Header Image (book)


Friday, March 9, 2018


Some call this change "progress."

Really? Really?


  1. I've called the phenomenon mildly illustrated above precisely what it is –– a WILLFUL REVERSION to PRIMITIVE SAVAGERY BORN OUT of MISGUIDED SYMPATHY for the PLIGHT of the SUB-SAHARAN NEGRO –– ever since I first encountered it.

    Self-Degradation, Self-Mutilation, Self-Abnegation, Self-Destruction all couched in terms of Self-Righteous Indignation determined to PUNISH White Christian Society for Imaginary sins no one has committed for several generations is at the root of ALL the bizarre, disturbing, profoundly UGLY, DEGENERATE things that have overtaken us.

    These most regrettable sick, debilitating changes have literally been BRED into the culture by the infernal machinations of Cultural Marxists from the Frankfurt School who long ago infiltrated then ever-so-gradually grabbed control of our UNIVERSITIES.

    ALSO anyone who does not believe that the advent of SEX, DRUGS and ROCK 'n ROLL did not herald the BEGNNING of OUR DOWNFALL as a people is a victim of the long slow BRAINWASHNG process to which our culture has been subjected for over a century.

  2. Are we sure that that is a woman on the right (pictorially, not politically)?
    Are we allowed to make that judgement call?
    As Tucker says, "I'm confused".
    As Tucker means, I'm not.

    1. A good question, Ed. I didn't see that possibility until you suggested it.

      It doesn't much matter either way. Whatever that THING is on the right, IT is desperately unattractive, and nothing I'd ever want to entertain in my purview.

      Unfortunately, we are too often confronted with "freaks" like this at the grocery store, the hardware store, or the pharmacy. Some restaurants have even hired them to wait on tables. UGH!

      If this is gong to be The New Normal, I want OUT.

  3. We don't all enjoy the same things. Feminism deserves credit for extending opportunities to women, even if many of those possibilities are not my cup of tea.

    1. Yes, of course. There are two sides to everything. Good that you rem/unded us of that.

      I've always been in full support of women as the intellectual equals of men. In fact I noticed ling ago when still a child, that some women are a great deal smarter and more capable than some men.

      At the some time I remain most grateful for innate physiological differences between the sexes, aren't you?

      Men and women may be EQUAL, but thank God they are NOT the SAME.


    2. And some women are dumber than some men. While we might be reasonably constrained by talent, we should not be constrained by mere gender.

      I just don't think that the difference between genders explains much of what's interesting about the variation between us all. And I don't think physiology has much to do with the difference between eg. Obama and Trump.

    3. I don't believe I said anything that should be construed as contradctry to anything you said there.

      I believe, –– despite the obvious external differences such as male and female genitalia, somatic type, height, weight, skin tone, eye color, nair color and texture, bone structure, degree of musculature, facial features, vocal timbre and degrees of shyness and aggressiveness –– that each of us is UNIQUE.

      That of course, impllies that each of us is in some way special, and deserving of loving care, sincere interest in who we are or might become, and devoted attention in childhood ad beyond.

      Why certain strains of humanity tend to be more hostile, belligerent aggressive and acquisitive than others, and some more open, friendly, ingenuous, gentle , kind and generous I can't pretend to know, but I think it foolish to deny such obvious truths, and learn how best to protect ourselves from untoward pugnacity as well as unwholesome seduction. To achieve all this wthout becoming paranoid and overly hostile, ourselves, is an ideal with striving for, I should think.

      I like Walt Whitman's sage admonition:


    4. Stereotypes often have a kernel of truth, but they become a problem when we are obliged to conform and punished for deviating from them. Regardless of the average cases, it should not blow our minds when we meet aggressive women with ambition, nor should we deride gentleness and sensitivity in men. I think feminism continues to be a necessary correction to this.
      Men may even have it slightly worse than women, we are explicitly trained to be emotionally repressed, maybe that's why so many men are only capable of expressing anger.
      Gender fluidity is not my area, but I harbour an untested theory that it is in part a reaction to the constrictions imposed by gender roles. If there were more ways to acceptably be a man or a woman, people wouldn't have to look for alternative genders.

