You see, lawyers are a class of parasite which lives off the law, that is to say the government. The entire existence of lawyers is subsidized by laws. They see laws as a kind of spider web with which to entangle people and thus force them to purchase legal services to untangle themselves. Everything they do is predicated on figuring out ways to force people to waste their time paying lawyers, but that is not all. Lawyers don’t just have a hand in untangling the people they helped to ensnare; they have a hand in crafting the web. Lawyers can be found everywhere from Congress, to judge’s benches, to lobbying firms to corporations…and they are all conspiring to fuck you over. A lawyer can be likened to a doctor who injects you with a disease, and then charges you for the cure.

However, there is a sort of lawyer which is a special class of scum who combines the worst characteristics of lawyers and politicians: the district attorney (or state attorney, or US attorney). They largely make the decisions on who to prosecute (by this, we mean persecute). This is a tremendous amount of power, and due to the multiplicity of laws all US citizens are theoretically criminals, it is just a matter of deciding who to bring formal charges against. Thus these government attorneys have the power to oppress whichever class of people they want. The leader of these scoundrels, and the one all the rest take their cues from, is the Attorney General. As you might expect, the general of the government’s legal hordes must be an especially nasty sort because he had to not only thrive in the sewer of the law, but claw his way to the top…until today.

Enter the present attorney general, Eric Holder. Holder did not claw his way to the top. He is what I like to call an elevator man: one of those minority mediocrities who has spent his entire career falling up, being passed forward from one elite institution after another due to the desperation of white liberals to find a “smart black man” they can worship to prove they aren’t racist, even though they specifically look for neighbourhoods with “good schools” (code word for all white schools) to raise their children. Naturally, the white liberals have removed any possible barriers for the elevator men such as academic qualifications, or even personal ethics. All may be waived as long as he has vaguely brownish skin and can speak more or less correct English. This serves them well enough. White liberal elites were never that smart anyway, and dumbing down the schools helps their kids too. Intelligence doesn’t matter, only commitment to progressivism. Ivy League schools serve a wonderful function as a four year initiation into their social club, while at the same time judiciously stroking their egos. This allows them to pretend they are smart, because at one point in time these schools were known for their academics and the reputation still lingers despite the lowered standards.

Probably the one failing of the elevator men is that they know they are elevator men. They know they aren’t as smart as all these fawning white liberals pretend they are to their faces. They feel patronized and fetishized even as they are at the very center of praise wherever they go. This causes them to hate and despise their handlers. Their white liberal handlers likely know this deep down and perhaps thrive on it in a white guilt masochistic way, their penance for being born to the hated “master race”.

Thus empowered, Holder has used his post to act out his malice on the nation and people who have made him what he is… and in comically incompetent ways. Everything he does looks like it could be the plot of a get-rich-quick-scheme in an “Amos ‘n Andy” episode. He acted out his Vin Diesel fantasies by helping to cover up a gun running sting operation “Fast and Furious” that ended up selling a bunch of guns to Mexican drug lords, one of which was used to shoot and kill U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata. Rather than investigate the half baked scheme, Holder has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the Congressional investigation, further proof that he’s simply following the orders given by his handlers.

He refused to prosecute the Black Panther party for voter intimidation because “it would be an insult to my people”, clearly establishing he does not identify as an American even in his own head. Indeed he has had a series of verbal gaffes which indicate to me he does not understand the definitions of words. For example, he famously quipped that white people don’t have civil rights. Lots of people misjudged that quote. It was not a knowing indication that he intends for white people to be second class citizens, as I don’t think he is nearly that self aware. I don’t think he could define “civil rights”. That phrase in his head probably conjures up images of Martin Luther King marching and black people getting sprayed by fire hoses courtesy of mean old Bull Connor. In his mind “civil rights” probably means “black man gets ahead”. I doubt he has any concept that there is such a thing as “civil law” and that citizens have “civil rights” under civil law.

Also, being an empty suit with no actual notions of what the law is, he is willing to sign off on whatever tyrannical crap the real rulers of this country desire, such as the literal assassination of American citizens as long as they are in the middle east and have funny Arab sounding names… for now. Expect Uncle Holder’s precedent to eventually allow drone assassination of Americans in America with any kind of name. His statement that there is a distinction between “due process and judicial process” is yet another one of those moments where those words don’t mean what he thinks they mean. Any actual lawyer would know Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment, clearly establish that Americans have a right to trial by jury in criminal cases. According to this, due (meaning that which is owed legally) process IS by definition judicial process in criminal cases.

They aren’t even trying anymore. Our rulers don’t even have the class to pretend to care about the law. Every day, the government becomes more and more arbitrary. This joke of a pretend lawyer who is supposed to command the real lawyers, Eric Holder, is just one more outrage in a series of outrages. If you are going to fuck me in the ass can’t you use some lube at least? That is all I am asking Washington.

Author: Motivation Man

You can find more of Motivation Man’s works of evil at his blog; Yetzerhara.

Earlier in the day, I’d texted my old CrossFit coach Winslow and asked if he wanted to work out. Joked about doing a bunch of keg snatches. Then he shot me the address of a new place called Elite Performance Center.

When I showed up, we worked on some squats with a technique he was learning. I met Chris, and he gave me a tour of his gym, starting with his joke about the handles on the lone treadmill up front being wired to a 220 current because“WE DON’T HAVE CARDIO EQUIPMENT.” He chuckled impishly and said that it sorted out “the wrong kind of people.”

After the tour was over, Chris and Winslow started talking. This gregarious greybeard named Jim sauntered up behind me and growled: “He squats a thousand pounds.”

I thought he was joking, because I frankly didn’t even know that was humanly possible. Or, if it was, I figured only a few guys in the world could do that.
Turns out, Chris is one of the few guys in the world who has squatted over 1000 pounds in competition–at only 220lbs. While we were working on this interview, Chris set the APA raw world record with a 1945lb total, ranking him #1 in the world across all powerlifting federations.

Chris has a good story. You can read more about it on his web site. The short version is that he grew up in poverty with a troubled family, got an engineering degree, got a job, adopted some of his siblings, became a successful manager, got a masters degree, got married, bought a house, started a family, became a world class powerlifter, and opened his own gym. In his spare time he designs or modifies a lot of his own gym equipment, and he’s been working on building a rock buggy from scratch for a few years.  Say what you want about the state of the American Dream, but this guy has managed to pull it off.

For the benefit of men in pursuit of Manly Excellence, I thought I’d ask Chris a few questions about staying motivated and succeeding where other men fail.

JACK: I’d like to think that most men at least try to set goals for themselves, but it’s easy to get distracted, and so many goals never make it past the daydreaming stage. Chris, how do you decide where you are going to focus your energy, and how do you keep yourself on task once you get started?

CHRIS: It’s absolutely essential that goals make it past the daydreaming stage.  I grew up with some smart parents who were dreamers.  My stepfather would tell me about product ideas, and sure enough years later I would see his ideas for sale on TV.  He never set down the beer and got off the couch.  It’s all about action.  Every dream must be flushed out to a vision to really make it an achievable dream and not just that “dream.”  I visualize all the steps needed to accomplish my goal and I map out all of the different alternatives and obstacles I may encounter.  Without a clear vision you can’t put your energy in the right direction or see all those little steps along the way being completed, getting you one step closer to your goal.

Routine tasks are not the least bit engaging, but something challenging that is ‘dream worthy’ engages me in a manner that keeps me motivated in itself.  If it’s challenging, I don’t know if I can complete it, and I know I have to learn and grow in new areas to achieve this dream.  It is stepping into this unknown – there’s this helplessness of accepting a challenge that I don’t know if I can achieve. That’s what keeps me motivated.  I want to see if I am capable, and see what I can accomplish.  This is also what keeps me progressing as an individual. The automatic reaction to making the leap into ‘helplessness’ is not something that generates fear for me.  It is this fear of helplessness that keeps people in their comfort zones.

 If you’re not chasing ‘dream worthy’ goals where does one find motivation? I honestly don’t know, because that’s where I find mine.

Dream->Vision->Leap (helplessness)->Action (w/sustained motivation).

JACK: The idea of helplessness is interesting. “Helpless” is about the last thing any man wants to be.

Some men have an innate confidence, but you can also build confidence through a track record of success. Men who don’t fear helplessness have either never been tested, or know that they can pick themselves up because they have already been knocked down. I get the sense that, despite your talents, you are in the second group. What are some “coaching points” you would give to men who are more risk-averse, who have problems taking the leap? How would you teach a man to trust himself?

CHRIS: Astute observation, Jack. It takes courage and confidence, which is developed through winning, to achieve this state.  The interesting thing about fearlessness/courage is that it isn’t a fixed line on a graph.  It is something that accumulates with your successes, but also atrophies with lack of practice.  If you think about courage and confidence along those growth and atrophy lines it displays characteristics much like that of a muscle. The confidence/strength accumulates with practice and atrophies when idle.  A person who has achieved great success and the related confidence/strength but taken time off will return to those levels much quicker than those who have never been there.  They will however not be ready to go right out of the gate at full strength until they have built up those levels again.

