“Right Back Atcha Babe” is a song by Tim Mcgraw from the album Emotional Traffic . It has a fantastic beat, wonderful vocals, and a beautiful sentiment in the chorus.
“Right back atcha babe/ Just like a boomerang, everything good you threw my way/ Right back atcha babe/ Best that you get ready/ There’s a whole lot of loving that’s gonna be coming/ Right back atcha babe”
I heard the song on a Delta flight from Atlanta to Vegas, and I replayed it fifty times. So I got to wondering…why was it not a hit song? To answer the question, I reflected on the number one rule of songwriting:
The lyrics to a hit song will always make a woman feel good about herself.
As Harlan Howard (author of “Tiger by the Tail”) used to say, “Women buy 90% of music and they make men buy the other 10%.” Very true. So I put the lyrics of “Right Back Atcha Babe” under inspection. Do they make a woman feel good about herself?”
That night in Phoenix when you stole my jeep
Then you brought it home with a new stereo, baby, that was sweet…Oh and how can I forget the day you gave me my red guitar?
We’re off to a bad start. Women want to receive gifts…not give them. So the song has already failed. It’s ignoring the structure of courtship, where men are the pursuer and women are the pursued. The writer probably thought he was being a good-little-feminist. But gender equality only works in the protected hallways of academia: not in the real world.
First things first
I want you to close your eyes
This may not even come close to that first kiss you gave me
But I’m gonna try
Oh and here’s that ring you’ve been waitin for all these years As for the tears, that you’ve cried When we made love the first time
I highlighted the problematic part. Women don’t want to cry after sex…no matter how many romance novels we read. They want to feel exhilarated in the arms of an Alpha king. The only women that cry after sex are addicted to Cymbalta.
We don’t need to go any further with our analysis, the song has already failed. Again, remember the important rules: For a song to be a hit, the lyrics will always make a woman feel good about herself.
The customer is always right…and the customer for music is a woman.
The Comey decision will finally end the “muh Russia” controversy. Remember when the wage gap was bedunked? Or what about the campus rape myth? The liberals gave up on the lies!
Oh wait…never mind.
The liberals ALWAYS double down. When you catch them in a lie, they don’t apologize; instead, they go for the bigger lie. The whopper gets larger. They accuse you of doing of what they just did. They gaslight.
Remember the recount? We found out that Democrats were tampering the ballots, and not the Republicans. But the Libs never apologized. Instead, they invented the “muh Russia” conspiracy.
Fifty years from now, the libs will still be crying about Russia – it’s now part of their identity.
2.) It exalts a noble cause(s): i.e. the family, military sacrifice, etc.
3.) It blends nature and humanity together in a creative way
By contrast, here we have a bad piece of art:
The painting is bad for the opposite reasons:
1.) Nobody can understand the meaning
2.) It lacks a noble cause
3.) It fails to blend nature and humanity together in a creative way
Mark Twain once said, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” In short, the two things have nothing in common. They’re diametrically opposite.
The same is true for great and bad art – the fundamental difference is profound. And learning to spot the difference is crucial. If you can spot a great work of art, your spirit will be sanctified. You’ll have a road map to the noble life. You’ll find a kinship with the heights of human emotion.
But if you put your faith in bad art, you’ll become lost. You’ll be lacking in a Weltanschauung. You’ll be alienated by the trickster. Your soul an empty cup…waiting to receive the poison.
I’ve been to several Islamic countries: Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Malaysia. In addition, I’ve traveled to many areas that have been hit by Islamic terrorism: i.e. Southern Thailand, the Philippines (Palawan), most of Europe, etc. Also, I’ve actually read the Koran. So while I’m not an expert, I know more about Islam than the average liberal Westerner.
My experience has taught me this; Most Middle Easterners are decent people and their food is very good: kabobs, hummus, etc. However, there is a very real problem with terrorism. Moreover, the Middle East is, by and large, a depressing shit hole. The famed Arab “hospitality” is virtually non-existent; if anything, the Westerner has to worry about continually being scammed or even attacked. Overall, it’s a place of poverty, genital mutilation, and despair.
My perspective is very different from the Western liberal (the majority of which have never visited the Middle East or read the Koran). So that begs the question…why are liberals unable to acknowledge Islamic terrorism?
