Yes, You Should Blame Public Education for School Shootings.

You drop your kids off at school in the hopes that they will be protected, fed and (presumably) well educated.

Given that the government controls education, we instead receive what we have come to expect from all of the “services” that the government provides: services provided badly, with minimal innovation and at an outrageously high cost.  In essence it is the exact opposite of what we have come to demand from the private sector, which provides us with items of ever-increasing quality combined with ever-declining cost, just imagine what $1,000 worth of a personal computer gets you today versus what that got you a mere 15 years ago!

Immediately following the horrific Sandy Hook School Shootings, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre dared to suggest that “the only thing that stops a bad-guy with a gun, is a good-guy with a gun.”

The only way to answer that question is to face the truth. Politicians pass laws for gun free school zones, they issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And, in doing so, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk. – Wayne LaPierre, 2012

Gun-controlling Liberals scoff at the idea.  They jeer, joke and jest at the very notion that a firearm can be used to protect and preserve life.  Instead, they propagate bizarre notions that guns can be eradicated with the waive of a magic wand, that if they can ban just one more “scary-looking” rifle like the AR-15, or another arbitrary cosmetic feature, or additional background checks, that gun-related tragedies will no longer happen.  By the gun-controllers’ reasoning, by lumping in the overwhelming majority of peace-loving, law-abilding gun owners in with the bad guys, they will prevent another gun-related homicide from ever taking place.

The epitome of hypocrisy: “Do as I say, not as I do.”  Every gun-hating liberal politician protects his life and the lives of his immediate family members with guns.  The fact that they delegate that responsibility to armed guards, or in the case of former President Barack Obama, with Secret Service agents, does not belay the fact that gun-grabbers are outright hypocrites.  Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel, Diane Feinstein and the rest all have protected their lives with guards and guns that taxpaying Americans (that’s you and I) paid for.

The epitome of Liberal Elitism: “If you can’t afford to outsource your protection to a licensed armed-guard service, then too bad for you!”  That about sums it up, doesn’t it?  Armed protection becomes a luxury item reserved for the rich and politically powerful.  Dim-witted pseudo-celebrities like Kim Kardashian, who regularly relies on the services of bodyguards, has taken up the hollywood pet-hobby of pleading for gun control.

Blame and over-regulate guns as a response to school shootings?

With clockwork reliability, left-liberals demand that the government step in and fail to solve a problem that the government itself creates.

You are compelled by way of forced-taxation to pay for a public educational system that neither educates, nor protects your children in a reliable, safe and friendly manner.  It is yet another failing of the big-government monopoly.  End of story.

Children who are unfortunate enough to be stuck in the modern-day gulag that is government education are unsafe across the board:

  • They are unsafe from the dangerous goals and ideologies of far-left extremists, such as neo-marxist ideologies, postmodernist philosophies, extreme feminism and gender-reconstructionism.
  • They are unsafe from physical harassment by bullies, gangs and other forms of student-on-student abuse.
  • They are unsafe from would-be predators that see unprotected school grounds as welcome targets for shootings.

All of these issues are direct results of the environment that children are forced to be in, and a crappy product that you are forced to pay for.

Safety is Just Another High-valued Commodity, one that the Government is Unwilling to Provide.

What if the education of children were left exclusively to the free market?

What can we be assured will happen?

Competition will reign supreme, as it does in the tech sector.  Competitors will do their best to offer ever-increasing quality of education for ever-declining cost to the parents.  Business-to-business training programs will also become more prevalent, as companies will be happy to train the next generation of employee-hopefulls with the exchange of greater brand recognition and community involvement.

Secondly, we will see greater diversity in what our kids will be learning, and the content of this education will better tailor itself to each child’s unique talents, gifts and needs.  If there’s one thing that socialized education ensures, it’s that everybody gets the same garbage: leftist, post-modernist, social-justice-gender-reconstructionist trash is pawned off on us as “education.”

And last, but not least, you (the parent) as the ultimate consumer, demand that if you are going to leave your children in another’s care, that your children be protected.

