This is Fine


France (or Sweden, or America) in 2017, if taken as a whole, is still a nice country. (We all know that nice is a subjective term, so let’s say it’s a first world country, which is a little less subjective term.) But an issue immediately arises when you stop taking France as a whole, and start looking at certain parts independently. Before I go further let me show you something visual.


When you mix the colors blue and yellow you get green. If you look at these two boxes as a whole, they both have the same amount of blue and yellow, but they are clearly not equal. This is why we say, “The devil is in the details”. So now back to France. France is obviously much more complicated than a box, but what you have in 2017 France is similar to what you have in box B. When you start getting down to street level, it very much matters what street you are on. You will get a different answer when asking the average guy on a Paris street how his city is doing, than you will if you ask a guy in Nantes. Even within Paris you will get different answers based on what part of the city you are in. So you really aren’t saying much when you say, “France as a whole is nice”. The fact is that parts of France are very nice, and other parts of France are very, not nice. (So now we are back to the definition of nice. That subject I will leave for another time.) By simply saying France as a whole is nice, you are overlooking a great many issues that will not solve themselves.

There is another factor in addition to location that must be addressed, and that is time. Another visual below.


Looking at any one of these circles alone is very different than looking at them in series. It is clear from looking at any two of them, that changes are taking place; you can in no way gather that from looking at just one. When looking at France at any one moment in time, you are not seeing what is really going on. This is why we say, “You have your head in the sand” or, “You’re a f*^king idiot”. One more visual.



The Parable of the Spring


There was once a beautiful and peaceful country, full of happy and healthy people. The source of their joy was a great spring. It gushed forth from the earth, giving clean and clear water to drink, and to water their crops. One day a wandering merchant came to their country. He was a nomad, traveling here and there. The merchant brought with him a sickness from foreign lands that the people had never known. This sickness spread across their fair country, the suffering and death was almost more than they could bear. As the people began to search for the cause of this sickness, the merchant convinced them that the source of their great suffering, was their spring. In truth, the spring was as clear and clean as it had ever been. The people believing the spring to be the cause of their demise, built a great wall around it, and made laws against drinking from it. They taught their children that it was wicked, and as time passed, all who had known the spring to be good, and drinking from it wise, passed away. In so separating themselves from the life giving water, the people of the country perished.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Great Literature of our People. 9


Plato’s famous and eternal “Allegory of the Cave”.

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: –Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.  And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.  Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?  And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.  And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.  And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.  To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.  And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it’ the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.  And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he now  And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he’s forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.  He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.  Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.  He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?  Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.  And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.  And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,  Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.  And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said.  This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.


Muh Constitution


A country is not a land mass, it is a people mass. A country’s character, customs, laws, architecture, crime rate are all based on the people, not the other way around. This confusion causes some to falsely believe that it is our constitution that makes America great, but they are terribly mistaken. My first question to them would be, what made the guys who wrote it great? Our forefathers who wrote the constitution were not living under it, were not living under “freedom”, they were living under what we now consider to be tyranny, they were living under a King, so how is it that they were able to write such a document?

Assuming that the constitution is what makes America great is very dangerous, it may cause you to make really stupid decisions (1965 immigration act). Did you know that the constitution of Liberia is modeled on the United States Constitution? They have a very similar form of government to us, and have since 1847.  Actually, many of the countries in Africa are democracies with constitutions. So why is it that they have the same constitution, but drastically different living conditions?

I have another question for these people. What does it mean to be French? What does it mean to be Nigerian? What does it mean to be Chinese? Is Chinese a word we use when we are talking about any human being who is currently living in China? If a Mexican man moves to China, becomes a citizen, and lives there for 20 years, is he then Chinese? If a Chinese couple move to Nigeria and have their child there, is that child Chinese or Nigerian? What would Australia be if we moved all Australians out, and moved all Russians in? Could we still call it Australia? Imagine a Cherokee reservation, now imagine moving all the Cherokees out, and moving all Japanese people in, would we still call it Cherokee land?

