Tonight (eh, early AM tomorrow) is a lunar eclipse of a supermoon, also a blue moon. Those of us who live alone can easily head outside to enjoy it 3:48am-7:11am.

I hope my boss won’t have anything taxing for my brain tomorrow….

 

Sourced from wikipedia (infogalactic is surprisingly limited today):

1999: entered politics in Pico Rivera City Council

2002: Mayor of Pico Rivera

2003: Weak run for Congress

2010: Mayor of Pico Rivera

February 2010: Salcido had a Bible removed from the City Council Dais for violating the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause.

July 2010: Salcido was reprimanded and placed on administrative leave after a parent complained about his conduct in the classroom. A parent alleged that his 16 year old daughter had been threatened by Salcido and had made inappropriate insulting comments about race and other students and their parents. One student complained that Salcido had said, “shut up Kelly before I kill you.”

This link is definitely worth reading: http://www.sbsun.com/2010/07/23/salcido-repimanded-but-will-return-to-teach-in-the-fall/

2011: Salcido was fined by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for campaign finance violations in accord with California law and was fined $2,500.

May 2012: Salcido was placed on administrative leave after the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department received a complaint that he had struck a student. Salcido admitted he had struck the student because the student had been disruptive by sleeping in class. The child, named David, also alleged that Salcido bullied and teased him by making fun of his weight and appearance calling him “Chaz Bono”.

2015: Mayor of Pico Rivera

January 2018: A video made by a student of Gregory Salcido lecturing about the military after seeing a student with a U.S. Marines shirt goes viral. In the video, Salcido stated, “We.ve got a bunch of dumbshits over there. Think about the people who you know who are over there . your freaking stupid uncle Louis or whatever, they’re dumbshits. They’re not, like, high-level thinkers, they’re not academic people, they’re not intellectual people, they’re the freaking lowest of our low. Not morally, I’m not saying they make bad moral decisions, they’re not talented people”.

Quote from the pico-rivera.org website: “Councilman Salcido credits his students for being a constant reminder that keeping a positive and optimistic disposition is necessary for a productive future.” Hah, he didn’t know how right he was. Well done, student!

 

We need to start finding each other. Not for political purposes or building a community but simply for friendship with men we can trust to not betray us. The matter is difficult because any explicit signal can and will be picked up by women; also, because many MGTOWs don’t even recognize the acronym and aren’t part of the Manosphere.

Of course, the risk of explicit signaling is offset by optimal rewards. Wearing shirts from returnofkings.com or crypto.fashion in crowds can get quick results. Better when tried at masculine-appealing events like a demolition derby rather then your local grocery. Similarly, consider saying hello to a guy who wears such a shirt.

On a more general note, any Manospherian worth the time he wastes on the Internet is going to look the part. Be physically fit, short-haired, no problem glasses. man-boobs or (God help us) ear gauges.

Most churches are hopelessly cucked-up but if you’re attending anyway, check out the back row. Look for men sitting by themselves quietly rolling their eyes or reading magazines hidden in their Bibles.

Socially, men bond best over shared activities. The best such activities for men are ones that involve levels of mathematics that are toxic to women. Specifically, wargaming, D&D-style roleplaying games and Magic: the Gathering. These are practically engraved invitations to new social circles. I know from personal experience that military guys have used games to quickly socialize after transfers for many years.

A good starter wargame today is Infinity, infinitythegame.com . The entire rulebook is available as a free download and the size of typical games is 10-15 models. Very affordable. (Take a hint, Warhammer 40k.) It also has a formal tournament organization. Women don’t like to compete.

Of course, games has been as badly converged as anything else in modern culture. Just look at the cover of Starfinder, the most recent A-list RPG released:

WTF is the SJW fascination with purple hair? Never mind; knowing will not make me happy.

Still and all, it’s easy enough to clean up the material for actual playing. Once you find a group with no female players, it’s a good bet there’s MGTOWs in residence because “no girlfriends present at guy night” doesn’t happen without intentional effort.

This post was inspired by http://qz.com/1182715/why-the-uk-appointed-a-minister-for-loneliness-epidemic-leads-to-early-deaths/ . The British government has appointed politician Tracey Crouch as the minister to tackle the epidemic of loneliness.

Facepalm. For an article linked to in the previous,

.With an increasing aging population, the effect on public health is only anticipated to increase. Indeed, many nations around the world now suggest we are facing a “loneliness epidemic,.. Holt-Lunstad said in a press release. The research is forthcoming in the journal American Psychologist. [Julianne] Holt-Lunstad also presented her findings (pdf) to the US Senate Aging Committee in April 2017.

“Such .epidemics,. while not confined to rich countries, are linked to prominent features of affluent culture: longer life expectancy, decreasing marriage rates, people having fewer children, more people getting divorced, and more people living alone. In January, UK lawmakers set up a commission to tackle loneliness.inspired by the murder of Jo Cox, a member of parliament who was passionate about the issue.which is now working with a range of charities focused on at-risk groups including the elderly, refugees, young people, and new parents.”

Four of the five cited reasons are related by causation. The gov’t destroyed the nuclear family and now wonders why so many people don’t have families. Clearly, we don’t yet have enough government to be happy!

Of course, the open destruction of male spaces is not even referenced in any of the articles or links. It’s officially illegal under gov’t anti-discrimination laws for men to associate outside female supervision. Not allowing men to be friends with men, outside homosexual trysts, might have something to do with men not having male friends.

As usual, it’s up to us to make friends & family despite the efforts of the Powers That Be. Never because of their efforts. They are the problem, not the solution.

 

Aaron Clarey is an interesting guy. His book “Enjoy the Decline” is an excellent book on making peace with the fall of America and influenced me significantly. His insider book on real estate attitudes leading up to the Second Depression is also worth reading. He practically founded the concept “MGTOW” then disavowed it, while still living it, and has recently re-acknowledged it. Read his post at http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-revalidation-of-mgtow.html .

I believe Clarey is okay with second-wave feminism. This explains why he first assisted and then disavowed the MGTOW movement. He’s fine with women as peers of men, equal opportunity and such, but wasn’t willing to connect “women are just like men” with the consequences of letting women act like men: increasing numbers of real men whose lives are torn asunder by women who found them unsexy, unworthy or boring. He complains that such men “make a religion” out of hating all the poor-quality women in their lives. Just man up and attract a better class of woman, Chubby!

What he seeks is the unstable equilibrium of women who have been freed to act like men yet choose to continue acting like women.

Speaking of religion, do atheists ever wonder why this is happening? The whole feminism & social justice headache? If it was a mere social experiment then it would have been shut down by its own proponents in failure by now. There is something in the human soul that drives men to appease women even to the point of self-destruction while women, given the chance, will burn society (men) to ash before admitting they should not hold the reins of power.

