PRay TeLL, Dr. Hash

Societal Collapse is the most important issue confronting us: the simple solution is to condition children against resentment, narcissism & greed, and discourage perversity from a young age. Teach children to recognize, resist & rise above their base motives, like religious teachings used to do; Jesus had a lot to say about being humble and thinking about others. There were a lot of role-models at church, and many examples of people helping one another. Those prescriptions didn’t come from nowhere; wise people recognized the need for them and created a framework for their transfer to subsequent generations via commandments and other morals. What makes returning to the morals of the past not easy is that it conflicts with the distaste towards indoctrination, no matter how benign. Like hypnotism, people don’t want to think they can be or have been brainwashed, some vehemently so. The fact that everyone is a product of propaganda, at least to some extent, by their culture, customs & traditions, should logically alleviate their anxiety about it, but it doesn’t. Another aspect of moral imperatives is that and they are typically a burden on personal autonomy which is near-adjacent to liberty, and some people are cautious & suspicious of any threat to it.

The National Debt is simple to fix because government can create money out of thin air to pay its debts. A lot of this money goes to the ultra wealthy in the form of interest paid on the National Debt. A simple solution for that is for government to create money without incurring an obligation. It works because money is imaginary. They print money out of thin air now, it’s just that they assume the liability, and it’s not easy to keep the rich from wanting to be richer. Taking this idea to its full extent, there also shouldn’t be any personal taxation except as a way to limit wealth concentration. In fact, the country had been around over 100 years before there was a federal income tax. To cover the existing National Debt, a plan for this has already been floated: first, revalue the gold reserve to equal the debt. Next, create a digital currency backed by that gold, currently referred to as the National Bank Digital Currency, NBDC. And third, give that currency to the debt holders. There’s a lot of nuance in these 3 simple but not easy steps, and a lot of the debt isn’t debt at all but instead internal U.S. government accounting tricks like social security holding a huge portion. To keep the budget balanced, keep budget increases tied to the price increase of gold as it goes up every year due to increasing GDP. The big risk of doing this is that Congress won’t be able to prevent themselves from exploiting the unlimited spending opportunity, but they’re already not doing that now.

There are many seemingly insurmountable problems that are simple to fix… It’s just not going to be easy. There are always secret motives that underlay every one of these simple but not easy problems that are base in nature: greed, avarice, lust, narcissism, spite & schadenfreude, and a host of lesser bad intentions. Greed is the most common but people won’t admit that’s what’s ultimately motivating them; they always come up with a fig leaf excuse explaining why they’re acting illogically, but you can bet if you could read their minds, the answer to why a simple solution is so difficult to implement is because the person benefits from the problem continuing. Even things that on the surface seem like they might be helping the situation, maybe they even are, like altruism, charity & benevolence, but are actually benefiting those performing them, usually in the form of feeling moral superiority, relief of guilt, even masochism, which is rarely verbally recognized but is commonly the real reason behind pursing otherwise irrational goals that actually harm the person. For big issues like marriage, divorce, abortion, inflation, the conflict in the Middle East, and even the threat of total societal collapse, there are whole groups of people benefiting from the chaos that exists now, or are simply perverse, the worst of the bad motivations. When perversity is involved, nothing is easy even if it is simple.

What’s better than talking about your life? 1. People don’t get what they deserve even if they don’t deserve it. 2. Institutions are now run by the people who should be in institutions. 3. You don’t find wisdom, you earn it. 4. You’re lucky to be here. 5. Unawareness is a shield against the vulgarity of life. 6. Depravity is the natural state of all living things. 7. Success is simply a matter of being right most of the time. 8. New generations need new goals. 9. The people who claim to have empathy, don’t. You may get your news somewhere else but take your advice from me, the Wysest Myn in the Wyrld.

Empathy is a word fraught with peril: use it at your own risk. Whatever the word’s original definition was supposed to be, with the rise of wokeness, empathy became the same as sympathy except the receiving party gets to decide how much, which gives them control; you may have sympathy for the plight of others but they get to dictate how you must respond. This is not the original understanding of empathy at all; it wasn’t sympathy, it was understanding, but to recognize this, you have to have self-awareness, something the Left isn’t capable of due to mental illness, malevolence, ignorance or stupidity. The real meaning of empathy is: if you empathize with someone, you should be able to understand their point of view, something the Left does not and apparently cannot do towards the Right, though many on the Right understand the motivations & grievances of the Left, and sincerely want to offer solutions. For example, the plight of Gen Z of not being able to be as well off as their parents: most of the Right would truly like to change the forces that caused that to happen. The Right would like to help people with mental illness because they empathize with the pain of the sufferer, but the selfish Left instead wants to validate mental illness. The Right recognizes the perverse incentives that keep Blacks poor and on state assistance. Real empathy is not virtue signaling by claiming altruistic goals but instead acting on them.

Contrary to popular belief, Gen Z is doing as good as previous generations, they just have to measure their success by new metrics. They don’t have the same value system as their elders and shouldn’t be held to outdated goals & ideals. Boomers had an abundance of material opportunities so they measured their success in the physical accumulation of things, but by the time Gen Z came along, the gold fields had been picked clean: no houses in the suburbs, no fancy cars, no 401Ks, no jobs, no retirement, no spouses and no children. Even making a career is becoming impossible for a large portion of them. Therefore, Gen Z needs to measure their success differently; for example, abundant entertainment, including videogames; online relationships where you have more choices and don’t have to stay with a bad one; you can work from home; learn without being in a brick & mortar building; a large variety of food; they’re not in the thrall of captured media; they’re not held to religious dogma; they’re not tied down so they can travel, and there’s no judgment on how they want to live their lives. Go ahead Gen Z, take the win!

The problem with claiming to have wisdom is that other people cynically expect it to be 100%. If you get 1 thing wrong in 100 things, people will fixate on the 1. This makes it impossible to expect others to defer to you or respect you for being wise; they’d rather follow their own counsel then think anyone may have better judgment than them. The problem gets worse as the other person’s formal education increases. If they’re a doctor, you better be a physicist, and if they’re a lawyer, they all think no one could possibly be smarter than them. Not just those examples: pick anyone out of a crowd of successful people and every one of them would rather give you advice than take any. In that environment, how can anyone claim wisdom if they’ve ever been wrong before? The functional reality is that a “wise” person is more right than usual; certainly more right than wrong but there’s still lots of room to be wrong. In Vegas, only a 3% house advantage means that, in the end, they always win. “Winning” is an objective measurement of wisdom, no matter the number of missteps. Unfortunately, most people don’t care about the end so much as they appear “right” to others during every step along the way. That’s why wisdom is worthless to anyone but the wise person using their own wisdom to be right most of the time.

