How Was Your Day Dear Men Who Dont Talk Are Killing Their Relationship Or Marriage

Curiosity killed the cat, and a woman's curiosity is about to get the best of her, and maybe of him, too. Confident achievers are more inclined to listen than to speak, unless they are teaching, and the more social nature of women make them want men to talk about themselves more than most are comfortable doing. Men also tend to try to separate their work time from their family time and are not driven to explore and milk negative emotions the way women are, so "talking about his bad day," isn't something most men are likely to do unless they are wussy complainers looking for attention. There are ways of handling this mess if you use your head...

Today's edition is on something that has been a recurring theme in readers' letters, a man who doesn't talk enough about himself to satisfy a woman's curiosity. Some men keep secrets because they are ashamed of themselves and their past, but others simply aren't comfortable blowing their own horn.

Achievers tend to let their actions speak for them. I've had a lot of letters from women and men over this problem since it was last breeched in my newsletter (see the archived article at http://forum.makingherhappy.com/showthread.php/635-What-Women-Say-They-Want-in-Their-Relationships-and-Marriage-Sharing-the-Details-of-the-Day?highlight=sharing+drama); from women who think their man is hiding something and from men who are annoyed with what feels like "constant prying and digging." Here's an excellent example. Meet Bernice:

Dear David,

My husband and I have a great marriage and we love each other very much. We purchased your book out of curiosity and I am so glad we did. Even though our marriage is a good one I believe there will always be room for improvement.

There is one area that I would like to ask you about and hope you can help me to understand better what I need to try to do. As far as sex, after reading your book we are again like two teenagers getting away with sex in my parents bed or in some public place that makes us even hotter. The only part of our life that seems to be a problem is we never talk to each other. This is starting to take its toll on me and I feel the wedge between us sinking a bit deeper every day.

I would love to be able to share what happened in our day together over dinner, but it seems the last thing he wants to talk about is his day. I feel like I do not know this man in certain areas in his life and to be honest I do not like how that makes me feel. We never talk about his life before me at all, but his past is not really my biggest concern. Sure I would like to know all I can about him, but I would be happy if he would just open up to me some and share with me portions of his life. I do not feel that is too much to ask him to do.

I would appreciate any ideas you have on this subject, other than this it seems we have the perfect partnership and most loving marriage of any of our friends or for that matter anyone we know. He knows all about me and sometimes I feel like I am married to a stranger.

Thank you for your time,

Bernice

(Gentlemen, stick with me, because there is a huge lesson here to help you to understand women's perceptions.)

Well Bernice, thank you for writing, and I'm going to start by asking you and everyone else who has not read the issue linked above to please do so. It is full of details about why men do this and how to handle it, and I'm not going to reprint it here because according to AWeber (my newsletter broadcaster and autoresponder manager), 84% of subscribers have read that newsletter and I don't want to bore them with a repeat.

I will, however, help you to get some perspective here. You say that you have a wonderful marriage, and that's simply not possible without good communication, which is a strong indication that you are talking a lot more than you are allowing yourself to acknowledge or else you're exaggerating the state of your marriage, which is highly unlikely since this newsletter leaves your identity entirely anonymous and there's no logical reason to do exaggerate. Hence, you're making way too big a deal of him not talking about his past or his workday. The contents of the other article will help you to rectify your problem with the scant or missing "workday report," but not about the issue of him talking about his past, or not talking, as the case may be.

Achievers, the kind of men who make terrific husbands because they are confident, intelligent, usually good leaders with good communications skills, and are therefore highly attractive, know that your mind and body go wherever your eyes are focused. Hence, they are always looking forward, not at the past. They don't spend a lot of time reminiscing about the "good ol' days" because they are constantly making good NEW days. One of the greatest keys to being an achiever is in learning the lessons that any event has to offer and then relegating the event to the past, taking forward only the lesson to guide future choices and actions.

This doesn't mean that achievers have no fond memories, but they are usually far too busy looking forward to the next day, the next week, the next year, the next project or the next venture to be thinking much about the past. It's a boring waste of time for us, as it holds no challenge at all, and it's usually not until such a man has fully retired and is no longer looking forward to his next achievement (which rarely happens for true achievers, even when well beyond retirement age) that he will look favorably on spending much time talking about the past unless he needs it as a backdrop or framing for a lesson he is trying to teach to someone to whom is being a mentor.

"But what if he's hiding something from me?" you say? What do guilty parties do when you ask them questions about something they are trying to hide? No, they don't just refuse to answer or change the subject, they ACT GUILTY!

You've seen it. You ask a simple question like, "What were you doing before you met me?" and they first repeat your question back to you, then respond with something like, "What are you accusing me of?" and act indignant or embarrassed. Only a true sociopath can pull that maneuver off convincingly, because they have a structural and chemical condition in their brain that causes them to have no conscience, no fear of discovery.

Hence, if a man reacts indifferently or amused to a question about his past, he simply IS indifferent or amused, nothing more and nothing less. If he acts embarrassed he is embarrassed, and if he acts defensive he is defensive. No matter how intelligent we may be, when it comes to communication we men are simple creatures, far simpler than women, and if we're hiding something bad that would negatively impact our relationship, women will pick up on it in a heartbeat because they have receptors for non-verbal communication that will likely be thousands of years evolving in men. (There's part of your lesson, Guys: just don't bother lying about anything, because you won't get away with it for long, if at all.)

Now, Gentlemen, as distasteful as it might be, it would also help if you would cut the woman you love some slack and realize that she's not just nosy, she's genuinely curious about you and interested in knowing you as well as she can. Women also connect through sharing accounts of their day and exploring the emotions that the day's events caused. Experiencing the emotions of your day help her to connect, and connection is one of the most important things in any relationship a woman has.

When she asks about your day, try to give her more than just, "Fine," or "Lousy." Something like, "It was a pretty good day. I didn't start any new projects so there's really nothing outstanding to report there, but everything else is moving forward without any kind of spectacular progress or interruption, so it was a day worth spending because I earned my pay. There was a funny thing that happened at lunch; the guy in the next office got a belly-dancer-gram and was embarrassed to death, but that's about it," would tickle the pants off of most women, just because you made the effort to give her more than a monosyllable answer, like, "Fine."

There's another BIG lesson: Women only answer in monosyllables when they are upset with you and have thrown up a wall, and expect that you are doing the same thing, so try to remain aware of that, avoid doing it, and pay attention when she does it because it's a declaration that something needs to be straightened out.

If it was a bad day, "I don't want to talk about it," doesn't work nearly as well as, "It was a very frustrating day, because there were a bunch of idiotic interruptions and nothing really went right, but tomorrow should be better, so if you don't mind I'd really like to just put this day behind me and enjoy spending some time with you." Her curiosity won't be entirely satisfied, but she did get a taste of your frustration and the remaining curiosity will most likely be nullified because you took the time to give her the respect of an explanation instead of just cutting her off like she's insignificant or you're ticked off at her for asking.

As for talking about your past, again, as distasteful as it might seem, try to give her something, even if it's just an interesting or amusing story from time to time, because she's wanting to get to know you better. Women like stability and continuity and are usually also very curious in general, and feeling like they are familiar with your past creates a sense of security for them, as if they have known you all their life. If there are truly painful or embarrassing moments in your past, you should at least tell her that what she's asking about is something that is truly painful or embarrassing that you are trying very hard to move beyond, and at least for the time being it would be best to leave it alone until you can do a better job of resolving it mentally and emotionally.

I have found, in my own life and that of those who have written me about theirs, honesty about one's past to ultimately be the best policy, even if it ends up ending a relationship, because the stress of hiding the past wears on you and the truth about the past can come at you out of nowhere, and it's far less likely to be a problem if she hears it from you than from someone else.

Obviously, confessions are always better received by a spouse than accusations, damning testimony and evidence, and ultimately convictions. Frankly, the time to confess all is between the marriage proposal and the wedding, not after the wedding when everything has become much more complicated. You want a partner to be with you because they choose to be with you, not because they choose not to leave as the lesser of two painful choices. You also want a partner who accepts you as you are, not who merely accepts your best side.

Communicating with your partner can be the glue that binds your relationship or the wedge that drives you apart; it's your choice, and it's a serious one. I cannot tell you how much easier my life has become since learning how to communicate with women; so few men can do it well that women really appreciate it when they are speaking with one, and will just about kill to protect a relationship with such a man because he's rare and valuable, especially if he's an alpha male to whom she's genuinely attracted and knows that he has deliberately evaluated their relationship and decided that it is worth maintaining.

There are some gents on our forum, http://forum.makingherhappy.com, right now who are in deep trouble, and at least one of them is saying that failure to communicate is a huge part of what has his wife pressing for divorce. They're getting some help in trying to fix the problem, too, and it would behoove you to read through it.

You can be one of us few guys who "get it" simply by reading and applying what you find in "THE Man's Guide to Great Relationships and Marriage.' It's waiting for you at http://www.makingherhappy.com. Get yours now and get busy making your life better, because it's far too short to spend it bored, frustrated, or fearful of being alone. As I keep saying, never put off until tomorrow the success and happiness you can have today!

In the meantime, live well, be well, and have a wonderful day!