Christianity is the only explanation for these tendencies, which cut across all ethnic and cultural barriers. If there’s a second one then let me know. Certainly not evolution. If evolution was true then freeing a woman to act like a man would only see her insist on acting like a woman.

Clarey’s post is one of a second-wave feminist being forced to acknowledge the third wave of feminism. If he accepts the latter as an extension of the former then he’ll hold a validation of Christianity. If instead he believes there’s no connection then we’ll soon see him speculate about which outside force made the servant hate the master who place she usurped. At the moment, he seems to be undecided:

“There is a conscious (and sadly, unconscious) purposed effort in some segments of society, many of those institutions (like academia, the legal profession, etc.), to hate men. And not only hate men, but to make masculinity illegal.”

I entirely agree, Mr. Clarey. The next question: WHY do they hate men? Because men treat them as chattel… or as equals?

 

A quick, fun fisking of “Survey: Mayors view climate change as pressing urban issue” from https://www.yahoo.com/news/survey-mayors-view-climate-change-pressing-urban-issue-070226006.html

BOSTON (AP) . U.S. mayors increasingly view climate change as a pressing urban issue, so much so that many advocate policies that could inconvenience residents or even hurt their cities financially.

If the planet’s biosphere is so delicate that its survival depends upon unified global urban planning then we’re screwed because the next volcanic eruption will cause more pollution than a hundred cities in a century. You’ve oversold the climate change threat just a tad.

(Look, the Phillipines had a volcanic eruption just this week!)

The annual survey of big-city executives, slated for release on Tuesday by the Boston University Initiative on Cities, also reflected the nation’s sharp political divide. Ninety-five percent of Democratic mayors who responded believed climate change was caused by human activities, a view shared by only half of Republican mayors.

Holy Funk. Ninety-five percent of Democratic mayors? That’s not consensus, that’s groupthink at gunpoint. And yet, the number seems plausible. Democrat leaders don’t hold beliefs, they hold scripts. Perhaps if the democratic process didn’t screen for ego and bribery… but half of Republican mayors is a poor showing, too. Democrats want to be Communists and Republicans want to be Democrats.

A clear majority of mayors were prepared to confront President Donald Trump’s administration over climate change and felt their cities could be influential in counteracting the policies of the Republican president, who at times has called global warming a hoax and last year withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate accord.

Ah, there’s the reason for this survey and article: Trump Derangement Syndrome. Like Las Vegas, the fun never stops and reminds the observer of venereal disease.

“A striking 68 percent of mayors agree that cities should play a strong role in reducing the effects of climate change, even if it means sacrificing revenues or increasing expenditures,” a report accompanying the survey stated.

Hold that thought…

In all, 115 mayors of cities with at least 75,000 residents answered the fourth annual survey named for Thomas Menino, a longtime Democratic mayor of Boston who founded the university program before his death in 2014. The survey was sponsored in part by The Rockefeller Foundation and Citigroup.

Banksters sponsor Trump Derangement Syndrome? Is TDS anything but the Clinton Machine’s self-destruction in the wake of not being able to deliver on its campaign promises? Those demons of Hell can be so uptight about humans keeping their ends of infernal bargains.

Organizers of the survey declined to release a list of the 115 mayors who responded, citing confidentially agreements. …

Okay, but when the survey returns results like “95% of Democrat mayors would burn their cities to stop climate change”, your fig leaf of confidentiality isn’t hiding what you want it to.

The survey cited the availability and affordability of housing as the single most pressing concern of mayors, followed closely by climate change and municipal budget pressures caused in part by federal and state cuts.

That thought you’re holding? Let’s discuss it now. Let’s discuss the possible connections between “cities should play a strong role in reducing the effects of climate change, even if it means sacrificing revenues or inconveniencing residents” and “the most pressing problems of mayors are climate change, budget shortfalls and housing issues”.

Moving on like dot org…

A foreword to the report, signed by Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Betsy Price, the Republican mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, argued that cities can exert formidable influence over U.S. and global policies.

We can say no to Donald Trump because we’re important city mayors!

“At a time when the national conversation is divisive, cities offer a sense of hope and shared identity,” the mayors said.

Hope and shared identity? I hope that wasn’t Garcetti talking. Los Angeles puts the “balkanization” in “Angels”. It’s a tight fit but behold: Irangeles!

Oh, wait. This is a script change from Hope & Change. What’s wrong, liberals? Did La Raza decide they no longer need Baby Boomer votes?

Sixty-eight percent of mayors said they would be willing to expend additional resources or sacrifice revenue to combat climate change.

But wasn’t a lack of funding a ‘most pressing problem’? This is as tragicomic as an adult with Down’s Syndrome complaining about heartburn and obesity between mouthfuls of triple pepperoni pizza.

Democrats were more than twice as likely as Republicans to promote environmental policies that might inconvenience motorists in their cities, and almost three times as likely to support entering into regional climate pacts or networks. Yet only 26 percent of Democrats and 5 percent of Republican mayors were eager to slap any costly new regulations on the private sector.

You know what the differences is between promoting policies and enacting new regulations? The need for voter approval. Mayors, maybe you shouldn’t be trying to do things that tax-paying voters, given the opportunity, would prohibit.

The survey found that attitudes about climate change differed geographically as well as politically. For example, 90 percent of all Eastern mayors and 97 percent from the Midwest blamed human activities for climate change, compared to 70 percent from Southern cities.

Down here in the Bible Belt, we call climate change “seasons”. Guess we ain’t educated enough to know better… and we don’ wanna be.

Seriously, liberals. First it was nuclear winter. You were proven wrong. Then it was global warming. You were proven wrong. Now it’s climate “change” just so you can’t be proven wrong anymore. You have nothing to offer your constituents but tyranny today so people who don’t exist can enjoy similar tyranny tomorrow.

The Turpin abuse case has been making the news lately. A married couple was discovered torturing, starving and ritually abusing their thirteen children. This obviously proves that homeschooling is a barbaric and cruel practice that warrants state government supervision. A statement from the website of Assemblymember Jose Medina (D-Riverside), https://a61.asmdc.org/press-releases/assemblymember-medinas-statement-13-siblings-held-captive-parents-perris-ca :

.I was very disturbed to learn about the horrific violence that has taken place in our community, and am thankful that these children are now in safety. I am extremely concerned about the lack of oversight the State of California currently has in monitoring private and home schools. I have been in conversation with the Riverside County Office of Education, which agrees that we need to do more to protect our students and validate that they are in safe learning environments. I am looking into introducing a bill this year that would provide a legislative solution and prevent a situation like this from occurring in the future..

