NEVER LET SOMEONE GET IN FRONT OF YOU IN LINE

by Mr. Mean-Spirited

Somebody pushing in front of you is one of those minor annoyances in life that reveal a man’s true colors. Character is never more clearly displayed than in those small, daily confrontations with other human beings.

Allowing someone else to get ahead of you in line causes several seconds – maybe even a couple minutes – to be taken away from you that can never be retrieved. If you act like a nice person, then parts of your existence will be lost forever. Elbowing you aside is an act of deliberate contempt, but accepting that shove is an action of determined cowardice. If other people didn’t think you were weak and worthless, they wouldn’t be trying to get in front of you in the first place. You must defend your place in line as if your very life depends on it – because it damn well does.

A man loses status by not confronting the small encroachments of others. While someone slipping into line ahead of you is a comparatively minute affront – a man does not lose social standing in a once-in-a-lifetime defeat, but in refusing to defend his position in tiny ways in the everyday events of life. It is how a man resists against the small infringements in daily existence that marks a great character.  

If you don’t confront your neighbor in the slightest trespasses upon your personal space, then his encroachments will only increase on the next occasion. You must face-down minor affronts immediately or else they will grow into major assaults. Before you know it, his heel will be pressing down upon your toes.

Think of someone pushing ahead of you as a test of character: if you are unwilling to confront his intrusion, then you are shown to be the coward that you are. Letting someone in front of you in a line marks a man as a pansy more definitively than a defeat in a fistfight. Permitting an act of disrespect to go unchallenged leaves your personality drenched with the stink of a wimp, a stench of the weakling that cannot be washed off. An honest man defends his position – no matter the situation. A man who doesn’t protect his place in daily life will not defend himself anywhere else in life.

No matter how inconsequential the social interaction, you can sabotage humanity by making that encounter as unpleasant as possible. Best way to protect yourself against the liberal masses is not to allow anyone to get away with anything.

IN DEFENSE OF MISOGYNY

by Mr. Mean-Spirited

 

 

The standard definition of misogyny is “hatred of woman” – true enough, I suppose; however, I would define misogyny as an understanding of a woman’s real nature. A man comes to dislike something not because of unfamiliarity; an individual comes to loathe the opposite sex not because a lack of first-hand experience, but because he has a rather intimate knowledge of the gender in question. A man becomes a misogynist because he knows women too damn well.

No man ever makes a decision to hate the female of the species. No male really wants to become a misogynist. Instead, you need to think of misogyny as a truthful reaction – the only possible honest reaction – and the only just reaction – to being treated in a particular way by the feminine gender.

I am a misogynist because all women are whores. I still have trouble believing that women are so simple-minded that they actually accept what men tell them. Surely a creature that allows herself to be sexually humiliated by men cannot be respected. Any gender that allows themselves to be used in such a manner has to be despised. Any person who would willingly swallow some one-night stand’s semen is not worthy of respect. How can women be such sluts?

I am a misogynist because women judge a man for his social status. If you going to accuse men of being superficial enough to evaluate a lady on the basis of her physical appearance, then you must find women just as shallow if they judge a gentleman on the basis of financial resources. While women form an attachment with a male who will advance them in the pecking order of the community, the female will hypocritically claim that this economic relationship is actually love. The misogynist knows better.

I am a misogynist because women make such astonishingly bad decisions in bed partners. Mass society says that women can copulate with anyone they choose, but that is not going to stop me loathing females for their selections. If dames prefer to fornicate with unsuitable partners, then I am going to hate the broads for their appalling lack of judgment. Choices have consequences. Make the wrong pick and you get repercussions – negative repercussions. A misogynist holds women to account.

I am a misogynist because I do not trust women. I know that a girlfriend will ultimately be scheming to entrap me with some story about an accidental pregnancy. The evolutionary purpose of the woman is to ensnare a man into fatherhood. I would rather hate a female than be fooled by the feminine. Distrust is a defense-reaction against a lady’s duplicity. Not protection against being hurt, since that will happen no matter what – but a safeguard against being taken-in by feminine deception.