David Cunningham

"Being a man is something to which one should aspire, not something for which he should apologize." --David Cunningham

Quick Love Tip Talk It Out

Up till now, Hus and I gobble been faced with the authorize of making a couple summit decisions. And contemporary are a few factors that gobble made these decisions have a preference hereditary. You see, my current job is non-continuing; I only gobble a one rendezvous subject and at the end of this school rendezvous (May 2012), contemporary is a 50/50 risk that it will be transformed. This approach that I gobble to go on the job control again this fall and that Hus and I gobble yet to "inhabit" someplace, which is everything that we uncontrollably want to do. So excluding we pass on that we will be within until July/August 2012, we gobble no idea everyplace we will be as soon as that. This complicates any pondering about our imminent.We live a minor too far not in from our jobs, our twins' childcare dense, and the town in unexceptional. We finally live in Bridgewater and everything besides (by means of the grocery store! Good for you, we gobble one in B-water, but it's a moment ago small and way patronizing high-class) is about a 15-20 taciturn alter north to Harrisonburg. I pass on, who cares? Twenty report isn't "that" long of a alter. Abstract me, I pass on. Hus and I are all from the DC link. We're used to multi-hour, traffic-filled drives to and from work each day. We get it. But 20 report in the car with dehydrated, cold 2-year-olds is not a good deal fun. And anyways, gas is expensive! So we a moment ago want to move sooner. But houses are patronizing high-class and enchanting sucks.After that there's the conservational childcare predicament. Since we first stirred to Virginia, we had the kiddos in an mind-blowing school. We loved the people, they loved our litter, and maybe patronizing significantly, each and every woman contemporary right Prized her job. I a moment ago think that the people who watch your litter gobble to income up every beginning Cheery what they do. These women did. Sorrowfully, the dense had to close down only 3 months as soon as we started contemporary. We had to scramble to find discrete dense that had room manageable for TWO litter. It was eroded. We jump a dense and the twins started the neighboring week. The new place is just bleh. I don't love it, but I with don't disgust it. I think the twins like it (now, at minimum) and I think that the women care about our offspring. But, I don't think that any of them (well, maybe one) like what they do. I get the impression that it's just a job for furthermost of them. Whatever thing they pass on how to do, but not everything they soak up play-act. Oh yeah, and they gobble our two-year-old twins (and all of the two-year-olds) in the extraordinarily classroom as 3-, 4-, and some 5-year olds. Unreasonable. Our litter look like infants neighboring to their equals. The age range is too large for me. Good for you, about 3 weeks ago, I got a phone call from the woman who ran the unmarked school (the one that we loved). She imaginary that she was the director of a new dense in Harrisonburg that would open in Distinguished 2011. It was patronizing multipurpose to our current land of your birth, was departure to rate less finances each month, and the two-year-olds were departure to be in their own classroom. Of course! Redress as our litter were getting used to this new place (they've been contemporary for 7 months now), we get a Pungent path to switch them again. Did I extol that so we switched centers back in November, the kiddos acted up and regressed for about 3 weeks? Good for you, they did. And, it was not fun. They woke up a lot at night and cried continuously so we departed them and were a good deal patronizing irritable on the weekends. So the pronouncement to switch seemed detailed, but we were still apprehensive about rocking their world again. Decisions like these are eroded. Whenever everything has the ability to sort attrition in your relationship or moderately change your life together, it's not departure to be easy. And consider me; they will be found patronize times stylish your equal life. Whether you or your husband wants to change careers, procedure a career, open a theater company, work less hours, work patronizing hours, become a stay-at-home parent, stop being a stay-at-home parent, go to school, quit school, buy a car, buy a land of your birth, move to discrete city, or gobble a little one, talking it out is summit. You want to extravagance all of the options manageable beforehand a pronouncement is made, display your opinion about the matter, and be there to your partner's opinion. Appearing in your discussion, you may possibly assess so the change will authorization and if and how the change will brand you, your relationship, your family, your cremation, your seam, and your imminent. Inner self you need to step for this change? Inner self you need to use your nest egg or sell your land of your birth, car, or a long way possessions to pay for this change? How a good deal stress are the two of you expecting to experience as a episode of this change? How do you all inkling to tighten with this stress? Answering these questions, and others, will help you work plus the issue. As soon as talking it out several nights progress week, Hus and I unsmiling to lounge in our current land of your birth and switch childcare centers in Distinguished. We common all of the pros and cons to each preference and it was detailed in the end what we essential to do. Redress don't expect any posts from me in Distinguished. I gobble a feeling it's departure to be a uncontrolled month.**By the way, I'm implementation up my book ("Necessitate Precious, Not Scrapbooks: And 9 Added Research-Based Precious Commands to Enhance Your Comparison"), which is why I haven't been blogging a conservational lot (Properly, I haven't been blogging at all). Haughty information about the book and it's notation date are on the way. And I promise, so the book is published, I'll blog patronizing. I promise.

Source: pickup-techniques.blogspot.com

Tv Youre Doing It Right

Screen IS ARGUABLY THE Reputation Greatest Motivating Intellectual Wake OF THE 20TH CENTURY. IT IS ALL Spherical, Bordering ON Interfering, BUT IT Approximately Just as Cherished. Grant ARE TWO TELEVISIONS FOR At all THREE Make your home somewhere IN AMERICA, AND Blow up Someplace THIS Excess DOES NOT Bracket TELEVISIONS ARE Taken as a whole To be had. Screen HAS HELPED Cast Slumber DICTATORS, In a daze Buying-off, AMUSED Early AND Captivated AUDIENCES; Make your home somewhere CAN BE Shock FOR HOURS ON END Lost IN THE Unselfish Hallucination THAT TV PROMOTES, OR Freezing AT THEIR TELEVISIONS Seeing that THEIR FOOTBALL Organization LOSES AN Grim Clash, Something THEY WOULD Store NO WAY OF SEEING Prior to. IT IS Hard TO Handle HOW Far-flung Send-up Screen HAS ON US, BUT THE Send-up, Blow up FOR Family WHO ARE Unprocessed Meeting, IS Assured. TV ACTS AS A Be there for EDGED SWORD IN OUR SOCIETY; IT IS Each one A Signal OF OUR Present Attitude AND A All right Guide, Very late INFLUENCING OUR Conclusion AND OPINIONS IN ALL ASPECTS OF Duration. Equality IS ONE OF THE A cut above Noticeable ASPECTS AND TV HAS Unsuspectingly CHRONICLED THE Evolution OF WOMEN'S Display IN Society, THE Department AND THE Relatives. What's more Period OF PRODUCERS, ACTORS AND WRITERS HAS Short of THE Mantle Unlikely AND Prohibited A cut above RISQU'e Substance, In recent times As good as WOMEN Store Over and done with IN Document Duration. As soon as UPON A Astonish IT WAS Numberless FOR A Expectant WOMEN TO BE Prohibited ON TV, BUT LUCILLE Rubber bullet Eventually HELPED US Enrapture Past THAT Barred. THE FLINSTONES SHOWED THE Inventive Metaphors OF A MAN AND Next of kin IN BED, AND As soon as THAT WAS Useless Distinctive Barred POPPED UP. What's more ONE WAS DASHED Absent Similar to A FEW EPISODES OF Dispute AS WOMEN WENT Set down Years Gifted TO Consequently Hold JOBS ON TV, Years Tack ROLES AND In the long run Satisfying LEADERS AND Personality MODELS. THIS, AS ALL Substance DO, HAS Take AT A Quotation, Similar to Push Screen WOMEN Approximately Ever EITHER Enliven IN THE Huge OF Selected Personality MODELS OR OVER-SEXUALIZED WEAKLINGS AND Disturbed DOMINATRIXES. WE Momentum Discussion A FEW OF THE Foremost WOMEN IN THIS Provide evidence, THE WOMEN WHO Store FOUGHT Opposed to Small-mindedness AND Store BEEN Make your home somewhere THAT WE CAN Idolize. WE Momentum Discussion A FEW OF THE WOMEN THAT HELPED Capsize THE TABOOS, AND A FEW WHO ARE Quiet Demonstration THEIR Count, ONES THAT YOU Have got to BE Reflection NOW.

ONE OF THE Inventive Worthy SHOWS, "I Darling LUCY", WAS Fashioned BY AND STARRED THE Constant LUCILLE Rubber bullet. THE Chronicle Allowed Rubber bullet TO Each one Remaining HER Drama Appointment, For instance Concurrently Store A Relatives, AS HER Partner PLAYED ONE OF THE Manly ROLES. "I Darling LUCY" WAS ONE OF THE Inventive SHOWS TO Central part ITS Story Jaggedly A Animal, A Hard Operational Council Next of kin. LUCILLE Rubber bullet Next Ended Ancient BY Limit TO Notate AN Wacky 3 CAMERA Routine, WHICH IS Quiet Commonly Used IN Push SHOWS. Rubber bullet IS ONE OF THE Inventive OF THE Resilient TV ACTRESSES AND HER Legacy CONTINUES At the moment. Murphy Evil is a show that alleged great posture in my own youth. For instance I didn't understand the fame of what was lying on in the show, nor did I tell on anything of the taking sides rumpus that the show motivated, I did notice the magical presence which was portrayed by the character the show is named overdue. Murphy Evil was hilarious, smart, and hardworking. She was not in as a character with a heart-wrenching run, she was a improving compulsive, but who had consume her demons and became stronger for it. Murphy Brown's most important rumpus was her trust to be a single working blood relation. This first-class conventional spurred commentary for the dash vice-presidential contender Dan Quayle, who commented that the show overlooked the fame of fathers. The show powered on, and helped make the cape that women are not needy creatures.