Presbyterians, an offshoot of Catholicism, believe in the total depravity of mankind, meaning people are tainted by sin in every aspect of their lives, hearts & souls. This causes them to be slaves to sin, unable to love God, unable to do good, and unable to have faith in Christ. That’s a pretty dismal condemnation of humanity at large, and doesn’t offer much hope. It’s obviously written by someone perceptive enough to recognize that the base motives of people, such as lust, greed, avarice, envy & hate, are more powerful than the counter virtues of chastity, benevolence, generosity & love. Unfortunately, that view of life is not wise enough to think people can rise above those primitive desires without mysticism. Maybe for the dumb, ignorant & uninformed, it’s true; God needs to be included in the indoctrination. Leaving the mass of people to wallow in their depravity is far worse than a formalized religion that scorns, shuns & shames them into compliance with civilized modes of interaction within society. However, some small portion of people, perhaps 10%, have the capacity to see the long-term advantage of not yielding to the temptation of instant gratification from dopamine stimulation. This is commonly known as self-awareness. If self-aware people could be situated into positions of power, where they control the school curriculum, the role models presented by entertainment, and the reinforcement of aspiring values via government, then mysticism wouldn’t have to shoulder the burden, and man wouldn’t be so depraved after all.

Unawareness is living your own life without being cognizant of how other people perceive you. People in a coma are certainly unaware; autistic people are unaware, and in general, innocence is a kind of unawareness. The opposite is, of course, self-awareness; more specifically external self-awareness. People with external self-awareness know and care what other people think of them, and make decisions with that knowledge at the forefront. Those without external self-awareness, go through life doing only what they want. They might have internal self-awareness, meaning they understand their own motivations, but they don’t know and can’t understand why others treat them like they do. Liberalism, in the form of libertarianism, purports to live and let live, but that’s not how people are in real life. For whatever reason, often just FOMO, the fear of missing out, many people want everyone to be just like them, with the same ambitions & goals, and anyone who thinks differently is suspect, which turns into resentment, which turns into contempt, finally leading to a feeling of malevolence toward the person operating outside the mold. Zoning boards, charters, and social engineering are examples of this control. Anyone who’s ever lived under the heavy hand of an home owners association has experienced this. HOAs are specifically set up to force everyone living under their auspices to keep their homes in an acceptable range of presentation: color, lawn, ornamentation, even access of family & friends. Unfortunately, unaware people are their easy prey.

Most people don’t comprehend, nor even want to know, how much luck controls their lives. Almost everything they do, their entire path is life, is almost certainly luck with a little bit of intent and effort nudging the ball, like in a pinball machine, except less controlled. There’s no other way to explain why some people are undeservedly successful while others are undeserved failures. In the past, when science was mysticism, luck was interpreted as God’s will. Another explanation was karma: that people got what they gave. That concept actually serves as a good catchall because most people can make up reasons in their head to justify anything: “Joe’s cow died because he yelled at his wife yesterday.” Destiny is another commonly held belief: that you have no free agency and all of your actions were assigned to you before you were born. Most of history is one kind of these excuses or the other because who wants to think you are alone, no one cares, and what happens to you is random, as it is for everybody else. However, wishing people luck is an acknowledgment of subconscious understanding. In modern times, children are taught “May the force be with you,” which is a tacit recognition that some force controls your life besides you, wrapped in a secular narrative aimed at children. They are being introduced to and entertained by the idea that most people are pawns and only those with special powers can change the world, and those people are born with it. That means that a regular person is at the mercy of powers he can’t understand and has no control over. They probably don’t recognize it as random chance but that’s what it is. The only alternative is that we all live in a simulation, and all of this is preprogrammed, meaning our lives aren’t real, and neither are we.

In the past, the definition of wisdom has been nebulous; Confucius said, “By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” But other than the quote itself, Confucius didn’t expand any further so throughout history, other people have been offering interpretations of what his words meant. Reflection is mindfulness, another difficult word to define, but it mostly means self-examination. However, studies show that no more than 10% of the population have that ability, though the ones that can could be considered wise. Imitation might fool other people into thinking that you have wisdom but unless you absorb it, you don’t actually have any. Experience can certainly lead to at least specific kinds of wisdom. Albert Einstein said “Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it,” but he was smart not wise so his definition is only half right because wisdom requires a lifetime of schooling to acquire, both formal and informal. I offer my own humble definition of wisdom; one that’s both succinct & objective. In fact, it’s actually a measurement, and anything that can be measured is real. Wisdom is the breath & depth of knowledge times the breath & depth of experience times self-awareness. As an example, if you were school-taught knowledgeable in medicine, law, science, business, travel, sports, philosophy, politics & family, and your lived experience in those fields was demonstrably accomplished as designated by licensing, and marriage, and you were high in self-awareness, you’re probably as wise as a human can get.

Up until the current generation, Gen-Z, people respected institutions: law, medicine, government, education, entertainment, news. They had reason to because life was continually improving; each successive generation was doing better than the last, and the people in those institutions seemed to have earned their place. Now it seems all institutions are inadequate, incompetent, even counter productive, and people have lost faith in the opinions of "experts." One by one, our institutions have been shown to be corrupted: medicine was dishonored by COVID, the judicial system was disgraced by the lawfare on Trump, education is tainted by usurious student loans & politically-biased faculty, Climate Change put science into disrepute, and business has consolidated into monopoly. Most previously trusted fields, economists for example, fall into the same category as pollsters & hedge fund managers. Then along came affirmative action, followed by DEI; not to mention increasing levels of nepotism. Merit is derided as White Supremacy, which is defined as thinking that conscientiousness, punctuality & integrity are good things. Of course, this is coming from the people who are none of those things, and got their positions of authority through questionable means. Combine that with general social & economic degradation that comes with the fall of empires, and nobody believes in anything anymore. There has been a resurgence of religious fervor, and maybe that can save us and the institutions too, but it seems doubtful.

Merit is the idea that you get what you’ve earned, but that homily only exists within the parameters of an artifice, a game with rules that you played by and won. For the Baby Boom generation, that concept seemed true because so many people appeared to reap the benefits of their meritable actions. Unfortunately, that was an illusion caused by the unprecedented good times times brought on by America’s ascendance after the Second World War. There was plenty of opportunity and anyone willing to pursue it, even at a minimal level like holding a job, buying a house & raising a family, was rewarded in old age just from inflation alone. The rules were unquestioned because there was no reason to do so. However, in abject reality, there are no rules guiding or protecting you, and once the artificial good times ended, opportunity was replaced with nepotism & corruption. Worse, you are discriminated against for the basest of reasons: maybe you’re short, maybe you’re dumb, maybe you’re ugly? All of the people who excel over you in these physical traits will get the advantage of ever decreasing opportunities, no matter what you do; there is no deserving. Great power does not mandate great responsibility; that’s just a social refrain from short, dumb, ugly people who would otherwise always lose if competing with tall, smart, beautiful people who are related to someone important.