Medina is a straight-up Stalinist if he believes the State is more trustworthy with children than a society composed of independent parents. Wretched humans like the Turpins will always happen and when they do, you hang them quickly & publicly and get along with life. What you don’t do is pretend that tranny activists and open pedophiles can do a better job of ensuring kids are protected from predators.

Let’s look at a bill Medina supported regarding foster care reform, SB 731. From the first page of SB 731:

This bill would require children and nonminor dependents in an
out-of-home placement to be placed according to their gender identity,
regardless of the gender or sex listed in their court or child welfare records.
By expanding the duties of counties relating to the placement of foster
children and nonminor dependents, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.

Existing law provides that it is the policy of the state that all minors and
nonminors in foster care have specified rights, including, among others, the
right to have fair and equal access to all available services, placement, care,
treatment, and benefits, and to not be subjected to discrimination or
harassment on the basis of actual or perceived race, ethnic group
identification, ancestry, national origin, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, mental or physical disability, or HIV status.

This bill would additionally specify that all minors and nonminors in
foster care have the right to be placed in out-of-home care according to their
gender identity, regardless of the gender or sex listed in their court or child
welfare records. The bill would require the State Department of Social
Services to adopt regulations consistent with this provision.

Yes, the people who require foster parents to respect the genderqueered whims of sexually immature children are exactly the people to ensure that biological parents are properly monitored for moral conduct. “For the children”, no doubt, and also for the thousands of man-hating feminist voters who need jobs to pay off student debts incurred by studying lesbian pottery.

I have little doubt that Assemblyman, er, Assemblyperson Medina will succeed in regulating homeschooling. The Turpin case will surely be an endless source of relevant emotional feelz. Never mind that this was a unique case rather than a typical example. Big Brother is needed! And Medina has already promised to be Big Brother’s little helper.

But here’s the kicker: the Turpins were not homeschoolers. Per foxnews.com, The address of the home is listed in a California Department of Education directory as the location of the Sandcastle Day School, which opened in 2011 with David Turpin as the principal. Current California policy relies on school employees to report child abuse. That didn’t happen here because there were no school employees. It is suspected by authorities, in fact, that Mr. Turpin registered his home as a school specifically to fly under the radar of social services.

.Private schools are required to register with the state to record their students. exemption from compulsory attendance at public schools,. the California Department of Education told Fox News in a statement. From http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/18/california-house-horrors-case-wake-up-call-for-state-to-toughen-private-school-oversight-lawmaker-says.html

Not to mention, the kids were apparently not educated to the point of knowing who a police officer was. ‘Homeschooler’ and ‘child abuser’ are not synonyms.

Government legislator Jose Medina’s publicly announced, intended milking of a horror story for political gain and the oppression of independent-minded parents says everything about the moral depths America has sunk to.

 

The following can be found in various spots on the Internet but I couldn’t source the 1976 study. Regardless, sounds right:

“The Inuit’s view of Socipaths: “Kunlangeta is allegedly an Inuit Yupik word for psychopath . in a 1976 study anthropologist Jane M. Murphy, then at Harvard University, found that an isolated group of Yupik-speaking Inuits near the Bering Strait had a term (kunlangeta) they used to describe .a man who . repeatedly lies and cheats and steals things and . takes sexual advantage of many women.someone who does not pay attention to reprimands and who is always being brought to the elders for punishment.” When Murphy asked an Inuit what the group would typically do with a kunlangeta, he replied, .Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking..”

The common explanation for female sexual preferences is that she’s choosing the fittest lover for her children. However, women are reliably attracted to Dark Triad: narcissists, sociopaths and abusive manipulators. Looking at the most matriarchal of societies–Latino barrios, African tribes and the like–children suffer greatly and end up socially abused. Men aren’t happy with the situation, either. We don’t like working with manipulative selfish types. And the evolutionist himself admits that women seek out Beta Bux because her ‘fittest lover’ doesn’t care about her survival, either.

What are evolutionists thinking? That humanity’s genetically finest are conscienceless predators who abandon their kids and that’s good for the human race? They can’t have it both ways: “Sociopaths are superior humans because they outbreed those who value the health and survival of children.” They square the circle by comparing humans to non-humans either that have children that require no male investment post-sex or that instinctively protect & nurture their young with no need for artificial structure.

Anything to deny the fact that even in primitive human societies, what’s best for healthy families is shoving the “most successful men” off a cliff.

 

Inspired by https://therationalmale.com/2018/01/10/dangerous-times-part-3/

Rollo has wrapped up a series of good posts “Dangerous Times” with three proposed solutions to unchained female hypergamy & AF/BB:

1. Play the Game better

2. MGTOW

3. Transactional sex

I.d encourage more solutions in the comments. I’m sure a lot of this series seems overly reactionary or disheartening for men who are looking for a return to that stabilizing monogamy. There is an element in the manosphere today who are looking for their Red Pill Trad-Con woman who will police the worst of herself in order to return to the golden era of monogamy. I have my reservations about the real motives of the few women who subscribe to this story, but the issues isn’t about what they will do, but rather what they can do in a feminine-primary social order that allows them to renege on their convictions without consequence.

Those are all good solutions for specific contexts but clearly don’t provide a lasting, society-wide solution. That solution is holding two beliefs simultaneously:

4a. Women are naturally like that.

4b. Women are not supposed to be like that.

The Churchians deny the first belief; PUAs, the second. Accepting both at once is unpleasant because this binary solution is how morality comes into existence, bridging the gap from the first to the second.

 

Scott from American Dad solicited feedback on Dalrock’s website on his post, https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/how-do-you-organize-your-goals/ . I don’t have anything to say on Scott’s blog; once you pay your dollar and make your choice from the vending machine of life, discussing alternative choices becomes pointless. Me advocating Christ & Country to a guy who rejected Protestantism to build a copy of Orthodox Serbia in the rural Midwest would be like telling this confirmed-bachelor MGTOW that you married a unicorn. I’m happy for you but we just can’t talk about it. Our paths are too divergent, our life choices mutually exclusive.

Nevertheless, he raised a point worth its own discussion. Urban life has gotten an undeservedly terrible reputation in the Manosphere. We kick things off with this quote from Scott:

Two things happened this week that caused a small epiphany for me. The first was this comment from Elspeth in response to yet another one of my rants extolling the virtues of rural versus urban or suburban living:

Not everyone is prepared or equipped to live a rural lifestyle.

Some men have careers which feed their families and are yes, largely dependent on living in larger population centers. It doesn’t make them bad people, bad fathers, or bad Christians.

