BlogWonks

Brothers, here’s Volume 10 of Chapin’s Inferno—a wandering cauldron of conservative commentary—and it concerns feminism and false rape charges. If you need to get a hold of me I’m at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

Brothers, here is Volume 9 of Chapin’s Inferno—a wandering cauldron of conservative commentary—and it concerns Tiger Woods and PC.

Brothers, I usually hate to stomp over my own posts—here’s Inferno 8 on Rush Limbaugh if you missed it from earlier today—but an educational opportunity has arose and it provides an opportunity for me to showcase the argumentative habits of a few radical feminists.

About a week ago I wrote a review of a children’s fairy tale book designed with the purpose of indoctrinating young girls about there being no need to get married in order to be happy. Here’s a quote from the PR release which was sent to me by the authors. The text is described as “A contemporary fairy tale for all ages, [the book] was written to reduce the overwhelming sense of failure, self-doubt, and despair that some single women face.”

To be perfectly honest, the attempt to propagandize offended me more than the message itself. They’ll be less marriage in America in general and what people do doesn’t matter much to me. The authors sent me a copy of book after I said I’d review it. Why they thought I’d like it is not clear, but, in a personal email one of the authors told me that she bore me no grudge. However, shortly thereafter, she began posting it on several women’s boards in the hopes of recruiting sympathy from her peers. What she did not do was respond to any of my arguments. It seemed to me she wanted to appear a victim and get the commiseration which comes from that in some circles.

One of the blogs I found today had several posts which I will refute here. Why? Well, unlike the author of that children’s book I need no help from my peers, but several of the Mensnewdaily.com fellows may have been abused with similar stuff in the past and hopefully what I bring up will aid you in the future.

I should note that it seems like we have fewer and fewer clashes with these people nowadays. This is due to the internet being the least effective venue for their message. As the reader knows, radical feminism relies on emotion for its every tenet, and affective responses come across poorly on the printed page.

Ours is an emotion-plagued, soundbyte society in which written correspondence may be is last region where logic holds dominion. Therefore, radical feminists generally avoid arenas in which they cannot shout their foes down. They delete access to comment pages or delete responses after they’re typed. Theirs is a most cowardly existence, but female privilege allows them to maintain it.

Let us turn now to this website called Feminist Philosophers [hit the link, I’m not kidding] along with the entry concerning your amiable Uncle Bern. We find, “it was thus with a certain amount of perverse glee that I discovered the existence of one Bernard Chapin, writer and oddball extraordinaire. One of our readers alerted me to his existence after he published a scathing review of her modern fairytale book…Smelling an oddball, I googled and, oh boy, did I strike gold. Bernard’s vitriolic outpourings on the horrors of today’s women are truly a joy to behold.”

Before we begin, let me identify for the reader in advance that what we have here are logical fallacies for the most part. They vary from being ad hominem’s to straw men to red herrings. No matter what they say about me though it doesn’t ultimately matter because tearing me down leaves my positions untouched. Furthermore, notice how corrupted by PC these minds are. All they can do is think within the parameters of race, class, and sex. If they don’t force their opponents into a straw man box then they have nothing. One last thing, I’ve heard people try to say that I make use of ad hominem argumentation but I do not. An ad hominem fallacy is when a person attempts to refute their opponent by insulting them but I never do that. I do insult people but always take seriously the burden of rejoinder and never fail to refute their positions.

As for me being “an oddball extraordinaire,” this is doubtful. I come off as being a pretty normal person but I suppose it’s too subjective an insult to say one way or another. Who cares? She can think what she wants and I’ll respect her diversity. With the mocking of flight attendants, here we have a class link which sounds believable on its face; yet the claim is totally out of context. Whatever someone does for work is fine with me but if you make a point of using your vocational status as a means to justify yourself as an expert—as these two ladies did—then you’re asking for it.

Here’s the PR release again:

“With wisdom gleaned from their careers as single, globe-trotting flight attendants, first-time authors [person A] and [person B] have crafted a modern-day book that celebrates singleness.”

QED: my point remains valid. The release makes it sound as if being a flight attendant adds weight to their voice which is just as absurd now as it was when I first said so.

The next claim that my “vitriolic outpourings on the horrors of today’s women are truly a joy to behold.” Now we get to the sexism link. I don’t think modern women are horrific at all, but, generally given the change in their essence, one should have a presumption against marriage. If this person wanted to persuade then she would be wise to explain why this is not the case and why modern women make better wives than their predecessors. Of course, that would be too generative and productive a stance to take I suppose.

Concerning an old article of mine she asserts that divorce leaves women broke which it doesn’t and this would only be possible if there were no disparity between bride and groom income (and even then!). Then a point I made about student loans and debt comes next. Actually, most parents don’t pay off their child’s debts. There’s a whole lot of literature out there about loans breaking a generation which she can read if she wants. If this person’s parents paid for her then I congratulate her. Again though, there’s nothing which explains, or even ventures to guess, why marrying a modern woman is advantageous for men.

She mocks female promiscuity as a concern for men, but if she thinks it isn’t then it is not me who is the oddball. Potential promiscuity on the part of a mate is a concern ubiquitous among men. My oeuvre contains a serious amount of advice that would be helpful to women along these lines because I think a serious factor which plagues them is the failure to acknowledge the nature of male sexuality. Making fun of it, minimalizing it, or pretending that we’ve just been brainwashed is disastrous and puts young girls on the path to misery and resentment.

If these women really cared about children they would try to make certain that they do not make the same mistakes they did. Youth and beauty are integral to male desire. If I were them I’d just admit this and move on. Why lie to yourself? And promiscuity? Battling over that is preposterous. Should they doubt this then I recommend Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition to see its influence on male behavior throughout the animal kingdom.

More calumny follows: “Bernard will remain a self-confirmed toxic bachelor.” There’s nothing toxic about me. I get along with people and greet those I don’t know with the hand of friendship. I wonder how they greet strangers? I don’t subdivide the general population into ideological constructs and treat them in a disparate manner though…no matter who they are. I try to treat everyone fairly. Even these radicals, should I ever meet one them would find me courteous and polite. Life is too short to hate others. Besides, some of them may come around eventually (who knows?). As for getting married, I would not rule it out but maintain a presumption against it.

The sentence: “Leering at attractive young women in the street as ‘a political statement’, (especially if their waists are about seven tenths the size of their hips)…” refers to an old article of mine and is correct. I won’t avoid looking at those who dress provocatively. If they don’t want to be leered at then they should wear baggy clothes. Of course, the best thing about getting older is that there are more and more women out there who are younger than you. I used to think 30 was old, but now I think they’re smoking babes! So, life is pretty good.

As for, “…castigating single mothers as the source of all society’s evils.” They certainly aren’t. The federocracy is the cause of most of our social evils in society and they’ve set up single mothers to fail. It’s easy to say you’d reject the dole when you’re a grown adult but not when you’re an adolescent. No, it’s certainly not their fault. It’s the leftist mindset which views taxes as charity and holds every government program to be effective.

Lastly, I enjoyed some of the Freud I read but my knowledge of humanity is a product of reading history and literature for the most part. I highly recommend history for those who desire knowledge of the human mind. The discipline is a gigantic compendium of case studies. It’s sublime.

Concerning comment one:

“Such perfection in misogyny is worth bringing to our attention.” I am not a misogynist in the least. Questioning a woman or battling radical feminists does not make one a misogynist. I treat the people I meet with respect and hate no one. They should just learn how to argue.

Concerning comment two:

“…now I hate all the stupid b***hes.” I don’t hate anyone. My recommendation is to discontinue the practice of attacking the person because even if you’re right it does not disprove what they say.

“I have a theory that every time someone uses the phrase “nowadays,” particularly in an introductory thesis, they’re about to say something massively stupid.” Well, I disagree and see no reason why that would be true. It’s a perfectly good word but you do what you want and I’ll respect your diversity.

Next we come to racism (which was inevitable). She argues that my use of the name “Tyrone” refers to black men. Nope, it didn’t. I happen to know the guy that wrote that and that wasn’t what he was thinking. Yet this is how radical feminism poisons minds. They hold men to be ants who have no thoughts that are not evil and hateful. In fact, while I have met a few black guys named Tyrone I also knew two white guys with that name as well. It is no longer a popular name at this point though…among anyone. It’s actually an Irish name—County Tyrone in Ulster— and there was a very famous (and white) actor named Tyrone Power of whom my father very much admired. Nice try though. You folks basically follow a preset script right? “Racist…sexist…classist…homophobe…” Why not just think instead?

“We’re absolutely sure that this guy is for real? I know that I should know better than to ask by now, but it still astonishes me every time that people this openly hateful of women could actually exist.”

I’m for real but it’s an indelible sign of privilege to believe that those who disagree with you do not exist. You are the world! I guess you don’t have to associate with the general population much, but you may one day realize that arguing with a radical feminist has no correlation with hating women. Women are my equals. I have a right to point out that you’re not oppressed although if you totalitarians took over the country I’m sure that I would lose that right.