    5. "If there were more ways to acceptably be a man or a woman, people wouldn't have to look for alternative genders."
      Interesting thought.


    Adrienne's Corner features commentary by Dr. JORDAN PETERSON as seen on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

    If you don't already know Jordan Peterson, you might enjoy making his acquaintance. He has a LOT to say that I think NEEDS to be articulated in public.

    1. FT,
      I haven't yet had time to watch the video to which your refer. But I'm not so sure that "The War on Men" is unrelated to the topic of this particular blog post here at Always On Watch.

      Thank you for letting us know about the video.

    2. HERE is the direct link to Dr. Jordan Peterson joins Tucker Carlson to Discuss the War on Men.

    3. Thanks, AOW. Renowned Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who is young enough to be my son, has given a the world a much broader, better informed exposistion of views I, personally, have held for several decades. Peterson has no charisma. His delivery is rather dry and even constrained –– much like that of Victor Davis Hanson ––, but frankly restraint and reserve are a welcome change from the incessant shrieking, roaring invective and borderline hysteria that characterizes the tone of Sean Hannity and far too many other Conservative-Libertarian commentators today.

      I'm afraid the STRESS involved in having to deal with the unceasing outrage produced 'round the clock each day by the ENEMEDIA has adversely affected the disposition of too many of "us."

      This is one of the many reasons I have grown to admire –– and even love –– President Trump. No matter how much GARBAGE the ENEMEDIA tosses at him, he remains strong and confident above the fray, and just goes merrily on his way doing his best to Make America Great Again –– as if thEY didn't matter ––, which in TRUTH they DON'T.

      Oh sure, the president will lambaste "them" by calling them what they are in his famous "Tweets," but, as I see it, he is merely making SPORT of "them." "They" don't really faze him a bit.

      Considering the tremendous, monopolistic power the ENEMEDIA once held –– and the smug, supercilioious, self-righteous half-pitying fashion with which they regard American citizens in general –– it's no wonder they hate Mr.Trump with such virulent passion.

  5. The photograph doesn't reflect feminism at all. We are looking at someone who has literally destroyed what they look like, the genesis of which is self-loathing. No one with a true sense of self-worth would destroy their appearance, so this view illustrates an individual with unresolved anger leading to a self-punishing, passive-aggressive mindset. One of the easiest ways of dealing with deep-seeded anger is punishing oneself, and the easiest way to do that is by destroying one's facial appearance. A self-fulfilling prophesy is achieved when others are revolted by the way they look, which does little more than reinforce self-loathing. Sad.

    1. A very plausible analysis, Sam, but the "self-hatred you descrive is largely prompted by the highy negatove "ethos" that has cometo cmiate the cu,ture thanks to the machi atiis of Cultural Marxists and Post-Modern Philosophy, as largely defined and formulated by Foucault and Derrida.

      What do you think of thOS explanation that I proffered above?

      [The current vogue for self-mutilation] is a WILLFUL REVERSION to PRIMITIVE SAVAGERY BORN OUT of MISGUIDED SYMPATHY for the PLIGHT of the SUB-SAHARAN NEGRO.

    2. How would you explain ear piercing?

    3. I certainly woud never consider such a thing fr myself. Frankly I never gave it much thought. None of the women in my life ever had pierced ears, but I can't object to any woman's wanting to secure possibly valuable ear bobs to prevent them from falling off, which happens quite often with the screw on kind.

      I suppose ine COULD argue that ear piercing, even of the most minimal kind, is a form of mutilation, but I see it as a matter of degree. Done discreetly without grotesque exaggeration it's quite acceptable.

      BUT, we are talking in THIS post abut excessive, permanent DAMAGE to natural features, and that IS a reversion to the kind of thing for which ancient barbarians and more primitive societies have long been been noted.

      How would you feel, for instance, if your girlfriend, wife or daughter began having increasingly large wooden discs inserted inside her lips at regular intervals in hopes of eventually achieving the DUCK-BILLED look made famous by women of the Ubangi tribe in Africa?

