Monday, January 29, 2001

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)

A measure of sadness washes over me when I reflect upon the changed meaning of MGTOW, which now seems to stand for the marriage strike and curtailing any influence a woman may have over a man's life. It's not that I disagree with men on the marriage strike (I myself am not married and have zero intention of ending my bachelor status) nor do I disagree that men ought to have their spidey-senses tingling at all times to limit the harm women can inflict in our gynocentric society. No, the sadness is over the lost meaning behind MGTOW, which was and still is the most beautiful "solution" to men's problems within our culture. The key to MGTOW's philosophy is in its simplicity, which can be evidenced in The Men Going Their Own Way Manifesto.

The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!

By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent.

By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible.

By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice.

Women having "other qualities" is not interesting to men because we don't need them! Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men!

This is the aim of "Men Going Their Own Way".

By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, we are helping boys grow up to become men.

This goal is to take away everyone's "right" to vote on other people's affairs thus rendering it impossible for political organisms and ideologies to impose their personal will on everyone else. It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights or making socialism illegal. It might have this as a side effect - but not directly and not as a political ideology. Only the future will show what happens and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys for that future.

It really is pretty simple, isn't it?

It is not concerned with "ending gender roles" if it is about instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women. Just the opposite. This plays beautifully into the whole bio-mechanics and social-dynamics sphere that many refer to as "game," a term I hate, but a subject that is key to understanding the issues with any real clarity. As Pook tells us, women are attracted to masculine qualities, not feminine ones, just as the reverse is true of men being attracted to feminine qualities. In our culture, propaganda has been force-fed down boys throats almost since birth that for boys to emulate feminine qualities is "good" while their masculine qualities are "bad." This carries on further into relationships and marriage, where men have been brainwashed into believing that if they "embraced their feminine side" that it would make them more endearing to women, and thus be able to get along with them better.

Of course, this is the exact opposite of what actually works. If men embrace their masculinity and wear it proudly, their relationships with women will improve as well. The same goes the other way, that if women embrace their feminine strengths, rather than competing to see if she can be a better man than her husband, many other problems will begin to solve themselves. As many in the game community will attest to, it is not the masculine alpha male that gets charged with domestic violence, but rather it is usually the SNAGS (Sensitive New Age Guys) who've embraced their feminine side and in doing so repulsed their woman to such a degree that she begins to hate him, and then starts leveling domestic violence charges against them as she enters into a destructive spiral, intent on destroying her family. Instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women may not be the solution to everything, but it is the lubrication which makes the solutions work better.

Working for limited government is, I believe, the ultimate solution. The less the government is involved in our personal lives, the more we will be forced to make our personal lives work for ourselves.

Think of two people, a man and a woman, alone out in the woods. They will soon come to depend upon each other willingly and along with willing dependence, so will come the effort to make the relationship itself work. A cabin will be built and they will both enter into the roles they are best suited for just out of necessity, as was always the case in the history of the world. If one betrays the other and leaves, they will both suffer. I firmly believe that if relationships are to work over the long run, a certain level of co-dependency will do more good than a gajillion psychologists giving more of their sage advice. The closer we can get to that idea of a man and a woman alone in the woods depending on each other for their given talents, the better off everyone's relationships will be.

MGTOW is not about raising money to fund lobby groups. Lobby groups exist to pressure the government to create more laws, and to force others to do that which they would not choose to do of their own accord. That is growing government, not limiting it.

I love watching Ron Paul in debates because of his simplicity. Whenever someone tries to challenge the guy, he stops and says, "Well, what would the Constitution say?" and then he goes with that, and his answer is pretty much bang-on every time. The same idea can be applied to the issues of relationships simply by asking, "Is there a way to do this with less government rather than more? And if so, is it simpler?" If the answer to those questions are yes then it is almost assuredly the better solution.

For example, much of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) is focused on the plight of divorced fathers and the shrieks for shared-parenting are deafening. Shared-parenting though, is pretty much asking for the government courts to take 100% custody of the child and then dole out baby-sitting duties to the parents on this day and that day. If one parent loses a job and needs to move across the country to find employment, he will have to beg the court for permission to relinquish his duties to shared-parenting. Such a person has thus surrendered their right to move freely about the country. What if the two parents decide to follow vastly different religions? Well, the court will decide whether the child is to be Jewish or Muslim, not the parents.

Furthermore, when shared-parenting becomes the norm, a woman's only way to get on the current alimony/child-support gravy train will be to claim abuse as the reason for her getting sole custody, and the amount of men falsely accused of abuse will rise. While I don't have statistical evidence of this (yet), I have had a phone conversation about shared-parenting with someone involved in the movement a year or so ago, and he did admit to me that in places where shared-parenting was becoming the norm, false accusations of abuse are also rising. It only makes sense that if you offer financial incentives - windfalls, actually - for making false accusations, that false accusations will increase and men will pay the price. Whatever the government touches, it turns to shit, just like Midas - minus the gold.     

So, is there an easier solution than shared-parenting?

Yup! There sure is! It is called marriage 1.0, or patriarchy. Although, it doesn't need to be called that in order for it to work. It could be called the "Tooth Fairy Surrogacy Contract" for all I care, so long as it resembles the characteristics of marriage 1.0. In other words, the children of a marriage (or a Tooth Fairy Surrogacy Contract) are the property, or are under the custody, of the husband. No ifs, ands or buts. If the woman wants to leave, nobody will stop her, but the children stay with the husband. If women don't like that idea, then they are more than welcome to revel in their single-motherhood, and get knocked up by a thug at the local biker bar. In marriage 1.0, children of a marriage were the property of the husband, and children born out of wedlock were the property of the woman. No government mandated child-support, no nothing. Just basic, simple property/custody rights. Were they married? The kids are his. They weren't married, the kids are hers. The "owner" assumes all liability and expenses. End of story. No need for much of government at all except for a court to determine whether they were married or not, and thus deciding upon "property" or custody rights. (Hey, that's just how the Founding Fathers wanted things!).

And do we know that this minimal government system of child custody will work? Yup again! In fact, there are thousands of years of evidence for it right in our very own culture, up until around the 1860's when the divorce rate was less than 2%. (Custody laws changed in favour of women in the 1870's and by the 1920's, the divorce rate had sky-rocketed 700% to around 15% of marriages ending in divorce. It has only risen about 300% since then - think about that.) In this situation, both men and women have the ability to meaningfully have children, and also, it would do wonders to lower the divorce rates, as the discussion about who has presumed custody (what kind of "marriage" you want to have with princess) will reveal a lot to both parties before, not after. And if a man goes ahead and signs up for being a Kitchen Bitch in Marriage 2.0, I have little sympathy for him. He knew the risks, took them, and if he loses I will cry about as hard for him as for those who lost at the casino. They weren't robbed, just willfully stupid.

The best solution is always the one with the least amount of "government touch."

I'd like to discuss MGTOW more in the future, as well as touching upon how the "philosophy" of MGTOW is also the perfect solution to stopping the Marxist Dialectic. There is so much "good" about MGTOW that it is a shame that its meaning has changed and these other aspects have been forgotten.

In the meantime, here is the rest of the MGTOW Manifesto for you to read. I challenge you to find even the word marriage in there, let alone "marriage strike." I can find no fault with the philosophy in it. It truly embodies what I believe.

It is important for men to have a practical approach to implementing our strategies.


