Monday, January 23, 2006

Hypergamy and Briffault's Law

I think it’s true that women are hypergamous – in that they always look to “marry up,” or in other words, they are in relationships for the benefits a man confers upon her, thus, Briffault’s Law comes into play as well as its corollaries:

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

The Corollaries to Briffault’s Law:

1 - Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 - Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 - A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

What this means is that a man cannot simply hand over all the benefits of associating with him over to the woman. He must keep the benefits he bestows upon her under his control, and learn to say no often, as she will naturally try to get him to pass them on to her. No, I won’t spend $100 for roses on Valentine’s Day. No, we’re not going to Hawaii for a vacation (unless you are paying, Toots!) No, you cannot move in with me. No, you cannot move in now that you’ve been evicted – that is what your girlfriend’s couch or your parent’s spare room is for. NO! We won’t get be getting married. No! You are not going on the pill so we can have bareback sex. No. No. No. No! NO! NO!

The man must keep the benefits, or the lure of the benefit, completely under his control. Once they become her domain, it simply doesn’t matter to her and becomes “What have you done for me lately?”

Our culture and its laws have made it very, very difficult for a man to maintain control over the benefits he bestows upon women. No! is the most valuable word a man can learn in a relationship.

And, while it is true that women are quite willing to trade up when it suits them, and while it is also true that women’s “love” for a man is rarely as deep as the man’s love is for her, what a lot of the game community is ignoring is the fact that humans naturally pair-bond.

Yes, it is true, mating behaviour is mediated in the brainstem and spinal cord (the old, or reptile brain) and not the cortex (thinking brain), but what is left out is that humans naturally pair-bond because of our mammalian/middle brain. Now, the mammalian brain (which causes mammals to have emotion) is not as old as the reptilian brain, but the mammalian brain is still a factor in human behaviour – and thus why humans have exhibited pair-bonding for a few hundred thousand years now (lol, however those brilliant Ph D-tards calculate such timing).

Men and women both naturally pair bond. The problem comes in that women’s pair-bonding feature is not for lifetime monogamy, but rather based upon a four year mating cycle called “Rotating Polyandry,” – or serial monogamy - where she seeks a birth-spacing/love cycle of four years (enough time to fall in love, get pregnant, give birth, recuperate, then wean the child until it can walk, talk and feed itself), each time this is complete, she moves on and seeks to pair-bond with a different male to ensure genetic diversity.

But, she still pair bonds. The only thing you have to realize is that her pair-bond is designed to be time-limited. Once the timer runs out, her interest in you becomes dark and sinister. Also, one never falls in love as much as one does the first time. It is like sticky tape – the more you apply it, peel it off, and re-apply it, the less sticky it becomes. (Thus why a man, should he try to marry, ought to choose a virgin or one to two previous partners at the most – and you can never be sure, because women lie as easy as they breathe). A woman who has ridden the cock-carousel with 30 men does not pair-bond very easily anymore, and the time-limit on her relationship with you is drastically shortened.

Once a woman’s time-limit is up and her interest in you becomes dark and sinister, this is when she goes into a “binge and purge cycle.” She starts with-holding sex in order to manipulate you. Lots of husbands fall for this and think she’s not interested in sex anymore – this is not true. What she is doing is starving her own sexual desire in order to drive up her sexual value to manipulate you. (Once a woman starts refusing you sex, it is time to dump her – she does not have pure interests in you anymore). Then, after about a year or so of her denying her own sexual desires, she gets rid of the man (and tries to keep all of his benefits) and THEN goes on a sexual binge where she screws thug after thug, trying to satiate her starving sexual desire. Once she has done this, she again looks for a more suitable long-term mate who confers “benefits” upon her, she pair-bonds again, and the whole cycle starts over again.