I am a misogynist because women are such conformists. Women have an innate need to be accepted by her social circle. A female only does something with an eye to the recognition of her peer group. Even the very fashions she might wear are selected to merit her friends’ approval. A woman wants to be part of something, and I hate her for that.

I am a misogynist because every prostitute thinks she will make a great mother. In fact, the more of a whore, the better the mother she imagines that she will be. I hate women because every tramp seems to feel that raising a child will make up for years of sexual promiscuity. Passing on her slutty ways to yet another generation.

I am a misogynist because every woman thinks she is doing men a favor merely by spreading their legs. No matter how hapless she is in all other areas of life, every dame imagines that she is good in bed. The reality is that few modern American females have any sexual skill whatsoever; they just lie there expecting stuff to be done to them. If it weren’t for certain biological imperatives, no man would want to stick their dick in that that salmon-smelling slit in the first place. I’ve got news for women: fucking them is goddamned obligation.

I am a misogynist because women won’t shut the fuck up. Always asking questions – always talking about their feelings. Why is it that females seem to imagine that anyone gives a shit about their opinions? Hell, the main reason men prefer blowjobs is because it keeps the broad from saying anything for a few blessed minutes. I am a misogynist because I am sick and tired of their incessant chatter.

I am a misogynist because women think that they are loved by someone. A man only tells a woman that he loves her just to keep her quiet – and the broad is dumb enough to believe it. I hate females for thinking that they are loved; I hate ladies for their inability to face reality. Time for girls to get real: no one truly cares about them; no one loves them.

I am a misogynist because a woman’s body is designed for breeding. The female’s own bodily processes are as repulsive as her monthly bleeding. Her very physiology is as an affront to common sense: pregnancy is not a divine miracle but a disgusting mess. If I had some alien creature inside my body, I wouldn’t be content to allow the thing to remain implanted within me for nine months – I would want a surgeon to remove this invading entity immediately. Her very flesh makes me queasy.

I am a misogynist because, for better or worse, a distinction between sex roles has always been part of the Western tradition. I am not saying this divergence is necessarily a good thing, just that this disparity has been constant feature of Euro-American culture. Misogyny is the only means of preserving these distinctions in an era of political correctness. Nothing like defending your birthright to piss-off the feminists.

I am a misogynist because betrayal is in a woman’s nature. Infidelity is inevitable; treachery is just a matter of time. It is not a matter of seeking greener pastures – as much as finding a guy more amply endowed with greenbacks. Hating all women is obviously not going to delay a girlfriend’s inevitable betrayal – as much as allow you to place her disloyalty in the proper perspective. Misogyny is preemptive. If certain female behavior is foreseeable, then misogyny helps to recognize the pattern. Misogyny makes everything a woman does into something predictable. Hatred is always anticipatory.

At a moment in history when feminists dominate the mass media, admitting your innate misogyny helps to define yourself as a genuine nonconformist. A true individualist always places himself in opposition to modern trends like feminism. A misogynist stands against everything about the modern world.

SHARING IS FOR LOSERS

by Mr. Mean-Spirited





Sharing is the manner in which a human being is first brainwashed into conformity. Teaching a free spirit to share is the process by which an individual is mind-controlled into becoming a communitarian.

Sharing always goes one way. You will always be asked to divide what you have with the less fortunate, but somehow the more blessed never seem to share anything with you. Sharing only goes in one direction – away from you toward someone else. If you want to be able to keep what little you have, then you must never share under any circumstances.

You’re only being deceived by the professional do-gooders if you think that you will ever get anything out of sharing. Taking advantage of the compassion of strangers is how the humanitarian establishment managed to hoard their wealth in the first place. It is always the same characters who personally benefit from sharing who are always talking about a moral duty to share. A do-gooder always tells you to be generous when he has a hand in your pocket. Don’t be fooled: never share.

The human mind is made subservient to the establishment through the act of sharing. If you are determined to breed, then you would never allow government schools to indoctrinate your children into sharing. Teaching a child to share is the way a citizen is socialized into submission to the state.

You transform a youngster into a conformist by eroding his sense of ego, and the way that society trains a child to be obedient is by making the youngster share. Every time you share something, you lose a piece of your inner self. Sharing makes you less of a person.

