What is the lumpenproletariat?

The proletariat is a social class containing blue-collar workers.  In historic times, these were the wage slaves who just barely got by.  The owners of the factories, mines, and so forth typically exploited them, endeavoring to pay them as little as possible.  (As for today, well, not too much has changed.)  One of the goals of Socialism is to elevate the proletariat’s status.  The proposed means is via state-owned businesses; the historical track record isn’t too promising, but that’s another matter for now.

“Lumpenproletariat” is a derivative term, prefixed by the German word for “rags”.  That represents a worse-off class, particularly the homeless, criminals, and others at the economic fringe.  They have either very unsteady employment, or none.  Since there are these types even in good times, the problem is one of motivation.  This group generally encompasses drifters, slackers, ne’er-do-wells, etc.  The phrase “no visible means of support” comes to mind.  It’s a subject that appears occasionally in Communist writings.

Marxist approaches to the lumpenproletariat

Once again, going back to the point in the first paragraph, Socialists generally are interested in blue collar guys who punch a clock and perform manual labor every workday – “Workers of the world, unite!” and all that.  Those are the folks who would be interested in trade unionism, which they hoped would be the gateway drug to worldwide proletarian revolution and all that.  However, people who do no constructive labor – or as little as possible to survive – don’t really qualify; they’re not even workers.  Still, there’s actually quite a bit of variation in the Party Line on this point.

One traditional take is that the lumpenproletariat isn’t worth considering, since they’re natural reactionaries.  That one seems to be a bit of a stretch.  Some of those folks might have strong political beliefs, but they’re generally not activists.  Opinions are likely to be all over the place, but there’s no special reason to believe that many of them are fans of Friedrich Hayek, Corneliu Codreanu, Pat Buchanan, Julius Evola, Mencius Moldbug, or some other flavor of “reactionary”.

Another opinion is that lumpenproletariat members are natural anarchists.  That one seems closer to the mark; those guys often do have a problem with authority.  A related notion is that they’re just too unreliable to be useful for Communist activism.  On the right, such types obviously would be an absolute liability.  Being a leftist means never having to worry about optics (more on that subject in a later discussion).  Even so, any cause will need more than just warm bodies; a bunch of screwballs who can’t get their act together will be nothing but trouble.

Finally, there are those who hope to radicalize the lumpenproletariat.  The reasoning goes that since they’re the worst off in society, they’d be the most motivated.  The problem is that being motivated really isn’t in the nature of bums and slackers to begin with.

Then Franz Fanon – best known for writing books lately used to instill White guilt in college students – had a curious redefinition.  He described colonized peoples as the lumpenproletariat, who would go smash the bourgeoisie and all the rest of it.  That’s a pretty screwy formulation.  Someone in an actual colony (and there aren’t many real ones left) making fifty cents a day hacking down sugar cane certainly isn’t a bum.  He’s a manual laborer who happens to have a remarkably shitty tightwad of a boss.

Karl Marx, the big banana himself

Interestingly, Marx was basically a card-carrying lumpenproletariat member, though he certainly didn’t boast of it.  Friedrich Engels owned a factory (silly class enemy!) and repeatedly offered to give Marx a tour to see for himself how one operated.  However, Chuck just wasn’t interested.  Therefore, during all his life, he never stepped inside a factory (much unlike Yours Truly), despite writing about the subject at great length.  Reading up on factories was everything that the champion of the proletariat needed to know, apparently.  This is also much unlike Adam Smith, who wrote a classic case study about one.

Marx himself came from a fairly well-off family:  yes, a bourgeois by birth.  However, he frittered away his inheritance, and then had to survive off of handouts from his buddy Engels.  Laziness and heavy drinking didn’t help, and because of that, his family lived in miserable poverty.  He dabbled with journalism occasionally, but other than that, the champion of the proletariat never worked a day in his life, and certainly not any manual labor.  Being educated, he could’ve gotten a decent job if he wanted.  Even someone who wasn’t educated could’ve been a sailor, worked in a factory, or found some other gainful employment.

