Food Authorities are Always Correct

Obedience in a citizen is apparently a virtue by modern standards. One must have faith in the voices of authority, particularly if they have “science” and institutions behind them. Good little boys and girls eat their vegetables and clean their plates otherwise their arrogant disdain of such nutritional wonders (starch, phytochemicals, and generally non-bioavailable vitamins) in juxtoposition to the “starving children in China” may result in shame-related health conditions.

Or perhaps it is merely a matter of “genes”.

Weston A. Price, DDS, believed that gene expression was determined by generations of nutrition and that nobody had “bad genes”, rather, some genes were poorly expressed due to generations of poor nutrition. I believe that he was correct.

However, during the time when Price made his travels and studies of various isolated peoples who were not yet exposed to the “foods of modern commerce,” the Eugenics movement of the Twentieth Century was in full swing. Now that we are in the Twenty-First Century however, and Hitler and his Nazis were defeated, there’s nothing left of the Eugenics movement anywhere, right? Certainly not in the CIA, Centers of Disease Control, or in any of the institutions and foundations of health for which the United States is so justifiably admired.

It is important to trust all of these authorities because it is by virtue of their superior genes that they rule over us. God gave them those superior genes and so did “science” and therefore, having “faith” in those authorities is a virtue that will surely be rewarded one way or another, right?

Here’s an example of the infinite wisdom of our superiors.


They say that you can’t fool all the people all the time, which may be true. However, so long as obedience is considered such a high virtue, only those of us with “vice” are immune. It is therefore very important in preserving the privileges of our aristocracy that all of those with “vice” be adequately shamed. Similarly, those of us with “poor genes” are advised to quietly go somewhere to die.

Eugenics plus modern behavioral conditioning turns out to be quite the lethal combination.

Meanwhile, as the ludicrous nutritional “wisdom” of the 1970’s is slowly being debunked, a bit at a time, our august voices of authority are earnestly spinning webs designed to salvage what is left of their credibility.

Here’s an example:

Despite major gains in fighting hepatitis C and other chronic liver conditions, public health officials are now faced with a growing epidemic of liver disease that is tightly linked to the obesity crisis.

In the past two decades, the prevalence of the disease, known as nonalcoholic fatty liver, has more than doubled in teenagers and adolescents, and climbed at a similar rate in adults. Studies based on federal surveys and diagnostic testing have found that it occurs in about 10 percent of children and at least 20 percent of adults in the United States, eclipsing the rate of any other chronic liver condition.

There are no drugs approved to treat the disease, and it is quickly becoming a leading cause of liver transplants around the country.

Doctors say that the disease, which causes the liver to swell with fat, is particularly striking because it is nearly identical to the liver damage that is seen in heavy drinkers. But in this case the damage is done not by alcohol, but by poor diet and excess weight.

“The equivalent of this is foie gras,” said Dr. Joel E. Lavine, the chief of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital. “You have to force feed ducks to get fatty liver, but people seem to be able to develop it on their own.”

That sounds pretty terrible, doesn’t it? Here comes the anecdotal case to tug at our heartstrings:

Gavin Owenby, a 13-year-old in Hiawassee, Ga., learned he had the disease two years ago after developing crippling abdominal pain. “It’s like you’re being stabbed in your stomach with a knife,” he said.

An ultrasound revealed that Gavin’s liver was enlarged and filled with fat. “His doctor said it was one of the worst cases she had seen,” said Gavin’s mother, Michele Owenby. “We had no idea anything was going on other than his stomach pain.”

With no drugs to offer him, Gavin’s doctor warned that the only way to reverse his fatty liver was to exercise and change his diet. “They told me to stay away from sugar and eat more fruits and vegetables,” Gavin said. “But it’s hard.”

What poor Gavin needs is a little discipline and self-control. Of course, those of us with the proper breeding to fully appreciate the New York Times are not so unfortunate to be deficient in those virtues. Must be our good genes.

…Fatty liver strikes people of all races and ethnicities. But it is particularly widespread among Hispanics because they frequently carry a variant of a gene, known as PNPLA3, that drives the liver to aggressively produce and store triglycerides, a type of fat. The variant is at least twice as common in Hispanic Americans compared with African-Americans and non-Hispanic whites.

In Los Angeles, liver disease is diagnosed in one out of two obese Hispanic children, and it is a leading cause of premature death in Hispanic adults.

Here I thought that to be “Hispanic” was to be part of a population so diverse as to be entirely separate from race or genetics. Who knew? It is a good thing that the “paper of record” is here to tell me so much about the place where I happen to live.

At the end of the article, thank goodness, the following charitable effort is provided:

Do you have a question about fatty liver disease? Ask your question below. Your question may be answered by our reporter, Anahad O’Connor.