The act of sharing is exactly what binds you to the larger community – the keyword here is “binds”. To sever those bonds, you merely need a determination to start keeping what is yours. Bureaucrats simply assume that sharing is one of those attributes of a good citizen. Refusing to join-in becomes an affront to everything decent and liberal. To humanitarians, refusing to share is such a deplorable and despicable gesture, that it places you beyond the bounds of polite society. It is incomprehensible to do-gooders that a citizen would not want to share. 

Just as the act of sharing on a personal level will only result in individually destructive behavior like generosity and liberalism, so the action of sharing on a governmental level will only result in culturally destructive policies like foreign aid and reception of immigrants. To eliminate public weakness, you must first eliminate private self-sacrifice. To restore a heroic selfishness to civilization, you must first re-establish self-centeredness.

When it is so easy to give into what the mass media tells you, keeping things all to yourself is the ultimate mark of personal courage. When idealists lecture you to help the poor, keeping that change securely in your pocket is the sign of your true moral worth.

Sharing is for losers. Never share. Sharing is the way that the community manipulates your personality into obedience. Never share.

 

VIGILANTE JUSTICE IS THE ONLY KIND OF JUSTICE WORTH HAVING

by Mr. Mean-Spirited
 



If you can't take the law into your own hands, then the law isn't worth obeying. If you can’t deal justice yourself, then there is no certainty that things will ever be put right.

All governments fear vigilantes; not because the officials are afraid that there might be a periodic miscarriage of justice (after all, the state-run legal system has plenty of that); instead, the establishment is frightened of vigilantes because they threaten the job security of the bureaucrats. A judge doesn’t care about making the right decision; instead, the magistrate is worried about protecting his lifetime appointment.

A vigilante no more needs official authority to do justice than an ordinary believer needs ecclesiastical authority to say a prayer. Authority is merely the way that an entrenched hierarchy justifies their own position.

Vigilante justice is effective justice. Vigilantes deal in direct justice, an immediate type of restitution doesn't need to be mediated through a bureaucracy. You don't need your basic human need for retribution to be dissipated and diluted through the institutions of the state. You don't need some government employee like a judge to tell you what is right and proper. Vigilantes instinctively know what needs to be done – they don’t need a legal precedent to tell them what is just. Unlike your local police force, you won’t see any incompetence at a public lynching. Vigilante justice is just common sense through the barrel of a gun.

Vigilante justice is swift. Citizens have no desire to waste money keeping a prisoner on death row for a couple decades. Restitution is quick in the vigilante system. It saves time if a vigilante court would also carry out the execution that same day. Vigilante justice does not keep the victim waiting in suspense for redress.

Vigilante justice is dead certain. When citizens take care of lawbreakers, no evidence is excluded because of some technicality – the eye-witness testimony of a victim is good enough. Vigilante justice is not a matter of finding the best lawyer; instead, justice is merely a matter of eliminating the criminal. It is not necessary to create a prison industry if the vigilantes are allowed to do justice. 

Vigilante justice doesn’t need attorneys. You don’t need to maintain a parasitical class of lawyers in a vigilante system; you don’t need legal representatives whose only role is to muddle the proceedings. You don’t need an advocate if you can take care of things yourself. Vigilante justice does not need a mediator.  

If someone steals one of your prized possessions, it really isn’t necessary to involve the state. If the injured party is permitted to attain retribution directly from the criminal, harmony can be restored without creating a criminal-justice establishment that requires a constant supply of fresh victims. Government only manages to insure that restitution remains impossible. 

Vigilante justice does not create a police state. Armed vigilantes dispense the truest form of justice. When the state fines a criminal, the money does not go to the individual whose property has been pilfered; instead, that money goes to the government, not the actual victim. Vigilante justice does not require the creation of an ornate administrative complex.

Vigilantes don’t have fragile self-esteem like members of a police union; vigilantes don’t constantly need to be told what a great job they are doing like government officers. You don’t find vigilantes patting each other on the back and calling each other “special” like secret police agents. Taking justice into your own frees society from all the sanctimony self-righteousness of law-enforcement bureaucrats.