For these reasons, the practice of achieving helplessness needs to be done on a regular basis.  In fact this is the very same tool used in my article on Gut Check for Leadership with the same recommendation.  This is not the only method for overcoming fear but it is one of four that I utilize and will discuss in further detail in an upcoming article.

I would hazard a bet that most people that attempt the concept of reaching for helplessness will achieve more than they thought they were capable of.  On the other hand you will learn your limits and those that don’t have the competence will not stack up the same level of wins or confidence.  This is not an “everyone wins” world and this process will sort out the winners from the losers, and you must be ok with this to participate.  Right now I am still attempting to find my limits.

With all of that said, I can tell you that 98% of the people in this world will never display the drive to use this tool.  I use this method for building high performance teams at work.  By pushing people out of their comfort zones into the unknown they do indeed grow, learn, and perform at new levels.  However, if I’m not their pushing them into the unknown you can guess what happens…

One last thing to note is that I am referring to Confidence, and there is a distinct difference between Confidence and Ego.

JACK: How would you differentiate between the two?  I’m guessing one is helpful and the other gets in the way.

CHRIS: I consider confidence to be an internal belief in your own capabilities. When I consider someone to be operating off of ego instead of confidence, they don’t respect other people or the input of those people.  Ego and confidence appear to be very similar, but it is the difference between bragging and simply stating facts when they need to be stated.  Operating off of ego instead of simply confidence can be detrimental to your success. I go into that more in-depth in my article on Humility & Confidence. The trick is that as success builds, it’s easy for some people to become egotistical, and this needs to be avoided.

That said you need to stand tall behind your decisions and directions in life.  Even when working with others there are often times when it comes down to one person making the decision or driving the path forward.  Even after being open to and receiving and considering the input of others that decision may not be the group decision.  If you have honestly considered the input of the group, you are not being egotistical if you decide to head in a different direction.  In all of these situations you must ‘own’ that decision and direction with an alpha male mentality.  If it ends up wrong, then you must display the confidence to own that as well, and be willing to rethink your direction.  Operating off ego will often keep you heading down that failing path and over the edge of the cliff instead of redirecting.

JACK: So when you say ego, you mean it in the “conceit” sense — the difference between confidence and conceit.

CHRIS: Yes, that why you’re the writer and I’m the meathead.

JACK: Bah. I just figured I’d say it in another way to make it clear for readers. Thanks to Freud, “ego” can mean a lot of different things.

Congratulations on the massive total you pulled off at the last meet. I know you have some links to your training routines. Did you do anything special to prepare for this one? Are there any supplements you took that you would recommend?

CHRIS: Thanks, Jack.  It went well, and I accomplished exactly what I set out to do.  Went 9 for 9 in my first unequipped meet with a 1946 total @ 220lbs BW.  To put that in perspective, it puts me in the #1 ranked spot in the world at that weight class by a full 45lbs. It set the All-Time American Raw record by the same amount which is a combination of all federations/rules.

My training is an open book. My online training logs date back to 2007, including videos.  I did detail the overall programming concepts I used in this meet and tie them and the de-loading method back to some articles in a recent post.  This was my 26 week training cycle that I posted up a couple weeks before the competition… note the last line “wk26: realize results”.  I was confident as to what I was going to achieve with this plan.

Training Plan

As for supplements, I get regular blood work from my doctor to evaluate deficiencies and this defines my health supplement program, which includes Vitamin D, Vitamin C, and fish oil.  For performance supplements, I exclusively use USP labs.  Sponsoring me was likely one of their worst decisions. I was buying just their stuff to begin, which is the reason I sought them out years ago. So all they did is lose one of their best customers. Leading into this meet, I was running Super Cissus, Recreate, Anabolic Pump, Jack3d, and Product 20.  The goal was to stay strong while staying very lean to make the 220lb class, and it paid off.

JACK: You have a lot going on. Setting powerlifting records, running a gym, training noobs like me, full-time management job, a wife, a son, and a daughter on the way. Are there any pointers you could offer men who just want to get more done? Any time management resources guys should check out?

CHRIS: Constantly evaluate what you’re doing in life. Ask whether it ‘needs’ to be done or whether it’s just a ‘task’ that you are doing.  Eliminate whatever you can first, then automate or offload everything else.  A good test of whether something ‘needs’ done is to simply quit doing it and see what happens.   I think everything you do should be moving you or your family’s life forward, anything else you need to figure out how to eliminate, automate, or offload. At work, I’ve found that the 80/20 rule applies. 80% of what people are doing are non-value added tasks that people do to fill time and make them think they are accomplishing something.  Challenging these assumptions is what has made me successful at work and in my personal life.  For an example, notice all those “how to” videos I’m making.  They are not just for my articles but they are also loaded on the iTouch connected to the plasma at the gym.  I have people watch those first… then review and answer questions afterwards with the noobs.

I watch a few shows a week on TV to spend time with my wife, but before getting married I hadn’t owned a TV for years.  I tried video games in high school and I could not believe the time wasters they were. Same thing with watching sports.  I’m a big proponent of doing work. In recent years as I’ve gotten older and started a family I’ve had to literally practice slowing down.  With people to take care of, you can’t just work till you’re sick, which is what I did.  I’m not even pushing that hard anymore, but I still get a lot done.

JACK: You have a family, but you also seem committed to having your own identity and “man time.” I think that’s important. A lot of men seem to think they have to involve their wives or girlfriends in every single thing they do. They seem to have a hard time drawing a line or setting aside time for themselves. I’ve heard a lot of them complain about losing themselves or losing all of their male friends. I don’t think it’s healthy, and I don’t think the guys who do that end up with happy home lives. Men have always had their own lives and identities outside of the home. Work doesn’t exactly count as guy time anymore, because most workplaces are highly integrated and very politically correct. It ain’t Fred and Barney down at the quarry. Heck, even Fred and Barney had bowling night and the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes.

Can you offer any tips on balancing family life and “guy time,” and maintaining a strong sense of your own identity as a man?

CHRIS: I have seen this happen with so many friends from college or high school. They just disappear until they breakup or get divorced then all of a sudden they are around again.  When challenged on it, the answer is “well I’m married now”.  And what, now life is over?  That’s not the vision of life I want to live and is not acceptable.  My wife is my best friend, but she gets her time and I get my time.  It’s not always easy for either of us and we have our challenges around that but it makes a healthier relationship.  I am a much happier husband and father because I get that time.  Otherwise, I could be that husband who is eternally pissed off at the world, sitting on the couch drinking beer, and snapping at the family.

No tips — just don’t be a pussy and figure out how to make it happen.

JACK: Those are fine words of wisdom to wrap this thing up. I see a t-shirt… “DON’T BE A PUSSY. MAKE IT HAPPEN.”

For more about Chris Duffin, visit kabukiwarrior.com

About Jack Donovan

Jack Donovan moonlights as an advocate for the resurgence of patriarchal, paleo-masculine values among the Men of the West. He has contributed articles to Alternative Right.com and has also written for the anti-feminist/men’s interest site The Spearhead.

Donovan has appeared on television and radio to discuss the topic of manhood, and in 2010 spoke to a group of students at a private high school about “Masculinity in the 21st Century.”

Jack Donovan is originally from rural Pennsylvania. He has lived and worked in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and currently resides in Portland, Oregon.

Donovan’s new book about masculinity, The Way of Men, is currently available through Amazon.com  and Barnes & Noble. For more about Jack, go to: www.jack-donovan.com

Motivate the Nation by Demotivating the People!

I have been thinking about video games lately and in my infinite wisdom I have devised a solution to all economic problems with just one simple idea: pay the poor to play video games!

So why am I right about this? I know “I right” is redundant because I am always right. However you owe it to yourself to improve your mind by listening to my explanation.

The simple fact is that as the economy becomes more automated and technical we require fewer and fewer people to do the same amount of work. I very much doubt it would require 10% of the present global workforce to feed, clothe, and house everybody on the planet. That means most jobs are superfluous to the necessities of human life. Further, the simple fact is that most people are unemployed because they are unemployable.

There is just not much of a future for an economy that consists mostly of dumb unskilled labor in the 21st century. Let’s not lie to ourselves. We aren’t going to turn a nation of vegetable pickers into a nation of computer programmers. It just can’t happen. We are literally throwing our money away trying to educate the ineducable. If you don’t have the raw human talent to make something of yourself there is very little the state can do by warehousing you for 9 hours a day for 12 years. There is just no point in pretending to teach our superfluous citizens things they lack the ability and motivation to learn. That is where my solution comes in.

These people will not starve. Nobody starves in America. One way or another those who can’t support themselves are going to be supported on the taxpayer dime. The only relevant question is how we are going to do that. Trying to educate and uplift them is pointless. However just giving them money is equally pointless. We don’t want a bunch of people being paid to do nothing (which really means they are free to cause trouble). Also humans have a tendency to devalue that which they did nothing to earn. So let them earn it. “But they don’t produce anything” you say? Neither do most people with jobs. The whole “service economy” is mostly driven by redistributed wealth. So you see most “earning” is simulated now. It is easy to trick the mind into thinking you earned something you were given. I guarantee you money earned by playing video games would be more thriftily spent than money merely being given away.