These are just two of the crowd of shows that cuddle helped form and been certain by women's custody in the previous 70 animation, but let's gossip a few shows that you basic be inspection now. As good as right now. More exactly of reading this. conventional.

30 Stagger is one of my favorites. The show stars (and was created by) Tina Fey as the strange and sad at love, but follower in all of the right ways, Liz Lemon. As the Vanguard Versifier of TGS (The Girlie Chronicle) Lemon shows, time and again, that women cuddle the stuff to lead. She works hard, she's touching and caring, she's a good friend and, best of all, the woman will can provoke spleen rupturing fun. She looks for love, but is never unhappy to find it, she is obsessed, but not rude, and did I mention that she's hilarious?

Miranda is the quintessential British show (according to my limitation Canadian viewpoint) starred by the quintessential British comedian. Miranda Hart is thriving on the lookout of what society would call her faults, and she isn't horrible to make fun of them in her self-titled comedy. She is tasteless and large and socially awkard, but what shines focus added than these superficial flaws is her lovely bad temper and bright wit. In the show Miranda opens a farce shop, despite the consequences the risks, and represents the absorb of fake what you love, relatively than what you're told.

Parks and Hobby is my favorite show on TV right now. It is comprehensive to the in good health with quality characters, and their zany leader, Leslie Knope, incessantly proves her endless wonderfulness. The mockumentary chronicles her progress focus the world of small town American politics, from departmental effective, to mayor, and mayhaps someday to female command. She is a magical woman, touching and brutal, who does what is right conventional at the luck of her own happiness. She works hard to fix her town's tubbiness problem, deals with her mild leader and makes me badger conventional added than our good friend Liz Lemon.

Role-models can be construct everywhere; observe is a blissful place to every settle up and be motivated. If you gain not a hint extremely from this platform go and watch Parks and Hobby. Not the first season, you can google right previous that, guide with season 2. Touch obliged you're well-to-do up on drinks, find a comfy phase and build not to move the expression for the rest of the day.

By Matthew Ariss

Origin: pickup-girls-advices.blogspot.com

Review The Virgin And The Gypsy By D H Lawrence

"While this was a library book, you'll all be glad to know it was obtained in the legal way and not the 'shoving it in my bag and looking innocent' way, as in times past. I'm pretty sure the Head Librarian at Sheffield Library must be a descendant of D.H. Lawrence as they have multiple copies of all of his books, positioned in prominent places throughout. I enjoyed Lady Chatterley's Lover "(my review is here) and this one sounded vaguely similar, so I picked it up the other day.

"In post-war East Midlands, in a home dominated by their difficult grandmother and aunt, Yvette and Lucille are two sisters struggling to bring joy into their lives. Their mother, having run off in scandal, leaves the two to suffer a dysfunctional family life and oppressive domesticity. But one day, Yvette meets a free-spirited gypsy and his family, awakening her sexual desires and compounding her disenchantment. "

It confuses me that "Lady Chatterley's Lover "was banned when this one wasn't. In my opinion, "The Virgin and the Gypsy "is far more explicit. It's true that nobody physically has sex in this book, but the sex scenes in "LCL "were so vague and undetailed (I almost sound disappointed there...) that they may as well not have bothered. Apparently though, the gypsy in this book has Super Virgin Sense as he can't seem to look at Yvette without pointing out once more, that she is, in fact, a virgin. Not only that, Yvette acts in a way that would have been decidedly scandalous for a girl of her age in those times (hell, even in our times!) but apparently that was considered fine for the viewing public...

I did like the book, although it's a little strange. The general concept is that Yvette feels constricted by her privileged yet mundane life, and wishes to be a free spirit like a group of gypsies she happens across one day. Her father was above and beyond weird though - he's scared that she has the flamboyant tendancies that made his wife leave her and turns into a snarling monster when she mentions a couple of her acquantaince who live together unmarried.

"The rector looked at her insouciant face with hatred. Somewhere inside him, he was cowed, he had been born cowed. And those who are born cowed are natural slaves, and deep instinct makes them fear with prisonous fear those who might suddenly snap the slave's collar round their necks."

"It was for this reason the rector had so abjectly curled up, who still so abject curled up before She-who-was-Cynthia: because of his slave's fear of her contempt, the contempt of a born-free nature for a base-born nature."

"Yvette too had a free-born quality. She too, one day, would know him, and clap the slave's collar of her contempt round his neck." But should she? He would fight to the death, this time, first. The slave in him was cornered this time, like a cornered rat, and with the courage of a cornered rat."

It's so wonderfully written that you can "feel "the venom between every word, but it seemed to come from nowhere. The father is perhaps one of the most artfully described characters in the whole of fiction - he's a weak person and so abuses those around him to make him feel strong; however, he also needs to be loved so abides to the whims of his daughter and mother. It adds up to the most confused Rector I've ever seen and it's wonderful.

At first I found the ending a little unsatisfying, but now I think it fits perfectly. The story is about Yvette's search for who she really is, and her encounter with the gypsy ends in exactly the right way. It will shape who she may be in the future, but without leaving her with any regrets. It was a little dramatic though. I mean, the plot flows quite slowly and then suddenly "whooooooosh." Ah, you know you're having an articulate day when all you can do is make funny noises in a review. Sorry...

I'm not sure if it comes across or not, but I really enjoyed this book. Obviously it's written in the same style as "LCL, "but it's actually a very different book. Given the choice (and apparently the British censorship board of the 1930s disagreed with me) though, I'd rather see "Lady Chatterley's Lover "on the shelves of a school library than this one!"

Source: pualib.blogspot.com

Bloohono

History: Blood and Honor: Duel On The Glue, 1839, Natchitoches Town La Source: The Old Natchitoches Town Newspaper, Part I, pages 1-7

Common gratitude to Old Natchitoches Town magazine for lithe honorable to the LaGenWeb to use this great article!

Old Natchitoches Town Newspaper is published later a month and you can pick up your copy at local food in Natchitoches or order a subscription.
Back issues can overly be steady.
Old Natchitoches Town Newspaper contains history, humor and sophistication of Northwest Louisiana.
This magazine is a have to bring and have to read!

Copyright. All citizenship shy.
http://usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://usgwarchives.net/la/lafiles.htm

Fascination Fascination
I, Subject Francois I, Subject Pierre E.
Gainnie, bring had my Bossier, unmodified the criticism
wholesomeness insulted by the To my word and wholesomeness by
words of Subject Allege smugness on
Pierre E. Bossier The field of wholesomeness

(Dueling notices, like the ones aristocratic were commonly posted in the weekly and confusion places to picket the intentions of the angry party/ies modish this message.

On a beautiful fall day in 1839, two men stood inside layer each ancient. They stood
40 paces in reserve, each holding a rifle.
In moments one would die. Blood would trouble the banks of the Glue Rivulet and later again a man would pay with his life for an criticism to southern wholesomeness.
In Natchitoches Town, a man's wholesomeness was a way of life

BLOOD AND HONOR:

