My Thoughts on the Upcoming TikTok Ban

 Folks,

I'll get straight to it: I'm AGAINST the upcoming TikTok ban! I'm against it for a couple of reasons. One, the US Government wants first dibs on spying on Americans; the ban is partly out of jealousy. Two, it establishes the precedent of being able to ban any app or platform that they don't like. Though I have an account on TikTok to follow a few people, I'm not active on it; I've never posted a video on there, nor do I plan to. That is to say that a TikTok ban won't affect me much, if at all, personally. That said, I'm still troubled by the fact that the Feds are riding roughshod over the Constitution by banning TikTok.

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Twitter Papers. The Twitter Papers were released after Elon Musk purchased the platform from founder Jack Dorsey. The Twitter Papers detailed all the behind the scenes arm twisting the US Government did to censor those who were critical of the COVID vaccine, the COVID narrative, government policy, and so on. The US Government uses the Big Tech platforms for its own ends. If you'd like to learn more, go to https://theconservativetreehouse.com, and search for the Twitter Papers. They're an EYE OPENER!

Truth be told, the US Government has been involved with the Big Tech platforms from the beginning. For example, let's look at Facebook. Do you think Facebook was started by then college student Mark Zuckerberg in his dorm room? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd LOVE to talk to you about! No, Facebook started life as a DARPA program; it was originally called Project Lifelog. Its purpose was to get people to provide information about themselves and their lives voluntarily; in other words, it was an early form of Facebook. Isn't it propitious how, when Project Lifelog ended (at least as an official DARPA project), Facebook started at the same time?

DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. It's the Department of Defense's agency responsible for developing all the cutting edge, whiz bang devices and systems the US Armed Forces use today. Among the things that DARPA pioneered were stealth aircraft, GPS, the Internet, and even the graphical user interface and mouse we use with our computers.

Let's also not forget that the CIA established its own front venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, to help FUND a lot of the Big Tech companies when they were started! The Feds, via their front VC firms like In-Q-Tel, provided seed money to all the tech startups, and then let them fight it out to see who would be left standing. There was real competition among the tech startups, but they were all funded by the Feds; no matter who won, they'd be beholden to the US Government, and would therefore do the Feds' bidding in the future. Moreover, even now, intelligence community (IC) heads are on the boards of the Big Tech companies today. That's right; you have IC brass on the boards of the Big Tech companies, influencing what they do.

The Internet was another DARPA project. It was originally conceived by one of their psychologists, a chap by the name of JCR Licklider. Back in the early 1960s, he envisioned what he called the Intergalactic Computer Network where everyone could congregate online. The US Government developed the Internet, in part, to monitor us. Why? I'll get to that in a minute. Anyway, it took until the early-mid 1990s before computer technology and bandwidth caught up to enable Licklider's vision to come true.

Why is that important? Why would the Feds want the Internet and social media companies? Well, I'm old enough to remember when there were only the Big Three TV networks; I'm of course talking about ABC, CBS, and NBC. They controlled TV programming and the news back in those days; if the Big Three networks didn't cover a story, it didn't happen. That is to say that the US Government and the mass media controlled the narrative.

However, what they couldn't control, or even monitor, was public response to the official narrative at any given time. What do the people think about this? What do they think about that? With no monitoring system in place, there was an open feedback loop. What the Internet and the Big Tech social media companies basically did was to close that feedback loop. Now, the US Government can monitor the response to the official narrative at any given time, thus enabling them to adjust their policies and actions in real time.

For example, a year or so ago, there was a big, public push for central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, worldwide. Every government was working on one. When the public got wind of what CBDCs would mean; when the public figured out the implications of having a cashless society; there was a firestorm on social media about it. The people were spreading the word, and efforts were being organized to push back against CBDCs. Notice how governments have since toned down talk of CBDCs? That's why; they saw the firestorm on social media, and they figured out that their present approach to implement CBDCs was not working. That's what the Internet and the Big Tech platforms were created to do. In this way, they were and are arms of the Federal Government.

Now, before I continue, I don't think for one minute that the psychopaths in government have given up on CBDCs-not for a minute. CBDCs are an authoritarian's WET DREAM! They enable control over us that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao could only dream of. I think that, thanks to what they saw on social media and what people were saying about CBDCs, I think that the powers that (shouldn't) be are regrouping, so they can figure out another way to implement CBDCs; I think that they'll use cryptocurrencies as a backdoor way to implement them. THAT is what the Internet and Big Tech were really designed for! That is why, decades ago, DARPA conceived the Internet and social media.

In other words, the Federal Government, via the Internet and the Big Tech social media companies, spies on Americans. They've been doing it for a long time. Now, China, with its TikTok platform, is spying on Americans and users worldwide. As usual, the US Government HATES the competition! One reason for the TikTok ban is to eliminate the competition. It's all right if the Feds spy on us, but not all right for the Chinese to do so. One reason for the ban is a turf war.

The second problem I have with the TikTok ban is the precedent it establishes. If TikTok can be banned today, then what can be banned tomorrow? For example, there's an excellent alternative social media platform called Gab. It was founded by Christian Andrew Torba. Gab is a mix of Facebook and Twitter. Though it's a true free speech platform (i.e. anything goes on there), Gab has a decided Christian, conservative, libertarian, and anti-establishment bent to it. I could see the Feds wanting to close down Gab in the near future. Since the door to banning platforms has been opened with the TikTok ban, what's to stop the Feds from banning Gab? What's to stop them from banning an app or platform that they don't like? The answer, of course, is nothing.

In closing, I'm opposed to the upcoming TikTok ban. Though I think TikTok is a cancer on society; though I think it's rotting the brains of a generation; I don't think it should be banned. People should be free to use any app or social media platform that they like. The US Government is banning TikTok for two primary reasons. One, the Feds hate the competition! It's all right for them to spy on us, but not the Chinese. Two, if TikTok can be banned today, who can be banned tomorrow? The Feds can use the threat of banning a platform to make them play ball; they can twist the arms of, say Facebook, to do the bidding of the Federal Government. Those are the problems I have with the TikTok ban.

That's all for now. Until next time...

Women Love Bad Boys, or Modern Dating Is a Train Wreck

 Guys,

Here's a comment I left at Real Girl World's latest YouTube video. RGW, hosted by English-Canaidan wife, Hannah Jordan, talks about modern dating and relationships. She has 317 subscribers, but she should have 3.17 MILLION! She puts forth a message that desperately needs to be heard, particularly by today's modern women. It's refreshing to see a based woman out there, even though they're rare. As Proverbs 31 in the Bible says, such women are more valuable than rubies. Anyway, here were my thoughts on modern dating, women desiring bad boys, and so on...

-------------

One, what I can't understand is that, out of all the guys, Luigi Mangione is the ONLY one who's at all good looking! The other guys were 'meh' IMO. What on EARTH do these women see in all the other guys? What is it? It can't be good looks, because I can acknowledge when a man looks good. Other than Luigi Mangione, none of the other men do. Sorry, but their sex appeal escapes me.

Two, my other thought was that many of these girls who were giving the pedos a pass would be the same ones who would cry to HR if one of their nice guy coworkers expressed any interest in them.

Three, modern dating is just a train wreck. I've only been on one date in the last almost 6.5 years, and that was a disaster. Even though I texted her when I left my house; even though I texted her when I entered her city; and even though I texted her when I reached out meeting place; she was still late, even though she lived near the hotel/restaurant where we met for Sunday breakfast buffet. She didn't come into the hotel's restaurant, either; had I not gone looking for her, I'd have never seen her sitting on a bench outside the restaurant entrance. To top it all off, she had the NERVE to criticize what I chose to eat that Sunday morning! She pointed out that I wasn't eating fruit with my breakfast. I was thinking to myself, "Gee, I can see WHY you're single!"

