Author Archives: electricangel

About electricangel

Sinister, brilliant, reactionary.

Modern Marketing and the Church

Been reading through the Marketing Bullets of Gary Bencivenga. He’s an advertising genius, but let’s not assign him to the camp of Satan just for that reason. As a Thomist, I believe the the Truth is indivisible, and that we can find it in many places. The Bible, certainly, but not every truth is in there. So it’s always a pleasure to come across something that speaks to elemental human nature. It’s something that advertisers use to sell more stuff, but Christians also need to recognize this underlying human truth.

In Bullet #7, Bencivenga asks:

What Is Effective Advertising Anyway?

He comes up with the following:

So there really are few new ideas under the sun.

And that brings me back to something else John Caples said. He defined effective advertising as, “A believable promise to the right audience.” Far too many copywriters and marketers focus on just the promise (the flashy, fun part), and ignore the more demanding challenge of building belief. But without belief, nobody buys.

Please mull that over again, slowly enough to let it seep into your marketing memory.

Without belief, nobody buys.

OK, you have my attention, Gary. Hit me with the money quote!

Remember this always—

Almost everyone in the world, in every field of human endeavor, is desperately searching for someone to believe in. Be that person and you can write your own ticket.

This is the same pathway the Devil uses. It is not inherently good or evil, but when filled with the Spirit, with the Lord, it serves its intended purpose. Bencivenga, of course, sees another role:

Because the hunger for belief is so vast in every market, so deep-seated in human nature itself, you can tap into it again and again—infinitely—to make yourself and your clients rich.

Better he should pile up his treasure in Heaven, but it’s nice to see the underpinning of faith recognized.


Posted by on July 13, 2015 in Uncategorized


The Good News: Christian Oppression will increase

It seems like oppression, but it will be fire that purifies. It also indicates that the “sensate” culture of the West (more on that next week) has started to digest itself and will soon vomit and collapse. There will be a need for an “ideate” culture to replace it. So there will be a major opportunity for a religion to establish that in the next 50-100 years. I’m rooting for Christianity, the more trinitarian, the better.

These thoughts are prompted by reading William Anderson’s column on how horrible the oppression is going to be. A couple of excerpts:

In the aftermath of Obergefell, President Obama himself has called for Christian churches and organizations to change their doctrines regarding homosexuality as Hillary Clinton has demanded that adherents to religions that don’t support abortion on demand change their “long-held beliefs.” Commentators in Time and other publications have demanded that churches and religious organizations that don’t support homosexual marriage be stripped of their tax-exempt status, and Obama’s solicitor general in the Supreme Court hearing this year admitted that the government, should the court rule in favor of gay marriage, will most likely move against Christian organizations.

What does that mean? It means that the U.S. and various state and local governments will determine which Christian doctrines are de facto legal and which will be deemed illegal, and any individuals and organizations practicing those doctrines that are unapproved will find themselves facing harassment. I hesitate to use the word “persecution” because much of the harassment will be mild compared to what Christians in other countries (especially in places like Saudi Arabia and North Korea and Iran) are facing. So far, the U.S. Government does not seem hellbent on throwing Christians into prison or executing them, although I am sure there are plenty of factions on the Left that would champion such extreme measures.

But it was a comment that I really appreciated, and so I capture it here. Bruce Majors points out the hypocrisy of Progressives:

The problem is not really gays or Christians. It’s the fascist civil right paradigm of forced association that has left its original intended beneficiaries, black Americans, with high levels of poverty, unemployment, crime, illiteracy, health problems, infant mortality etc etc. But it makes people like Gil feel good and gives them 6 and 7 figure jobs as lobbyists and presidential appointees as paper pushers in the EOE/Fair Housing bureaucracies, so that they can afford to wave rainbow flags and cheer the first black President from the balcony of their new Loft condo built on property seized from working class black people by eminent domain.

Go Bruce! He’s right, of course, and the gay/black schism in the Progressive coalition is open for exploitation. Hmmm, 3% of the population versus 13%, highly religious at that. We live in interesting times. Should the Federal state collapse, as in the Western Roman Empire, you can expect a RISE in living standards for those not connected to the Federal teat.