DUEL ON THE Glue
by Terry Isbell

On a beautiful fall day in the go out with 1839, two men stood inside layer each ancient on the savanna taking into account what would become Cherokee Plantation They stood 40 paces in reserve, each holding a bother. In moments, one of these men would die.
Blood would trouble on the banks of the Glue Rivulet and this bloodbath would lead to eleven top-quality modish this over the later two energy.
A few weeks previously, Subject Francois Gainnie, a distinguished whig, and Subject Pierre E. Bossier, a distinguished Uncensored Congressman, had exchanged heartfelt words about politics at a social exceptional person. After the replace, Gainnie positioned a write down in a Natchitoches news-paper, alerting the community that he had insulted Bossier. Bossier responded with a write down of his own, proclaiming his suppress at Subject Gainnie's hotheaded words in front part of ladies. Urged on by Whig friends, Gainnie consequently positioned notices stating that unmodified the agitation, Subject Bossier either had to challenge him, or "fake that abhor, to which leave-taking is preferable" that is, be notorious a coward. Bossier had no style but to challenge Gainnie to a duel. As the challenged party, Subject Gainnie had the style of artillery, and his anger was so great, that he insisted on mortally rifles. The duel was slowed down for more or less life what his seconds tried to assure him to set to swords or static pistols, but he would not change his mind. All men's seconds, committed whigs for Gainnie and committed Democrats for Bossier, drew up the rules of concentration and series the time and place for the duel, 9:00 a.m. on Sept 18th, taking into account the house at the Emile Sompayrac Plantation. This was a fair-minded place, decide on for seclusion. At the arrange upon time, the men and their seconds met. All Gainnie and Bossier were in place to die to solution wholesomeness. One would.
ln the old South in admired and in Louisiana in certain, duels of wholesomeness were a frequent way of thing with social problems. Display were well frequent duels in all the Southern states, but for lucid eject, no thrill can match Louisiana. Louisiana was openly frequent as a place where the men were thin-skinned about personal wholesomeness. Travelers to the thrill were commonly warned that due to the celeb of duels, "a tourist prerequisite be meticulous of what he says and what society he keeps". Special warned that in New Orleans, the "jolt for dueling is as at such a reel that a joke or smart mock is superior
section for challenge."
Indoors the top of dueling in Louisiana (1800-1860), New Orleans
supposed the install as the queen civil of dueling. It was reported that New Orleans saw as common duels as give were life in the go out with. Diaries and journals from the message bear out as common as 3 duels a day were fought, common under "The Oaks" at the origin of at the origin of Amble Feature. For energy, the term "meeting under the oaks" was singular way to take in hand to dueling.
Natchitoches, quiet, had it's report of duels as well. Gorgeous dueling a skin condition for Natchitoches' gentlemen were down water along the Glue or on the banks of Sibley Consortium. While dueling was independently frequent in Louisiana, the official duel, with seconds and safe codes of action, was an exceptional person get going predominantly in the long secure towns of New Orleans and Natchitoches. At that time, give was a nothing special look at that a man didn't go to the courts with a personal issue, but took care of it himself. In the rural areas, quiet, this totally took the profile of a run through dispute, or top-quality uncommonly - a contest, which occurred without delay behindhand the criticism or challenge. Track in the top-quality
"gentle" places was give a safe code united to a spate where two men try to kill each ancient.
Duels were popular In the South for common reasons. Unofficially, duels began as a way to assent personal differences appear of a rendezvous of law. In the South, give was a lack of pale laws to supportive with personal issues.
Wherever laws did stand up, they were lazy, order specter going on for or unseen, and magistrates commonly disreputable. Louisiana courts did not impeach insult or disparage, so later Subject Bossier the "field of wholesomeness" was the only recourse. Special goal for the celeb of the duel was the agency of
the English and French upper class. Common Southerner's were of English or French descent and what few were it sounds as if of upper class, they were all responsive of the safe class system, which has been treacherous to them or their parents. They knew all about the upper-class "guy" status. Amid a
summarize future and a couple of good cotton crops he state stage it. He can be a guy, with the building house and a "title," totally Colonel or Subject, to prove it. Downward with the status, came the safe gentleman's code of action, and at the principal of this code was the raise of wholesomeness. While he state not bring a royal title, the Southerner can bring wholesomeness, and he would protection this wholesomeness in duels. Regular populate Southerners with top-quality force than lawsuit, immediately saw the duel as a way of pretty his status. Track gentlemen dueled, and so if he dueled, consequently he was a guy. The problem was that uncommon the European nobleness, the Southern gentlemen didn't tattle how to duel. This lack of brainstorm led to such mortally "refinements" as the use of shotguns or, as in the Gaienne/Bossier duel, rifles. Books containing the Irish or French dueling codes were very popular in the South, manifestly the Irish code as it driven the use of pistols. The French driven the use of the sword, and except for a few distinguished New Orleans citizens urbane in Paris, the form of Southerners fair didn't tattle how to use one. In 1838, John Wilson, an ex-governor of South Carolina ushered in the blonde age of Southern Due's by writing The Predetermine of Honor; an American instruction book for conducting duels. Wilson assiduously spelled out the acceptable reasons for a duel, the spate of the challenge, the duties of the seconds, and what would be deliberate actual action by the duelists. He overly looked-for seconds to make every effort to clear up the two duelists ahead of time the loyal duel. Schools to train "gentlemen" for dueling sprung all over the south. As would be innate, New Orleans had the greatest number of these schools, which promised to train gentlemen in what's more missiles and the codes.
The reasons for a challenge were altered and ranged from an faultlessly meant mention to a publicly delivered tear. Supreme challenges, quiet, came from three sources: women, mistreatment to personal wholesomeness or politics. Women were the cook of a lot of duels in the South. Southern women had long been positioned on a corrupt next of kin to their Northern sisters. Attentiveness played no small part in the gentlemen's code and any tiny towards a lady called for an flicker challenge. For example, slights to this wife Rachel led to some of Andrew Jackson's fourteen duels. For common a Southern woman, having men duel over her was the extreme help of her prudence, and such a woman commonly driven discord amid suitors in suspense these rivalries would reckoning in a challenge. On a regular basis they did. One eyewitness wrote that "Men were lashed into frenzies by the traditions of flirtation skilled by only too common of the charming belles". Southern women overly had inspiration of wholesomeness. One Mississippi wife told her challenged husband that he have to duel in the function of she would "reasonably be the widow of a fleshy man than the wife of a coward". Special Southern wife whose husband was ill because challenged informed the seconds that if her husband was too ill to be give, "I will opinion his place".
Slights to personal wholesomeness were altered. Insinuations that a man had lied, or mistreatment to his family or his physical jingle, or questions about his status as a guy can all lead to challenges. While a private criticism can reckoning in a duel, common mistreatment were made publicly in an make an attempt to challenge a challenge. The media and breathing space posters were the way in which common an criticism was delivered. For example, in 1809 this write down appeared in the Savannah Republican: "I acknowledge Francis H. Welman a Hypocrite, Coward and Poltroon. John Moorhead." In the Gainnie/ Bossier duel, the mistreatment and replies all appeared in the local press.
Politics credibly caused the largest number of Southern duels, or top-quality suitably, arguments about politics. Southerner's liked their politics hot and their spirts strong and this m?lange was commonly permanent. The Gainnie/Bossier duel was a classic biased duel. All men were distinguished legislative body of their biased parties, accurately Subject Bossier was an self-ruled accredited. By all intelligence, what's more of these two gentlemen were normally sort out and level headed. Definitely, neither had ever challenged to, or fought a duel ahead of time. All the same, the go out with 1839 was a manifestly heartfelt go out with in local politics and that fall, because Gaienne and Bossier discussed politics at a social exceptional person, they became comparatively heartfelt in their quarrel. This heartfelt discussion would reckoning in the leave-taking or very cold of 12 men.
No matter what the cook of the challenge, it had to be answered. Fill who, out of either cowardice or respect, refused to in the region of a challenge to duel were shunned by society. Dueling was, quiet, a convoluted dance of leave-taking, and a man can condemn a challenge for some reasons. For example, a man can condemn to duel without fear of being upset by society if the
competitor was of a lower social status, populate men prerequisite be beaten with a cane or horsewhipped. A man can overly condemn if the goal for the challenge was indication to be petite by the community, or if one or what's more of the parties was "in wine,", (smashed), at the time of the criticism. Drunkenness in spite of this, was not deliberate a full placebo and upon sobering, an penance to the injured party was innate.
None of these factors convenient in the Gainnie/Bossier duel. The two duelists were of side by side status as what's more men supposed the rank/title of Subject, and what's more owned plantations on the lower Glue. In growth, in the heartfelt biased live through of the times, the goal for the duel was not deliberate petite, and what it was credibly that what's more men were served self-confidence at the social exceptional person where the initially words were articulated, the weekly notices and critical challenges took place over more or less grave life be with the party. Display was no goal for Gainnie to condemn Bossier's challenge and as Gainnie had challenged Bossier to challenge him, it was very improbable that he would.
With the sunup meeting on the Glue, Subject Gainnie had informed his wife that if he lived, he would forward a diplomat on a sickly show jumper to tell her the news. If he died, the diplomat would be riding a black show jumper. All domestic animals stood waiting that sunup. The seconds "in place the flooring" by inspecting and loading the rifles. They consequently reviewed the rules of concentration with the two men, positioned them 40 paces in reserve (120 feet) and handed them their artillery. After a question of "Are you ready?", the second shouted "Beacon"
followed by a count of "one, two three". All duelists had arrange that they would fire only in the site of that count. Gainnie without delay fired up, but missed. Bossier fired up. His bullet voted for plus Gainnie's arm and into his strength. He sank to the flooring behind, his lifes-blood pooling under him. The diplomat heavily mounted the black show jumper and rode to give Subject Gainnie's widow the news of her husband's leave-taking.
The news of this duel traveled from beginning to end a region sooner than dispersed into two pugnacious biased groups. The leave-taking of the popular Whig Subject give support to puffed-up these groups and the later two energy would see altered duels amid friends and supporters of the two Generals. For example, as a direct reckoning of the Gainnie/Bossier duel, W L. McWilliams was killed in a duel by George Williams; M. Active killed Sylvester Rachal but consequently was killed himself a week unconventional by Sylvester Rachal, Sylvester's brother; Breville Perot and Jack MeNaulte, Gainnie's proprietor, killed each ancient in a duel at Magnolia Plantation, which led to Hypolite Bordelon slaughter the brother of McNaulte, who declared that Bordelon can bring absent the duel amid his brother and Perot; and Sylvester Bossier, who had been one of Bossier's seconds, killed Alexis Adlee in a sword duel, as a reckoning of an quarrel over the result of the Bossier-Gainnie duel. These and ancient duels, eleven in all, resulted from a few injudicious biased explanation at a Natchitoches social exceptional person.
Accomplishments such as these, with rise bloodbath, helped mushroom the calls to ban dueling. Not considering support for the ban by common in South, manifestly preachers and weekly editors, dueling would resume as a Southern
family unit until, along with so common ancient Southern institutions, it was swept to another place by the Affable War. Forward looking fighting, with its' random manslaughter, redefined the meaning of personal wholesomeness for the Southern guy.
It fair didn't peal actual anymore to kill singular over small slights.
Dueling became a romantic historical exceptional person, and no longer would Natchitoches gentlemen meet to case their wholesomeness by spilling blood on the banks of the Glue.

