Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

Strong Fathers=Strong Anti-Feminist Daughters: Margaret Thatcher

April 25, 2013

I watched a documentary tonight on Margaret Thatcher, the recently deceased, long-time right-wing British prime minister. It aired tonight on New York’s local public television station, and surely the commies there must have gnashed their teeth, as it mostly praised the “Iron Lady,” whose politics led Britain from near bankruptcy and turmoil of the 1970s caused by left-wing policies to the prosperity of the “Cool Brittania” 1990s (which Tony Blair’s left-wing Labour Party took credit for, but only by adopting much of Mrs. Thatcher’s economic policies).

Now the documentary flashed back a few times to her youth. Thatcher was a plain-faced girl; she was no great beauty in her youth, despite several politicians trying to paint her as such. She had a rather man-jaw appearance for her time (still more feminine than the muscular beasts of today, however), as well as a lazy eye. She was, all in all, a good example, physically, of the common potato-sack English country girl that have disappointed many a foreigner foraging England for tasty bits to eat. They are not as fat as American girls, but we still have a baseline of beauty in the U.S. (excluding our descendant-of-slave women, natch) that exceeds England’s roses; no wonder so many English men fantasize about an American lass (Ted Hughes, John Cleese, hell, Russell Brand anyone?).

Given her flawed appearance and above-average intelligence—she was an Oxbridge girl— in today’s world, Mrs. Thatcher would have been told, nay, ordered to think that she was a lesbian. And had her father left her family, as so many do today, or been a weak man, her lack of father figure would have made her easy prey to the feminist lies that so easily slip in when men do not slam the door in their faces. Dykes would have stalked her to and fro, and “sexual experimentation” would have been set upon her to fill the void of a father figure. She would have grown to hate men, loathe men, blame men for to loving her, not taking care of her—and demand the state fill the void. The wolves of perversion most easily slip into meadows where no sheep dogs lie to protect tender, weak lambs.

But no; she had a strong father.

One solid reason for the rise of feminism—the “feminazi loop” as I think of it—is the percentage of women and men who grow up with single-parent (re: female) households. The more this has increased, the more feminism has risen. And the more feminism has risen, the more men have checked out of marriage; the more weak men, subservient to women, have bowed down to their wives and feminism; and the more transient men have become “temporary daddies” to the daughters of the women they fuck. All this allows daughters to feel a whole in their lives where fathers should have been, to feel abandoned, and to have that abandonment easily turned to hatred for the men not in their lives.

But Margaret Thatcher’s father was different, as the documentary (and evidence) shows. Thatcher’s father was not the bumbling simpleton of modern sitcoms, content to be pushed around by a domineering wife–which is the story a feminazi would have you believe causes strong women who lead. Nor was he some terrible tyrant who inspired great hatred in Thatcher for his evil, making for a narrative about Thatcher being some social crusader against evil Patriarchy. Nor did he abandon the family, thus making some narrative about how Thatcher learned how to be strong from a “strong, independent womyn,” i.e. her mother.

No: Mrs. Thatcher’s father, Alfred Roberts, was a self-made man (a dirty term to many British) who built himself from a poor boy with no employment into a successful businessman, local politician, and local church leader. He lectured strongly but lovingly to his daughters, and probably encouraged Margaret, the smart but plain one, to do chemistry at college (which she did major in) so that the plain girl could have better prospects for a husband (as nerdy men would be less picky) or a solid career should no man take her (STEM degrees, then as now, never suffer for demand like fluffy humanities do).

