The “Nice” Man is Not a Great Man

The “Nice” Man is Not a Great Man

What does it mean when a man is “nice”? It sounds like a compliment, no? Well it’s actually an insult.

In short, it means that he’s polite; he smiles a lot…he’s not intimidating.

Nice indicates a surface greeting, a casual exchange. It’s equivalent to Southern hospitality. It shows that he’s learned the basic structure of human interaction. It’s like getting an award at school for attendance. You achieve the basic, which is nothing.

My dear readers, always remember this: GREAT MEN ARE NOT NICE.

A friend used to tell me, “When you meet a man, you should feel something pushing back against you. You should feel the energy of resistance.”

Very true!

A great man is defined by his allegiance to lofty ideas, by his desire to pursue a passionate goal. His spirit is a guitar solo by Eddy Van Halen. His energy is red wine, spilling over the cup. He fires a cannon at the island of insecurity. He’s a captain on the ship of confidence.

And the great man’s enemy is the weakling – aka, the “nice” man. The “nice” man surrenders to the challenge, agrees to be ordinary. The “nice” man shuffles into the distance. His spirit is dejected and peevish. His energy is confusion. The best he can do is “nice”…because he has nothing else!

There’s an old cliche…”Nice guys finish last.” But it really means “Weak men are eventually exposed.” They can only hide for so long. Eventually, their dim lighting is replaced by the fires of a great man.

See Related Post: The Man That You Become is More Important Than the Boy That You Were


Reflections on the Death of a Good Friend (Six Years Ago Today)

Reflections on the Death of a Good Friend (Six Years Ago Today)

Six years ago, I lost a dear friend; his name was Dave.

He was 46, divorced, and had no children. His second marriage was on the rocks and he had recently lost his job. Dave was in a bad place, so he went home and overdosed on a combination of Soma and alcohol.

I’ve lost a lot of friends over the years. But for some reason, his death hit me the hardest. Dave had a beautiful laugh, a charming personality. His heart was deeper than the Grand Canyon. And to this day, I can’t believe he’s gone.

A week after he died, I had a dream about him. The phone rang, so I picked it up. He was on the other line, chatting away like normal. I waited for him to pause, but he continued. After a few minutes, I interrupted his story.

“Dave, are you still alive? Brother, tell me you’re still alive!”

The phone began to break up with static.

“I’ve got to go,” he said. “I’ve got to go…”

I woke up immediately. The dream was so real, so vivid. His voice was still ringing in my ear.

That was six years ago.

Male friendship is a sacred bond; it’s the backbone of a great nation. Unfortunately, its downplayed in today’s world. So much of the focus is on male/female dynamics – romantic love being the new altar of worship. What’s lost in this shuffle is the tremendous value of male friendship. The kinship that emerges between a band of brothers. I’m glad I’ve been able to experience it. And I’m glad that the Lord has placed excellent people in my path.

RIP Dave…you are still missed.


Why Do We Continually See “Terminator 2” on Television?

Why Do We Continually See “Terminator 2” on Television?

Yesterday, I watched Terminator 2 on the television screen of my gym. I reflected on how many times the movie has been replayed. Now I’m not a movie buff, but I must have seen it at least fifty times.

So the question hit me: Why do we only see Terminator 2? The first movie was excellent, and it was the original no less! So what gives? After pondering the question, the answer became obvious.

Terminator 2 is Continually Replayed Because it Promotes a Feminist Agenda

To the casual observer, this might sound crazy. They’ll point out that Terminator 2 has great special effects and high-action scenes. And both of these are true. Yet they’re overlooking an important point – movies are only promoted if they undermine the traditional Western family. Remember, we are in the middle of cultural “hot” war, and EVERYTHING has an ulterior motive. And I mean EVERYTHING.

To illustrate this point, let’s look at two photos. First, let’s looks at Linda Hamilton in Terminator 1:

linda hamilton
Linda Hamilton in Terminator 1…beautiful, sweet, and feminine.

Now Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2:

linda ham 2
Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2…cold, angry and masculine.