Posted by on July 6, 2015 in Uncategorized


Time to move to Bulgaria

There’s a surprisingly reactionary article over at the New York Times. Any time an article starts off with “THIS is a strange moment for sex in America. We’ve detached it from pregnancy, matrimony and, in some circles, romance.” you know that something has gone awry in the order of the universe. What, O Progressive, is “strange” about detaching sex from the entire context in which Christian and Orthodox Jewish society have held it for so long?

We continue:

Is a person guilty of sexual misconduct if he fails to get a clear “yes” through every step of seduction and consummation?… According to the doctrine of affirmative consent — the “yes means yes” rule — the answer is, well, yes, he is. And though most people think of “yes means yes” as strictly for college students, it is actually poised to become the law of the land.

Uh-oh. Like Woodrow Wilson, Political Correctness, the Antioch College Rape Rules, and Microagressions, a new plague has been brewing in Academe, ready to sicken the world. Perhaps it’s time to pay attention.

Thankfully, there are those ready to use humor and absurdity to fight this before it becomes law. An example in the article follows:

In a memo that has now been signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).”

Well, some things are too far, even for the far-gone Progressives at the New York Times. Some excellent sample comments. From Jonathan Katz:

If only 1–5% percent of actual violent rapes are prosecuted, these people should devote their attention to increasing that to a more appropriate fraction, something approaching 100%, and not criminalize ordinary and harmless behavior like reaching out to touch someone’s hand.

Think of the possibilities for extortion: “You didn’t ask permission to kiss me on the cheek. Pay $XXX,XXX or I’ll file a criminal complaint and you will go to jail, lose your job even if acquitted, etc.”

From AJ, demonstrating WHY Christians should keep their kids out of most colleges:

My daughter who is 18 agrees with you. Her sweet boyfriend had the necessity for affirmative consent drilled into him by his parents who are college professors. Although I as a parent am all for it, she reported to me that she finally told him ” look this is too weird. I’ll tell you when something isn’t ok.”

From Siobhan, whose anti-Boomer-hypocrisy comment was highlighted by the Times:

Boomer women were the first generation of young women to be able to have sex without fear of pregnancy (the pill). But the young men they had sex with were largely controlled by the old rules.

Hook up culture changed all that. And it was boomer women who largely encouraged this culture–by encouraging their college-going daughters to not get involved in relationships, but instead have “free sex” while focusing on their studies. And claiming that women could and should have “meaningless sex” as easily as men.

This has left young women vulnerable to sex without rules, often longing for relationships that don’t exist, using “meaningless sex” as a way to get close to a young man. And it has left young men with a seemingly endless supply of young women encouraged to have meaningless sex while hoping for more.

So we come to this–these insane laws. Where, on the one hand, sex means nothing, and on the other, someone could potentially be jailed and labeled a sex offender for holding hands without permission.

We need some kinds of rules again–but rules determined by the young men and women who are being affected. Not by boomers with agendas.

(Honorary Patriactionary is Siobhan, methinks)

Kate sounds like a feminist with sons:

Having high school and college age students, I now hear of many situations where young men’s lives are being destroyed because the girl’s word is taken as fact, when there were two parties involved and maybe things went a bit too far, but it was not rape. Rape is fearing for one’s life. Rape is a crime of meditated violence and forcing of one’s will over another. Rape is feeling so hopeless that this other person might kill you if you do not allow them to overtake you.

Lizzie8484 notices that greater “freedom” for homosexuals is tied up with a police state for the rest of us:

Finally, gay people can get married and everyone else (the unmarried, I mean) gets to become a monk or a nun (before becoming a full-fledged criminal on the sex assaulter list), whether we want to or not. This is sickening. I had hoped the brainwashed young college women who are turned off of sex by the anti-rape brigade (who have turned a hand hold into an assault) would get out of college and grow up. Does not seem likely.

Josh Hill notices that the laws represent anarcho-tyranny:

I think these laws will have little effect on the actual perpetrators of these crimes, who, after all, use drugs, threats, or force to get their way and so are guilty of rape under the current definitions.