If all people in America were to be replaced with all the people in Africa, but all our buildings, all of our roads, all of our laws, even our precious constitution were to remain the same, what do you think America would look like? It is the people that make a country, not the land, not the constitution. As America brought in more and more European immigrants in the early 1900s, America more and more looked like Europe (we even built whole theme parks trying to mimic Europe, e.g. Disneyland). As parts of America bring in more and more Mexican, or Arab immigrants, it is going to look more and more like Mexico and Arabia. Some piece of paper is not going to change those peoples genetics, it isn’t going to change their culture, their religion. What is going to happen is someday those people are going to change the constitution.

European peoples made America great, not a piece of paper. Get rid of European peoples, and you get rid of America. Get rid of European peoples, and no amount of “muh constitution” will help you.

Dissenting Opinion.1


Charles Lindbergh’s Des Moines Iowa Speech, 9/11/1941:

It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.

That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn’t we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

Let us consider these groups, one at a time.

First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.

Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.

As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.

England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.

We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.

The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.

I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.

The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.

In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups–the British, the Jewish, or the administration–stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.

I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.

When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.

They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms “fifth columnist,” “traitor,” “Nazi,” “anti-Semitic” were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.

There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.

To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters–less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.

Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.

Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase “steps short of war.”

England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months–“the best way to defend America and keep out of war.” we were told, was “by aiding the Allies.”

First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.

The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.

We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient “incidents” yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]– a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.

Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.

We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory–a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.

The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.

Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.

There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war. 



I remember first thinking about this years ago when someone would talk about their children as if they had absolutely no control over them. They would say things like, “they won’t come home on time” or “I can’t get them to eat dinner”. It was always kinda strange when I heard it, it was as if their child was a completely independent person who just did whatever they wanted and the parent couldn’t do anything about it. The parents genuinely felt helpless, they acted as if they were waiting for the child itself to make the correct decisions, or somebody or something else to interfere. It was sometimes tragically funny because the parent would complain about something like the kid spending too much money, and then I would ask, “where did they get the money” and the parent would reply, “I gave it to them”.

I was recently confronted with this when a man began telling me the extraordinary amount of money he was spending on a trip for his wife and kids to Europe. While he was explaining the reasons why they were going and the details of the trip, he repeatedly stopped to make sure and tell me that he thought it was a bad idea, unnecessary, a waste of money, impractical, etc. At the end of his story I told him that he should of just said no. His response was interesting, he felt as if he was helpless, as if it would be wrong somehow to say no, as if there was really nothing he could do about it now. I felt sorry for him, but it really got me thinking.

I started asking guys with wives and kids this question, “How much of your interactions with your wife and kids is you telling them no”, not surprisingly their response was, “a lot”. I started to think about society at large, about politics, about civilization, and I realized that it is all built upon one word, NO.

There is a reason that the ten commandments are negative commandments, they say “thou shalt not”. They are God saying to us “no”. It is our role to say no to ourselves, as well as our wives and children.

I think about it this way. Human nature is like a wild river, always flowing, sometimes low, sometimes high, sometimes calmly, sometimes wildly, always flowing.  Our default position, our “natural” state, is chaos, is animal desires, is sin. When we begin to say “no” to these desires we begin to channel the river, the more we say “no” is the construction of dykes, finally when we have mastered our use of “no” we have constructed a dam across the river regulating it’s flow, not shutting it off completely, but allowing the appropriate flows at the appropriate times.

I urge you men to say no. It is not you taking the fun out of life, it is you putting the order into it.

Great Literature of our People. 8


Below is the conversation between Scrooge and Marley from Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol.


“How now!” said Scrooge, caustic and cold as ever. “What do you want with me?”

“Much!”—Marley’s voice, no doubt about it.

“Who are you?”