What’s the deal with that?  When work in my own chosen profession dried up, I had to do day labor in construction for a little over two years.  (So I took a job away from an illegal alien – now there’s a switch!)  I got heat exhaustion frequently, but that’s what it took to pay the bills.  Filing bankruptcy and then living off of The System was unacceptable to me.  Actually, I still do construction as a side project occasionally.  It’s called being practical.  Karl Marx, however, was an intellectual; therefore, he was too good to work.  He just wanted everything handed to him because he deserved it.

Actually, that explains a lot about his mindset, and that of some of his more naïve followers cranked out by today’s universities.  They don’t understand that production doesn’t happen by magic, or that wealth must be maintained.  Many of those behind decolonization liberation movements found out the hard way too.  The mentality goes that someone else has a pile of treasure, you steal it, and now you’re set up for life.  Zimbabwe is one example of many.

An economic planner from East Germany or Czechoslovakia would’ve known better, of course.  They had to get things done as best they could, within the framework of the system handed to them.  Outside the realm of pure theory, things work a little different when the rubber hits the road.  Anyway, I’m going to start getting trolled by Communists again, this time for insulting the Prophet.  Comrades, the truth hurts.

My Fascist solution

Yes, poverty is a drag, to put it mildly.  This is especially so if it’s a chronic condition in someone’s life.  Fortunately, there’s this thing called social mobility.  A drifter doesn’t have to remain a drifter.  Getting jobs back to this country will be a necessary first step.  That means tuning out all those neocon whiz kids and other free trade worshipers (cough, Krugman, cough) who don’t realize that peasants can’t afford durable goods.

Other than that, society does have a problem with increasing extremes of wealth.  However, Socialism doesn’t have a good track record of fixing things.  If it did, I’d be down for that.  Instead, the answer is Distributism.

What happens with able-bodied slackers who, after adequate opportunity is provided, still refuse to work?  Western welfare states (“Socialism Lite”) have a lot of tolerance for that, engineered to create a dependent voter bloc.  However, true Socialist societies did not.  It’s more realistic that way, actually; society should have less indulgence for slackers.  Handing out checks just perpetuates the problem.  If they feel like being unproductive, ever after opportunities to better themselves are there, they can go nibble grass or something.

Advertisements
What is the lumpenproletariat?

What a hell of a month it was

Normally I like October.  However, I am so fscking glad that the month is over.

I want to waterboard some veterinarians now

To make a very long story short, I’ve been having to deal with a sick cat, and I really don’t need this crap.  So, I’ve been getting about 3-4 hours of sleep at night.  The messy state of the healthcare system is a major topic in politics.  It turns out that it’s pretty messy even for animals.

Unluckily, I’d been locked into a corporate chain vet that has a reputation for price gouging.  After they screwed the pooch, I also had to deal with an overnight emergency vet service.  I hate going there, because they’d royally pissed me off a few years ago by doing bait-and-switch pricing on a cremation.  (That’s the worst possible time to jack with a customer.)  I went back to the corporate vet to follow up, and they flat out refused to help, even though they’d taken care of the exact same problem a few years back.

Both told me I had to go to some intensive care service for Yuppie cat ladies, which would set me back $2100, according to the late-night vet.  The one recommended by the corporate vet (which they probably get kickbacks from) would’ve involved several thousands of dollars, with uncertain chances of success.  When I was reluctant to do so, both of them were like, “Oh, so you want her to die, huh?  Well, we can get it all over quick if that’s how you feel.”  Both told me she wouldn’t survive the night if I didn’t do so.  Uh, she’s still here, assholes; I’ll bet you’re really disappointed.

Well, screw that.  I luckily was able to get into a locally-run vet.  One of my girlfriends highly recommends them.  I prefer small businesses to corporate chains because I believe in Distributism, but usually they’re too booked up.  I explained that I knew they were capable of taking care of the problem, and unfortunately I don’t have any pirate treasure buried in my back yard.  After two productive days later, the cat is much better.  Still, all the vet bills from everyone is a sum of about $1400, and I could’ve saved a thousand if I’d been able to get my cat into this place first.  After spending all that money on pussy in a month, now I feel like Charlie Sheen.

Anyway, blessings to all the furballs out there.  Pets are wonderful friends on four feet.  As for veterinarians, the good ones rock, and the bad ones can go put the lotion in the basket.