Let me give you the top three reasons:
Liberals Hate White People
Liberals have been trained since birth to hate white people. Kathy Griffin, for example, is a perfect example of how the “down-with-whitey” disease has metastasized. At the recent press conference, she offered the following reason for her decapitated head “joke.”
“I’ve been bullied by older, white men my whole life.”
What she really means is, “I’ve been ignored by older, white men my whole life.” But let’s hold off on the psychoanalysis for the moment (and we are analyzing a psycho, make no mistake about it).
With her back against the wall, Griffin played the “old white man” card. She did this for one reason – she knows the Weltanschauung of the far left. Everything they believe is centered on a hatred of white men. So the left will overlook what is, essentially, an act of treason against the President. And they’ll repeat the well-worn excuse – the white man did it.
Liberals Believe in Rousseau’s Concept of the Noble Savage
Rousseau coined the term “noble savage.” It’s the idea that the brown peoples of the earth are an idyllic race – they live in harmony with the land, peacefully interacting with butterflies and baby deer. They hold hands and sing in unison. War, slavery, torture…all foreign concepts to them. Sadly, their utopia was overturned when the white Europeans arrived.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Pre-Colombian America, as well as tribal Africa, were home to innumerable atrocities. For example, roughly 1/3 of Oregonian Indians were slaves prior to the arrival of the Spanish. Another example can be found in The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano (1789), which provides an account of the Islamic slave trade in Western Africa: i.e. Equiano was stolen from his home by black slave traders, brought to the West African coast, and sold to Europeans.
There was nothing “noble” about Indians enslaving one another, or stealing African children from their beds in the middle of the night. Believing otherwise makes you intellectually inferior…not to mention a liar.
Liberals Don’t Travel to Islamic Countries
Most liberals are single/ugly women; the rest are young people (idealistic) or beta-male simps. These women present themselves as loving and accepting. In reality, they don’t want to visit – much less live in – the Islamic countries of the world.
When was the last time you heard a liberal woman say, “I’m moving to Qatar!” Or how about, “I can’t wait to spend next summer in Algeria!” That’s a rhetorical question, of course. The answer is never. If they were so concerned about Muslims, then they would visit the Middle East. But they don’t have the courage to go there. So instead, they base their impressions on the small percentage of Muslims that have the money/education to live in the West – a minuscule sampling, at best.
Remember: Liberal women only want to visit affluent areas. For example, look at how many movie stars talked about moving to Canada when Donald Trump won the presidency. Canada…not Bolivia, Senegal, or Mexico. So very brave! Taking a stand against injustice from an air-conditioned coffee house in Vancouver. Or contemplating the horrors of racism from a five-star restaurant in Montreal.
The Middle East has been going downhill since the 7th century (when Islam supplanted the local religions). It’s now a region that’s dominated by stone-age thinking and brutal ideologies. And most urgently, the pestilence of terrorism.
Only a delusional person could ignore this fact…in other words, a Western liberal.
Relationships “experts” will often tell couples to “just communicate.” This is the go-to response, the one-size-fits all advice. I’ve heard it thrown around so much that it’s a cliche. I’m thinking of opening a Marriage and Family Counseling practice to cash in on the “just communicate” Gold Rush.
But what does “just communicate” mean? Communication is a general term, signifying many things: verbal, nonverbal, media, etc. So when a person tells you to “just communicate,” it’s a meaningless term. It’s akin to saying “just talk.” Ok, yes…but about what?
Relationship experts have assaulted the internet with ambiguous advice on the subject: a google search is like falling into a relationship rabbit hole:
The University of Florida: Leading the Young People Astray
Harris tells us to talk about everything. Ok Vic, but what do you say? Something like mortality, for example, reflects a person’s Weltanschauung. It shows a unique perspective. The person can be a nihilist, a nationalist, a globalist, etc. Which one is correct? Harris never tells us. Instead, we’re instructed to move our lips and let the words fly out. Pointless advice, really.
Harris also implies that men and women communicate the same – a complete falsehood. But what can we expect from the University of Florida? Gender “equality” is the defacto religion at college: you either agree with Der Steinem or it’s off the gallows (AKA, a Women’s Studies class). I assume that Harris did a mandatory sentence, nodding like a simp from the front row in order to carry the cheerleader’s books back to the dorm.