“Ask me who I was.”

“Who were you then?” said Scrooge, raising his voice. “You’re particular, for a shade.” He was going to say “to a shade,” but substituted this, as more appropriate.

“In life I was your partner, Jacob Marley.”

“Can you—can you sit down?” asked Scrooge, looking doubtfully at him.

“I can.”

“Do it then.”

Scrooge asked the question, because he didn’t know whether a ghost so transparent might find himself in a condition to take a chair; and felt that in the event of its being impossible, it might involve the necessity of an embarrassing explanation. But the ghost sat down on the opposite side of the fireplace, as if he were quite used to it.

“You don’t believe in me,” observed the Ghost.

“I don’t,” said Scrooge.

“What evidence would you have of my reality beyond that of your senses?”

“I don’t know,” said Scrooge.

“Why do you doubt your senses?”

“Because,” said Scrooge, “a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

Scrooge was not much in the habit of cracking jokes, nor did he feel, in his heart, by any means waggish then. The truth is, that he tried to be smart, as a means of distracting his own attention, and keeping down his terror; for the spectre’s voice disturbed the very marrow in his bones.

To sit, staring at those fixed, glazed eyes, in silence for a moment, would play, Scrooge felt, the very deuce with him. There was something very awful, too, in the spectre’s being provided with an infernal atmosphere of its own. Scrooge could not feel it himself, but this was clearly the case; for though the Ghost sat perfectly motionless, its hair, and skirts, and tassels, were still agitated as by the hot vapour from an oven.

“You see this toothpick?” said Scrooge, returning quickly to the charge, for the reason just assigned; and wishing, though it were only for a second, to divert the vision’s stony gaze from himself.

“I do,” replied the Ghost.

“You are not looking at it,” said Scrooge.

“But I see it,” said the Ghost, “notwithstanding.”

“Well!” returned Scrooge, “I have but to swallow this, and be for the rest of my days persecuted by a legion of goblins, all of my own creation. Humbug, I tell you-humbug!”

At this the spirit raised a frightful cry, and shook its chain with such a dismal and appalling noise, that Scrooge held on tight to his chair, to save himself from falling in a swoon. But how much greater was his horror, when the phantom taking off the bandage round its head, as if it were too warm to wear in-doors, its lower jaw dropped down upon its breast!

Scrooge fell upon his knees, and clasped his hands before his face.

“Mercy!” he said. “Dreadful apparition, why do you trouble me?”

“Man of the worldly mind!” replied the Ghost, “do you believe in me or not?”

“I do,” said Scrooge. “I must. But why do spirits walk the earth, and why do they come to me?”

“It is required of every man,” the Ghost returned, “that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death. It is doomed to wander through the world—oh, woe is me!—and witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!”

Again the spectre raised a cry, and shook its chain and wrung its shadowy hands.

“You are fettered,” said Scrooge, trembling. “Tell me why?”

“I wear the chain I forged in life,” replied the Ghost. “I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?

Scrooge trembled more and more.

“Or would you know,” pursued the Ghost, “the weight and length of the strong coil you bear yourself? It was full as heavy and as long as this, seven Christmas Eves ago. You have laboured on it, since. It is a ponderous chain!”

Scrooge glanced about him on the floor, in the expectation of finding himself surrounded by some fifty or sixty fathoms of iron cable: but he could see nothing.

“Jacob,” he said, imploringly. “Old Jacob Marley, tell me more. Speak comfort to me, Jacob!”

“I have none to give,” the Ghost replied. “It comes from other regions, Ebenezer Scrooge, and is conveyed by other ministers to other kinds of men. Nor can I tell you what I would. A very little more is all permitted to me. I cannot rest, I cannot stay, I cannot linger anywhere. My spirit never walked beyond our counting-house—mark me!—in life my spirit never roved beyond the narrow limits of our money-changing hole; and weary journeys lie before me!”