It is true that “all women are available” but what is not true is that “all women are available all of the time.” This is why the PUA-sphere (the ones who actually know what they are talking about) are always looking for IOI’s (Indications of Interest). What you want to do, if you are a “player” looking for easy, commitment free sex, is be the second guy to screw her after she splits up with her long-term mate. The first guy is usually an emotional tampon, or an orbiter, who ends up getting royally screwed because he is usually only being used as an emotional sounding board, or as a tool for the woman to gauge her sexual market value. To be a good “player,” you want to be the guy that catches her in the middle of her binge phase. This is the phase where she goes nuts and sucks and fucks up a storm and does things her ex-husband/boyfriend never dreamed she would do. But, it is very time limited. Once her “binge” is done and she has satiated herself, it is back to Briffault’s Law.

It works just like people being in the market for buying a car. All people are in the market to buy a car… but not all people are in the market to buy a car right now. There is a “buyer’s cycle” that takes a few years. You first buy a new car and are very happy. (You are no longer “in the market’). After a couple of years, you still don’t mind your car, but now it is becoming ho-hum, but it’s still ok. Then after four or five years or so, the new models are out, your “old” model has a few dings and scratches… the ads on TV are starting to attract you… you go to a car dealership after hours to peruse what’s available, and finally you work up the courage to go in during business and take one for a test drive… now you are “in the market” again. To the salesman, you are a “hot prospect.” (And by this time, you are). The same thing goes on with women in the “dating market.” The key is learning how to find the small pool of women who are “in the market right now.”

In the old days, before Father Custody was destroyed in the 1870’s, the principle of Briffault’s Law was enforced and overcome/fulfilled because if a woman left the husband, she lost both her children and access to Dad’s paycheck. Since then, she has been able to use the children as “mutilated beggars” to rob Dad of his paycheck through the courts in order to fund her children. This is where the divorce craze began, not in the 1970’s when No-Fault Divorce was introduced.

”There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child custody to mothers”. -- Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p360

“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce" -- James H. Jones, Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.
No-fault Divorce in the 1970’s merely simplified things. Before that, it was kind of a joke in that even if there was no “fault,” you could still divorce under the fault of “cruelty,” which could basically be anything, just like “abuse” can be anything today. An argument that makes her cry (He was CRUEL to me), he didn’t do this or that for me (He was CRUEL to me). Even Belfort Bax talks of this being a joke a century ago. So, rather than having to go through the whole ridiculous process of finding fault in “cruelty,” it became “just give her the damn divorce already.” (It wasn’t THAT difficult to divorce before the 1970’s – lol, look at Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe).

What really happened in the 1970’s was that women entered the work-force in large numbers – thus, it further undermined Briffault’s Law (Dad’s paycheck was not as much of a “benefit” as it was before) and also, hypergamy again came into play – a woman making $60,000/yr does not find a man making $40,000/yr to be attractive because of it. She needs to find a man making $100,000/yr to hypergamously “move up.”

Foreign women are indeed a better bet than the typical Ameriskank or Mapleskank (sorry, don’t know what the rest of you guys call your skanks). The reason they are a better bet is because you have better ability to be hypergamously desirable to a larger pool of women – putting you in better control of choosing a suitable, high value mate, and also, you are able to enforce Briffault’s Law and “keep her around” via the “providing a benefit to continue association principle.” Although, if I were to seek out a foreign chick, I would tuck all my money safely away in a numbered account in the Turks and Caicos Islands so it is 100% safe from her being able to get her hands on it – that “benefit” is then securely under your control, and then go abroad and stay there. Once you bring her back to Western Culture, she quickly adopts the attitude of the women around her – no matter her background – go to live in her country and don’t bring her back here.

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........