Everybody’s got some kind of religion they want to convert you to: 1. Climate Change is the secular substitute for God. 2. God was dethroned by democracy. 3. Religion is wisdom wrapped in symbolism. 4. Claiming to speak for God is taking his name in vain. 5. The Garden Of Eden is a metaphor for innocence. 6. The question is when does abortion become murder? 7. Babies have differing personalities & talents at birth. 8. It’s not your obligation to make life or death decisions. 9. Masculinity isn’t toxic but the people calling it that are. You may get your news somewhere else but take your advice from me, the Wysest Myn in the Wyrld.

American Psychological Association’s, overtly controlled by feminists, mission statement has for decades declared, “The critical study of how gender shapes and constricts men’s lives, endeavoring to erode constraining definitions of masculinity which historically have inhibited men’s development, their capacity to form meaningful relationships, which has contributed to the oppression of other people.” They specifically define “toxic masculinity” as stoicism, competition, ambition, which of course, is masculinity. They claim that these features are socially destructive, leading to homophobia, violence, domination & sexual assault, without listing any of the positive aspects. The concept of toxic masculinity is used in academic and media discussions to refer to the affects of testosterone, which like fire, is both a gift and a curse. It’s a basic observable fact that men are better than women in things where testosterone benefits, and where testosterone is a disadvantage, women excel. To make this simple statement is considered “misogyny” by women because they want to be the center of the universe and anyone suggesting otherwise makes them angry, even hateful, which they then project back onto the speaker. The Left is primarily made of narcissistic women and conniving men, or men with low testosterone, with no masculinity to speak of, toxic or otherwise.

If there’s a choice between saving my child or a million people, I would pick my child. The logic being: if there is a god and he thinks those people are worth saving then he’ll save them; and if there isn’t a god then the universe is random and can’t be predicted; I certainly would only be guessing about what would happen to those people, and it would be hubris to act otherwise, hence I’ll make the choice that means the most to me. This justification applies to all the moral dilemmas that propose saving 2 lives rather than 1; you should not act to save any because God will take care of it. The question then becomes are you the tool God was intending to use to save the life? If God only has 1 option, then he’s not much of a god; he can leave you out of it, and you don’t have to be beating yourself up about being responsible one way or the other. In fact, all moral conflicts in life can be solved with this basic premise: you can’t predict the future but God can. This brings up the uncomfortable option that there is no god; that only you can act to save anybody, especially yourself: it’s called free agency. There are no morals if there is no god. The reason someone is a hero for rescuing a life at the risk of his own is because there is no moral obligation to do so. A world without God or morals wouldn’t be much different than the one we have now where half the population wants the other half dead for simply sharing a different opinion than them. It’s certainly not the first time in history something like this has happened, and those wise enough to recognize it came up with the God & morals indoctrination to prevent it.

Tabula rasa, colloquially know as “blank slate,” is the idea of individuals are born without any mental predilections, so that all of their personality & morality comes from outside educational & sensory experiences; the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate. Proponents argue that humans are born without differing psychological traits and that all aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behavior, knowledge, or sapience are later imprinted by one's environment onto the mind as one would onto a wax tablet, hence tabula rasa. Only politics can explain why this obviously flawed argument continues to this day. Any parents who have had multiple children objectively know this idea is completely debunked; children are their own individual personalities from birth, and exhibit them in sometimes dramatic fashion: shy vs. outgoing, smart vs average, even happy vs. angsty. Twin studies suggest it must have something to do with differing DNA, but even twins show some differences. Though this evidence seems unassailable, the facade is maintained because totalitarianism is justified by the Left if people are a blank slate that are inherently equal in all ways, only molded by the patriarchy into inequality. Consequently, they are justified by the deduction that if people can be made into perfection then isn’t it society’s moral obligation to do so? That’s why they insist everyone must be equal.

The term “pro life” implies that living is the primary goal of its adherents, but that is demonstrably not accurate in that many Pro Lifers are accepting of the Death Penalty, going to war, and potentially dying in a car accident. If they could use this same moral flexibility on the view of a preborn life, then even if they believe that life begins at conception, at what point in the baby’s development does its life outweigh the autonomy of the mother? Obviously there’s some amount of judgment in that evaluation because those same people find it perfectly acceptable for a pregnant woman to drive. On the flip side, feminists want abortion on demand, regardless of the time, even after birth in the case the baby slipped out before it could be killed. There is a mentally ill portion of this cohort that brags about how many abortions they’ve had, and use abortion as their only form of birth control. For years, they used their personal liberty, “Pro Choice,” as cover for murdering a baby but they can no longer say, “My body, my choice,” because they hypocritically sided with mandatory vaccinations during the shamdemic. Now they simply say “Pro Abortion;” at least the non cognitive dissonance ones do.

The story of the Garden of Eden is confusing to children and adults alike: why were Adam and Eve so unceremoniously tossed out of paradise naked? Why was knowledge forbidden? One interpretation, Psalm 51:5 says "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Was it because they had sex? This interpretation caused a lot of angst-ridden Christian teenagers throughout history. But Romans 5:12–21 provides a cryptic but more accurate explanation: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” To understand this, you must see through the “sin” part and delve into what they were talking about: innocence. A child is innocent because it knows nothing, has no ambitions, and no comprehension of life. The wise men that wrote the Bible were using Eden as a metaphor for this naive & immature state of being. However, innocents, following their basic instincts, would rape, steal & murder their brethren, just as animals do. They would feel jealous, envious & resentful, which becomes malevolence, more so than animals. No societies can form because the innocent have no ambition to do anything but serve their primordial needs. To become productive members of society, innocents must eat the apple, which means be indoctrinated not to do these things, and what things to do instead. Jesus in the indoctrinator, thereby “saving” them. It actually all makes sense when explained so plainly, and makes me wonder why they didn’t just write it like that the first time?