I don’t wonder that this was an epiphany for him. Many Christians associate family with religion to the point of believing that evangelism and breeding are synonyms. (As if evil was only a genetic condition!) It’s hard to raise kids in the city because of the lack of space so these people naturally assume that willing city-dwellers are bad people.

But if a man does not have a family then living rural is asking for mental illness and loss of purpose.

Humans are social creatures. It’s one thing to move rural with your wife & kids in tow, it’s another to live rural by yourself with no neighbors worth mentioning. You’ll end up either schizoid or a Net addict. Urban life facilitates friendship and social hobbies simply by having many people in proximity and is therefore the better choice for MGTOW.

Urban life is valuable for Christians. More evangelism opportunities, more clashes between good & evil. We are called to be the salt of the Earth. Salt is a preservative, impeding rot. It gets consumed when it fights rot but does no good at all when left in storage. Christians who raise kids in isolation are not doing anything for God but headcount… which per God is not a sin, but neither is it the example Christ set. We Christian MGTOWs can and should pick up the slack here. Having no little hostages to protect allows us to dwell even in modern Sodoms with minimal risk from the Powers That Be.

There’s a second reason urban life is unpopular in the Manosphere. Men are becoming control freaks as the social fabric unravels. Uncertainty has always been a part of life but never as much as today, us being struck between perverted anarcho-tyrants and technological upheaval. The simplest way to ensure nobody bosses you around anymore is to position yourself so that nobody at all is around, and if somebody bosses you anyway then there’s plenty of space to hide a body. A poor attitude to reboot civilization with but one simple enough to occupy a midwit’s attention span.

It won’t work, prepper survivalists. The Russian tyrants had no trouble hunting down the kulaks.

Part of the control freakness is imputing city dwellers with the immoral acts of city leaders. I get this a lot. “How can you justify living in the Gay Area?” “We should build a wall around you.” “People who live in urban areas deserve to die when SHTF.” “California should just secede already!” Yes, because a roomful of pedophiles in Sacramento is a perfect representation of 50 million people and a quarter of the national economy… these are obviously outbursts of insecurity rather than considered beliefs.

Urban life is economically antifragile. If you lose a job for whatever reason, there are many more jobs to find nearby. Getting around is convenient, especially if one structures his life to use a bicycle for daily purposes rather than a car. There’s money to be made with so many markets around. You won’t own much property but if you’re MGTOW then your greatest investment will always be YOU. Cities have the best medicine and skill training to keep you at your best. Life should be enjoyed where possible and cities do much to make it possible.

Urban life is politically antifragile, too, because the neighboring local government is a short distance to relocate to. Or it used to be antifragile; today, every layer of every government is becoming homogeneous to the point that I can no longer believe I’m looking at reality. Still, the option for defensive relocation is available and affordable.

In closing, urban life helps men develop the friends & acquaintances that make life worth living while also presenting opportunities to build wealth and worship God that cannot exist in geographic isolation. Rural life is for men who can’t be happy without a family. Unfortunately, such men are predisposed to believe the worst about the city he left behind in order to justify his chosen lifestyle.

 

The corruption and feminization of the West began with the Settlement House movement in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Settlement houses were an effort to relieve poverty and living conditions created by the Industrial Revolution. We begin with excerpts from http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/british-and-irish-history/settlement-house :

Between the late 1880s and the end of World War I, the settlement house movement was an influential Progressive-era response to the massive urban social problems of the day, The United States was in a period of rapid growth, economic distress, labor unrest, unemployment, low wages, unfair labor practices, and squalid living conditions. Large numbers of immigrants arrived daily to work in this newly established industrialized society. Ethnic enclaves sheltered immigrants who were experiencing isolation, new customs, and a strange language.

Established in large cities, settlement houses were privately supported institutions that focused on helping the poor and disadvantaged by addressing the environ-mental factors involved in poverty. The basic settlement-house ideal was to have wealthy people move into poor neighborhoods so that both groups could learn from one another. Canon Samuel Barnett, pastor of the poorest parish in London’s notorious East End, established the first settlement house in 1884. In the midst of this neighborhood (settlement), Toynbee Hall housed educated and wealthy people who served as examples, teachers, and providers of basic human services to the poor residents of the settlement. Toynbee Hall was based on the social gospel movement and attracted young theologians and other middle-class people to emulate Jesus in living among the poor. …

Although settlement houses have often been characterized as largely secular in nature, many of them grew from religious roots. Some settlement house workers who came from a faith perspective included moral teachings, at a minimum, in their work with community residents. Probably the best-known example is Chicago Commons, founded in 1894 by the Reverend Graham Taylor, who was the first professor of Christian sociology at the Chicago Theological Seminary. He founded Chicago Commons partially as a social laboratory for his students. As Allen F. Davis has pointed out, of the more than 400 settlements established by 1910, 167 (more than 40 percent) were identified as religious… In 1930, there were approximately 460 settlement houses, and most of these were church supported.

Settlement houses were run in part by client groups. They emphasized social reform rather than relief or assistance. (Residence, research, and reform were the three Rs of the movement.) Early sources of funding were wealthy individuals or clubs such as the Junior League. Settlement house workers were educated poor persons, both children and adults, who often engaged in social action on behalf of the community. In attaining their goals, the settlement house reformers had an enviable record. They had a realistic understanding of the social forces and the political structures of the city and nation. They battled in legislative halls as well as in urban slums, and they became successful initiators and organizers of reform.

Settlement workers tried to improve housing conditions, organized protests, offered job-training and labor searches, supported organized labor, worked against child labor, and fought against corrupt politicians. They provided classes in art and music and offered lectures on topics of interest. They established playgrounds, day care, kindergartens, and classes in English literacy. Settlement workers were also heavily involved in research to identify the factors causing need and in activities intended to eliminate the factors that caused the need.

Settlement houses assumed as their operational base the adequate functioning of the families they served, many of whom were migrants and immigrants whose problems were associated with making the transition from rural to urban living and from a known to an unknown culture. Whatever their problems, clients of settlement houses were viewed as able, normal, working-class families with whom the wealthier classes were joined in mutual dependence. When such families could not cope, settlement leaders assumed that society itself was at fault, and this assumption led quite naturally to a drive for societal reform.

Indeed, hardline Leftists still use the title “community organizer” as they employ identity politics, intimidation and plain human laziness to exploit today’s poor and/or ethnics for political gain.