Comment 3:

“I originally wondered if this was a spoof, or the work of a high level troll. But I think not. There are just too many articles, and two books as well. I suppose it may be a persona for the purposes of generating cash and courting controversy. Still odious, though.” If what I say is so “out there” then they should have no trouble refuting it…but they can’t.

Here’s some angles for them to develop: “How could it be that women oppressed? Why should embrace modern women for long-term relationships? How is marriage advantageous to males in the present environment? Why should there be affirmative action? Isn’t discrimination against one discrimination against all?”

These folks may be surprised to discover how many fellows agree with my perspective.

Comment 4:

There is nothing to refute.

Comment 5:

“We started a blog after reading your article to look out for this guy as a flight attendant group. What a sad, sad man. But, [their book] is getting lots of attention and it really is a great book about finding happiness from within and helping others.”

Is it? Then why fear me so?

And “look out for this guy”? What does that mean? This is from the author of the children’s book. What a totalitarian nature. Agree with me or I’ll get you! Why doesn’t she just learn how to argue instead of plot revenge? If she’s right then verbal defense would be quite easy for her. If she’s wrong, well then I guess she would do what she did here. Run around posting on blogs and threatening the heretic. My recommendation is to simply study and grow.

Further, if a group of stewardesses were so unprofessional as to discriminate against and mistreat a customer then isn’t what I said about them in the article true by default? What a blunder to post this. I was more right than I knew. I’ll be happy to argue with any flight attendant about the fact that their job does not make them a relationship expert. How could it?

This is really about ego. Writers write for an audience and one can’t expect everyone to love them. That’s the business. As somebody currently in it, I think this lady better thicken her skin because people who read her stuff have every right to denigrate it. This person actually told me at great length of how she was a Christian but what kind of Christian wants to do something bad to a person who criticizes her? That’s sick. Some Christian, I have another recommendation: repent. Yikes.

Comment 6:

Ah, an old friend. I am dubbed a “sexist a**hole.” Yawn. No, I’m not but her husband is a noted poker authority. That’s a lie about my reviews though. I have given her husband’s books high ratings at every opportunity (never below a 4 on amazon).

Finally we get to homophobia. I thought they forgot it! No, I’m not a homophobe but I sometimes disagree with gay rights activists. I neither fear them nor hate them. “He’s a real tool.” Nice!

Well friends I hope that was helpful to you should you ever have to run across these types on your own.

This is Volume 8 of Chapin’s Inferno—a wandering cauldron of conservative commentary—and it concerns Rush Limbaugh being The Man for the way he set fire to PC…once again.

Brothers! Here’s Installment 7 of Chapin’s Inferno. I know you’ll like the topic. I think I may add to this next time too or the time after,
Bernard

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Is some publicity better than no publicity? The cliché’s truth is probably situational, but a belief in its validity must have been what spurred one of the authoresses of Princess Bubble to contact me regarding a review for their work as, frankly, the likelihood that I would appreciate its themes was not great.

Princess Bubble is a book written as a means to offer “girls of all ages [an] updated version of the traditional fairy tale. No longer a ‘Damsel in Distress,’ this princess travels the world, helps others, and finds ‘happily ever after’ even before she finds her Prince!”

Thus, what we have in a thin tome is a fantasy wherein women are not as they actually are but as the authors, along with legions of feminists, would like them to be. It is child lit created for the purposes of indoctrination. It seeks to convince girls that they can have it all without marriage.

Pardon me for my lack of outrage regarding this subject, but, at this point, I am well-acquainted with their ploys. Slipping dogma into entertainment and educational materials is simply what our social engineers do. Their habits surprise me as much as snow in January.

The promotional description for Princess Bubble triggered laughter rather than ire: “With wisdom gleaned from their careers as single, globe-trotting flight attendants, first-time authors Susan Johnston and Kimberly Webb have crafted a modern-day book that celebrates singleness.”

Oh my, forty years ago who would have guessed that our nation would descend to the nadir in which stewardesses are regarded as oracles? Indeed, never in my life have I seen “wisdom” and “flight attendants” appear alongside each other in a sentence, and there was a good reason for that. Neither mental ability nor crystallized knowledge has anything to do with their training, lifestyle or daily affairs.

Based on the reader’s personal experience, would you not agree that Paul Westerberg had it more right than wrong when he sang, “You ain’t nothing but a waitress in the sky.” I would not advise even asking a stewardess about the dynamics of flight let alone asking one about human relationships. What next? Perhaps A Stripper’s Guide to Physics is already, as I write, emblazoned upon a publishing storyboard somewhere in Manhattan.

Of course the book really cannot do much harm because it only will be appreciated by adult females as opposed to children. A cursory reference to “loving God” also negates the possibility of it ever appearing in the public schools—assuming that curriculum specialists take the time to examine it before ordering it which may well be a wild assumption on my part.

The story itself is a yawner. The protagonist is confused and devoid of strategy in regards to dating. This is revealing and should make its message resonate with a plethora of single women. Princess Bubble will be a big favorite among mindless extroverts in general. Their expenditures fuel our consumer sector and their contamination of the public square with hyper-verbal utterances has made the contemplative life in America as rare as a encountering a De Lorean on the highway.

Our heroine dreams of gourmet dinners, perpetual socializing, and constant entertainment, but there appears to be nothing legitimate or serious about her. She graduates from college and becomes a flight attendant (which strikes me as improper sequencing), and then watches all of her friends get married. Inspired by their example, she sets out to find a prince, and goes out with “many different princes and thoroughly enjoyed them all!”

I bet she did! Such a communal approach to dating is prevalent nowadays. Here again, the princess appears to be a single female everywoman. Yet today’s every-women are decidedly less popular with men than their predecessors were. Modern females with a pronounced, and easily observed, “taste for the bucks”1 are known to make terrible wives. How could it be any other way? Past behavior is the best predictor of future performance. A lot of what’s out there just is not suitable for the establishment of a long-term pair bond. That’s a major factor behind some men undertaking what they call a “marriage strike.” Unfortunately, our gynocentric society prevents the true views of men from being acknowledged and known.2

Getting back to young Bubble, she eventually decides to give up her quest after concluding that no man is capable of bringing her everlasting happiness. Her assumption is highly accurate, but evaluating significant others on the basis of whether they can produce everlasting joy is a bogus criterion for relationship selection. Such an expectation is both fantastic and completely unreasonable. Thinking that somebody somewhere—even Vida Guerra!—is capable of bringing you eternal fulfillment is absurd. People just aren’t like that. Some of us may be wands but none of us have magical properties.

Besides, in my view, happiness is largely dependent on one’s having an internal and an external life. This simply is not possible for most extroverts. They spend their waking hours manufacturing conversation and stimuli in the hopes of avoiding boredom, yet this habit purges every worthwhile thought and idea from their craniums. It renders them uninteresting and directionless. They personify the phrase “if you’re bored then you’re probably boring.” And they usually are.

With dating, the healthiest test—I mean, assuming one actually wants to be happy which is not always a given—is to assess the potential worth of another within the context of, “Does this person, on aggregate, enhance and improve my life?” This is a very sensible approach but one that clashes melodramatically with the aim of “having it all.” Yet the last thing an interpersonal test should ever do is attempt to ferret out perfection. Nobody’s perfect…even single women in America [who would have guessed?].

Empowered to strange proportions, many western females have now lost the ability to discern their own fallibility and mortality. Many single women regard taking “half a loaf” as synonymous with failure. This explains why, in the words of the authors, that so many of this number face an “overwhelming sense of failure, self-doubt, and despair.” Men would feel the same way too if we too were debilitated by propaganda convincing us that life is a parlor game we were preordained to win.

Our tale ends with hubba-bubble realizing that she’s been happy all along so she has no need for a mate. A Fairy Godmother comes along to declare her victory touting, “Living happily ever after is not about finding a prince. True happiness is found by loving God, being kind to others, and being comfortable with who you are already.”

Well, there is nothing wrong with that. I agree but the rest of the book has nothing to do with such precepts. Regardless, this callow youth fails to meet these standards. She spends her days devoted to amusement rather than helping others. Furthermore, while I admit up front that the Big Guy does not consult me about these matters, I suspect He would be less than enthusiastic about a princess who squandered her gifts in the name of procuring cheap airfare and epicurean delights.

In closing, since the female self-help business has everything to do with self and nothing to do with help, allow me to offer partial assistance to single ladies desirous of a finding a man for the purposes of profound emotional connection. The grandmother approved “get it done while you’re young” approach is highly recommended and remains the best way to ensure that husbands remain faithful and devout. This means that during a woman’s youthful and estrogen soaked years they would be wise to eschew promiscuity, partying, and the allures of being a spendthrift. By doing so, they markedly increase their chances of bonding with a fellow who will take their back…forever. The new “wait until you’ve lost your physical allure before getting serious” method is but a guarantor of bitterness and despondency.

Our protagonist fades from the panorama eagerly awaiting “the many adventures ahead of her,” but, rest assured, future flights from reality will not be so fulfilling. The adulation women receive in their twenties is not what they will encounter in the future. As their reproductive value declines, princesses morph into spinsters.