Miscellaneous items

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is an interesting find in psychology.  It turns out that people who are incompetent believe themselves to be highly competent.  Meanwhile, those who actually are highly competent will doubt themselves and underestimate their competence.  So now there’s a scientific explanation for clueless know-it-alls.  They know not, but know not that they know not.

I just looked up the Honey Boo Boo show to see what it was all about.  Apparently it was a reality TV series which included many characters who got pregnant in high school by guys who didn’t stick around.  They liked to date sex offenders and other criminals.  Aside from that, several characters were extremely overweight.  The eponymous star of the show was a kiddie beauty contestant well on the way to being pretty darn pudgy too.  (Hopefully she ends up with better tastes in men later in life.)  Golly jeepers, I miss out on so much by not owning a TV, don’t I?  So what was the real point about this show anyway – making fun of poor people?  How enlightening!

Finally, it’s November so I’m thinking of doing this NaNoWriMo thing.  Well, maybe.  I might use the characters of Space Vixen Trek episodes 0 and 13 to do a superhero story.  Naturally, I’ll have to put some icky aliens in it.  So as I understand the rules, I have to crank out a workable first draft of at least 50,000 words.  I’m already a day behind, and will lose a couple of days since I’ll be on the road, but I might could give this one a whirl.  However, because of my OCD-style editing practices, this doesn’t necessarily mean I’ll have it uploaded in December.  To get psyched for it, I’m watching Superhero Movie.  Right after the opening credits show Harvey Weinstein, a character grabs his crotch.  Good one!!

What a hell of a month it was

The nature of addiction: why do people get hooked on drugs or irrational behavior?

Addiction is a very old problem, with serious consequences for society, and for individuals too.  The compulsion caused by chemical slavery is so bad that crackheads will sell their bodies to get a little rock the color of toenail fungus.  They’re not all from bad neighborhoods; some came from nice families and made a dumb mistake.  Men will do that too; that Less Than Zero stuff is for real.  I’ve never smoked Satan’s boogers; I’d rather drop a cinderblock on my foot.  However, I had a dream about it once, and it was like confronting an evil spirit.

Modern science gives us a better idea of what’s going on, but treating it has been a frustrating pursuit.  There are drug therapies out there – good pills to get over bad pills, essentially.  Still, it’s been pretty well demonstrated that an opiate is an opiate.  Certain antidepressants might help recovering addicts, though they’re not perfect and can have undesired side effects of their own.  Ultimately, so far there’s no silver bullet, and perhaps there never will be.

The traditional focus has been on chemical addictions, which have been documented since the ancient Greeks, if not longer.  Then there are the behavioral addictions which have received much more attention in modern times.  Here’s what we do know at least.

Chemical addictions

hell

The way mood-altering drugs work is by changing the activity of neurotransmitters.  The big three are serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine.  Some drugs bind to one or more of these receptors, imitating the natural chemicals already floating around in the synapses.  Others inhibit the reuptake of these neurotransmitters, which increases the amounts existing in these connections between the brain cells.  Some do both; for instance, cocaine is a dopamine agonist and also inhibits its reuptake.  (It’s all fun and games until you’re feeling invisible spiders crawling all over you.)  There are also cannabinoid receptors and opioid receptors, which God or evolution put there for unknown reasons.  Alcohol, benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, etc.), and barbiturates operate on the GABA receptors.

So effectively this temporarily raises the wattage in these neural circuits.  These various neurotransmitters do different things, which is why getting drunk is a different high than getting stoned, etc.  If these drugs are taken regularly, then homeostasis kicks in, and the brain starts producing less of its own natural neurotransmitters.  That’s what gets people hooked.  This means that when addicts go cold turkey, they feel terrible until the homeostasis process starts increasing natural neurotransmitters to normal levels again.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen overnight.  For example, it takes two or three weeks of constant opioid use to get hooked.  After discontinuation, withdrawal symptoms will slowly subside at the same rate.  The Viet Cong therapy for heroin addicts was pretty effective, which involved tossing them into an oubliette for three weeks.  That’s a lot faster than a methadone taper-down program, and being put in a hole in the ground surely wouldn’t easily be forgotten.