We have 3 main strategies:

1. Instilling masculinity in men by:

- Demanding respect for men
- Serving as good male role models
- Living independent lives
- Fighting chivalry

2. Instilling femininity in women

- We will hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun those who refuse to take any responsibility for their own circumstances. Thus we induce women to take a complementary position with men instead of a competitive position, as is now the case.

Feminine qualities we want from women:
- Nurturing
- Supportive
- Responsibility
- Respectfulness
- Honesty

3. Limited government

In order to be independent of society, and live within it, while at the same time work for limiting governmental influence upon our daily lives, men will:
- Go Their Own Way
- Support other men
- Legally reduce any taxpaying
- Truthfully act out any duties in accordance with their conscience
- Use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves

It is those 3 strategies that come together in one.

This is the logo:

Every man supporting this idea is welcome to use the logo in this or similar contexts.

What we do as activism or the way we behave personally are the main tactics.

- Use of a logo which symbolizes the strategy.
- Run one or many web-sites and fora that promotes this.
- Run one or more web-sites which tells the truth about feminism.
- Provide stickers, T-shirts, etc., with various statements such as "Chivalry is dead!".
- Writing articles supporting our product.
- Producing music promoting our product.
- Hold international events and local meetings.
- Establishing men's clubs.
- Boycotting certain products.

You will basically be alone doing this. There is no organization supporting you. You just go your own way and do what you believe is right. You are never obligated beyond your own conscience. True masculinity is also about accepting the rights of other men and not letting them down for any short term personal benefits.

The men's movement does actually cover a much larger picture. By instilling masculinity in others, as well as yourself, you will actually be improving the lives of everyone, including women and children.


Take care brother!

The MGTOW logos and the MGTOW Manifesto are public domain, explicitly designated so by their creators (the men of MGTOW) to be used by anyone for the purpose of promoting MGTOW. May 1, 2006

Index Next

Monday, January 08, 2001

Howard Roark: In Praise of the Self -- by Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, 1943)

Note: This is the speech of Howard Roark, the architect in Ayn Rand's novel, defending the primacy of the human being against all the external powers that want to crush him in the name of demeaning self-sacrifice and corruptive altruism. It is a powerful plea against the terrible myth of selflessness that, as the word implies, denies the self and, by implication, personal choice and individual responsibility in favour of mass identity and collective servility.

Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.

That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures - because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer - because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.

Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received - hatred. The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building - that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.

His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.

The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power - that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.

And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.

Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons - a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man - the function of his reasoning mind.

But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act - the process of reason - must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.

We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.

Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways - by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.

The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.

The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.

The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.

The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.

Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.

No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.

The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality - the man who lives to serve others - is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.

Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution - or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.

Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer - in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.

Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.

Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.

Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative - and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism - the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal - under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.

This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.

The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.

The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man - and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.

Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.

In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.

No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.

The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.

A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule-alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.

Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.

But men were taught to regard second-handers - tyrants, emperors, dictators - as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.

From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.

The creator - denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited - went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.

The ‘common good’ of a collective - a race, a class, a state - was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.

The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is - Hands off!

Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.

It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.

I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.

Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.

I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.

I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.

I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.

I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature.

It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them the right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world.

I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.

I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.

It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world.

I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.

I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society.

Sunday, January 07, 2001

Sexual Freedom vs. Political Freedom

"As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate." -- Aldous Huxley in the Preface to Brave New World

George Washington Farewell Address

Saturday, January 06, 2001

Testosterone: Hormone Of The Gods? -- by Darren Blacksmith

Testosterone has a bad reputation. The public image of it is closely linked to the idea of dumb aggression, to the caveman. But this is a far from complete image. In recent years new research is starting to show that it would be more accurate to associate this much maligned hormone with Newton, Da Vinci, Einstein and Edison than the rough and brutal Neanderthal. Testosterone, it seems, could be the true driver of our civilisations.

Satoshi Kanazawa at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, studied the biographies of 280 scientists and plotted their intellectual achievements against their ages. He discovered something extremely revealing: the curves of age-achievement in scientists was not only repeated in jazz musicians, painters and authors, but mirrored the curves of age-criminal activity in criminals. Furthermore, both criminal activity and intellectual achievement seemed to drop off when the scientist or crock got married and started a family.

Interesting, don't you think?

Criminal and high-level intellectual activity have the same underlying motor according to Kanazawa: testosterone.

This would also explain why most criminal and high level intellectual activities are carried out by the male of the species.

Testosterone is a hormone that males produce in far greater quantity than females. It begins production while the individual is still in the womb, and effects brain development. Testosterone levels tend to peak in the early twenties, and by middle age drop off dramatically.

High levels of testosterone have been reported to be correlated with dominant behaviour. This dominance does not necessarily express itself aggressively. It is more of a general competitive response. Also, interestingly, the relationship between testosterone levels and behaviour works both ways: taking part in competitive activity can raise levels of testosterone; furthermore, winning can increase it, losing can make it decrease.

Kanazawa's paper is not absolute proof that testosterone is the key driver of exceptional male behaviour, but it is an elegant and persuasive argument. Should it really be such a surprise that males have historically had a monopoly on both criminal activity and genius-level accomplishments? Are we really to believe that this is all a co-incidence, and the true reason for male behaviour is the 'Patriarchy', as feminists and political correctoids would have us believe?

A related area to testosterone's drive for dominance is the sex-drive.

Sex-drive is an elusive concept. It is hard to measure because it can only really be objectively measured by activity (i.e. amount of sexual activity one indulges in). However, this measurement is a vector. A vector is a combination of two factors (in this case: opportunity to have sex + drive to have sex; or lack of willpower to refrain from sex x drive to have sex) therefore we cannot resolve out these two factors and determine whether the person has a high sex drive or merely has lots of opportunities to have sex OR a low willpower to resist their drive.

Nevertheless, even if we can't always measure the sex-drive of a person objectively, that does not mean it doesn't exist. And sometimes things that one cannot measure objectively can simply be observed or perceived through common sense. Men certainly, at least historically, have had a greater expression of sex drive than women. Particularly young men, who are often in a frenzy to sleep with as many females as possible.

Sexual desire – like water – can be managed and channelled, but it is much harder to eliminate. Rather, you should seek to give it other channels of expression.

Maybe sex-drive is another way to measure achievement, or rather the sublimation of sex drive into purposeful goal-driven behaviour.

Leaders are readers, and one book stands out more than any other in history as a bible of the wealthy: 'Think and grow rich' by Napoleon Hill. Mr Hill spent years studying the rich and working out what made them that way. He then wrote many books on the subject, of which the most famous is 'Think and grow rich'. Chapter 10 of the book is entitled 'The mystery of sex transmutation'.

Here are a few interesting quotations from this chapter:

"Destroy the sex glands, whether in man or beast, and you have removed the major source of action. For proof of this, observe what happens to any animal after it has been castrated. A bull becomes as docile as a cow."

"A teacher who has trained and directed the efforts of more than 30,000 salespeople, made the astounding discovery that highly sexed men are the most efficient salesmen. The explanation is, that the factor of personality known as "personal magnetism" is nothing more nor less than sex energy."

And here is the most important quote:

"I have discovered, from the analysis of over 25,000 people, that men who succeed in an outstanding way, seldom do so before the age of forty, and more often they do not strike their real pace until they are well beyond the age of fifty.

The major reason why the majority of men who succeed do not begin to do so before the age of forty to fifty is their tendency to dissipate their energies through over-indulgence in physical expression of the emotion of sex.

The majority of men never learn that the urge of sex has other possibilities, which far transcend in importance that of mere physical expression. The majority of those who those who make this discovery, do so after having wasted many years at a period when the sex energy is at its height, prior to the age of forty-five to fifty. This is usually followed by noteworthy achievement.