A young woman has the authority of a panzer leader, but a middle aged one has the aura of a defrocked priest. No amount of fake fairy tales can ever reverse this eventuality. Those who were once as heralded as the Rolling Stones will soon find themselves greeted with the indifference extended to Spinal Tap. Perhaps the authors may wish to consider this when writing their sequel. I think Fanfare for the Beaten would make for a great title. Should they need any help with its plot, my pen stands erect and at their beck and call.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

[1] A The Outlaw Josey Wales reference there.

[2] I discuss society’s lies more fully in Chapter 3, “Deception as Nutrient,” of Women: Theory and Practice but if you’re short of cash check out Mike’s professionally (and exquisitely) done podcast on a subsection of the chapter concerning younger women.

This is my sixth installment of Chapin’s Inferno which concerns Feminism and Duke along with the recent book, Until Proven Innocent. I think you boys will like it better than the earlier ones although the next one may well be your favorite.

Here’s Chapin’s Inferno Volume 5 on PC and Why It Matters. The next one will be on the Duke case and what a horror show that was based on the new book.

Bernard Chapin’s book, Escape From Gangsta Island: A School’s Progressive Decline, is now available as a podcast series exclusively on MensNewsDaily.com.

Read by MND’s editor and publisher, Mike LaSalle, Escape From Gangsta Island is a first hand account of the implosion of an alternative school where Chapin worked as a school psychologist for 6 years from 1998 to 2004. Many bizarre, but true, circumstances are detailed. Among professional educators, the work has been well-received as it is a portrait of educational dysfunction of which most of us are largely unaware.

The book was originally published in March, 2006. In all, there are 19 chapters. MND will be releasing one chapter per week as a podcast. To download this iTunes-ready podcast, right click here and select “save link as” to save the file to your computer. Or simply click the audio icon at left to start listening.

Here’s installment four of Chapin’s Inferno. It may take me awhile to get more of them going. This one is based on James Piereson’s Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism.

Here’s my third installment of the video series, Chapin’s Inferno. I’m picking up a camcorder tomorrow but it can only do so much I’m afraid. In fact, its probable that a blurry presentation suits me best, lol.

I usually stay out of the publishing business’s scrum for cash which basically is the most accurate way to describe the “self-help” genre. The start of each month seems to unleash a brand new, and benighted, array of counter-productive offerings which center upon romance. Unfortunately for me, an advertisement for Terrance Real’s The New Rules of Marriage: What You Need to Know to Make Love Work caught my attention. It contained a glowing recommendation from the sinister bell hooks and Ballantine’s promise that the work delivered “a long overdue message that women need to hear: You aren’t crazy–you’re right!” This caused me to part with much needed cash in the hopes of issuing a counter-statement.

My rash purchase would be somewhat comical if the “women aren’t crazy—they’re right” mantra did not now form the basis of our entire culture. The author was previously unknown to me, but a quick search indicated that he is much esteemed by the mighty Oprah Winfrey, America’s greatest proponent of emotion-based reasoning. Supporters like Winfrey and Hooks tell us a copious amount about Mr. Real.

Buying the book was a good bit easier than consuming it. The New Rules of Marriage is as perplexing as it is annoying. The first question I had was what to call Terrence Real. What was his background? The jacket did not really say. I searched online and could not find out much about his history. I emailed the support at his website and queried them about the matter. They did not directly answer me but suggested that I refer to him as “Terry Real.” Well, a better descriptor, and one in keeping with his squishy perspective on the sexes, would be to dub him, “Mr. Terry,” which is precisely what I will do here.

The enduring theme of this work, which promises so much to women, revolves around men being to blame for the failure of modern relationships. It seems that we have neglected to alter ourselves to the necessary extent. If we did then we could better meet the needs of the liberated woman. Mr. Terry notes in the opening chapter that, “Newly empowered, women across America turned to men and began insisting on levels of emotional intimacy that most men—raised under the old regime—were not readily able to meet.”

Further he notes, “What most of the men I work with don’t ‘get’ is that their relationship job description has changed…The refrain I hear over and over again from dissatisfied women is ‘I don’t feel like I have a real partner.’ A partner who shares in the details of domestic life and in her concerns about the kids. An intellectual partner who cares about what she thinks and supports her development. And most of all, an emotional partner who shows interest in and appreciation for her feelings and who has a few feelings of his own to bring to the table.” In other words, women want more so the direct sex must give it to them.

Based on this presupposition, Mr. Terry swoops in and offers up his services as an “intimacy coach.” The new rules are a process and curriculum whereby men and women can save their unions provided that men learn to act more like women. He even goes so far as to recommend that males abandon objectivity when it comes to dealing with their wives. Mr. Terry’s edict will horrify those who are proud of their logical faculties: “You can be right or you can be married; what’s more important to you?” With throwaway lines like that it is easy to discern why Mr. Terry is so admired by the fair sex.

What makes Mr. Terry’s background an issue has nothing to do with status and everything to do with the faulty assumptions which embody social constructivism. Male nature is neither an outcome of regimes nor media slant, it is a result of biology. Over the course of the last decade the social constructionist perspective has been rendered obsolete by science. Women and men are known to have disparate biological imperatives and goals in life. Advocating for one sex to obliterate their concerns and proclivities in the hopes of making things easier for the other is both absurd and despicable. More importantly, it cannot work anyway. Societal cheerleading will never succeed in getting men to purge themselves of their essence…which is what makes them men.

The poverty of his initial assumptions renders Mr. Terry’s book a sham. From seeds fertilized by irrationality no healthy flora can grow. There’s not much to be salvaged here. This is a methodology which asks half of its adherents to behave in ways contrary to their makeup. Getting men to verbalize their thoughts and emotions is pointless, foolhardy, downright goofy, and a waste of time. After all, talking about emotion is as useful as singing about electrical engineering.

If women want to wile away their 25,000 to 30,000 days on earth in the pursuit of discussing feelings then I am only too happy to respect their diversity, but I will never feel the need to follow their example. Foisting the habit of verbal emotional processing upon others is akin to placing heroin in another person’s B12 shot. It’s dirty, cruel, vindictive, and it encourages others to dwell in the same blind alley you do. We only have one life. If some people want to devote theirs to rehashing emotional piffle then so be it, but to convince others to do the same should be regarded as a spiritual felony.

Obviously, logical thinking is what makes us uniquely human. The willful abandonment of rationality is a declaration of war on both humanity and Our Creator. Any relationship which requires one to dumb himself down to the level of a mollusk is not one that should be preserved. Mr. Terry’s willful abandonment of objectivity during conflict resolution showcases just how much this author’s “knowledge” has been contaminated by political correctness and the myth of female supremacy.

Mr. Terry’s approach enables and encourages women to be irrational. Perhaps Mr. Terry regards emotion, which is based in the pre-mammalian portion of our brains, as being integral to our humanity. If so this is not only highly disturbing but misogynistic as well. Deeming women as being indifferent to truth or objectivity is the most sexist of propositions. Can women think logically? Absolutely, and I know this to be the case because I recall many an intelligent female beating the stuffing out of my partner and I over the course of several inter-collegiate debates. Women, just as men, should be held to a higher standard and not be given a pass when it comes to rationality.

The plain fact is most of us are born emotional thinkers. Emotion over reason seems to be the default position, but it is an aspect of childhood which many of us eventually overcome. Hark back to St. Paul’s Hymn to Charity: “when I became a man, I put away childish things.” I ask the reader, what could be more childish than renouncing objectivity and truth? Habitually examining one’s surroundings through the blood-stained lens of emotion is the mark of an inferior or of a child who never wishes to grow up.

Preventing one’s affectations from poisoning cognition should be everyone’s lifelong project. It is a meticulous undertaking, but one that enriches both civilization and individual existence. Regardless of age, all persons should be encouraged to evaluate reality devoid of a jaded personal filter.

Of course, there is much to disdain about The New Rules of Marriage, but what offended me most was its pervasive celebration of inequality amongst the sexes. Women want more out of relationships today so…men must give it to them. Why is that the case? In every equitable transaction, the side who asks for more must offer more in exchange. This leads us to ask, what do modern women offer men that is superior to what their predecessors proffered in the past?

Take your time mulling that one over because the man who enters into a marriage contract in 2008 faces far more risks than he ever did at any other point in history. In all likelihood, his wife will be infinitely more sexualized, far more materialistic, blatantly more narcissistic, and far less motherly than any woman who bonded with his ancestors. Given this eventuality, is it any surprise that modern men are increasingly reluctant to commit?

Twenty-first century women not only fail to render a quid pro quo they also—by demanding that men retain their traditional function as objects of status and wealth while also adding new requirements such as males be Chatty Cathy’s and neatly-trimmed launderettes—have inflated their price beyond what the market can possibly pay. Today’s woman may describe herself in glowing terms, but a look at the chassis should alert potential customers that what is labeled a Lexus was actually made by Daewoo.

