If the “red pill” is to represent difficult and uncomfortable truth, understanding the truth about women, or sex realism, must be the foundation of all other knowledge, and must be mastered in order to have a genuine, authentic, and accurate understanding of the world.
It’s also the most difficult truth to swallow — but why?
There is no internal, biological imperative to care about other races or tribes. This is why the Left is engaged in a perpetual witch hunt to sniff out racism, or “micro-aggressions.” They understand that diversity is not a natural state, nor is the desire for multiculturalism. People feel safest, and most comfortable, when surrounded by others with whom they can easily identify with. This is what builds a high-trust, close-knit community.
However, men are biologically wired to care for women. Even as feminists want to paint men as sexually insatiable jerks who’d cast their conquests aside like soiled junk if they could, this is only actually half-true. Men are wired to garner good feelings from their masculine role as acting as the “necessary protector of women.” From an evolutionary stance, civilization and the continuance of the human race would not be possible without this basic social dynamic. Throughout most of human history, a woman would not be able to survive her pregnancy and adequately raise a healthy baby without a man’s care, protection, and willingness to be disposable.
Remember, “women and children first” is eternal. When you’re in bed with your wife, and you hear bass beats and jive talk coming from the kitchen, no matter how hashtag badass she thinks she is, you’re the one heading downstairs with a baseball bat. Male disposability runs deeply and is not something that will ever change.
This biological wiring is the foundation for sympathetic love, or unconditional love. That is, the way a man loves a woman. This is entirely different from how a woman loves a man.
In the modern world, a woman doesn’t have the same physical limitations during her pregnancy nor initial stages of child rearing, and this is new to even the last hundred years. Yet, a man’s biological wiring to serve as her protector persists, and always will.
Modern men still define their masculine social value partially by their treatment of women, the extent to which they protect women, and their willingness to be disposable for women. Think of it like this: few men are able to maintain their resolve in the face of a crying woman, no matter what she did.
If you’re new to these ideas, I ask you to keep an open mind. I know this stuff may cut deeply and shatter the mainstream notion that women are inherently the fairer sex, that women are wonderful, but try to take this new framework for understanding sex dynamics and see how it may change the way you think about your own relationships, both past and present, or — even better — use it to analyze the relationships of your friends and family.
And I think a good place to start is to take you through my origin story: how did I end up being “Bad” Billy, and why does it matter?
We were all taught that men and women are equal. That is to say, outside of biological differences, men and women generally want the same things, have the same experiences, and have the same strengths and weaknesses. For a man to be considered a good man, or a valuable, or a worthy man, or a non-immediately disposable man, he will signal his alignment with this belief. And, in fact, we have shaming labels for those who dissent from this paradigm: sexist and misogynist.
In understanding how gender equality isn’t exactly meant to be equal, we need to look at the different messages, and their interpretations, that equality has for boys and girls.
If you take a look at any modern elementary school classroom, you’ll notice the overabundance of cuteness. Everything is cute. And I’m not just talking kindergarten, or the earlier grades. Pretty much through high school, entire classrooms are decorated like Hello Kitty threw up all over the school. In the name of gender equality, boys are reprimanded for, well, being boys. For rough and rambunctious play, for not being inclusive enough during lunch or recess, etc. It gets to the point where the new initiative is to eliminate the “boys line and the girls line,” for when the class lines up to go somewhere.
This division, they say, of a “boys line and a girls line,” creates too much of a visual cue that boys are, in fact, different than girls, and may engender the kind of chauvinism that leads to boys wanting to play with other boys. Oh, the horror!
While the literal message of equality is the same for both sexes, the interpretation is inherently different. Boys are taught that equality means men are not inherently better, more skilled, or more capable than women; that men must always be consciously inclusive of women, and that a woman’s opinion — the female voice, as feminists put it — must always have a place in the conversation, regardless of its merit.
In other words, the notion of gender equality is the idea that boys should consciously limit themselves in the name of female-centric fairness.
Girls are taught equality with the omnipresent fallacy that female oppression dominated most of history — this is a goof, this is a lie, this is a power grab — and most importantly it is the foundation for the biased approach to how women are taught equality.
If the idea is prevalent that females were oppressed until, well, forever, then little girls are to be granted full access to entitled female chauvinism. You’d never see a little boy running around in a “Boys rule!” t-shirt; the idea seems totally absurd.