      Would you rejoice and be glad, for instance, if your teenaged son came home one day with a FLAMING SKULL tattooed in the middle of his forehead?

      And what about the old Chinese custom of binding little girls' feet so they couldn't walk when they grew up? Should we revive that in Post-Modern Europe and the UK?


    4. I don't recall Derrida taking a position on body piercing.


      And once AGAIN Ca-Ca-Canardo dive bombs a civil conversation with an irrelevant quip expressing WILLFUL MISUNDERSTANDING of the subject at hand!

      We can always depend on our resident Quackpot to throw a Stink bomb, a Smoke bomb or a Noise bomb into midst of a peaceful gathering.

      It must come from the glory days of his faraway youth when he was plotting with Sacco and Vanzetti.


    6. FreeThinke's line is arbitrary. The lady on the left has likely pierced (ie permanently damaged) her earlobes. There may be something in his distinction but it might just be his preference (mine too) for tasteful understatement. By the way, many piercings heal over in a few months.
      I haven't chosen to pierce or tattoo my own body, but have been friends with some fairly extensively pierced people, there was one who self-pierced his own nipples - there's something impressive about that, isn't there? I don't know why they did it, it's not an interest I share but they didn't hate themselves. It isn't self-harm.

    7. Jez,
      The lady on the left has likely pierced (ie permanently damaged) her earlobes.

      Not necessarily. Those look like clip-on button earrings, IMO.

      BTW, as I think back on adult women from that era (Yes, I'm old enough to remember), pierced earrings weren't the norm. It seems to me that pierced earrings became popular with 14-25 year olds during the 1960s.

    8. In the striving for "authenticity" the subject imitates "everyone else". ;)

    9. "We are NOT mainstream! We are the CREATIVES! Creators NOT Manufacturers!"

    10. Someone ought to tell them, "creativity lies in the mind and how one thinks, not in outward appearances and how one looks."

    11. FJ,
      "creativity lies in the mind and how one thinks, not in outward appearances and how one looks."

      Excellent point!

  6. @ FT
    I don't know what is in the minds of other people, but even as a generalization, I doubt that any of these self-mutilation-proned individuals know what a South Saharan Negro is. I know that past cultures have tattooed themselves or painted their faces as part of a warrior ethos. The Celts come to mind, perhaps even the Picts. The phenomena appear rampant throughout the US and the EU, but it seems confined within urban settings. I doubt if any of these folks have adopted any ideology, Marxist or otherwise. I suspect that if anything at all, they are anarchist-wannabes, but that would assume that any of these people even know what an anarchist is. What I find amazing is that any service-oriented business would hire someone with a swastika emblazoned on their forehead, elongated earlobes, or a nail protruding from their nose. I sure wouldn't. No, in my view this kind of behavior is intended shock "normal" society and, as I said earlier, is borne from anger and self-loathing.

    1. It's a simple case of rebellion that grew out of the grunge movement of the 80's. One thing it isn't is a new feminine norm as the graphic deceptively suggests.

      If you don't frequent Apple stores much you can go long periods without encountering the look.

    2. "If you don't frequent Apple stores much you can go long periods without encountering the look."
      I live near Ann Arbor , though.

    3. Sam,

      I understand and don't disagree, but what I meant was that the "tectonic" shifts in the culture, which really were brought about by the machinations of Leftist Intellectuals who began by responding to the manifold sins and shortcomings of the Machine Age, but soon fostered a malignant Spirit of Anger, Divisiveness, and Rebellion fueled by the glorification of Envy, Spite, Resentment, Malice and the inappropriate Lust for Vengeance against members of the Upper Class. "Class Warfare."

      By the 1930's our lives were so heavily influenced by what-I-like-to define-as "Cultural Marxist Thinking" the way we live and choose to govern ourselves became thoroughly polluted by the Anti-Tradition, Anti-Christian, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-AMERICAN Ethos promoted by the "Progressives"who, I believe, drew much of their inspiration from Marxoan diaiectics, even though of them would have denied any such connection. .