What my date didn't know that Sunday morning of September, 2023 was that I eat fruit with my breakfast on the weekdays. I normally have half a grapefruit with my weekday morning breakfast, so I skip it on the weekends. On weekday mornings, I normally have half a grapefruit, cereal, milk, and toast. On weekends, I change things up; I have eggs, sausage or bacon, toast, orange juice, and sometimes home fries or hash browns. Criticizing what I ate really pissed me off.

Finally, I've been chatting with my neighbor, a young girl who lives across the street. She's in her late 20s or early 30s, but when you're 62 going on 63, that's young. Anyway, we'd had a couple of nice chats, but I think she may have a kid. GOOD GRIEF! I don't date single moms! I don't know her story, so I'm going to wait to find it out before doing anything, but I'm not so keen on possibly dating her, even though she's nice and kinda cute. The only single moms I feel sorry for are widows, as they ended up in their situation through no fault of their own. Otherwise, I think that single moms are a bad risk for guys of any age.

Anyway, modern dating is a train wreck, so many of us men of all ages are walking away from it. Those are my thoughts, Ma'am.

First Dates, Dating, Relationships, and Marriage

 Guys,

Here's another comment I'm saving here for posterity. Since it includes my thoughts on dating, relationships, and marriage, I thought it would make a good post. Here's a link to the Zeta Male Unscripted video which prompted the comment. Phil, aka Zeta Male Unscripted, is a 57 year old New Englander who's hardcore MGTOW. He knows what's what, so young guys need to listen to him. I heartily recommend his channel. I subscribe to him, and his videos are "must see TV" for me. With that said, here are my thoughts on first dates, dating, relationships, and marriage...

-----------

Phil, I have a few thoughts about what you shared here. Number one, don't encourage guys to get married. Number two, relationshits are fine, but don't get married. Three, foodie dates are a thing many women do. Four, Chad and Tyrone don't have to do anything to get the girls. Five, the first date is for a "vibe check" only. Finally, trips to nice, expensive restaurants should be rare. I'll explain my points in more detail below.

Number one DON'T ENCOURAGE GUYS TO GET MARRIED! Even if they marry young and have the time and energy to rebuild from a divorce, that divorce still puts them behind the 8 ball; it still sets them back. Even if a guy gets married and divorced all in his 20s, he not only loses valuable time rebuilding his now destroyed life; he loses time laying the financial foundation for his later life. A man's 20s are vital for laying a good foundation, and a divorce, at best, delays this most valuable process. A guy needs his 20s to build his value. If he does things right in his 20s, then he'll have enough value later on to attract women if he wishes to do so. He'll also have the wherewithal to build a nice life later, as the foundation has already been put in place during his 20s.

Number two, I see no problem with a guy dating and perhaps having a relationshit or two; he'll learn that he's not missing much by flying solo. I have no problem with a guy having a relationshit or two, as he'll see what us older guys are telling him: he's not missing anything without a woman in his life.

Number three, one third of women admit to doing foodie dates, i.e. going on a date solely for free food, not because they have any interest in the guy himself. If one third of women admit to doing foodie dates, you know that the actual percentage is higher. Why? Because women care about how they're perceived; they care about how they look to others, so many women won't admit to doing foodie dates. Therefore, doing drinks or a cheap dinner date is the only way to go. If a woman is really and truly interested in the guy, she won't care about doing drinks; she won't care about grabbing a bite at Taco Bell or an inexpensive, local place; she won't care about what they do together, just so long as they do something together. That is to say that, if a woman is really into a guy, she won't care about what she does with him, nor will she cares about where she goes with him on the first date.

Number four, the Chads and Tyrones of the world don't have to do anything for the girl to be intimate with her, as she's really into them to begin with; all he'll do is tell her to come over late at night for "Netflix and chill", and she'll go. Why? Because she's REALLY INTO Chad and Tyrone; that's why! This point dovetails with the previous point.

Number five, the first date is just a "vibe check"; its purpose is to determine whether or not to have a second date. THAT'S IT! For that reason, a first date just needs to be quick and cheap. If you like one another, you can either extend the first date or make plans for a second one soon thereafter. If you don't like one another, then the agony isn't prolonged. Nor does the awkward first date cost the guy much, either in terms of money or time. A date doesn't need to be expensive to make that determination, nor does it need to last long. It's just a vibe check.

Finally, nice expensive restaurants are only appropriate for special occasions, such as a school graduation, job promotion, anniversary, etc. If you go to nice places too often, they're no longer special.

Those are my thoughts. In conclusion, DO NOT encourage guys to get married ever! Two, having a relationshit or two is okay. Three, many women do foodie dates, so don't get used; if she's into you, she won't care about what she does with you. Four, the Chads and Tyrones of the world don't even get drinks for their women, because they don't have to. Five, a first date is just a vibe check, so making it quick and cheap is a must. Finally, expensive restaurants should be for special occasions only.

Merry Christmas!

 Folks,

Merry Christmas, everyone! I hope that you are in good health today, and that you're doing well. I hadn't planned on posting today, and I damn well didn't think I'd be posting this. I thought it might be a few days or weeks before posting again. However, I hadn't planned on seeing this video on Bo's Legion of Men channel either, nor had I planned on making the below comment. Here's another comment I want to preserve for posterity.

The video you're about to watch is about how private equity firms are buying up mobile home parks. They've been buying up whole neighborhoods of homes too. Because they can pay cash and pay 20%-30% over the asking price, private equity firms are snapping up homes all over America, and they're helping to put home ownership out of reach for more and more people. Thanks to what's been happening in the housing market, my home's value has DOUBLED! This whole situation is a conundrum for me, which I explain in the below comment...

----------------

Bo, I FEEL you! I had been a fourth generation Republican, but I got disgusted with them. I'm disgusted with the Democrats too, so I became an Independent a few years ago. I'm retired, and I'm a veteran (didn't retire from the Navy though). This isn't the America I grew up in. I remember how, as a 14 year old boy back in 1976 (America's Bicentennial, our 200th b'day), carrying the American flag in a Memorial Day parade for my Boy Scout troop. I was SO proud! That was one of the highlights of my life. I was so proud of the American flag and what it represented. The America of today is not the America of 1976. I am disgusted with what America has become. I'm disgusted beyond words.

As someone who leans conservative and libertarian; as someone who's all for minimal gov't; I don't know if we can do without gov't, let alone keep gov't out of business. Part of me says that no one should be prohibited from buying or selling something to or from anyone else. OTOH, when private equity firms pull this shit, I can't take a hands-off approach, either. That's where conservatism and libertarianism fall apart; they think that gov't can do no right, while business and private individuals can do no wrong. With socialism gets wrong is that they think gov't can do no wrong, while businesses and private individuals can do no right. So, what's the answer? I don't know. What we have clearly isn't working though.

While I am doing okay with what I have at the moment, but who knows about the future? I "own" a small, simple house free and clear. I put the word "own" in quotes because, thanks to property taxes, one never truly owns their own home. The taxes have been kept reasonable-for now; so have any increases, which have been below inflation since I've lived here. Who knows if I'll be able to afford the taxes 5 or 10 years from now? On the one hand, I like where I am; I like my house after fixing it up; and I'd like to stay here. OTOH, I might have to renew my passport, and look at moving overseas. After seeing this, I think I better plan a recon trip to SE Asia, so I can check things out. As much as I would like to stay put, I'd better be prudent and keep my options open.

Is Climate Change Man Made? Not So Fast!

 Folks,

I left the below comment in response to this video. It was too good to leave it forgotten in a YouTube comment, so I copied and pasted it below for posterity. The presenter mentioned climate change as a reason to promote cycling in cities. While I'm an avid cyclist (I own five bikes!); while I try to use my bike for more than just fun (I run short errands on it); I don't want my car taken away, either. Also, I question just how big a role humans play in climate change, as I think there are sinister, ulterior motives for it, questions which I raise in the comment below.