My local Chase Bank always has an armed guard on the premises.  Why?  You have to ask?  The bank values its customers, and its customers value their safety and their money.  Any would-be bank robber would be more likely to rob an unguarded bank than a guarded one.

The presence of an armed guard can be intimidating to some people, so at our bank, the guard also functions as a greeter.  He smiles at you when you walk in the door, and asks you how your day is going.  Instant feeling of safety and rapport.

Florida Armed & Unarmed Security Guards in the Tampa, St ...

At every school that I have attended in my life: from preschool to elementary school, to highschool and then college, not one of these institutions had a single armed guard on duty or full-time police presence.  Not one of them.

Let’s compare and contrast the free-market solution to the government solution, shall we?

  • Cash deliveries and stocking ATM machines – protected with armed guards because money is valuable.
  • High-profile banks – protected with armed guards because the bank regards their customers and the money of their customers as valuable.
  • Retail establishments – certain malls and retail establishments employ armed guards because they value their property.
  • Rich hollywood actors and dipshit It-girls – employ armed guards to prevent stalkers, harassers and potential kidnappers.
  • Liberal elite politicians at all levels – exempt themselves from anti-carry laws or use the services of protective agencies such as the Secret Service to protect their lives from would-be attackers.
  • Public Schools and Universities – blame the guns and gun-owners when something bad happens.

Are you starting to see the problem?  The differences in the mindsets between my pro-second-amentment allies and the left, is as stark as the difference between fantasy and reality.  The gun-haters are happy to accept the protection that guns provide them, so long as they are rich and powerful enough to have someone else do it for them.  In the real-world, most of us have to fend for ourselves.  When something bad happens with a gun at the hand of a crazy madman, liberals blame the gun, and their political opponents, the “bitter clingers.”

If a nutcase had decided to attack the University that I once attended, he would have been met with a “gun free zone,” (i.e. sitting ducks), because relatively all adults in the state of California are barred from carrying weapons, to say the least about supposedly “gun friendly” states that still ban college students from carrying on campus.  Said homicidal maniac, similar to the Virginia Tech Shooter, would have been met with minimal resistance, just a crowd of fleeing, screaming college kids.  There are no armed guards or full-time campus cops.  Someone would have had to call the police and wait upwards of 10-20 minutes (at best) for them to assess the situation and respond.

Which would you rather send your child to: a run-of-the-mill, “duck-and-pray” public school, or a private sector school with twenty-or-so, vetted, trained, helpful, friendly and VERY armed security guards?


The War on Masculinity is Real

Our Jobs as Re-education Camps

It is not a great time to be a man in the First World.  We’re told that we are bad.  Why are we bad?  Because we are patriarchal, hierarchical, and stronger physically than most of our female counterparts.  Apart from that fact that we are the ones who are shipped off (historically speaking) to die in wars, we are blamed for all the wars.  We created the philosophies of liberty, capitalism and tolerance that sparked the flame of the western world.

Enter: Postmodernism: everything must be equal!  If all jobs across all job categories do not show 50/50 distribution between males and females, then something must have gone wrong, and that something must be (you guessed it), SEXISM! GLASS CEILING! PATRIARCHY!

Of course, this isn’t true, because men and women choose different careers due to their inherent biological, psychological and (dare I say it) spiritual distinctive differences.  When former Google developer James Damore dared to challenge the company orthodoxy via an internal memo, he was summarily terminated for his heinous thought-crime.

Those who challenge the great witch-hunt shall be branded a witch!  Burn him!


Culture is SO Not Your Friend!

The great Terence McKenna once said that “Culture is not your friend.”  Unfortunately he did not live long enough to see the flood of television shows and movies that I would call “Deliberately-contrarian-wave-feminist.”

The 2016 reboot of the classic comedy-horror film Ghostbusters is one such piece.  “What’s wrong with all-female casts,” you ask?  Well, nothing, except for the fact that this film was quite obviously, DELIBERATELY CONTRARIAN in nature, as if to thumb its nose at the all-male-led cast that came before it.

Image result for ghostbusters 2016 film
Now it’s HIS turn to be the secretary, get it?