But anybody with descended testes (i.e. not Harris) will tell you that men and women are different. And communication is the hallmark of the difference. Men talk about sports; women talk about other women. Men talk about politics; women talk about people. And so and on and so forth. It’s common knowledge. But the fact that gender difference is denied by academics is a sign that Cultural Marxism has infected the host body.
Cal State Long Beach: Making Sure You Stay Confused
“The way couples communicate with one another can be a reflection of their personalities, age, backgrounds, and lifestyles. In order to maintain a relationship, couples must be willing to exchange information about themselves and capable of feeling confident, honest, direct, and clear when discussing realities about their past, present, and future.” – “Love & Communication in Relationships” from California State Long Beach’s Health Resource Center
CSULB tells us to be honest about the past. Ok…how about no. Previous relationships (for the most part) should be unspoken about. Don’t they know about the connection between mystery and romance? Apparently not. Too much information will destroy the flower of a love that’s budding. Men don’t want to know about the three-way she had in college. Or how the ex-boyfriend filmed her giving oral and then uploaded it to YouPorn. Some things that are better left unsaid. Communicating about the past is not beneficial to a relationship – it’s only detrimental.
Note: There are some men that like hearing explicit details about the sexual indescretions of their wife. These men are known as cucks. You can find them on YouPorn, filming their wives having sex with the offensive line of the Miami Dolphins. The woman goes along with it, but she (deep down) has a contempt for the beta-male cuckoldry of her husband.
The popular maxim today is “You can’t believe everything you read on the internet.” That’s very true. But they fail to tell you the follow up to that statement – most of the lies are coming from the establishment.
As the story goes, Walt Disney was flying over Orlando, Florida in the 1960s. He looked out the window, pointed to an empty piece of land, and said to the person next to him: “Right there. I’ll put DisneyWorld right there!”
A beautiful story…
At the same time, another man was sleeping on the same plane. Still another man was pondering the common details of a day: sending bills, etc. And yet another man was contemplating a boring past, trying to find inspiration. And therein lies the difference between the great man (Walt Disney) and the common man.
Walt Disney was thinking of a future; the common man is thinking of a past. Walt Disney saw that a paradise that was waiting to be built; the common man sees a boring landscape of the ordinary. Walt Disney was driven by a desire to create; the common man is repeating what’s already been done.
Or, to put it plainly…
Some men look out an airplane and see DisneyWorld in an empty field. Other men see an empty field.
“Many pirates began life in the islands as indentured servants rather than seaman…In those times a man could survive in England on £3 a year and it is difficult to blame a young man facing a difficult life to take the opportunity to make as much in a year in piracy as he would in a lifetime of honest labour.” (p. 64)
Somebody always wants to get paid more and do less (as we can see from the aforementioned quote). Piracy was a shot at quick money, a lottery ticket on the open sea. Even though you were an indentured servant – a glorified slave – you still had the chance to make more than an English freeman.
The desire for easy money is timeless and universal. We still see it today…like the man that smuggles heroin instead of working at Burger King. Or the woman that prostitutes instead of working at Foot Locker. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
“In age the average pirate crewman was in his late teens or early twenties,”(p. 64).
These were not the old men with eye patches and white beards that we see in Hollywood. They were English youth, many without facial hair. A few years earlier, they were only children. But when they became teenagers, they were the pirates of the Caribbean (a band of roaming thieves, essentially). On some level, they were like an El Salvadorean street gang: only they lived on a boat instead of a Los Angeles street corner.
A considerable number of pirates and privateers were black…As an example, the English frigate Francis captured and burnt the 32-gun French La Trompeuse in Danish St. Thomas in 1673 and noted that of the crew captured on board, 33 were white and 16 black.
Interesting. In the movie The Pirates of the Caribbean, there were a few black pirates. But as with everything in Hollywood, you can never tell what’s real and what’s virtue signalling. Well, it appears they undershot the number. Black piracy was a common thing. Clearly, a black man could make more money as a pirate than as a slave.
Hubbard’s book is an excellent read. It’s entertaining, informative, and interesting. I’ve been learning more about the Caribbean than I ever did in school. It’s a tremendous history, laying the foundation for the history of the Americas.
But most importantly, I’m reminded of something important…