Before I forget, MERRY CHRISTMAS, everyone! I wish you nothing but health and happiness on this Christmas Eve of 2024.

-------------------

My second comment concerns climate change. I don't know of man is playing much, if any, role in climate change. One, CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere; it comprises 0.033% of Earth's atmosphere. I'll provide sourcing at the end. Two, CO2 is necessary for life; CO2 is to plants what O2 is to us: the breath of life. Via the process of photosynthesis, plants "inhale" CO2, and they "exhale" O2. Plants need CO2, while we need O2. To put it another way, more CO2 means more plant life, which ultimately means more O2 for us. Thirdly, methane (hereafter referred to as CH4), comprises an even smaller portion of the Earth's atmosphere, as it is measured in PPM. To learn more about CO2 and CH4 composition in the Earth's atmosphere, go to the linked, official US Government document (an FAA advisory circular), and consult the table on page 17, which is found here: https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_00-6b.pdf

Five, if human driven climate change were REALLY a thing, then WHY, pray tell, are India and China, basically exempt from the Paris Climate Accords? Why are they permitted to build all the dirty coal power plants they want, while Western nations are forbidden from doing so? Why are Western nations forbidden from building any fossil fuel power plants, including clean natural gas, at all? If climate change were really the problem that we're told that it is, shouldn't all nations be playing their part to reduce emissions? After all, thanks to high altitude winds, won't these emissions be spread worldwide? Won't they ultimately affect the whole world? Hence, shouldn't China and India, two of the worlds biggest polluters, also be subject to the Paris Climate Accords? To ask those questions is to answer them.

Six, many of those promoting human climate change don't believe it. Our former President, Barack Obama, constantly preached warnings about climate change and how it would cause sea levels to rise. Even so, he and his wife purchased a $15,000,000 mansion ON THE BEACH! If rising sea levels were going to be a problem anytime soon, then why spend that kind of money on an expensive property that will soon be submerged? Wouldn't that be a huge, irresponsible waste of money? In other words, if the Obamas REALLY believed in climate change and rising sea levels, wouldn't they buy a place on higher ground? Again, to ask the question is to answer it.

Seven, another factor of climate change (I dare say the major one) that's ignored are natural factors. I'm talking about volcanoes, undersea volcanoes, and sunspots. It's no secret that erupting volcanoes spew THOUSANDS of tons of debris and gas into the atmosphere! Anyone remember Mt. St. Helens? Anyone remember Mt. Pinatubo? Or how about the 1815 eruption of Mt. Tambora, which gave us the year with no summer, 1816? Can you say that volcanoes have no effect on climate? What about undersea volcanoes? They heat up the ocean, and the ocean is a major driver of Earth's weather. The well known weather phenomena of El Nino and La Nina are both tied to ocean temperatures, and both El Nino and La Nina have a huge impact on our weather. High ocean temperatures are also the energy and driver of hurricanes.What can we do about undersea volcanoes? NOTHING! There are also sunspots to consider. The number of sunspots has been correlated with the sun's temperature. ICYMI, the sun is the major driver of Earth's weather and climate, and indeed is responsible for life on the planet. What can we do about sunspots? Again, nothing. With the sizable impacts these natural forces and phenomena have on Earth's weather and climate, WHY are they never considered, let alone studied, when it comes to the subject of climate change? Why?

Eight, when one digs a bit on the man made climate change issue, WHY are the same solutions always proposed? Why is it, if we just pay higher taxes (or indulgences, if you please), we'll be fine?

Nine, when it comes to climate change, we're told to shut up; we're told that the science is settled. Uh, true science is NEVER settled! True science entails study, discussion, hypotheses, theories, and testing of the same; true science invites examination. In fact, it's only when "settled" science is challenged that true advancement takes place. Look at how Galileo challenged the Earth centric theory of the universe back in the 17th Century; thanks to his questioning of the "settled science" of his time, we were able to adopt the correct heliocentric model of the universe, and scientific knowledge advanced.

Ten, did you know that there was a warm period in England during Medieval times? Did you know that, during this time period, that VINEYARDS were in England? Did you know that this Medieval Warm Period occurred from 900-1300, AD? How could this be, though? Wasn't this literally CENTURIES BEFORE the Industrial Revolution? Wasn't this centuries before Man developed mechanized means of production and transportation? Therefore, wouldn't that mean that Man could not have been responsible for the Medieval Warm Period? Did anyone ever think about that?

Finally, the very first step of the scientific method is to define the problem. What is it? What is it not? How does this problem manifest itself? Under what circumstances does the problem manifest itself? And so on. That is to say that defining the problem is the crucial, foundational step; if the problem isn't correctly defined and understood, then any subsequent solution will be wrong.

More about Her Body Count

 Guys,

I'm a fan of Terrence Popp, aka Redonkulas Regiment. He performs a VALUABLE public service! Wha is his public service? He warns men about the pitfalls of modern women, relationships, and marriage after having learned from experience; he does so with wit and humor. In the process, he's saved hundreds from taking their lives.

In this video, the Poppster was talking about body count; how it negatively impacts relationships; and he pointed out examples of publications shaming men for having reservations about body count. It's a good video, and I'd heartily recommend my five readers giving it a look; it's well worth your time, Fellas.

As I'm wont to do, I left a comment, a comment that was too good to leave buried in some video somewhere. Hence, I copied it, and I'm pasting my thoughts below. Enjoy both the video and my comment! Here's the video and my comment in response to it...

-----------------

All I can say is AMEN! BTW, if you ask a woman her body count, she'll lie; on an instinctive level, she knows a high body count is bad. I don't know if I'd ask a woman directly, because I know that she'll lie. HOWEVER! However, her immediate, unfiltered reaction to the question could be revealing. A guy could also hint at having a wild past himself, and then seeing what she says; the key is to trick her into thinking that you're not virtuous yourself, and that you won't be judgemental. She might just tell enough about her past to give strong hints as to her body count.

Oh and Poppster, I think you're 100% right about college chicks, particularly if they were sorostitutes. I'm thinking of this young woman here, whose video went viral a few months ago: https://www.tiktok.com/@ryanspencer51/video/7369367273351466282

I did some digging (watched many of her TikToks and found her LinkedIN), and she's a college grad, club thot, and sorostitute all rolled into one! She's been in multiple situationships. And, when asked about body count, she bristles at the question; that alone tells you what you need to know, i.e. her body count is sky high. If you watch this recent video from her, watch what she says and how she says it: https://www.tiktok.com/@ryanspencer51/video/7439025990614994218

When it comes to body count, a guy doesn't even have to ask his girl about it at all. As the Fella once said, if you listen to women long enough, they'll eventually tell on themselves-how true it is.

Her friends are a good indicator too. If they are presently party girls or they were when they were younger, then the odds are the girl you're considering is too. After all, we're the sum of the five people we spend the most time with. Party girls have body counts. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

What I'm trying to say in so many words is that you're 100% RIGHT, Popp! You're 100% on target with everything you say here. Thanks again for doing men a much needed public service!

Stay in Your Lane, Bike Farmer

Folks, in a recent video, Bike Farmer, a YouTuber, admonished his viewers to vote for Kamala Harris to "save our democracy". Since he turned off his comments to that video, I left a comment to his recent video after that, the one where he's in the Bob Ross outfit. I said that if he was going to roast Trump, then he needed to roast Kamala Harris too; I said that both were bad people. He said that he didn't. In response to that, I left him the long comment below, the one you're about to read. Here's the comment...

----------------------

​ @bkefrmr  if one looks at both Kamala and Trump objectively, then both of them suck in terms of their character. Ergo, if one trashes one candidate for lacking character, then they must trash the other. At best, one can say that their characters suck in different ways, but that's as far as one can go. Let's take a look at both of them, shall we?