So if little girls are raised to be permissibly chauvinistic, then that kind of equality means “YES YOU CAN!” And, of course, if you can’t, “don’t worry, everyone will help you along anyway.” This message of equality for women is that they are inherently as capable as the most capable man.
The unequal message of equality can be crystallized in a single image seen proudly displayed in Globalization Studies classrooms throughout our country:
What is this poster really saying, and how are braindead, girl power, socialism studies teachers interpreting it?
The easy interpretation is that women have an innate can-do spirit and therefore demand the equal treatment of men. The hidden and lost meaning is that men are, historically, able to be controlled by emasculation and shame, and make a nice, disposable statistic in the body count of war.
This poster’s original intention had absolutely nothing to do with girl power. Traditionally, military service has been a high-risk, potentially deadly, and exclusively male responsibility. If the risks still outweighed the rewards, women would want no part in military service.
With the game of equality, the rules state that men are forbidden from pointing out any differences between sexes that may have negative implications, while it’s always open season on pointing out male limitations, the most obvious being male sexuality, because male sexuality is amoral and retarded.
If we’re being honest, and, I am only honest, I’d bang Casey Anthony because male sexuality is amoral, I’d bang Amy Schumer because male sexuality is retarded, and I’d bang Jodi Arias because male sexuality is kind of crazy.
Sexuality is a man’s weakness, and there is most certainly a correlation between the most successful men and the degree to which they’re able to control their sexual desires. But still, the fact of the matter remains, that the vast majority of men would have sex with the vast majority of women, and it doesn’t take a whole lot of careful decision making. Take a look at her, does she look good? You’d bang her. Throw a rock into a shopping mall. Who’d you hit? You’d probably bang her.
The Wolf Man (1941), the original Universal monster movie, was a loose metaphor that spoke to the base animalistic instinct of male sexuality. Beware, trusting and innocent ladies: the civilized gentleman you’re with may have a dark secret, and a hidden agenda… while he seems nice, there is a beast lurking within.
Male sexuality is inherently animalistic, which is why, from a civilizational standpoint, male sexuality must be contained. We could not have a functional society without its containment, which is why the law against rape is a pillar of civilization. It is also why, as opposed to “popular feminist theory,” most men do not have the potential to be rapists — it goes against every instinct, evolutionary and socially, that a man has.
But if the rules of equality permit the persistent dissection of distinctly male weaknesses, with constant hysteria over male responsibility regarding those weaknesses, what of female weakness or female responsibility? If animalistic sexuality is male nature, what is female nature?
Seeing the tiny cracks of light through the narrative of sex equality is something inevitable, and it’s there that a man can either choose to ignore it, or let it fester. Asking taboo questions, and thinking taboo thoughts… the rabbit hole grows deep.
It was the summer of 2011 when I got my first real job out of graduate school. It wasn’t much money, but it was real enough for my girlfriend’s father to take notice. My girlfriend at the time was your typical party girl: in her early 20s, and while she had a job, she spent her money on total bullshit, entirely ignoring her student loans, car payments, and credit car bills; she left that up to her parents to pay.
This wasn’t something I gave a whole lot of thought to; we weren’t married, we weren’t even living together. She had her money, and I had mine, and all things being equal, it didn’t make sense for to me to get involved.
But her father was a Jewish lawyer.
He had invited me out to a cheap steakhouse to “congratulate me on my new position,” which was unusual enough to make me skeptical; he never seemed to care about anything I did before. And while we were out, with our awful $10 steaks, he launched into a long speech about “responsibility.” Men take care of their women, if you didn’t know, and if I expected my girlfriend to respect me, if I really loved her, I would pay all her bills for her.
The look on my face must have been telling, because he immediately busted out the big guns, and told me I had to be a man.
While I couldn’t consciously verbalize what exactly was going on here at the time, this was my very first crack of light, where I knew things weren’t quite what we were told. He was absolutely livid when I politely declined.
But where did this guy get the balls — or the chutzpah — to think I’d gleefully go along with his shame, pressure, and manipulation? It felt important to reflect on how he knew me.
How were we taught to behave with our girlfriend’s parents?