So that’s how drug tolerance sets in, and eventually addiction.  It’s been said that the first time someone sniffs coke will be the best high he or she ever gets from it.  After that, cokeheads are simply trying to re-create the experience with increasing quantities.  It becomes a perceived need, like hunger and thirst, which the user never had before.

Another factor is downregulation.  Unnaturally elevated levels of neurotransmitters will make their receptors less sensitive.  When an addict isn’t high, the natural neurotransmitters are at a reduced level, and what little is there is has become less effective.  That’s why addicts deprived of their drug of choice will feel like chewing gum on the bottom of a shoe.  This is usually reversible with time, but not always.

Eventually, hardcore cocaine addicts (and abusers of other substances that affect dopamine) may develop anhedonia, the inability to experience pleasure.  At the extreme, they even can fry their dopamine system entirely and develop Parkinson’s.  All throughout, death by overdose is a real possibility.  (All these are more reasons why cocaine dealers and smugglers deserve to be taken out and shot.)  Finally, some drugs cause outright brain damage, like meth or inhalants.  MDMA (Ecstasy) burns out synapses, a process that begins pretty quickly.  That’s the reason they get “e-tarded”.  Why do you think they call it dope?

Behavioral addictions

Other than getting a chemical high, there are behavioral ways that people modulate their neurotransmitters to produce thrilling or otherwise pleasurable feelings.  This is why people ride roller coasters, chow down on food, and (of course) get laid.  What could be more natural than that?  I’ve tried skydiving once; it was a pretty rattling experience, but afterward I wondered why anyone would stick a needle in his arm when he could jump out of a plane instead.

Still, excess is a danger, a fact known to ancient Greek, Chinese, and Persian philosophers.  In The Republic, Plato pointed out that a life of excess produces higher highs and lower lows, but the lows predominate.  Meanwhile, in a life of moderation, the modest highs predominate over the modest lows.  Therefore, moderation is rational.

Immoderate food consumption can be a problem, which I’ve had to deal with myself.  Kleptomania and pyromania are behavioral addictions too; they get hooked on the rush of committing crimes.  Video games can be habit forming, leading to vast amount of wasted time and lost productivity.  However, occasionally deaths have resulted from self-neglect or neglect of children during all-day poopsocking sessions.  These behaviors might start out as being fun, but eventually become a drag, though it’s still difficult to quit.

Flashing, voyeurism, and other perversions can constitute behavioral addictions.  An unexpected effect of modern technology is that porn induced erectile dysfunction has become an epidemic among 20-somethings.  Typically, they’ll have to start watching more extreme content to get the same thrill.  So they might start out watching bikini models, then a year later they’re beating off to tentacle porn.  Rather oddly, there are many anecdotal reports of straight guys sometimes ending up watching gay stuff.  Some get curious enough to bang a dude and get grossed out by the experience, they aren’t actually gay, so they don’t really like giving blowjobs and all that.

Behavioral addictions can be pretty stupid and irrational, of course.  Still, that’s what happens when things like that get established in the limbic system’s pleasure / reward circuits.  MRI studies show parts of the brain lighting up during a porn session, the same ones that light up in cocaine addicts.  There’s no dumb dust involved, but someone doing an hours-long edging session to hardcore porn is tweaking his dopamine too.

Chemical addictions also have a behavioral component.  A junkie cooking heroin in a spoon will get a thrill in anticipation even before the needle goes in.  It’s much like Pavlov’s dog slobbering as soon as he heard the dinner bell.

Attempts to understand addiction

So in one way, addictions are essentially very bad habits.  The traditional explanation was moral weakness.  In more recent times, addiction started being seen as a psychological problem.  Others considered it a disease.  This results in reducing the stigma which (as the theory goes) will encourage people to seek help without feeling bad about it.

A schizophrenic can’t help being crazy, and (again, as the theory goes) neither can an addict.  Thus, it’s no more of a moral fault than catching the flu.  Other than that, “alcoholic” sounds at least a little better than “habitual drunk”.  When it was a new word, it put a fresh spin on things.  Still, we’ve stepped too far away from personal agency.  Furthermore, when people do bad things, they should feel bad about it, and others should call them out on it.  Ultimately, people have the capacity to choose between right and wrong.