Unfortunately, I am so beset by vice, that I am unable to atone by submitting an offering to the kind and beneficient Anahad O’Connor. Instead, I will offer it to you, dear reader. Here’s the question I’d like to ask Anahad O’Connor should I have the privilege to encounter this individual in person in a dark alley:

Do geese fattened for foie gras suffer from a deficit of fruits and vegetables? Or is it bad genes? Seriously, you’ve given me an idea on how to raise humane foie gras—impoverish them from self-determination and provide them with plenty of nutrient-deficient varieties of corn. They’ll fatten up voluntarily and I’ll feel so good about myself at the same time. Isn’t eugenics grand?

I must be such a bad person.

A Voice From the Darkness–Guest Blogger

I am pleased to present an historical political perspective of feminism from a man—a strangerwith whom I’ve had the privilege of corresponding. He represents a decidedly Politically Incorrect Sexuality comparable to my own (albeit with some “sectarian” differences) and integrates his personal worldview within an historical encapsulation of feminism as a political movement. Whereas Fifty Shades of Grey has practically brought BDSM mainstream, he hails from a significantly maligned and marginalized faction thereof with emphasis on “Power Exchange” rather than toys and fetishes. This marginalization is a dubious feminist “achievement” while meanwhile women are buying into “BDSM” in droves.

A popular male feminist writer has “outed” himself as being a collector of “FemDom porn”—

This admission did not inspire outcry amongst his feminist readership and commenters. Therefore, in the name of Equality, I present here the opposite perspective.

The following is an excerpt of my guest blogger’s response to the topic, “From Feminism to Fascism” introduced by another individual. The reason for the anonymity of all parties will become apparent with the political sensitivity of the topic. This excerpt is reproduced by permission.

I believe that our sexuality is one of the ways that we as people are being controlled via propaganda and behavioral conditioning and therefore shining a little sunlight on “forbidden” topics is a way of making us all a bit more hypnosis-resistant. –Caprizchka

Guest Blogger: TPEPervertDad


I view “the world” in two parts: The part within My Family/ Household, which I (perceive/ believe) I have both control and ownership of… And the part outside of My Family/ Household… Which I (perceive/ believe) I do not have either control or ownership of.

Western Civilization-based Feminists typically divide the chronological growth and philosophical “maturation” of their movement into three broad periods, or “waves” (not counting pre-feminist history); namely:

  • Pre-Feminism: Circa Antiquity to around Circa AD1800 (+/-)
  • “First Wave” (My Term: Classical) Feminism: Circa AD1800 to Circa AD1940-1960
  • “Second Wave” (My Term: Modern) Feminism: Circa AD1940-1960 to AD1990
  • “Third Wave” (My Term: Post-Modern) Feminism: Circa AD1990 to Present


As an aside… The above time frames appear to have a close chronological relationship to ideologically-relevant, male-led, gender-agnostic (anti-)liberty movements. Specifically, the “change for women” movements appear to lag behind key “change for people (in general)” movements by about 20 years (+/-). To wit (presuming My above dates are correct):

  • Strong (statist), non-representative government, without legal restraint, and strong figurehead (autocracy/ pure monarchy – “Rule of One“): Circa Antiquity to around Circa AD1701 (passage of the Act of Settlement after the Glorious Revolution in England, formally solidifying British Parliament as having supreme, undisputed power over the English monarchy – a Western Civilization first. This appears to mark “the beginning of the end” of the Pre-Feminism era (dies 100 years after “Rule of One” ends).)
  • Strong (statist), partially representative government, without legal restraint, and weak figurehead (e.g., Constitutional Monarchy – “Rule of Elites“): Circa AD1701 (legal supremacy of English Parliament begins) to Circa AD1783 (Treaty of Paris between the United States of America and Great Britain is signed, ending the Revolutionary War, and marking the formal beginning of the end of the British Empire. “First Wave” Feminism begins ~15-20 years after “Rule of Elites” ends.)
  • Weak (populist), partially representative government, with legal restraint, and weak figurehead (e.g., Constitutional Republic – “Rule of Law“): Circa AD1789 (Treaty of Paris formally solidifies Articles of Confederation as being the supreme law of the United States (“law over Man or Men”) – a Western Civ first) to Circa AD1913 (U.S. Federal Reserve Act and 16th Amendment to the Constitution were passed, enabling both de facto removal of legal restraints upon U.S. Federal Government power and theoretically unlimited growth of the state – “Second Wave” feminism begins ~25 years after “Rule of Law” ends.)
  • Strong (statist), falsely representative government, without legal restraint, and strong figurehead (e.g., communism, collectivism, socialism, democracy – “Rule by Cabal Masquerading as Mob Rule“): Circa 1871 (first socialist government briefly formed in Paris) to AD1913(Rise of US. Federal State)-AD1917 (Russian October Revolution) to Present (Current governments in most Western Countries (including the US) claim to have ruling parties in power whose actions are representative of their citizens’ best interest… Yet endemically corrupt/ perverse systems of incentives result in “confluences of interest”, which has effectively led to de facto rule by shadow governments of elites, who leverage the government’s monopoly on the legal use of (the threat of) lethal force to extract life, liberty, and property from the government’s ignorant, deceived, and/or compliant subjects. Simply put, this is “repression by deception”. Key events in the early 90’s (end of Cold War, EU Maastrict Treaty, post-Tianamen reforms, Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour in CCP and subsequent reforms) had no counter-effect; indeed, the megatrend has been strengthened. “Third Wave” feminism begins to rise ~3-5 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall (beginning of the end of Proletarian Internationalism (“World Communist Revolution” ideology).)