We were taught to be the good boyfriend, the agreeable boyfriend, the helpful boyfriend; signaling to the girl’s parents that, yes, you were serious about their daughter. You were willing to put their daughter first, you were were willing to make yourself disposable for their daughter. In other words, you were to signal to her parents that you were a beta male for their daughter, and this, we were told, is what gains their respect and approval.
And maybe it did, in a time where we married young, before birth control and no fault divorce. Today though, this is seen as a weakness to exploit. To put it bluntly, if you signal that you’re willing to be disposable, you’re going to be treated like you’re disposable.
The second little crack of light I got out of this was his use of male “responsibility,” and the idea that I should feel ashamed that I wasn’t “being a man.” I had this kind of responsibility toward my girlfriend, that she was entitled to my financial support, but what were her responsibilities to me?
Would he agree that she was obligated to stay fit and trim for me, or give me blowjobs on demand, or no dice — no car payments, no student loan payments, no male responsibility for the bratty little girl?
He absolutely wouldn’t.
He would tell me that her mere presence, the gift of her being with me as my girlfriend, was my reward. No further responsibility was needed on her part.
The lie we’re told as men is that beta male behavior, this kind of relinquishment of alpha male masculinity, is what garners respect — both from our women, to our women’s families, to the world in general; if we are “man enough” to make an overt showing of standing down and rolling over, and showing our soft, sensitive, underside, our willingness to be disposable for the sake of others, that this is what garners respect in the modern landscape of equality. This is a lie.
This man did not respect me, nor did his daughter. Yes, I was in love with her — before I understood what love was, and how to manage a relationship properly, and how to maintain the proper control necessary for the long haul. If such a thing is truly possible, that is, and I’m not sure it is, to be grimly honest. Thankfully, we didn’t marry, didn’t have children, and I made it out to tell the tale.
Some men aren’t so lucky.
But as I went through the motions of how the mainstream tells men to conduct their relationships, how the mainstream tells us to be men, the more I loved her, the more I listened to her, the more forgiving I was of her mistakes and inadequacies, the more I showed her sympathetic love — unconditional love — and doted on her, the more I showed her the soft underbelly of the beta male, the more she grew to resent me and become unattracted to me.
The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), directed by the eccentric homosexual James Whale, is a cautionary tale warning against the unattractive nature of becoming too civilized. In its predecessor, Frankenstein is depicted with the kind of presence and freedom of a wild animal roaming the countryside. In “Bride” he encounters a rather pleasant blind man who teaches him to speak, gives him food, cigars, and liqueur, and suddenly what was once a growling wild beast is transformed into a “nice young man.”
And, that’s nice for Frankenstein. God bless the big lug, he deserves a break from unwittingly terrorizing villages and being chased by angry, torch wielding mobs. But it’s important to ask, what was lost when the monster eases up a bit and learns to relax?
When the newly civilized monster is presented with the idea of acquiring a mate, when he clumsily utters the words “woman… friend… wife,” his whimpering neediness feels clear to the viewer; entirely gone is that animalistic freedom, and when his bride finally rejects him in absolute horror, it isn’t difficult to understand why: Frankenstein had become a beta male, and the true hallmark of the beta male is need, and need is the antithesis of attraction for a woman.
I ask you to put yourself in the big guy’s size 24 shoes right now. Think about any relationship you’ve had, where things may have started off with a kind of red hot attraction, where you were the animal man — the hunter, the need-less alpha male — seducing your way to female attraction… and then you had a moment where you said something along the lines of “gee, I really like her,” or “gosh, this one is special” and your behavior changed. You more often showed her your soft underbelly, you listened more, and you developed a need for the validation of her emotions.
And what happened?
What always happens?
The beta male is characterized by need, and need is inherently unattractive to a woman.
It was during that same summer that I became somewhat obsessed with the trial of Casey Anthony.
Oh my goodness, Casey, what have you done?
Take an average, pretty, party girl from suburban Florida, riding the tide of drug abuse, seedy house parties, and rampant promiscuity, and knock her up. Casey got pregnant from a still-unknown father, and decided to have the baby. Maybe she thought she was ready? Maybe she thought she could turn it all around, become a mother, and embrace responsibility?
Three years later, Caylee Anthony, Casey’s daughter, went missing and was later found dead. Caylee was missing for 31 days, and it was finally reported to police by Casey’s mother Cindy, who noted that Casey’s car smelled like “a dead body had been inside it.”
Casey was charged with the murder of her daughter.