Would anyone smoke crack right in front of a policeman?  Of course not; the crackhead will choose to wait for an opportunity to do so unobserved, since getting busted means going to jail for six months.  Therefore, addictive behavior is a choice, though it’s a lot harder to “just say no” after someone is hooked.  So addicts who want to quit have to become their own policeman.

The twelve step model

The famous 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous are the following:

  1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
  2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
  3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
  4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
  5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
  6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
  7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
  8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
  9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
  10. Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
  11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
  12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

AA and similar programs do work for many people.  If it gets them where they want to be, then they should run with it.

Still, I do have a few quibbles with some of it.  The thing about being totally powerless over alcohol, to the point that only an act of God will work, seems somewhat disempowering.  Further, all that might be pretty hard to swallow for an atheist.  Step 3, however, does very clearly indicate that a rational choice is involved in breaking free of this bad habit.  If a wino doesn’t want help, will God miracle him out of his bottle of Thunderbird?  Probably not.

So the power of reason is the essential part, and I’m sure Plato would’ve agreed.  The rational mind belongs in the driver’s seat.

The nature of addiction: why do people get hooked on drugs or irrational behavior?

Why are leftists running around like chickens with their heads chopped off about the NPC meme?

The new NPC meme has sparked much controversy lately.  You might wonder what it’s all about.  I had to look it up myself.  Then I saw how much fun it was.

What is the NPC meme?

Communist NPCs
This only took a few minutes in MS Paint. See how easy it is?

“Non-Player Character” is a term dating back at least to first edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.  An NPC is an adventurer (usually an ally, but perhaps an opponent or bystander) that is narrated by the Dungeon Master, rather than one of the players sitting at the table and tossing dice.  The concept got ported into online games.  NPCs are run by the server, effectively an automated Dungeon Master, though artificial intelligence is a “not quite there” technology (and perhaps always will be).  I don’t play Evercrack or Warcrack or any of that, but I understand that software characters will respond very predictably, acting like the automatons that they are.  They are incapable of thinking for themselves; their responses are determined entirely by their programming.

So the latest flapdoodle is about applying the “NPC” term to indoctrinated Social Justice Warriors.  They have been programmed with cultural Marxism to hate their civilization, react reflexively to certain ideas, and spout meaningless slogans like “Check your privilege!”  KGB insider Yuri Bezmenov had some things to say about the Baby Boomer version of these memebots, an earlier model not as bad as today’s SJWs:

Most of the people who (reeducated) in the sixties, drop outs or half-baked intellectuals are now occupying the positions of power in the Government, civil service, business, mass media, educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black you still cannot change the basic perception and illogical behavior. In other words, these people, the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.

To symbolize today’s brainwashed NPCs, someone modified the “Wojak / Feels Guy” meme and drew on a very simple and expressionless face.  Logos and Liberty shared a good writeup on that, providing some examples.

However, leftists don’t think this is funny.  In fact, they’re flying into a rage about being compared to software.  It’s nothing worse than calling someone a robot, but the NPC meme has triggered an epic pearl-clutching festival.

WTF guys?  It’s a joke!


The “knee-jerk liberal” concept has been around for ages.  It’s the idea that they’ll respond reflexively in any given situation, just like if the doctor taps you under the kneecap with that little rubber mallet.  That one’s been around since the 1970s at least.  Back then, liberals didn’t go bananas about it.  Instead, they either shrugged it off, or perhaps smiled and poked fun at some conservative trait in response.

Analogies about conformity have been around for a while too, like zombies, Pod People, and The Borg.  However, nobody got too butthurt about that either.  (Actually, there is much to be said about how people get conditioned by ideologies, but all that’s another subject.)  Why is “NPC” of all things so bad?  Really, the term “libtard” is meaner, though curiously they haven’t screeched about it.  Sometimes people do get educated beyond their ability to understand, but that’s an entirely different matter than actually being mentally disabled.

Guys, it’s a joke.  Even if leftists exhibit a high degree of conformity sometimes – which includes saying unkind things about their opponents – nobody believes they really are robots.  By creating a bunch of flapdoodle about a simple meme, they’ve virtually guaranteed that it’s going to get more popular.  It’s all about the Streisand Effect.