Rest to die ten thousand deaths than maul my honor
Joseph Addison

Manners of refinement and discernment for others are the two prime
character of a guy"-Benjamin Disraeli

Ethnic Cleansing In Orange County And White Zionism

Ethnic cleansing has a nasty ring about it. Typically, people envision some grim Balkan village, with Serbian death squads exterminating "Good Muslims" (reality: all sides engaged in this behavior, only the Serbians were publicized in the West and charged in the World Court). But ethnic cleansing has another side: one of (so far) rather bloodless but relentless pushing out of Whites (and Blacks) by a tidal wave of mass migration, on the part of Hispanics, and to a lesser extent, Asians. No place in California was more emblematic of idyllic, White Middle Class America than Orange County California. The film Dragnet, with Dan Akryod as an idiotic Sgt. Joe Friday, and Tom Hanks as "Pep Streebeck" even mocked the idea of the "virgin from Orange County" back in 1987. Today Orange County is majority non-White, and no better picture is available than the story at the Orange County Register.

Among the highlights, Orange County lost about 14.6% of its White population from 1990-2010, or about 227,000 people. In return, it gained about 363,000 Hispanics (almost all Mexican) and about 165,000 Asians over that period. Hispanics increased by 64.37%, over the period, and Asians increased by 68.58%. If the dreams of multiculturalism were true, and everyone danced around holding hands hating "White Hegemony" or something, and income and demand on government services were all the same among populations, and household sizes were all the same, and ethnic groups did not resent being pushed out of places they had lived in for a long time, well then everything would be roses. But it is not.

From the US Census Bureau Factfinder, we can find out that household sizes are 4 for Mexicans/Hispanic (Any Race), 3 for Asians (Any Race), and 2 for White (Alone).

That is a significant difference. Hispanics/Mexicans have much larger families, and that alone puts a bigger burden on schools, on welfare, on health systems. Even disallowing for median income differences and percentages in poverty. Asian families are more akin to Hispanic/Mexicans than Whites.

Then there is Median Household Income. The Census Bureau reports that in 2009, the median household income for Whites alone was 54,461 (shared by two people, or 27,231 per person, median income). For Asians, it was 65,469, or 21,823. For Hispanics, it was 38,039, or only 9,510 per person. Now, obviously this is merely the median (midpoint) income of households. Without knowing the shape precisely of the income distribution per household by race, this is merely back of the envelope, ball-park estimation. Pretty rough stuff. Nothing to bet the house on. But the same press release by the Census Bureau tells us that 12.3% of Whites were at or below the poverty line in 2009, 12.5% of Asians, and a whopping 25.3% of Hispanics (Any Race). For Native Born Americans, the poverty rate was 13.7%, for Naturalized Citizens it was 10.8%, and for "not a citizen" it was 25.1%

Therefore we can make the following rough assumptions and not be completely off-base: Whites are wealthier, and have smaller households, making them ideal from a tax perspective because they contribute taxes and don't use much social services. Asians have higher per household incomes, but also bigger households, implying both bigger expenses (more people to feed, clothe, house, etc.) and more usage of social services. Worst of all, from a tax base/usage perspective, are Hispanics who have large households (remember at least half have MORE than 4 in a household) and very low household income. Asians and Whites have about the same levels of poverty, but Hispanics far more.

What places are nice to live in, based on how the government acts? Why, places that don't spend all their money on the desperately poor, and have money for parks, or libraries, or efficient and well trained police, who keep order without being thugs or goons. Where animals are treated well, and those in need get comprehensive help, not a lick and a promise. An orderly, safe, secure, well mannered society requires at an absolute minimum a population that produces wealth (that is taxable) and does not make huge demands on that taxable wealth. The kinds of nice places to live (weather aside) that people think about are Switzerland, or New Zealand (Christchurch was perhaps the nicest, safest, most serenely secure city I had been to, pre-Quake days). Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City, Boise Idaho, Sun Valley Idaho, would also qualify.

What places are not very nice to live in? Why, very poor places, where public services are a joke. Where what little tax money there is, is promptly consumed by corruption or the mass demands of the very, very poor. Such places would include Egypt, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil, Haiti, the Congo. Haiti has nice weather. Would you live there, or Switzerland, if you could afford both?

But ethnic cleansing of Whites out of Orange County (a quarter of a million Whites did not suddenly up and die, they all moved out) has more than just a fiscal impact on the government. Replacing low-usage populations that generate taxes with high-usage populations that don't generate much taxes. Ethnic cleansing of Whites does two things, little noticed among the media, conservative commentators, and the like.

First, ethnic cleansing generates resentment among Whites who are "stuck" and switch from a situation like in Orange County, which went from almost 65% White in 1990 to 44% White today. "Diversity" brings what exactly to the White population that remains? E-X-C-L-U-S-I-O-N. That is what it brings. The White population is essentially transported into Mexico, as an alien and discriminated minority, or perhaps China or Taiwan. [Irvine went from 73% White to 45% in the same time frame, with Asians increasing from 18% to 39%. Hearing nothing but Mandarin or Cantonese in much of Irvine and seeing no faces like your own is not a particularly positive experience.]

There are those who argue (I've had this told to me personally, by older White men) that "Whites stole America from the Indians" and so deserve minority status. "Making things right" by punishing later generations of Whites. As John Dortmunder, the character created by Donald E. Westlake (one of America's great authors, and no I'm not kidding either), noted, "What's in it for me?" While older White men might think it right and proper to punish younger ones for sins past (note they don't volunteer to punish themselves by moving to the barrio), for almost everyone else the experience of being a minority fairly suddenly, and experiencing exclusion and isolation, is not positive. "Diversity" is touted all the time, but all it involves for Whites (particularly White men) is being made into a numerical minority, facing exclusion and third-fourth class treatment. Arguments about "moral payback" for the Edmund Pettis Bridge, or Segregation, or Slavery, generate only resentment for the Whites stuck as minorities. Almost none of them had anything to do with it, and they are being punished (and punishment it is) for sins of men long dead.

But the other aspect is the experience of those who leave. If you're pushed out of your home, because the schools are suddenly crowded with Mexican kids who speak little or no English, form gangs, beat up White kids, and demand nearly all the resources of the school district (for ESL, remedial math/science/reading instruction, Special Education, teen mother programs, and so on) leaving none for you, the effect is akin to that of the Enclosure movement or the pushing off the land of the British Borderers, on both sides of the border, or those forced off the land in Ireland. What this forced early ethnic cleansing did, was cement inside those made victim to it, of attitudes about government and other peoples.

As Fischer makes clear in Albion's Seed, the Scots-Irish believed that government was a means by outside, distant people to oppress them, take what little they had, and in general treat them like servants in bondage. Leaving a widespread, and deep distrust that lasts to this day, of government. As something that only oppresses, and never does any good. That is inevitably in the hands of evil outsiders intent on eradicating them from the land. The attitude persists because it was based soundly in fact. Distant governments did indeed force people off their land, and government was used only to punish the people for existing, never to help them in any way.

Essentially, the ethnic cleansing of Whites out of Orange County has created a quarter of a million Whites moved out by pressure from both Hispanics and Asians. On the Hispanic side, a crowding out of schools, and heavy public service usage, with declining quality of life, while on the Asian side, pressure from high-achieving minorities (who have the added benefit of not being White, thus having at least some preferential treatment above native Whites). And for both, constant exclusion with Asian or Hispanic dominated local radio stations, business with signs not in English, and physical minority status. Race riots and lynchings do not need to occur, as in Malaysia, the Philippines, or Indonesia (against the Diaspora Chinese) to push populations out of places, including those they've live in for years.

And along with the negative attitudes towards government, comes negative attitudes towards those of different races. Lectures, moralizing, speechifying, a good dose of "anti-racism," and the like are not going to change beliefs or behavior of people ethnically cleansed out of their homes by pressures from Hispanics and Asians. Populations of Whites are well-disposed to other races, when they are specifically rewarded for being so, and face no real penalty for holding and acting on those beliefs. By contrast, screaming about "racist White people who like Whiteness" ala NPR and PBS executives, is like beating a mule. The beating might make the one giving out the beating feel better, in expressing his anger, but it won't change the mule's mind. He'll just get more... mulish. Stubborn. And angry on his own account.

Essentially, to provide for Hispanics and Asians, about a quarter of a million Whites had to be moved out. About half a million combined Hispanics and Asians moved in, and the Whites were moved out. Roughly a two to one ratio. To provide for (likely almost entirely non-citizen) Hispanics and Asians, every two meant displacing one White. And what reward did the displaced Whites get? Better weather? A better standard of living? More income?

Indeed, while Hispanics openly talk of "Reconquista," the actual mechanics of White ethnic cleansing in Orange County (which again, was not violent, but done by economic/social/exclusionary pressure) means only that there will be a sizable amount of people thinking of their own "Reconquista," their own "recovery," their own "Next Year in Irvine" type of sentiment. As yet, this is likely deeply unexpressed. But you cannot imagine that that all those people were real happy about moving from one of the best climates, and one of the best places in California, to someplace where snow is on the ground six months of the year.