We can see the good intentions in the originator of the settlement house movement, Samuel Barnett, an Anglican cleric and social reformer who founded Toynbee Hall in London’s notorious East End. From https://infogalactic.com/info/Samuel_Barnett_(reformer) :

The East End area was notorious for its squalor and overcrowded housing conditions, as well as prostitution and other criminal activities. The Barnetts worked hard for the poor of their parish.opening evening schools for adults, providing them with music and entertainment, and serving on the local board of guardians and on the managing committees of schools. Barnett discouraged outdoor relief, because it fostered the pauperisation of the neighbourhood. At the same time, the Barnetts helped improve conditions of indoor relief, and co-ordinate the various charities by co-operation with the Charity Organization Society and the parish board of guardians.

Per infogalactic, outdoor relief was the kind of poor relief where assistance was in the form of money, food, clothing or goods, given to alleviate poverty without the requirement that the recipient enter an institution. In contrast, recipients of indoor relief were required to enter a workhouse or poorhouse. Outdoor relief was also a feature of the Scottish and Irish Poor Law systems. (Ref. Elizabethan Poor Law, 1601)

And then, we can see the evil intentions in the entryist than changed the course of Settlement Houses from relief to “social reform”… Jane Addams, founder of Hull House in Chicago. You, the reader absolutely must read infogalactic’s entire article on her, https://infogalactic.com/info/Jane_Addams , to realize she was the personification of female rebellion. But here are a few choice excerpts.

Addams’s father [GQ: a political crony of Abraham Lincoln] encouraged her to pursue higher education but close to home. She was eager to attend the new college for women, Smith College in Massachusetts; but her father required her to attend nearby Rockford Female Seminary (now Rockford University), in Rockford, Illinois. …

A woman pushed into a career instead of a family. We Manospherians know how that turns out. And a seminary, no less?

Visiting Toynbee Hall, Addams was enchanted. She described it as “a community of University men who live there, have their recreation clubs and society all among the poor people, yet, in the same style in which they would live in their own circle. It is so free of ‘professional doing good,’ so unaffectedly sincere and so productive of good results in its classes and libraries seems perfectly ideal.” Addams’s dream of the classes mingling socially to mutual benefit, as they had in early Christian circles seemed embodied in the new type of institution.

Invading male spaces, female territory marking.

One aspect of the Hull House that was very important to Jane Addams was the Art Program. The art program at Hull house allowed Addams to challenge the system of industrialized education, which “fitted” the individual to a specific job or position. She wanted the house to provide a space, time and tools to encourage people to think independently. She saw art as the key to unlocking the diversity of the city through collective interaction, mutual self-discovery, recreation and the imagination. Art was integral to her vision of community, disrupting fixed ideas and stimulating the diversity and interaction on which a healthy society depends, based on a continual rewriting of cultural identities through variation and interculturalism.

Given the choice, women prefer ponies to math.

The Hull House neighborhood was a mix of European ethnic groups that had immigrated to Chicago around the start of the 20th century. That mix was the ground where Hull House’s inner social and philanthropic elitists tested their theories and challenged the establishment.

If you’re practicing social theories on the poor then you aren’t helping the poor… and you’re probably a Communist organizing proletariats for the uprising.

Addams called on women.especially middle class women with leisure and energy, as well as rich philanthropists.to exercise their civic duty to become involved in municipal affairs as a matter of “civic housekeeping.” Addams thereby enlarged the concept of civic duty to include roles for women beyond motherhood (which involved child rearing). Women’s lives revolved around “responsibility, care, and obligation,” and this area represented the source of women’s power. This notion provided the foundation for the municipal or civil housekeeping role that Addams defined, and gave added weight to the women’s suffrage movement that Addams supported. Addams argued that women, as opposed to men, were trained in the delicate matters of human welfare and needed to build upon their traditional roles of housekeeping to be civic housekeepers.

A perfect picture of a woman who would have made an excellent wife, trying instead to turn government into society’s mother. The purpose of government is not to mother its little boys.

Addams and Starr were the first two occupants of the house, which would later become the residence of about 25 women. …

Throughout her life Addams had significant romantic relationships with women, including Mary Rozet Smith and Ellen Starr. Her relationships with women offered her the time and energy to pursue her social work, while being supported emotionally and romantically. While she was close to many women and was very good at eliciting the involvement of women from different classes in Hull House’s programs, she fell in love with only a few women. From her exclusively romantic relationships with women, she would most likely be described as a lesbian in contemporary terms, similar to most of the leadership of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, as historical evidence shows.

Hull House, the most famous settlement house in the United States, was originally formed as a group home for childless lesbians.

According to Christie and Gauvreau (2001), while the Christian settlement houses sought to Christianize, Jane Addams “had come to epitomize the force of secular humanism.” Her image was, however, “reinvented” by the Christian churches.

According to Joslin (2004), “The new humanism, as [Addams] interprets it comes from a secular, and not a religious, pattern of belief”.

In fact, the co-founders of Toynbee Hall, Samuel and Henrietta Barnett, shared Addams’s desire to bring Christianity back to its roots. Part of what was called the “social Christian” movement, the Barnetts held a great interest in converting others to Christianity, but they believed that Christians should be more engaged with the world, and, in the words of one of the leaders of the movement in England, W.H. Fremantle, “imbue all human relations with the spirit of Christ’s self-renouncing love.” Addams learned about social Christianity from them, soon considered herself one, and soon made friends among the leaders of the “social Christian” movement in the United States. …

While she remained a member of a Presbyterian church, Addams regularly attended a Unitarian Church and Ethical Society in Chicago. At one point, she was appointed “interim lecturer” at the Ethical Society.

Was Samuel Barnett a “social Christian” or a Christian? Given his rejection of outdoor relief, probably Christian. But his willingness to accept a female peer gave legitimacy to a lesbian dyke perverting Christianity into first Communism and later on, modern Churchianity. He should have been much more critical of Addams but probably heard what he wanted to hear and didn’t ask pointed questions about how a woman can be a Christian leader. In fairness to him, Barnett lived on the far side on the Atlantic Ocean before the Internet Age and had limited opportunity to ask.

The Christians of the late 19th Century began settlement houses to improve the lives of those suffering under industrialization. The feminists of the late 19th Century began settlement houses to foment class hatred, educate/liberate women and use the poor as excuses to radicalize government… covering themselves with a thin fig leaf of religious justification.

The former helped the poor in order to worship Christ. The latter worshiped Christ in order to help the poor. These statements are similar yet mutually exclusive.

…

Side note, do you readers prefer the colored quotations to my previous italicization?

 

The “Reverend” Martin Luther King, Jr. rejected Christianity as fact and twisted it into a tool of social justice.

Starting off at http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Writings-show-King-as-liberal-Christian-2623685.php dated January 15, 2007:

A decade before her death in 2006, King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, flew to San Francisco to ask Stanford Professor Clayborne Carson to examine and write about the box’s contents.A decade before her death in 2006, King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, flew to San Francisco to ask Stanford Professor Clayborne Carson to examine and write about the box’s contents.