But how would this work really? What would be the mechanics of it?

Let us suppose a 40 hour work week and a minimum wage of 8 dollars.

8×40=320

320×52=16640

So suppose we issued everybody at the unemployment office an xbox with some kind of monitoring software to detect time played. If you played that xbox for the maximum amount of time the most you could make a year would be 16640. That is actually more than most people living off government entitlements get now.

Suppose a worst case scenario of 150 million Americans on the video game unemployment program. 150 million x 16640 is roughly 2.5 trillion dollars. Pretty steep right? It isn’t really that bad if you consider that is about half last year’s federal budget. Obviously virtually all present entitlements would have to be eliminated to make room for this program. Without those this becomes much more affordable.

But wouldn’t this wreck the economy? Actually it would greatly benefit the economy. The fact of the matter is Keynesianism works. You CAN spend money to stimulate the economy provided two things are true:

1. You only spend money you have and don’t inflate the currency

2. Your money is spent into the hands of people who will actually use it to make things or buy things

Paying people to make things is problematic because government contractors have a bad habit of taking government money and pretending to work. And very often the projects they work on are things that nobody wants or needs like a bridge to nowhere. The most efficient way to spend money to stimulate the economy is paying people to buy things. Who are the people most likely to spend money they are given? The poor.

If every American was guaranteed to earn minimum wage via video games we’d see a lot more economic activity. There would actually be more jobs for the people who actually want to work. All of these people would want to spend their money on something and businesses would have to hire to meet the new demand. It would also take a lot of pressure off the job market by allowing slackers the ability to more effectively drop out and make more room for workers.

But this is not the best part…not by a long shot. The crowning achievement of my proposal is that it would pretty much end crime. Get poor people sitting on their ass for a minimum of 40 hours a week with plenty of hot pocket and mountain dew money. Get them off the streets. Get them soft and sedentary. How many fat criminals do you know? That is what I thought. Imagine how livable things would be if all those people who used to mug old ladies were at home playing Halo and eating Cheetos. This would basically solve every social problem we have at a stroke…or a coronary. You’re welcome.

Author: Motivation Man

You can find more of Motivation Man’s works of evil at his blog; Yetzerhara.

For many wage-earners the beginning of the New Year means once again being subjected to annual performance reviews in a too-often vain attempt at convincing employers to bestow that coveted pay raise. But this year the stakes are all the higher for Americans because a pay raise will likely mean no effective increase in pay at all, and failure to secure a raise will effectively mean a pay cut. The reason, of course, is grossly under-reported inflation caused by debt monetization and intentional currency debasement.

Politicians, prominent businessmen, and the abominably complicit news media would condition Americans to believe that inflation is caused by increasing prices for goods and service due to greedy profiteering. The price of many commodities like gasoline, food products, and metals are actually at historical lows compared to other commodities that see little fluctuation in demand, like gold. The inflation we are currently experiencing is far better described as a lessening of the value of the paper money that wage-earners currently have and will earn in the future.

Below is a graph from pricedingold.com showing the dollar relative to grams of gold since 1787. It’s easy to see when the gold standard was abandoned completely in 1971.

And here’s a graph, also from pricedingold.com, showing the average wages of American production workers since 1965. The hourly wage for factory workers in dollars is the highest it has ever been, but in grams of gold we have sunk to the all-time lows experienced in the early 1980s.

Fed leaders and politicians tell us that it’s necessary for them to intentionally debase our fiat currency to cover unavoidable debt and cheapen the relative cost of American goods on the international market. They tell us it must be done to stimulate economic growth and avert a financial catastrophe. This is an old trick played by kings, emperors, and various other con artists for as long as men have used money. The Book of James, believed to have been written in the second century A.D., contains a warning about currency debasement:

James 5:3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

The cankering of gold and silver is caused by mixing the precious metals with base metals that corrode, in an attempt to multiply the number of coins without increasing the amount of precious metals held. In this context, debasement is associated with extraordinarily greedy hoarders of money.

Between 193 and 210 A.D. the silver content of Roman coins was reduced from 90% silver to 50% silver in an attempt to compensate for poor fiscal discipline on the part of the Roman government. The same was attempted by the German government between 1918 and 1923 when their deliberate currency debasement caused the Mark to crash from around 4 marks per dollar to 4 trillion marks per dollar. These are just two of the most fabulous examples, but currency debasement has been the default reaction of politicians and rulers wishing to cover up their own lack of fiscal discipline for as long as government has existed.

China, and to a lesser extent Japan and the EU, deliberately debase their currency in order to cheapen their goods in comparison to those of competing nations. China has no issue with reducing the effective pay rate of the Chinese worker to such an extent that they are little more than slave labor, and truly they have been very effective at both squeezing domestic competitors out of the American labor market and forcing American factories to outsource production jobs to the Chinese slave labor market. American politicians and international businessmen would convince Americans that there is no choice but to reduce worker pay in the United States through currency debasement in an attempt to keep pace with China. They would have America create a government-subsidized slave class to compete with the Chinese slaves. Clearly such a situation is designed to profit only those who control international trade, not those who produce goods or services. If a national government is going to regulate international trade, should it not do so in a way that protects its own middle-class wage earners from the deliberately virulent trade policies of other nations, rather than encouraging them?

Through tariffs on trade goods, and sound gold-backed currency, the United States could enforce a minimum standard for the cost of labor internationally, thereby protecting the American wage earner from competition with Chinese slave laborers. But like so many countries and empires that have fallen, America won’t reverse course and return to fiscal responsibility because it doesn’t serve the immediate interests of the politicians or the international businessmen.

Tariffs would hurt American retailers like Walmart, who depend on cheap Chinese labor to stock their shelves with high-profit goods. Such policies would anger the Chinese, owners of around 1.2 trillion dollars of debt that keeps politicians in office and the government subsidies flowing to the lowest wage earners, subsidies they wouldn’t need if not for the profligate spending habits of politicians since the end of the gold standard. This is the path of least resistance, and it requires no hard choices. The rich will continue to get fabulously wealthy for a time, and the politicians will hide their fiscal irresponsibility for a time but eventually the system will crash, and the hoarders of wealth will flee to greener pastures. It’s an old scam that the middle class just keeps falling for.

Author: Yeoman

Why the hell are we reviewing a video game on a manliness website? The short answer is video games are the primary form of entertainment straight males under 35 consume. With television, music, and movies now mostly gay and female ghettos with a few niche “action” schlock pictures which are nominally male oriented but usually have pc undertones. All but the biggest budget action movies are guaranteed flops now because the male consumer has abandoned the medium. Taking a chance on stratospheric budgets for a movie that may or may not make your money back when you can market much cheaper movies to a more loyal and predictable female fan base is a business no-brainer. The great masculine movies of the 80s are never coming back. Even movies like “The Expendables” are outliers and marketed as “cult” movies because the Hollywood executives know that there is just not universal appeal for that kind of content anymore.

Enter video games. Little known fact: video games generally make more than movies. An average “AAA” video game has a budget of a few million dollars and sells for 60 bucks a pop. There are a few insane outliers that cost more to make (Star wars: the old republic) but as a general rule video game production budgets on the biggest games are near the 5-10 million range. A hit can make hundreds of millions. Video games are big business. The big profit potential has attracted big investors. That means American corporate culture and mainstream marketing strategies are now being applied to video games and it is changing the medium.

In practical terms this means businessmen whose main objectives are to increase sales and broaden appeal at all costs have veto power and some degree of creative control over how video games are made. In some ways this is good. Bigger budgets mean higher production values (better “graphics” in video game lingo) as well as a general mitigation of the tendency video games used to have of making games hard and complex for the sake of being hard and complex because video game players wanted to discourage mass appeal and keep the medium as niche as possible. This was obviously a bad idea. Outside of a few crazy people hard does not equal fun.

I picked Mass Effect 3 to review because it is the biggest game of this year and illustrates precisely what I am talking about.

We’re focusing more on culture here but this is a game so talking about the “game” parts is pretty much mandatory. In short the game plays better, faster, and smoother than Mass effect 2. But let us be honest with ourselves: this is not an RPG (role playing game). This is a soft shooter with a few gimmick abilities. Yes theoretically you can pause the game and issue commands to your group while managing tactical positioning and queuing up abilities. However the game can be beaten on the hardest difficulty without doing that once. You can also find armor sets and weapons which you can upgrade but the impact is not huge. This is not a “loot” driven game. So while it nominally has more “RPG components” than the extremely stripped down Mass Effect 2 this is still not an RPG. The vast majority of your time spent not talking to people will be shooting people.

Even though the gameplay is nominally expanded there are other parts of the game which have been drastically reduced. There is now only one “Hub” where you can pick up tasks, go to shops, and talk to people (The Citadel). In Mass Effect 2 there were 4 (Tuchanka, Illium, Omega, and The Citadel). Also these are the worst side quests Mass Effect has ever seen. You can literally walk by two people having a conversation and get a quest automatically in your journal to scan some random planet for some random macguffin (and it doesn’t tell you which planet) and moreover YOUR JOURNAL DOES NOT TELL YOU WHEN YOU HAVE THAT ITEM! You find yourself going from star system to star system scanning for random planets to complete quests you don’t even know you have. It is tedious and pointless. It is painfully obvious side quests were largely an afterthought. This is somewhat forgivable considering this game is not about side quests.