Biographies of American industrialists and financiers are filled with evidence that the period from forty to sixty is the most productive age of man."

Well, there you have it. When young men chase women for sex, they are throwing their wild oats into the wind. They are dissipating their energies, short-circuiting their currents to get a quick spark of pleasure which then leaves them in darkness. In order to get a continuous light-source there needs to be an element of resistance (called the filament in a light-bulb). Resistance builds strength.

We undoubtedly live in a sexually charged time. Sex is used constantly by advertisers and marketers to entice men to buy things. Also, women and girls today routinely dress in extremely provocative clothes, even in the workplace. All this adds up to more invitations to think about sex today than men suffered in the past. If it were not for my hatred of the language of victimology I would call this is a form of sexual harassment of men.

This plays brilliantly into the hands of women, who obviously would like nothing more than to 'bump up' the market value of their sexual favours. Indeed, this relationship between the need to increase their sexual market value and the increasing 'sexiness' of women's appearance can be observed in society. As women have become more harsh and less feminine in some of their behaviours (thus depleting the attractiveness of their personalities to men) they have had to compensate by turning up the volume of their physical appeal: shorter skirts, lower-cut tops, exposing their stomachs etc. This ends up harming them though, as they are only wanted for sex, and not their personality.

A more temperate attitude towards sex would be healthier for both men and women. It would allow men to concentrate on more important things, and it might allow women to develop their personalities and not just their looks.

Science references:

'Why productivity fades with age: The crime–genius connection', Kanazawa, S., Journal of Research in Personality 37 (2003) 257–272

'Testosterone and dominance in men', Mazur,A. and Booth, A., Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1998) 21, 353–397



The Testosterone Guide -- Roissy

The "Mature Man's" Views on "Game"

I think that men who are “mature” haven’t forgotten what it is like to be a young 20 year old, who is desperate to get laid. I would say that it works the opposite to forgetting. Men who are 30, 40, 50, 60 etc. have a lot more experience actually knowing how a 20 year old thinks than a 20 year old knows how a 30, 40, 50 or 60 year old man thinks.

Think about it.

Also, while sex is certainly a prime driver of humanity – right after survival – keep in mind that sexuality is only the prime driver for 1/3 of our lifespans. As much as young guys can’t think of anything but pussy, 2/3 of our time on this planet are spent without pussy being the prime directive.

“I cannot conceal from myself that for a dozen years or more I have ceased to be under the spell of sex; I know too well the defects and weaknesses of the idol. I had set it too high, to the detriment of the virile man; I have liked women and sought their company too much. At last impartiality has come. It is never too late to be wise. If I continue to feel a slight preference for the more loving sex, I am less naive, less blind, less credulous, less admiring than before. The veil of Maya has worn thin, and illusion is less necessary to me. My camaraderie has enabled to see truly. I can look at them as they look at one another, as their mothers, fathers and brothers look at them, as the doctor sees them, that is, in all the ways other than the amorous and illusioned way. I am sensitive to their charm, without overrating them; I am touched, moved, grateful, attracted, without being deceived. This is the state I prefer." — Henri Amiel, Sept 17, 1880 (59yrs old)

I have no problem at all with “game” as a tool in a young man’s arsenal. I don’t think any “mature” men do – in fact just the opposite. The problem what I have with game is the tendency to practice it amorally. It is like learning the martial arts – there is nothing inherently wrong with learning it, and in fact, the benefits of learning it are enormous. However, if you do not couple the martial arts with moral values, it quickly becomes something that people abuse ruthlessly.

“With great power comes great responsibility.”

Learning game is learning “power.” Now comes the moral connundrum – should I use my power for good, or for evil?

Too many in the gamosphere propose using game with zero morality whatsoever, and in doing so are embracing the worst of masculinity as an excuse to counter the normative of feminity. Yes, game is a “tool.” However, when compared to the Martial Arts, most reputable Martial Arts proponents will also try to infuse a great deal of morality within their teaching of the “violent arts.” The vast majority of the gamosphere, on the other hand, proposes survival of the fittest, and if you can can cuckold another man’s wife, you should bareback the bitch and knock her up. Serves the dumb cuck right, for being such a beta. This is the same as a guy learning to be a black belt in Karate, and just walking up and down the street, beating the shit out of people, and saying, “Serves the dumb wimp right, for not learning Karate like me.”

Too many in the gamosphere advocate fucking over other men – and in reality, since women are like monkeys that “don’t let go of one branch until they’ve gotten hold of another,” it pretty much comes down to that any time one man “scores”, another man loses.

Somewhere along the line, men fucking over other men in probably the most primal way except for basic survival, is going to come and bite us all on the ass.

Should you know how to deal with women?


Should you abuse your power, and just write it off as “only a dumb beta got hurt?”


Morality is the sphere of men, not women. Women are amoral – just like children. Men are not.



Bonecrcker #64 – On Players

Friday, January 05, 2001

Pair Bonding

I have read before that low-testosterone men are more prone to outbursts than high-testosterone men, and the thinking behind it is that testosterone helps men remain more clear-headed in an emergency situation. In this way, it is the low testosterone man that, in the face of say a fist fight with another man, would flail about uselessly, letting his emotions inefficiently drive his actions – whereas a high testosterone man, in the face of danger, would be able to think more clearly, enabling him to either defuse the situation before violence, or, even if his emotions do get the better of him, to still enable him to “think” while behaving in a violent manner – like a fighter that can still think clearly enough to land effective and decisive blows. Here is an interesting article on testosterone: Testosterone: Hormone of the Gods?

I don’t know if I agree with your anti-pair bonding thesis, and further, as I said before, humans are not monkeys. All I should have to do to prove this to you is ask you if you personally acknowledge a strong bond with your children? Male primates typically play no real role in parenting their offspring, however, human males definitely form strong bonds with their children.

This article shows that the belief in humans forming a pair-bond between males and females, is what moved us away from being monkeys, and allowed us to recognize our kinship:

The finding corroborates an influential new view of early human origins advanced by Bernard Chapais, a primatologist at the University of Montreal, in his book “Primeval Kinship” (2008). Dr. Chapais showed how a simple development, the emergence of a pair bond between male and female, would have allowed people to recognize their relatives, something chimps can do only to a limited extent. When family members dispersed to other bands, they would be recognized and neighboring bands would cooperate instead of fighting to the death as chimp groups do.

Humans are not monkeys.

Also, keep in mind that human children take a looooong time to develop – especially to develop our most important “tool,” our minds. In fact, this is one of the underlying beneficial factors of “Patriarchy,” in that while females are usually only able to raise children effectively during pre-puberty, it is the role of fatherhood that extends childhood and allows our minds to develop even further. But, even without Patriarchy, a mother would be fairly hard pressed to raise a child alone.

I believe there is something to Rotating Polyandry, where humans mate and pair-bond for short periods of time – around 4 years, based upon female prerogative – in order that she meets a male, pair-bonds with him, gets pregnant and gives birth while relying on his protection, and then during the child’s most vulnerable stages in infancy, the pair-bond stays strong enough that the male sticks around and provides for both mother and infant during their most vulnerable. Once the child is more or less self sufficient at around 2 or 3 years old – when it can walk, talk, and feed itself – the female loses her pair-bond with the male, and wanders off to find new sperm to impregnate her, and she starts the whole pair-bond off again with a new male. In this way she gets genetic diversity for her offspring. The male, however, does not lose his pair-bond to the female, because there is no advantage in nature for this to occur. The most efficient way for nature to operate would be for the male to maintain a strong bond to the female until she is “finished with him.” The same principle works with children and their parents. The parents maintain a strong bond to the children, while the children lose their bond to the parents so that they may “leave the nest.”