But his most important job was as the moral and intellectual shaper of his children’s lives. He lectured them from the pulpit and the dinner table. He emphasized frugality and never spending more than what you had, and lived by such an example—he seldom, if ever, borrowed money. He encouraged modesty and femininity in tune with self-confidence; a combination any historian can recognize in the best females of history, but is alien to the twisted dogma of feminazis today. He filled his home with the intellectual discourse of conservative-libertarian thought that he followed, and made his daughters read the same. He taught them that self-reliance was one of man’s highest goals, and that shame, not greedy palms, should mark the hands of those who needed a handout. People, not laws of the state, should help those in need. He enforced Christian, patriotic, dutiful morality upon them, through example, lecture, and testing. And he kept them from the idle froppery and lazy self-indulgence that many rising-class families can suffer. He demanded a feminine daughter, and he got her.

As a result, Margaret Thatcher did not grow up hating men, become a lesbian, sire brats out of wedlock, or demand a totalitarian welfare state. Instead, she valued men, especially her father. As the documentary points out, he was largely the most important person in her life; one of the only ways to make her lose her cool was to insult him. She loved the man, and his strength gave her the strength to save her nation. She never doubted herself, or used her femininity to claim that she was a victim (Hilary Clinton, anyone?); she refused to have herself, or her nation be womanish victims, as her piercing actions against the many union rioters (stirred up by KGB agitators, no doubt, and forerunners of our Occutards) and the Argentinians in the Falkland Islands war show.

Perhaps the most touching moment of the documentary is her T.V. interview following her victory in the Falklands, where she is happiest that not one more British solider or sailor will be at risk. This is especially touching considering that, just before, the documentary showed peaceniks blaming her for “needlessly” attacking Argentinian ships. Mrs. Thatcher angrily replies she attacked a ship “supposedly” not doing anything for one reason—to save British military boys whom those Argentinian ships threatened.

This women loved masculinity, and masculinity in one of its highest forms: military men patriotically dying in battle.

The shame cast on all feminists is that this towering figure of history—this woman–is never possible in a feminazi-made world. It was only a strong father that could make a daughter love men, deplore left-wing thought and all its weak, blame men, celebrate female-illogic bullshit.

Strong fathers=strong women. Women unafraid to love men, and to rip man-hating feminazis and other leftists a new one.

R.I.P. Iron Lady. For you truly were equal parts lady and iron.

Stupidity, Thy Name is Kayla Monster

December 7, 2012

Here’s a typical idiot, a left-wing “womyn” trying to argue that Atlas Shrugged” is stupid, without ever having read it.

Read her post here, and then come back for my counter below. I posted it as a comment today, but I doubt she has the balls or intellectual capacity to allow it through moderation—the “too mean/too nasty/stop pointing out I’m stupid!”-hamster logic of a woman.

This is the kind of stupidity feminism hath wrought.

————————————————

God, this is dumb. You fail so hard. You must be a woman.

1. You admit you that “I still haven’t read Atlas Shrugged.” And yet you discern from only the first page that, in Atlas Shrugged, “Rand chose Atlas for her Titan because the image of Prometheus would destroy her entire argument. Cherry-picking the evidence, she took traits from both brothers, combining the (incorrect) image of Atlas holding the world on his shoulders with Prometheus’ compassion.”

Um, what? What proof do you offer that Rand painted her “Atlas”-folk as compassionate?

None.

In fact, Rand never said Atlas ever acted out of compassion. She deplored charity, compassionate religions (well, all religions), and altruism. She was a very strong proponent of the notion that people should act selfishly.

Nowhere does Atlas Shrugged say that Atlas acts out of compassion. And your ignorant statement that it does only underscores your assertion that you haven’t read it. If you’re going to make a statement about what a piece of writing says, you have to read it first.

In other words, your criticism as to why Rand didn’t name it Prometheus Unchained is completely invalid.

Ignoramous.

2. To start, Atlas isn’t carrying the world on his shoulders. He’s carrying the sky

—Yawn. Weak criticism. Common artistic interpretations of Atlas are of his holding the earth on his shoulders, and most people who are not Ancient Greek scholars/heavily into ancient Greek myth study would make that error. Given that the metaphor is well understood (“having the world on your shoulders”), it’s pathetic of you to require it of Rand. Are you going to require it of the thousands of artists who created images of Atlas holding up globes?