Every child growing up in a Christian household learns to bless the food, pray before bedtime, and not use the lord’s name in vain. That last one is always confusing; not only is the sentence structure awkward but the word “vain” doesn’t seem to fit. As a kid, I certainly didn’t know what it meant, something to do with cursing. I’m know I’m not the only one who grew up feeling uncomfortable if I said the word “God” in any context. When I was a teenager and finally started cursing up a storm, I still couldn’t understand why that word should be special. After much consideration, it finally dawned on me that every adult who ever told me saying “God” was a curse word because it invoked him somehow was misinterpreting the commandment; that’s not what “Don’t take the lord’s name in vain,” means. It’s not about coarse language, that’s silly; it means don’t speak for God, as in claiming something is “God’s will” for your own personal reasons & benefit. If you have some difficulty in your life, God has nothing to do with it; there’s no predestination, as there are no prizes for doing the “right” thing. Often people who want something from you will often outright claim, that God wants you to do it. If someone is doing that, they are insinuating that they know what God wants, which implies they have some special connection to a power greater than you; it’s vanity & narcissism. Speaking for God is taking his name in vain. Curse all you want, God doesn’t care, but he might care if you claim to be reading his mind.

Unless trained not to be, people are born narcissistic; they will be envious, vain, self-centered, controlling, lustful & murderous. Society discourages these inclinations. A common mechanism society uses to propagandize its members is religion, for example, Christianity specifically targets these proclivities, which it terms “vices,” specifying virtues instead. But Christianity is more subtle & sublime; God is inserted above the individual; people would be ashamed but Jesus forgives them. Ritual is reassuring. The church hierarchy provides leadership. Sunday school and referencing the Bible reinforces the teachings. Tithing not only supports a dedicated clergy, but also gives a sense of value and proves commitment. Prayers are self-therapy; confession is group therapy; both protect mental health. Festivals give parishioners something to look forward to. The promise of an afterlife soothes the anxiety of death. Of course, like anything, religion can be exploited, but the teachings are its own safeguard. You don’t have to accept the imaginary, such as miracles, nor do you have to have faith; you can still reap the benefits of Christianity by practicing it, understanding what is artifice and what is substantive. Pray if you want, attend services if you want, tithe if you want. Don’t reject the whole premise because it’s shrouded in mysticism. Churches are full of people who ignore the bad to reap the good. A person who can’t do that, who thinks the whole shebang is perfect because it’s directly from God, those are what’s really wrong with religion.

Deep down, people are narcissists, and they will act in their own self-interest. Leaders throughout history have required something to keep their followers in line; the most successful has been religion. People can be motivated by many things: lust, avarice, anger; but all are topped by fear. Though the concept was cloaked in fealty. altruism & righteousness, at its essence, fear of an all-powerful god who would exact his vengeance if his commandments were not met, was used to control the populace. In these secular times, without the presence of an all-powerful god, something needed to serve in God’s fear-mongering place, bigger than any one person or group, that leaders could use to force everyone to comply. Obviously, something that threatened the existence of everyone, so that leaders could claim their actions were for the best; hence came the existential alarmism cults like climate change, institutionally implemented as ESG; and social justice, enforced by DEI departments everywhere. not because God said so, but because the world will become Fascist if everybody doesn’t do as they say. A wise & benign god has been replaced by the cynicism & authoritarianism of democracy.

Without an omniscient being watching your every move & listening to your thoughts, people have no supreme power over them; there’s no “Because God said so” refrain to keep them under control. Due to envy & resentment, no person can take the place of God, even if they were always right. It’s possible an A.I. can eventually serve in that role but it would have to be a monotheism, otherwise humanity would descend into wars arguing which A.I. was the true god. The only way this god thing works out is if everybody generally accepts there is some kind of god, even if it’s not their particular God. However, that’s no longer the case with increasing secularism. The problem with of a godless society is that something needs to serve that purpose. Governments are too provincial, even if there is only one superpower. Concepts & ideologies try to substitute for godliness but it’s the same problem that polytheism has. The question of what god comes down to: What does everybody in the world share? They share the world, of course. The god of everybody is called “Climate Change.” You can’t do this because of Climate Change; you’ve got to do that because of Climate Change. Climate Change has been the god for a few decades now, but that hobgoblin is wearing down due to endless missed predictions and evidence to the contrary such that even the NPCs are noticing. We need a new god or go back to the old one.

There’s a lot happening inside your brain that you don’t know about but should: 1. Perversity is the underlying motive of altruism. 2. The primary victims when a soldier is killed is not women. 3. The worst kind of aggression is the passive kind because it’s difficult to tell. 4. Because people are vain, they hate their betters. 5. No one is really altruistic; they’re doing it for something. 6. If you’ve ever been in love, you know oxytocin firsthand. 7. Everyone is a victim of something. 8. There’s a simple way to save society, if it was worth saving. 9. Personality disorders used to be rare; what happened? You may get your news somewhere else but take your advice from me, the Wysest Myn in the Wyrld.

Now that over half of young women have or have had a clinically-diagnosed mental health issue, it’s important to know the acronyms of the most common ones. The first 4 are from “Cluster B,” characterized by dramatic, impulsive, self-destructive, emotional behavior and incomprehensible interactions with others. HPD Histrionic personality disorder is characterized by a pattern of excessive attention-seeking behaviors, usually beginning in adolescence or early adulthood, including inappropriate seduction and an excessive desire for approval. They are lively, dramatic, vivacious, enthusiastic, extroverted, and flirtatious. BPD Borderline personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive, long-term pattern of significant interpersonal relationship instability, an acute fear of abandonment, and intense emotional outbursts. They frequently exhibit self-harming behaviors and engage in risky activities, primarily due to challenges regulating their emotions. NPD Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by a life-long pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with other people's feelings. They are extremely Machiavellian in their attitudes, and are controlling and manipulative. APD Antisocial personality disorder is defined by a chronic pattern of behavior that disregards the rights and well-being of others. They exhibit behavior that conflicts with social norms, leading to issues with interpersonal relationships, employment, and legal matters. The condition generally manifests in childhood or early adolescence, with a high rate of associated conduct problems and a tendency for symptoms to peak in late adolescence and early adulthood. APD (from “Cluster C”) Avoidant, or anxious, personality disorder is characterized by excessive social anxiety and inhibition, fear of intimacy, severe feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, and an over-reliance on avoidance of feared stimuli as a coping method. They display a pattern of extreme sensitivity to negative evaluation and rejection, a belief that one is socially inept or personally unappealing to others, and avoidance of social interaction despite a strong desire for it. All of these personality disorders are relatively common. It can be entertaining to try and diagnose them yourself when confronted by someone who is afflicted.