Males are not “less emotional” than women. Males have fewer emotions, but their emotions run deeper. Women have more kinds of emotions than men that sway them, but they do not run as deeply. One of the reasons for women to have this many emotions is because infants communicate mostly through emotion alone, and so women are more tuned in emotionally so as to be able to care for children. However, men’s deeper emotions are what solidly pair-bond him to the mother and child, and motivate him to fight to the death to protect them.

Again, it is Patriarchal marriage that pair-bonds humans for probably longer than is natural – so that human children have more of a timeframe for their minds to be developed. Females have a very hard time maintaining control over children once they reach puberty, and this would coincide with how most other species operate as well – as soon as sexual maturity is reached, the mother and child separate. This also accounts for why the teenager is so rebellious to their parents. They are sexually mature by that stage, and patriarchy creates the artificial construct that lengthens childhood and allows our brains to mature even more than naturally.

I would say that serial monogamy is probably more natural for humans than no pair-bonding at all.

By the way, “one-itis” in game is another word for pair-bonding, and all game practitioners would acknowledge it exists, which is why they take measures to ensure that pair-bonding does not occur. I believe that females pair-bond as well, but as with the bond between child and parent where the parents bonds are stronger than the child’s, between men and women it is also the man’s bonds that are stronger than the females, and it is this way for natural, reproductive/survival purposes.

Thursday, January 04, 2001

Omega Traits Are Not Alpha Traits, But Are The Proper Traits For This Society

MGTOW/not marrying, and withdrawing from a society that is out to harm men is the proper response to our false sexual economy.

Also, I think a lot of guys into game are put off whenever I try to point out that what women are really attracted in this false-market society are Omega traits, not Alpha traits. But, there is no getting around it – number one, humans naturally pair bond and this has natural survival purposes, and number two, getting pumped and dumped by a man who won’t stick around after sex usually meant death for the woman, so it’s a little facetious to claim that women naturally seek out pump & dumpers.

It is only because of state interference that women are able to engage with the Omega class – and they are doing it do satisfy their perversions.

Women are still clustering, but not around Alphas with high survival value for them, but instead they are clustering around Omegas.

And that said, I understand and practice game, and am not promoting marriage/pair-bonding in the current state we live in. I am merely pointing out it is anti-survival, and so can’t be completely natural for women to be more attracted to Omega cads or criminals than socially powerful Alphas with resources to ensure her survival – it is on the same level as a man expending his resources on a prostitute is not a good survival strategy for his genes either. Men might do it in our society to get laid and satisfy an itch, but it would not be a good survival strategy to expend valuable resouces on a whore.

That women are currently attracted to Omega traits in our society, means that men must immitate Omega behavior to get their sexual needs met, and refuse to get trapped legally in any way with the types of low-survival sluts that are attracted to them… but it is not natural.

And here comes the problem with all this stuff too – the pack (males) is hierarchal, and they will start killing eachother over Omega behavior. Look at the ghetto – or for a smaller sample, look at Pitcairn Island and how they all started pole-axing eachother (lol, while the women banded together and tried to kill a couple of the men as herd creatures). Roissy had a post the other day about women sharing an “alpha” male… and if you go through the comments, you will find there are quite a few guys in there who openly promote cuckolding the “stupid betas,” and lol, I even seen some comments that betas are now worthless to society and so no-one should care what happens to them (I know that doesn’t represent the whole gamosphere)… but again, that is NOT alpha behavior, it is Omega behavior. Alphas have the respect and co-operation of Betas. That kind of Omega behavior also leads to violence, and in the past, often death. It is about dominating other men through sex with women (and thus, kinda homo-erotic). Omega behavior is amoral – just like female behavior. There is a reason so many of them were killed. It is again, only through state interference, that such Omega behavior is not punished severely. Normally, “the pack” would take care of that.

The binary “alpha & beta” paradigm is incomplete, and much Omega behavior is being called Alpha, and much Zeta behavior is called Beta.

Also, as for “gender roles,” it seems to me that “game” plays upon gender roles very much. What does “ending gender roles” mean? Does it mean that men can be Kitchen Bitches if they want, and we will try to “evolve” women into finding Kitchen Bitches sexy? That’ll work about as well as feminists trying to “evolve” men into liking ugly fat chicks over thin sexy chicks – ain’t gonna happen. Game seems to me to quite advise to reassert your gender role – but it makes Omega adaptions by refusing to pair bond, by keeping enough women “in reserve” to make sure it doesn’t hurt too much when of your love interests buggers off on you. Also, being as disreputable as possible (Omega behavior) gets attraction – but again, this is anti-survival for females, and a perversion they can only maintain because of the State.

I think there is quite often some confusion about “oppressive” gender roles, as men generally look into the 19th Century for reference. But, keep in mind, the 19th Century was fucked-up central – especially sexually – but also with the rise of women into the political sphere backing it up. If you go older in history, you will find there often was societal acceptance of human sexuality – and the acknowledgement that men needed to be protected from female sexuality, instead of the other way around.

If I were shipwrecked on an island with a woman, I think we would fast revert back to the age old gender roles in order to survive, because our gender roles are the best division of power and labor resources to ensure survival. I suspect it has always been this way, and always will revert back to it, once the state is no longer involved.

Wednesday, January 03, 2001

Abolish Gender Roles For Men?

Quote: "The guys that wish for a change to the laws or some sort of return to the “old ways” are basically only arguing for slightly improved prison conditions. What still amazes me is the fact that so many men fool themselves into believing the nonsense about being a protector and provider for a woman is something natural or hard wired into men. And then proceed to get royally shafted as a thank you for being a wage slave pack horse cannon fodder white knight doormat. ( Sexploytation and the slaves happiness ) gives a perfect example of this."

This is something I struggle with quite a bit – the concept of it all. I think that naturally these kinds of things occur, and if the human race goes on, which it will, it will revert back to that “old way” in the same as gravity is a natural law.

Should the economy & subsequent civilization of the West crumble and we lose our wealthy ways of living, would things not revert back to the “old fashioned ways” of living? If there were no state paid blue suited thugs with guns, would not the male again take the role of protector? If we lost our technology, would not men and women revert back to the old roles of the men plowing the fields with the oxen while the woman is inside the log cabin, churning butter, baking, and tending to the children? Isn’t that the natural, and most effecient division of labor?

And if the welfare state were to disappear, and women had the choice of being loyal to a man, in exchange for his providership, or of being a sexually unchaste whore who sleeps under a bridge with her thug spawn… well, would women continue to screw bad-boys that left them after sex? All living organisms are survival oriented, and normally this is what also leads the sex-drive. It has been skewed of late because of State involvement cushioning women’s bad choices. The way women are screwing around now would fast lead to their extinction, and ours too, of course, and so in many regards we have to acknowledge that “game” is only a viable option because the state prevents women who choose to ride the cock-carousel from dying, or from living a very bleak existence at best.

Humans still exhibit pair-bonding – we are not monkeys. And wether we would like it or not, men and women are always going to be having sex. The question comes with how they go about getting it.

In no way do I see “game” as perfectly natural, because it allows for women to take on an anti-survival strategy of mating. Can anyone point out an organism that chooses extinction as its mating strategy?