The real story is what took place during the month between when Caylee went missing and Casey’s arrest. Casey partied… hard. There are numerous pictures taken of Casey during that month, at house parties, looking euphoric, drinking and dancing with other girls, draped in the American flag, something which seems almost too symbolically perfect to be true. Casey even got a tattoo to commemorate the entire surreal affair: Bella Vita, on her shoulder.
Translation: Beautiful Life.
Casey Anthony killed to party.
It’s too easy to look at Casey Anthony as an anomaly. That her story, while filled with sound and fury, ultimately symbolized nothing. That Casey isn’t indicative of an entire generation of women raised with no expectations of responsibility, fed a steady diet of promiscuity and partying, and then expected to, somehow, transition to the surely dull-by-comparison life of a dutiful wife and loving mother.
Somehow being the key word. There is no transition point outlined in this plan; no guide book on how a woman can go from indulging all of her desires and fantasies to something as boring as adult responsibility.
As an extreme example, Casey symbolizes a generation of women encouraged to exploit their ability to sexually manipulate men and spend their youth engaged in promiscuity, or sexual “exploration,” or “finding herself.” The idea that multiple sexual partners has no lasting affect on a woman, after which she can partner up and marry someone later on, once her looks and fertility begin to fade…
What could possibly go wrong?
There was a time, a long time ago, when Hollywood was genuinely socially conscious. Not the kind of agenda-driven, make-believe “social consciousness” of today, but when Hollywood was able to produce films serving as cautionary tales with a simple and clear morality for the viewer. With that in mind, I’d like to conclude with Dracula (1931).
Count Dracula is the sexy, foreign alpha male, roaming the night in search of virginal female flesh. When Dracula would seduce a woman to her doom, he wouldn’t kill her, but only leaving her soulless, like the walking undead.
Because how else could she ever even bear to look at her boring beta-boyfriend again after a night with the Count?
Women are drawn to Dracula because they innately desire the need-less alpha male. What was once her small village, became her big city, and now with online dating, she has a virtually infinite supply of alpha men to charm her, fuck her, and leave her metaphorically soulless.
We’ve gone from a culture that warned against the malicious intent of Chad Dracula, to one which actively encourages his wrath — and women will never be the same.
Billy Pratt normally writes at Kill To Party.
If a woman should read this, she would never see herself or her sisters. The hamster would start spinning immediately. Somehow we need to re-establish the patriarchy, one red-pilled man — one civilized, red-pilled man — at a time. Good article.
Fathers should visit pre-schools, kindergartens and elementary schools to witness how their children are treated and socialized from early on.
I visited those classes and was disgusted at the rampant manipulation of young minds by teachers and some activist moms that stigmatized some of the boys while also gaining special favors and notice for some girls. As a follow-up, a kindergarten teacher got fired, some boys were driven out of the school, and some girls eventually grew up to get pregnant, have abortions and cry to their then-divorced moms. Nobody won, everybody lost.
Billy – an interesting text, but you’ve left me confused, What are you saying? If I tolerate a beautiful bimbo’s idiotic chatter because I want to get inside her underwear am I an alpha or a beta male? Or if I buy her various things, do something, or say something nice to achieve ditto? Am I to pretend that I don’t have that urge, that need? Why complicate things?
Amusing tale about your girlfriend’s father trying to get you to pay her bills – shucks, you can’t blame him from at least trying! But to be more serious – I assume you were in an unmarried, sexual relationship with the girl, and you clearly learnt something from that time, about women, sexuality and relationships in general. Did these experiences “spoil” you in some way? I think not, but it seems you’re making the assumption that the modern sexual freedom of women somehow “spoils” them – I’m just not convinced.
Obviously statistics cannot tell the whole truth, but the statistics do exist tell a very poignant truth about the damage even one (1) extra sex partner can do for women. The verdict is not out for men, but given the fact that women seek divorce more than twice as often as men, it is quite clear however much it is, must be quite a bit less.
>Billy – an interesting text, but you’ve left me confused, What are you >saying? If I tolerate a beautiful bimbo’s idiotic chatter because I want to get >inside her underwear am I an alpha or a beta male?
I would draw a distinction here between want and need- if you want her, you’ll (maybe) seduce her; if you need her, you’ll almost certainly fail.