In the first movie, she is a woman you would marry; in the second, she’s a woman that would punch you in the face. In the first movie, she’s a woman you would protect; in the second, she’s a woman that would tell you to “fuck off”; in the first movie, she’s the mother of your children; in the second, her motherly kindness is gone.

The beautiful Linda Hamilton has been destroyed. She’s been replaced by an androgynous she-male that beats up men, fires artillery, and smokes a cigarette. In short, June Cleaver has been replaced with Rhonda Rousey.

Yet make no mistake about it – the success of Terminator 2 is entirely dependent on the original. The first movie had a red-pill theme that the public gravitated to: an Alpha male, protecting a feminine woman from danger. This is the universal, the true, and the timeless.

Feminism can only piggy-back on a previous work of greatness; it can never make its own. It can only cannibalize the popular: never create the timeless. We’ve seen the same formula with other franchises that surrender to feminism at gunpoint: Transformers, Ghostbusters, etc. The feminist goal is to slowly destroy everything, to leave a our culture in a smoldering pile of ashes. To slowly disassemble a work of  greatness and replace it with an androgynous fantasy world.

My point is furthered in Terminator 3. The feminist elements were feeling cocky at the success of Terminator 2. So they grabbed the reigns and tried to make the Terminator a woman. What happened? The movie flopped at the box office.

The feminist plot was on full display in Terminator 3…and it failed miserably.

Terminator 3 is rarely played on television for the following reason – the machinations are clearly exposed, and they look ridiculous. The feminist plot for destruction of America has to be carefully couched. Whenever it’s exposed, it shrinks like Wicked Witch of the East being hit by a pail of water.


Movies are an art form; and art is the passionate offerings of a people. It represents their highest humanity, the expression of their emotional greatness. Currently, the people of American are under assault in this regard. Every great piece of art we have is being targeted by (((them))).

We are in a hot war and the stakes have never been higher.

See Related Material: Article Review: Richard Wagner’s “On Judaism in Music”

The Grunge Musician Was a Puppet for the Globalist Agenda

The Grunge Musician Was a Puppet for the Globalist Agenda

Chris Cornell died a few days ago. The lead singer of Soundgarden was famous for pioneering the “grunge” sound, which rose to popularity in the 1990s. Sadly, Cornell committed suicide. Even sadder is that he now leaves behind two children.

Cornell is the most recent “grunge” musician to committed suicide, or to die from a drug-related overdose: Kurt Cobain, Scott Weiland, etc. Unfortunately, it’s becoming a reoccurring event.

A lot of people are commenting on Cornell’s death. Some are talking about depression, others about about drug abuse. But several points are missing, so let’s take about what nobody is willing to say:

1.) Grunge musicians were only popular because they promoted nihilism

The “angry young man” shtick was purposefully promoted by music executives (most of whom are Jewish). These executives have a specific goal – using music to destroy the edifice of Christian America.

The lyrics are the most important part of grunge. Now some people will disagree, saying that they only listen to the instrumental parts of a song: guitar, drums, etc. This viewpoint is a common for musicians, who tend to focus on the structural elements. But there’s an old saying in Nashville: “They come for the beat; they stay for the lyrics.” This is so true. Remember that the average fan cannot play the drums – but they can sing along. So the average person will “connect” with a song by singing the chorus in the car, in the shower, etc.

Kurt Cobain On 'MTV Unplugged'
(((Record Executives))) knew that Cobain’s nihilism would encourage young men to become depressed.

The Weltanschauung of grunge is nihilism. And nihilism encourages the destruction of the individual. Just take a look at the titles of the famous grunge hits: i.e “Black Hole Sun,” “Rat in a Cage,” etc. They all encourage a hopeless perspective. How many people have learned to hate life by singing these songs? How many people have overlooked the glory of God in favor of a bleak landscape? Too many I’m afraid.

1.) It Takes Millions of Dollars to “Break” an Artist; Thus, Record Labels Carefully Plan Who They Want to Promote and Why

Do you think that a musician is famous by accident? Of course not. It’s takes millions of dollars to “break” an artist. Here’s a rundown of the funding that a rock band will require:

  • Money needed for radio payola (funds paid to a radio station to play their songs)
  • Money needed to record an album
  • Money needed for touring: hotels, food, gas, etc.
  • Money needed for promotional materials: print, digital, etc.