On the one hand, we have Trump, who's an obnoxious, philandering blowhard who screws over his contractors. On the other, we have an adulteress who slept her way to the top; who's immature (giggles like a teenaged girl); who has no gravitas whatsoever; and someone who has no executive experience whatsoever, having never run as much as a hot dog stand, let alone a bike shop, forget about something as big as a country.

Secondly, if you thought Kamala would save our Democracy, that's wishful thinking. Do you remember who her boss is? It's Joe Biden, who's been an authoritarian and wannabe tyrant all of his life. His issuance of the COVID vaccine mandate in early September of 2021 is only a recent example of his authoritarian tendencies. We can go back 30+ years to see them.

Do you remember the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings from the early 1990s? Joe Biden was a Senator then, and he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. Do you know WHY he went after Clarence Thomas? It wasn't for Anita Hill; in fact, liberals at the time were upset that Biden didn't go after him over the Anita Hill allegations. No, he  went after Thomas because he believed in natural rights. How DARE Thomas believe that, because we're all children of God, that we're endowed with certain, inalienable rights as a result! For anyone paying attention, Biden has been an authoritarian and wannabe tyrant all his life.

Why is that relevant? Because wouldn't Biden pick a VP who thinks and believes like him? Wouldn't he pick someone who would carry out his policies and desires should he become incapacitated and unable to fulfill his duties? Wouldn't he want his vision to continue if he had to leave office? The questions answer themselves.

However, we can look at Kamala's background itself to see that she's an authoritarian. She kept prisoners in jail after their sentences were completed, so the prison-industrial complex would have labor. On the one hand, she tried to look cool by saying she'd smoked pot, yet, when she was a prosecutor, went after drug offenders with a vengeance. Tulsi Gabbard brought this out during the 2020 debate on CNN, which can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHORNMWPmg

Kamala Harris also had a well known relationship with Willie Brown back in the 1990s; she was known as Willie Brown's party girl. Here are some salient facts. One, Willie Brown had been Speaker of the CA Statehouse, and he'd been mayor of San Francisco; he was a kingmaker in CA Democratic Party politics back when Kamala was getting her start. Two, Willie Brown was a married man back then, making both of them adulterers; one broke the most solemn vow one can take, while the other enabled this. Three, Willie Brown himself admitted to helping Kamala during and after relationship. Do any of the above speak to one of good character?

In closing, the character of both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump suck; neither of them are good people. Judging by their pasts, they're both bad people. We'll get the same result with either of them: to wit, we'll lose whatever rights and freedoms we have left. If you're going to roast one, you cannot let the other one off the hook, Andy-not if you want to be taken seriously. Had you bashed both Harris and Trump, that would've been one thing. Had you extolled the virtues of a 3rd party candidate over either of them, that would've been one thing. However, you admonished your viewers to save democracy from an authoritarian scumbag by voting for ANOTHER authoritarian scumbag! That's both illogical and counterproductive. It makes no sense, and voting for either would result in the end of our democracy, as you put it. In the future, if you can't be objective, please stay in your lane; please stick to what you do best: bikes. Thank you.

The ULTIMATE BachelorPad

Guys,

As you all may know, I LOVE Top Gun: Maverick! It's a great movie. It was the first movie I'd gone to see in a theater in years. There are many reasons I love the movie, but there's one that I've seen few discuss: Maverick lives in what has to be the ULTIMATE bachelor pad!

Before going to fly the Darkstar aircraft, Maverick comes out of his Airstream trailer that's parked in a HANGAR! He has a nice sitting area just outside the door occupying the hangar floor. Beyond the sitting area is his P-51 Mustang. How he affords a P-51 on a Captain's salary is anybody's guess, but this is the movies; we're supposed to dream big! Also in the hangar are some hot, vintage motorcycles, including the old, iconic Ninja he rode in the first Top Gun. As a guy who loves both airplanes and motorcycles, I would LOVE this as my bachelor pad!

Can you picture any woman going for this? HELL NO! Then again, we're guys; we're simple; we don't need much to live or be happy. While I like to say that I have the perfect bachelor pad (small, simple house with a four foot door from the garage to the basement, allowing me to keep my motorcycle INSIDE my house!), it's not. It's a good bachelor pad, yes; but it can't hold a candle to Maverick's crib. As I said, Maverick has the ULTIMATE bachelor pad!

My DEI Stories

 Folks,

Once again, I made a long YouTube comment that needs to be preserved for posterity; once again, I've made a good comment that cannot and must not be forgotten. It's about my encounters with what's popularly called DEI, short for diversity, equity, and inclusion. I think that a more appropriate acronym is DIE, because anyone practicing DIE will die sooner or later.

Look no farther than Boeing Airplane Company and its embarrassing incidents that have made worldwide news. Because Boeing is more concerned about having people with the right pigmentation rather than the people with the right skills and experience, they had a brand new 737 MAX airliner lose a door in flight; their Starliner capsule was stranded in space; and so on. Boeing, whose quality was once legendary, has become a shadow of itself. People used to say, "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"; that's how much better their aircraft were than anyone else's! You knew that, if you set foot on a Boeing airplane, you'd be fine. Thanks to their commitment to DIE, people now say, "If it's Boeing, I ain't going".

Anyway, I've pontificated long enough. By now, if you have two brain cells knocking together, you've figured out that I'm not in favor of DIE. One of Bo Refec's recent videos covers the topic of why men are leaving the workforce, and DIE is part of the conversation. I left the below comment in response to his video. Now, on to my comment...

----------------

Bo, though I'm retired, I have three stories to tell WRT DEI. DEI has been going on for a long time; it simply wasn't known as DEI back in the day. One story comes from my time in Corporate America, while the others come from my time in college and after college. These stories go back to the 1990s and early 2000s. DEI was being practiced then, but it wasn't called DEI; it didn't have a name. However, any white male who's over 30 or 40 will tell you that this shit was going on long before DEI had its now notorious name.

When I worked in Corporate America, I worked for a big company; they had a household name that everyone would know. However, they used Lotus software there, while I'd learned MS Office in school. One day, I had to call the help desk for something; I think it was about how to do something, but I can't remember for sure. A girl answered my call, and she helped me with my issue. That was no problem.

Before hanging up, I was curious about her background. What had she done to get a job at the help desk? What was her degree in? I expected to hear her say it was something computer related, or that she had a special IT cert, etc. She didn't. She had majored in THEATER in college! I was like WTF? You got a help desk job with a theater degree? I didn't say that, of course, but I certainly thought it-both at the time and years afterward. The company no doubt gave her special training, so she could do the job she was doing.

Even then, I had an associates degree in a STEM discipline, and I'd done some programming in college. I'd wager that I knew more about computers than she did, yet I'd have never gotten an interview, let alone GET the job!

The second story concerns a black gal I knew in college. She was cute and well spoken. She was also clueless; that was the consensus on her. Nevertheless, she managed to get a job at a company that had been part of Ma Bell, the phone company back in the day. Ma Bell was broken up, and she worked for one of the companies spun off from Ma Bell. Again, I couldn't even get an interview with a company like this, let alone get a job with them! This is in spite of the fact that I worked my ass off; I'd made both the dean's list and honor society. I think that I should've at least gotten a look.

The third and final story comes from my time after college when I'd finished my STEM degree; I'd gone back to get my full bachelor's. Times were tough, and jobs in my field were hard to come by. To get money coming in, I signed up with some temp agencies to do office work. One of these was owned and run by women; that'll be important in a moment.