Actor Chris Hemsworth, noted for playing such masculine roles as the archetypal god Thor in Marvels Avengers, is the lowly and bumbling office bitch to the new Ghostbusters.  If this doesn’t send a message, I don’t know what does.

The 7th Season of Game of Thrones is chock-full of obvious feminist branding.  First we have R.R. Martin/HBO’s fetish for castrated men: Grey Worm, Varys and Theon Greyjoy.

We were treated to Daenerys Targaryen’s war council on the island of Dragonstone: all women: Lady Sand, Lady Olenna Tyrell, Yara Greyjo, and (of course) The Mother of Dragons herself.  If this series didn’t turn out to be anti-male enough for your liking, Daenerys is advised by two well-behaved castrates and a dwarf.

Image result for daenerys with olenna

If the all-female Dragonstone war council scene didn’t send a strong enough message for you, the HBO writers were kind enough to smack us in the face with their leftist-feminist inklings.  Lady Olenna offers to give young Dany some almost-grandmotherly advice,

“…I’ve known a great many clever men.  I’ve outlived them all.  You know why?  I ignored them.” named HBO’s Game of Thrones one of the 10 Feminist TV Shows to Tune into This Summer.

Let’s not forget the upcoming season of American Horror Story, framed as a never-Trump piece.

What liberal Hollywood?!

The Anti-male Climate of Academia

Thinking back to my (mostly unhappy) college days, what did my sociology professors force me to read?

Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher, a rambling, nonsensical tome in which the author emotes about girls’ feelings in the place of actual data.

Men’s Work by Paul Kivel.  Kivel literally equates glancing at a women’s breasts, working out to look tougher, or watching pornography, as contributing to the “culture of violence” against women.

We were also required to attend “Commitment to Character Training.”  One such session necessitated that all male students attend a talk by a female victim of date rape, who held all men accountable for such crimes, lest they “take a stand against rape.”

This was in the early-2000’s, before “Safe Spaces” and “Affirmative Consent.”  Yes, this means that college men are summarily deemed to be rapists unless they ask permission for any and all sexual activities, no implied consent allowed?  May I kiss you now?  How about now?  How about here?  How about there?

Unfortunately such ritual tormenting of men hasn’t stopped there.  Universities have asked that physically fit male students cover up their muscles so that they don’t appear threatening to other students.  Some campuses allow for spaces that forbid whites and/or males from entering.  Other colleges toy with the idea of gender-neutral school uniforms (that are basically SKIRTS).

To all this, I say, speak up and say, “NO!”  Remember that redefining values is the calling-card of a nihilistic, postmodernist philosophy that denies the existence of any objective reality.  “We’re only against toxic masculinity, it’s not toxic if we redefine it.”  Of course, if masculinity can be “redefined” into anything the leftists want, then there is no such thing as inherent “masculine” traits, is there?  Any academic who uses the words “toxic masculinity,” is in fact saying that “masculinity IS toxic,” a-la Paul Kivel and his ilk.  “Men’s Work,” indeed.

What IS masculinity?  Power, strength, competency and leadership, physical power.  This does not mean that masculinity must exist without morality or virtue.  The word “virtue” comes from the Latin word “vir,” for “man.”  Express your manhood!


How the Oedipus Complex Destroys Men

Disclaimer: The following is for informational and entertainment purposes only.  This is not medical advice, I am not a medical doctor or psychotherapist.  Always first consult with your doctor. 

“The Oedipus Complex”

It sounds weird and obscene.  It’s taboo, so much so that we try not to talk about it, or at best, marginalize it as “just another weird theory that Freud had.”

What comes to your mind when the term comes up?

“Oedipus Complex?  Doesn’t that have something to do with fucking your own mother?  I don’t want to fuck my mother.  That is so weird and disgusting.”

The Myth of Oedipus is exactly that, A MYTH, and therein lies its incredible power (read: The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell).  Myths are templates of human experience, they serve to guide us through the mysteries of life.  Unraveling the intricacies of family dynamics and human psycho-sexual development was Sigmund Freud’s calling in life.  By a turn of Fate, Freud was invited to watch a presentation of Oedipus Rex, a Greek tragedy about a man who unknowingly beds his own mother.  Freud had an epiphany, and gave “The Oedipus Complex” the name that it so aptly deserves.