But I digress…

In short…

  • (01) I do not agree with either modern or post-modern feminism in any context;
  • (02) I do agree with classical feminism only within the context of the world outside of My Family/ Household;
  • (03) I do not agree with any form of feminism (including classical feminism) within the context of the world inside of (within) My Family/ Household (i.e., Pre-Feminism ideology applies)

My only reason for #(02) above (and I state the following because I also self-identify as a Male Supremacist…) is that, with regards to the world outside of My Family/ Household, I am a fervent ideological libertarian (with little “ell”), and “default to liberty and non-interference” for all of those I perceive I do not own and control, provided that their voluntary/ willful actions do not attempt to take away My life, liberty, or property (including My Family/ Household) through force, theft, or fraud. (e.g., they should have the right/ liberty to do as they wish… Provided they don’t mess with Me or My Stuff.) This means that… As much as I am ideologically opposed to the concept of “gender equality”, “uni-sex societies”, “gender justice”, etc… I refuse to use the police power of the state to force any restrictive ideologies that I have upon those whom I do not have any personal responsibility or authority over (including ownership of/ control over)… Just I would not directly force, under My personal direct power, My ideologies onto anyone I did not already own/ control beforehand (via prior mutual consent, of course (per “consensual non-consent”-oriented TPE doctrine).

Copyright TPEPervertDad 2014. Originally published on FetLife, a membership site.

Friday the 13th

Per Karen Straughan, sex is the value that women bring to compensate the productivity value expended on their behalf. Marriage or institutional or religious or state sanction is unwanted and unnecessary to facilitate this exchange but rather only corrupts it.

The Honest Courtesan

It’s time we let the prohibitionists know that if they want to pick on sex workers, we have a whole lot of brothers and sisters they’re going to have to face as well.  –  “Friday the Thirteenth Again

Red Umbrellas by Georgio BisettiEvery year has at least one Friday the Thirteenth, and there can be as many as three in a year; next year will be that way, with the day appearing in February, March and November.  The longest time that can pass between two such days is 14 months, as noted in “The Last Thirteen for Fourteen“.  But this year we only have one, in the middle of the year, and that’s today.  Regular readers know what this means, but for those who’ve joined us since December, here’s how I explained it last September:

…from soon after the beginning of this blog, I’ve asked those of you who aren’t sex…

View original post 434 more words

The Endangered Arts of Smoking and Conversation in Southern California

Ever wonder how Hemingway managed to travel the world, fight in Spain, retire to Cuba, etc.?

Ever wonder how Castro managed to live so long?

Ever wonder how Churchill and Roosevelt managed to win World War II?

Ever wonder, what happened to all the tough, strong, sassy individuals who made history?

Here’s one of my favorites:


I desired to smoke a cigar the other evening—in the manner of my preference, that is, accompanied by liquor and conversation in a beautiful setting. In Los Angeles, this activity is becoming more difficult to achieve all the time. Of course, being that Southern California is the birthplace of the modern Eugenics movement (which inspired Hitler), it shouldn’t surprise me. Hitler hated smoking and smokers.

Smoking was depicted in posters as the vice of “capitalists, Jews, Africans, degenerate intellectuals, and loose women.”Hitler in fact called tobacco”the wrath of Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor.” Smoking was considered “a genetic poison to the Aryan Race.”


I had received a gift of a rare and expensive cigar of a quality I had never before experienced. I wanted to do this cigar justice. Therefore, I decided to go to a lovely outdoor venue in Alamitos Bay, by the Marina, in Long Beach, California. The restaurant has a lovely round fire pit which had effectively become the smoking section for all those smokers who do not wish to offend the other diners in this breezy outdoor establishment. It is a large circular stone structure such that smokers can actually face each other and have a conversation! I headed out there on a perfect Southern California Sunday late afternoon in June.