Also, I see this from time to time – the MRM wanting to “end gender roles.” Isn’t that the same disease that started all of this crap in the first place? Isn’t that what feminists have been shoving down everyone’s throats from the beginning? What makes anyone think that males “ending their gender role” will work any better for men than it did for the feminists? I mean, if someone has a plan for how it can work better, it would certainly be worth while looking at, but I suspect that any plan that would actually work, would still resemble an awful lot of the gender roles that existed in the past.

Isn’t even the study of game, a lot of support for traditional gender roles?

Btw, this is once in a while why I try to point out that the terms “Alpha” and “Beta” are not being properly used, and thus closes off the mind to proper human reproduction, the kind without state interference. It needs to be “Alpha, Beta, Omega & Zeta,” in order to fully acknowledge the survival focus of sexuality.

Alpha: The top male. He does not get laid like a fiend, although he could get many women. He gets the best chick and she beats off all the other chicks with a stick. The Alpha is the “10″, once the chick has the ten, who does she hypergamously “trade up” for? He gets social proofing not by screwing dozens of chicks, but rather from dating the best chick. All women know who the best chick is, and should the Alpha become available, all the other girls will rush to be his new girl because that means she will then rise to the social position of “best chick.”

Beta: Most males. They are not weak-willed losers, but they are merely the men who are not number one. When younger, Beta males usually get more sex than alphas, as they sort themselves out within the socio-sexual hierarchy, and date and break up serially before they settle down with a female of suitable socio-sexual status.

Omega: The criminal and scum class. Evil men, drug dealers, bad-boys, gangsters, scoundrels, sexual deviants, cads, have multiple sex partners, can’t form stable relationships…

Zeta: The weak-willed male. He rarely gets laid and when he does he gets viciously exploited by females.

Female sexual behaviour used to make sense throughout most of human history – otherwise we would not be here. Women exhibited clustering around men with good genes and survival qualities such as resources and the social respect and co-operation of the society around them (Alphas). Sure, while single, the Alpha males got laid like the dickens… until he paired off (usually very young) with an Alpha female, and the Beta Males paired off with their properly matched Beta females. Everyone else just kinda whored it up.

But, humans exhibit pair-bonding, and they mate and have children – all except for the small amounts of deviants. Most of the resources are created, and also go to the most valuable members of society – the Alphas & the more valuable Betas. Cuckolding by the Omegas used to be punished by death.

Today, women are still clustering, but they are clustering around the Omegas – with very low survival quality for the woman and her thug spawn. Women are also resisting pair-bonding, which again, is an evolutionary dead end for her and her offspring.

If the government simply were not involved in any part of family life – the cause of women being able to choose non-survival strategies for mating, what makes anyone think that we would wind up with anything different than what we’ve had since the begining of our history? How could we “end male gender roles” unless we advocated for complete control by the state?

Tuesday, January 02, 2001

Refuting the Declaration of Sentiments: Point One

1 – He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise. -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Declaration of Sentiments , 1848

The vote! The vote! The vote! Why, good gob-bejesuz, this is the epitome of oppression! It’s such an important facet of freedom and western culture that in the last several federal elections here in Canada, for example, around 40% of the eligible population has chosen not to participate in voting… and guess what, their lives are just as secure and satisfying as those who actually did vote. As well, refugees, landed immigrants and those under the age of majority were not permitted to vote, and low and behold, their rights are still magically protected under the documents our nation has furnished to protect inalienable rights, of which voting has certainly never been one.

That modern society has little idea of “inalienable rights” is one thing, as our basic rights and our original systems of government have been brainwashed out of us by the removal of civics classes in our schools. However, for Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an influential and presumably educated woman in the day of 1848, to make such a boldly false statement about the “inalienable right to the elective franchise,” there is simply no excuse and she must be characterized as a willful charlatan. She starts as a fraud and finishes as a fraud with her female screed. She was the daughter of was a federalist attorney who later served a term as a congressman, and eventually went on to be a circuit court judge and ultimately was appointed as a New York Supreme Justice. If anyone had an insight into the workings of the social justice systems of the day, it was certainly Elizabeth Cady Stanton, rather than the schlub males who were pounding spikes into the trans-continental railroads of the day… and who according to Canton’s outrageous screed, lived a privileged life compared to the miserable existence she managed to wrench out as a poor woman suffering the fate of being born to a congressman and supreme court justice.

And, as per the vote, just the other day I was reading about the history of my province of British Columbia. In the 1850’s, Vancouver Island was a crown colony of Britain, while the vast mainland area of the present day province was a hinterland populated only by around 100 white people, of whom virtually all were employees, or families of employees, of the Hudson Bay Company and who inhabited various fur-trading posts throughout the region. The crown colony of Vancouver Island was the first place in BC to be colonized and, the first to receive a form of government… and back then in the 1850’s, a scant two years after Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote the Declaration of Sentiments, the only people who could vote in the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island were those who owned over 25 acres of land, of which very few people qualified for. The vast majority of people had absolutely no vote at all… but low and behold, just because they couldn’t vote, did not mean they no longer had their “inalienable rights.” Of course they did! The idea of “inalienable rights” is that nobody can take them away from you, not even if the majority of voters decide to vote your rights away! That’s kinda the point of them being called “inalienable.” Not the government, not the king, not the pope, and not even the majority of voters, can take away your inalienable rights. That is sorta the meaning of the term, after all. What did you think it meant?

In fact, one of the facets of free nations is always the declaration somewhere in the beginning of their founding articles/constitutions that the people’s rights are endowed to them by The Creator. The reason why our rights are granted to us by The Creator is not because of our past as a civilization being based upon Christianity, but rather, because “The Creator” is out of the reach of man, and what the Creator gives (in this case, our rights), only the Creator can take away.

Here is the difference between the constitutions of the United States and the United Nations, which is based on an almost direct knock-off of the old constitution of the Soviet Union:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men..." -- United States Declaration of Independence


“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the state ... the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law." -- Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

And on a slight side-note, to address the usual arguments that arise when simple secular-based arguments try to defend Christianity continuing to exist in our society: All atheist protestations and flagrant insults about the “flying spaghetti monster” aside, I can think of nothing that proves the illogic of atheists more than the instant insulting they resort to at the mention of the word God, or Creator, or Christianity, or religion. If they really don’t believe in God, but understood the mechanics of the constitutions of free nations, they would be overjoyed that our rights are given to us by God/The Creator, as since he does not exist in their minds, there is 0% possibility that someone will try to take away their rights! Christians, however, believing in God, must also believe that it is possible for their rights to be taken away by God. The logical conclusion would be that atheists should be more comfortable with their rights coming The Creator than Christians. However, they are not. They are downright insulted about it. And yet, not a mention of replacing “The Creator” with another fictional character of their minds, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny being the one who grants us our rights instead. Nope. They downright demand to be Soviet Suckholes, and insist only some other human being should have the power to decide whether they have the right to enjoy Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Maybe you too want your neighbours to have a say in your pursuit Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, but not me. I’d choose the Easter Bunny or even a flying spaghetti monster in a heartbeat over my neighbours Marcy and Jefferson D’Arcy.

Why wouldn’t you?

But regardless, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was simply another bold-faced feminist liar when she tried to claim, in her opening point, that men have never permitted her to have the inalienable right to the elective franchise. Voting was never a right – let alone an inalienable one. And nowhere in the founding articles of Canada, the USA, Britain, and presumably Australia and New Zealand (as they are based on the same system as the rest) will you find a declaration of the inalienable right to vote. You can see this quite readily even today in the rights children possess. A child has the right to many things – like freedom of association, freedom of speech, the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness and so forth… but they do not have the inalienable right to the vote. They are restricted from it because of their age. Plain and simple, it is not an inalienable right, and anyone claiming it is, is either a doofus or is trying to be subversive. Neither camp deserves the privilege of voting, and good on the original founders for trying to prevent them from screwing us over with it, which is the inevitable result of universal democracy.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was liar.