Any Gal of Mine


"It is almost a tertiary sexual character of the male, and certainly it acts on the female as such, that she expects from him the interpretation and illumination of her thoughts. It is from this reason that so many girls say that they could only marry, or, at least, only love a man who was cleverer than themselves; that they would be repelled by a man who said that all they thought was right, and did not know better than they did. In short, the woman makes it a criterion of manliness that the man should be superior to herself mentally, that she should be influenced and dominated by the man; and this in itself is enough to ridicule all ideas of sexual equality." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Male and Female Characteristics

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Marriage Staggering

Lots of this is based upon the boomer-topian idea that men and women are basically the same. We are not – not even in the pair-bonding feature which gets mediated in the middle/mammalian brain. We exhibit “staggering” from the male to female (though not from the female to the male). You could see this in the older days, when childbirth was the number one killer of women – this left lots of widowers. When these guys, who were often in their thirties, remarried, they again chose young women in their most fertile age for their second wives – they did not choose women in their thirties/of a similar age to him… and the pair bonding worked – it gets strongly enforced by hypergamy and Briffault’s Law (a mid-thirties man is most often more powerful and wealthier than a younger man). Also an older man will not be manipulated by his wife to nearly the extent that a younger man will be – thus he will remain more “alpha” and dominant, which further strengthens the marriage.

Thus, the best way for everyone to “have it all” is for a man to spend the first 20 years or so of his adulthood as a single man, swash-buckle and adventure around the earth while building up his fortune, and then in his mid to late thirties, seek out a young bride. This will also be the time in a man’s life when he approaches mid-life crisis and he will be able to satisfy his “is this all there is to life” questions with the children that will give his life new meaning. He will live long enough yet to most likely see his grandchildren born and grow up, and thus realize his immortality through them.

For women, they should be looking to marry young – screw college. They can easily have 2 or 3 children by the time they are 25, and have the youngest one off to school by the time she is 30. Thus, the children will be properly raised in their early youth at least. 30 is not too late to enter college, and actually be there to learn something (as opposed to being a frat-party whore). Also, by this time, if the husband is around 15 or 20 years older than her, he might be looking to “slow down” and also likely has enough money that he can afford to do so, and take over some of the parenting responsibilities. It will be about at that age too when the children will need less totalitarian mothering, and more risk-taking fathering, for them to develop properly.

The woman would be out of school by her mid-thirties, and this is the age when women become desirable in the job-market. Despite all the laws to the contrary, business owners still aren’t stupid and don’t prefer hiring 25 year old women, because they know that maternity leave and “flex-time” costs them $$$. At my father’s business, we had a “silent policy” not to hire women under 35 simply because younger women cost the business too much money.

At 35, the woman still has plenty of time to advance her “career” and also, since her husband is older, he will die much sooner than her. Thus, she will have the last twenty years of her life to do her own swashbuckling around the earth – she will inherit his wealth and also have a well paid career. It also shortens the life of the marriage – 35 or so years, rather than 50 or 60.

The only kink in it, is that the father should will his wealth to his son(s) with a codicil that they must provide a living stipend to the mother, or something along those lines. Nothing would be a worse insult for the deceased father than for the mother to inherit it all, remarry, then die and have the new husband inherit all of the wealth of the previous husband – thereby robbing the deceased husband’s children of the wealth he worked his entire life for.

It works biologically for both the man and the woman… and the children. Staggering works quite well in regard to pair-bonding. Both the man and the woman can chase after their careers – just at different times in their lives. They also will both have long durations of adulthood when they are not tied down by spouse & children, allowing them to pursue their aspirations… just at different times.

We should stop treating men and women as the same, and recognize that the differences can be worked into better ways.

Male Sex Drive vs. Female Sex Drive

A while back, I came across a post at Roissy's discussing how women's sex drive is not as strong as men's. A while later, Rollo Tomassi followed up with his own version of the same meme. Since I believe that men and women are equal but different, I respectfully disagree with both of them.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not going to start writing all kinds of New-Age crap while asking you to sit and sing a rousing chorus of Kumbaya with me while we celebrate our diversity. Rather, I believe that all nature seeks a balance and since men and women are opposite sides of the same coin, they must be equal or it would be impossible to be opposites.