The texts, which illuminate the theological foundations that America’s most celebrated social activist would repeatedly return to, are revealed in a book to be released today — Martin Luther King Jr. Day — by Stanford University’s King Papers Project.

The collection includes documents from 1948 to 1963 — the years covered by the book — and “gets us closer to King’s true identity” because they shed new light on how he viewed the Bible, Carson said.

“King used to say, ‘People think of me as a civil rights leader, but fundamentally, I’m a Baptist preacher,’ ” said Carson, editor of “Advocate of the Social Gospel,” which is based on the newly disclosed writings and is the sixth book produced by the King Papers Project.

The texts are triggering a discussion about how much King’s rejection of a literal reading of the Bible shaped his social activism.

King was not a conformist Christian. He not only eschewed literalism, he was a strident critic of how the Christian church perpetuated injustices such as slavery and segregation.
“Too often has the church talked about a future good ‘over yonder,’ totally forgetting the present evil over here,” King wrote in 1952 to Coretta Scott, his future wife.

Within a decade, King would lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott to protest legal segregation and numerous marches for voting rights. He returned repeatedly to the idea that true Christianity is practiced through the work for social justice.

“Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and not concerned about the city government that damns the soul, the economic conditions that corrupt the soul, the slum conditions, the social evils that cripple the soul, is a dry, dead, do-nothing religion in need of new blood,” King preached in 1962 to his congregation at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

It wasn’t known until these papers were released how consistently King had been developing the social gospel. Nor was the extent to which King rejected a biblical literalism.

King didn’t believe the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale was true, for example, or that John the Baptist actually met Jesus, according to texts detailed in the King papers book. King once referred to the Bible as “mythological” and also doubted whether Jesus was born to a virgin, Carson said.

For some literalists, King’s belief that not every word of the Bible is true would mean he was not a Christian — even though many others would say no other 20th century figure more effectively used Christianity to shape society.

King “wanted to develop an intellectually respectable form of Christianity that did not require people to simply abandon their rational, critical abilities,” Carson said. The essential truth King saw, according to Carson, was the social gospel — “to see the Bible as a message of spiritual redemption and global social justice.”

“What relevance do these scriptures have?” King asked in a document included in “Advocate of the Social Gospel.” “What moral implications do we find growing out of the Bible?”

Carson also said King criticized the other extreme — the belief that the Bible is purely a political text, devoid of faith.

This is consistent with MLK’s earlier beliefs about Christianity. Excepted from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/humanity-and-divinity-jesus , emphases mine:

As stated above, the conflict that Christians often have over the question of Jesus divinity is not over the validity of the fact of his divinity, but over the question of how and when he became divine. The more orthodox Christians have seen his divinity as an inherent quality metaphysically bestowed. Jesus, they have told us, is the Pre existent Logos. He is the word made flesh. He is the second person of the trinity. He is very God of very God, of one substance with the Father, who for our salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate be the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary.

Certainly this view of the divinity of Christ presents many modern minds with insuperable difficulties. Most of us are not willing to see the union of the human and divine in a metaphysical incarnation. Yet amid all of our difficulty with the pre existent idea and the view of supernatural generation, we must come to some view of the divinity of Jesus. In order to remain in the orbid of the Christian religion we must have a Christology. As Dr. Baille has reminded us, we cannot have a good theology without a Christology. Where then can we in the liberal tradition find the divine dimension in Jesus? We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. It was his felling of absolute dependence on God, as Schleiermaker would say, that made him divine. Yes it was the warmnest of his devotion to God and the intimatcy of his trust in God that accounts for his being the supreme revelation of God. All of this reveals to us that one man has at last realized his true divine calling: That of becoming a true son of man by becoming a true son of God. It is the achievement of a man who has, as nearly as we can tell, completely opened his life to the influence of the divine spirit.

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: “Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have.” In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.

The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human than any other, and standing in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation.

We could simply stop at MLK’s rejection of Christ as being God Incarnate. His dismissal of us “more orthodox” believers is quite insulting when it is what Scripture emphatically and repeatedly states. Surely, only lunatics believe that a religion means what it teaches! But then we would miss the connection

As I emphasized in boldface above, King’s view is that Jesus bootstrapped himself into becoming God. This is the defining belief of humanism. Just as women simultaneously envy men for their strengths while seeking to usurp them, men seek to turn themselves into gods while rebelling forcefully against God. “You shall be as God,” hissed the serpent.

Christianity to King was a recipe for apotheosis. Use nonviolent tactics, gather followers, use religious-sounding memes and voila, you’re successful like Jesus! And funny thing, it actually worked for him. The source of that success, however, was not God. It was white sentimentalism & black greed.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that segregation was the only (or at minimum, the most successful) way for blacks to prosperously live inside the first-world United States. Forcing an end to segregation was an act of cultural sabotage comparable to forcing an end to distinctions between male & female today. Human life is sacred but not interchangeable. Blacks should have accepted the place they were given. Whites should not have played Utopia.

King was an ordained minister but never a Christian. He sought to use Christianity as a tool with which to shape the world as he wished. Only years after his death did his widow release the documents that proved “Reverend” King was as much a fraud in his later life as in his earlier life.

I once make a joke aphorism that “if science ever proved the existence of God, humanity would stop believing in science.” Well… guess what’s been in the news.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/24/white-privilege-bolstered-by-teaching-math-university-professor-says.html

A math education professor at the University of Illinois says the ability to solve geometry and algebra problems and teaching such subjects perpetuates so-called white privilege.

Rochelle Gutierrez laid out her views on the subject in an article for a newly published anthology for math educators titled, .Building Support for Scholarly Practices in Mathematics Methods..

.School mathematics curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean Theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans,” she says, according to Campus Reform.

She also says that addressing equity in mathematics education will come when teachers can understand and negotiate the politics outside the classroom.

.On many levels, mathematics itself operates as whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as white,. she writes.

Further, she says mathematics operates with unearned privilege in society, .just like whiteness.. …

In the book Gutierrez points out that mathematics operates as a proxy for intelligence, but asks, “are we really that smart just because we do mathematics?.

.As researchers, are we more deserving of large grants because we focus on mathematics education and not social studies or English?.

Aside: her bio has the worst case of thousand-cock stare I’ve found so far.

This article was not an isolated example:

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10021 “Feminist prof says ‘traditional science’ is rooted in racism” 24 Oct 2017

Sara Giordano, who left the field of neuroscience to become a Women’s Studies professor at UC-Davis, opened up about her feelings towards the sciences in a recent essay for Catalyst, a journal of feminist theory.