When you sign up with a temporary employment agency, they give you tests; since I was applying for office and admin positions, they tested me on MS Office. I tested on all the major apps; I tested on Word, Excel, Access, and Powerpoint. I got 95%-to 99% on all four exams. Furthermore, I had Microsoft Office Specialist certification too. Oh, and I could easily type 50+ wpm too, faster than most people. Do you know that they never sent me on one office job? Do you know they only tried to send me to like warehouse jobs? Again, with my demonstrated skills, I SHOULD have gotten some consideration for doing office jobs! I only blew away their tests, and I had MOS certifications to boot! Needless to say, I didn't stay with that agency. I ultimately worked for another one on a long term assignment until I got a STEM job.

But yeah, discrimination against white men is REAL! I know, because I've experienced it on multiple occasions. I don't mind being beaten fair and square; if someone outsmarts, outhustles, and outworks me, that's my problem; shame on me. However, when I won't even get a look because my genitalia and skin color; when I won't get a look because of some DEI BS; that bothers me-especially when I put in the work to achieve competence and excellence. And we wonder why doors fall off of brand new, Boeing airliners-incredible...

An Oldie But a Goodie: Dealing with "The Question" at Work

Guys,

I originally published this post back in November, 2008. I couldn't find it here, but it's on the companion blog, MGTOW Survival Guide. Since it's not here, I thought I'd post it again. Because most of us have to work with women, we need to know how to deal with 'the question' at work. What is 'the question'? Why don't we have a woman in our lives? If there's one thing you, a MGHOW, can bank on, it is this: you WILL be asked why you don't have a girlfriend, fiance, or wife. In this post, I tell you how I handle this delicate situation, and why. Read and learn, Grasshopper!

-----------------

This post could be considered Part II of last night's post, "Ladies, It's YOUR Problem". The quandary most of us MGTOW find ourselves in is how to answer 'The Question'; how do we deal with the inevitable queries as to why we're still single? I'll relate past experiences along with what I learned; I'll tell you what I do now, and why I do it. It's worked for me, and I think it'll work for my readers too.

Number one is to remember that you must be careful around men too; it's not just women who will hold your honesty and candor against you. At my previous job, I was NOT shy about being a happy, single bachelor; I loudly and proudly proclaimed all the joys of single life, such as being able to purchase two motorcycles with my bonus. Not only that, my boss' right hand man, his assistant, was engaged at the time; I tried to dissuade him from walking down the Aisle of Doom to no avail. He and his woman both came from intact families, and to him, marriage was normal; he said to me that everyone gets married. After hearing that, I no longer tried to dissuade him.

Almost all the other guys in the department were married. There were three of us who were single: a nice, young kid who'd just graduated college; another man who's a Christian; and there was me. Anyway, in early 2007, my boss was told to reduce headcount; he was told that he had to get rid of someone. The axe fell on me. Though it turned out to be a blessing in disguise (my present employer is doing better than my former one, and I have better long term prospects), I don't think that my unabashed MGTOW views helped me. I don't think that most of the guys were happily married, and they didn't like me reminding them of that. The moral of the story is that you have to be careful around men too when it comes to expressing MGTOW views.

As for women, it goes without saying that you have to be careful around them. The moment you even INSINUATE that women might not be perfect, you get accused of hating women and all that crap; they'll tell you that you should have known better, picked better, etc. At least one of them will go crying to the boss about how you're a big misogynist; they'll say that you have 'trouble working with women', and all that crap. It doesn't matter whether your boss is male or female, either. If your boss is a man, he'll be eager to be the little ladies' knight in shining armor, so he'll come down on you; he'll make an example of you. If your boss is a woman, then she'll back up her fellow sisters; since you attacked one of them, you attacked all of them, including her. If you espouse MGTOW views at work, you're putting your job on the line.

Even if you keep your job, your future prospects at that employer have been damaged-all because you dared to criticize women, and say that they might not be perfect. And make no mistake about it; if you upset your female colleagues in any way, you just might end up with a pink slip. Employers are scared to death of a lawsuit from one of the dearies, so they'll do almost anything to placate them-even if it means firing you. Anyway, it goes without saying that you absolutely, positively CANNOT share your MGTOW views with women, nor can you share your reasons WHY you hold those views-not if you wish to keep receiving a steady paycheck.

It's easier for men to lose their jobs than it is for women; the converse of this is that it'll be harder for us to REPLACE that lost job too. One, women are members of the protected class, whereas we are not; women have the power in the workplace, and men do not. Women know this, and they will exploit this too-especially if it means getting even with someone who said that they're not a goddess; how DARE that POS man criticize me, a superior being! Two, we men will be discriminated against during a job search. Men interviewing job applicants are mostly manginas, and they're going to want some pretty eye candy to look at on the job; we are not eye candy to them. Women also have the EEOC and other alphabet soup, gov't agencies backing them; big daddy gov't tells employers that they'd BETTER give the little women a chance, so they do-at our expense, of course. Ergo, if you're a man, you do not want to run afoul of the little dearies-if you're unfortunate enough to work with them, that is.

I have told you what not to do, and I have told you why. However, I have not told you what TO DO. Don't worry, I'll answer that all important question right now...

So, what does a MGHOW say when asked about his single status? How does he answer such a question? You're about to step into a nasty mine field, and it must be navigated with care. You know what I say? I simply say that I never met the right one; rather, I met the right one, but I didn't meet her at the right time. I go on to tell about the lovely relationship I had while stationed at Pearl Harbor over 20 years ago; I wax poetic about how it was like the relationship Mr. & Mrs. Bailey had in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life". I know that this is idealizing things a bit, but not by much. I then say that, unfortunately for me, I was in the Navy at the time; I got orders sending me back to the mainland, thus ending the relationship. I close by saying that both the woman and true love that we shared ruined all subsequent women and relationships. Then, I leave it at that.

This does a couple of wonderful things; with either a male or female audience, this does some wonderful things. It easily deflects any subsequent questions about your single status, and does so in a way without making you look bad. I'll explain...

With men, they'll understand about wanting that someone special; though they won't openly ADMIT it, most men wish they'd married better, i.e. that they had a nicer woman for a wife. In other cases, they too lost a love from long ago, and they understand the power a lost love has over a man's heart. If you're dealing with a man who wishes that he married better, he'll quietly respect your decision to hold out for someone special, and he'll applaud you for doing so. If you're dealing with a man who also lost someone special long ago, he too will understand the power a lost love has on a man; if he married someone else, he will also respect and admire your decision to not settle for less. Face it, Fellas; most men wish that they either married someone else, or they wish that they'd remained single themselves. The worst thing you can do is rub their nose in the fact that you're a happy, single, and free MGHOW! No matter how you slice it, handling 'The Question' the way that I did will have your fellow men admiring and respecting you, not hating you for being happily single. Your fellow men won't consider you a pariah or enemy, and in this economic environment, that matters.

When dealing with women, I've found that they'll feel sorry for me when I answer 'The Question' the way that I have. They'll see me as a sweet, romantic, loving guy who's still carrying a torch for someone else; they'll see me as emotionally unavailable, so they'll leave me alone. Secondly, because they see me as sweet, romantic, and all that, they won't have desire for me, since most modern women want bad boys who treat them like crap. Thirdly, I come off as someone who's being true to his heart; they see me as following my heart. Since women are emotional creatures enslaved to their feelings, they understand this PERFECTLY! They'll feel sorry that I no longer have the love of my life; seeing that this is a tender spot with me, women will leave me alone too. By saying I met the right one at the wrong time, I get women off my back too, albeit for different reasons. Even so, I get 'em off my back WRT 'The Question'.