Even though crime might be declining in the country, the criminal-justice industry is always growing. If the police cannot steal enough resources from genuine criminals, they will find a way to extort money from peaceful citizens. When the vigilantes seize power, the law-enforcement institutions will not able to steal property through asset forfeiture, and the police officers will not be able fill their quotas with bogus arrests. The state will not benefit from the actions of the criminal when citizens take the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice does not enrich a law-enforcement industry.

Vigilante justice is focused on the individual, not the institution. The person who is directly wronged is able to attain redress personally in a vigilante system. When a murderer needs to be punished, a family member is able to extract the desired revenge himself. Vigilante justice is personal and direct.

Vigilante justice is not corrupt. Unlike a judge on the take, vigilante justice cannot be bought. Vigilantes don’t take bribes to let the criminal get away with murder. You don’t need your restitution to be interrupted by a prosecutor’s need for campaign contributions. Vigilante justice may be brutal, but vigilante justice is not done in back-room deals.  

Vigilante justice is without mercy. Vigilante justice won't be distorted by bleeding hearts feeling sorry for the criminal. Vigilantes don’t need to give the criminal any second chances; they get things right the first time. Compassion is not wasted on those who do not deserve it. Vigilante justice is pure and without leniency. Vigilantes do not go around making exceptions.

So what if the posse might occasion ally string-up the wrong person? Human life is enormously over-rated and the world is exceedingly overpopulated. Even if the vigilantes might occasionally make a mistake – at least they will always err on the side of giving the world a bit more breathing room.  

The state justice system needs professional criminals to keep themselves in business. Experienced lawyers require experienced outlaws. Only vigilante justice will eliminate the criminal class and the law-enforcement complex at the same time.   

The Old Western idea of the rifle above the door is the most efficient system of justice ever devised.

INDIVIDUALISM IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF LIBERALISM

by Mr. Mean-Spirited



Individualism doesn’t just mean that the self is more important than the state – but, more importantly, individualism also teaches that personal independence can only be attained through deliberate selfishness. Individualism doesn’t just mean standing on your own two feet, but also includes standing against other people. Individualism doesn’t just mean self-interest, but also involves an active disinterest in the community. Individualism doesn’t just mean being self-centered, but that an individual can only exist through a continual rejection of society.

Individualism is possibly the most misunderstood philosophical position. Individualism is not the least bit concerned with otherworldly truths as much as enhancing freedom in this life. Misconceived because self-reliance is not concerned with improving anything in a future social order that is yet to come – as much as individualism is concerned with maximizing freedom right now.

Individualism is not about being cutting edge – but being antisocial. Liberals strive to better the social order, but individualists are more interested in keeping their distance. A liberal wants to help others, and individualist just wants to help himself. A rugged individualist doesn’t give a shit about anything except himself.

The independent individual requires constant defense against encroachment by the humanitarians. An individualist is not just a loner, but a person who continually retreats from society. As the collective moves forward, the individualist steps back. In order to exist at all, individualism must always be taken to the extreme: what is good is anything that benefits yourself, what is bad is anything that gives an edge to other people.

Individualism is the complete contradiction of liberalism. Deep down, liberals just want to “fit in” and to be accepted within the collective; ultimately, liberalism is always based upon social conformity. Humanitarians want to be the center of attention within the group, while an individualist just wants to keep away from any social gathering. Remaining an individual is the polar opposite of becoming a do-gooder. The more the progressives progress, the more the individual becomes an individualist.

By sheer chance, I happened to be on a university campus the night Barack Obama was re-elected: all the students were wearing identical liberal t-shirts, supporting the identical liberal candidate, feeling identical liberal emotions, texting identical liberal congratulations to each other. Liberalism is all about dutiful sameness – and holding obedient opinions.

The true individualist has no use for democracy – the lone wolf is caged and tagged by such conformity to mass culture. Liberals are always lecturing about how people should “come together” – an individualist simply doesn’t want to be corralled. The true individual believes in nothing but himself – and this free spirit can only exist through constant hostility to social norms. The individualist becomes a hater of his fellow man out of self-defense.