This is a short list. As you can see, the charges pile up. Before you know it, a rock band has put a million dollars on the company tab.

Rock bands are a major investment. Therefore, the investors have to approve the message. This would not be a problem, generally speaking. However, today’s record executives are obsessed with the destruction of American youth. So everything they do is aimed at cultural genocide. Everything they do is the fulfillment of their unholy desires. The executives only invested in grunge music because it served a greater aim – to create a culture war against Christianity.


The grunge musician was a puppet for the globalist agenda. He was given the microphone for a specific reason – to pour nihilism into the souls of Christian men and women. To kill the passionate spirit of a generation and replace it with hopelessness.

In the 1960’s, men were encouraged to take LSD and drop out. In the 1970s, men were encouraged to snort cocaine and hang out at Studio 54. In the 1980s, they were encouraged to become aggressive rebels and listen to punk rock. And in the 1990s, men were encouraged to become suicidal depressives. The music changed, but the song remained the same.

Are you starting to see the common denominator? Are you starting to see what we’re up against? All of our musical heroes were useful idiots, serving their diabolical masters. They believed they had “made it to the top.” In reality, they were allowed to be there.

The puppet master controls everything.

Hope is Contingent on One’s Ability to Overcome an Obstacle

Hope is Contingent on One’s Ability to Overcome an Obstacle

I don’t sell hope.

Instead, I provide people with advice on how to overcome obstacles. In addition, I listen to advice from others on how to overcome obstacles.

Let’s me give you two examples:

  • A woman wants to lose weight. She can listen to a self-help guru, telling her  to “just believe in herself.” Or, she can listen a personal trainer that provides a comprehensive fitness plan: a man willing to kick her ass every day with rigorous training. A man willing to push her to greatness, to fight through pain and sweat. The first individual is providing hope; the second is helping her to overcome an obstacle.
  • A man wants to become rich. He can listen to an enthusiastic speaker, telling the audience to “reach for the stars.” Or, he can read from the wisdom of millionaires: i.e. The Millionaire Next Door, The Art of the Deal, etc. Books that take away time from his pleasure-filled weekend. Books that force him to re-examine his wasted life. The first individual is providing hope; the second is helping him overcome an obstacle.

You get the point.

I refuse to be a “hope dealer.” I don’t sell the crack of platitude, the needle of self-help. I don’t peddle the cliche. I’m not here improve my self-esteem by telling pretty lies. I don’t need the Facebook likes or Retweets. I prefer the truth.

I refuse to sell a Pollyanna principle. Rose-colored glasses are too small for my face, too blinding for my vision. I’m not here to misdirect or to obfuscate. I don’t need a book deal, a record contract, or a tenure-track position. I speak the truth.

May the children of tomorrow hear my cry! And may they say one thing alone – he was a man that spoke the truth. He broke the chains in Plato’s cave, he pointed to a naked leader and yelled: “The Emperor wears no clothes!”

What can I say? Nothing more than what Nietzsche already gave us:

“…it is my ambition to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book — what everyone else does not say in a book.”

I prefer to help one person than lie to a thousand.



Who Were the Carib Indians?

Who Were the Carib Indians?

The Caribbean is named after the Carib Indians. They were the dominant tribe when the Europeans arrived in the Western Hemisphere (circa 1500 AD). The media, as well as Western academics, will rarely talk about the Caribs. So who were they really? And what were the like?

To find out the answer, I’ve been reading a book entitled A History of St. Kitts: The Sweet Trade by Vincent Hubbard. The book shines a light on the Caribs. Essentially, we learn about a psychotic group of individuals.

Here’s a brief rundown:

1.) Genocide and Bridal Theft

“…the Caribs had attacked and killed all the Arawak males and taken their women as slaves,” (p. 10).

2.) Cannibalism

“During wars there is good evidence that parts of the enemies’ bodies were eaten, the theory being that consuming these parts would impart the courage of the vanquished to the victors,” (p. 11).