Asking men to alter their consciousness in the hopes of accommodating women is preposterous. Such a wish should reveal to the direct sex that society’s advocacy for equality was a ruse all along; nothing but a dense smog concealing a desire for female supremacy. Rather than internalize these New Rules men should memorize a more imperative injunction: Caveat Emptor.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

I just did a review for He’s Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys and I thought maybe someone at MND might find it useful in terms of their daily discussions. Believe me, I’m not recommending it, lol.

I’m trying to put together a book of my own concerning some of this stuff which is what led me to finally devour this lightweight bestseller. I grant that I’m not the target audience for Mr. Behrendt, but I was rather astounded that such a simple and deceptive work received the blockbuster reception it did. Liz Tuccillo is co-author and she occasionally adds some input of her own here. She is not astute regarding these matters but appears to know fifty times more about relationships than the work’s principal author.

The main problem with the book is its gigantic misunderstanding of female motivation regarding reproductive selection. A crucial and unbelievably integral fact that Mr. Behrendt does not comprehend is that women are attracted to men who are indifferent towards them. The snarky and condescending advice he issues in the form of answers to fanmail—and it is within this format that He’s Just Not Into You is structured—soon becomes pointless as a result. Behrendt can describe to women what some men may be thinking but he has no idea what females are thinking or how they get themselves into particular situations.

Women do not like guys who initially come off as being subservient (when they first meet them at least, long-term is a different matter entirely). This is why the “nice guys finishing last” mantra came about in the first place. That this quip about nice guys is so well known is due to its being true. Women, for a variety of psychological reasons, are repulsed by men who worship them in the early stages of courtship. They want a man who’s a challenge and one who will not immediately roll over for them and become their groupie. That’s why they attach themselves to fellows who “are not that into them.”

What males reading this haven’t had a girl you were only mildly interested in end up falling love with you? It happens all the time and it’s a result of ambivalence. Whereas, the women for whom one cannot hide intense admiration are the same ones who lose respect for you and blow you off. This is a very common occurrence, and it will continue until our society stops referring to the fairer sex with the respect that should be reserved for Abraham Lincoln or Dr. Martin Luther King.

Lastly, why should any person have to be notified about others not being into them? This is most troubling. Shouldn’t normal folks be able to discern such a state of affairs on their own? I suppose though that this last question is one we’ll have to explore at a later date.

Here’s volume II of Chapin’s Inferno which is a series I just started doing. Essentially it is, and will be, a wandering cauldron of conservative analysis released over an indefinite period.
Here’s the link.
I have a feeling you guys will like this one. What I like about doing these is that I jump on different themes whenever I want to and hopefully reach people who don’t read at all–which is a large segment of the population.

Sorry, I just added the second one and don’t want to waste another post with it. Here’s the link:

Merry Christmas everybody. Sorry for the unusual amount of production this week. I think I’m going to have to start visiting my sister more often as I rarely get this much done in the course of two weeks. Such are the benefits of hanging around families with members who don’t drink or stay up late, lol.

At any rate, I’m starting up a new video series called Chapin’s Inferno that will be open-ended and concern general conservative and anti-PC topics. Here’s Volume I which concerns Barack Obama, the Democrats, and race. The audio and visual is poor but if I get a bit of space on the credit card next month I may buy a camcorder (a cheap one that is). Sorry for my lack of photogenic qualities. My mother’s in the other room and I’ll forward any complaints regarding that subject for her to answer.

I got an email from Richard Doyle about a month ago and he asked me if I’d take a look at Save the Males. We had never spoken previously. I told him that I would but planned only on skimming it. After all, once I saw that the book was in its fifth printing I was a rather skeptical. I have found that most of the stuff from the seventies no longer is effective in public debate. It’s too easy for my radical opponents to say that the materials I cite are dated. I quickly discovered that my presumption was incorrect as Mr. Doyle has updated this work to a great extent. Many of the sources he cites (such as Steven Rhoads’ Taking Sex Differences Seriously) are recent and reflect a thorough reworking of the text.

Like many other plans, my thoughts about skimming it did not last for long. About 10 pages in I knew I would have to read every word. What Doyle offers up here is a meticulous, necessary, and intelligent account of the Fall of Man in western civilization. That women are transcendent over the direct sex, in the present era, is blatantly obvious. Society’s celebration of all things female has no correlation with reality. The subsequent “empowerment” of women is leading to the serfdom of men. The process of our decline has not been pretty and we can be certain that things are only going to get worse. This is not a fun read, but the effect it will have on your emotions is a testament to its accuracy.

Perhaps the best thing about Save the Males, and the strongest compliment I can give it, is that it is scholarship first and polemic second. That Doyle is outraged over what our culture has become is evident but his narrative lets the incidents speak on their own without any authorial SportsCenteresque exclamations. His detachment was essential and appreciated. It was also the reason why the book was a page turner. The examples of our criminal justice system’s misandric bias are legion. That our courts embrace chivalry justice is revealed here to an appalling extent. I have to say that there are not too many books out there which completely surprise me but Save the Males was one of them.

In the course of searching for links concerning my recent book in the hopes that I picked up a few new readers–the book’s name I will not write or link to here as this post has nothing to do with self-promotion–I found that some feministas had finally got a hold of it. I thank MNDers if any of them gave it a rating, as Steve DeLuca did, because it helps as you can see on the amazon page.

At any rate, the irrationality of their comments was rather amazing. Well, not that amazing considering that I know these people in the abstract…unfortunately. Go ahead and hit the link to their blog because it’s full of the type of ad hominem stuff that is their trademark. Obviously, none of them have read or opened the book. And please note that they had the nerve to trash the great Roman Genn in the process too. They don’t deserve to hold one of Roman’s brushes.

My profession is called into question, my integrity is besmirched for self-publishing (Conservadom published it though too only after I already paid the other company first. I heard from Phil five months after I gave them seven bones), they say I have no brain (yawn), I make them feel nauseous, I’m a nutcase and I’m broken, insecure, and fragile…for arguing with them. Well, not that fragile I guess because we keep giving these folks a consistent and steady beating on MND.

Anyway, the only thing they didn’t do was make a substantive argument or refute one of the ones in my book. Please note their misunderstanding of economic growth too as the economy is a pie which never grows or decreases in the hallucinations of these individuals. Spend 50 G and get a Womyn’s Studies degree…and you learn nothing except hate.

Are all politicians the same? How many legitimate conservatives can be counted among the ranks of Republican office holders? Candidate for New York’s 19th Congressional District, Kieran Michael Lalor, answers some of these questions in the interview that follows while also providing for rightists a little “audacity of hope.” Lalor has been many things over the course of his young life. He served for six years in the Marine Corps and spent part of his stint battling terrorists in Iraq. Before joining the corps he taught high school social studies. Lalor also is a graduate of Pace University Law School. [For more biography go here].

BC: Mr. Lalor, congratulations on your campaign for Congress.

Kieran Michael Lalor: Thanks very much, Bernard. I’ve read a lot of your writing and interviews over the past few years. You’re becoming a very big part of the new media that grassroots campaigns count on. So congratulations on your success, and I appreciate your time and your interest in my campaign.

BC: Thank you, sir. First off, what uniquely do you have to offer conservative voters at this time? What are your main positions?

Kieran Michael Lalor: I believe that the 2008 elections will be defined by national security. That means the war on Islamic fascism and border security. An unspoken truth about national defense policy is that proactive policies overseas can be made meaningless if our borders are left vulnerable.

And we can solve much of the illegal immigration problem through attrition. We can force illegals-and I’ll call them “illegals” and risk Howard Dean’s wrath-to return to their home countries with aggressive enforcement. And really, it comes down to four points I’ve been talking about with voters: (1) Deport illegals whenever they are convicted of crimes or discovered by routine law enforcement activity; (2) Prosecute those who hire and enable illegals; (2) End welfare, in-state tuition, and other benefits to illegals; and (4) Secure the border. This isn’t earth-shattering stuff. It’s almost amazing to me that this is considered a novel approach. But it requires political will and leadership, both of which are lacking when it comes to immigration policy.

Of course, the Democrats do not have any ideas on immigration because few Democrats have much in the way of principles. They’ve have been telling the American people for years that fixing immigration policy is an impossible task-this seems to be the one thing that Democrats think government isn’t capable of fixing.

We also need to continue to pursue victory in Iraq. We are now winning the war, and yet people like my opponent, John Hall, can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge this, very simply because they have so much invested in defeat. The Democrats are so smitten with defeat that they have convinced themselves that Iraq is already lost, and that despite all the progress, it’s time to give up. But this is no time to turn around.

I’ve written and spoken a lot about veterans care, too. I don’t know how anyone can look at the situation at Walter Reed and not view this as a priority. But again the solution is not more government. Too many patients at Walter Reed and at VA’s across the country are far too familiar with that famous point made by Ronald Reagan that the scariest words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I am here to help.” Here again, the solution is not more government.