Society is currently failing, and even though our side, the patriarchy, is finally in the driver’s seat again, we haven’t won: the other side can publicly cheer on the assassination of our heroes with little or no accountability, and certainly no shame. When half of the population revels in the demise of the other half, that’s a sign of a society that is fundamentally ill. DEI is only halted for a while, and wokeness is one election from a full recovery. The matriarchy train is still going down the track and there are no U-turns ahead; it will soon go off a cliff. The solution is for every sane member of the patriarchy to convert at least 1 of the perversity people to come over to our side. Having tried to do that myself, it seems virtually impossible; people who derive their sense of self worth from demonizing other people, aren’t going to change their mind on facts alone. When a dog is misbehaving, it must be smacked down; simply talking to it isn’t going to change it’s learned behavior. Some people can do this with their voice alone but others need to add physical discomfort; taking away their access to a job, or education, or even a place to live, might change their minds. Let them experience cancel culture in reverse. When their arrogance is reduced to humility then it’s time to talk like mature adults. We all need a sense of urgency in this endeavor, and you have to keep thinking about it until you convert your 1 person, otherwise the cliff awaits...

Everyone thinks they’re a victim. It doesn’t matter what their position in life, whether or not they’re rich or poor, where they came from, what their religion is, what color they are, or how intelligent they may be. This is because everyone thinks they’re the center of the universe, and they can clearly see that they aren’t, that must mean somebody or something is working against them; hence victim. Self-aware people can cope with this realization but, nevertheless, they still think they’re a victim even if they accept it as sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you. The simple fact is, life is mostly a zero-sum gain, meaning that when one person “wins,” another, or many, lose. Yes, a raising tide lifts all ships so in that perspective, things can improve for everyone, but the blatant truth is, you’re going to be a loser in a lot more things than you win. If you’ve not been taught to accept that fact then a person’s natural inclination is to cast themselves as oppressed to someone else’s oppressor. We have an entire political party in America whose worldview is seen through the victim lens. Obviously, victimhood is psychological; two people in the exact same circumstances can see their role as diametric opposites. Since happiness comes from one interpretation while misery comes from the other, the choice of which to be is obvious.

There are two different kinds of aggression, though only the masculine manifestation, violence & threats, is socially acceptable to point out, prevent & punish. Passive aggression, where the words & demeanor of the person exhibiting it, usually females, are non-threatening, but often just as effective in accomplishing the intent to get somebody else to comply with their will. Passive aggression is everywhere: in the way things are worded, body language, rules that apply disproportionately to different people, lack of courtesy, tardiness, making promises that aren’t intended to be kept, disingenuous debate, and a host of other subtle slights that don’t quite rise to the level of a response by those being disrespected, but intended to manipulate the person or make them angry. Passive aggression is almost impossible to counter because it’s usually tacitly supported by others in the peer group who feel the same way, who also get a rise in status & dominance at the expense of the victim. Some people are adept at countering passive aggression with passive aggression, but the best defensive tactic is to extract oneself from the situation, noting the perpetrator as untrustworthy, someone to remain cautious of during any further interaction. Unfortunately, separating from the situation is often impossible, so becoming aware of when it’s happening, and taking it as a warning to be suspicious of detrimental ulterior motives is all you can do.

The major indicator that feminism is a farce is that women don’t want to be drafted; men don’t either but they are. When confronted with this obvious hypocrisy, feminists snap into cognitive dissonance, meaning their logic & priorities are subverted to make illogical arguments supporting the unsupportable. In some case, the things they say would be laughable if they weren’t so tragic; for example, in 1998, Hillary Clinton claimed that it’s women who suffer the most in war because of the potential for upheaval and loss of husbands & sons. Anyone not a feminist is immediately appalled that anyone could make such a preposterous claim: that it’s not men who suffer the most in conflict. Women have absolutely no concept of when they’re talking about physical conflict, especially resulting in violence & death. Another sign of Hillary’s callous misunderstanding of war was when, as Secretary of State, she engineered the fall of Maummar Gaddafi, leading to him being sodomized and murdered. After hearing that, she laughed gleefully and pridefully exclaimed, “We came, we saw, he died. Cackle, cackle, cackle.” Hillary is not an aberration: many military-age women in war zones are completely unsympathetic to the plight of men. Consider the recent war in Ukraine: the primary concern of the single women there is that it’s them that suffer because there’s an extreme shortage of dateable men without war injuries. At the same time, they shame men who don’t go to war. One notable quote from an article bemoaning the situation was a woman who said if she can’t find a man that met her standards at the clubs, she might as well go to Vienna and drink a glass of wine. This is while she was in Kiev, and it was being nightly bombed. If this was a singular example, or if Hillary could be excused as a psychopath, that would be bad enough, but combined with other examples, it seems to be simply another aspect of the narcissism of women.

Perversity is an unmentioned but primary component of human nature. It’s the major impetus of the Left, who hide behind a facade of altruism to mask their envy, resentment & malevolence; however, Charlie Kirk’s assassination put the Left’s schadenfreude on full display for all to see. The tens of thousands of people who reveled in his death publicly are dwarfed by the millions who secretly rejoiced. Perversity is part & parcel of socialism. Those who support it see government as their opportunity to spite the people who they consider as oppressors, mostly because throughout life, budding socialists were always the ones who came in the bottom half of a competition. Because socialism benefits the lower half of the population at the expense of the upper half, most advocates for stronger government, because it redistributes wealth, are socialists. Add to that, by and far, because people who work for government are making more money than their private sector counterparts with great healthcare & retirement, it makes them feel superior. It isn’t altruism they’re feeling towards the people they ostensibly are helping, it’s contempt. This comprehension of what the motivations of government workers actually are is obfuscated because if the truth were known, socialism would be illegal due to its treasonous underpinnings, and the people who support it exiled to Canada.

Everybody’s got a policy even if they don’t quite know what it is. 1. Propaganda is indoctrination by the other side. 2. Fentanyl isn’t the cause of the epidemic of death, it’s the result. 3. Anti-racism is the opposite of positive personal attributes. 4. Single, childless cat ladies may soon be the most populous kind. 5. The U.S. could do big business in exporting its criminals. 6. It’s remarkable anyone stays married. 7. Nationalism is socialism with flags. 8. Liberty requires capitalism even with all the warts. 9. Consumerism is voluntary slavery. You may get your news somewhere else but take your advice from me, the Wysest Myn in the Wyrld.