One of the things I see both Roissy and Rollo doing in their articles is define female behaviour by male standards. Rollo, for example, puts out the evidence that men produce 12 to 17 times the testosterone, which controls the human libido, that women do to back up his claims. Roissy goes even further by quoting a study which states the following:

"The sex drive refers to the strength of sexual motivation. Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found. Hence we conclude that the male sex drive is stronger than the female sex drive. The gender difference in sex drive should not be generalized to other constructs such as sexual or orgasmic capacity, enjoyment of sex, or extrinsically motivated sex."
Well, that's all quite grand, isn't it? Except, they defined everything in male terms of desire, rather than in the female! If you are going to define "sex drive" only by that which is exhibited by males, then it comes as no surprise to me that you will always find males to have the higher "sex drive." What I'm getting at is that it is the same game as measuring violence by only using behaviours exhibited by males... gosh... do you think that if we only measure violence by male specific behaviour, that we will find males are more violent? How surprisingly disingenuous. What if, however, we started measuring violence by how many women are only to happy to covertly encourage a new boyfriend to inflict violence on an ex-boyfriend? In fact, by doing so, she is twice as violent as a male, because she is the indirect cause of two people receiving a violent episode in their lives, rather than just one direct recipient. If we started measuring violence by including how women covertly manipulate others to commit violence-by-proxy, we would likely discover that women's propensity for violence is much more "equal" to a male's than we previously thought - she just goes about it in a different, and often hidden, way. Sexuality is merely the same tune played on a different instrument.

Males are overt while women are covert. Rollo reinforces this himself many times on his blog with regard to male and female communication. The difference is opposite, and by nature of being opposite, they must be equal. If they were not equal, they could not be opposite. The same is true of communication, violence, sin, happiness, mid-life crises, aggression, and you guessed it, sexuality and sex drive.

In fact, as a response to Roissy's study which defines sex-drive in only male terms, I offer a differing opinion which illustrates the opposite:

“‘Really, women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissictic.’ — it’s dominated by the yearnings of ‘self-love,’ by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. Still, on the subject of narcissism, she talked about research indicating that, in comparison with men, women’s erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it. ‘When it comes to desire,’ she added, ‘women may be far less relational than men.’” 

Roissy himself backs this up in another post, where he references the mating habits of rats:

"According to Ogas and Gaddam, we can learn some important lessons about female sexual behaviour from observing rats in the laboratory.

They insist that if you put a male and female rat in close proximity to one another, the female will start to come on to the male, performing actions associated with sexual interest — running and then stopping to encourage the male to chase her.

But after a bit of kiss-chase, the female rat stands still, adopting a submissive stance until the male takes action. They also claim that almost every quality of dominant males — from the way they smell to the way they walk and their deep voice — triggers arousal in the female brain, while ‘weaker’ men, who are not taller, have higher voices or lower incomes, excite us less.
What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs."
And thus we come to age-old saying amongst humankind, "he chases her until she catches him."

The female rat, while not appearing to want sex, stops and encourages the chase should male  stop pursuing. So, I suppose, if all you want to do is measure sex drive by how the male behaves, then you are simply going to find that the male is the one who chases/wants the sex, and never the other way around. It's kind of a no brainer. If all you are going to do is define people who have the ability to communicate as those who talk German, you will find Germans are the only people in the world with the ability to communicate. The French don't communicate... because they speak French. If you are going to define "sex drive" by male metrics alone, you will find only men want sex. But, if you factor in female involvement in encouraging the male to continue the chase, you would likely see that both the male and female are equally involved in "the game." The same is true of humans. It's like one of those pictures you have to stare at for a while before you see a second picture within the picture. One picture is overt, the other covert:

Everywhere in nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female. It even goes down to the level that plants have "male" and "female" parts.

"The ripening of an egg, or ovum, is a time and energy intensive job, so the male is designed to be ready to fertilize that ovum when the female notifies him that she is "ready."