My platform calls for decentralized and innovative solutions rather than more federal bureaucracy. I wrote recently in the New York Journal News that veterans should be entitled to transferable college credits for some of the things they are doing as part of military training. This would allow them to save thousands of dollars on up to two years of tuition and dramatically decrease the time it takes to earn a bachelor’s degree.

The idea of putting things back in the hands of the American people rather than Washington bureaucrats was a cornerstone of Ronald Reagan’s revolution, and it’s the foundation for my campaign, too.

BC: Do you have the financial wherewithal to compete effectively against the Democratic Party?

Kieran Michael Lalor: Absolutely! I launched my campaign just weeks ago and we have already seen the beginning of a national grassroots movement supporting my campaign. The kind of people who are reading this interview will be the backbone of our fundraising, and I’m proud of that. As you’re well aware, the Internet has just revolutionized fundraising, as Ron Paul is reminding us. It’s really incredible.

There is no doubt that this will be an expensive race, and we’re not naïve about that. John Hall is my polar opposite in most respects, and fundraising is no different. Hall is funded by the MoveOn.org left, and his list of campaign donors looks like a passenger list for a Woodstock-bound Volkswagen Splitty. Susan Sarandon, Bonnie Raitt, Pete Seeger. The list goes on and on. Hall likes to run away from tough issues, and he runs straight to Moveon.org and George Soros when he needs fast cash. In fact, Soros hosted a Hall fundraiser at a 5th Avenue apartment in Manhattan just this week.

We are only getting started. We’re establishing a strong grassroots network that is committed to the campaign. And the money will be there but there’s no doubt that fundraising has to be a priority. As far as that goes, my job is to convince conservatives that I believe the words that are coming out of my mouth.

And to make shameless appeals like this: if your readers are interested in making a donation, they can click here.

BC: I’m a bit short at the moment, sir. Sorry about that! At any rate, do you regard yourself as being a true conservative? You certainly sound like one to me. It’s sad because many rightward voters don’t have much faith in the Republican Party anymore. We feel like our politicians describe themselves in Reaganesque terms before getting elected, but then, once ensconced in Washington, they “grow in office” by gravitating to the left.

Kieran Michael Lalor: A lot of times people ask me about what I believe in and I like to point out that I am quite literally a “product of the Conservative movement”-my parents met while working on Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign in 1964.

But that’s a serious issue, and a good, tough question. I know that a lot of voters are disenchanted with Republicans, and it’s hard to blame them. Some Republicans have lost faith in core conservative principles, and they abandon them for the sake of what they believe is political expediency. I have been critical of the President, for example, for his Administration’s unwillingness to take a tough stand on spending. This is the kind of thing that drives away Republican voters and only helps the Democrats.

I think it’s important to remember that many of the Congressional seats that tilted control to the Democrats in 2006 were won by moderate Democrats who often sounded a lot like Republicans when they were campaigning. Of course, the Democratic leadership seems to have collectively lost its mind and takes hard-left, anti-American positions. But liberal ideals just aren’t a winner with the American people, and we can thank the good Lord for that.

At the end of the day, when conservative defense, tax and social policies are properly articulated, Republicans win. The American people want to vote for someone who carries the Ronald Reagan torch.

BC: Why shouldn’t conservatives gravitate towards the Libertarian party nowadays, given recent events in Washington D.C.?

Kieran Michael Lalor: That’s another fair and thoughtful question, Bernard. Are you interested in working on my campaign?

Rather than leaving the party, conservatives have to remember that they really are the party. Let’s not forget that the Republican Party owes much of its success in the past decades to conservatives. Ronald Reagan brought the conservative movement back from the brink in the 1980’s, and people like Newt Gingrich swept the GOP into power in 1994 and brought some very positive changes to American policy and I think kept Bill Clinton’s leftist agenda on hold. Thirteen years later, conservatives are still the driving force behind the party and the source of the new ideas and passion that will sustain what Reagan started.

My message to conservative voters is to stay in the Republican fold and stick with it. And Libertarians, conservatives, and Republicans agree on so many of the most important issues, it would be a mistake for that coalition to divide. It would only result in more of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, among other things. That’s motivation!

BC: What’s your assessment of the Bush presidency? How do you think he’ll be remembered?

Kieran Michael Lalor: No doubt, to most fair-minded Americans, President Bush’s legacy will be a mixed bag.

Let’s start with the positives, and these I think are very significant. The President told voters that he would look to appoint judges who know the difference between making law and adjudicating a case or controversy. That’s important—the federal bench gives any President a long-lasting imprint on American culture. It’s hardly the “least dangerous branch” anymore, if it ever was. President Bush honored his word by nominating John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and many other fine jurists on the federal district and appeals courts.

I also think history will recognize that President Bush has commendably stuck by his belief that victory in Iraq is not only attainable, but imperative, for the defense of the country. It’s been reminiscent of Winston Churchill, who wasn’t always popular, either. Looking at the world as the dust settled at Ground Zero, President Bush I think realized that terrorism requires military force more than law enforcement, although law enforcement certainly plays a big role. More than six years later, Democrats are still worrying about whether terrorists’ jail cells are properly oriented toward Mecca and agonizing over whether the Jihadists get a good enough lawyer to file another appeal. I think the President realizes the folly in this, and he’s stuck to his guns. And a lot of people have forgotten about the military’s great successes in Afghanistan. That was a cancer in the Middle East, and while things aren’t perfect, we owe a lot to President Bush for keeping Al Qaeda on the run.

I should also mention, we haven’t heard much about embryonic stem cell research lately. That’s because it has been proven unnecessary and hasn’t resulted in much in the way of medical advances. John Edwards in 2004 referenced Christopher Reeve and told a group of voters that if President Bush were defeated, people like Christopher Reeve would walk. That’s the shameless and disgusting kind of lies that the President has been up against. But President Bush took a firm moral position on this in 2001 and stuck with it despite an awful lot of criticism. Some call that obstinate. I call it leadership.

I also commend the President for his middle class tax cuts. They were a big reason why the slowdown after 9/11 was really just a hiccup.

I think on the negative side, I’ve been disappointed with the White House’s difficulty in getting its message out and in articulating its positions effectively. I recognize they’re up against a very hostile media, but credibility begins with taking a clear position, and the White House hasn’t always done that.

The President clearly hasn’t shown nearly enough willpower when it comes to federal spending. He just hasn’t been a fiscally responsible President, and that’s one big issue on the minds of conservatives. Are Republicans a party of big spenders? I don’t think so, but some have lost faith, and Republicans paid the price. Again, it a matter of discipline and political will. Let’s face it, perhaps the President’s most glaring disappointment is border security and immigration. As I think I mentioned, it’s almost silly to talk about these issues in isolation. Immigration must be an integral part of national security-we can’t worry about the pandering that Democrats are so fond of. If nothing else, porous borders pose a very real security threat, and the White House has, I think, been stubborn in refusing to acknowledge this.

BC: Out of the candidates running for the presidency right now which one best captures your sympathy?

Kieran Michael Lalor: I really can’t say that I’m sympathetic to any of the Presidential candidates. Maybe we should be sympathetic toward the Democrats, because they all seem to be the same candidate and have nothing better to do than attack each other personally. Can you believe Hillary Clinton ridiculed Obama’s third grade essay?

On a personal level and as a war veteran, I have to say that I’ve always admired John McCain’s heroism as a POW and his selfless adherence to the military’s Code of Conduct when he was offered early release from Hanoi. That’s a life of honor and duty, and I admire Senator McCain. In terms of a candidate’s style, I am a big fan of Giuliani’s New Yorker tenacity. On issues, I think Fred Thompson offers details that other candidates do not and as a conservative, I appreciate that. I also think that Duncan Hunter is rock-solid on most of issues but it is tough for a Congressman to have national name recognition.

Like most of the Republican electorate, I am still making up my mind. I watch every debate and follow the race closely, and we all need to keep in mind that the ultimate goal is defeating whatever candidate the Democrats put up. As Republicans, and really as Americans, too, which is what really matters, we’re really all in this together.

BC: I saw a picture of you on the campaign trail which brings me to my last question. In your opinion, what particular issue most appeals to conservative voters today? Is it immigration?

Kieran Michael Lalor: No doubt, immigration resonates, because the current immigration mess affects education, healthcare, national security and our daily quality of life. It’s something we see every day, and it sticks in the craw of law-abiding citizens and patriots who are trying to do the right thing from day to day, pay their taxes, follow the rules, and love their country. In some areas, the open borders lobby is so arrogant that they think ordinary Americans owe the illegal population even more. That’s a load of nonsense, and like a lot of voters I’ve met, I’ve seen enough.

As an Iraq veteran, I’ve also seen a lot of support from law enforcement and veterans organizations. A lot of Republicans don’t want to say what I say, which is that we are going to win in Iraq. In the Hudson Valley in New York, a lot of people have kids in the military or lost colleagues on 9/11, and they understand the necessity of taking the fight to the enemy. I am happy to say these folks have been rallying around my campaign. They are hearing our message loud and clear.