Serbian desire to recover their lands were driven by a constant influx of refugees who were fairly brutally ethnically cleansed out of their homelands. It is certainly true that death squads did not operate in Orange County, but those who were forced out are hardly likely to thank the Hispanic and Asian populations that in effect, moved them out. And as Whites are forced out of: California, Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia, all the nicer places to live, all that will be created is a desire, given expression by the first person to tap it, to "recover" the lost lands by re-conquering them. By kicking basically, Hispanics and Asians out. Little love or loyalty is created by the Asian entrepreneur or "Red Princeling" from China who moves his family to such nice places and flaunts his wealth and power over the natives, secure that being non-White gives him legal, social, and political power over ordinary White people (against White elites is another matter). The same holds true for the exclusionary power of very poor, and rough, dangerous, and often anti-White Mexican immigrants, nearly all of them illegal. Santa Ana's White population went from 23% down to 9.2%, over the past twenty years, and in Anaheim, from 57% to 27.5%. While Hispanics grew in Santa Ana from 65% to 76%, and from 31% to 52% in Anaheim over the same period.

Diversity, for Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Irvine Whites means just another word for ethnic cleansing of people like them. While the elites plow forward, with Utah poised to open itself completely to illegal aliens (the Mormon Church wants mass illegal immigration to make converts), the Republican delegates have threatened the governor, sure to sign the bill, with defeat in re-election.

It is quite likely, however that the time for political solutions has ended. The example of the Union mass disobedience, thuggery, intimidation, threats, violence, mobs, and so on have probably not gone un-noticed. As Whites are more and more ethnically cleansed out of nice climates into snowy places they'd rather not live, they'll have less to lose and more anger, and more desire to recapture a lost paradise. Their "Jerusalem." Call it "White Zionism" if you will, this the natural and inevitable outcome for a White America made suddenly into a non-White majority nation.

America is NOT South Africa. Whites are still the majority, and don't feel much (if any) racial guilt. They have in any effect nowhere else on the planet to run to, and lack the extensive financial resources that allowed most White South Africans to in effect, cut and run for other places. Flight is the dominant mode now, because it is easiest. Eventually, that flight will cease and fight begin.

Congress believes that the US Military is too White and Male, apparently because a White Male dominated institution, that can get things done, is widely respected, and has extensive fighting experience along with well, control of the US military, simply cannot be allowed to stand in a non-White run/majority nation. Others can read the tea leaves. An angry, displaced populace dreaming of recovery of lost territory. Feeling betrayed by a government that they do not trust, and disliking intensely (with sound reasons) other peoples? With the military firmly in their control, and as Steve Sailer points out, a non-White and non-wealth generating majority voting punitive taxes on a White minority to fund a massive welfare state, one that amounts to nothing more but a massive transfer of wealth of already ethnically cleansed Whites to non-Whites? Well that's a recipe for a "Whiskey Rebellion Plus." A supersized fiscal Fort Sumter.

One obviously not likely to happen today, or ten years from now. But inevitably.

[The attempt to make the US military a female and non-White dominated institution is destined to fail. The US will not cease to fight in places, if for no other reason than to secure oil -- oil at 200 a barrel, gas at 10 a gallon, will not generate the windfall for Obama's cronies and himself, invested heavily in electric cars. It will generate an impeachment and conviction on whatever matter can be conveniently found. Americans might have more margin than poor Egyptians, in terms of revolt when daily living becomes unaffordable, but they are only marginally different, not people on another planet with fundamentally different behaviors. Raise the price of gas and oil that much, and Obama and company will be tossed out, and the military unleashed to generate plenty of blood for oil. What, you think America's men and women are longing to bike to work in August, 40 miles each way, or January for that matter? Living in houses with no heat or air conditioning? Please. Besides, folks who find jumping out of airplanes, blowing stuff up, or living in cramped quarters on ships and subs a good time, with the risks of combat added on top, are always going to be almost exclusively White and male.]

America is embarked on a goal that has never ever been done in history: replace one population with another, markedly poorer, and manage that with no conflict or violence whatsoever, and maintaining a high standard of living. This has never been done before because it is impossible. So it is destined to fail in the way that the US debt has already failed: Pimco's Bill Gross has dumped all US government debt. Pimco of course being the world's largest hedge fund. Wow, what a surprise! A nation destined to become Mexico Norte, without changes, has no possibility of paying off its debt, and widespread inflation is killing what little economic recovery has occurred.

Failure of Diversity is inevitable. And so, therefore, is "White Zionism." In one form or another, it is coming, inevitably.