Plain and simple.

And she has no excuses. All she had to do was ask her father, an expert in government and the law. She was no Laura Ingalls Wilder living in the Little House on the Prairie (who, btw, seemed to understand the nature of government and society, despite her impoverished upbringing). No, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of the most privileged women in the US of A, who likely had mounds of access to top quality libraries as well as the ear of various extremely powerful men in society to guide her along. She had no excuses to lie or embellish, and yet she blatantly did.

That lying bitch.

But, she was a suffragette!

How noble she was for being that.

May God have burned her soul.


What Is An Alpha Male?

Bonecrcker #23 – Bad Boys vs. Alphas

"Badbys" are pussies, not alpha males. The easiest way to tell if a man is alpha is to observe if he has the respect and cooperation of other men, especially other men in general (i.e. he has power and respect in society, not just socially). You very rarely see a "badboy" meet these criteria. When you do, it's usually an alpha fooling around to get laid.

Alpha males don't usually get the chicks. They get the best chick and she tends to stick around and beat the shit out of any other girls who come around.

The multiple sex partner thing is the omega male's gig. You usually see all sorts of deviant behavior going on in addition to this. Although he is getting laid, he is powerless in relationships as well as every other aspect of his life. No one respects him, not even the psycho chicks who screw him.

Alpha's get snapped up quickly. Beta males screw a lot early in life while women are competing over them, and then settle down. Omegas can't form stable relationships. And Zeta males rarely get laid. Most people are betas.

Humans aren't apes. We have a different mating strategy than them. Women compete for the best man they can get (at a very young age) and then stick with him for life. He sometimes cheats, but not to reproduce. She never cheats. Everyone pairs up. Whenever you see people straying from this paradigm, fucked-upness starts to happen. This is what is happening with women. They are becoming more and more omega. Their clustering around these men is not a normal thing, which is why it is so fucked up in all other ways.


Bonecrcker #28 – Women Ignoring Good Men and Choosing Thugs/Losers

The sad fact of the matter is most women lead sad, pathetic little lives. Their life choices leave them intensely unhappy failures... and feeling very unloved. Many completely screw up their lives creating a hopeless situation of intense suffering. A lot of the more vindictive behavior on their part is to punish someone else for the pain they are feeling. Large numbers end up alone in their later years. Half of women over 40 haven't even been laid in the last year. As far as making sense from an evolutionary POV, they are hardly picking up good genes. Originally, their behavior did make sense. They exhibited clustering around the men with the good genes (ie, intelligent, powerful men with resources got laid like fiends, especially the leaders). This ensured that the alpha males paired off with the alpha females and the beta males paired off with the beta females. Everyone else just sorta whored around. Unlike primates, humans exhibit pair-bonding. Most everyone mates and bears children, except the small number of losers and deviants and most of the structure and resources go towards the more valuable members of society. You had occasionally breeding on the sly, but usually only on the lower rungs of the pecking order, for variation. Cuckolding was punishable by death when it involved alphas or the more valuable betas. Humans also engaged in staggering. This means that all men want the younger, child bearing women, except when they are paired off. When a man's woman croaks, he takes another, but not of the same age as him... only from child bearing age. This made sense too. It forced women to pair off when they were fertile... or miss the boat so to speak.

Today, westernized women act completely different than in normal cultures and how women have acted for most of our species' history. They still exhibit clustering, but they do it now around the guys with bad genes! They ignore the guys with the good, survival oriented genes.... strength, intelligence, virility, family orientation etc. Now, it's the omega male (criminal) and to a lesser extent the zeta male (weak loser) who are sought after. The former to indulge perversions, the latter to exploit for money. Also, women resist pair bonding (lol, while men still exhibit staggering) and child birth, putting it off until the end of their reproductive cycle. Often, they end up with nothing and no one. The results of this crap are plain for everyone to see... feral children who are quite frankly, genetically weak and inferior in various ways, growing up without fathers and few resources. Divorced women with no partner and no chance of getting one ever again. The whole situation is sick and unnatural and is slowly weakening us as a people.

That is the whole point of the feminist agenda. Most of those women are nuts and also inferior. They tend to be ugly, combat boot wearing deviants on the very bottom of the pecking order. Their hope is that by weakening us all, their position will rise. It just ain't gonna happen. The only way to rise in the pecking order is to be more important to society... to provide something, preferably something rare. The assholes provide nothing and take quite a bit. They are unworthy of respect in every way. One day, people will wake up to this fact and put them in their place. Not yet. But, it's getting there.


First, since the Alpha & Beta terms have been so horribly abused, and now made even further confusing by Vox’s ridiculous notion of creating terms out of thin air like Delta & Gamma & Sigma, here is brief definition of what I am talking:

Alpha: The top male. He does not get laid like a fiend, although he could get many women. He gets the best chick and she beats off all the other chicks with a stick. The Alpha is the “10″, once the chick has the ten, who does she hypergamously “trade up” for? He gets social proofing not by screwing dozens of chicks, but rather from dating the best chick. All women know who the best chick is, and should the Alpha become available, all the other girls will rush to be his new girl because that means she will then rise to the social position of “best chick.”

Beta: Most males. They are not weak-willed losers, but they are merely the men who are not number one. There can be only one. When younger, Beta males usually get more sex than alphas, as they sort themselves within the socio-sexual hierarchy, and date and break up serially before they settle down of suitable socio-sexual status. You can’t have twenty-five star quarterbacks. One alpha will always rise above the rest, who become betas. The best PUA you know would quickly become a third-place beta if he hung out in Brad Pitt & George Clooney’s social circle.

Omega: The criminal and scum class. Evil men, drug dealers, bad-boys, gangsters, scoundrels, sexual deviants, cads, have multiple sex partners, can’t form stable relationships…

Zeta: The weak-willed male. He rarely gets laid and when he does he gets viciously exploited by females.

In game circles, where only the false binary terms of Alpha & Beta are used, Alpha & Omega traits are often confused/lumped into one, and Beta & Zeta traits are similarly confused.

Why I Like "The Book of Bonecrcker"

Since coming across The Book of Bonecrcker on NiceGuy’s forum back in 2006, I have read it probably every six months or so. There’s something about Bonecrcker’s style and insights that “sit right” with me. He is obviously well schooled in “game” while not being a slave to it. He was trained with a Ph D in Psychology and later rebuffed the profession, choosing Chiropractic instead, once he realized that Psychology is no longer about that which it was originally intended to be about (treating mental illness). This training in Psychology, however, affords him some meaningful insights into human nature. When he posted these bits and pieces on NiceGuy’s forum, he was not particularly arguing with anyone, but rather, he showed up and posted like mad for a few weeks and then disappeared, as if he had a purpose of sharing his information with others and once his mission was accomplished, he could leave and move on to other pursuits. Perhaps he was also clarifying his own thoughts and experiences by writing them out. Needless to say, I find reading Bonecrcker “comforting,” which is why I read it so often. To say that I am a fan is an understatement.