Any person who does not hate others lacks intensity, and without this inner reserve of hatred, a human being cannot become a true individualist. It is the act of loathing humanity that transforms a man from a mere consumer into an individualist. Without hatred for his fellow beings, one personality is indistinguishable from the mass mind. Individualism is not about choosing one product over another at the convenience store, but about detesting the whole mass culture.

A genuine individualist always has two inevitable components: (1) an exaltation of his own distinct self and (2) an excoriation of everyone else. Without a hated for other people, and with just a high opinion of himself, the personality remains a mere consumer. And with just a loathing of others, and with a lack of love for himself, the loner merely becomes cannon fodder for the establishment. Individualism originates not only from an awareness of having a unique psyche to defend, but also out of the active defense against other persons. You can’t be a true individualist without a basic hostility toward the rest of humanity.

Individualism shows up as much in a wariness toward others as in a worship of yourself. Individualism is as much a reaction against other people as it is a recognition of your own true nature. Individualism is not a just a celebration of the uniqueness of your ego – as much it is a contention of that unique ego against everyone else. And the egoist is going to find himself most often in conflict with the liberal bureaucrats.

Liberals want things to change for the better; an individualist always minds his own business. Activists might orate about looking out for each other, but an individualist doesn’t want to be under observation. The more the altruists work to improve the system, the more the individualist just desires to be left alone. A liberal wants the establishment to be more fair and just, while the lone wolf merely wants to opt out. The more the humanitarians try to improve society – the more the individualist, out of sheer self-preservation, becomes increasingly misanthropic. In order to protect the ego from being destroyed by the do-gooders, the individualist must always appear mean-spirited to the conformist masses.

Liberals just want this world to be more equal – while an independent mind has no use for being equalized. Idealists just want there to be a “level playing field” in the country – a true individualist just isn’t going to tolerate being leveled. A humanitarian would like society to be more just – while an individualist simply has no use for the bureaucracy’s justice system. A do-gooder just wishes that there were more kindness in the world – an individualist has no need for the kindness of strangers. Liberals tend to get aroused by talking about community outreach, but an individualist really would prefer be out of the reach of an excited communitarian. Altruists only want to extend a helping hand – an individualist never likes to be touched.

Only a nonconformist is able to protect his soul from being consumed by the social order. Only a solitary person can preserve his spirit from being absorbed by the community. Individualism is not about doing the right thing – as much as being a lone wolf is about not participating at all. To be fully autonomous, the individual must also become completely antisocial.

To love yourself – to love yourself completely – to love yourself absolutely – to love yourself unconditionally requires that you actively hate the collective.

YOU SHOULD BECOME AN ALCOHOLIC

by Mr. Mean-Spirited

Some would say that I have a bit of a drinking problem. Put a bottle in front of me and I will empty it.

If you ever happen to visit the cheapest bar downtown, you would see me sitting with my back to the wall, coldly watching everything going on around me. Some might suggest that I am just a substance abuser – but, no, I drink to understand myself.

I think of it like this. If you ever really want to know who you are – you could spend decades meditating in weird postures, you might even expend years in psychoanalysis – but if you find the courage to investigate your true nature, you should try getting shit-faced drunk every night. Liquor brings out a person’s true nature. Intoxication demonstrates the way a personality actually works. If somebody is naturally quiet, alcohol will make them even quieter. If an individual is normally withdrawn, then drinking will cause them to become even less talkative. If a person is regularly aggressive, then liquor will leave them all the more assertive. Booze does not transform a human being; it just makes them even more so. Alcohol is not liquid courage – never has been; firewater is more like liquid confirmation. You might not like the kind of person you discover yourself to be – but liquor has a way of making you come to accept it.

Liquor takes all the sadness and sufferings of life and does not make anything better – not even for a couple hours – alcohol just puts things into perspective. Drinking helps you to come to terms with the sorrows of existence.