In the rest of the natural world, females announce their readiness to the entire world with a variety of cues - smell being the most significant, but visual cues come in a close second.

When a female chimpanzee is in estrus, her genitals swell up and become a SPECIFIC shade of bright pink. Jane Goodall observed one such female whose genitals could be seen from across a valley - nearly a mile or 2 away.

There is a species of fish in which the belly of the female turns a particular shade of red when she is gravid. A block of wood with the lower half painted that exact shade of red will drive males into a mating frenzy.

"Smell is even more important. There are MANY species in which a female in heat gives off pheromones which are specific to that species which can be picked up by males as much as 5 miles away."


"Mating behavior does NOT get mediated in the new brain, or the cortex. It happens in the brainstem and spinal cord, the old or "reptile" brain.

In the days when such experiments were still allowed, you could open a cat's skull and suck out all the cortex. Sexual and mating behavior was not affected at all, but social behavior was destroyed.

Human females have introduced a new factor in the game - they ovulate covertly. There is no way to tell when they are fertile and when they aren't - although we are beginning to hear about studies which suggest that women on the pill smell differently.

The human male adaptation to this has been to pay greater attention to women and the subtle cues they give off that they are fertile. These are these "signals" that women always talk about giving off and getting so angry at men when they don't pick up on them.

The problem lies in the fact that women have become adept at faking these cues in order to trigger men's mating responses - thus giving them huge amounts of power to manipulate men. Men react in their spinal cords to a woman's facial lips reddened with lipstick, exactly the same way they would react to a different set of lips reddened with sexual ripeness.

Purely female power depends entirely on how many males she can capture the attention of. The more males vying for the chance to fertilize her egg, the more choices she has."

Obviously, in this paradigm, if we only measure sex-drive by male standards, we will again be only able to conclude that males are the sexual aggressors - but it is obvious that the females are intent on having males sexually desire them - something which does not show up by mere male activity.

The female plays a very large role in the courtship game, even with humans:

"Cary (1976) discovered that the woman, through eye contact, controlled the course of interaction with a male stranger, both in the laboratory and in singles' bars. Perper (1985) gave a detailed description of courtship, stressing an escalation-response process in which women play a key role in escalation or deescalation. The steps in this process are approach, turn, first touch, and steady development of body synchronization.

Although these reports are clearly valuable, most researchers addressed courtship very generally, and some failed to recognize the importance of the female role in the courtship process .What was needed was a more complete ethogram of women's nonverbal courtship signals. To compile such a catalog of flirting behavior exhibited by women involved in initial heterosexual interaction, more than 200 adults were observed (Moore, 1985) in field settings such as singles' bars, restaurants, and parties.

Research has shown, therefore, that the cultural myth that the man is always the sexual aggressor, pressing himself on a reluctant woman, is incorrect. -- Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"? Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.Department of behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University 

Women are obviously very involved in encouraging the men who bed them to do so - they just do so covertly and hide behind "plausible" deniability. She encourages, but has a safety excuse to use for cover, while the male must overtly display and destroy all plausible deniability which he might have had. In the end, the man can deny nothing but the woman can simply claim, "it just sorta happened," and absolve herself of all responsibility while not having her covert "signals" scrutinized. It is just the way the world works! 

It is easy to see why the world thinks women are not sexual aggressors, but rather, always the recipients of overt male sexual aggression.

This is the very foundation for all of the false-rape claims that occur around us! At every step of the way, the female is covert and can completely deny her responsibility in the affair, while at the same time making it virtually impossible for the male to deny his actions - which were originally encouraged by her covertly. Being a PUA/Game Advocate that does not readily acknowledge female involvement in the mating dance is disingenuous. After all, don't even PUA's only move forward with women who have already given them IOI's? (Indications of Interest).