Still, you’d better be careful about where you post it online, or the corporate Thought Police might make you an unperson.  Twitter has been banning users for posting images like that.  Again, WTF?  I might add that it’s quite irritating that these huge corporations are using their monopoly power to take it upon themselves to decide what opinions are “acceptable”.  They may be powerful now, but when enough of their customers get sick of the corporate nannies telling them what they’re allowed to say, they’ll start leaving for censorship-free platforms.

Why are leftists running around like chickens with their heads chopped off about the NPC meme?

Limited time markdown on one book, another permanently free

I decided to put Amazon’s KDP Select to the test.  My latest novel, Space Vixen Trek Episode 17, is going on sale for one week.  For the first half, the Kindle ebook is 99 cents, later $1.99 for the rest of the week, so get it while it’s hot!

For Safe and Secure in Atropia, I’ve now made it free at Smashwords.  You couldn’t beat a deal like that even if you tried!  It’s an easy read, and quite hilarious.  If you don’t care for obnoxious bureaucrats, or you’ve ever wished the Board of Directors at your homeowner’s association would go die in a fire, you’ll get a kick out of it.  The full description is on my main book page.

The sequel is in the works

The creative bug is still biting.  Already I’ve begun on Episode 18..  Although SVT‘s numbering system is symbolic rather than sequential (maybe I’ll get around to explaining it one of these days), events follow those of Episode 17.  It’s tentatively named A Three Hour Tour in the Wine-Dark Cosmos.  This one is basically Homeric epic meets stupid-funny sitcom.

For a sneak preview, the protagonist gets a shotgun wedding right away.  Things really turn to shit when his jock friend brings a dippy bird aboard a spacecraft.  Then the nerd’s old flame, the cutest Space Lizard in the galaxy, wants him back.  As for his wife, she’s surrounded by over a hundred skeezy suitors.  There’s much more trouble, of course, that will happen to the seven castaways stranded in space.  If that wasn’t awful enough, the action concludes with a Mormon-themed ending.

I have several other projects in the pipeline as well.  Stay tuned!

Limited time markdown on one book, another permanently free

About Rainbow “Beau” Albrecht

It’s about time I have a single biographical page, now isn’t it?  Well, here we go.  Unlike most pages here, I may revise this a bit in the future.

Call me Ishmael, yarrrr.  Actually, I’m Rainbow Albrecht, but I usually go by Beau. The name was actually kind of cool until Rainbow Brite hit the shelves when I was a teenager, and then that rainbow flag thing got popular and gave people the wrong idea about me.  Afterwards, I was tempted to sue my parents for sticking me with that hippy name.

I was a love child from the 1960s, and technically a red diaper baby. My views diverged from those of my parents pretty early on, much to the horror of my liberal mom and radicalinski dad,. In fact, I most certainly enjoyed watching Red Dawn and Rambo II on the big screen. These days, I also write deplorable diatribes, mostly here and at Return of Kings.

I am a (nominal) member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I do love Salt Lake City, but I’m the worst Mormon since Joseph Smith himself. My favorite watering hole in SLC is Desert Edge (I miss Natasha!), though Beerhive, Garage On Back, and Purgatory are also highly recommended. If we ever meet at once of these places, let’s knock back some brewskis, how about it? Other than that, I’m into lots of rather obscure stuff: Thelema, Distributism, linguistics (ancient Gothic for the win!), Romanian history, Russian novels, and that’s just the beginning.

I spend much of my free time on creative writing, mainly science fiction and fantasy. My flagship Space Vixen Trek series deliberately shoots for the “so bad it’s good” effect. Lately I have brought some projects to fruition, with several in the pipeline. You may find the books at your favorite online ebook retailer:

For the specific descriptions, see my book catalog.

Here are answers to some questions you might have about me.

How may I contact you?

I don’t care for mailto: links, because then I start getting lots of spam.  This includes emails from Nigerian “419” fraudsters.  (Those millions they promise aren’t real, in case – Gods forbid – you haven’t figured that one out yet.)  I don’t need fake pills to enlarge my dick; I’m not getting any complaints.  I don’t need fake pills to make my boobs larger, because I don’t have any and I’d rather enjoy them on other people.  Neither am I looking for local hookups in my area.  I don’t like spam, Sam-I-Am.