Ok, so you haven’t literally fucked or married your mom.  But, if you are one of us “lost men,” that is – one of us men that struggles to define our own masculinity in a world of collapsing values, then chances are – you have fucked, dated and perhaps married a template of your mother.  Ergo, you have an Oedipus Complex.

The Oedipus Complex does not mean that a man is fucking his biological mother, but rather The Mythological Mother.  The Mythological Mother is the template of a female-caretaker that we all have, and it serves us well – when we’re infants.

The Pathology of the Latent Oedipus Complex

So, do you struggle with women?  Do the women in your life look for ways to boss you around or control you?  Do they tell you how to look, how to dress, how to drive, and how you should or shouldn’t make money?  Are you her emotional caretaker?  Is she your emotional caretaker, or do you take turns playing that role?  Have you ever dated a “basket-case,” or a “diamond in the rough?”  Have you played the role of rescuer?  Do you explode in a furious rage when the woman you have rescued fails to return the laurels of appreciation, loyalty and respect you thought you deserved?

If any of the above rings true for YOU – read on, dear traveler!

So WHY do these issues come up, and what does it have to do with the Toxic Oedipus Complex, and (most importantly), how do I heal from it?  How do I get rid of it?

Let’s clear the air on a few things: first, the Oedipus Complex isn’t a bad thing for infant boys.  Mother is the giver of protection and nourishment, she is “emotional home-base.”  Mom is safety, and a really amazing person.  To boys up to four years of age, there is no difference between attachment, emotional dependency, physical dependency, and infatuation.  “Mom is amazing, I love Mom, I am in love with mom, I might even want to marry Mom.”

If you are lucky enough to have had a present father-figure in your life (which is becoming a rarer and rarer occurrence by the day),  then you would have seen this strange “man creature” as a competitive threat to the possessive attachment that you had toward your mother.

If you need hard evidence of this, check out the following video.  Here, the infant boy sees his father kiss his mother, which he instantly attempts to emulate.

No, it is NOT the Same for Girls!

For males, the steps in development are intensely more critical than it is for girls.  By this, I mean that for males, the developmental stages are much more sensitive to change: if one element is missing, the whole house of cards collapses – leaving us to a life prone to dysfunction, addiction, melancholy and misery.  With girls it seems that their nature is more fluid.  A girl can be a tomboy or a girly-girl, no problem.

“But girls have a version of this called the Electra Complex and it is the same!”

Well, not really.  Women might have an Electra Complex, but it isn’t necessarily toxic.  If their father was a strong man and a good provider, and she grows up looking for “Dad” in the role of a strong man and a good provider, then there is no dysfunction here.

BUT us men, if we are adults and we have an Oedipus Complex, then that IS and ALWAYS IS dysfunctional.

Dad’s Job is to Break the Oedipus Complex

So again, back to DAD.  What’s his job?  Dad appears to be a hostile takeover force to your infantile fantasy-attachment to mom, and that’s his first job, which is to be a role model of manhood to you and put you in your place a little bit.

He is mysterious and his relationship to your mom is mysterious.

This is true because the sex and sex-chemistry between Mom and Dad is (and should be) a complete mystery to a little boy.  Mom and Dad have some sort of attachment via some unknown channel, and there is an unknown power in there that I, as a boy-child, do not understand or possess.

So, Dad is a mysterious ape who threatens my perfect emotional-womb-like enmeshment with Mom, but he also possesses strange and special powers, powers that I might like to have.

Dad comes home with a box from the furniture store.

You: What’s that Dad?

Him: It’s an end-table, want to help me put it together?

You pause for a minute, unsure.

You:  What’s an end-table?

Him:  It’s for there next to the couch.

You: YOU’RE going to put it together from all the pieces in that BOX?!

Him:  Yeah, wanna help me?

You:  Yes!

It is important that we not dismiss this activity as mundane.  This is Ritual Manhood, and provided that you have a GOOD DAD (also fucking rare these days), he will understand the gravity of these rituals and exercise patience.  The goal is not only to build the end-table, but also to foster his young boy’s growth.