What is more, think of the metaphor of Sisyphus. If we describe a task as “Sisyphean”, does that mean we think it’s a punishment for betraying the trust of someone, or murdering houseguests? No? Because that’s what Sisyphus did to earn his torments. But artistic interpretation and common usage have both come to use the phrase “sisyphean” as merely a task that is endless, monotonous, burdensome, and pointless.

Unless you’re going to start scolding and dismissing thousands of artists (poets, prose writers, sculptors, painters, musicians, etc.) who have used these commonly accepted meanings of the Atlas and Sisyphus myths, I’d suggest leaving the cheap-grad-school-like nitpicking behind on this one.

Moron.

3. Disregarding the myths, she created a new one, where Atlas’ punishment is self-inflicted, the result of a societally-created belief in the virtues of compassion.

—Wrong again, stupid.

Atlas’s punishment in Rand’s world is that he holds up the burdens of the entire world—the finance, the innovation, the tax burdens, the governments, the technology, everything.

Rand didn’t believe everyone was the same or equal in ability or importance. Rand believed that there were some incredibly smart, incredibly talented people whose accomplishments and self-interest benefited society greatly—and without these few, the vast majority would founder. Call it her own version of the Great Man Theory.

In Rand’s world, it is their self-interest that supports the world and its burdens—but if the world asked too much of them, they will show the world who supports whom.

Again, like an idiot, your arguing that Rand claimed these Great Men had compassion or should have it. Nothing of the sort.

Liar.

4. Atlas can’t shrug, because if he somehow managed it, Zeus would come by and stick the heavens right back on his shoulders.

—-Except that the world trembles, and, if done completely, it falls crashing down.

The point of Rand’s story is what happens if Atlas (again, using the common artistic metaphor of holding the world on his shoulders) momentarily “shrugs.” He could shrug the world off his shoulders completely, thereby bringing it crashing down. Or he could just give a minor shrug—causing the world to rattle, shake, and its inhabitants to fall down in stupor and terror.

Which is the point of Rand’s story—which you could see if you’d even bothered to do a modicum of research of even the base plot outline (or, you know, like an intelligent person, read the book).

When the Atlases of the story—the genius, self-interested capitalists–shrug, they merely refuse to work anymore due to onerous social and governmental requirements/punishments. In the story, the economy and transit of the US grind to a half–because it was precisely the Altases who kept them going.

Yes, in the myth, Zeus may come back and “force” the world back on Atlas’s shoulders—but, should Atlas not be pleased with his burden, the people of the world will be punished again, as he will “shrug” again when Zeus is not looking, causing the world to fall apart again (and this will result in fewer sacrifices for Zeus and the gods, who need the people’s sacrifices to survive).

And here we see another meaning of the metaphor of the shrug. When a person “shrugs”, they express a disinterest or uncaring and dismissive attitude towards a subject. “Atlas Shrugs” also means the self-interested “doers” of Rand’s world simply do not care if the world falls apart due to their actions—they “shrug” at the problems, and are only self-interested. As they accomplish their goals in “going Galt”, we can see that “shrugging” at the problems of the world in pursuit of your own goals is a positive in Rand’s book.

I realize this is a bit beyond you, since you’re too ignorant to read something you’re criticizing , but the point isn’t that Zeus would put the globe right back on Atlas’s shoulders.

The point of the title-metaphor is at least two fold: to show what happens when common people punish society’s producers for no crime, and to show the attitude that the producer’s should have towards such punishers.

Philistine.

5. this is the same woman who went on Medicare late in her life, but did it under a false name; to admit she needed help from the government would have been to admit the flaws in her ideas.

—LMAO ROFL.

Here’s where you show yourself to be truly dumb. And I’ll bet you think this is a “strong” criticism.