BC: Thanks so much Sir, and good luck.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

Perhaps the arguments that we provide readers at MND are far more important than book reviews or interviews, so with this in mind, I’ll share a response I had to a poster at Amazon where I submitted a brief version of my take on Katie Couric’s biography.
Hopefully, some young college kid will read this and have something to say when he is barraged by politically correct orthodoxy.

Here’s what the poster wrote:

Quote “Women can dress whatever way they like but they must not be surprised when people comment on it”It seems to me that a woman should not have to expect *any* comments on how they choose to dress, any more than a man should. As to female privilege, I see nothing “rational” in your opinion, and ‘Opinion’ is neither correct nor incorrect by definition - it is simply a statement of personal preference. The fact that women are paid less for equal work strongly opposes your opinion. My wife is paid a third of what her male administrator boss is paid, and she trained him to do his job. A woman, in general can be expected to be paid less for the same quality and amount of work as a male. It is not my experience in the business world or the medical profession that the vast majority of women dress to expose their breasts. Perhaps 1 or 2% of women do so, for reasons that seem to be based on the assumption that the male dominated world of “bosses” will gander and then give them more money or opportunity. Probably because some males do just that. Again, based on my personal experiences, most women dress in a businesslike or professional manner in the workplace, and are still subject to comments about their breasts and bottoms, or weight, ALL of which are inappropriate, and should not be “expected”.
Perhaps you could provide some examples of “female privilege” that I am unaware of, as the fact of lower pay speaks to lack of privilege, and in fact indicates unfair treatment. As for men “working themselves to death”, I just don’t see that much now days. As for staying home with the kids, get real. The typical American household needs both Mom and Dad working just to eat and pay for basics unless you are lucky enough to make $30-60 an hour AND work full time. Having seen my wife crapped on by male co-workers and bosses for 25 years, your case just does’nt hold water, and your observations are questionable, if not naïve.

Here’s my response:

1. Thanks for the debate, Tom. I appreciate it as it allows those on my side to be inoculated by positions like yours in advance. When fellows like me actually come across people like you live and in the flesh we now know what to say as a result. Political correctness mandates that those who question its dictates are unclean and unworthy of acknowledgement so discussions like this one benefit everyone.
2. Examples of female privilege are legion. First and foremost is affirmative action which is state sponsored discrimination wherein American employers are told that they must hire women for positions in proportion to their prevalence in the general population—regardless of whether the prospective applicants are even qualified for the positions they seek. There is no converse rule of proportionality for men so any amount of discrimination is possible. Thus, employers have to employ women but do not have to do the same for men. An example of this is our public schools. Although women make up 75 percent of the teacher population, I have worked at several schools which were 90 percent female or worse. They’ll be no lawsuits against administrators who refuse to hire men as the law says that they do not have to face repercussions as a result of their heinous acts. I worked at one school with no permanent male employees (I was only scheduled for 40 percent of the week). Further, if you google the words “equitable paternity” you will find another egregious example of female privilege in the US.
3. Women are not paid less for equal work. Those who cite this statistic are merely repeating an old wives tale. Please read Carrie Lukas’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism for a magnificent analysis of the pay gap lie. Of course, it is not true that women are paid less for equal work. Pay is not as big of motivator for women as it is for men. They often select less lucrative “careers” and have other factors in mind other than salary when considering employment; such as working fewer hours and being close to home—see Lukas please.
4. “Get real” is not an argument and I know many men who work far more than do women.
5. That two incomes is better than one for raising children is probably true but that has nothing to do with this discussion, lol.
6. No naivety from me, but I think you have failed to examine the possible alternative hypothesis with your wife. I don’t know her but have you considered, given her inability to get promoted, that her situation may independently illustrate female privilege in America? I say this because your wife’s non-advancement may reflect inefficiency and incompetence. Indeed, she may only remain at work due to her employers’ fear of firing a woman. This certainly is a more plausible explanation based on the evidence than your own which relies on the spurious notion of phantom discrimination.
7. I know many women who dress professionally, but they typically are older. Younger women often dress provocatively, and this is true for many professions and not just my own. While I see it everyday, my friend, who works in the Chicago Loop, observes it every summer when he descends his stairwell at lunchtime in order to ogle a parade of flesh empty out from the buildings around him. Sometimes he is so entranced that he forgets to eat! Who can blame him? It’s a moveable feast.
8. Not all people are rational. I agree that saying things to women at work, based on their appearance, is ill-advised particularly due to the Sexual Harassment Industry which helps entrench female privilege, but not all humans ascribe to these rules. In life, if you’re sensitive about something such as your appearance it is probably best not to flaunt it.
9. Hearing comments when dressing provocatively should be anticipated by a rational person. To garner notice and to get attention is precisely why young women dress the way they do. That one does not always get the exact reaction one presupposes is in keeping with the vagaries of life along with the unpredictability of individual human beings.
10. Yes, we both happen to have opinions. I do not begrudge the expression of yours, although mine is in keeping with the truth and yours is not.
11. Lastly, I think you’re the one who’s being naïve here. Women do not dress to gain a vocational advantage but to build their own egos and to increase their self-esteem from the positive reactions their lustrous curves produce.

Few folks really do live through hell and live to tell the tale, but Humberto Fontova is one of them. At age 7 Humberto fled Cuba with his mother, brother, and sister, but his father was not so lucky. He was sent to La Cabana, a place of executions, from which he eventually was released (2100 other souls were not so fortunate). Perhaps as a result of his personal experiences, Humberto’s reflections on Cuba are powerful and astute. They instinctively appeal to political conservatives.

Over the course of his career he has authored four books: The Helldivers’ Rodeo, The Hellpig Hunt, Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant and Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots who Idolize Him. After walking past a classroom decorated with the face of Che the other day, I decided to contact Humberto to ask him about America’s queer fascination with this blood-drenched totalitarian.

BC: Humberto, nice to meet you. As the author of Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him I have to ask, in the course of your research, did you come away with any notion as to why the deceased rebel remains an appealing and admired figure today? Why do so many young persons adore him given the executions he presided over? Do you think they’re even aware of his record?

Humberto Fontova: I’m guessing 70 to 80 percent of Che-T-shirt wearers have a very vague idea of who he is. “Hey..? Ain’t that guy on your shirt the drummer for the Smashing Pumpkins?….”
“No. Dude. It’s Bob Marley.”
We live in a nation where the phrase “that’s history” is a pejorative. Most young people have no idea of their own country’s history. How should we expect them to know Cuba’s?

BC: Dr. Dalyrmple has a new book out, In Praise of Prejudice. In it he notes: “If it hadn’t been for the photograph taken by the Cuban photographer Albert Korda, Ernesto Guevara would have been recognized by now as the arrogant, adolescent, power-hungry egotist that he undoubtedly was.” How much is Che’s reputation a result of successful [and lucky] marketing? Had his snapshot been taken while he ate lunch would he be deemed just another communist apparatchik?

Humberto Fontova: In an article dated Feb. 2004 I wrote: “Che Guevara was monumentally vain and epically stupid. He was shallow, boorish, cruel and cowardly. He was full of himself, a consummate fraud and an intellectual vacuum. He was intoxicated with a few vapid slogans, spoke in clichés and was a glutton for publicity. But ah! He DID come out nice in a publicity photo, high cheekbones and all. And we wonder why he’s a hit in Hollywood.”

Sounds like maybe Dalrymple read it? That picture, by the way, was taken in March 1960 and scheduled to appear in the Cuban media the day after it was taken. But Castro spiked it. Only after Che was safely “sleeping with the fishes” did he dust it off, call his western media minions to heel with a sharp whistle and present it to them.

BC: You are also the author of Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant. For those unfamiliar with your thesis, why does this mass murderer so enthrall the glitterati?

Humberto Fontova: The whole thing starts with the cachet, the coolness surrounding the Cuban revolution. At the time, the United States was the biggest fuddy-duddy, Leave-it-to-Beaver country in the world. Then, all of a sudden, you had these long-haired revolutionaries down in Cuba - they were the first hippies, the first beatniks. Look at Che Guevara in those years. Take off the beard and you’ve got Jim Morrison. Raul Castro used to carry his shoulder-length blond hair in a ponytail. Camilo Cienfuegos looked like another Jerry Garcia. There was that coolness cachet, plus all the misconceptions about what Cuba was like prior to these guys.

BC: What do you believe the future holds for Cuba? Is a counter-revolution likely once Fidel and Raul pass away?

Humberto Fontova: No counter-revolution. Nobody has guns. I see post-Soviet Eastern Europe type changes–but speeded up and made more dramatic and durable by Cuban exiles just 90 miles away willing to lend a hand with their entrepreneurial zeal, expertise and capital.

BC: Looking back on the last 45 years, are you somewhat astounded that the American government has done so little in regards to overthrowing Castro? What would you say to your fellow citizens who regard Cuban politics as something we should not be involved in?

Humberto Fontova: Easy to say “hands off” NOW. But it was U.S. policy in the way of State Department and even CIA interference which put Castro in power in the first place. In 2001 while visiting Havana for a conference with Fidel Castro, the CIA’s “Caribbean Desk’s “specialist on the Cuban Revolution” from 1957–1960, Robert Reynolds boasted that: “Me and my staff were all Fidelistas.”

“Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State were pro-Castro, except ambassador Earl Smith.” This statement is from former CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.

“We put Castro in power,” that’s according to Earl Smith U.S. Ambassador to Cuba 1957-59.

BC: Is it fair to say that Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is being positioned to take the place of Mr. Castro in the hearts and emotion-addled brains of the American celebrity?

Humberto Fontova: Hugo will never pull it off. He just doesn’t have the shrewdness or cachet (or looks) of Castro (much less of Che) All Hugo’s got is petro-dollars– and that helps, but it won’t carry the “cool Revolutionary” cachet by itself.

BC: Why do you think anti-American dictators so reflexively enthrall the political left?

Humberto Fontova: Battered-wife-syndrome comes to mind.

BC: Thanks for your time, Humberto.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

I am the illegal alien of commentary.
I will do the jokes that no one else will do.
—Ann Coulter

It sounds kind of silly to imply that a conservative has the status of a rock star, but Ann Coulter might be the closest rightists come to a figure who makes the news merely by breathing. In recent years she has become an icon, and just about everyone interested in politics has an opinion about her…and usually those opinions are emphatic.

The amazon.com reviews for her latest book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, a collection of quotations from her sizable oeuvre, aptly reveals the split in the public’s perception. At the time of this writing, the compendium has 121 Five Star (excellent) ratings and 105 One Star (terrible) ratings with not a whole lot in between. This is entirely appropriate and Coulter wouldn’t want it any other way.

For conservatives the reasons to admire her are readily apparent. Coulter is a one woman battalion who says things most of us may think but are too civil (or fearful) to say out loud. Yes, albeit unfortunate, the side wishing to preserve western civilization is largely populated by kindly, deferential types who eschew conflict. The majority of us make for poor combatants in the culture war. This state of affairs makes Coulter’s value all the more pronounced. Furthermore, her enemies, for the most part, are our enemies as well, and such a commonality has forged the basis for countless political alliances over the centuries.

Coulter’s fame and esteem among rightists is cause enough for the left to hate her. Indeed, to say she is the Democratic Party’s least favorite conservative is not an understatement. The ever bloviating Ted Kennedy remarked this spring, “Ann Coulter’s words of hate have no place in the public sphere much less our political discourse.” Well, there’s no hate in her statements, but clearly she has as much a right to offend as anyone else in America—particularly if she is provoking outrage from our cowardly, statist politicians. In comparison to Senator Kennedy, I find her observations downright soothing.

At least the monstrous drunkard from Massachusetts was content to attack her with rhetoric alone. In the past, other radicals have thrown pies at her, sabotaged her biographical entry on Wikipedia, arranged to have her jumped on television shows, and spun rumors that she is a transvestite.

Pseudo-liberal outrage over her utterances is but self-parody as Coulter says what she does in the hopes of provoking her enemies. Her tactics have been enormously successful. PC automatons line up on television to express their self-righteous condemnation practically every time she opens her mouth. Their animosity and invective showcase that it is they, as opposed to the blond Page Six entry, who are the real haters in our society. Their faux indignation only serves to highlight their own shallowness and conformity, however.

The left’s ire in regards to Coulter is chiefly a result of two factors. First, emotion—as opposed to detached logical evaluation—is the essence of her fame and reputation. Despite the outstanding intellectual arguments she sometimes makes, her affective responses are the reason for why she is a household name. This is deeply resented by pseudo-liberals because they see her style as one which subsumes their own. Without emotion and conclusions based on irrational premises there would be no Democratic Party and no political left whatsoever.

Coulter’s humorous advice, “[j]ust call them traitors and let them sort it out,” inflames her foes as she uses their methods against them. Where would sensitivity statists in America be without the brandishing of isms? Answer: Out of office. If they could not dub their opponents names like racist then they would have to explain why they hold government and “the poor” to be synonymous terms. That’s the second to last thing they want. The first are opponents every bit as rude as they are.

Her ridicule is something they cannot handle. Radical feminists are well known for their obtuseness and lack of wit so imagine how irate they become after hearing Coulter describe an ideal abstinence kit as containing “an 8×10 glossy of Susan Estrich.” That is a hysterical quip, but also one that is highly accurate.

Truth is the second reason for the left’s disdain. Nothing infuriates them more than the truth and Coulter pronounces it publicly on a regular basis. “Veritas parit odium,” the truth begets hatred, which is exactly what happens when one shares reality with our elites; those same elites who look down on us from their perches atop government, the universities, and the mainstream media. They prefer not to be reminded of the fact that most of their state-sponsored “solutions” only manage to exacerbate existing social pathologies. These magnates prefer to play pretend games wherein their every socialist inclination ends up “helping” someone.

Coulter elucidates this eventuality in the following sentence: “[E]very time the government tries to help the poor it ends up removing the marvelous incentives life provides to do things like buy an alarm clock, get a job, keep your knees together before marriage, and generally become a productive, happy member of society.” Short, irreverent, funny, and also more descriptive of the dole than anything ever spun by Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama.

Yes, calling someone a traitor is not an effective argument in itself, but it does aptly describe the mindset of the PC-nik. These individuals regard America as being a racist, sexist entity so why on earth would they ever want to defend it? Answer: They wouldn’t. They pray [sic] that our shores soon become inhabited by new diverse peoples who will assuage their pseudo-liberal guilt by transplanting our indigenous culture with charming societal accoutrements such as Sharia or election via coup d’etat.

These leftists care nothing for our Constitution and wish to breathe life into it…until it is dead. To them, America will always be “Amerika.” With sophist ease they have redefined patriot with its antonym. The word now refers to a person who reflexively criticizes their own country whenever possible. Clearly, traitor is a term which embodies them.

The mainstream media responds to Coulter the entertainer, but makes a point of ducking her logical arguments. They depict her as being an airhead yet she knows her foes far better than they know themselves. Even her intentionally outrageous stuff—“Most newspapers in the red states-even nice states like Mississippi-are run by loser liberals who rub their foreskin while reading the New York Times”—illustrates the depth of her analysis. Journalists and yuppies are the only two remaining groups of Americans who retain any admiration for the slanted operation that once dubbed itself, “the paper of record.”

I am very grateful for her presence in the public square; although, duty necessitates my providing prospective purchasers of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans with a warning. Those readers who already own her books would be wise to pass on this one. There’s precious little here that hasn’t been said (and excoriated) before. Besides, one can access her online columns for free.

In summation, in regards to Ms. Coulter, I have said it before but will say it again—she may be the most important conservative in America. Not only is the scorn she showers upon the left well-deserved, it also enables her peers to speak freely. Like Valderrama, Ballack, Zidane or any other brilliant soccer midfielder, Coulter’s thrusts and counterstrokes create space within which the rest of us can roam and prosper. We should be allowed to say what we want in our private lives without fear of termination, prison or banishment.

I will concede that the uttering of verboten syllables is not a cause for celebration, but by lampooning PC she helps roll back the invasive boundaries of the sensitivity state. We badly need her. Whatever one thinks of her personality, all rightists owe her a debt of gratitude because everyday she acts as a lightning rod…on our behalf.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

How fondly we look back on the old days. This is particularly true if you happen to be one of the few [okay, very few] readers who regularly peruse my work. Countless times have I opened up an email to discover sentences that evoke Stardust Memories: “I liked your early columns best, especially the Maureen Dowd ones. Why don’t you write some more of those?”

The reference alludes to my old “Maureen Dowd Two Minute Mock” feature on Mensnewsdaily.com which ran in 2003 and 2004. Ms. Dowd, the ancien debutante of the New York Times, is the perfect embodiment of all things that conservatives despise. Her reflexive leftism, misandric inclinations, disdain for America, obsession with race, devout elitism, and appalling self-righteousness made her an obvious target.

Yet these attributes are also why she so exhausts. As with most leftists, there’s simply no there there. Irrational garbage can only be bashed for so long before the drowsiness sets in. Eventually, her piñata disintegrated into diversity flag colored bits of sugar and paper. How sad that Ms. Dowd squandered whatever gifts she once had in the name of universal self-absorption.

Another factor in my absence from critiquing her was The Times misguided belief that people would pay for their online content. Known as “TimesSelect,” their pay-per-slanted-rant experiment failed; which revealed just how inflated the paper’s self-regard actually is. They hold their biased fare to be prescient and penetrating while the rest of us discern it as the propaganda it actually is. The discontinued venture has now made Maureen easy to access.1

Despite her increased availability, the gray lady’s snarky, faux-cute persona remained unsavory, but, after a month or so, curiosity caused me to check back in on her. I scanned a piece of hers on Hillary Clinton and the allegations of sexism made by her aides against the other Democratic pretenders as a result of their daring to criticize her during a recent debate.