The main story itself continues the general theme of stripped down and focused. Your crew (with a few notable exceptions) is largely your crew from the very first Mass Effect. These are characters you have been familiar with for five years now. You have Liara, Garrus, Tali, and Ashley or Kaidan depending on who died in Mass Effect 1. The trademark of Bioware as a video game developer is good dialogue and memorable characters. Bioware largely did a good job here. Your interaction with the main cast is less about background information or exposition and more a character study in how people and relationships react to the imminent destruction of the galaxy. The pathos is real and believable.

…and then Bioware’s parent company Electronic Arts ruined it by shoehorning in a bunch of new characters you don’t care about to try to broaden the appeal.

No I am not talking about same-sex romance plots. Homosexuality has been a centerpiece of the Mass Effect universe from day one. This is the fictional universe with the Asari, a true omnisexual race of blue space women who can mate with ANYTHING. Over the course of the games you observe Asari mating with human males, human females, Krogan (7 foot tall lizard men), Turians (bird men), Salarians (Salamander/amphibian men), Vorcha (vampire dog monsters), and fellow Asari among others. If you have that in your game already some gay is not a big deal.

The problem is they are poorly written, poorly executed and look they were created by some kind of god awful focus testing committee to have the broadest and most generic appeal possible.

You have Cortez the shuttle pilot with a sob story about the death of his husband that falls totally flat. He looks and sounds like Jesús the gay Mexican man in True Blood

Next you have James Vega, douchebag Jersey Shore space marine complete with tribal tattoos and faux hawk. I was absolutely convinced he was the gay male love interest and kind of disappointed he wasn’t. Despite his appearance he is a much better character than the one dimensional Cortez. Personally I thought you could cut the sexual tension with a knife in your early conversations.

Lastly we have reporter Diana Allers, played by IGN reporter Jessica Chobot. She was either put in as a really cynical attempt at eye candy or as the result of same kind of shady deal between EA and IGN. As much money as video games make websites that review video games are still in the wild west era and there is a lot of under the table stuff for good reviews.

The good news is these characters can largely be ignored or avoided with little to no penalty. They aren’t game breaking. I only spend so much time on them because they are indicative of a company who is putting mass appeal over story and largely pleasing nobody as a result.

The rest of the story is about 90% good. Mass Effect 2 was basically Seven Samurai or Ocean’s 11. You must build a crack team of experts and do a job. Mass Effect 3 takes that up to 11. Instead of a small team you must build a grand fleet out of every species in the galaxy and all their ships to take on a universal threat. The problem is that the story from the beginning tells you this is hopeless. Even with the galaxy united they tell you up front you can’t win conventionally. This grand fleet you are building is only a distraction so you can deliver a macguffin superweapon which is not explained and is supposed to win the war for you. It has the dual effect of diminishing your sense of accomplishment and confusing your motivation. Also the origin and motivation of the main antagonists is not explained beyond a couple vague statements at the ending. In fact the whole last hour of the game feels rushed and unsatisfying. The 3 “endings” are nearly identical and all sense of player agency or accomplishment is lost.

This is especially bad because the main thing Bioware used to do well was the sense of player accomplishment and agency. For example in Knights of the Old Republic you always felt that upon leaving a given setting it was either completely fixed or completely messed up and it was all on you. The ending here arguably creates more problems than it solves and is an obvious set up for a sequel or expansion. It provided none of the closure which was a major selling point of the game from the beginning. This is an unfortunate consequence of the business end of video games. No brand with mass consumer recognition can ever end. There will always be sequels. No story will ever come to a satisfying conclusion.

They also took the easy way out and made Quarians look like human beings. Whoops…*spoiler alert*

So in the final analysis this game is mostly good…if and only if you have already played Mass effect 1 & 2 and already care about where the story is going. Despite what marketers say this game is NOT new player friendly. It starts in medias res and you will be lost if you don’t already know what is going on. The good parts are really good. They have character driven storytelling down to a science. The overall plot leaves much to be desired though. Don’t expect RPG games to ever return. True RPG gameplay does not translate well to consoles and that is where the money is. The ending is pretty bad and is definitely not the way you would want to see mass effect as a brand go out. So if you want more mass effect take heart, you are pretty much guaranteed more Mass Effect in a year or two. Just don’t expect it to be the Mass Effect you once knew.

Author: Motivation Man

You can find more of Motivation Man’s works of evil at his blog; Yetzerhara.

Before we get anywhere with this problem we must first examine what censorship is. Most people define censorship as any government action to suppress or eliminate certain forms of expression that have been found to be “objectionable” by a given group or groups of people. This is a legal process. It involves the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of our government, working together to come to a consensus as to what is legally protected as free speech and what can be regulated, penalized or outright banned as obscene. It’s not supposed to be easy to ban speech. 

Pornography, for example, is a form of regulated speech. There are laws controlling the production, sale, distribution and ownership of pornography. Most of these are fairly consistent with regards to locale but there is a little variance here and there. Porn laws, like all other laws, are drawn up by our legislators and later tested by the courts. Obviously not all porn is legal. If a government prosecutor feels that a particular piece of pornography crosses the line from objectionable or shocking into the very specific realm of obscenity, they may take legal action to censor the material, first obtaining permission from the judiciary to execute warrants of search and seizure. Then they execute those warrants by raiding warehouses and offices, seizing property related to production such as camera equipment and computers, and making arrests. If the court decides the material is “obscene”, then judgment is made and prison sentences as well as fines are usually in order.

This is exactly what happened to a man named Paul F. Little, AKA Max Hardcore. He was recently released from Federal prison after serving over two years related to obscenity charges brought against him by the FBI. Mr. Little produced porn that depicted activity well outside what most people would consider “mainstream” sexual practices. His videos were quite shocking and explicit, even to people familiar with pornography. However, Mr. Little’s videos featured consenting adults engaging in otherwise legal activity. Not to get too specific, but the Feds didn’t actually lock him up for producing obscene materials, they got him for mailing them to a location in the U.S. where the “community standards” didn’t favor the particular flavor that Max was selling.

Paul F. Little (AKA Max Hardcore) served over two years in Federal prison for being too sexy.

Whenever people talk about censorship, they are almost always referring to the kind of government action that landed Max Hardcore in prison. But this isn’t by any means the only kind of censorship out there, and indeed is not the focus of this piece. There is another, more insidious and frightening type of censorship going on and the people pushing this agenda are the very last people you would expect. They count among their ranks artists, actors, writers, and comedians. They are the people who historically have been staunch defenders and exercisers of free speech. They openly profess their love and appreciation for the First Amendment, and regularly lampoon right-wing evangelicals who seek to censor material that they find objectionable and potentially harmful to children.

When politically motivated fundamentalist Christians campaign to remove books from school libraries, or when they speak out against rappers and rock musicians who glorify violence and hedonism, the free speech advocates in the art and entertainment community are the first ones to stand up in their defense. They loudly condemn those who would pull books from libraries as closed-minded fools and defiantly proclaim “I read banned books” on bumper stickers and buttons.

But there is a serious and jarring disconnect in this community. They seem to understand that the First Amendment isn’t about protecting popular speech. It is actually about protecting the right of the people to express the most unpopular of ideas. The problem is, a staggering number of these supposedly free-thinking folks are quite willing to step up and openly advocate censorship and the stifling of free expression, even by force in some cases. Of course, in their view, they are not advocating censorship at all, because censorship is when the government shuts someone up. When they do it, it’s called “creating a safe environment for x” or “raising awareness of x”. The unnamed variable “x” is whatever progressive social cause they feel like inserting at the moment.

This group uses language as a subtle, yet powerful weapon to tilt the playing field of debate before any ideas are ever in play. Their favorite buzzwords are the aforementioned “awareness”, followed by “tolerance”, “acceptance”, and “sensitivity”. They treat these words with reverence. In their minds they are holding aloft the banner of enlightenment, boldly marching against “hatred”, “intolerance”, “bigotry”, “ignorance” and “racism”. So before anyone has even begun to discuss a given issue, the progressive protectors of “free speech” have rigged the language and set themselves up as moral superiors, whose opponents by definition are backwards, hateful bigots. They clamor to shout down anyone who dares to think outside of the intellectual/philosophical boxes they have constructed as morally correct ideological packages. And they are consistently winning. Censorship is in. Ask Tracy Morgan.

Tracy Morgan wants to kill your gay baby.