So, if you want to write me, my user ID is rainbow_albrecht and the domain is hotmail.com and I’m sure you can figure it out.  For the record, I don’t mind polite discussions with those who don’t share my views.  However, if someone wants to curse me out, you can send your email to /dev/null and I’ll be getting back to you shortly.

I like what you’re doing and I want to support your work.  How can I send a donation?

I have enough money to support myself pretty comfortably.  (I’m not a millionaire, but getting there.)  Still, you can buy my books; I wouldn’t mind a little more fame and recognition.  For cash donations, you don’t have to send me anything, but instead, contribute to my friends at VDARE.  They’re doing some awesome work.

Why do you hate feminists so much?

To clarify, most garden-variety feminists you’ll meet in day-to-day life aren’t really bad people.  Unfortunately, they’ve been deluded by the ones in the media and education establishments.  They’ve been told constantly that they’re oppressed, when the reality is that today’s women in Western societies tend to live very comfortable lives.  In fact, they’re the most pampered and (dare I say it) the most spoiled generation of women who have ever walked the earth.  The ones who put the mind-virus in their heads are often pretty sick and twisted, and they use other people to further their political agendas.  Those feminists – professional activists and women’s studies professors – can go to Outer Darkness and stay there.

A little more specifically, I started figuring out that there was something wrong with feminism back in college.  I really do love women, and back in my Blue Pill days, I used to think that feminism is good, but I couldn’t have been more wrong.  At college, I was exposed to some of their unfiltered rhetoric.  Since my school was infested with cultural Marxism (like most of them), you couldn’t get away from toxic feminist rhetoric any more than you can get away from pollution in a factory town lacking emission controls.  (Again, they can go on a one-way trip to Outer Darkness.)  However, it was much later that I found out what feminism is really all about.

What are your thoughts on polygamy?

Multiple relationships can be fun (the Coolidge effect and all that), though they’re certainly extra drama.  As for being sealed for time and eternity – if all that’s the real deal – things could get interesting.  Maybe that’s why Zeus and Hera are on the outs with each other frequently?

More seriously, I’d do that myself if it were possible.  I could make it official with my two girlfriends while continuing to treat them equally.  However, rolling out polygamy on a large scale would probably be a social disaster.  Every billionaire with 100 concubines means 99 lonely guys out there.  Given how hypergamy has been working out, I figure the effects on society would basically amount to more of the same.  Worse, a lot of the people who might undertake multiple relationships would have no idea on how to make them work.  It’s been tried.

Other than that, if we have gay marriage now, I don’t see any legal reason why polygamy is forbidden, since it has orders of magnitude more historical and cultural provenance than gay marriage ever did.  The Supreme Court has made the case time and again that the 14th Amendment (which was really about guaranteeing the rights for freed slaves) means “anything goes”.

About Rainbow “Beau” Albrecht

Massive SJW mobbing incident demonstrates that modern feminism leads to unrealistic expectations and hair-trigger tempers

Feminism began in 1848 as a movement to achieve women’s suffrage, among several other goals mainly concerning equality under the law.  Since every single item in their Declaration of Sentiments was achieved long ago, why do we still have feminism?  Despite society’s complete acquiescence, feminists started acting angrier than ever.

It’s a long story, wrapped up in the weaponized social movements that became prominent during the 1960s.  The second wave feminists had to start making new demands, of course.  Now that we’re into the fourth wave (may mighty Wotan, Guider of Destiny, put an end to this pestilence soon), the picayune things feminists complain about are getting absurd.  A recent incident illustrates this point quite well.

First, a digression about the “666 formula”

Guys, have you ever seen personal ads beginning with requirements like this?