In a relationship, a woman will not respect you if she gets the feeling that you need her emotional validation; you may want it, and appreciate it, but once you need it her attraction to you will diminish.
And, because men love women sympathetically and a woman’s love for a man is based on his value, combined with the absolute necessity of a woman’s respect for a man in a relationship- yes, sexual encounters with men who are higher value than those who would be open to a long-term relationship with her do end up spoiling her future relationships.
Casey Anthony would not bang
Amy Schumer would bang
Jodi Arias would not bang
Got the crazy male sexuality.
Great minds must think alike Alf, those were my picks too.
Glad to know girlfriend’s dad was Jewish. That makes all the difference, doesn’t it? A little gratuitous Jews-yuck! signalling and you’re instantly part of the alt-right club. Maybe your essay wouldn’t have gotten published otherwise, so you made a prudent move.
Calm down JIDF.
Neuroticism combined with an enduring sense of specialness is not a good combination. Cut it out.
“Jews-yuck!” is your club-card, frat-boys. (Little Hadley finds his/her own special way to lisp, “Jewth-doubleyuck!”)
“Jews-yuck!”
Note that no one actually said this. Well, no one aside from Garr. Garr can’t actually find any quote in the essay to ridicule, so he fabricates one of his own, and applies it to another. Because to leftists, fantasy is equivalent to reality.
He chooses this phrasing – “Jews-yuck!” because it sounds childish and stupid. He wants to portray Pratt, and others, as being childish and stupid, but lacks the ability to make an argument to that end. If he wanted to make an argument, he would. Unless of course he lacks that ability.
Unable, or unwilling, to make an actual argument, he resorts to hollow rhetoric.
He informs us that ‘”Jews-yuck!” is your club-card”‘, which I guess means that one is denied entry into the altright unless he says “Jews-yuck!”, though so far the only person to say it has been Garr himself, making him, I supposed, eligible for membership in the altright.
This on Social Matter, an Nrx site. Nrx, inspired by the writings of Mencius (((Moldbug))). I’m sure he finds Jews as equally yuck as Garr does.
He then proceeds to sling the insult “frat-boys”, because what else can a petty little leftist agitator do? College fraternities are associated with bad, bad things, like hooliganism, and wild parties, and rape. Cultural stereotypes and movies tell me so, so it must be true.
No one here is a frat member to the best of my knowledge, but Garr doesn’t let little things like reality stand in his way.
Rather than make an argument that Pratt, or Bishop, or whoever, is a hooligan, a hard-partier, or a rapist, he takes a label and slaps it on them. That’ll show them! Putting the bad, bad word next to the thing you don’t like, corrupts that thing. Words are magic, like splashing sewage on a sponge, it soaks the filth up, and becomes corrupt. Good job, Garr, now we’re all frat-boys! Next toss in a warlock, cannibal, and Hitler, too, for good measure.
We find he makes reference to a “Little” Hadley, because this is the way you talk about children, and talking about an adult in that way is considered belittling, childishness being considered a defect in adults. Garr is engaging in that most profound of leftist swiping tactics – the bitch-dig, the I’m not interested in an argument, I just want to insult you and make you feel bad gambit.
His goal is to hurt your feelings, which I guess is what leftists settle for when they’re not able to line innocents up against the wall and gun them down in the name of revolution.
We see more attempts at casting Hadley as a child, with “his/her own special way” (every child is special; also special is a euphemism for retard), we get references to a lisp (children talk funny!) and then the much dreaded “Jewth-doubleyuck!”, which again Bishop didn’t type, but Garr did, which actually makes him the one that sounds stupid, in reality.
The insults ring hollow, because none of them are true. How is telling lies about someone supposed to hurt his feelings? It’s like going up to someone and say “Your face is blue! Ha ha! You look so stupid!” His face of course is not blue, and he’s not the one in this situation who looks stupid.
We can just as easily say Garr is a petty little leftist whose life is so pathetic and is so frustrated that his dream of launching left wing death squads to light fire to churches and trampled to death vile republican babies will never be realized, that he wastes fleeting moments of his insignificant life spewing empty lies and ineffective insults at his mental and moral superiors in comment threads on blogs. All for the sake of attempting to sate his irrepressible lust for senseless cruelty against his fellow man.
Now I doubt that’s entirely a truthful description of Garr, but it’s undoubtedly closer to the truth than anything he’s said here.