The discourse about consumerism is vague because even though it’s cast as something bad, everyone likes to buy stuff; they imagine consumerism is cheap TVs at Walmart. While that perception is not too far from reality, it doesn’t encompass the trade-offs, which are substantial, maybe existentially important to society. To understand the problem, you have to realize that society used to be worker-centric because workers were the backbone of an industrial economy. As the U.S., and West in general, became more about information & finance, workers lost much of their previous value, so much so that we changed to a consumer-centric society. The focus changed from economic security for workers to cheaper goods for consumers. It’s humorously, but insightfully, been said that we buy things we don’t need with money we don’t have to impress people we don’t know. The people selling us those things don’t care about their customers any more than how to instill the desire to buy their product, using whatever means possible, be it subconscious, hypnotic or fear of missing out; and financiers don’t care about anything but increasing their already great concentrated wealth. They want monthly payments forever, as high as possible, no matter the burden it places on the regular people who owe them. Consumerism is the perfection of slavery because it achieves what the Elites want, control, and the masses are unwilling to rebel because they can’t go without a bigger TV.

America was founded on the idea of free market economics; the idea that through hard work and commerce, people could exchange what they made for what others made to the benefit of all. Free markets don’t require capitalism to operate; it’s more a convenience & magnifier, based on the concept of imaginary money, capital, which is obviously how it gets its name. Workers receive wages which they consume. In most cases, workers, the actual producers, don’t have any capital, they live day-to-day, hopefully putting away something for the future. On the other hand, capitalists, who don’t produce anything, simply receive gains on their capital so the reality of compounding naturally causes concentration & stratification of wealth, and the more imaginary money there is, the worse it gets. With this kind of guaranteed outcome from capitalism, it may seem that getting rid of it would be a good idea, which is where communism gets a foothold. However, as bad as the side effects of capitalism are, it’s still required for free markets to work. Assume everyone received an egg a day as payment. Eggs are delicate and easily broken. If there was no reward for risking your egg, you wouldn’t because you might go hungry; capitalism is the enticement for risking your egg. So it’s not capitalism per se, it’s the excesses of capitalism that are causing the problems, and those are simple to solve via wealth confiscation, though that hasn’t proven to be easy because with great wealth comes great power, and power doesn’t want its wealth taken.

The word “nationalist” is thrown around a lot by the Left as a pejorative. It doesn’t resonate as much as calling people you don’t agree with a “Fascist,” but has the same vibe because nationalism is part of Fascism, as much as socialism is, hence the word “Nazi” derived from combining the two words in German. Nationalism is a very insidious form of socialism because at first they seem opposite of one another, when in reality, nationalism is the same thing but wrapped in a flag. Some people in the U.S. might even consider themselves nationalists because they conflate it with patriotism. They can be lauded for their intent because patriotism is an essential part of liberty, but nationalism is not compatible with liberty. Nationalism is country first, meaning that people would be forced to do what’s in the best interest of the state, which could conflict with their personal liberty. In the extreme case, where everyone’s liberty is threatened, as in the case of war, the state’s need may be paramount. However, short of war, the state should not interfere with the personal autonomy of its population except in instances that create the most liberty for the most people. Unfortunately, since most people don’t actually know what liberty is: making decisions for yourself and reaping the rewards or suffering the consequences, they’re not aware that nationalism interferes with that.

The underlying cause of divorce due to infidelity in the U.S. is approximately 90%. The divorce rate is approximately 50%. Assuming that only a third of infidelity is actually discovered, that would mean virtually every marriage has had at least one partner cheat over its duration. 70% of all divorces are instigated by women. If they have a college degree, then the number is 90%. It’s the inverse for men because only the top 10% of men have the opportunity to cheat, which means that virtual all men who can cheat, do cheat, but the vast majority of men do not, which means it’s primarily their wives who are doing the cheating. 10% of the time, a married woman cheats during “girls night out.” Only the top 10% of women get approached to cheat; that means virtually every attractive woman has cheated after a dozen girls nights. Any woman will cheat given the right time, place & opportunity. Since every attractive woman is approached when the time & place are right, meaning they are without their husband at a place with men, even a woman who would never imagine she would cheat, even with 1000 to 1 odds, will cheat over the course of 1000 approaches. There is no such thing as a woman having a platonic hetero male friend: if she offered him sex, he would enthusiastically take it. It’s remarkable that anybody remains married?

Everyone knows that Australia started out as a penal colony where offenders were unloaded and left to their own devices. It wasn’t someplace civilized people would want to live but for the kind of people shipped there, it was perfect. That kind of environment exists in several countries today, notably Haiti. There’s an excellent case to be made that long-term prisoners from the U.S. should be sent there. It’s not a unique idea, the cult classic movie “Escape From New York” represents exactly that scenario. It seems inhumane but no one can quite express exactly why? It would be a dog-eat-dog environment but many, perhaps all of those incarcerated would chose it if the offer was made. Being free in a war zone is better than being incarcerated in one, which is what prison is. The homosexual sex aspect alone would force most men to take any opportunity out, and everybody would benefit: Haiti would reverse its brain drain where anyone intelligent enough emigrates, the prisoners would be able to build a new life, albeit a brutal one, and it would export the worst people from polite society, as well as saving the government a lot of money, but no politician ever talks about it. Why not? What voting constituent would they be losing? Perhaps the problem is Haiti doesn’t want any more hardened criminals?

J.D. Vance told Tucker Carlson for all the world to hear: “The U.S. is being run by a bunch of single, childless cat ladies, who are miserable and want to make everyone else miserable too.” The truism slapped feminists in face because the shoe fits. Projections are, by 2030, half of women will be single & childless. This is something they chose: a lot of women would rather not have a husband or children because of the burden it would put on their life goals and them personally. Even a lot of the women who do get married would rather raise their kids alone than continue to provide sex, sandwiches & submission to their husbands, and a lot get divorced to not have to give those things, yet still be supported by him. 70% of single women are Democrats. 90% of the people on Welfare are single women. They are nuns to the government; the state is essentially their life partner, substituting for a husband & family. That’s why the goals of Democrats all seem to be at the expense of men for the benefit of women, which is the reason they are inordinately afraid of Trump because, in essence, he becomes their abusive spouse; at least in their perception, because they fear he will make them accountable for their own actions. From a purely cynical & selfish point of view, they are coming to a logical decision. The only way to stop this corrosion of society is to again indoctrinate girls to be wives and not cat ladies.

Most white people don’t like being called names, and they certainly don’t like being accused of “White privilege,” because it’s insulting by diminishing their real accomplishments, but it’s true. There is White privilege because there is White Supremacy. White Supremacy is thinking the value system of Whites is superior to those of other cultures. We know that’s true by how well we’re doing: most grew up in loving homes with stable schools and helpful extended families, at least to some extent. Even the worst of White households are better than living in Sub Saharan Africa, for example. Maybe calling that a privilege is going too far but it’s definitely a positive thing that other races don’t have. White Supremacy includes merit, honesty & integrity, among other admirable traits like punctuality, conscientiousness & responsibility. In today’s heated political rhetoric, that list of things would be considered “racist.” This implies that “anti-racist” is lying, cheating and most forms of chicanery. In fact, from watching the tactics of the Left, that’s probably the case, which is why all the things the Left does seem evil: because they are evil in comparison, at least by White supremacist standards. The Right believes anyone can become a White supremacist because it has nothing to do with the color of your skin or where your ancestors came from; it’s all about how you act.