  • Must be at least six feet tall
  • Must have a six figure income
  • Must have six pack abdominals

This “666 formula” is typical boilerplate, often merely the beginning of a long shopping list.  Likely you’ve seen similar verbiage many times before.  If you don’t meet these lofty expectations, you’re certainly not alone.  Going by stats for the USA:

  • Only about 18% of guys are 6’0″ or taller.
  • Only about 8% of guys make $100K or more.  Sorry, gold diggers!
  • According to 2013 figures, only 26.3% of American men aren’t overweight or clinically obese, part of an increasing worldwide trend.  However, if you want to get technical, there’s a difference between skinny and athletic.  For visible abdominals, you’ll need 10% or less body fat; maybe 1-2% of guys look like this these days

Therefore, only about 4% of guys meet all the “666 formula” criteria.  All these average women who think an average guy is beneath them are setting themselves up for bitter disappointment, but all that’s another topic.

A thought experiment

Whenever you see a personal ad with specifications excluding 96% of guys, do you:

  • Pass up Miss Princess Complex
  • Read further to see if she actually brings something to the table herself (besides just the possibility of sex with a spoiled brat)
  • Become enraged and tell all your friends, who tell their friends, who…

That’s right; your reaction would be one of the first two items.  Hey, we understand, women have standards.  (Well, usually.  Sometimes they need to get some damned standards!)  On the other hand, if a guy dares to say that he has some standards of his own, it can launch a feminist screech-fest, triggering millions.  This indeed happened a week ago.

Kyle Trouble’s big trouble

Big Red the age of men is over 663ed3460f91abdc32728708645679318c4dbfb22b960e84a543c0cc768dd27a

One of my colleagues at Return of Kings posted the following on Twitter:

Easy things to ask on a first date that tell you whether a girl is worth deeper investment:

* Relationship with father
* Sexual past
* Views on children
* Attitude towards men
* Ability to cook/clean/domestic duties

All can easily be woven into a first date conversation.

Was that unreasonable?  Actually, it makes a lot of sense.  You need to know basics like these before things get serious.  (After all, you wouldn’t want to marry someone who has Daddy issues, has incompatible goals for family size, might bang the milkman, etc.)  I might add, although the fraction of women in the population who pass muster for wife material is smaller than in times past, it’s still considerably more than guys who are tall AND rich AND thin (much less athletic).

Then the hordes of Mordor strong, empowered feminists began an epic pearl-clutching festival.  NARRATIVE VIOLATION!  RED ALERT!  RED ALERT!  The complete story demonstrates that truth is stranger than fiction.  For a brief rundown, the tweet went viral, generating fifteen million rageclicks.  The flapdoodle surely went around the world, but for comparison’s sake, that’s about 10% of the USA’s adult female population.

It didn’t end there.  Many of these babes started trolling him.  One notable cyber-stalker was a Twitter user going by “Liberal, Not Lefty”.  (I guess she must be a classical liberal then?  Maybe she has some unique insights on Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire.)  Another was Emily Sears.  One of her witty rejoinders was 240 characters – or whatever the message limit is – of “hahahaha”.  (Pro tip:  the common Internet expression “lol” gets the point across and doesn’t wear out your fingers.)  Someone else went to the trouble of making a picture of him in front of a wall of vagina sculptures.  (Cool, someone knows Photoshop!)  Actually, he thought that was pretty funny.

Finally, hordes of feminists started combing over all his old posts, looking for “point and shriek” material.  (Normally I don’t recommend television, but I bet there’s some crap on the t00b that would be more entertaining for them.)  They made a big brouhaha over some minor misspelling, which was actually just a typo.  Actually, I find it saddening that these feminists have nothing better to do with their lives.  Anyway, if some brain-dead feminist or SJW wants to do the same thing to me some day, I’ll make it easy.  My favorite vegetable is the potatoe.

Nutty feminism in a nutshell

The first wave feminists actually did have concrete things to complain about, unlike silly abstractions thrown around today, such as “The Patriarchy”.  Men had (and still have) expected roles too, and women had (and still have) social advantages.  This didn’t quite figure into the calculations of these early feminists, but all that’s another story.  Ultimately, they abrogated their part of the gender social contract.

What the hell are they complaining about now?  Basically everything.  Two prominently visible results of feminism today are Princess Complex and going ballistic over nothing.  Evidently, there are fifteen million of them who need to get a life.

For all the ladies out there who don’t behave this way, you’re wonderful!

Massive SJW mobbing incident demonstrates that modern feminism leads to unrealistic expectations and hair-trigger tempers