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager In The House

You have been directed to an outdated version of this article, please read the updated, finished version.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Patriarchy 1.0

You can get close to marriage 1.0 by obtaining children via surrogacy and leaving the wife out of the equation. Marriage 1.0 was about  father-custody of children. (Note that shared parenting is not marriage 1.0 either, nor marriage 1.7 – shared parenting is like marriage 2.3, even further away, and involving more of the state than even before). Women don’t need a husband to have children. All the “alphas” out there love to sport-fuck bareback as much as the women riding the cock-carousel do. A woman can get knocked up easy. Men, however, have usually only been able to obtain children through marriage and a wife.

There is no advantage to a man to take on a wife. Those who have studied game should know this completely. She is not your companion – if you make her one, she will leave you. She is not your equal, if you make her one she will leave you. She is not there to satisfy your emotions, just the opposite actually, as she will constantly “test” your emotional state to make sure you are “strong.” When you get old, you get weaker, and lose your “alpha-cred”, and most likely her too, along with your pension. It goes on and on. Taking on a wife is almost a pure liability – even in marriage 1.0. The only thing a wife contributes (and only in marriage 1.0) is a man’s own children. (In marriage 2.0. the children are hers, so what’s the point?) Even in marriage 1.0, the wife provides little of value except her womb, and still comes fraught with liability. Does anyone think it was a great deal for husbands in marriage 1.0 to be  legally liable for the actions of his wife? She was a liability back then too, and could be just as miserable and soul-draining as they are now. The only difference was that the children in marriage were his and if she left, she couldn’t take the kids – and so, very few women actually left. Men love women, women love children, and children love puppies – it is a one way street and does not work the other way around.

You can have all the patriarchy 1.0 you want by getting your own children through surrogacy, and leaving “the wife” completely out of the equation. Hire a nanny. It’s still cheaper than supporting a wife, or going through a divorce. Let alone not having to put up with all the bloody drama day in day out. Then you date with game to get your sexual needs met. Never marry, and certainly never marry and allow her to adopt the kids. If you must have a woman living with you, get her an in-law suite in the basement or convert your backyard garage into a studio, and charge her $50/month in rent. Make sure she’s childless and you are fixed.

Surrogacy is very close to marriage 1.0, and it puzzles me why this isn't one of the major issues of the MRM. Changing father-custody to mother custody was one of the first things the suffragettes went after – now you can see why.

Back to basics.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

The Keynesian Sexual Marketplace

Here is an article regarding the famous pick-up artist, Neil Strauss, which discusses his general support of feminism while also showing his quick willingness to throw other men under the bus. Really, one would think someone highly schooled in game, while perhaps being empathetic with women, would also be unable to rationally justify feminism given his knowledge base. It illustrates something that the Manosphere is desperately trying to ignore in regard to game.

Now, I would like to make clear that I agree that men should know about game and the attraction triggers of women. Game is essential to understanding the problems that we face as men in society. Without this knowledge, men will continue to be run around in circles, never getting anywhere – as has been evidenced over the past forty years. However, the game community has been putting forth many misconceptions about “Alpha” and “Beta” and they are also being a tad bit dishonest about what they are doing.

First off, I would like to point out that the common definitions of “Alpha” and “Beta” are wrong. This is put forth by the game community to mask the fact that most who consider themselves “Alpha” are actually Omegas. I also don’t like Vox Day’s creation of all kinds of new terminology to suit his arguments such as “Gamma” and “Delta” and “Sigma” ad nausseum. Quite frankly, I suspect Vox is a Gamma that simply doesn’t understand game. It is confusing enough without some Christian amateur-alpha attempting to redefine everything to suit his own arguments. If he handed in a university paper on economics in such a manner – creating terms from thin air - he would rightly get an automatic “F” and he knows it. But, he is correct in assessing that “Alpha” and “Beta” according to the Roissyshpere is too simplistic and also that it leaves out the social aspects of being Alpha.

I learned of game before coming across Roissy or Vox etc. etc. and here are the definitions I learned it under, which will make sense further along in my argument.