While Bonecrcker is definitely out for number one and makes no “bones” about it, his views on being out for number one also includes living by a healthy moral code. - something I find the game community lacks glaringly. One thing you will notice as you go through his posts, is that he has a different view on the “Alpha-Beta” paradigm. His version differs from that of online game-guru Roissy. While I have a lot of respect for many of Roissy’s insights and his writing ability, I don’t believe all of his “male classifications” are correct. Roissy simply views “Alpha” as whatever it is that makes a man sexually attractive to women and considers them all universally “Alpha.” “Beta” is a weak-willed schmuck who get ruthlessly manipulated by women, and “Omegas” are sexually deviant losers who barely ever get laid except by the fat BBW dregs of women that nobody else would touch with a barge pole. Bonecrcker, however, bases “Alpha” on high mating survival value, “Beta” as most men (ie. normal people), “Omega” as the criminal-scum class into which also falls the sexual deviants who seek out multiple sex partners and can’t form stable relationships, and finally Bonecrcker includes a fourth class of men called “Zeta”, which is the weak-willed man who rarely gets laid – and when he does, he is ruthlessly manipulated by women.

I have several times tried to discuss the differences between Roissy’s views and Bonecrcker’s views, but almost instantly a coterie of Roissy’s followers (who are in their own parlance, Beta boys for blindly following Roissy’s Alpha stance rather than thinking for themselves) will begin to moan and wail about shoving moral values down their throats. The thing what I find kind of ironic is that I don’t really talk about “moral values” when I try to bring up that there seems to be two kinds of men that women are attracted to – for different reasons – but simply that there seems to be two classes of men that are sexually attractive. As soon as it is pointed it, it must become clear to many in the game community that this would imply moral values still exist, and that we might not be justified in screwing like monkeys, cuckolding each other ruthlessly, and encouraging a highly violent male hierarchy, like chimps have. It appears to me that many men are only too happy to throw all semblance of moral values out the window and base a man’s worth solely upon the number of pussies he manages to plunder.

Bonecrcker’s views match up better with my own life experiences in that I know some truly Alpha men who get “the best” chick and they tend to stick together, and I know – and have been close friends with – about three high number-count men who have each slept with 250 to 450 women each. These guys would be Alpha by Roissy’s description, but Omega by Bonecrcker’s in that they are sexually deviant, have no ability to form stable relationships (not only with women, but also with men), and are far more from the criminal/scum class rather than a high survival male Alpha. My high number-count “friends” are no longer friends because over time I have observed they have stabbed everyone in the back. They also were extremely tough – they had to be, since so many other guys wanted to kick the shit out of them. They got little co-operation from other males after time, often got into 3 to 5 fist fights a year, two did stints in prison, and they tended over time to become transitory, as after time too many enemies meant it was “time to move on.” They sure got laid a lot though! Contrast this to a couple of friends of mine who I view as true Alphas in the Bonecrcker sense, wherein they were dominant men – with both men and women, but they were highly popular (had lots of male co-operation), and they dated the best chick and she stuck around and beat off the other chicks with a stick.

Think of it in male terms as what a guy finds sexually attractive in females. Sure, you can argue it is all based upon sex, and I wouldn’t disagree with that… but are all chicks attractive to a guy simply for the same sexual reasons? For example, when you are out on the hunt as a young guy looking for some pussy without much commitment, would you go for that “girl next-door” who is a “nine” and has only had one or two boyfriends in her life, or would you go for that chick you know is sexually loose, has had many boyfriends, is a “seven,” and you heard can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch? Well, if I were just out for some short term fun, I might value the slut over the prude. However, if I were out for starting a family, I would value the prude over the slut. Both are sexually attractive, in some ways the same, but vastly different in others. This is the same thing what I believe is going on with women. They are attracted to both high mate-value “Alphas” and low mate-value “Omegas,” (or criminal-scum-sexually deviant men). Both attract them, but for different reasons. That women end up settling for “Betas” to marry rather than high value Alphas is no different than a man who has spent his youth banging pretty sluts who are “nines” but settles upon a virginal “seven” to marry – choosing other “Beta” traits such a loyalty and fidelity over the looks scale - same goes for a woman who settles for a less sexually attractive male to settle down with. However, just as a man “settles” for a seven with higher survival value, the man would still choose a “nine” with the same survival value, as women would rather marry an “alpha” than a beta. Most men can’t marry “nines” any better than women can.

Now, this does not mean that Bonecrcker morally preaches at you to be an upright, proper “Alpha.” Just the opposite. In fact, he outright recommends adopting several “Omega” traits – such as not forming stable relationships (anti-survival) in order that men’s needs are met in a severely fucked up society that is hostile to males. However, you can tell from reading him, that imitating these traits does not need to entail becoming a dirt-bag piece of scum. One can recognize the differences, and choose to live a decent moral life, while protecting oneself from the dangers of our matriarchal society without actually being an evil scumbag who screws over all other men he encounters in life. I find this to be a significant difference between between Bonecrcker and others discussing game for the single man. I believe men (and even women) are more than mere monkeys, incapable of living higher than our hindbrains, so I prefer Bonecrcker’s route. It also more closely resembles what I have personally witnessed in human behaviour throughout my life.

On to The Book of Bonecrcker

Monday, January 01, 2001

Fitness Testing (Shit Tests)

 Pinched from the Rational Male - by Rollo Tomassi 

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

My use of the word “threat” here isn’t to imply malice. I’m sure more simplistic associations with violence or conflict is the natural one, but a “threat” is a challenge – how one deals with it is what’s at issue. As I stated in the Three Strikes thread,
Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options.
This internal conflict between a want for security and provisioning, and a need for the ‘gina tingles that only the excitement indignation, drama and Alpha dominance can stimulate is the fundamental root for women’s shit tests. From Plate Theory VI:
Essentially a shit test is used by women to determine one, or a combination of these factors:
a.) Confidence – first and foremost
b.) Options – is this guy really into me because I’m ‘special’ or am I his only option?
c.) Security – is this guy capable of providing me with long term security?
Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism. Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence.

For a woman, to encounter a man with a healthy awareness of his own value to women, this constitutes a threat. Here is a man for whom’s attention women will demonstrably compete for, AND he knows this. This is the most basic affront to the feminine imperative; to be unplugged, of high SMP value and to derive confidence from it. Therefore, in order to actualize her own sexual strategy, his self-confidence MUST be put into self-doubt, because if such a man were to use this knowledge to his own benefit he may not select her from a pool of better prospective women. Thus she must ask “Are you really sure of yourself? You think you’re so great? Maybe you’re just egotist? Don’t tempt fate.”

In this example we can see the conflict inherent in women’s sexual strategy; she wants the Alpha dominance of a confident Man, but not so confident that he can exercise his options with other women well enough to make an accurate estimation of her own SMV.

Ambiguity in men’s assessment of a woman’s true sexual market value is the primary tool of the feminine imperative.

The same characteristics that give him his confidence and acknowledged sense of worth are exactly the same things that women want to be associated with. Even the most controlling, domineering wife still wants to tell her friends that the AFC she married is a “real Man”, and even after privately berating him, will defend him as such because anything less is a reflection on her own self-image. She wants to be with a Man that other men want to be, and other women want to fuck, because it confirms for her that she’s of an equal or higher value to attract such a Man.

Women don’t want a man to cheat, but they love a Man who could cheat.

That is the threat and the attraction. Women want a Man that has confidence in his own value; that’s sexy, but the more he self-realizes this the greater the anxiety is that she’ll be found wanting as he better understands his options. So it becomes necessary to develop social contrivances that are standardized across the feminine gender that limit the full recognition of masculine self-value. Thus masculinity is ridiculed, men become characterized as slaves to their sexuality, and masculinity becomes doubted by virtue of itself. In a global sense, the feminine imperative relies on the same ambiguity women will individually employ to confuse the efforts of men to assess their true SMV. By means of social conventions, psychologically force him to doubt his own SMV and women become the arbiters of it.