Science, she worries, has “earned its epistemic authority through its co-constitution with colonization and slavery,. and therefore “relies on a colonial and racialized form of power..

Not only is science rooted in racism, she alleges; it has been used to perpetuate racism and colonial practices.

.At the root of the justification for social inequality then is Western science,. she says, claiming that science’s distinction between “humans and non-humans. has allowed “capitalism [to become] justified as a natural economic system..

However, Giordano is hopeful that feminists can work towards creating new approaches that don’t conflate science with truth.

And then there’s

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/

College science classes are hostile to women and minorities because they use the scientific method, which assumes people can find reliable truths about the natural world through careful and sustained experimentation, concludes a recent dissertationby a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota.

Laura Parson, a student in the university’s education department, reviewed eight science class syllabi at a “Midwest public university” and said she discovered in them a hidden hostility to women and minorities…

Throughout her dissertation, Parson assumes and asserts that women and minorities are uniquely challenged by the idea that science can provide objective information about the natural world. This is an unfair assumption, she says, because the concept of objectivity is too hard for women and minorities to understand. .[N]otions of absolute truth and a single reality. are .masculine,. she says, referring to poststructuralist feminist theory.

 

Have you ever looked back on history and wondered why ancient men were so ignorant? Why it took so long just to invent efficient stoves, why medicine had trouble advancing beyond boiling weeds? There’s a variety of reasons, energy sources being the most dominant one, but it seems that one such reason for humanity’s longstanding ignorance about science & engineering is that Barbie thinks math is hard. Time spent making life efficient and pleasant was always time not spent on wifey’s feelings.

One cannot help but notice the bright exception, the one field of science/engineering that every culture in every era excelled at… making booze to get drunk with. A feature of a feminist society?

Surely the white knights & manginas cannot be so eager to help women feel better about themselves as to dismiss the existence of objective reality. They couldn’t possibly be that stupid… is a statement nobody should make in modern times.

Postscript, my research for this post turned up the most hilarious of hamster blogs: stemfeminist dot com. It’s a blog dedicated to feminists struggling in STEM fields.

 

An example of how evolutionary psychology has replaced religion in the modern mindset is concern over declining birth rates. Per evolution, this is a cause: if you don’t keep your birth rates up then you/your people are unfit to exist. Per Christianity, this is an effect: women are in open rebellion against their God-given roles of wives and mothers. (And men are encouraging women in that rebellion. The same father hopes for grandkids while sending his daughter to Feminist U so she won’t have to depend on a husband.)

The two views seem related (if you rebel against your biology then you’re an unfit organism) but it doesn’t play out that way when you look at proposed solutions. The evolutionist path is seen when nationalists make a virtue out of breeding even with unfit women and governments paying incentives for larger families. The harm of this is we aren’t birds or reptiles. Human reproduction is not tossing a handful of eggs in a corner and wandering off. There’s no point in bearing children if they’ll end up fatherless, sexually abused or otherwise abandoned.

The Christian path is that low birth rates during hard times is a feature. When life isn’t safe for children, one should not have children, and the parasites will starve for lack of slaves and recruits. The success of one’s race is less important than resisting evil.

Not that I want my people to decline but is the decline a result of moral rebellion or a result of less sex? When white America is being betrayed and destroyed primarily by white Americans, is knocking up the white bar slut if one cannot find a unicorn truly the way to push back?

It begs the question of how God views the races of men. We know how He viewed the Jews: sorting them by tribe and geographic location to the point of social stasis. There are also divine promises of various types attached to the Jews, going as far in the End Times as the 144,000 of Revelation. But there’s no such consideration for Gentiles. Titus 1:12 acknowledges the existence of race-specific tendencies but neither gives special instructions nor condemns the Cretans to be so unpleasant for the rest of time. Neither will any of God’s prophecies fail if the bloodline of Larry dies out.

There is also an image God uses to represent the Gentile world in Revelation 17:15: “And he *said to me, .The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.” Similar language is used throughout Scripture: “the nations” or “the peoples”. Quite the opposite of the named tribes of Israel.

My conclusion is that Ancient Israel’s locked genealogy is symbolic of Heaven’s permanency rather than a command to non-Jews for racial purity. Our places in Heaven are permanent once we arrive; there’ll be no changes in character or status. Who we become in mortal life will be who we are for eternity.

This changes the focus of mortal life from quantitative success to qualitative success. You can have no children or a thousand without affecting your immortal soul, so the greater importance is upon how you treat the people who already exist. Therefore, as much as I would like white America back I won’t sacrifice justice for the sake of forcing racial purity. That is not a statement race nationalists would ever make. And if I have no opportunity to have kids of my own, the next best thing is to be a mentor or something. Giving a young immortal his first job is an immortal honor whether he carries my DNA or not. This plays into God considering human life to be inherently sacred.

The way I would restore North America: Disempower women completely. Eliminate the welfare swamp. Free rides to the border, one-way, but if any ethnics want to earn their food, learn English and assimilate into American principles such as rule of law, they can stay. Lastly, put the death penalty on most violent crimes as well as women who get pregnant outside marriage.

Would that restore white America? Probably not; race issues would remain, therefore I would be counted a failure by evolutionary principles. But it would be an orderly society that honors its roots and is a land of justice. The clear trend in the New Testament is that God prefers a just society to a uniform society.

Those motivated by evolution would turn people into criminals just for who they are, while declaring themselves to be righteous because of who they are. That is the appeal of tribalism: presumption of righteousness.

 

It’s official: everybody who is going to spend real fiat money to watch the latest Star Whores abomination already has. There will be no further audiovisual spoiler warnings.

To my surprise, I liked the movie more than expected. Perhaps it reminded me of my childhood misspent on B-movies from the SciFi Channel back when it wasn’t spelled Sy-Stargate-Will-Never-Die-Fy Channel. Perhaps it was the warm feeling I got, knowing that even on the worst days I have a better job than the poor CGI monkeys trying to ward off the justified yet impotent death threats from nerds over the corruption of their childhood memories. But mostly, it was that even unchecked, peak feminism couldn’t hide its need for patriarchy. You will never find a more wretched hive of backhanded compliments!

The plot is a standard love triangle. Kylo Ren is the dark, brooding, billionaire sociopath who has the galaxy at his feet yet can’t get Mary Sue out of his mind. (Literally; the two have unwanted telepathic conversations. In one of them, Mary Sue begs him to cover his bodybuilder torso with a shirt.) Finn is Huckleberry Finn pre-fitted with a dog collar, promising Mary Sue endless freedom, new experiences and puppy-like love. Complete with puppy piddle. It was his introductory scene. Sigh.