Juries will rightly reject most cases brought under these criteria but an unscrupulous prosecutor could nevertheless use the possibility of conviction as a bludgeon to force a guilty plea, with terrible consequences for the defendant.

These laws target the innocent while leaving the actual rapists as free as they ever were to continue their abuse.

Richard notes that the analogy used by an advocate for the law is wrong:

‘As long as “people know what the rules of the road are,” he says, “the overwhelming majority will comply with them.”’

What country has Prof. Schulhofer been living in? People well know the traffic law (we can imagine, at least), few comply.

(I would add: the overwhelming majority do NOT comply with speed limit laws. They’re not there to protect, but to mulct.)

Greg Shenaut poses the reductio ad masturbam:

I wonder if it’s necessary under affirmative consent to say “Yes, I consent” out loud before masturbating.

My favorite comment comes from “lavn” of Bulgaria. When Bulgarians make more sense than Americans, it’s game over for the Progressive Great-Satan World-Bestriding Colossus:

Thanks god I don’t live in the US. You people are on fast track to becoming the laughing stocks of humanity. Apparently your law cast is under the impression that you are all at the mental level of third grader that needs clear instructions for even going to the toilet. Here is my suggestion, there should be a highly trained lawyer embedded next to every American citizen 24/7 to help him navigate modern life’s many challenges like kissing a girl or going shopping.

What is going on here is simple to see: Progressivism is fine when it targets the “bad” people, like ones who don’t like to bake cakes for gay weddings (or, in that case, not). When it starts to target either the children of the Progressive elite (see concerns in comments above, and in story), or retroactively convict lascivious Progressive Boomer men of rape (which they would frankly all be guilty of under the proposed law), or threaten to end the I-Am-Charlotte-Simmons despoliation of young men and women, then that law has no chance of passing.

Antioch College was SO Progressive that they spent their endowment to nothing and went out of business. The same would happen to any country that tried to implement its rules, so perfectly spoofed on Saturday Night Live. You can stop worrying about “yes means yes” on a national level. The Devil cannot abide mocking, and the hand-holding sexual assault has mocked him something fierce.

Addendum: Two more comments worthy of inclusion. BlixKrogg says:

Sociologists and gender studies academics have been filling the heads of students with misconstrued data and easily falsifiable arguments for decades and they’ve brought their insufferable propaganda into schools, teaching kids in elementary school – before their hormones kick in – about sex and gender. It’s no wonder undergraduates are going to be rewriting laws in ways that completely go counter to Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, a code of laws which has been the foundation of laws for millennia.

As a Democrat, I always laughed at conservatives when they freaked out about what is being taught in schools. After witnessing radical feminists make their arguments, I totally understand it all now.

(emphasis added, and welcome to the Dark Enlightenment, BlixKrogg)

And, lastly, note who is now a Manosphere ally in fighting ridiculous feminist laws: Spinsters. As Liz writesSeriously? As if I don’t have enough problems trying to find a partner in my forties. Affirmative consent sounds like the ultimate wet blanket.


Posted by on June 29, 2015 in Uncategorized


Obsolete Language

When you want a sense of how rapidly things change, it helps to read the New York Times. Especially the times of over 40 years ago, when titles like “Miss” were used. The Times will no longer use the title “Mrs.” to refer to women, even married ones.

More interesting is this story in the paper about the first homosexual “marriage,” undertaken in 1971. Some cherce tidbits:

In 2013, when the Minnesota Legislature authorized same-sex marriage and a state senator announced, “Today, love wins,” Mr. McConnell watched, enthralled, from the gallery. But the couple did not join the rush for an undisputed license.

“No,” Mr. Baker said, pounding an oak table in their living room. “To reapply now becomes an admission that what we did was not legal, and I will never admit that.”

Hmmm. What did they do that might not have been “legal?”

Mr. Baker, meanwhile, had devised a roundabout way to get married. First, Mr. McConnell legally adopted him, which gave them inheritance and other legal protections. At the same time, Mr. Baker changed his name to the gender-neutral Pat Lyn McConnell, though he continued as Jack Baker in public.

They went to stay with friends in Blue Earth County, to the southwest, where Mr. McConnell applied for and received a marriage license from an unsuspecting clerk, who did not know about the legal adoption. They wed on Sept. 3, 1971, in Minneapolis.