It was a habit with Scrooge, whenever he became thoughtful, to put his hands in his breeches pockets. Pondering on what the Ghost had said, he did so now, but without lifting up his eyes, or getting off his knees.

“You must have been very slow about it, Jacob,” Scrooge observed, in a business-like manner, though with humility and deference.

“Slow!” the Ghost repeated.

“Seven years dead,” mused Scrooge. “And travelling all the time?”

The whole time,” said the Ghost. “No rest, no peace. Incessant torture of remorse.”

“You travel fast?” said Scrooge.

“On the wings of the wind,” replied the Ghost.

“You might have got over a great quantity of ground in seven years,” said Scrooge.

The Ghost, on hearing this, set up another cry, and clanked its chain so hideously in the dead silence of the night, that the Ward would have been justified in indicting it for a nuisance.

“Oh! captive, bound, and double-ironed,” cried the phantom, “not to know, that ages of incessant labour by immortal creatures, for this earth must pass into eternity before the good of which it is susceptible is all developed. Not to know that any Christian spirit working kindly in its little sphere, whatever it may be, will find its mortal life too short for its vast means of usefulness. Not to know that no space of regret can make amends for one life’s opportunities misused! Yet such was I! Oh! such was I!”

“But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,” faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.

“Business!” cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

It held up its chain at arm’s length, as if that were the cause of all its unavailing grief, and flung it heavily upon the ground again.

“At this time of the rolling year,” the spectre said, “I suffer most. Why did I walk through crowds of fellow-beings with my eyes turned down, and never raise them to that blessed Star which led the Wise Men to a poor abode? Were there no poor homes to which its light would have conducted me?

Scrooge was very much dismayed to hear the spectre going on at this rate, and began to quake exceedingly.

“Hear me!” cried the Ghost. “My time is nearly gone.”

“I will,” said Scrooge. “But don’t be hard upon me! Don’t be flowery, Jacob! Pray!”

“How it is that I appear before you in a shape that you can see, I may not tell. I have sat invisible beside you many and many a day.”

It was not an agreeable idea. Scrooge shivered, and wiped the perspiration from his brow.

“That is no light part of my penance,” pursued the Ghost. “I am here tonight to warn you, that you have yet a chance and hope of escaping my fate. A chance and hope of my procuring, Ebenezer.”

“You were always a good friend to me,” said Scrooge. “Thank’ee!”

“You will be haunted,” resumed the Ghost, “by Three Spirits.”

Scrooge’s countenance fell almost as low as the Ghost’s had done.

“Is that the chance and hope you mentioned, Jacob?” he demanded, in a faltering voice.

“It is.”

“I—I think I’d rather not,” said Scrooge.

“Without their visits,” said the Ghost, “you cannot hope to shun the path I tread. Expect the first to-morrow, when the bell tolls one.”

“Couldn’t I take ’em all at once, and have it over, Jacob?” hinted Scrooge.

“Expect the second on the next night at the same hour. The third upon the next night when the last stroke of Twelve has ceased to vibrate. Look to see me no more; and look that, for your own sake, you remember what has passed between us!”

Introduction to Guns.



There are many different types of guns, one could write whole tomes on them, but the purpose of this article is to just briefly explain the most common types, this is by no means a definitive work on guns.

The two main categories of common guns are handguns and long guns. Handguns are small, designed to be held in the palm of the hand, long guns are longer and are designed to be held and braced against the shoulder.

Handguns, which are also commonly referred to as pistols, can be further broken down into two main types, revolvers and semi-automatics (some people don’t call revolvers pistols).  A revolver has a rotating cylinder which holds the cartridges. Cartridges consist of a metal case which holds the primer, gun powder, and the bullet, much of the time cartridges are referred to as simply, bullets. As the hammer is cocked (pulled back), the cylinder rotates, putting the next cartridge in position to be struck by the hammer when it falls. The hammer falls due to the trigger being pulled. (On a single action revolver the hammer is pulled back with your thumb, on a double action revolver pulling the trigger will cock the hammer, rotate the cylinder, and fire the gun.)