3.) Animal Cruelty

“Giant iguanas five feet long and one feet thick were common. Unfortunately for themselves, they were not afraid of humans and were thus easily killed by running a sharp stick through the nostril into the brain as the Indians [Carib] did, or capturing their necks in a rope noose hung from the end of the pole,” (p. 2-3).

In short, the Caribs came to terrorize. We can barely fathom the devastation they brought to the people of the area: the Arawak, the Taino, etc. Can you imagine being an Arawak woman in the year 1450? One day, your village is attacked by the Caribs. Your husband and son are killed and then cannibalized. And then you become a sex slave to the men that murdered your family.

Sounds lovely.

I cry for the White Man’s pollution, but not for Arawak women that are turned into sex slaves by other Indian tribes.


Growing up in the 1970s, I learned that Indians were a peaceful race that lived in harmony with the land. They were magical tribes that shared a kinship of brotherhood. They gathered in a land that overflowed with gentility and grace.

What a sham that was! In reality, many tribes were guilty of atrocities: they were warlike, brutal, and savage. The strong tortured the weak, the greedy plundered the innocent. There was murder, rape and bloodshed.

As we review these facts, we can see that modern Americans were fed a lie; we were told an alternative view of history. The reason for this should be obvious. We were told lies so that we could cultivate a hatred for our national history: i.e. animus toward white, Christian Americans. By cultivating this hatred, we could then be dangled from the puppet strings of Max Horkheimer.

See Related Article: What Was the Frankfurt School and Who Was Max Horkheimer?

What is the Purpose of Music?

What is the Purpose of Music?

To elevate…to affirm the highest passion of life. To place man atop his rightful place on the mountain of greatness. To expand on the glorious universe that hides within. Music is the general, riding a horse that gallops through the woods. Music is a child, running though a field of daffodils. Music is the raising of a victory cup, a celebration of the human spirit.

Music is not the debased; it’s not the “social protest” of a revolutionary. It’s not the whining of a half-man, unable to claim the ring of victory. It’s not a jealous lashing out. Music is not androgyny. It’s not about confusion, misdirection, or perpetual agony. Music is not a glorification of suicide.

Music is the victory celebration; it’s an affirmation of God in His glory. And to hear it, you have to slay demons. You have to strike down the forces of mediocrity. You have to lash out at the army of lies.

Once you embrace the passion, then the glory of music is yours!


Why Have We Not Heard About Stanley Jordan Becoming a Woman?

Why Have We Not Heard About Stanley Jordan Becoming a Woman?

Stanley Jordan is a virtuoso guitar player. He rose to fame in the 1980’s for his unique style, playing two guitars at the same time.

While he’s not the household name of somebody like Paul McCartney, he’s been VERY successful. Jordan was signed to BMI, put out 14 albums, and has played with some of the top musicians in the world: Quincy Jones, Kenny Rogers, Dizzy Gillespie, etc. In addition, he has appeared on a host of television shows, from Johnny Carson to Dick Cavett. He’s also been nominated for 4 Grammy awards. So needless to say, his musical resume is impressive.

stnaley jordan
Stanley Jordan in the 1980s, when he rose to fame

Fast forward to today…

Somewhere along the way, Jordan started dressing in women’s clothing. I don’t know the proper term here: transsexual, cross dresser, etc. Nowadays, a litany of names are applied to “gender.” Let’s just say that Jordan went crazy.

stanley jordan
Stanley Jordan today, dressed like a woman

The media has remained silent on Jordan’s transformation. Granted, Jordan didn’t have the same kind of celebrity as Bruce Jenner. That being said, he’s a mid-level star and one would expect a little press on the matter (especially considering the media’s obsession with breaking gender rules). But a random google search reveals nothing. By the media ignoring the topic, it shows that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

A random Google search provides no information about Jordan’s sex change. Coincidence? You silly child…

Why have we not heard of Jordan’s sex change? The answer is complex, yet terribly simple.

Jordan’s transformation does not serve the goals of Cultural Marxism: i.e. destroying the lives of white Christian males.

The important point here is that Jordan is black. If his story was publicized, many American blacks would become alienated with the liberal cause. They would see that Jordan’s degradation was encouraged by the larger, white society; in particular, by liberal democrats.