Advancing the plot beyond the storyboard of Titanic is Mark Hamil’s performance as an older & wiser Luke Skywalker. This reviewer accepts Mr. Hamil’s apology: he didn’t have a choice in how to portray the character if he wanted to keep that bushel of cash. Anyway, Skywalker trained Kylo Ren in the Jedi arts and screwed up so badly that he exiled himself and refuses to train Mary Sue when she arrives, not wanting to unleash another Ren upon the galaxy. In the first backhanded compliment to masculinity, Mary Sue badgers Skywalker into training her anyway. After one lesson, she goes Kylo Ren on him for the sake of Kylo Ren exactly as he’d feared. Lesson to men: if she won’t take no for an answer then ghost yourself. You were right the first time. Don’t give Pussy a chance to break you.

The most significant character is Poe Dameron, X-Wing squadron leader and ambassador of potentially homosexual Arabs. Dubious origins notwithstanding, he does an amazing job of demonstrating how utterly dependent even purple-haired female admirals are upon the patient endurance of Men Who Don’t Listen to Women. At the movie’s start, the Resistance is cornered by an entire fleet of Star Destroyers. Poe has a daring Trojan horse/bombing run gambit that he executes in defiance of General Leia’s orders to not attack. He succeeds and is promptly demoted for saving the Resistance against heavy odds. Backhanded compliment to men #2: “Don’t save us if it makes female leadership look bad!”

So it’s “General” Leia now? Not Princess? Goodbye fresh, desirable white man’s bikini-clad sex toy whose being chained to an intelligent slug gave hope to millions of nonathletic computer experts. Hello, General “Botox” Organa who is now in charge of the… fleet? One of the most enjoyable scenes of the movie was watching her get sucked into space where nobody could hear her pout.

Later, when said fleet of Star Destroyers has the last four ships of the Resistance on the run in the middle of deep space, Poe discovers the purple-haired admiral succeeding General Botox has not only sacrificed her escorts for no gain but is fueling up unarmed transports to stave off inevitable defeat for just a couple more hours. Frustrated at the female admiral’s uselessness, he mutinies to give his own plan, recruiting and deploying a superhacker, enough time to work.

Turns out that the admiral did have a plan: an invisible planet in the middle of deep space nowhere that had a fully stocked yet unmanned Rebel base. I guess they don’t award the Purple Hair for keeping your subordinates informed. “Don’t worry, Barbie has a spare, secret planet in her purse! That’s why we don’t need men running the show!” Backhanded compliment to men #3.

The movie is, of course, very heavily politicized. In the Expanded Universe, there was a Rebellion because the galactic government was usurped by a politician so evil that he literally shot Evil out of his fingers as lightning. That explained why the Rebellion was funded & supplied well enough to be a credible threat to the Grand Army of the Republic.

In Mickey Mouse’s Universe, however, white men seem to run everything well–if unimaginatively–and there’s a Resistance whose purpose is defined by a refusal to, uh, act white & male, I suppose. This explains why the Resistance’s funding amounts to one cruiser with escorts and a week’s worth of fuel. This seems insufficient to conquer the galaxy but General Leia assures the audience, repeatedly, that if only they “get the signal out there” all the peoples of the galaxy will unite against the benign threat of the First Order. Backhanded compliment to men #4: If we only tell people they don’t have to be ruled by white men then they’ll volunteer to live as unpaid fugitive thugs like us!

Let me stop the humor for a paragraph to cover an openly Satanic message here. The people the Resistance is trying to contact and encourage to revolt are… children. That is not cool. A piece of advice from this Christian to all Social Justice slimeballs: you want to fight me, that’s business. You want to whisper lies to my children behind my back so they fight me, that’s personal and you are fuckwitted parasitic cowards that cannot go to Eternal Hell fast enough. Leave our children alone. This means you, you media Elites that spew out so much feminazi trash that we Christians have to raise our kids off the grid.

Resuming our cheerful assault upon bad taste, the climax of the movie has the most poignant, soul-touching scene of Female Backseat Driver ever offered by cinema. Holed up inside the underground base, the transports’ survivors of the cruiser’s survivors of the fleet’s survivors of the Resistance base’s survivors (are we winning yet?) are protected by a massive blast shield. The First Order deploys a ‘battering ram blaster’ to open the can. The survivors deploy speeders to take it out.

The outnumbered & outgunned frontal assault fails at Internet speed. Finn correctly assesses that the last option for victory is a suicide run into the Doomsday Machine a la Commodore Decker. He lines up for it, gooses his speeder’s throttle and is knocked away at the last second by sidekick Fat Asian Chick’s speeder. They crash, the Doomsday Machine fires, the shield is breached, the base falls and the base’s survivors of the transports’ survivors are able to escape in the Millennium Falcon–at this point, it has enough space for everybody–only because Skywalker jacks into the Matrix at the last second to fight a delaying action.

Fat Asian Chick dies in her self-inflicted wreckage telling Finn “this is how we’ll win”. No, you stupid fat Asian Chick, thanks to you we are still not winning. Backhanded compliment to men #5: saving the one you care about by damning 1,000 is not how men do business.

My favorite scene in the movie was in the hacker subplot. (Sorry I’ve forgotten names; it’s been three days since I’ve seen the movie and most of the characters were not very memorable. What was the protagonist’s name again? Jane?) Hacker has a conversation with Finn:

“These guys get rich off selling weapons to the First Order…”

*Hacker displays various TIE fighter models. Finn looks angry. Then Hacker displays an X-Wing fighter.*

“…and selling weapons to the Resistance.”

Oops. An entire subplot describing Meanie One Percenter Arms Dealers, poof. How dare they sell us weapons! We should have to get them from… uh, from… from the Arms Dealers, but how dare they profit from helping us out! They should sell us bombers out of the goodness in their hearts! I tell ya, there’s a black knight embedded at the highest levels of DisneyCorp. We are not alone. Our signal will be heard!

 

Who wants to start the New Year with “I will spend 4 hours a day on the treadmill, eat more disgusting vegetables and tolerate my annoying neighbors?” You should be thinking of FUN things you want to do.

I give every year a theme. Last year was adventure parks and a cage fight with medieval knights. Before was demolition derbies, spelunking, Scuba, Yellowstone and Scottish competitions. This year, health problems have made my standard-frame bicycle uncomfortable to ride so I plan to upgrade to a recumbent and explore bike trails around Central California. Maybe try an overnight trip… haven’t done camping since I was a kid.

Also, I’ve been having recurring dreams of hang gliding, which I’ve never done in real life. Well, why not? So I’m budgeting to at least try out the hang gliding sport. It should not be boring.

Live likewise. Of all the things you could do and be, don’t resolve to be miserable!