Astoundingly, Dowd did not defend the junior gangster from New York. Instead, she lampooned the “estrogen equation” endemic to a woman wanting to have it both ways. When I read the line, “But she can break, just like a little girl, when male chauvinists are rude enough to catch her red-handed being slippery and opportunistic,” I honestly wondered whether Ms. Dowd had finally grown up and embraced logos as an alternative lifestyle.

Regrettably, my optimism was unwarranted. Her latest offering, “Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?”, documents Dowd only having left the emotional vortex for a moment. It was time to renew my battle with the beast—if only to experience the joy of seeing the boys at freerepublic.com post more pictures of Catherine Zeta-Jones as a response.

There is no truth in advertising here as the piece itself has nothing to do with Hillary but everything to do with the quagmire in which older women find themselves after discovering that, despite the denials of the media, there actually are rules inherent to dating. Could it be that men prioritize differently than women when selecting potential mates?

Perhaps an affirmative answer to this question will lead Ms. Dowd and her followers to accept the notion of viva la difference? Doubt bet on it. Why do that when you can blame “the other” for failing to subjugate their own needs to your own. That men are shallow, irrational protoplasm is too enticing a precept to forsake. That we fail to appreciate women for the things they appreciate about themselves is a sin unforgivable. As long as men have the temerity to think independently, America will remain a slow rolling rerun of Planet of the Apes.

The pretext for this article is rooted in science…well, actually social science…well, actually economics alone. Ms. Dowd came across a study by a Columbia University economist that precisely matched her preconceptions so she decided to tell us all about it. The fellow embarked on a speed dating experiment with a sample size and subject grouping wildly unrepresentative of the American people. His choice of venue was a bar near campus with a small number of ivy leaguers present.

He concluded that males are more stereotypical in their romantic proclivities than are women. Yawn. Could this mean that the progressive left will finally accept that there is a biological basis for human behavior? Never. A commandment among pseudo-liberals is to only celebrate authors who regard male and female preferences as being socially determined. Society mandates our acts which then perpetually fosters the stereotyping that makes reality discordant with utopian equality—a version of equality in which males tie themselves to female taste in the same manner that the renminbi is pegged to the dollar.

In an interview the professor’s politically correct level of misandry is pronounced (so expect to see him on television fairly soon):

For me, the most surprising thing was actually that in this population all of the old stereotypes — it doesn’t make you feel great about being a man — appeared in spite of the fact that we’re now in the 21st century and are looking at what should be among the most progressive, broad-minded of all possible populations. So that was a little sad, the fact that the stereotypes were all there.

Why won’t our pesky genes accept redirection? When will we stop coveting sugar, salt, and what often is packed in to curvy, pert, denim packages?

Frankly, my suspicion is that the professor probably did not feel great about being a man in the first place. This is just another example which illustrates that no matter how hard we try to replace nature with dogma nature will always find a way to win out. That this shocks a rising star of academe is a testament to just how dysfunctional our universities have become. We have reached a point in which the common man knows twice as much as the average scholar.

That a woman’s beauty is a keen predictor of how many dates she goes on is unremarkable. It is as startling as hearing someone describe London as “a big city.” That males embrace beauty and youth in women is appropriate and rational as these factors highly correlate with a woman’s fertility but not so a man’s. Mating with a non-fecund female is fruitless [pun intended] and fertility can best be summed up as, “sex is the route, reproduction [is] the destination.”2

As men age, a woman’s youth becomes more and more essential, and we practically make a fetish out of it.3 Men who marry a second time select, on average, a woman five years younger than themselves while those who marry a third time opt for wives eight years their junior.4 The man’s bias against older women is due to a need to find the “maximally fertile woman.”5 Those men who did not conform to these biological mandates—and chose spinsters or ones in terrible shape—never reproduced and have thus disappeared from the gene pool and our planet.6

Another central conclusion from Dowd’s cherished study is that intelligence is more highly prized by women in members of the opposite sex than it is by men. The professor asserts that men do not want their partners to be smarter than they are. You can see how such a claim would titillate Ms. Dowd. It affirms the sacred axiom that men are shallow, inferior, and threatened by their equals. This is undoubtedly the reason why (at this moment) her column stands atop the New York Times “most popular” chart.

Unfortunately for the professor and Ms. Dowd, they both happen to be wrong. Matt Ridley explains in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature that intelligence is esteemed by men as well: “The study was done by David Buss of the University of Michigan, who asked a large sample of American students to rank the qualities they most preferred in a mate. He found that men preferred kindness, intelligence, beauty, and youth, while women preferred kindness, intelligence, wealth, and status.”7

The significance of intelligence must be qualified, however. For both sexes it is weighty in regards to a long-term bond, but male tastes diverge when it comes to short-term unions. Youth and physical attractiveness are more than enough for fleeting amalgamations.

The endorphins really must have been circulating for Ms. Dowd after the professor confided to her that, “We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own.” Just as she thought! A misspent life suddenly vindicated. Men don’t like successful, bright career women [read: Fraulein Dowd] because their own inadequate and corrupt nature prevents them from doing so.

Ms. Dowd’s future may be cursed, but at least now she knows why. Thanks to the professor and his PC friendly views, Maureen and her ilk will never have to rationally assess their situation again—as if they ever would anyway. Why bother to do so when you can rejoice in the intellectual limitations of half the citizenry?

When atheism is all the rage prejudice like this is to be expected. As Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov: “Without God and the future life? How will man be after that? It means everything is permitted now.” Everything is permitted and everything is believable. Only with a Godless mindset could one buy that 49 percent of the populace is beneath them. Here we see the dark side of women’s empowerment8 because one cannot reign supreme without a horde to rule over. Who needs a cross when you can wear a Rosie the Riveter t-shirt?

The rest of Dowd’s piece is a brief jeremiad of how difficult it is for the modern woman to deal with the fragile male ego. They have to hide their transcendence or we will run from them like the mice they suspect us to be. Our anti-priestess triumphantly noted: “Professional women in their 20s are growing deft at subterfuges to protect the egos of dates who make less money, the story said, such as not leaving their shopping bags around and not mentioning their business achievements. Or they simply date older men who might not be as threatened.”

Is there any truth to her statement? None. Even the “they” and the “are” are lies. I meant to address this last spring in a chapter on female ego in Women: Theory and Practice. Regrettably, it never got done. It will be my premise—whenever I get around to writing it—that the male ego is infinitely smaller than the female’s. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever worked in an integrated setting.

Regardless of Dowd’s mistaken assumptions, the hiding of shopping bags is a fine tactic but not for reasons relating to ego. It has to do with the pronounced materialism of the western woman. When a man ascertains that a prospective girlfriend has dedicated her life to shopping and the acquisition of “stuff,” the corrupted words of Khrushchev apply; as “she will break and bury you.” Women who spend money like it is carbon dioxide are best left alone so they can verbally process the past alongside their debts, their cats, and the glimmer of the Lifetime channel.

In my experience, a woman’s salary has little to do with their net worth. I recall once going out with a girl who made $90,000 a year but owed far more than I ever could. Her purse brimmed with credit cards and I never saw her wear the same thing twice. When she told me that she dreamed of being a soccer mom and driving around town in a hoped for 700 series BMW, I drew the necessary conclusions. Our affair immediately had a definite expiration date attached to it. A woman devoted to conspicuous consumption is one who should be marked for short-term consumption.

Overall, what should we make of this discussion? Most of us already know Dowd to be a lightweight [here is a hilarious picture of her skimming through her version of research materials]. Allan Bloom knew more about the sturm und drang of the modern woman than she ever could even though The Closing of the American Mind9 was penned two decades ago:

Women are still pleased by their freedom and their capacity to chart an independent course for themselves. But they frequently suspect that they are being used, that in the long run they may need men more than men need them, and that they cannot expect much from the feckless contemporary male. They despise what men used to think women had to offer (that is partly why it is now offered so freely), but they are dogged by doubt whether men are very impressed by what they are now offering instead.10

Rather than deride men, women should be grateful for male lust. Without it the species would never have reached the twenty-first century. A man’s devotion to younger females is not a societal construct; it is a biological imperative and a predisposition which will never fade (or be nagged) away. The optimum means of handling our tendencies is to simply adapt and adjust. Women should turn off their televisions, tune out the likes of Maureen Dowd, read, study, and pray but also be sure to donate their self-help books and chick lit to charity while keeping their slightly dated clothes in their closets. Hectoring males to become more like them is as profitable as running up the balances on their Visas and MasterCards.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

Notes:
[1] Wordplay intended?
[2] Barash, David P. Barash and Nanelle, R. Madame Bovary’s Ovaries: A Darwinian Look at Literature. New York: Delacorte, 2005. p. 79.
[3] Etcoff, Nancy. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. New York: Anchor Books, 1999. p.64.
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Tooley, James. The Miseducation of Women. (London: Continuum, 2002). P. 168.
[7] Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. (New York: Penguin, 1994). Pps. 267-268.
[8] A real of leap of faith here by me as I am not aware of any upside of the movement.
[9] I don’t know how many readers know The New Criterion, but it’s the finest of all conservative publications and they have a symposium on The Closing of the American Mind this month…for free. Hit this link.
[10] Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the