Home mortgage deduction: Let’s say a person hates the home mortgage deduction tax deduction that we get from the IRS. This person thinks it’s both inefficient and a revenue killer for government, and that it screws up the housing market (even more than Fannie Mae,/Freddie Mac/FHA loans/and Al Sharpton already have). This person rail against it and think says publicly and loudly that we should abolish it.

Does he need to forgo the tax deduction on his next tax bill to prove he’s not a hypocrite?

No.

This person identified what he sees as a flaw in the system. He believes that if everyone had it taken away, the country would be better off. However, given that such a flaw still exists the next time he does his taxes, his forgoing it would do nothing. Those people he hates would use it, become richer, and market would still be screwed up, and his energies would be diverted from railing against the inefficiency to earning money to make up for the loss of not applying for the tax deduction. His actions do nothing but punish him from feeding at the tragedy of the commons.

This man’s taking the mortgage deduction does not affect his credibility.

Hypocrisy would be saying that something is morally or legally evil/wrong, being “caught” doing it, and yet claim the same punishments he put on others should not be put on him.

Like that fine lefty Eliot Spitzer.

A poor person can recognize that the Welfare State keeps many poor from moving up. However, he can still collect from it while railing against it. A great-scoring hockey player can recognize the stupidity of the penalty shot format in a tied game and holler against it at union meetings, but still can participate in it while it is part of the rules. A lawyer could think that the Fifth Amendment is a ludicrous idea and should be abolished, but still advise his clients to take it on the stand while it is still good law.

Perhaps this kind of nuanced, deep thinking is beyond someone with the simplistic brain of a “stealing money good/rich people are evil” mindset. But…

It is not hypocritical to take advantage of a (legal) flaw in the system that you’ve noted should be removed.

Eejit.

Kindly go light yourself on fire. And next time you open your fat, hairy trap about something, make sure you know what you’re talking about first.

Tim Thomas is My Newest Hero

January 23, 2012

Tim Thomas is my newest hero. Showing up President Terrorist-Friender/Economy-Ruiner/Freedom-Destroyer/Whitey-Blamer and his administration of un-American douchebags who should be expelled from our shores post-haste.

Can you imagine a nigger giving such a coherent, intelligent, patriotic argument as to why he was turning up his nose to the president?

Hell to the naw, my niggers! Foshizzle, the childish-brained, immature, low-I.Q. niggers who would shun the White House—only if whitey was the president, mind you, showing how the most racist people in America are left-wing darkies—-would make paranoid, delusional justifications that “Republicans only divide us” and “Whitey holds us down, yo, otherwise we’d be millionaire rocket scientists” and “everything is whitey’s fault, fuck him” and “9/11 was an inside job.”

But that’s “intelligent” arguing to a leftist. All the more reason leftism should be outlawed and every leftist waterboarded at Gitmo.

In case I wasn’t clear, FUCK YOU LEFTIES.

This was just an example of Obama’s chickens…coming home….to roose.

Gene Simmons Layeth the Smackethdown to the Dirty, Disgusting Hippies!

November 14, 2011

Gene Simmons layeth the smackethdown to the dirty, disgusting hippies!

Damn, I knew Gene was a smart man. But publicly putting these disgusting little parasitic, un-American whiny shits to death oratorically?

Wow. Almost as good as when Gene put that insufferable, moronic NPR bitch in her place on her very own show—and the lefties are still too dumb to understand his sarcastic, demeaning attack.

Gene’s always been one of the smartest men in pop music–and this shows it.

Fuck you, hippies. Rock on, Gene.

Go to hell, hippies. Love, America.

October 17, 2011

Go to hell, hippies. Love, America.

We are the 53%, bitches!

We’re so fucked; recession coming back, “it’s going to get worse”

October 1, 2011

We’re so fucked; recession coming back, “it’s going to get worse.”

Fuck everyone who voted for Obama. Fuck every Keynsian out there. Fuck every lefty and every lefty idea.

This is all your fault.