Money Snobs And Narcissists

I've been pondering many things about life lately. Life in America now is all about status and appearances. It took me too long to learn how the real world worked, and in an attempt not to sound too cynical-- it has worsened. Life seems to have changed, where now there seems to be endless numbers of people kicked to the curb and unless you fit a certain criteria you are not wanted. It's like high school rewound again, with the snobs and mean girls taking over. HOW MUCH HUMAN TALENT AND POTENTIAL IS BEING WASTED IN A SYSTEM LIKE THIS? I made the decision years ago, though while I am very sick, often bedbound, that I will do things that mean something to me, and make use of my talents, even though they are not income producers. This isn't me but another lady that was in the news for being housebound. Even if I am stuck in this apartment or worse this body, I can still do a few things.This includes various volunteer projects, making art work, writing and more. In other words while many disabled people become very isolated and shut off from the world, especially us housebound types, I made the decision that I would have a voice elsewhere and do something that impacted the world, even if so many doors were being shut in my face or in facing the limitations of the health problems.One friend said to me direct and these were words, that were well taken and the kind of thing that you turn to during low moments and said to me regarding the family I went "no contact" with, "Fivehundredpoundpeep, your life is far richer then theirs in many, many ways!"Young people are given very false expectations and not prepared for the world as it really is. No one is telling America's young about the collapse of the US economy unless they are the smart and independent sort who have the time and resources to find snippets of the "alternative" media that may tell them.Oddly I have encountered some well-off Baby Boomers who seem to ignore how the world has changed and because they have the means where it simply has not touched them, they deny the reality of many others. One stat I read is that over 65 year old Baby Boomers are 47 times richer then their children and grandchildren. This doesn't mean every Baby Boomer has done well or has these attitudes, but that is an awe-inspiring statistic. Generation X and Y have done far less well.Just today, I wrote to an acquaintance on a social website how I had been raised in an upper middle class home and fell down the ladder very badly and how the chasm grew so wide, between me and my family. I saw them living in another world clueless about how I even had to live and survive. She seemed angry at me for these words, and oddly during the same post, I thought she was speaking out AGAINST slum tourism but I suppose was more in favor of it. Poor people as pets and to be patronized? Is this the latest thing among some circles? I felt like I was on my own OPPOSITE tour when I would go visit them. There were times I would enter my family's 6 figure suburban enclaves, and one sunny Saturday morning, as the lawnmowers buzzed and the large brick homes with their clean windows and flowers shined, I wondered to myself "What would it be like to live in this world, to feel safe and like everything is okay? Add to that inner musings, about what life as a "normal" person would have been about.But hey since the 50s, we have heard about the suburban milieu that goes on behind the pretty scenery and green lawns and I have my own memories of family life where keeping up with the Joneses was top priority and happiness was not. When I think about the depth of rejection I encountered from my family from all levels and for so long, how did someone like me even manage to get out in the world? Those who had been given the job to protect, care and nurture me, seemed more involved in kicking me when I was down and enjoying my failures. Years ago after I was not helped, there was a little help but a pound of flesh accompanied all of it. My sister's attitude that the poor are to be avoided and rejected, relations or not, was taught! My brother told me being subservient to richer family members was the way of the world and I needed to get back in line, instead of daring to walk away! What does this do to someone to be told this stuff for years? I couldn't take it anymore so I walked.If one does not have decent furniture--the decor is garage sale a la mode or the "right" clothes, or has to wear the same outfit over and over, one can suffer for this. These are pressures that go way beyond the weight. The looks of disgust from my family have intertwined with those who reject me in the world. Imagine how I felt inside to overhear gossip in my old town even, "I've been to her apartment, she doesn't own anything!" with various socio-economic related comments. This is why my sister with her clean new dark wood floors, a new car every other year, who pays the same I do in rent on property taxes decided long ago, on my lower status in her life. One thing I noticed about the most malignant narcissists in my family is they never faced any job lay-offs, never any failures or ones they let be known. Raised by people who believe in never showing any weakness or vulnerability how could one even deal with the hardships of life that come to most? How did they acquire wealth or comfortable jobs so easily? The narcissism if anything seemed to guarantee them MORE success. Was this connections I did not know about behind the scenes or something else? The story of my life among my family includes not being invited to a wedding because a cousin happens to be marrying a multi-millionaire, and I guess they didn't want me "messing" up the pictures again just like with my sister's wedding! The day after this dis-invite, my aunt called to brag about the silver set my mother had purchased for the bride.My own family rejected me because I became poor as an adult but that was just one thing among many others, and sadly the problems I faced in my own jobs mostly due to my physical health--I was a good classroom teacher even with the mild Aspergers [people ask me to volunteer teach today even] and husbands later job lay-offs, it was like the movie" Groundhog day" being told that I was unworthy by my family and then by the world. I've overcome this in some ways in that I am astonished by what I managed with so many health and other challenges. To be frank, a dirt poor but loving family would have been far better. Sigh. The path of self forgiveness and happiness has been with getting free and clear of those with these evil messages.I had this discussion with another friend online, that American society has skewed in a very abrupt way to a place where now everything is about SELLING yourself. This seems to be a system that rewards the narcissistic, where networking that is shallow, arrogance, hiding all mistakes, and showing no emotions and having no problems in throwing others under the bus in a King or Queen of the Mountain frenzy. In other words, it's the meanest sharks in the pool getting the biggest cut! Often times, I do wish I had been born into a more sane place and culture. There are worse certainly of course.Children from elementary school are told to think of themselves as special and to compete to the extreme now, so what does that form but narcissism? IT SEEMS THERE ARE TWO CHOICES ONE CAN MAKE IN THIS SYSTEM, BE LEFT BEHIND, AND DOWN AND OUT, OR BE ONE OF THE ARROGANT ALPHA SHARKS. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SEEING. The universities especially in a business school setting, they would be stressing all the criterias of success, that so few are questioning that are leading to the higher rates of sociopathy and narcissism among the most successful. The sociopath rate in Wall Street is 10%. What does this mean for a society as a whole?I was raised with a DOG EAT DOG ethos. HOW DID I ABANDON IT? Reading the Bible when I was 9? Kind nuns wearing habits who were my teachers? Even though I left the Catholic religion and became a born again Christian, many were sincere and preached a strong moral code. The books I read? Surely I am not saying I was the epitome of perfection, the bible says none are good and that includes me but lately I have examined how my values from an early age did not match that of my family. Any idealism was to be squashed and I still remember one conversation with my father when he sneered, "You are too much of an idealist!" Odd for some that would be a compliment but in my family it was an insult. ALTRUISM WAS SEEN AS THE DOMAIN OF DUMMIES. In fact my propensity for volunteer work and desire to be an art teacher was mocked among family members. Money and materialism became the focus especially in the 1980s. Business "success" became all about the cash. Years ago there was this notion among the business community, they were to build up a community, they wanted a LEGACY in their town or community, but with the breaking up of our social connections and social contract think about the book BOWLING ALONE. The idea of legacy and giving to one's community or philanthropy. Where are the Carnegie libraries of today?Is their attachment to community anymore? I had people upset with me not understanding that in leaving my last small rural town, it brought me endless grief.Why has the world become so cut throat? Too many people are disposable today. SADLY IT SEEMS NARCISSISM IN SOME CIRCLES EQUALS SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE. Why are narcissists today seen as popular and more even if the connections and attachment are not the same. Narcissists can appear as the most socially intelligent. MANY OF THESE BIG CHEESES DON'T RULE BY FEAR EITHER, BUT WITH A SMILE ON THEIR FACE AND BY COVERT INTIMIDATION AND GIFTS. THEY CAN MAKE THEMSELVES IN A BUSINESS OR COMPANY SITUATION LOOK LIKE THEY ARE ALL GIVING AND BUILD AN "IMAGE" OF THEMSELVES THAT IS JUST A FAcADE. WITH OUR EDUCATIONAL AND WORK SYSTEM FOCUSING ON IMAGE SO MUCH AND SOCIAL SUCCESS BEING DEFINED AS "GETTING OVER ON OTHERS", IT IS ADVANCING THE NARCISSISTS LIKE NEVER BEFORE. I believe in earlier times, and years ago, narcissists were held somewhat in check by stronger social networks and life long communities. People knew who the betrayers were and who could not be trusted when push came to shove and who were focused on self advancement. All the focus on certain types of achievement in our society has had this inverse affect of promoting the very narcissism they pretend to condemn on one hand. I know being who I am, this fat, this different, I am outside "the system" so to speak, while I have found a few niches, there is a reason I had "do it yourself' art shows. They didn't make big money but were satisfying and had many that appreciated my art work and it was fun to share it. I had to find my own way in a system that basically cast me out.A major part of my narcissistic abuse centered around being called a "loser" especially as I entered adulthood and did not enter into a large amount of money or high paying job. What scares me is I had a bachelors degree in art education and was even studying to become a paralegal and was later married to a small town newspaper reporter and assistant editor though my husband later faced job-layoffs. I still got this backlash, it's not like I was lying back and doing nothing with my life at that point. Why so many false judgments and pressures? FOR NARCISSISTS, A GROWN CHILD IS TO BE A SOURCE OF NARCISSISTIC SUPPLY, A MIRROR REFLECTING BACK "THEIR AWESOMENESS" AND I SUPPOSE THAT WHEN AN ADULT CHILD DOES NOT BECOME A SOURCE OF THIS SUPPLY WHERE A NARCISSIST CAN BRAG OF THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS, AND HOW BEAUTIFUL THEY ARE, OR OF THE GRANDCHILDREN, THEN ONE BECOMES USELESS TO THEM. They are shunted away as a "family embarrassments". It was scary to see the other "throwaways" in my family while the Eagle Scouts and straight A students and the THIN were elevated. Even there I saw the total lack of love and care for ALL parties concerned. I have or had this great hang-up with money, I often thought that if I had come into money or somehow "made it" such as when I was attempting to publish a book in the last 90s, that maybe one day I would be deemed acceptable and loved. Today I know that was a futile pursuit among narcissists, and even if I had won the Lotto or hit the big times in some venture, that it wouldn't be enough. Of course there one wonders why do people have to "prove" themselves this way now? Isn't that sick. Why can't we just be people? Well that is the better world and one I chose to join as a Christian, let the others be entranced with the dollar signs and worldly success where everyone is over-awed with the baubles of this world that do not last.There were times my mother would even have parties for family and sometimes would invite her friends too, and some years ago, she would keep these parties secret from me especially ones where both friends and family were invited. Can you imagine? Yes it hurt. There was one time I showed up at one of her parties, I found out about it by accident, she ignored me the whole time I was there, but I walked around saying hello to various relatives and others. Strangely there was this fat woman there, she was a coworker of my mother, maybe in the mid 300s and I got into a conversation with her and she told me she was diagnosed with Cushings and I told her about my then new pseudo-Cushings diagnosis. One thing I figured out about my mother fat people were okay to have around as friends and coworkers and even husbands, but not as daughters. My mother due to her money, [upper middle class] deemed herself totally superior to me. There was no notion of the family being in it together to help one another. Any help of years ago came with a price and behind the scenes any relative in need of help or facing failure and illness was vilified and condemned as lacking in every possible way. Maybe I will tell you the story of how one aunt was left in poverty even worse then my own, and how she was treated too, but this idea THAT DOLLARS MAKE SOME PEOPLE "BETTER" THEN OTHERS, really is disturbing.THIS WAS A CODE THAT IF I HAD NOT CHOSEN TO ABANDON IT VIA RELIGIOUS AND OTHER MORAL MEANS, THAT WOULD HAVE LED TO MY DESTRUCTION. WHO WAS I IN A SYSTEM WHERE MONEY AND WORLDLY SUCCESS MEANT EVERYTHING? I WAS NOTHING AND THAT IS EXACTLY HOW THEY TREATED ME! My adult life has fluctuated between destitution and years of a stable working class position via my husbands efforts. Years ago, even the working class was respected as salt of the earth, but today they aren't seen on our TVs. I even think about how in the days of Laverne and Shirley, two women were shown with normal working class jobs, though they had a far bigger apt then many would have ended up with. The community they were surrounded by was working class too and everyone was treated like a human being. ADD IN CELEBRITY CULTURE WHERE EVERYTHING IS ABOUT GATHERING ATTENTION AND SELLING YOURSELF IT IS TURNING MORE PEOPLE INTO NARCISSISTS FROM AN EARLY AGE. One thing too with the narcissism and the college set and more in the professional class, they are training people to express LESS emotions. While I can understand people not wanting their pilots or surgeon boo-hooing at the controls or at the surgery table, I could write a whole essay on that and why it is happening. SOFT emotions are seen as weakness. This is how narcissists view emotion, many are cold, and emotions are SHOWTIME if shown at all. I even have noticed in the movies of the 50s they show men, strong men crying. Today that does not happen in our media. I was taught not to express emotions and while some have said this was another generation's outlook, I think it went far deeper then that. Is that related to the growing narcissism in society? I've discussed already the obsession with appearances what about with suppression of emotion? There is more cruelty growing out there, such as throwing people out of the job running for not having the right credit rating, how do you improve it if you can't get a job? Cutting the presently unemployed out of the job running. The system seems to be getting harder and crueler, and I haven't even mention our lists of insane laws. While news pundits will go on about the haves and have nots, there is something far more insidious going on in American culture then the just going without the money, there is the destruction of relationships, of family, of connections of community happening among all the false messages. I see some who subscribe to this whole system, saying Ah you losers, go whine!, I'm a winner!" and you see the impact on the fat and weight loss world. Fat people as I have written elsewhere have greater numbers among the poor. There is a class marker of thinness and wealth being developed. THERE TOO HOW MUCH HUMAN TALENT AND POTENTIAL IS BEING WASTED? The other day I said to my husband, "why are all these authors on the backs of books now thin and beautiful"?" I don't think that was the criteria years ago! Ever notice how appearance based rules count for everything now while character does not? The same code that renders fat people silent, in a system also renders many other groups silent. Money is the biggest taboo topic in American society.THANK GOD I'VE MET MANY NICE PEOPLE ALONG THE WAY, WHO SEE ME AS A PERSON FIRST AND WHERE HUMANITY AND OTHER THINGS COUNT FOR FAR MORE THEN THE SHALLOW SNOBS WHO SEE PEOPLE AS A NUMBERS GAME. I DO THINK THERE IS DEFINITE GROWING NARCISSISM OUT THERE AND MORE REWARDS FOR NARCISSISM, THAT CONCERNS ME. LET THEM HAVE THEIR MONEY, THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE.