In short, Jordan’s sex change is a black eye on the face of white liberals – it shows how their values have denigrated the lives of black Americans. Subsequently, the story has been erased from social media for the benefit of the left-wing agenda.

See Related Article: What is the Frankfurt School and Who is Max Horkheimer?

Adam Smith on Bourgeois Ladies

Adam Smith on Bourgeois Ladies


In 1776, Adam Smith commented on the tendency of rich women (bourgeois ladies) to have less children than poor ones. (The Wealth of Nations):

“Poverty though it no doubt discourages, does not always prevent marriage,  It seems even to be favorable to generation. A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted by two or three.” (p. 75)

250 years ago, rich women had less children than poor ones. But things have changed. England, and vis-a-vis America, no longer has a bourgeois class. However, we do have a replacement for the bourgeoisie. Today’s the rich girl, or “pampered fine lady” as Smith calls it, is equivalent to the modern woman.

The bourgeois lady and the modern one are different in several ways. Whereas the bourgeois lady was concerned with dinner parties, the modern one is obsessed with PHD papers. While the bourgeois lady is concerned with powdering her nose, the modern one is fretting over a job interview. And while the bourgeois lady stared out the window of an estate, the modern one gazes into a cubicle.

Yet for all these differences, the bourgeois lady and the modern one are similar in one way…

They’re both less likely to have children.

I imagine that the bourgeois lady was happier. For one, she had servants to clean the house, get her dressed, etc. And her life was spent between dinner parties and social events. How bad could it be?

But most importantly, the bourgeois lady was not exposed to 24/7 feminism (like today’s modern woman is). That fact, in and of itself, was worth a million pounds.

See Related Article: Adam Smith: On Sending Your Adolescent Abroad

What the Hell Does “Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town” Mean?

What the Hell Does “Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town” Mean?

(((Literary critics))) have applauded the poem “Anybody Lived in a Pretty How Town” by E.E. Cummings. The poem is included in most literary anthologies, spreading confusion from Los Angeles to New York. But what does it mean? And what is a “how” town anyway? For years, I tried to make sense of the poem but was unable to; like so many students (as well as teachers), I was clueless about the meaning.

So today, let’s see if we can make up an E.E. Cumming’s poem. I have three to get the ball rolling…

  • Anybody Lived in a Pretty What Village
  • Anybody Lived in a Pretty Where City
  • Anybody Lived in a Pretty When Ghetto

You get the picture…my titles make no sense. And neither does the Cumming’s one. So why is it applauded then?

To understand the Cumming’s poem (and its modern approach) we need to review the history of 19th-century Europe; i.e. to understand an event, you need the study history that proceeded it. So when we review 19th-century European history, we find the ongoing struggle between a Christian majority and a Jewish minority. No book highlights the struggle better than Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together. The cultural battles of the 19th-century bled into the 20th, and that’s when modernism begins.

What is modernism? Simply put, it’s a Jewish attempt to subvert European culture. The point is obvious when you review the originators of modern art. The Jewish goal was to replace the art of European history (pieces that depicted real-life heroes) with ambiguous structures: i.e. a German soldier on a horse was replaced with a shapeless blob. By doing so, Jews could erase the physical reminders of Christian heroes from Europe. Once these images were scrubbed clean, the Christian majority would become more accepting of a Jewish minority; and in turn, more accepting of its transgressions.

So what does “Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town” mean? Nothing…and that’s the point.

You’re supposed to be confused. You’re supposed to be lost. You’re supposed to be misdirected. It’s an educational red herring, designed to distract you from the history of Christian civilization.

Note that Cummings himself was not Jewish, That being said, he imbibed the cultural sentiments of his time. And in order to become popular, he had to embrace modernism. We can see a similar correlation in America today. If you want to be popular, you have to take a shit on Christian values: i.e. Madonna, Lady Gaga, etc.

What is the purpose of poetry? It should lift you to lofty heights. It’s a wave of pleasure, rolling over your body. It’s the magical power of emotion, brought to life. Poetry is the flower unfolding, the blossom blooming: the beauty of life made available to the world.

Poetry is not E.E. Cummings.

See Related Article: Poetry Review: A Critique on “August 1968” by W.H. Auden