One solution is not to care about them. Put yourself first. Learn Game and take what you need. This isn’t rocket science.
I take this essay as analysis rather than strategy. That is good.
There is a particular sub-genre of women’s romance fiction with the plot as follows:
He is a billionaire financier or property developer, usually either Greek or English.
She is a much poorer woman, often his employee. There is a sub-sub-genre where she is in his power; generally she or a family member has or appears to have committed some crime which he can hold over her.
Their mutual attraction causes them to start a sexual relationship. It is made explicit at this stage that it is purely a sexual relationship, without commitment, until one or other of them gets bored of it, and that it does not affect the economic relationship between them. Since they both want sex, the sexual relationship is equal, it is voluntary on both sides and is quite fair.
Either she leaves him because she cannot take the heartache, or he gets rid of her because he fears that the relationship will go beyond no-strings sex.
Next he realizes he loves her and cannot live without her, goes to find her and marries her so she will live in luxury for the rest of her life on his money.
The lesson of these books–and I have probably read a dozen of them with that exact plot–is that the equal no-strings exchange of sexual pleasure between a man and a woman is bullshit, at least when sustained for more than couple of nights. Ultimately, a woman expects to be supported by her partner and a man expects his partner to stay loyal to him.
This may be a true lesson or a false lesson; I happen to think it is mostly true. As Billy puts it above, “the way a man loves a woman… is entirely different from how a woman loves a man.”
Interesting read. I’m not particularly averse to female financial dependency. I find it more troubling when the jewish dad plants the toxic seeds of equalism and drive deeply within his little princess. You wind up with these overachieving, professionals who take a little more stock in their own opinions than they would were they beholden to a male head of household. What is a female surgeon going to branch swing up to? Not to mention when you cultivate and intensively educate the female mind, in the same fashion you would a man’s brain – neuroplasticity allows for dramatic female cognition enhancement. If you put a gifted female through a rigorous academic environment, she very well may achieve intellectual parity with her male cohorts. Neurons that fire together wire together and brain exercise bolsters IQ. What is the problem with this? Females are exponentially less desirous of procreating with every 15 points of IQ they possess above average. You are taking a little girl who has the genetic material to breed intelligent progeny and you are making her dysgenic, along with intrinsically more disobedient and willful. I’m far more leery of the societal impacts of girls who blaze their own path than adult female dependency. And for fucks sake jews (liberal reform jews) are the biggest perpetrators of this phenomenon of molding ambitious females. I’m very surprised that your ex’s dad wasn’t whispering the seductive bromides of “you go grrrrl” in his little semite’s ear. The jewish chicks I’ve plated have been some of the most stridently driven and obnoxiously egalitarian fuck meat I’ve ever sampled.
Oh, he absolutely was… the big problem, however, was that she was ADOPTED! Uh oh, doh. So while his feminist bullshit created massive entitlement in her, she had none of that fantastic genetic ambition, making her the worst of both worlds.
Billy.. thanks for your genious writing.. and cutting humor… glad I discovered your prose..
Chazz
San Diego
once did a survey among my friends as to which side of the bed they slept on.
Then I asked them, or looked, where the door was.
Most men will sleep nearest the door, especially if it is on their dominant hand side.
That is, right handed men, will often sleep on the left side of bed, if that is the door side.
I have been coming to Thailand each New Zealand Winter for a while. Here older men like me often mix it with women twenty or thirty years younger.
The woman I am with here with in Bangkok, does not like me in the kitchen. She will cook and then bizarrely I thought for while thank me for eating.
Well no. This is a society of established male / female rituals.
I am also expected not to stay up to late at night nerding on the laptop. She never locks the door, that falls into my list of things to do. Here you lead from the front door and outwards.
My previous wife would ask me, “ Did you remember to lock the door “, but she would not do that herself.
I was surprised at myself when I met the father of my girlfriend, only two years older than me. I tended to want to please him, similar to the writer of this piece.
In Thailand the father’s from Isaan approve of their thin dark eyed daughter’s in the bars and hangouts in Bangkok,
as long as money is returned home.
Here, at my level of social interaction the man pays in total the home the expenses. The Hi Si High Society Thai girls are less interested in Western men.
I agree with the comments here about sociology, and “social sciences” . When I am King of New Zealand [soon] they will be just a memory inside our Universities.