So, to get this straight. (Oh, wait, we CERTAINLY don’t want to do that…) Mr. McConnell married his own legally adopted child?

But leave that by the wayside. Peer through a lens at what people without the threat of retribution said and did over 40 years ago.

When they presented their challenge to the Minnesota Supreme Court, one of the justices turned his chair around in contempt. The court declared, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the Book of Genesis.”

In 1970, after the publicity about the couple’s marriage application, the University of Minnesota regents rescinded Mr. McConnell’s job offer. …

Devastated, he sued in federal court but ultimately lost; the appeals court admonished him for trying to “foist tacit approval of this socially repugnant concept upon his employer.”

In Look magazine’s Jan. 26, 1971, issue on “The American Family,” they were featured as “The Homosexual Couple.”
“Some homosexuals — a minority — live together in stable, often long-lasting relationships, like Baker’s and McConnell’s,” the article said.

Yeah, that is completely changed now. “79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers…”

I never thought I would miss the 70s, or consider 1971 to be a time of sanity.


Posted by on May 19, 2015 in Uncategorized


Think the 50s were a Golden Age? The spores of rot were already present

They just took a little while to grow. While reading reviews on a book on usury, I elected to read the comments on the most popular review. You find the most amazing things on teh interwebz.

The 1950s were not fantastic: The culture was awash in Freudian quackery at all levels, Blank Slatist nonsense went virtually unchallenged among the elite and secular hedonist consumerism clearly dominated over any other worldview.

In addition, the Frankfurt School’s The Authoritarian Personality attacked Christianity, the traditional family and called for a preemptive “denazification” program to reeducate the American goyim-it was highly successful. Social democrat Christopher Lasch argued that by equating mental health with left-wing politics and associating right-wing politics with an invented “authoritarian” pathology, the book’s goal was to eliminate antisemitism by “subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy-by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.”

Neo-Spenglerian Francis Parker Yockey writing in 1948! 1948! 1948! :

“The message of Hollywood is the total, significance of the isolated individual, stateless and rootless, outside of society and family, whose life is the pursuit of money and erotic pleasure. It is not the normal and healthy love of man and wife bound together by many children that Hollywood preaches, but a diseased erotic-for-its-own sake, the sexual love of two grains of human sand, superficial and impermanent. Before this highest of all Hollywood’s values everything else must stand aside: marriage, honor, duty, patriotism, sternness dedication to self to a higher aim. This ghastly distortion of sexual life has created the erotomania that obsesses millions of victims in America, and which has now been brought to the Mother-soil of Europe by the American invasion.”

“Hollywood-feminism has created a woman who is no longer a woman but cannot be a man, and a man who is devirilized into an indeterminate thing. The name given to this process is “the setting free” of woman and it is done in the name of “happiness,” the magic word of the liberal-communist-democratic doctrine.”

Now, this is clearly un-precedented. No one else made these sorts of observations in the late 40s. Oh, wait: as we blogged 30 months ago, Sayyid Qutb wrote in The America I Have Seen that:

“The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she knows all this and does not hide it…Then she adds to all this the fetching laugh, the naked looks, and the bold moves, and she does not ignore this for one moment or forget it!” …

The gender roles have become muddled and women no longer fulfill their obligation to be dedicated mothers on both the physical and spiritual levels. Instead, he argues, women have dedicated themselves to work. They view dedicated motherhood as squandering their talents and abilities. Qutb points to this concept as a manifestation of the backward materialist values of Western society, where “material production is regarded as more important, more valuable and more honorable than the development of human character.” …

Qutb identified the gaining acceptance of homosexuality as another example of the animalistic sexual permissiveness that typifies Western society. Due to this permissiveness, Qutb asserts that the Western family has become impotent as a positive moral force.

The rot was noticed by astute observers, long before it became undeniable. Perhaps, like the original review on the book on usury would suggest, the rot began when usury was no longer a sin, and a usurious society set about unleashing a whole host of other sins. If so, we have a LOT of work in front of us.