On June 3rd, 2011, the actor/comedian was on stage in Nashville, earning his living. Tracy is known for outrageous, ribald behavior and frequently pushes the boundaries of what is socially acceptable in both his act and his developed public persona. This hardly makes him unique. Comics push boundaries and challenge the status quo all the time; it’s part of their job description. On this particular evening, Tracy began discussing homosexuality. He made statements to the effect that, in contrast to many Hollywood fathers, if his son told him he was gay, he would not support him. Instead, Tracy said he would “Pull out a knife and stab the little nigga.” Social media exploded and Tracy got raked over the coals for his “hateful”, “insensitive” comments. Fellow comedian Chris Rock initially Tweeted support for Morgan, writing “I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in world where Tracy Morgan can’t say foul inappropriate shit.” Bravo Mr. Rock. That was the right thing to do. But not everyone agreed. Wanda Sykes, an outspoken comedian who is an out-of-the closet lesbian, took issue with Tracy’s “hateful” tirade. Here is how she responded to Tracy’s act and Rock’s support via Twitter:

Hey, just back from family road trip. Ok, Tracy Morgan. Good thing I was busy because it would have been ugly, name calling. Pt. 1

Had time to think. Tracy is just a dumb comic. I fault the TN lawmakers. They’ve created an anti-gay environment. Pt2

Don’t believe Tracy would be so ignorant in LA, because we have a mayor, a city council,and police chief who believes we are all equal. Pt3

I do believe in free speech, but for a youth in TN or any other numerous place, Tracy just yelled, “Fire,” in a crowded theater.

Ok, piss’d reading, “I don’t want 2 live n a world where Tracy can’t say…” I Do! U Keep the world, just break me off an evolved country.

@rolandsmartin @AMERICAblogGay Tracy has the right to say whatever he wants to say, just like we have the right to say, not acceptable.

@rolandsmartin @AMERICAblogGay WE as a country. We used to picnic to watch public hangings, but WE figured out, that was some sick s*it.

@rolandsmartin @AMERICAblogGay No, society does effect the comedy stage, that’s why you don’t see anymore white comics in blackface. And it’s up to us if we laugh or walk out.

@rolandsmartin @AMERICAblogGay This isn’t about comedy. What Tracy said is dangerous. We r just trying to protect our kids. Peace and love!

Chris Rock eventually caved to pressure and publicly condemned Tracy’s “outburst”, which is understandable in the wake of Wanda Sykes’ Twitter offensive. Wanda’s style is impetuous and her defense is impregnable. You see, she would never support censorship, unless of course she is the one doing the censoring. In that case she’s all for it. Here is a summary:

Occasionally funny comedian Wanda Sykes has never killed a gay baby.

(1) and (2)- Of course Tracy is just a “dumb comic” under the influence of the hateful state of Tennessee. He engaged in name calling, not because he was trying to be funny and thought he could get a laugh, but because Tennessee lawmakers have created an “atmosphere of hate” for gays. A stand-up comic who says outrageous things for a living felt comfortable enough to say he would stab his own son if he found out he was gay. Disregard the possibility that Tracy was being outrageous on purpose in an attempt to get laughs. Context doesn’t matter. Tennessee failed to create an “environment of acceptance” and thus is not only responsible for Tracy’s comments, but also complicit complicit in any violent acts directed towards homosexuals that can be tenuously tied to such comments.

(2)-Tracy wouldn’t be so “ignorant” in L.A. because the city government feels “We are all equal”. Wanda clearly feels that L.A. is superior to Tennessee because L.A. has succeeded in creating that all-important environment of tolerance. Wanda doesn’t even consider the possibility that SHE was engaging in prejudicial behavior by assuming that the South, more specifically Tennessee, is a hateful place that causes the people there to become hateful themselves. The truth is of course much simpler: “Tracy Morgan said some crazy shit trying to get people to laugh.”

(3) Again, Wanda believes in free speech, except when that freedom is used to say something that offends her and could potentially result in someone misunderstanding the message and hypothetically harming someone as a result…some day…maybe, in which case that particular free speech has to be stopped. Nothing can interfere with the “environment” we need to create, as the need to make everyone feel safe and warm and loved is more important than protecting freedom of speech.

(4) While Wanda still supports free speech, she doesn’t want to live in a country with people who say things she doesn’t agree with or that she finds offensive. Contrary to outward appearances, those aren’t mutually exclusive positions. Take a lesson from Wanda and don’t think too hard about this one. Just accept it at face value and move on.

(5) Wanda feels that Tracy can say what he wants, but she and others who agree with her have the right to shut him up if they don’t like what he has to say, which IN NO WAY means they don’t support freedom of speech. How dare you even suggest it? Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

(6)-(7) I’m going to just give Wanda the benefit of the doubt here because what she wrote is incomprehensible and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so maybe she was addressing a tertiary conversation.

(8) Here Wanda makes yet another compelling argument against Tracy. We can’t have Tracy saying that if his son came out to him he could go get a knife and stab him! This could lead to *actual* father-son stabbings! Words hurt!!! We must protect the children!!! We’re not creating the right “environment”.

Roman Polanski drugs and anally rapes 13-year-old girls, but he is an artist and doesn't slander gay babies in public.

In order to hold on to his job, Tracy had to make groveling appearances at GLAAD press conferences with his hat in his hand and take his public spanking, as well as complete an “apology junket”. He got destroyed by every progressive talking-head during the process. Even his boss, Tina Fey, someone who should have supported him, spoke out against what he said. Tracy Morgan is not alone. Don Imus, Mel Gibson, Isaiah Washington, and far too many others have been deluded into believing a very common misconception. Tracy believed that the things he learned in school about the First Amendment were actually true. He believed that it protects individual expression in a legal sense, but more importantly he also believed that Americans are generally in favor of the idea itself.

In America we certainly don’t take punitive action against someone for saying something unpopular, as they are merely exercising a Constitutionally-secured right to free speech. We would never make scapegoats out of them and try to ruin their careers. We certainly wouldn’t force them to genuflect as a penance, abandoning dignity and begging for forgiveness. Perhaps the most egregious offense Tracy Morgan committed was his belief that other entertainers who also make their respective livings saying outrageous things and occasionally offending people would come to his defense. They didn’t. They were either afraid to back him up, or they drank the progressive Kool-Ade themselves.

Let’s get one thing straight. The end goal of all of these special-interest groups is not to end whatever social ill they have “waged war” against. Almost without exception, their goals are to build enough social and financial power to control people and remake the world the way they think it ought to be. To do this, they require that social problems continue, and the bigger and more dangerous they can make them seem, the better. They are dragon slayers and they need their dragons. They also need scapegoats to demonize and shame in order to set an example for the rest of us, so we will fall in line like good little sheep. While they feign outrage and anger when an entertainer steps out of line and the fire of negative publicity takes hold, inside they LOVE it. Real free speech is anathema to these groups, because with free speech comes actual dialogue, and dialogue is dangerous because it encourages people to develop their own ideas about morality and politics, and when they do that it interferes with the progressive need to create the “right environment”.

King Diamond drinks the blood of babies, but doesn't discriminate by sexual orientation.

Destroying dissenting speech through legislation is difficult, time consuming and expensive. Plus, it isn’t guaranteed to work and can actually backfire, creating legal precedent that sets the given special interest cause back decades. On the other hand, quieting dissenters and shaping behavior and speech through social pressure is a proven tactic that is much easier and avoids the issue of Constitutionality. While people will actively resist legislation that inhibits freedom of speech, they will actually work to create an atmosphere of social pressure that demands conformity. No one wants to appear hateful. It can cost you your job. If the social climate is one in which everyone is afraid to say anything that could be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, or otherwise offensive due to fear of repercussions, free speech is for all intents and purposes destroyed.

The next time you hear of a celebrity, athlete or news personality being raked over the coals for saying the wrong thing, pay attention to how the “outraged” minority group (who is actually thrilled to have a target to attack) manipulates and controls the language. I believe that the very worst thing the accused can do is drop to their knees and deliver that apology. But fame, money and power are things that no one wants taken away from them, and if a celebrity or athlete dares to offend a protected group without a profuse apology forthcoming, they stand to lose everything they have worked to achieve. But some things are more important than maintaining one’s income stream and status. Freedom of expression is one of those things. I would love to see more people stand up to these controlling, weak-minded assholes and say “Yeah I said it, and I meant it. You don’t control me and you don’t get to censor me. I’ll say it again if I feel like it. Now kindly fuck off.”

Author: Sgt. Rock

As you may be aware, there is a group of people called the “anti-tobacco lobby” that wants to restrict, or even take away your adult right to enjoy tobacco. Their evil tentacles are spreading throughout society, and in some states and countries they have successfully banned smoking in all bars and taverns, despite the wishes of the adults that own and frequent these establishments.

The tobacco plant ( Nicotiana tabacum)

The self-righteous shit-heads in the anti-tobacco lobby do not think you are smart enough to make your own decisions regarding your own health. Their main strategy is to sue the tobacco companies on behalf of people that are too stupid to realize that cigarettes are bad for them (more on that later), in an attempt to put the companies out of business, thus eliminating the livelihood that many hard-working Americans depend on. The best way to oppose the anti-tobacco lobby is by using tobacco, and using it proudly.

By now, I’m sure I’ve convinced you to use tobacco, if you don’t already. As readers of this site, you would probably like to use a tobacco product that is considered “manly” or “macho.” For your benefit, I’ve provided this discussion of various tobacco products, so you can make an informed and responsible choice. I’ve assigned each tobacco product a manliness rating, from 0 (least manly) to 10 (most manly).