Race to Awareness

Because of women’s relatively short window of peak sexual viability it is imperative that men be as unaware of their slower, but progressively increasing SMV for as long as possible in order for them to achieve the prime directive of female hypergamy; realize the best genetic options and the best provisioning options she has the capacity to attract in that peak window. If Men become aware of their SMV before a woman can consolidate on her options with monogamous commitment her sexual strategy is defeated.

The mistake (and the binary retort) is to think this need for contrivances was concocted in whole as some grand sisterhood conspiracy. This just proves an ignorance of social constructs. For a social contrivance to be such, it necessitates being repeated by society WITHOUT a formal conception – meaning we learn the contrivance from seeing it, internalizing it and repeating it ourselves without forethought. The best social contrivances are inconspicuous and rarely questioned because they’ve been learned without having been formally taught. This is why I think encouraging men NOT to bother trying to understand women is in itself a social convention. Don’t look at that man behind the curtain, just accept it for what it is, enjoy the show, you’re better off that way, the Mighty Oz has spoken.

This is the threat that Game represents to the feminine imperative. Widely shared, objective assessments of Men’s SMV and how it develops is the antithesis of the female sexual strategy. Women’s greatest fear is that they could become the ‘selected’ instead of the ‘selectors’.

Pinched from the Rational Male - by Rollo Tomassi

Coincidence Theory

I had to laugh the other day while reading Dalrock's blog. Someone was ranting against the stupidity of those tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists again, which is nothing new, but a reply from another commenter was fantastic when he queried, "So, you're a coincidence theorist then?"

I laughed out loud.

But seriously, this is actually something I have pondered about before, so it was kind of a smug laugh.
Now, I don't want to get into a whole lot of 9/11 technical crapola, but I would simply like to point out some basic maths. Most of us have probably heard the riddle, "If I flip a coin and nine times in a row it lands on heads, what are the odds it lands on heads the tenth time?" The answer to this is, of course, 50%. The same as it was each and every time you flipped the coin, and on the tenth flip, the odds are still 50/50 that it will be heads or tails. Oooh, so smart is the mathematician with his fancy degree! But, a bookie in Vegas wouldn't give you 50/50 odds that someone could flip a coin and have it land heads 10 times in a row, would he? No, he would use maths by saying 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 0.0976525% - So, approximately 1 to 100 odds, and then he would take the vig.

(In other words, on one flip there is a 50/50 chance it lands on heads, in two flips there is a 25% chance it lands on heads both times, 3 flips is 12.5%, 4 is 6.25%, 5 is 3.125%, 6 is 1.5625%, 7 is 0.78125%, 8 is 0.390625%, 9 is 0.1953625% and for one to flip heads ten times in a row, there is only a 0.0976525% chance, or in other words, there is just less than a one percent chance that someone could flip a coin ten times in a row and have it land on heads each time, even though on that last flip, the odds are still 50/50 it will land on heads on the tenth flip - The odds of getting that far though, are less than 2%).

Now think about 9/11 objectively for a moment. In all of aviation history, how many times has an airliner crashed without leaving virtually any trace of wreckage and survivors? Not very many. In fact, last I heard, not once. Even when France had an airliner crash over one of the deepest parts of the ocean a few years back, they retrieved bodies and wreckage. But on 9/11? There were four planes in three different locations that destructed with absolutely zero evidence left afterwards that a plane was even there.  This would be an odd coincidence of events for even just one plane, but for four airliner crashes to happen one after the other with the same result is well, astronomical in its own right! Multiply that factor on top of the fact that skyscrapers catching on fire has never caused a collapse in the way that three buildings collapsed on 9/11, one right after the other, under two differing circumstances, and we have gone from out of this world odds and into the astronomical. When you consider how many times a year the military practices terrorist drills simulating airliner attacks on skyscrapers per year, and then just add that "coincidence" to the equation... I mean, come on folks, this isn't just flipping a coin ten times in a row and having it land on heads. This is a One in Gazillion chance that this is "the right story" - if you are a coincidence theorist.

And it seems odd to me that coincidence theorists would mock conspiracy theorists, given the mathematical odds of each being correct. For example, in the past century alone, false flag conspiracies have been involved with US involvement in The Great War (The Lusitania), World War Two (Hitler dressing dead soldiers in opposing uniforms and claiming Poland attacked first, AND, the USA's knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack beforehand, but allowing its devastation to unify the nation), and the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin). The only of the wars the USA was involved in during the past century that didn't involve a false flag event was the Korean War. So, compared to the One in a Billion (or Trillion) odds that the events of 9/11 happened the way were told, or if opposingly there were elements of nefarious activities behind the scenes (1 in 4 odds), I would say that the conspiracy theorists are on the right side of the bet compared to the coincidence theorists. All thoughout history people have "conspired" to make history. Bismarck "conspired" to villify the French and start the Franco-Prussian War, Canada became a confederated country because after the US Civil War it was discovered that US War Hawks were conspiring to manipulate war with Canada in order to maintain the size of their military complex, and Britain figured it would be more damaging for the Americans in International Politics to attack a newly formed nation than to attack a colony of Britain, thus, Canuckistan now stands as the True North Strong and Free.  Conspiracy theories are found far, far, FAR more often in history than one in a gazillion coincidence theories. Et Tu, Brute?   

So, if I were to bet on which side is right, I would estimate my odds being so substantially higher siding with the conspiracy theorists than coincidence theorists, that I would be a buffoon to side with a coincidence theorist, given that compared to their opponents they have a statistical probability of being right at around one in million (or trillion), while conspiracy theorists claiming there are strings "behind" the scenes being pulled, would probably be batting at least .500, if not higher, according to the history of the world.  

"But, but, but," the coincidence theorists protest, "It is so unbelievable!"

Not really.

The biggest mistake that coincidence theorists undertake is when they believe everything related has to be some grand nefarious scheme. This is complete nonsense. The world is chaotic enough (something that "coincidence" theorists cannot deny by the very nature of their argument), and over any given decade in human history, I can point out earthquakes, famines, tsunamis, economic crises, that all led to government increasing their power. The coincidence theorist would like to discredit his opponents by pointing out the tin-foil hatters claiming that, say, Hurricane Katrina was affirmed by some to be a conspiracy theory of the US government using HAARP to attack its own people.

I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect it is more simple. If I were to start a conspiracy theory, i would just keep it simple! I would simply say to my nefarious colleagues that we need not figure out how to use HAARP to make Katrina happen. All we simply have to do is wait for Katrina to happen. Tragedies happen all the time, and in a decade long period, we can expect probably three major earthquakes, one economic crisis, one ill-attempted war from a despotic country, and so on and so on. We don't need to conspire to make those things happen, like all the coincidence theorists are claiming we do, All we need to do is know that there will be, on average, 10 major events over the next decade, and each time one of them happens, we have to push for the same response (and results) uniformly.

I mean, DUH!

Why would you go through all the trouble to orchestrate such nonsense when so many events happen naturally anyways?

All you really need to do is have a ready-made response to any and all events that happen in the future, like, "the solution to this crisis is world government!" Thus, you don't need to crash planes into towers, or use HAARP to make earthquakes and tsunamis, and so on. All you need to do is respond to the natural crises of the world with a uniform response, which always leads into the same direction.