Posted by on December 31, 2014 in Uncategorized


Moving beyond the horror

One of the horrible things about the Red Pill is the recognition that women are not the sinless creatures that Victorian mythology might lead us to believe. If you come from a TradCon background, recognizing that your faith has not prepared you to see that women are as subject to original sin as you are (but that these effects work differently in different sexes) can become quite the shock. The first reaction, and it is a natural one, is to condemn the sinner. I found just such a reaction over at Dalrock’s place, from commenter Gottlieb’s Pins:

Men are the providers and protectors. Women are the nurturers and the glue that hold the family together. When society or feminists dictate that the roles should be reversed or shared equally then everyone is equally miserable. When women provide for themselves and their children on their own or through wealth distribution then men have no purpose. When women put career ahead of family the family collapses and women are bitter and angry all the time. I’ve wrapped a crap load of gifts over the years. I wash clothes. I clean house when I feel like it. It’s my house after all. I don’t need a woman to do those things or to nag me to do them. Women are bitter that men can live without them and be happy. They obviously can’t live without us or the govt forcing us to pay for them. We men are the sensitive caring ones. It’s our only weakness. Women don’t have this weakness. It’s all about them and their needs. They play the victim and when that doesn’t work they try to shame us because they know we are sensitive and it works. But many of us have become hardened from years of combat and their tricks don’t work on us anymore. When all men are equally hardened the games over. Women can bitch and moan to each other but none us us will listen. I’d like to see women work in some of the shitholes I worked in. The coal fields of WV and KY. Filthy dangerous places. Be in the wrong place at the wrong time and you’re dead. Blasting all around, trucks as big as houses. You’re like a bug to them. Women have it hard? LOL.

This is not to pick on Gottlieb’s Pins, whom I do not know. But let’s analyze a few lines to see bad theory that leads him astray. First:

Men are the providers and protectors. Women are the nurturers and the glue that hold the family together.

Note that in hunter-gatherer societies, women provide a significant portion of the food, just as a Proverbs 31 wife provides plenty of material support to her family. So to say that men are “THE providers” is to ignore evidence both empirical and Biblical. Not a good way to start, and it undermines the very significant competitive advantage that women have in society, which he gets right: they are nurturers. But turning men into THE providers violates women’s nature and God’s plan, and invites divorce theft. It also leaves no reason for men to be around; the state can surely provide AND protect better than an individual man.

When society or feminists dictate that the roles should be reversed or shared equally then everyone is equally miserable

No, actually, women are made more miserable by the lie of “equality.” Recall: 80% of women and only 40% of men who’ve ever lived have left behind descendants.So when a society changes the rules on women such that they cannot successfully pursue their normal expectation to have children, it will create more misery on the female rather than the male side of the equation.

The next few sentences are correct,and then we get:

Women are bitter that men can live without them and be happy.

No, you had it right before: when society tells women to take on roles that they can do, but for which they are not ideal, they get angry. Justifiably so. I’m living in a society that defines MY role as a “provider and protector,” rather than a leader of women; it doesn’t make ME happy.

A few lines about men being sensitive and caring (well, sure, about some things, but you want enough caring to have it appear nurturing? Find a woman, well-raised, for that.), and about men being manipulable by women (they try to shame us because they know we are sensitive and it works), and then the most horrible line: many of us have become hardened from years of combat and their tricks don’t work on us anymore. When all men are equally hardened the games over. Women can bitch and moan to each other but none us us will listen.

Ugh. That we should use metaphors of “war” and “battle” between men and women is an indication of how far down a very bad road we have gone. I know who is behind it, too: he who spied on Adam and Eve in the Garden and driven by envy set about bringing them to the same miserable existence that he had caused himself to suffer under. This is not to say that women have not acted horribly, initiating frivolous divorce (70% of divorces), accusing men falsely of horrible crimes, killing over 1 Million fetuses per year for the last 40 years in the USA. I choose not to link any of those; you can, as they say, look them up.

The writer goes on to talk about how many difficult, dangerous jobs men do to earn their daily bread. Not, of course, that this interferes with God’s commandment in the Garden as a result of the Fall: “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.” Women, by contrast, are commanded by God “I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.”