      I see the regrettable developments of the past hundred years as a chain reaction brought about not so much by conscious motivation as by inevitable reaction to massive amounts of unwholesome, degenerate attitudes falsely cloaked in the guise or respectability by diabolically clever sophists of the Left who had infiltrated our universities and thus spread their poison throughout the culture.

      In short I believe the West has been subjected over a long period of time to an insidious form of MASS HYPNOSIS, and is suffering the possiblity of EXTINCTION as a consequence.

      The average person, Alas! is woefully igorant, rarely thinks, and usually has no idea whatsoever WHY he wants what he wants, and does what he does.

      We have been "DUMBED DOWN" –– rendered ignorant and impotent by the powerful evils inherent in MASS COMMUNICATION controlled by Hostlle, craftily Aggressive, Agenda-Driven MOGULS –– the result is DISASTROUS.

      A sad state of affairs!

    4. @ FT

      I agree with every one of your points. Historically, all cultures change over time (in spite of the fact that all cultures resist change). Some changes come as the result of technological advances, others through shifts in economies, and the result from global conflict. In culture, change (over time) is inevitable, but it is interesting to note the effects of technology: television, the internet, cell phones, social media.

      Not long after the attacks on 9/11, investigators found manuals written for Jihadists where it was discovered that these people were instructed to take that which is central to western culture and use it against the western infidel. It was an interesting revelation, but the enemy Arab wasn't the first to suggest this as a strategy. Global communists embarked on a similar quest beginning in the 1910s and have been plodding along in the efforts to destroy capitalist societies ever since -all the while clamoring how cultural changes reflect popular rejection of one thing or another. Who benefits from the formation of sub-cultures? Not mainstream society, but those who want to change it (for their own purposes). Central to the work of Piven-Cloward was this idea that you can destroy institutions by overwhelming them ... including social norms. Seems to be working, eh? Remember that you aren't being paranoid when people really are out to get you.

    5. Exactly. Technology isn't the problem; it's what people do with it that matters. Imagine going out to dinner with friends, and rather than engaging with them over a fine meal, everyone is texting on their cell phones. We are isolating ourselves from others even while sitting across the table from them. I think our society lacks reason and common sense. We have become un-thinking drones.

    6. Thanks, guys. It's always helpful to know that one is not alone –– as I too often feel when trying to generate discussion of these matters.

      I didn't pay much attention at the time Toffer's FUTURE SHOCK came out some forty years ago, but I have realized more and more that the I-think-too-rapid advance of Technology has done a great deal to spread doubt, fear, confusion and the hostility that usually accompanies those emotions among the generaal public without their being aware of how powerfully they have been manipulated by those in control of these new technologies.

      I think unwanted, unneeded, frankly HARMFUL "change" has been foisted on us by unscrupulous, utterly ruthless "evil geniuses" who are, themselves, driven by an ungodly, destructive Power Agenda.

      If change EVOLVES at a NATURAL pace, as it used to before the amoral Masters of Technology took over the reins, I believe it was mostly a good thing. We have ALWAYS felt a healthy drive to find ways to IMPROVE ourselves.

      Thank God for that God-given instinct, because without it we could ever have built Civilization.

      HOWEVER, when the drive to improve becomes contaminated with an overwhelming urge to find more and more ingenious ways to USE technological advances to exert ever-increasing Power and Control –– which is what I believe has happened –– the entire process becomes forced, and therefore, corrupt.

      The result, as we have seen could only be described as profoundly evil.

    7. FreeThinke, that is roughly the thesis of E. F. Schumacher's. Small Is Beautiful .

      He saw the power of global multinationals and financial institutions but didn't anticipate that the growth would be exponential.
      He saw that human happiness would not be achieved through material wealth and anticipated the problems of depression, alienation and anxiety that plaque us.

      From the rebellious piercings to the self absorbed texting we bear the brunt of a global economic system that is corrupt and corrupting.

      It's a shame his work wasn't an antidote to the political systems that signed on to the idea that economic growth is their primary function rather than human needs and human relationships.

    8. FT,
      On a regular basis, I see people of nearly all ages walking along and looking at their SmartPhone screens. These people seem to be addicted to the device always with them.