Whatever you do, do NOT tell them the truth! Come to think of it, if you say you haven't met the right one yet, you ARE telling the truth; you just aren't telling them all of it. Think about it; if you're a MGHOW trying to fly under the radar, you are telling them the truth. You have NOT met the right woman; you just leave out the part that, in this toxic, feminazi environment, meeting the right one is all but impossible. Men, particularly married ones, don't wish to be reminded of the fact that they made a huge mistake when they married. Women don't like to hear anything that even has a hint of criticism. If you say anything remotely critical to a woman, they'll go ballistic; they absolutely cannot handle being told that they're anything less than a princess or goddess-they just can't! IOW, what I'm saying to you guys is this: assume that both men and women cannot handle the truth, and govern yourselves accordingly. Give them part of the truth, but don't give them the whole truth. To borrow a line from Col. Nathan Jessup in "A Few Good Men", they (the vast majority of both men and women) can't HANDLE the truth! Ergo, you don't give it to them. Just give them enough to placate them, then drop it.

Jesus instructed his followers to be as wise as serpents, yet as harmless as doves. I think that this is a good example of that principle. Too bad I had to learn it the hard way, but at least I learned it. At work, if you're a MGHOW, then showing your hand is NOT an option! Repeat: as a MGHOW, laying your cards on the table is not an option! If you do so, you'll make enemies of both men and women you work with; this, in turn, could place your job in peril. So, just give them enough truth to satisfy them; tell them you haven't met the right one, and leave it at that. Again, you're telling the truth, because meeting the right one is impossible! You don't have to tell your COLLEAGUES that; they won't appreciate it if you do so anyway...

In closing, if you're asked about your single status, simply say that you haven't met the right one. Better yet, if you had someone nice long ago, but you got separated from her, then play that up. Men will understand why, and they'll leave you alone; as an added bonus, they'll admire and respect your decision to not settle. Women will see you as a sweet, loving, romantic person who's got a broken heart. They'll feel sorry for you, since your heart is broken; because you're carrying that sorrow (or so they think), they'll leave you alone, so as to not exploit that emotional wound. If you play up the broken heart angle, women will show compassion for you-even if you're a man! Who would've thought? A woman showing compassion for a man? Yes, it does happen! Furthermore, because they see you as a nice, romantic, sweet guy, you'll repulse most modern women; nice guys are boring and weak in their eyes, so they'll remove you from their 'boyfriend material' list. With women, you'll play up the 'feeeeelings' angle, which will work like a charm! In either case, as a MGHOW, you can continue to fly under the radar, thus preserving your job and livelihood; that's always an important consideration, but never more so than in these days and times. Thank you, and have a good day...

MarkyMark

How Child Support Agencies Really Work, from an Insider

 Guys,

This post was originally written by JayJet on the Happy Bachelor's Forum back in 2011. JayJet used to work in a child support agency. Though he wasn't an agent or collector (IIRC, he worked in IT), he has an insider's view which is invaluable; he knows how these agencies operate, think, and act. For men who are going their own way, this is MUST KNOW material! This is necessary to the MGTOW's survival, which is why I'm also running it in the MGTOW Survival Guide in addition to running it here on the main blog.

I meant to run this much sooner, but I never did. Though this was posted back in 2011, it's just as relevant today, if not more so. We live with Marriage 2.0, and women file for 70% to 80% of the divorces; that figure increases to 90% if she's college educated. This is a WARNING to you, Fellas! As Joshua, the computer, said in the 1983 hit movie, "Wargames", marriage is a strange game; the only winning move is not to play. Below is JayJet's post about child support agencies.

--------------------

Gentlemen,

I'd like to take a few moments of my time to share with you a perspective that you A)won't be entirely surprised by and B) might be beneficial to a few of you who sport rose-colored glasses.

My current employment is with a Child Support Agency in a large state. I've been working there for a few years and in that time have picked up on a few things. I was a caseworker for a very limited time until I was promoted to another position where I don't have direct contact with the public or access to their information. My message is not to share with you tales of woe(of which there are many) but to instead give you some insight into the culture of agencies such as ours. I hope that as a happy bachelor many or most of you can remain so without ever having to darken the door of these places. My experience is my own of course so what I say here may not be the same amongst all child support collection agencies.

Here's what I've learned:

1. Child support agencies are not instinctively anti-male. They are however INDIFFERENT to males. They are indifferent to your suffering, indifferent to your pain, indifferent to the costs or whether or not you got screwed in your divorce settlement. Your cupcake decided to go on welfare and she named you as the father. They don't care how you make your payments to HER or what she does with the money once she gets it.

2. Child support agencies have staff that is largely female. Mine is upwards of 85%. As a result, individual women who are there to answer your questions (customer service) will not be sympathetic and even if they are must follow strict policy/procedure for NCP's (Non Custodial Parent-i.e. YOU). Meaning your rape will likely continue until your ass bleeds out.

3. Management in CS agencies ARE true believers. This means that when it comes to policy they see themselves as guardians and enablers of the system. They don't care for your MRA/MGTOW bullshit. It means nothing to them. "Just pay it!" is the mantra. "You should have thought about that before you had kids!" is another. Management prides itself on learning new ideas and technologies to get your money faster and more efficiently.

4. CS agencies are ALWAYS looking for "deadbeats." Guys kill me when they talk about moving to another country to escape CS or start anew outside the anglo-sphere! Most men are to timid to pick up and move. Besides, CS agencies share information world-wide. All English speaking and most Spanish countries share information that when you're located you'll pay up. The list of countries that have cooperative agreements to find you grows every year. If you ghost to Crap-istan you best make sure that you live underground as a fugitive. Because if your caught/arrested or are in trouble with the law in a foreign country you have to pay still. As more countries become feminized your chances of escape grow dim by the day. You'll likely be considered a CS dodger and then have to explain yourself to the magistrate of the new country that you reside in.

4a. Time for an exercise. Let's say you're a tradesman (plumber, carpenter, etc). It's highly likely you'll belong to a union or professional organization. CS agencies will contact these organizations by sending out "tentacles" to look for you if you go underground. If you're found to be working utilizing your skill in any legitimate manner you'll be found and taken in.

5. "Sir, would you like to make that payment over the phone." Agencies are now taking credit cards and money transfers over the phone to expedite your "donation" to a needy family even if that "needy" family is your own! I cannot overstate it enough. There are dedicated and highly motivated people who spend their day looking for your "I'll to move to Asia, find a sweet Min-Mei and go ghost" ass. These folks are looking to get "kudos" and awards from their supervisors for finding you and they take it very seriously.

6. Because CS agencies are linked to family law courts they have the power to suspend your professional licenses, drivers license, passports and any other official documentation that affects your means to work or travel. Yes, they can throw you in jail if need be but I was told most agencies limit the use of that because they found that when your in jail, your not paying CS! Imagine that! Lottery, sweepstakes, casino winnings, are all fair game to bringing your support current or to catch up on your arrears. The IRS will get you, they'll put a lien on your home or other large assets. You've been warned.

7. CS agencies make money. A LOT OF MONEY. It's a business, after all. Their business is YOUR WALLET! You see, a certain percentage (2-5%) of your monthly support is collected as a administrative fee. Let's get real here. This amount is a finders fee that goes back to the government. You pay this as part of your monthly support to HER. In reality, that money goes to your states general coffers. Many U.S. states are experiencing budget woes. Threats, furloughs and layoffs abound in these tough economic times. However, many CS agencies feel safe because they make money for the cash-strapped state. They are in essence the golden goose except you're the one laying the golden egg!

7a. Ah, yes! Arrears. This is when you get behind or decide to go ghost to Crapistan. Don't let it happen. Why? Compounding interest that's why! Many men are still paying CS long after their kid is grown! There are additional penaltie$ for having your account fall into arrears that you'll be required to pay to bring your account current. You've been warned!

8. The bitch. Guess what? No one cares who that bitch is. CS agencies don't do background checks on her to verify if she's a lying, cheating, skank whore. They don't care that she poked a hole in your condom or she lied and told you she took her birth control pill. They also don't care that you married the bitch in the first place. They don't care that you came home after working 10-12 hours to find her sucking your best friends dick in front of your kids. They don't even care that she's abusive to your kids. They are indifferent. All they and the family court know is that you have a penis. Your penis is a weapon. Your penis "fired" in her vagina and now you will have to pay reparations for not stowing it properly with the safety on.