Semi-automatics have a removable magazine (this magazine is often referred to as a clip) that holds the cartridges. On a semi-auto, when the gun is fired, the slide is thrust back expelling the spent cartridge and is pulled back via spring pushing the next cartridge from the magazine into the chamber.


Long guns can also be broken down into two main categories, shotguns and rifles. Long guns have several different methods of getting the cartridges into the chamber, so I won’t get into that. The two main differences between a shotgun and a rifle is the type of ammunition and the barrel design. A shotgun has a smooth barrel and generally shoots cartridges which contain several bullets, often referred to as shot. The shot can vary in size and number depending on the cartridge and the size of the shotgun.


Rifles are so named because their barrels interiors are not smooth. Inside of the barrel there is rifling, which are small groves that run the length of the barrel, twisting as they go (handguns also have rifled barrels). Rifle cartridges contain one bullet.


The Way of Women


I read Jack Donovan’s book “The Way of Men” a few years ago. In it he outlines what it means to be a man, not in a moral or ethical way, but more in a Plato’s forms way. He tries to distill the idea of a man down to its core, its most basic characteristics. Where he finally arrives is four main “tactical virtues”: Strength, Courage, Mastery, and Honor. In his book he goes into detail on all four, and I highly recommend you read it; I agree with most of his conclusions. Based on his book, and several conversations I have had with my wife over the years, I started thinking along the same lines as Jack, but instead of men, I wanted to define women.

So what would be the defining virtues of a woman? It is not so easily answered as it is asked. I started to think of what a perfect, what an ideal, woman would look like, what she would act like. So after thinking on it for some time I came up with four virtues of the ideal woman. Before I list these traits, a few words about relationships must be said. The main relationships in a man’s life are with other men, mostly men within his clan, but the main relationships in a woman’s life are with her men, very specific men, either her father, or her husband. A woman is lost, is feral, is out of control if she is not anchored to a man, so the nature of her life, and her traits, are different than a man’s.

The virtues of an ideal woman are: Beauty, Submission, Mastery, and Loyalty.

Beauty. This is not just literal physical beauty (symmetrical face, full breasts, slender figure) although that is an important part of it, this is also beauty of speech, beauty of movement. It is the way in which she takes care of her body, keeping it in good shape, cleaning it, dressing it in appropriate clothing. It is the way she maintains her hair, brushing it, braiding it, not cutting it short, or leaving it a mess. It is not the words she speaks, but the way in which she speaks, the tone of her voice, speaking softly, gracefully, never interrupting, never yelling. It is the way she carries herself, the way she walks, the way she sits, the way her body moves, not recklessly, but deliberately gentle and subtle.

Submission. This is the trait of submitting to the wishes and commands of your father or husband. A woman is a support, is a helper, is a sidekick, and she performs this best when she follows the will of the man who is responsible for her. This is, although there is more to it, simply put, doing what she is told, not arguing, not complaining, not trying to convince herself that she shouldn’t listen, not trying to convince him that what he is asking is wrong or stupid. True submission is not only doing what you are told, but is doing what you are told because you truly accept and respect the authority of the one to whom you are submitting.

Mastery. This one is very similar to Jacks one for men, it is a utilitarian virtue. It is cooking, it is cleaning, it is grocery shopping, it is taking care of children, it is sewing, it is making the house a home, it is feeding guests, it is running errands, it is arranging social events. It is not only doing these things, but doing them well, doing them completely, efficiently.

Loyalty. This is the trait of showing, through her words and her actions, that she is completely and utterly devoted and bound to her man. She is always at his side, not just literally, but figuratively. No matter what occurs, no matter where she is, no matter who is against her, there is never a question as to where her allegiance lies, it is always with her man.