s marketplace of women choosing bad guys. With slight editing, I quote her below.

Actually, I’ve rearranged what she wrote so that it more clearly and directly challenges my article 2310. Extra credit given for completeness and clarity of thought.

She writes:

“[O]ur dating market has become so perverse and unholy that it is impossible to simply say women choose bad men.

“The dating market as of now (2015) is completely unstable. If society wasn’t polluted with feminism and leftoid thinking the scenario Guy describes would work. Women would meet and date men whose confidence and self worth resembled their own. Good women would marry good men.

“[W]omen are trying to marry good men but end up choosing the bad men? This might be easy to say from the male perspective. There are tons of situations where women are waiting for the better men to chase and pursue them but end up with bad men because many times these bad men make women feel very “comfortable”. They pursue and they don’t give up, tricking women into thinking that it is love. They are persistent. The better men nowadays have easier access to duty sluts and many of them no longer fight for the woman they truly want. They settle for easy access to sex. The lower quality woman may not be the catch they wanted but they sustain the male sex drive when it is at it’s highest (aka marrying age).

“For example it is quite common for very attractive chaste single women to be sitting on the bench getting no action while she sees her looser sisters dragging their boyfriends to the altar. Nobody is trying to choose bad men. The good men are with lower quality women as of today. The bad men get to pursue both the loose girls and the high quality chaste ladies.

“I’m pretty sure I’m not exaggerating. I just read the ‘letter’ post you did with the woman who was reaching out to her former “boyfriend”. This woman sounded like a high quality looker with a chaste lifestyle and she was dealing with a man who was going on and off. In what world would this make any sense? Only in 2015. 40 years ago this same woman would have been married and 40 years ago her man wouldn’t be so “on and off” because most women knew to be chaste before marriage therefore stripping men of all the easy options. The man would have had to make the decision to marry and lock her down.

“The good men marry convenient girls and they divorce because it was never real devotion – further polluting our marketplace. They are robbed of their natural hunt and conquer urge because the loose girl is right there waiting when the “game” they really want to nail on their wall requires good aim and persistence. Meanwhile the cads and alpha players continue to collect trophies – emotionally + physically conquering many women – gaining power in the sexual market they really shouldn’t have. The power is that they learn to understand the female mind and use it to their advantage. They can sleep with the duty sluts and then during the day hunt for the elusive trophy. You see? The jerks have nothing to lose. It is easier for a man to pursue a specific target if he isn’t so sexually needy. That same woman trophy is waiting for better men but again those men are all occupied with steady access to sex. The trophy – if she is stupid – will fall for the jerkboy. If she is smart she will be very lonely!

“Yes it is easy to just give up and throw in the towel. Just forget about being chaste, right? Nope. The good and bad men are still greedy jerks and their whole motto is no hymen no diamond. So you see you can’t just have fun and become a slut either! Just gotta play hard ball. *sigh*”


Filed under courtship, Culture & Politics, feminine, Fickle female, How she loses

2310. She Picks Bad Guys

Sir Eric describes how young girls and modern women attractively appeal and play to the best guys and then partner up with the worst. Their adult behavior flows out of poor programming of heart and mind in childhood. Adults before puberty teach or let them learn that they are bad. Teen peers both confirm and promote it as they associate with those of common interest and attitude.

Before puberty the girls are taught, allowed to think, or never convinced other than that they are bad. Parents, teachers, and others try to make girls feel better about themselves. They are catered to as deserving princesses to overcome their feeling bad about themselves. Nature doesn’t work that way.

The female subconscious knows that gifts and words of others symbolize that she’s important, but that doesn’t make her important, Only her own effort does, and it must be habitually reinforced before puberty.

Without their making themselves important to others, girls can easily be made or left to have feelings of inadequacy and unworthiness. It takes only a little prompting in childhood for it to morph into ‘I’m no good’ or ‘I’m bad’.

Very different from boys,* females are born to be good. However, proper programming of heart and mind requires that they do good in order to habitually confirm that they are a good person. To do good is to act in ways that make them important to others so that it registers as self-importance within them.

Enough earning of self-importance through their actions programs their heart and mind that they are good. If they become good to themselves, then they overcome the natural human vulnerability to being unworthy, undeserving, and—therefore so easily—bad.

Both sexes are born to earn their worth, to be deserving. Males earn it by accomplishments that satisfy themselves and make them significant and therefore deserving. Females earn it by living up to someone more important than themselves and thereby become worthy and deserving, which displace the deep-rooted thoughts of natural guilt that portend badness.

Girls who grow up living up to no one more important than themselves are the ones who link up with bad guys. Parents and peers teach improperly and those girls develop the habit of always seeing themselves as the most important. But self-importance doesn’t settle into their female hearts when they live mostly for themselves. Excess self-centeredness pushes them toward narcissism, which causes them to automatically presume they are unworthy—and bad is not far behind.