8a. They don't care if you get to see your kids, EVER.

9. Imputed income. Of all the injustices in the world this is as close to slavery as they come. Simple wealth redistribution. Imputed income is the amount of money that you POTENTIALLY earn. Did you get that?

9a. Exercise time. Imagine you're a happy bachelor, footloose and carefree. Your attending college or plan on starting a business selling widgets. Then you hook up with cupcake and get her pregnant. She decides to keep the baby(naturally, you have no say because your a man). She realizes your "potential" and so does the family court and CS agencies. They compute your child support payments/potential based upon future earnings realized or not! Many men cannot retire or save because their potential earnings were taken into account at the time CS began. This is slavery. Pure and simple. Nowhere in western society can someone take your salary based upon your POTENTIAL and figure your current payment schedule based on future earnings.

10. Most of you already know this stuff or are already experiencing it firsthand. I wrote this for the fellas as a warning. You won't get cut any slack. Since this is my last point let me share with you something else. In an earlier point, I spoke about the economic times that we currently find ourselves. It was told in my agency that some time ago there were dozens of NCP's (mostly, if not all men) who went back to the court to press for leniency or a reduction of their child support burden. These guys more than likely got their hours cut or were laid off. After making their appeal to the judge, they were able to get the leniency they asked for. Later it was found that there was a glitch with our agency that was letting these guys "get away with not paying." So the attorneys in our agency went to work to close the loophole. They found it was some kind of software that they were using that was "ineffective." It's this program that allows the judge to see certain details of the NCP's case. The judge reviews this file to ascertain whether or not to grant a reduction in CS. After making some adjustments it's come to light that as of now the number of guys receiving leniency has trickled to less than 5. Problem solved. So out of hundreds of NCP's in a major metro area wanting a reduction less than 5 got what they asked for in this last YEAR. Think about that and realize those folks can't do anything but continue to pay the system even as they starve. Indifference.

I see no real solution to this mess in our lifetime. Having children is a liability and I personally always wanted kids too. One of the last conversations I had with my late wife was about having children. We both conceded that rebuilding our marriage would never work. I told her that when she left me my dreams of having children died too. I was resolute in telling her that I would not remarry again and since I believe in marriage first, then kids, I won't have children either.

The reality is your children are never really yours. Ultimately, they become pawns for the state and the bitch they claim to serve.

---------------

There's not much I can add to that. Have a good day...

A Dilemma Older Men Face

 Guys,

I have yet another comment I wish to preserve for posterity, so I'm posting it here. In one of his recent videos, Bo Refec said that being single as an older person is a scary prospect, and that we can face disaster if our health fails without having someone to care for us. Normally, I agree with Bo; I'm subscribed to both of his channels, and I watch him regularly. However, I must part company here; I must disagree with him. As a 62 year old man who's dealing with this, I have something to say. Below is my comment.

------------

Bo, you talked about how being single as we get older is a death wish. Let me ask you this: WTF does a guy do if his wife divorces him in old age, hmmm? What about that? You see older women leaving their marriages ALL THE TIME! All the time, we see 50 and 60 something women ending their decades long marriages to "chase their happiness", i.e. chase Chad. If women would-gasp-honor their marriage vows, that would be one thing. If we didn't face getting reamed out in the family courts, that would be one thing. However, women don't honor their commitments and the family courts will screw us over, so we, as older men, have to weigh the risk of being homeless and starving in old age vs. the possibility of failing health as our lives come to an end.

Yes, as a 62 year old man, I'm concerned that my health will decline to the point where I can no longer care for myself. That's one reason I go biking 4-5 times a week. HOWEVER! However, I'm also concerned about a woman divorcing me and leaving me poor; I'm concerned about being homeless in old age; I'm concerned about having nothing to eat but Alpo. I can eat human food and occasionally go to Long Horn Steakhouse for a treat; I'd like the option of CONTINUING to do so, TYVM! For men over a certain age, it's a Catch 22 we're facing; we're damned if we do (i.e. marry), and we're damned if we don't. Since it comes down to that stark choice, then I'll take the lesser of two bad options; at least I'll have food, clothing, and shelter until I die.

Sussing Out Body Count

 Guys,

I left the below comment on a great YouTube channel, Real Girl World. RGW is by Hannah Jordan of Canada, and she's a FINE lady! She reminds us of what women can be; she shows us what women can and should aspire to. She's trying to warn modern women about what they're doing, and for that, she deserves our thanks; she's doing the Lord's work. She only has 229 subscribers, while it should be 2.29 MILLION! She's preaching a message that needs to be heard far and wide.

If you couldn't tell, I'm a fan of her channel. I've watched many of her videos. Four weeks ago, she posted a video entitled "Women Behaving Badly". In it, we have the now notorious "Hawk Tuah Girl", among others. In response to a guy's comment, I left the below comment in response to his. He said that he'd ask any woman he was dating about her body count, while I said that doing so may be a waste of time. I proceeded to tell him how I'd suss out a woman's body count if I were still dating. Below is my comment. I hope it helps someone.

--------------------

Dude, the thing is that, if you straight up ask for her body count, she's going to lie about it. Deep down, women know that a high body count is nothing to brag about; otherwise, they wouldn't be all shameful and bashful when asked about it. Then again, if you're careful and quick to observe her initial, unfiltered reaction, asking a direct question about body count may be useful; while you may not get an honest number, you may get an idea of whether or not the number is high, which is what you're looking for.

If I were dating and wanting to find out this information, there are three things I could do. One is to check out her friends. A second tack one can take is to hint at shameful stuff you may have done in the past. Finally, just listen to her carefully. I'll explain...

Who are her friends? What do they say? How do they say it? What do they talk about? How do they talk about things? Are they a bunch of 304s? If so, then so is your woman; after all, we become what our companions are, which is why they should be chosen with great care. That's a lesson I learned the hard way when I was a kid.

The second thing one could do if your past could be better is this: hint at some of those episodes you'd like to forget, and see what she does. In my case, I'm a US Navy vet; yes, I was a sailor as a young man. I wanted to see the world, and Uncle Sam's Navy offered me a way to do it. Anyway, there were times when, shall we say, I acted less than virtuously? There were things I did that I NEVER told my late mother! Let me put it that way. I almost always behaved myself, and I normally followed my WWII Navy vet Grandfather's advice: I normally headed in the opposite direction most of the guys headed. They'd go hit the bars in port, while I'd go sightseeing via the local trains or buses. I used to enjoy taking the train from Piazza Garibaldi in Naples, Italy to the Herculaneum ruins or the black sand beach at Sorrento. However, there were a couple of episodes on that Med cruise I'd rather forget, and I'll leave it at that. Sorry, I digress...

Anyway, if I were on a date, I'd ask a girl about her college days, especially if I suspected 304 conduct during said college days. If she hinted at wild sorority parties, frat mixers, etc., I'd say something like, "Well, when I was in my early 20s, I was a sailor in the Navy; if you can imagine a sailor boy doing something, I probably did it." I'd say it with a somewhat embarrassed tone, because I would be. You can embellish things here too. The key is to let her know you won't be judgemental, so she'll open up enough to give you a good glimpse of the truth. While she may not tell you everything, she may tell you enough to get a good picture of who she is, so you can decide whether or not to pursue a relationship with her.

Finally, just LISTEN UP! God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason, and it's always good to be mindful of this. Again, this is a lesson I learned the hard way as a boy and a young man. Just sit there and listen to her talk. Listen to what she says, and how she says it. Ask good follow-up questions; make brief, pertinent comments; the key is to get her going and keep her going. As the old truism goes, women always tell on themselves. Give them long enough to talk, and they'll eventually tell on themselves.