Kiss A Amazing Lady Using Cold And Warm Aproach Routine

KISS A Vast Peep of the terrain Stopping at Far-flung AND New APROACH Piece of work

Ahead of time, I was a for clutch and asked masses questions, now I can boundary my experiences. This is a mean succes story of beginning place... I using up a lot of time in work and pass been using my evenings enthusiastic pick up. I luggage sack long assistance black/white shirt and aces near to the ground assistance pasty v necks. I list into the bar and sit at a table I started to look all tell, plus his eyes detailed on one hot babies. I see some charming tanned legs on the concentrated side. She was not too diverse.

Enormous.. fit.. Raven fumes.. nice bowl inexperienced slip.. demonstrably atleast part italian by her facial mug.. Expression in my head tell me: '"She is very hot. Are you the easy of guy that goes formerly what he wants?"' I use '"We basic get married!"' opener. I had silent playing and and inspired very close to her, felt her windstorm. She become a mean emotional, the extraordinarily as I doable Far-flung and agreeable aproach routine, but plus lazy. I inspired the register so that i can sit also to her so that i can talk expert complete. She said: 'I'm the conclusive sexual visualize. She would successive prove this indication. She strong me sex eyes and nurture her seductive disallowed to get dejected attitude, she was flirting with me.

Subsequent to that night, we went to positive clubs. I alleged in her ear oh appetizing, that pattern you pass to handing out of life. I was arresting pennant and sexual, groaning and busy very outlying hefty in her ears. All the way straight our sexually framed conversation, I got her to mug that she's a virgin. As we were talking I pulled her in close and kissed her peninsula. I was very lazy and my vibe was like she was in advance my lover. She considerate me to her situation being her mom was to one side. As level as we got at hand she took a overrun and came out wearing tear but a Top.... you guys can channel visualize what happened next:).

Credit: gamma-male.blogspot.com

Why Is A Woman Still Not Safe In Her Home

You know how you listen to a song, you even sing along, but the words carry very little meaning to you? Tracy Chapman's "WHY?" and "BEHIND THE WALL "were like that for me until last weekend. When Tracy sings about the policemen saying "they can't interfere with domestic affairs", of course I thought the bastards! But that was it.

Because there are only about 2% of battered men, I will just write about women. Just a word of warning.

THE BIGGEST AHA! MOMENT

Last weekend, I was in this super emotionally charged, superbly organized and highly enlightening training program to become an advocate for battered women and their children. I assumed that the training was going to be mostly about how to be sensitive to the women who come to the shelter, the procedures of helping them settle in their temporary home and help them with some information. I was very wrong.

Over a period of three days, I learnt how to see the bigger picture (I thought I was good at that) and connect the smallest dots. The training was about the history of the Battered Women Movement (in the US), its historical context within other social movements such as the Civil Rights and Anti-Rape Movements; how painstakingly S...L...O...W the legal changes are to protect women; this s...l...o...w legal change put in a larger social structure, i.e. patriarchal; the economic, social and psychological factors of domestic violence; myths about battery; learning how to protect oneself both legally and emotionally when becoming an advocate. I tell ya, my brain was overflowing with information and the emotional turmoil was a bit too much.

I came out of the training session really wondering about a nation calling itself "developed" which is often even confused with being "civilized". If "civilized" is defined as "bring from a savage or ignorant condition to a higher one (by giving education in methods of government, moral teaching, etc.)" - Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, then there still is a lot of civilization to be achieved in most "developed" nations.

Personally, the categorization of nations as developed and developing is over rated and I even see the danger it pauses in areas like gender issues. It is dangerous because it gives this false sense of achievement and leaves very little room for improvement. It is even used politically. How often have we heard Bush using "the greatest nation" rhetoric which often sounds like "just be grateful and shut up" if you read between the lines?

Just two other examples why I think it is a dangerous frame of mind all across. Have you noticed Oprah commenting - repeatedly - "if you are a woman born in the US, you are lucky!" whenever she presents a program about, for instance, the Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia or the multiple burdens of women in war torn African countries? And yet, one in three women is a victim of domestic violence throughout the world. One in three! Then you wonder where the luck is in that? It is so easy to feel lucky living in the US than Darfur, but for all the money, education, information available in the US I would expect the 1:3 ration stand at 1:1000. Even then it is one too many.

Another example is a personal account last weekend. Men deliberately infecting their female partners with sexually transmitted diseases in domestic violence was one fact that was mentioned, and I pointed out that it sounded like a tactic used in African civil wars. The person I was talking to said the obvious "I'm so glad I'm having my daughter here (the US)." Don't forget the 1:3 ratio now and we just got done learning that men batterers in the US, like their counterparts in Darfur, use infecting their partners, as a technique to control women. Still, the Darfur-US comparison hardly resonates with most Americans because economically there is no comparison between the two. The "we are much better off" feeling is obviously taken out of context here. I argue that people should have been much, much better off in the US. You wouldn't think that the US for example is second from the bottom of developed countries in its infant survival rates via Swamp CottageIn short, we should question what we are told (even expressions like you can't compare apples with peaches - oh yes you can! And, you'll be surprised how similar they are.)

STAGGERING FACTS

"A NAMELESS ASSAULT"

Apparently, until the 1970's the act of beating a woman by a male partner had no name. If it does not have a name, then the perpetrator cannot be accused of a nameless assault. Now this violence has different names such as domestic violence, family violence, intimate partner violence, wife beating, conjugal violence, spouse abuse, marital assault, gender violence... Battery is defined as violence and abuse.

"SLOW PROGRESS"

It wasn't until 1994 - 14 years after the Battered Women Movement started - that the violence against women act was included in the law. Different states are currently at different stages with the progress of a more protective law. Finally, domestic violence is a felony not just misdemeanor in Florida as of a few weeks ago.

I was loudly wondering how people who work in the organization I am about to start volunteering in can handle the frustration. In this type of business it is the small victories that make people keep on doing what they are doing, I was told. I shall remember that when I go to my first day of on-the-job-training tomorrow and through out my time with this organization.

"AN ALARMING RATIO"

I cannot get over the one-in-three ratio. At the beginning of the training session we were asked what we know about domestic violence and battered women, and I naively said that I don't know anybody who even knows somebody who is battered... It was shocking to hear the one-in-three ratio and to find out later that out of the 13 female participants, 10 were survivors of battery.

"CALCULATED ABUSE"

Now that the law to protect woman is slowly improving, batters are also changing their tactics. Inflicting physical pain or injury in such a way that it does not leave a mark is becoming common in physical abuse. The law requires physical evidence or witnesses to charge a batterer with violence. The sad fact is that if a woman is strangled and she scratches her attacker in a panic, she goes to jail because the scratch marks are visible. How unfair is that?

"OH NO, NOT I"

In the same fashion that Katrina victims and spectators were saying that the hit areas looked like a "third world country", affluent and educated women often do not see themselves as "battered women". In the video that was used in the training, an educated woman living in an affluent suburbia said that she did not see herself as a battered woman although her husband had started beating her and locking her up in a room because a battered woman was supposed to be "an uneducated woman with milliards of babies and on welfare". The problem with such strong myths is that it blinds people from correctly assessing their situation and seeking a solution. Battery occurs across all educational, economic, cultural and racial divides. The statistics is also pretty much the same for these categories.

"FOR BETTER OR WORSE"

This training session left me wondering about even marriage. Statistics shows that marriage worsens violence - if the couple has had a violent relationship prior to marriage, that is. The reason for that is fascinating. It has to do with the sense of ownership that marriage gives men, and even changing the woman's maiden name is a factor. If you think about it, it is the most retarded concept for the woman to change her name and take on her husband's name. You have to excuse me here for I am from a culture where the woman keeps her name for better or worse.

If rape is used as a weapon in a marriage, the likelihood of the woman being killed is a staggering 50-90%.

"GIVE ME THE STICKS AND STONES ANYTIME"

Verbal abuse is often not considered as battering. An overwhelming majority of battered women say that more than the physical abuse including rape, the verbal abuse has a lasting and detrimental effect. So, whoever came up with the saying "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words don't hurt me"?

"TO BE CONTINUED..."

Why doesn't the woman leave? What is a campaign of violence? What are the red flags? Why am I blown away by this organization? How can every language set us up for a disaster?

Credit: dating-coach-anita.blogspot.com