How easy is it for parents to convince daughters and peers to convince friends that girls, and they alone, are the most important person in their own lives? But those good intentions—the words of others—earn her nothing; they leave daughters and friends with the internal conviction that they are undeserving, inadequate, and unworthy. Although such girls hide it well by associating with good boys and men, hidden within is the overpowering belief that they are not good, which bad guys can easily detect and convince that it’s good for him and therefore best for the girls. As we all do, people gravitate toward those like them.

Females are especially vulnerable to finding the ‘bad’ in themselves. It’s why someone’s love is so strongly sought, why morality and religion are so important to women. They recognize their inherent need to be loved so they can forget how badly they can feel about themselves when they have no one else with whom they can prove their importance and earn self-importance.

After puberty girls becomes unsupervised amid peer-confirmed actions of their importance to self. They can’t share what they don’t have in their heart; they only need someone of common interest such as bad guys. Good boys and men don’t confirm their sense of badness, and so they seek the bad guys with whom they’re more comfortable, WADWMUFGAO.


*Boys are not born to be good but to do good. However, they must be taught and incentivized mostly by mothers, girls, women, and wives into making it habitual. Or else, they too presume they are undeserving, unworthy, and, ipso facto, bad or nearly so.


Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, feminine, Fickle female

2309. Favored Quotes—Collection 46

It was not always this way, but the blog has converted me. My favorite people are the steady performers, always reliable and usually predictable. In the case of this blog, it’s those who contribute witty, wise, and personal remarks aimed at entertaining or spreading kind words that encourage others. Such as those readers whom I quote in this series and who are especially uplifting for me.

Your total of 2.4 million views and 15,000 comments (not counting my responses) have kept me on track and living up to something bigger than me in addition to Jesus Christ. Your loyalty inspires me to pay closer attention.

I quote some favorites here:

“Men are visual creatures, women are auditory creatures in general so our vices play out differently.” [My Husband’s Wife at 1803]

“It helps to keep in mind that prior to marriage, you are the buyer and he is the seller. ALWAYS. A Mr. [Vague and Unavailable] tries to reverse these roles. Who wants a man like that? I certainly don’t!” [Cinnamon at 2029]

“Ha—that reminded of what Cato, the ancient Roman Senator once said: ‘We Roman men rule the men in the rest of the world, and Roman women rule us.’” [Eric at 2131]

“I have learned that your body is your biggest possession and it should only be given to the highest bidder aka the man that puts the effort and focus to earn the right by marriage. If I ever have a daughter I will teach her this. :-)” [Emma at 1792]

“Oh and I’m the same height as my husband so I wear flats mostly because I feel less feminine when I’m taller than him.” [MLaRowe at 2168. Success in life comes from exploiting such subtle differences.]

“PC is aimed at feelings, directness is aimed at the will.” [Sharon at 2162 quoting her husband.]

“After marriage, you get what you marry AND his friends. At least now, you have a choice.” [That Horse Is Dead at 2259]

“Why is she wasting her time trying to be pleasing to bosses who don’t really care about her life as her husband does? She may find out by reacting to [husband’s] feedback with femininity [that] she is fulfilling her own need for recognition.” [Sharonwithmaryandmartha at 1977]

“I looked up ‘run aground’ because I thought it sounded like a ship. HA! I was right… run aground with shallow thinking and not following her heart.” [Surfercajun at 2287]

“and just look around–few young women are being courted today. ANYWAY–this is why I HATE ROMANCE NOVELS.. and how a woman could ‘change a man’ with her sexuality. Men don’t change that way but only through femininity” [Miss Kitty at 2141]

“Many women I think are caught in a Limbo between their instincts and their social programming.” [Eric at 2287]

[Context: After she saw a musician stop to help a small boy retrieve something.] “Brute force with a suede touch. Masculinity at its finest!” [From Surfercajun at 2228]

“But again the WOMAN has the best knowledge on how to be a WOMAN. And it makes all the difference when she not only believes that, but cherishes the fact.” [Lady Kaikou at 897]

“So, while we can educate young girls and women on how to look for a man of quality character, we can’t make him demonstrate his masculinity without some ‘shock and awe’ therapy.” [That Horse Is Dead at 2203]

“It is important to remember that you cannot demand [how a man is to treat you]. You can act according to your own expectations in order to influence his thinking but you have to let go of whether or not a particular man rises to the occasion. If he does not meet your expectations (aided by your subtle encouragement) then he is the wrong man and you move on.” [Cinnamon at 1968]

“What it does show is that feminine desperation combined with feminist indoctrination can have lethal consequences if an especially dysfunctional male gets involved.” [Eric at 2129]


Filed under courtship, Dear daughter, feminine, marriage