Cigarettes

Manliness Rating = 0.5

The typical male cigarette smoker is not only a homosexual, but a bottom

Cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product in America, particularly among tanorexic women and metrosexuals (Figure 2). Cigarettes are to be avoided! With cigarettes, the nicotine is obtained through the lungs, by inhaling the smoke. Unfortunately, along with the nicotine, you are also sucking in tar and other nasty chemicals that are added to cigarette tobacco. Inhaling cigarette smoke harms your lungs and decreases their ability to absorb oxygen, thus draining away your manly strength and endurance. And if you smoke cigarettes your whole life, you have a very high risk of getting lung cancer or emphysema, diseases that are virtually incurable! Cigarette smoke smells bad, and makes you smell bad. If you currently use cigarettes and consider yourself a man, it’s time to switch to a different tobacco product, for the sake of your health AND your manliness.

Cigars

Manliness rating = 5.0

Bill Clinton: Cigar smoker, and the 42nd President of these United States

Cigars are not the preferred way to smoke tobacco, but they are far more acceptable than cigarettes. I feel no shame in admitting to smoke an occasional cigar. With cigars, the tobacco smoke is not inhaled, but simply puffed into the mouth, so the precious nicotine is absorbed into the mouth tissue. The major downside to cigars is that they are phallus-shaped, and make you look like you’ve got a big brown cock in your mouth. Second-hand cigar smoke is fairly noxious, and the high cost of quality cigars is cost-prohibitive to many people. There are very manly men that use cigars that you may admire (i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Clint Eastwood). However, cigars are also the preferred tobacco product of men of questionable character: politicians and golfers, for example (Figure 3). Nevertheless, it is quite possible to enjoy cigars and keep your manliness (and your health) intact.

Snus

Manliness rating = 7.5

General Brand Swedish Snus

Snus is a tobacco product that is commonly used in Scandinavia , but is little known elsewhere (Figure 4). Snus is similar to moist snuff (dip), except it is placed under the upper lip, and doesn’t require the need to expectorate (spit). Snus use is high in Sweden; approximately 1 out of every 10 Swedes use it (both men and women). However, Sweden has the lowest rate of tobacco-related illnesses in Europe .

In short, snus is one of the most efficient, discrete, and safest ways to get nicotine. Many people choose snus because it doesn’t require you to expectorate, but this obviously decreases its manliness rating. But if you currently smoke cigarettes, and find that chewing or dipping tobacco is unacceptable for your lifestyle, then you should consider snus as an alternative. Snus is generally not available in stores outside of Scandinavia; however, several companies offer snus over the internet, and at very affordable prices.

Pipes

Manliness rating = 8.0

Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein

If you choose to smoke tobacco, using a pipe is the preferred method, and pipe tobacco is my preferred tobacco product. Similar to cigars, the tobacco smoke is puffed into the mouth, and the nicotine is absorbed through the mouth. If you are lucky enough to live in a town with a high-quality tobacco shop, you will be amazed by the quality and selection of pipe tobaccos, which are generally available at very reasonable prices.

A good pipe tobacco is delicious, and the aroma of pipe smoke is pleasant, even to most non-smokers. There is very little in this world that is more enjoyable than partaking in a pipeful of tobacco and a glass of scotch at the end of the day. Pipe smokers are generally considered intelligent and refined, but not pompous or egotistical. They may not be muscle-bound manly men, but pipe-smoking men have been behind some of mankind’s greatest academic and intellectual heavy-lifting (Figure 5).

If you’re interested in trying pipe smoking, I recommend picking up a used pipe on E-bay. There are hundreds available, and a used high-quality pipe need not cost more than $20. Then take a trip to your local tobacconist, who will be pleased to help you select a tobacco and show you how to get the most enjoyment out of your new pipe.

Chewing (or smokeless) Tobacco

Manliness Rating = 9.5

A pouch of fine American chewing tobacco

Chewing tobacco is the undisputed king of manly tobacco products. This product receives a very high manly rating because it requires the user to expectorate. Most women find spitting repulsive, which is a big part of what makes it so manly. Men that have manly professions, such as construction workers and cowboys rely on chewing tobacco to obtain nicotine. The most prominent varieties of smokeless tobacco include loose-leaf chewing tobacco and dip.

Chewing Tobacco
Chewing tobacco is shredded tobacco leaves that have been cured and flavored (Figure 6). The use of chewing tobacco is relatively self-explanatory; you simply put a big wad in one side of your mouth and chew on it. Chewing tobacco doesn’t contain as much nicotine as dip, but it produces much more spit. Chewing tobacco has other benefits, as well. Here’s what our friend Jesse Ventura said about chewing tobacco in the film Predator : “This stuff will make you a god-damned sexual Tyrannosaurus” While this has not been scientifically proven, I have generally found this statement to be true in my own experience.

Moist Snuff (Dip)

Copenhagen and Skoal, two popular brands of dip.

Being avid readers of a website dedicated to manliness, I doubt that you need an explanation of dip. However, for the benefit of the more emasculated readers of The Hall of Manly Excellence, please bear with me.

Dip is flavored, ground-up tobacco that comes in a round can (Figure 7). Typically, a pinch of dip is placed in the lower lip. Dip doesn’t produce the amount of spit that chewing tobacco does; however, it contains very high amounts of nicotine. Therefore, my analysis concludes that chewing tobacco and dip have the same manliness rating.

Nasal Snuff

Manliness rating = 10.0

Manly Nasal Snuff

Nasal snuff is dried, powered tobacco that is inhaled into the nose (Figure 8). Typically, a pinch is placed between the thumb and index figure, and then snorted into one nostril. The nicotine is absorbed into the blood stream through the membranes of the nasal cavity. Nasal snuff was very popular in the 19th century, but has fallen out of favor in the present day. Today, the major users of snuff tend to be crusty old fisherman, and other such salty dogs.

First time snuff users tend to have a very negative reaction, which includes violent sneezing, a burning sensation in the nose and throat, and an extreme runny nose. If you can tolerate these symptoms, and actually enjoy this stuff, then you may consider yourself the manliest of manly men. Nasal snuff is difficult to find, but can be found on the internet (along with everything else on God’s green earth).

Conclusion

I hope this article has enlightened you about the use (and manliness) of tobacco products, and will help you make responsible choices about choosing the right tobacco product for you. I frequently take time from my studies to peruse the Forum of of Manly Excellence, and would appreciate hearing about your experiences with tobacco.

Your friend,
Dr. Harlan K. Upmann

When the average person thinks of “gun control”, they probably think of gang members, weeping parents making pleas to uncaring politicians to do something “for the children”, and paranoid white militia members decked out in camouflage and toting black rifles. This image of gun control is very recent, created by a combination of television news and big-budget movies, and power-hungry politicians whose knowledge of guns extends only to the same news and movies. Let us now divorce ourselves from such short-sighted conceptions and take a look at images associated with gun control that have a better basis in historical reality – the Klan in their late 19th-century heyday in the Southern U.S., and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, known by its German abbreviation as the Nazi Party.

What makes the United States a free society? Is it because we have a right to vote, to spend our money as we please (December 23rd, 1913 to the present notwithstanding), or that we have a wonderful Constitution that tells us we are permitted to exercise certain rights? NO. We are free because we live in a society where ordinary people – rich and poor, black and white, straight and gay, young and old, religious and atheistic – who obey the law are able to keep and bear arms. The men who founded this great nation of ours knew first-hand the benefit of having an armed citizenry, instead of restricting the use of arms to a particular class, race, or religion. English common law, as expounded upon by superb thinkers such as Sir William Blackstone and A.V. Dicey, was very clear in defining that ordinary law-abiding citizens were not only allowed to keep and bear their own personal arms, but that keeping and bearing said arms was a good and noble thing to do! Our own Constitution has a very solid basis in English common law, so there is little room for questions as to the place that the Founding Fathers saw for arms in their fledgling nation. Advocates of gun control measures appear to have only a distorted view of the Constitution alone, ignoring all the other writings from its Framers on the subject of arms and their place in a free society.

“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.” – George Mason, from the ratifying Convention in Virginia, June 1788

Gun control is not a means to create a peaceful society. It is not a means to “protect the children”, or “promote the public good”, and history reinforces this. The language and approach of gun control advocates may change, but the effects of gun control have proven to be very consistent. The restriction and prohibition of privately-held arms is a surefire way for tyrants to shore up their own power, a method to emasculate and control subject peoples, force slaves to rely on their master for protection, and to have undue and coercive influence over the several citizens of a republic. The most important part of “gun control” is “control”.

In the United States, the first real gun control laws were passed in the wake of the Civil War. Laws that prohibited blacks from possessing or using arms existed for decades into the 1920s and 30s. These laws were designed to keep blacks powerless and terrorized, essentially making them slaves again, in all but name. They were driven from polling places – even if they passed the literacy tests and paid their poll tax – and many other establishments with violence or the threat of violence, specifically because Southern whites knew precisely that there was not a thing those blacks could do about it. Sure, they could have done what we in modern times do – write to our elected officials, create a non-profit grassroots campaign, organize rallies, and promote their cause on Indymedia and Craigslist, but there would be little they could do against armed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Here is an excerpt from the Mississippi “black codes”, passed in the latter part of 1865:

“Article 4, §1. Be it enacted,…That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine, not exceeding ten dollars, and pay the costs of such proceedings, and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer; and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free negro, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be committed to trial in default of bail.” In order to exercise his Second Amendment rights, a “negro” either had to be a member of the US military, or somehow obtain a gun license from a white-dominated (and often Klan-dominated) police bureaucracy. Because the informer would receive all seized arms and ammunition after law enforcement confiscated them from black-owned homes or shops, there was an incentive for police and Klan members to raid those homes and stores.