For example, back in the dark days long before #MeToo, people could meet someone at work, and they often did. My brother and SIL met that way; he hired her at his company, BTW! This Labor Day Weekend, they'll celebrate their silver anniversary. There was a time you could meet someone at work, while not worrying about your career. Though I never got involved with someone at work, I was interested in a couple of women I worked with. You could quietly observe the person; you could watch and listen to her. Doing so helped me avoid a couple of train wrecks!

The same applies in school-at least it used to. In this post #MeToo era, if I were in college now, I don't know if I would date anyone from school. Anyway, in the past, if you went to school with someone, you could sit back, watch them, and learn about them.

In closing, directly asking a girl about her body count is a waste of time. NFW will she tell you the truth! In her heart of hearts, she knows a high body count is bad, so she'll play it down, lie about it, change the subject, etc. No, you must go into intelligence gathering mode, and learn as much as you can about her. On second thought, you could ask her directly, so as to catch her immediate reaction; that may give you an idea. What else can you do? One, look at who her friends are; if they're 304s, then so is she. Two, subtly encourage them to open up about their past; hint at possible seedy things you may have done to encourage her. Finally, LISTEN TO HER! If you allow women to talk long enough, they'll always tell on themselves. While you may never get an exact number, you'll get a good enough idea to make a decision about whether or not to get involved with her. Hope this helps...

The Federal Government Knows about Drugs, and They Allow Them Into the US!

 Folks,

Here's another YouTube comment that needs to be preserved for posterity. There was a clip of "American Made", starring Tom Cruise. Though I don't care for the Scientology stuff, I think that Tom Cruise is a great actor; he does a great job in every role he plays, so I like to see his movies. In "American Made", Tom plays Barry Seal. Mr. Seal was, shall we say, an enterprising businessman? He started an air freight service specializing in Colombian pharmaceuticals! It's a good movie, and I recommend it.

One of the commenters to the movie clip said that the Feds were in on the drug trade, and many agreed. I submitted the below comment. It was too good to lie buried in obscurity in some forgotten YouTube comment, so I'm reprinting it below. Enjoy!

-------------

Shoot, I figured that out when I was in the service! I was in the US Navy. Though I normally operated the sonar, we were on drug patrol a few miles off the coast of Colombia. That put us in shallow water, so our sonar was useless. The ship's officers had us stand radar watches instead. I thought that was cool, as I got to learn something new, and I had the chance to do something different. While I don't know if I can say the exact altitude and speed parameters we'd use for flagging northbound (i.e. to the US) aircraft, I can say this: the parameters they were using would only catch the small time smugglers flying small, piston twin aircraft; it wouldn't get the bigger smugglers flying DC-7s or Mitsubishi MU-2s.

Another tell for me was how our ships were deployed. They had us only a few miles of the Colombian coast where everyone could see us; of course the smugglers hid like a bunch of cockroaches under rocks! The smarter way to deploy our ships would've been to put one or two in between the western end of Cuba and the Yucatan Peninsula; put another one between Hispanola and Cuba; then put another ship between eastern Hispanola and Puerto Rico; finally, use some USN PHMs or USCG patrol boats between the Bahamas and the FL coast. If you look at a map, anyone coming from South America HAS to go through these points! The capabilities of the USN's air and surface search radars would be more than adequate to catch anyone heading through the aforementioned choke points. Wouldn't that be the smart way to catch the drug smugglers?

Ah, but the US NEVER did that! Why not? If I, a humble PO2 sonar operator, could figure this shit out, then surely the Generals and Admirals of the Pentagon could; after all, they'd attended either the Navy or Army War College, so they knew about strategy, right? Since they'd studied and forgotten more about strategy than I'd ever learned, wouldn't the Pentagon brass be able to figure this out? The answer is yes, of course. I could only draw one, logical conclusion: that people in the upper levels of the Federal Gov't were on the take, that they were allowing the drugs to come in.

I can tell of another experience on a different drug patrol that cements my opinion for me. On this patrol, we were operating in deep water, so we were using our sonar. I was standing watch one morning when I heard this LOUD contact; he was making enough noise to wake up everything and everybody for miles around! I called it into radar, and they got it. To make a long story short, we boarded this tramp steamer. He said he was going to Panama, yet his charts had a track laid into Santa Marta, Colombia. IOW, we got him before he picked up his load of pot. We had to let him go, as he was clean; they'd lied to us, but that wasn't illegal. However, we never waited on the guy to pick up his load; we never tried to get him on the way out. Why not? IMO, to ask the question is to answer it.

Yes, boys and girls, the Federal Gov't is on the take! While I don't have hardcore proof of that, I have circumstantial evidence that certainly points in that direction. I knew 40 years ago that the Feds were on the take, and I still stand by that today.

Why Free Enterprise and Capitalism Are Superior to Socialism and Communism.

 Folks,

In response to a YouTube comment, I shared my thoughts on why communism and socialism are failures. This comment is worth preserving, so I'm making a post here. My comment is below.

--------------

​ @Flux_40  I was merely using an understandable and relatable analogy here; I wasn't trying to discuss economic questions, per se.

That said, I think that free enterprise (i.e. many small businesses) is the best system, as the free market and the pricing mechanism send clear signals about what is desired and what works vs. what isn't desired and what doesn't work. Even capitalism, to a lesser extent, provides these feedback mechanisms. Neither socialism nor communism have this feedback mechanism, so they're even worse; they cannot and do not distribute scarce resources in a fair or complete manner.

I differentiate free enterprise from capitalism, because capitalism promotes a dog eat dog mentality, where the bigger fish eat the smaller fish; this keeps happening until you have either a monopoly, duopoly, or, at best, an oligopoly. At this point, gov't and the remaining, large corporations become one and the same; we have fascism, which results in poverty and tyranny for the people, while a small elite lives well.

If one doubts how socialism/communism is a failure, then I'll issue that person a simple challenge: look at a picture of the Korean peninsula at night. Just go to Google and enter the phrase: "Korean peninsula at night". Then, look at the pics; look at the stark DIFFERENCE between the southern and northern halves! The southern half, South Korea, is all lit up; the population has electricity. This means that they are prosperous and live well. OTOH, the northern half of the peninsula, where North Korea is located, is dark. Why? Because the people are poor; because communism cannot and will not provide people with even the basics of life, let alone the luxuries thereof.

Why is the Korean example significant? One, there is no racial or ethnic variable here; the Korean people on the peninsula are the same. Two, the Korean people share a common culture. Three, the Korean people share a common history until the mid 20th Century. Four, the Korean people share a common language. Any and all variables that have been used to explain away the failure of communism (i.e. the reason it hasn't worked is because the right people haven't tried it yet) have been eliminated in the Korean example, yet the stark differences between communism and capitalism. While the people of South Korea may not have total freedom, they have more than their brothers and sisters to the north, which gives the South Korean people a better lifestyle.

SO! Capitalism, though far from perfect, is far preferable to communism. Thanks to capitalism, we have electricity; we have indoor plumbing; we have central heating and air conditioning; we have the automobile; we have all the blessings of modern life. Is it perfect? No, especially when it get excessive and we have these huge, multinational corporations. That's why I differentiated between free enterprise and capitalism. That said, capitalism is far preferable to communism or its gatewiay drug, socialism. Again, if you don't believe me, then riddle me this: why are Venezuelans escaping their country by the millions? Could it be because socialism doesn't provide them the necessities of life, including toilet paper? To ask the question is to answer it.

In conclusion, I would challenge you to Google the classic essay, "I, Pencil", which discusses all of these topics by showing how the simple and humble pencil is made. It shows how and why free enterprise, or even capitalism, is far preferable to socialism or its logical conclusion, communism. Thank you.