Fentanyl is synthetic heroin. It was created in the 1950s but only became popular when legal access to morphine, like codeine, was restricted a decade ago. Oxycontin was a scam propagated by Purdue Pharma, controlled by the Sackler family, who became inordinately wealthy at the expense of society. It was criminalized and when addicts could no longer get those relatively safe drugs, they switched to readily available fentanyl, and overdose deaths skyrocketed. As usual, the law of unintended consequences was worse than the solution. From a moral perspective, the Sackler’s can be held indirectly responsible for those deaths too. Why are these drugs even popular? The industry claims they alleviate pain, and that’s true, but recreational use, as it’s called, dwarfs legitimate utility. People, especially men who have given up on life, have always used drugs as an escape, but never with the availability & deadliness of fentanyl, approaching 80K deaths/year, and substantially more overdoses prevented by quick administration of epinephrine via an emergency “EpiPen.” Contrary to political posturing, fentanyl is manufactured in and distributed from Mexico, with some ingredients from China, but if those weren’t available, there’s plenty of other sources. The problem isn’t who sends it here, the problem is why people take it, and if they’re going to take it no matter what , why no supervision like with methadone clinics?

People can be easily brainwashed. For example, many have been convinced that an invisible man lives in the sky, or that a changing climate is an existential threat; if it’s said enough times by authority figures with no countervailing message. Even with the presence of a competing idea, one with superior logic & merit, once the indoctrination window is past, there is no changing anyone’s mind. That’s why elections are always so even; no matter what happens to either side, however much good or terrible, it won’t change anything. This is certainly a huge weakness of democracy, possibly a fatal one, and something the propagandists understand; getting their message across during the formative period; for children that would be public school, or adults, that would be their introduction to a new concept. The Left has recognized this basic fact for decades, while the Right remains blindly docile while it happens to their own kids. That’s because the Right believes in live & left live, at least as long as it’s not pushed into their faces. However, the base emotions of envy, resentment, exploitation & narcissism, something the Left is susceptible to, keeps them from simply minding their own business, rather than proselytizing their message to vulnerable listeners, utilizing propaganda to mold & control the public zeitgeist. At first glace, it seems all bad, but there is a difficult conundrum because only brainwashing can suppress people from acting on their base emotions, so it’s not something that can be ignored. The Right must fight propaganda with propaganda.

Most people shy away, but we’ve been talking about solutions: 1. Most problems have simple solutions, but they’re not easy. 2. The National Debt is simple to fix because it’s only imaginary. 3. Going back to the old values will prevent societal collapse, but we can’t. 4. The problems in the Middle East can be said in a single word: Zionism. 5. Better incentives can prevent abortion. 6. People should marry younger, not older. 7. There are more reasons to get divorced than not to. 8. Inflation comes the same people accumulating all the imaginary money. 9. Just in time, robots are here to fix everything. You may get your news somewhere else but take your advice from me, the Wysest Myn in the Wyrld.

It seems miraculous that just as humanity is hitting a breaking point of declining population, technology rushes in to solve the problem. However, the obvious solution of simply making more babies is not one technology can solve; that’s societal. Women make good office workers so business wants them. Femininity, motherhood, gets in the way of that so the powers-that-be have repressed it. To encourage families requires encouraging customs, culture & tradition, and all of those things are going the wrong direction. The solution is to replace the productivity that a lack of people causes, and what is it that technology is bringing us in the nick of time? Robots. Declining productivity due to declining population is an existential threat to society but robots will fix it. With robots, business will have another cheaper source of mindless drones, which will leave women alone to go back to their natural state of femininity. The decline of personal relationships is also an existential threat to humanity and robots will fix that too by being substitute partners, both emotionally & physically. The world that’s coming will be unrecognizable to how life used to be, as life now would be to the Romans, except this time it’s only going to take 2 decades rather than 2 millennia.

Inflation occurs when consumption exceeds production. The lethal end result of capitalism is wealth concentration. It’s always a problem but it becomes infinitely more so when government creates unlimited amounts of imaginary money because all that new money will likewise concentrate to the same small number of people. Right now, there’s almost 4 times as much money as there are real things to buy. Having more money than there are things causes inflation when ultra wealthy people try to turn their imagination into reality. For example, high housing prices are a direct result of people having so much money they don’t have anything else to do with it, so to get even more imaginary money, they buy assets to run up the value of their portfolio. The simple solution is to not let this happen. Wealth concentration itself should be discouraged, but at the very least, denying a productive member of society their essential needs is a kind of extortion, and has to be stopped. First, don’t allow corporations to hold money but instead pay dividends, then tax the recipients at high progressive tax rates. Make it so that greed is discouraged and altruism is encouraged. This has worked in the past and didn’t get abandoned until the second half of the 20th-century. Also like the past, there needs to be progressive death taxes, but it won’t be easy because the one thing almost everyone agrees on is that they want to create a dynasty for their heirs, causing inflation for the rest of us.

The truth is, men & women don’t really like each other very much, and whatever testosterone does to make a man protective and desiring to serve his family, puts him at the mercy of a woman who would exploit those attributes. Women have 3 powers: sexual, victimhood & chivalry; which makes them invincible. Throughout history, they have used these weaknesses of men to control them. The world isn’t a patriarchy run by men so much as a patriarchy run by women. Unfortunately, more and more women are exploiting men at the expense of marriage. The simple fact is, men are in love and women are in business. Like a business, they’ll stay in their job if the cost of leaving is greater than the value of staying, but if a tempting offer comes along, they’ll take it. A man will sacrifice himself for his family but a woman will sacrifice her family for herself. The second most important piece of marriage advice is for women to be subservient to your husband. This demand is universally condemned among feminists but that’s at the expense of a happy marriage. A women should never put a career or her own wants over the needs of her husband, and certainly not her family. A woman like that probably shouldn’t even get married. There’s a clever rhyme that exemplifies this requirement: If you can’t be corrected, you can’t be directed, and if you can’t be directed, you can’t be protected, and if you can’t be protected, you can’t be respected. And if you can’t be respected, you can’t be selected. Men need relief from this in the form of changes in the law and societal expectations. The solution to divorce is men’s liberation.