I knew something was wrong when I saw that the fire pit had been taken over by diners and not an ashtray in sight. The other thing I noticed was that the patronage on a popular sailing day consisted solely of blondes of the female persuasion. I could characterize the majority of these patrons as “ladies who lunch.” If any of them had hoped to encounter a gentleman to converse with they would have been disappointed. Not a smoker or sailor in sight.

I was about ready to leave Alamitos Bay in order to try my “plan B,” when I heard live blues music emanating from a nearby establishment. It seemed to me that blues music could be associated with “decadent” behavior of all sorts to include smoking, so I thought I would investigate.

As I approached the establishment, I noticed an alley way which was obviously part of the sophisticated Southern California architectural design. In this alley was a bench, and a slight man in his fifties was seen hunched over, hurriedly puffing a cigarette.

I approached him, “Is this the smoking section?” I asked with what I hoped was a cheerful—not condemnatory—tone.

“As far as I’m concerned it is,” he answered with a slight air of defiance.

“I am looking for a place,” I began, “where I can smoke and drink…”

He joined me so that we chanted in unison, “…at the same time.”

I told him about the fire pit, and he was familiar with the venue.

“The police are cracking down on all smoking here,” He said.

He proceeded to recommend a “dive bar” near the docks, where the stevedores and longshoremen drank. Sounded a little rough for me, a woman in my fifties.

I decided to go with my “plan B,” which was a downtown Long Beach establishment frequented by young professionals which, uncharacteristically for that demographic, permitted smoking on its patio.

I was relieved and gratified to see ashtrays placed strategically throughout the patio. A lava-rock style heater was burning brightly in the center of the patio, to counteract the marine breezes which had just picked up as is characteristic of the sunset hour in Long Beach. Since I was to smoke a cigar, an activity which often offends even cigarette-smoking ladies, I checked the direction of the prevailing breeze and situated myself well downwind on the patio. Whereas conversation was going to be extremely unlikely as the crowd had not yet arrived, I amused myself people-watching down the Promenade.

I ordered a vodka martini with olives. It arrived—passable but not extraordinary.

I proceeded to unwrap my cigar—a Chateau de la Fuente Opus X, 1992. I snipped it, toasted it, and lit it with a torch lighter. Yes, indeed, it had almost a nutty taste with perhaps a hint of coffee-like overtones. A truly fine cigar—the finest I had ever experienced.

Meanwhile, I observed a gentleman in his sixties, dragging two large Pullman-style suitcases down the Promenade, each with a small suitcase on top. He stopped, turned around, and there I saw that a woman in her sixties was following him, of average height and with a dignified gait, and therefore probably perfectly capable of rolling her own suitcases. ‘Chivalry is not dead,’ I thought.

Then I started seeing young women, dressed to the nines, each being deferentially trailed by a man whose entire body language and demeanor indicated subservience.

Just then two Mexican busboys joined me on the patio to take a cigarette break. They chose the upwind section.

A party of three young couples arrived, the ladies in the lead. There was a brief discussion as the ladies apparently elected the indoor bar rather than the patio. One of the three gentlemen paused briefly to take a last drag on his cigarette—the only one of the six to do so—before snuffing it in an ashtray in order to join his friends inside. He hadn’t appeared to put up the least bit of argument in opposition to the decision of the ladies.

More young couples arrived, each exhibiting a similar dynamic—the ladies were “in charge”. Gentlemen who were smoking, snuffed their cigarettes, dutifully, before going indoors so that the ladies’ studiously “casual” coiffures would not be disturbed by the gentle breezes. Not a single female was smoking except for yours truly.

Gentlemen who were walking alone—without dates—did so in subdued fashion—or were vigorously exercising. The only men who had male companions appeared to be waiters or busboys. No man of leisure apparently sought conversational companionship on this fine evening in this sector.

I’m sure that it is merely a matter of time before this establishment no longer permits smoking on its patio in deference to “health authorities.” Meanwhile, it is a lovely setting. I set the last of my cigar in the ashtray and waited for it to extinguish itself before settling the bill indoors.

I think I’ll try conversing with the stevedores and longshoremen next time.

The myth of the 97% climate change consensus

Is feminist scientist an oxymoron? Do we really need to push more women into coveted university slots just because they have an interest in STEM? Picture this: “One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and to have found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years, while none directly dissented.

“Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” influences but left out “dangerous” – and excluded scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus. Her methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in the journal Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers – but she failed to acknowledge or address this.

“Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen, and that humans are a significant contributing factor.”

Watts Up With That?

97 percent- just dont lift the hat Image Credit –

What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

Claims continue to be made that “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” That’s what Secretary of State John Kerry told graduating Boston College students. It’s what President Obama said in his State of the Union address and a recent tweet.

View original post 1,327 more words