      I am alarmed at how addicted my 3rd grade tutoring student is to "screens." She is ever asking me, "Can I use Google Search?" Once there, she falls for the click bait. Moreover, her school promotes this screen addiction: Every student must have an iPad to use for every subject! And the classroom doesn't even have a hard copy of any dictionary.

    9. @ Ducky

      "He saw that human happiness would not be achieved through material wealth and anticipated the problems of depression, alienation, and anxiety that plague us."

      Even a simpleton will eventually deduce that there is no correlation between human happiness and material wealth, but it defies logic to assume that depression, alienation, and anxiety come as a result of either wealth or the lack of it. Happiness comes from a steady, reasoned mind-and, perhaps, through a sense of spiritual purpose. Man shall not live by bread alone ...

      You are at least consistent in blaming the global economy for what ails society. After all, it isn't the fault of individuals if they are depressed, anxious, or unhappy. Surely, there can be no personal accountability for failed marriages, bastard children, drug addiction, facial piercings, profane lifestyle, or an inability to get a job because of personal decisions to blow off free public education. No, all these things are the fault of the global economy -a system created by progressivism. Your argument is nonsensical, but consistent.

    10. Sam,
      You correctly point out that Duck's "reasoning" is nonsensical, but consistent.

      It has been no secret since recorded history/literature that there is no correlation between human happiness and material wealth. Still, every generation seems to have to figure out that reality through personal experience. **sigh**

    11. Yet we live under a system that depends on producing with a primary concern for profit without concern for needs and relationships.
      It becomes a zero sum game and technology will be adopted to production and profit rather than need. You can look at what social media has become, a farm for ad data.

      Libertarians are quite happy with our current spiral and progressives haven't been very successful suggesting an alternative system. But that is exactly what we need and you on the right seem to sense that for all your bemoaning our state.

      You support a system that caters to want but doesn't due well attending to need.

    12. A childish soliloquy.

      The foolish ideology, full of straw-men, held by the uneducated unaware of the health and wealth created by the relatively free market States and the history of welfare and Socialistic states. Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, Venezuela et al.

      The only zero sum game played is by ideologues, scammers and totalitarians always scrambling to rake off the best and finest for themselves.

      Are you angling for that dacha or state sponsored mansion of your own, Nostradumbass?
      If there is no profit to be had, what is the incentive to produce anything.

    13. Ducky, technology is how business is done. No profit, no jobs. No jobs, no ability to fulfill "needs and wants." Human relationships aren't a corporate or government function; they falls within the purview of individuals.

      Would love to hear your plan for the alternative system that doesn't in some way involve Marxism. Meanwhile, while you've lost all your credibility as an economist, I do give you high marks in despotism.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. I'm seeing more and more of them in retail customer servicing positions.

    1. That could be one of the BIGGEST reasons why Brick and Mortar stores are on their way out, and ordering merchandise online is becoming more and more prevalent, Kid.

      I've read that even BANKING is slated to be taken over by ROBOTS. God help us if the ROBOTS decide to adopt the Punk-Rock-Grunge-Neo-Barbaric look with typical accompanying attitudes!


    2. The ATM is already here, FreeThinke.

  9. For the record, I do not have pierced ears. From 1968-1975, it was very easy to find earrings which appeared to be for pierced ears but were not. They were clip-ons, and I even wore big hoops with such fasteners. Big hoops were the fashion in 1968, when I first went to college. So, I had "a ton" of different hoops and dangles.

    I must say, however, that clip-on fasteners were often terribly uncomfortable unless I could find the cushioned type, which became rarer and rarer as more women and girls had pierced ears.

    1. Earrings not for pierced ears but made of precious metals, sometimes with gems such as diamonds and pearls, were and still are of the "screw-back" type.

  10. She should fit right in when the Aliens from somewhere in outer space arrive... or perhaps they already have???

    1. Bunkerville,
      Great comment!

      It does seems as if Space Aliens are among us.

  11. Replies
    1. How so? I've never been good at interpreting cryptic remarks.

    2. FreeThinke, you wouldn't want to be around a magnet with all that metal in your face.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.