To a boy, mom represents dependence.  Dad offers independence.  Independence is earned through competency, and competency is earned through trial-and-error.

The Pathological Mother

Per Dr. Jordan Peterson, “The standard pathology of mom is that she did everything for you… there’s nothing outside of mother instead of a nurturer of infants, you just keep them [her children] infants.”

As Dr. Peterson says, it is indeed “an ugly thing” for a mother to keep her children infants forever.  Peterson also distinguishes between “infants” and “children,” rightfully so, because children can develop independence and competency far beyond that of a helpless infant.

Dad’s job is to break the infant-bonds by encouraging his son to embrace competency, strength and independence.  A good mother who is both emotionally secure and, shall we say, NOT FUCKING CRAZY (is that a technical term?), will encourage the male bonding experiences as well, and know to back off and let go when necessary.

The tragedy of the Toxic Oedipus complex occurs when the boy fails to receive these initiatory steps appropriately so that he can grow into “his own skin” as a young man.
This happens when:

Dad is absent physically (the boy never had a present father figure).
Dad is absent emotionally (Dad is there physically but doesn’t seem to care, is distracted, wrapped up in his own nonsense or otherwise is not involved).
Dad is there but is mentally-emotionally diseased himself, is a “feminist man,” lets his wife wear the pants or otherwise neglects his role as leader in his son’s upbringing.
Mom is overbearing, controlling and obsessively nurturing beyond the child’s appropriate age-range.
Mom takes it upon herself to rewrite biology to serve her own ideological or political affirmations, such as “I’m going to raise him to be a Perfect Little Man,” or “I am going to raise a non-gender-conforming son,” or “I am not going to let my kid play with toy swords, toy guns or other symbols of violence and patriarchy.”
Either parent is shaming, which is a death-blow to the child’s autonomy and development.

The Oedipus Complex is dysfunctional because Toxic Shame is the inevitable result.

Toxic Shame

When a boy grows into a man with an overprotective, overbearing mother, he does become the perfect and virtuous “Anti-patriarchal, feminist white-knight” that the Social Justice crowd would like him to be.  Instead, the only thing that a man with such a mother internalizes is Toxic Shame in the form of unconscious messages, “I am no good, I am incompetent  I need a woman to take care of me because I am sick and weak.  I am just a little infant on the inside.”

The Oedipus man doesn’t want a woman, he needs one, because he needs to be taken care of emotionally.  In the extreme cases, he may live with his mother until he is thirty years old (or older), the rest of us will simply move out and date woman after woman who severs “as mom” in some such capacity.

I remember having male friends who were complete slobs: their lives were a mess literally, financially and emotionally.  I had one friend who would throw his dirty clothes on the floor instead of putting them away in the hamper.  On the weekends his girlfriend would come over, nag him about his sloppy habits and pick up his clothes and wash them for him.

Is this not the adulthood re-enactment of “shitting all over oneself?”  As an infant, my friend shit on himself and looked to his mommy to clean up his diaper-shit.  As an adult, he finds adult-level symbols for the same things.  His literal “shit” becomes ritualized talismans for “shit,” such that he can partake in the infant-ritual: he plays the infant and his girlfriend plays the caretaking mom!

Toxic Fathers can do their fair share in damaging a boy.  Instead of asking you to help him put the side-table together, he tells you to fuck off and that you’ll “Just mess it up again!”  Nice.  Fathers like this are shaming because they use their sons as means of resolving their own feelings of incompetency and inadequacy.

My father used to tease and belittle me ruthlessly.  When I was around eight years old I developed a weight issue.  A father who cares would look at this issue and say, “Let’s see what we need to do to get Devin healthy, should we adjust his diet or hire a nutritional counselor?”  No, I didn’t get that, instead what I got from my father was, “You’re too FAT and I don’t want to raise a FAT KID, I’m going to hide the cookies from you so that you can’t find them.  I’m sick of you being FAT.”

An abusive father is a guaranteed recipe for disaster, if the boy learns that “Dad is no good.”  Because Dad represents the mythological template for manood, the boy will ultimately believe that “men are no good,” but because he is also a male, this inevitably be internalized as, “I am no good.”

