The Genius Can Never Be Fully Understood

The Genius Can Never Be Fully Understood

This point is made in The Idiot by Dostoevsky (via the character Hippolyte).

“Let me add to this that in every idea emanating from genius, or even in every serious human idea–born in the human brain–there always remains something–some sediment–which cannot be expressed to others, though one wrote volumes and lectured upon it for five-and-thirty years. There is always a something, a remnant, which will never come out from your brain, but will remain there with you, and you alone, for ever and ever, and you will die, perhaps, without having imparted what may be the very essence of your idea to a single living soul.”

Very true.

All the TED talks in the world cannot contain the complete essence of brilliance. All the self-help books, the Tony Robbins presentations…they’re all missing a key element: something that lies in the epicenter of brilliance.

Think of how a novel is written. Countless hours of contemplation, the dull hiss of the computer screen. The writer staring at a blank page, hoping to see the next paragraph of brilliance. How many thoughts are racing through his head? How many ideas that never make it to the page, yet are inextricably linked to the novel?

Think about a star athlete. Countless hours of practice, lifting weights in the back of the gymnasium. The moment of his public victory are proceeded by a million anonymous moments. How many days were not captured for the public eye? How many hours went un-televised, yet were tied to his ascension?

The genius is never fully understood. Something lies hidden—a spark in the fire that burns. An essential element, locked away from the vision of the crowd.

See Related Article: How I Restored My Foreskin

How to Answer a Difficult Question

How to Answer a Difficult Question

How do you answer a difficult question? It’s very simple…by asking yourself a separate question:

Mr. Cleaver would choose a healthy life. He’d lean in the direction of patriarchal headship, or masculine honor. He’d lean in the direction of responsibility and courage. He’d lean in the direction of fatherhood—in other words, he’s the foundation of a country.

ward and june
Ward Cleaver was a proud American father with a loving family. In other words, an enemy of the Cultural Marxist agenda.

You should emulate Ward Cleaver—not Anderson Cooper or Bruce Jenner.

Are you ready to accept a throne? Are you ready to battle the forces of evil? The time has come for you to rise…the accept your place on the Stead of Wisdom. The world is waiting for you now…and you’re close to the Land of Promise.

Remember: Your happiness is a threat to the Mainstream Media. They receive an erection when you falter and they masturbate when you fail. They want you to have tattoos and abortions. They want your soul to be riddled with resentment. All they have is subterfuge—everything a duplicitous dealing. Everything a mixing of the message: one good, one bad, one good, one bad, etc.

Be like Ward Cleaver. He was the correct model…the Man of Honor.

Book Review: The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

Book Review: The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

The Wealth of Nations is—far and away—the most difficult book I’ve read.  The writing is dense and the ideas are complex. The book is a behemoth…a paragon in the Libraries of History.

Smith is a legendary thinker. He covers a wide array of topics, from the Chinese economy to the barter system of Ancient Peru. During the process, we realize that we’re in the presence of a GREAT MAN. He’s an economist, a historian, a philosopher…in short, he’s the Age of Enlightenment personified.

Here’s what I took away from the book:

Agriculture is a Vital Part of a Country’s Economy

Smith believed in agriculture. He points out that a country must—first and foremost—be able to feed itself. It needs to produce bread, rice, etc. And when a country cannot feed itself, it’s an economic liability.

The examples are numerous—just look at the Irish Potato famine. Once they lost the ability to feed themselves, a tragedy ensued. Another example can be seen in modern-day Venezuela, which did away with much of its agriculture. When a financial crisis occurred, the people were lacking in basic food commodities. Just look at how many supermarkets were raided in downtown Caracas.

Paper Money Should Be Connected to a Precious Money

According to Smith, paper money needs to be tied to a precious metal: gold, silver, etc. This prevents the country from printing paper money at will, which leads to inflation. Smith provides numerous examples, going as far back as the Roman Empire’s use of bronze as a way to stabilize its currency.

Needless to say, the United States is currently in this dilemma. Since it left the gold standard, the inflation has slowly been rising. This accounts for the fact that a dinner that once was worth five cents (such as in 1920) is now worth fifteen dollars. If the situation spirals out of control—such as in Venezuela—then the paper money can become pointless. Note how in Caracas, you need a backpack full of money to buy a lunch.

Every Armed Conflict Has an Economic Story

The Wealth of Nations was written in 1776…the year of American independence. Smith goes into great detail about the war. He points to the economic underpinnings of the battle, explaining an angle that’s rarely talked about. Through this lens, the American War of Independence was more than a fight for sovereignty—it’s was an economic battle.

How many wars are fought over money? What’s the real story behind any armed conflict? What about the Syrian battle? The Iraqi invasion? Money plays a huge role in these conflicts. Smith reminds us about the “unspoken cause of war” the conflict that’s always at play—the battle between a creditor and a debtor.


I highly recommend The Wealth of Nations. Regardless of your major, you should read this book. It will bring you up to speed with “the best in what’s been thought and said.” Adam Smith should be on the bookshelf of any self-respecting bibliophile.

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”

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!


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