Booze has taught me one thing: I’m a God-damned asocial bastard. I don’t drink to accustom me to other people; I get drunk to bring out my innate unsociability. I do not drink to become gregarious with acquaintances; I imbibe in order to make me all the more antisocial. I am not a friendly drinker; I am one fucking silent drunk. I am not tolerant when I get tipsy; I am one unsympathetic drinker. I would prefer to meticulously peel the label off a beer bottle than hear about your problems. I’d rather blackout a couple hours – and come to my senses in unfamiliar locations – than spend time with the likes of you. Say what you like about me, I might hate everyone’s guts – but I can hold my liquor.

The higher my blood-alcohol level, the greater my contempt for humanity. I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a friend beside me. I prefer booze to bosom buddies. I don’t need other souls near me; I just need spirits within reach. I don’t want laughter around me; I just want liquor inside me.

Damn right, I am an alcoholic – and if you had the liver for it, you should become a drunkard too.

WHY YOUR PRAYERS DON’T GET ANSWERS

by Mr. Mean-Spirited

 
 

If you want your prayers to get results, you will need to display the same sort of ruthlessness as in any other human activity. Supplication is not for sissies. Prayer is not for pansies. Worship is not for Goddamn wimps. You must pray mightily if you want to attain divine mastery.

If a couple different individuals pray for the exact same target, obviously the two petitioners cannot both receive the same positive answer – so it is first necessary to vanquish your opponent’s prayers before your appeal can get results. If you are praying for the winning ticket in the lottery, there are thousands of other believers with that same supplication on their lips – but only one worshipper will ultimately end up with the grand prize. Just as counter-intelligence is designed to neutralize foreign spying, so there must be a system of counter-prayer designed to neutralize an opponent’s wishes.

It is not the whim of some supernatural being that impels a favorable response to a prayer – as much as it the internal configuration of the invocation itself that will bring fulfillment. It is not divine whimsy that grants success to a petition; instead, it is the accurate formation of a prayer that guarantees an advantageous response. When it comes to religion, proper design is more important than devotion. When it involves ritual, precise structure is more important than sincerity.

Counter-prayer might be defined as a strategy of demolishing and dismantling your opponent’s supplications. Before you pray for something, you must first prey upon someone. Consequently, it is necessary to get rid of the competition if you want your prayers to bring home the goods. You must first neutralize the prayers from your fellow believers before you will see any positive results.  

First, you must want and wish and will the utter destruction of all your rivals in supplication. If you aren’t pleading for someone’s death, then you aren’t really praying. You simply aren’t doing religion if you aren’t imploring the utter devastation of your enemies. Your prayers must slaughter hogs if you want to bring home the bacon.

Second, in order that your own destruction is not attained through someone else’s prayer, you must next damage the supplications of your religious rivals. Counter-invocation prevents your competitor’s prayers from making any difference. If your supplications have never been successful, now you know why – inference from fellow believers.

Just as a customer at a singles’ bar must first frustrate any rivals in order to bring home a date for the night, so the believer must first destroy his neighbor’s prayers. Counter-prayer will prevent your supplications from being cock-blocked by an interfering congregation. The most certain means of sabotaging a contender’s supplication is to encourage the adversary to employ the wrong supernatural format. Your brother’s prayers must be nullified by a sort of cybernetic virus— you must first corrupt your neighbor’s faith in order for your own orations to emerge triumphant. Just as in a computer program, you must insert a logic bomb into the supplications of your antagonist.

In order that your own prayers bring home the groceries, you must spoil your opponent’s chances. In order that your prayers attain the desired merchandise, you must be certain that your neighbor’s utterance will fail. Your prayers aren’t ever going answered if there is any competition for the prize. In order that your own prayer might emerge victorious, you need to ensure that your challenger’s supplication is completely destroyed. You must bring ruination upon your fellow believers and implant ruin in their very prayers.

Just as only the fittest creatures survive in biological evolution, the same sort of natural selection is always at work in prayer.  Think of it as a kind of spiritual Darwinism, where only the strongest supplications manage to receive answers. Mercy doesn’t enter into prayer any more than anything else in life. Triumphant orison is red in tooth and claw.

It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, and nowhere is that more true than prayer. It’s a kill-or-be-killed sort of environment on earth as it is in heaven.