On top of that, other laws were passed in other states permitting the sale of expensive makes of firearms to “negroes”, such as Winchester revolvers, and the Single- Action Army and Navy revolvers from Colt. This ensured that few, if any, “negroes” or poor whites could afford those guns. If that wasn’t enough, whites were also to be punished for supplying blacks with arms:

“Art. 4, ….If any white person shall sell, lend, or give to any freedman, free negro, or mulatto any fire-arms, dirk or bowie knife, or ammunition, or any spirituous or intoxicating liquors, such person or persons so offending, upon conviction thereof in the county court of his or her county, shall be fined not exceeding fifty dollars, and may be imprisoned, at the discretion of the court, not exceeding thirty days.”

If a gun store owner sold a gun to a black man, the owner would likely get a visit from the 1870s equivalent of the BATFE – complete with a no-knock entry, harassment of his wife and children, and possibly shooting his dogs or livestock. Perhaps this is a slight creative license on my part, but such things are certainly not difficult to imagine.

Gun control advocates will yell and scream and shout until they are blue in the face about guns in inner cities – areas that have high concentrations of minority populations. They talk of “accidental shootings” in which innocent children die in the crossfire of gang wars and shootouts with police. However, most urban areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and the Washington, D.C. area are all home to both high rates of violent crime and severely restrictive gun control laws. This means there are two main groups of people who have guns: the police, and the criminals who will have guns regardless of how many laws are passed.

The legacy of racism during the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s is still with us today, albeit in a different form than you will learn in any history or sociology class today. The phrase “Saturday Night Special” is in common use by the anti-gun lobby and media to describe cheap, small-caliber handguns of dubious quality. What most people do not realize is that the original phrase was “Niggertown Saturday Night Special”, which was a derogatory term used to describe the handguns popular among urban blacks. The phrase is always used in such a way as to insinuate that the only purpose for these kinds of guns is to commit a crime. This same mentality was behind the laws that outlawed the sale of inexpensive handguns to blacks in the antebellum South, leaving them to buy guns they could never afford. In Robert Sherrill’s book The Saturday Night Special, he notes that the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed by a noticeably frightened Congress in response to the heightened racial tensions leading up to and following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The Black Panthers’ Information Minister Eldridge Cleaver said in 1968: “Some very interesting laws are being passed. They don’t name me; they don’t say, take the guns away from the niggers. They say that people will no longer be allowed to have guns. They don’t pass these rules and these regulations specifically for black people, they have to pass them in a way that will take in everybody” [emphasis mine]. When tyrants want to disarm a particular segment of the population, they will mask their intentions by first restricting firearms for all citizens under the guise of ambiguous concepts like “order” and “public safety”, which brings us to the next subject – gun laws under Germany’s Weimar Republic and the rise of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Like many citizens of the United States, residents of the liberal Weimar Republic were in favor of a nation-wide gun registration program as a way to combat the rising levels of instability as a result of the radical political movements of National Socialism and Bolshevism. They thought it would be an effective way to control an undesirable segment of the population and promote “public safety”. In addition, a person’s ethnicity was also included on the registration form, including “Jew”. When the Nazis became the dominant political force, they were easily able to turn the gun registration program around and control other “undesirables”, such as Jews. Gun control laws, regardless of the intentions of their authors, set a very dangerous precedent that should alarm all those who love freedom.

Like many of the well-meaning German democrats in the early 1930s, a German Jew and Olympic athlete by the name of Alfred Flatow dutifully registered his personal firearms under the Weimar law. A file labeled House Searches of Jews 1938-39, contains Flatow’s arrest record. The address of the “crime scene” is the same as the crime scene of the local police station, meaning that Flatow must have been at the police station to surrender his firearms alongside other Jews, under orders by the Berlin chief of police. The report simply cites “possession of weapons” as the crime Flatow was charged with. A further reading of the report lists more ominous details: Flatow’s registration papers were kept at another police station approximately 1km away – meaning that the registration records were distributed to other police stations – an officer from the local station was listed as a witness, and Flatow appears to have been taken into “protective custody” or “preventative custody“ by the Gestapo.

The 1928 Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition, along with a 1931 revision, stipulated that all firearms and “slashing or stabbing weapons” were to be registered with the local police. Citizens could be ordered to surrender weapons and anything else that could be used as a weapon to police at any time under the “liberal” Weimar Republic’s laws. Of course, only the good, democracy-loving citizens registered their weapons, while they were ignored by the Nazis and Bolsheviks, whom the law had been intended to target. Once the Nazis were in a position of centralized executive power, firearm confiscation was incredibly simple. They had their work cut out for them by the well-meaning liberals who drafted the gun laws to prevent the Nazis from becoming too powerful. The Gestapo’s 2nd-in-command, Dr. Werner Best, wrote in 1935: “As a rule, we have to assume that firearms in the hands of the Jews represent a considerable danger for the German people.” Now, let us change that statement to a slight degree – As a rule, we have to assume that firearms in the hands of ________ represent a considerable danger for ________.

The blanks have changed over time, but the concept is still the same. Whether it is “blacks” and “whites”, “Jews” and “Germans”, “right-wing extremists” and “all peace-loving Americans”, or “Irish Catholics” and “the good and honorable citizens of the British Empire”, the central idea is the same one that is behind all forms of bigotry, statism, and tyranny. The main purpose of Kristallnacht – “Night of the Broken Glass”, in which National Socialist forces burned, vandalized, and looted Jewish stores, houses, and synagogues – was to look for weapons that eluded the prior confiscations. Once this was accomplished, even the average public school student can tell you what occurred next – the pogroms, the deportations, and the opening of the death camps. It is not difficult to see the chain of events that connect the effort of well-meaning liberals and their gun registration in the name of “public safety” to what we now know as the Holocaust. Of course, today’s gun control advocates lack the racial-nationalist motivations of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but it is obvious that the Jews may have had a better chance to prevent their attempted extermination were a gun registration program – drafted by well-meaning liberals (how curious that begins to sound!) – not in the hands of a tyrannical political ideology. Disarming citizens through laws which most will invariably follow only makes the abuse of the state’s police powers that much more convenient and trouble-free. Such laws make the subjects increasingly dependent on the state for protection, and they will be less likely to bite the hand that feeds, even as the state apparatus makes plans for slavery or genocide.

Gun control allows dictators and ideological or racial supremacists a much greater opportunity to establish themselves in positions of power, fortify that power, and target “undesirable” groups and individuals. The underlying dialogue that exists in all gun control efforts by the state is as follows: “We perceive these particular people to be dangerous, so the best way to control and pacify them is to confiscate the means of mayhem and destruction. Order must be restored and public safety must be secured.” The rhetoric insinuates that the targets of gun control are only those who will commit violent acts against society, while the law-abiding, tax-paying Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public have nothing to fear. After all, the “reasonable restrictions” are meant to stop criminals and enemies of the state!

While the gun control laws of today no longer have a racial, ethnic, or religious component, the idea that only some law-abiding people should be able to own guns is the same reasoning behind the Black Codes of the Jim Crow South. Just as our current President looks down on whites “bitterly clinging to guns and religion”, so did Klan deputies, and the Southern lawmakers who enabled them, look down on “Negroes” – with the same kind of condescension, same kind of elitism, same kind of prejudice, and the same kind of authoritarian tendencies. It is not hyperbole in the slightest to claim that gun control advocates have blood on their hands.

Author:  Jaktens Tid.

Sources:
Tonso, William R. Gun Control: White Man’s Law
The Mississippi Black Code (1865).
Halbrook, Stephen. “Arms in the Hands of Jews Are a Danger to Public Safety”: Nazism, Firearm Registration, and the Night of the Broken Glass
The Secret History of Guns

This death spiral includes both the peoples of the West, as well as Asians and others who have substantially internalized the values and norms of modernity. In short, the phenomenon appears to function as a sort of social disease, which always appears in concert with seemingly positive achievements as reducing communicable diseases, reducing infant mortality, educating the populace, and achieving first world economic status.

The fundamental and primary dilemma of the West in our time lies in finding a path forward out of this seemingly inevitable doom. As will be explained, facile solutions bear their own costs, and the answers are not as clear as it would seem at first glance

A. The Demographic Situation

First and foremost, it must be understood that people of European descent are not reproducing at replacement rate anywhere in the world. A quick look at Wikipedia will reveal that (with exception of the Faeroe Islands) there is not a single Western nation with a fertility rate over 2.1 children per woman. Any fertility rate of less than 2.1 is defined as “sub-replacement” which means that a population with such rate will inevitably shrink with each generation, eventually reaching a point of no return.