The shamed-man has one hell of dilemma.  On the one hand he is hiding from every aspect that represents maleness: dominance, leadership, participation in patriarchy, strength, all those good things that women are attracted to.  He hates maleness but must wrestle with the fact that is IS a male.  Pathology is the only outcome.

The Oedipus Complex Destroys a Man’s Success with Women
Quality women (that is, the good-looking, intelligent and desirable ones), will always reject a man who has a Latent Oedipus Complex.  They can “smell it on you,” meaning that women can see the signs.  What is it that she’s noticing?

Superficially most of you already know what women really look for (outside of what the politically-correct-thought-police SAY women want).  Women like a guy with attitude, a guy who stands up to them, a guy who represents strength qualities, a guy who is a leader.

These are all indicators of Male Ego Development.  Ego is simply an individuals adult sense of self.  In the case of those suffering from Oedipal Complexes, the sense of self is stunted and underdeveloped.   Many dating coaches advocate feigning confidence and attitude, with advice such as “act more confidently,” or “don’t call her for a week to look like you’re not desperate.”  Such advice like this is ultimately pointless.  What good is it to pretend not to be needy if you still feel needy?!  What good is it to not act desperate if you still feel desperate?  I dare to say that, unless the Oedipus complex is fully resolved, these feelings of low self-worth and inadequacy will continue to surface and wreck havoc with your relationships.

The Resolution to the Oedipus Complex

Resolving the Oedipus Complex involves challenging your emotional development, which will always involve a certain sense of discomfort.  A dysfunctional and abusive childhood results in stunting primary Ego development.  The only way to resolve this is to invest in and develop your Ego.  Notice that the more an individual is suffering from the Oedipus Complex, or Nice-guy Syndrome (read: No More Mr. Nice Guy), the more amoral and upsetting the idea of having an Ego will be.  “I’m not supposed to have an Ego, that’s bad and unenlightened!  Only assholes have Egos!”

While it is true that Ego, when overdeveloped and maligned, produces narcissism and an unrealistic sense of self-importance, the opposite extreme is just as toxic.  Oedipus-sufferers use fear of developing an inflated Ego as an excuse to run from Ego development in any capacity.  “I don’t want to be like one of those jerks!” It is every man’s right and responsibility to develop his own Ego.

Ego Development, Plain & Simple

By “Ego,” I mean it exactly as you have come to understand it in our popular culture, as simply “attitude.”  Having an Ego means that you have internalized and are aware of your own self-worth.

Develop an attitude!  Believe it!  Run over the reasons in your mind that make you believe that you are an amazing person!   Show it off a little!  Do it!

One cannot feel ashamed and proud at the same time.  Pride, therefore, is the only antidote to the toxic shame that comes inevitably with a neglectful father and/or an overbearing, consuming mother.

Ego is nothing short of emotional independence.  Most of us men who struggle with emotional difficulties wear the “mask” of adulthood: we go to work, we brush our teeth and we pay our bills on time.  However, when it comes to our emotional independence from women, we’re lost in that department.

Attitude and Ego come hand-in-hand, because Attitude is your personality’s expression of it’s right-to-exist.

Anti-male Public Shaming Rituals Go Viral #HeForShe

The Social Media Lynch Mob

It was hailed as the dawn of the ‘Web 2.0’ era.  The internet was (again) regarded as humankind’s most significant bastion of free speech and personal expression.   What is it becoming?  An angry mob of hyper-sensitive, overreactive twitterites who seem hell-bent on breathing new life into the once-distasteful cause known as “political correctness.”

Perhaps the reason why the NSA and other government agencies have gotten away with such blatant invasions of our privacy is because a large percentage of americans have no regard for privacy at all – their own or anyone else’s.  What this means is that if some damning piece of personal information about you should get out, even if what you did is perfectly legal, it is your fellow citizens that you should fear – not just the government.  Case in point: Brendan Eich and his short-lived tenure as CEO of Mozilla Corporation.

more “Anti-male Public Shaming Rituals Go Viral #HeForShe”