The most important marriage advice anyone can give is: marry young. Because of the pressures and costs of marriage, that may not be possible, but every year that goes by of being single, people get more confident and set in their ways. If the goal was to find a life partner to grow up with, how much can you do that if you’ve both already grown up? Plus, very young women have a low body count, and young men still fall in love, the crush kind where all they can think about is being with their beloved. While in this state, a man wants to get married, and he thinks his woman feels like he does. That’s probably how evolution got men to marry in the first place, but it goes away quickly and is gone by age 25. Women control access to sex and men control access to marriage, so a young woman can use her control at that stage to entice a man to marry her, but it only works until a man is mature enough to find he can get plenty of sex without commitment; that’s the curse of dating in the modern age. The problem is, women don’t want to spend their youth on motherhood so they don’t use the short window of time when they have all the cards; they would rather live the exciting life of attention, travel & sexual adventure during that time. So, even though the marriage problem is a simple one, it is not easy because the same immaturity that causes puppy love also offers the temptations of narcissism.

Abortion is the simplest but almost impossible to fix problem because people are going to have unprotected sex, pregnancy is difficult & inconvenient; plus women lose control over their lives if they have a baby. However, there is a path to go down that doesn’t involve demanding virginity or shaming women in awkward circumstances. First, virginity can be definitional; for example, if men want a virgin bride, even into their late twenties, define virginity as no vaginal intercourse. Couples could still engage in plenty of sex. Mormon girls, Catholic girls & certainly Islamic girls have been using the so-called poophole loophole for centuries but it could be made completely acceptable, promoted even. The difficulty would be instilling the self-restraint not to go all the way. This practice would naturally reduce the amount of abortions but inevitably, there would still be unwanted pregnancies. Luckily, there’s no longer a stigma attached to having children out of wedlock. In fact, in some communities, most children are already born that way, and it also helps reduce population decline. To additionally help solve that problem, simply pay the women to carry the baby to term then put it up for adoption for all the couples waiting for a child to become available. This won’t be easy because society has an aversion to selling people, environmentalists actually encourage population decline, women don’t want any restrictions placed on them, and there’s a large abortion industry making money from the practice.

The Middle East has been a hotbed of war & controversy since I was old enough to pay attention. The reason for it isn’t because Arabs or Persians or Egyptians or any of the people who have lived there for millennia are warlike and uncivilized; no, it’s because of newcomer usurper Jews, so-called Zionists, who think that land is theirs because God said so. Of course, they couldn’t force their will on all of those nations without almost unlimited assistance from the United States. The question is why, and the answer is simple: because Christians in America are indoctrinated to do so. I know this because I was raised Mormon with teachings from the bible as a big part of my cultural narrative. Mormons are wannabe Jews, all of them think they’re descendants from one of the lost 10 tribes, and we were going to be saved in the last days, not burned like all the goy. I grew out of that self-centered narcissism but most Mormons don’t, and certainly real Jews think like that. There’s a reason, Jews control pornography, gambling, money lending, and all the other things proscribed in the Bible, not because they engage in those things themselves, they know it’s bad for society, but because it’s not them who are affected, it’s the goyim who are considered little more than cattle. Knowing this, it’s simple to fix the problems in the Middle East, stop unwavering U.S. support of Israel, but Christian Zionism & Elitism combined with unfettered campaign contributions, make it the least easy thing possible.

Let's review the concepts around Universal healthcare <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The problems with healthcare are equal parts demagoguery & monopoly.</p> </li> <li> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The inequity of Obamacare is that it puts the burden for The Poor on the Middle Class.</p> </li> <li> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The irony of Universal healthcare is that the Middle Class will have less of it.</p> </li> <li> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">A quick healthcare fix would to be add a Medicare For Anyone option.</p> </li> <li> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Hospitals should become Primary care providers.</p> </li> <li> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The VA never “failed,” its exploitation was simply exposed.</p> </li> <li> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Britain's National Health Service is a great model for the U.S.</p> </li> <li> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Lowering healthcare costs requires a dagger right in the heart of Capitalism & unions.</p> </li> </ol> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">You may get your news somewhere else but take your advice from me, the Wysest Myn in the Wyrld.</p>

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">It seems unlikely that the solution to lowering the cost of universal healthcare can come through politics, there are simply too many players: doctors, insurers, unions & entrepreneurs, who are complicit in the status quo, as proven by the Obamacare debacle. The reason Obamacare doesn't do cost containment is because the Insurance & Healthcare industries did not want it to; they're the ones who get the money, and they're the ones who run up the costs. But don't just blame self-interested business & unions; patients who expect the best of everything for nothing is a significant part of the problem.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />Socializing healthcare would be the best solution with its top-down cost containment; it's worked in other countries, and Medicare is already doing it. A Capitalist solution has not been forthcoming for the simple reason that healthcare is not a voluntary commodity; though not technically monopolistic, traditional market pressures do not apply. Liability issues are also unreasonably avaricious, both on the side of plaintiff attorneys & the insurance companies. And unions use the rhetoric of fairness but their reality is as exploitative as any of the other pigs at the trough.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In the meantime, here is a fait accompli healthcare cost containment strategy: first, make Clinic nonprofit & encourage volunteerism; second, advertise set prices that include everything, including labs & devices; third, frustrate liability claims using legal artifices; forth, prevent unionization; and, most importantly, fly under the radar of vested interests. If it could become fashionable to use “organic” healthcare, perhaps it might just catch on?</p>

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The National Health Service, or NHS, is Britain's socialized healthcare. The NHS serves 60% of Britain's population via General Fund taxes, meaning there is no Payroll tax. The buildings are not glass monuments to medicine, but instead plain & unobtrusive, in the local neighborhood where patients can walk to them. Trucks with the specialized equipment, like MRIs, come around to the clinics on scheduled days, so everything is available. Everyone within the clinic's radius is assumed to be a patient, and annual patient contact is automated. All-in-all, the people who use it love it.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">My wife & I used the NHS for a year while I studied medicine in Newcastle, England, going to the local clinic several times so I have a feel for what it's like. For example, I received a postcard telling me to come in for an annual checkup: I walked. My clinic was a refurbished brick building from the early 20<sup><font size="2">th</font></sup> Century, homey & non-threatening. For starters, contrary to how it's portrayed in the U.S., there are no significant wait times, maybe 10 minutes. The examination was prompt, professional & efficient; I was out within a half hour. During my visits, I paid close attention to how things worked; what was right, and what was wrong. My conclusion: we need look no further for a model of how the U.S. should operate healthcare. The big question is: are Americans too egotistical for low-key, no fuss, utilitarian healthcare?</p>