Women do, indeed, have it hard, maybe harder, in this society. As Mary McCarthy once said of Cultural Marxist Lillian Hellman: “every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.” The entire society is set up to lie to them about what will make them happy. We have in fact created a dystopia for women, and done so in the name of improving things. It’s made it near impossible for a man to find a faithful spouse to have his children, but then, so what? Most men never had children. A woman needs male investment, and not just checks, and cannot secure it under the terms allowed to most women by society. Certainly, chaste and sainted women will ignore Satan’s lures, but if the continuation of a society is going to depend on saints, and not sinners, that society is headed for collapse.

The original writer troubled me, as he struck me as a man very early in the 5 stages of grief, as I once was. I hope that he will be able to move past the anger stage, and when he comes to acceptance realize: women are the way they are, with the ability to follow whatever man leads most strongly. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

In our society, that’s whoever controls the State, all of which Satan claimed to be under his control, and which control he would offer Our Lord after 40 days’ fast in the desert. Under a Patriarchal system that accounts for a complementary but not equal nature of the sexes, it can be put to good use. I had a whole explanation planned, but then Roissy posted the following:

“the RED PILL, in contrast, is the deeper understanding that women are not sugar and spice and everything nice, that they in fact have a strong need to be sexually overwhelmed and dominated, that they are fundamentally emotional and childlike, that their concept of truth is not the same as that of men, and that their core nature is not to be loyal. the red pill teaches men to love and appreciate women as they are, not as we want them to be.”

When you look at sin, you see horror. Look beyond the horror to the being God originally created, and decided was Good. See the Path from debased to Divine, and follow the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No other way do we get out of the muck that the tempter has caused us to wander into.


Posted by on December 26, 2014 in Uncategorized


Comment on modern ugliness

@Bub, Will,
So why did those new styles die out, and modern crap take over?

What happened? Other than the obvious, that somewhere along the line, artists and architects lost their visions…

They didn’t. The book that covers this is Here’s the Deal. It talks about the economics of raising modernist glass boxes at the preferred housing form in Chicago. You could make a LOT of money if you didn’t have to clad your building in expensive brick or stone and pay bricklayers or stonemasons.

There’s a second book to read: J H Kunstler’s The Geography of Nowhere. The modernists, including the execrable Bauhaus, were disdained by both the Nazis and the Stalinists. Ergo, modernism is opposed by the two major tyrannies of the age, and so is anti-totalitarian. It was a neat trick to pull off. Except: Hitler trained as an artist. Just because he was a mass-murdering megalomaniac doesn’t mean that his artistic sense was off. He did, after all, love Wagner.

In a nutshell: “anti-fascism” has served as cover for the crony capitalists to put up crappy, energy-inefficient glass boxes that have no adornment. Public beauty is privatized for profit.

Kunstler also has an interesting idea, relevant to Patriarchy. The US victory in WW2 was such an achievement for men that they used a benighted unbenevolent dictator attitude everywhere. Their “father knows best” doctors inoculated and circumcised their way through a generation. They abandoned walkable cities for isolated suburbs, because women like Catherine Beecher, a spinster, imagined that women wanted little private houses with gardens. They built rectilinear buildings with no natural elements (brick, stone) and no curvy parts like arches, part of the Western architectural vernacular for thousands of years; in other words, modernism is male triumphalism made literally concrete. There is no feminine element in modernist buildings, and the alienating metal and glass extend a middle finger to the “woman” we used to call “Mother Nature.”

Women prefer to live in communities, not isolated on little islands where each is disconnected from the other and has to “row” a car to get to shared space; this, I believe, is what created the “problem with no name” of Betty Friedan. Lord forgive me for writing this, but the feminist movement, reacting against this antisocial modernist movement, was actually a GOOD THING in pointing out its failures. The fact that we were moving to a pyramid-structured society meant that feminism did not restore community, but was used by Apex Alphas to secure access to young, hot, fertile women, and deny most lower-on-the-hierarchy men wives (recall: you cannot turn a whore into a housewife.)

Modernism is the pathological, “Aloof Asshole” Alpha mentality, displayed in built form.


Posted by on July 17, 2014 in Uncategorized