Take Germany for an example. Germany has a total fertility rate of 1.38, and a current total population of 82 million. Around 651,000 children are born in Germany each year, as compared to 841,000 yearly deaths, giving a yearly shortfall of about 300,000 Germans. In other words, Germany loses the equivalent of a mid-sized city each and every year. In fact official German projections indicate that the total population will shrink to 65 million by 2060, even with a net migration of +100,000 per year. Obviously, 50 years of such population replacement will essentially extinguish the historic German nation.

In fact, the situation is generally more dire than suggested by official numbers, simply because the published “national” fertility rates actually include the higher fertility of recent immigrant women. For example, of the German population of 82 million, 66.7 million (81%) are Germans of no immigrant background. Obviously immigrants are currently 19%. However, 30% of all children born in Germany have immigrant background, showing disproportionate fertility by immigrants. While this fact tends to be obscured in official statistics, it is likely that actual European women have a true fertility rate close to 1, which leads to exponential population collapse.

Interestingly, the situation is the same or worse with respect to the modernized peoples outside of the north European cultural zone. In fact, the lowest birth rates on earth occur in modernized areas of Asia: South Korea (1.22), China (1.15), Singapore (1.10), Hong Kong (1.04), and Macau (.91). Extinction level rates are also prevalent among the presumably more “traditional” people of southern Europe: Italy (1.32), Greece (1.37). Spain (1.47) and Portugal (1.50). The former Soviet states likewise exhibit extreme birthrate depression: Ukraine (1.27), Poland (1.29), and so on. This underlines that the situation is not due to the particular cultural quirks of any one nation, rather it is a universal accompaniment to the facially positive attributes of modernization.

B. The Dilemma

There is no facile solution to this problem. It would seem that providing incentives to increase native birth rate or immigration is the obvious answer. However, increasing population by any means creates its own problems, in that the baby boom of today is the retiree generation of tomorrow, who will in turn require an even larger workforce to support them. The basic concept of social welfare is that the number of taxpayers must outnumber the retired dependents. To maintain current worker-retiree ratios, each generation must be larger than the last, ad infinitum. The system literally pre-supposes endless growth.

Even if natalist policies could work (which is doubtful), the goal of eternal growth is inconsistent with a world of physical limits; there are only so many acres of land to be filled before the quality of human life becomes intolerable. Transforming our lands into a densely populated and developed human hive would itself destroy the spirit of the West. In fact, most of our lands would be cleaner, freer, and more beautiful with far fewer people. It is widely agreed by persons of discernment that the maximum quality of human life is encountered specifically in regions of thin population, with a thrilling natural environment.

It must also be considered that “any pay to reproduce” scheme would inevitably act most strongly upon the worst elements of the native population. The reproduction of productive people is not really being held back by actual material want, so providing purely material incentives would only generate a large and larger underclass. Many of today’s problems are actually caused by the fact that there is no dignified and productive work to occupy the people that we do have; due to technological progress, much of our population is currently shunted into non-productive service jobs and demoralizing “make work.” Why create yet more people who will be doomed to live in apartment blocks and flip burgers?

It must also be conceded that the attractive aspects of modernity seem to inevitably coincide with a low birth rate. As a mater of reality, the only places with high birth rates are without exception caldrons of suffering, deprivation, and backwardness. (See Niger 7.68, Uganda 6.73, etc). It may well be that the level of social change required to restore Western birth-rates would halt the triumphs of modernity. After all, the small social groups that have indeed remained fecund in the West are not known for technical achievements. If everyone were Amish or the equivalent biologically healthy types, would we ever set foot on Mars?

C. A Possible Solution

Given that a much smaller population actually has much to recommend it, it would seem that the shrinkage process should perhaps be accepted. If borders were closed, equilibrium would eventually be reached, as the non-breeders simply died off, and their places were taken by the descendants of the fertile. Population would bottom out at perhaps 10% of the current level, and would presumably then begin to grow, since all the new population would bear cultural and biological traits of their fertile ancestors. This could lead to a new golden age, as the new growing population would have access to vast resources, space, and land per person. This approach would also provide an escape from the cycle of decadence and civilizational decline, as the new population would in fact have the mores and outlook of a young people, while presumably retaining much of the best creations of their forefathers.

It must also be understood that settlement of humans beyond the earth shall be immediately pursued with maximum vigor. Due to the energy involved in breaking earth’s gravity well, such colonization will never provide a significant release valve for excess population. Rather, by seeding a small population beyond the earth, this new branch of humanity will be freed forever from the dilemma expressed in this article, since the new population will be free to expand without limits, and without encountering the degradation attendant upon crowding the planet. While not solving Earth’s problems in any respect, this colonization effort will allow the creation of a new template for human progress.

D. Prospects for the Future

Despite the futility of never-ending growth, the option of accepting population decline behind closed borders seems inconceivable under our current political and economic systems. GDP would likely decline every year, causing what would be regarded as a permanent depression. At some point it would become literally impossible to keep sending out retirement checks; there would be no workers to tend the armies of elderly in their nursing homes and isolated apartments.

Within our current paradigm it is impossible to even discuss issues of national survival. The default position seems to be simply allowing in whatever number of immigrants is necessary to keep the national economies producing positive growth numbers. Our leaders are incapable of thinking in any terms other than the monetary; they will literally preside over the death of their peoples to avoid angering the gods of the economy.

I submit that any renaissance of the West will require a fundamental re-alignment of values, wherein the survival of the people becomes the fundamental and paramount consideration. We need leaders who will boldly face 100 years of declining GDP, if that is the cost of closing the borders. We need leaders who will charge the people with the home care of their old, rather than admitting hordes of servants. We need leaders who will call upon the people to form wholesome families, and will stand behind those who accept the challenge.

Author: Man of the North

When asked to what they’re protesting, a confusing muddle of complaints will issue from the average Occupier’s gaping maw. Corporations seem to be a major target of the Occupation and the three complaints that I’ve seen most often in the media are that corporations don’t care about the individual, they are greedy and they spend millions lobbying government for special favors and tax breaks. Of these three, only the last accusation has any merit, but it has so much merit that I find myself hoping that these dirty denizens of the drum circle find some success. I’ll explain.

Corporations Don’t Care About the Individual!

They aren’t supposed to. I don’t think I can put it much plainer than that. A corporation is an entity created by a group with common interests to protect and serve that group’s interests. A business corporation serves the general economic interests of its shareholders just as a trade union serves the general economic interests of its members. Political action committees and charitable corporations are formed by those lobbying for common social interests, be they a shared religion, racial identity, or sexual orientation. In all instances, the specific wants of the individuals in the group are subordinated to the common will of that group.

Corporations Are Greedy!

They’re supposed to be. Corporations, like all communally organized endeavors, are meant to combine the resources of those who belong to them for the general advantage of the group. There’s nothing particularly wrong with them doing so as long as belonging to the group is voluntary, and there’s no particular difference between people combining their capital in order to earn a profit and people are combining their voices in order to right an ill of society.

Corporations Lobby For Special Favors!

Bingo. The Occupiers have stumbled upon the greatest problems facing Americans today. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of the citizens of the States to assemble and to petition the government. That’s a good thing. Combining our numbers and petitioning the government is an important means of redress when it oversteps its bounds, as it so often does. The U.S. federal government began as a form of corporation. It was an association of men and women who agreed to combine their voices and their efforts for a common goal, individual liberty. The federal government was initially meant to protect its citizens from groups who would use force, even violence, to infringe upon an individual’s liberty. This was in stark contrast to other governments, formed throughout history to allow the few to enforce their will on the many.

Unfortunately, over time we’ve allowed our government to stray from its original mandate and start granting special favors for petitioners, backed up by threats of violence that only a government indifferent or belligerent to the liberties of its individual citizens could make. Our government, almost completely free from the Constitutional chains that bound it, can now be petitioned to apply its force to any cause imaginable. If the leaders of a business corporation want a special loophole in the tax code to give them an advantage over their competition they can lobby your congressperson to do that. If they want a special regulation to prevent smaller businesses from competing with them they can lobby for that too.

Take My Liberty and Give Me Hotpockets

Our representatives don’t just stop at awarding special favors to business interests in exchange for our liberty. If you want to take money that one person earned and give it to another person the representatives in our government will do that. If you want to prevent a person from freely practicing their religion because it annoys you the representatives in our government will do that too. If you want to force an employee to join your union or obtain a special license in order to work in your profession the representatives in our government will be happy to oblige. If you want to force a business to hire you based on your self-professed racial identity rather than your merit just round up a group of like minded people and I’m sure that there is a representative in our government willing to cater to you.

Our government, the most powerful corporation in the history of humanity, is no longer in the business of preventing groups of people from enforcing their wills upon one another. We have traded our liberty for wish fulfillment backed up by the government monopoly on violence. From their various lists of demands it would appear that the Occupiers want to remove the advantages given to some groups while increasing the advantages provided to other groups. If any Occupiers read this, I hope you’ll decide instead that our government needs to get out of the political favoritism business altogether and get back to the business of defending individual liberty. Pretty please with organic trail mix on top.

Author: Yeoman