Alpha: The “top” male – both sexually and socially.

Beta: Most males in the population. The average guy.

Omega: The scum/deviant/criminal class

Zeta: Weak-willed males

These definitions have been horribly skewed and they are missing some very important factors about classifications.

“Alpha” males don’t usually get the most partners. Alpha males get the best chick around and she beats off all the other women with a stick. Alpha males are respected in society – they are not only sexually attractive, but they also have great social power and have the respect and admiration of other men. This social respect, including that from other men, is the key that the game community is ignoring. Think back to when you were in highschool. The star quarterback, while he could have shagged a lot of 6’s, 7’s and 8’s, that is not generally what he does. What happens is he gets the prom queen – the best/hottest chick – and they generally stay together for quite a while. He does not trade his “10” in for quickies with a series of “7’s”. The top male pairs off with the top female and they tend to stay together.

Keep in mind that female hypergamy comes into play with the Alpha. If the prom queen is dating a "10", then who would she "trade up" for? Most men are not 10's and there is pretty much only one Alpha in any closed group (it's zero sum). Most males are 5's (average), leaving the range from 6 to 10 for female hypergamy to wish to trade up for when she's dating an "average guy." At the top end of the scale, however, there become very, very few prospects for her to view as better than her current 10, and so the top pair tends to stay together.

“Beta” males are almost all other males. They are not weak wimps, as the game community so often derides them as. They are merely the males that come in second place (or further). Not everyone can win the footrace and place 1st. The sexual marketplace is a zero sum game. There cannot be 12 alphas of equal sexual-social rank. It just doesn’t work that way with hypergamy. She prefers only the best, and that does not refer to the “top dozen,” but only number one is “The Best.” Beta males generally have more sexual partners than Alpha males as they screw around lots when they are younger and sort out their socio-sexual rankings before finding the right socio-sexually ranked female to pair off with. Being 2nd place does not mean you are a slow runner – it merely means you are second place, which is still higher than third, which is still better than fourth. You cannot have 12 firsts – except in modern feminist-inspired schoolyard sports.

“Omega” males are the scum class as well as the sexually deviant class. These are the bad-boys and these are also the guys who have multiple sex partners. A key characteristic of Omega males is that they cannot form stable relationships. They are not powerful like Alpha males. They might get lots of girls, but essentially they are powerless in society and have little real respect from those around them - especially other males. Girls may screw them, but girls don’t stay with them. Not having the respect of other males makes them socially powerless, and this is the key to why they are not Alpha males.

“Zeta” males are weak-willed males. They rarely get sex and when they do, they are ruthlessly manipulated and exploited by women.

When the game community talks “Alpha” they are really describing “Omega” and when they say “Beta” they are really describing “Zeta.” The proper references to Real Alphas and Real Betas are missing.

Now, one has to keep in mind that since the rise of feminism in our culture, most males have been relentlessly propagandized to believe that Zeta characteristics are the proper ones, and after 40 some years of this, as well as a healthy heaping of totalitarian styled laws removing all sorts of powers from the average male, indeed, if most males are “Beta” males (ie. average people), then it is true that this indoctrination has indeed encouraged and tricked the average man into taking on many characteristics of the weak-willed Zeta. In this sense it is understandable to confuse the modern Beta with the traditional Zeta.

However, it is entirely false to confuse the Alpha with Omega traits – and this is something the game community does relentlessly. One must keep in mind that human beings naturally exhibit pair-bonding and Alphas still pair bond while Omegas do not. Most in the game community are certified Omegas, not Alphas. They are the sexual deviants with numerous sexual partners but their social ranking is low and that is why they need to continually game more than one woman at a time. They can only fool a woman into believing they are Alpha for a short amount of time and they have little ability to actually keep a woman of high mating value. Another reason they continually need to have more than one chick on the go is to protect their own emotional vulnerability. Of course, this behaviour also provides the Omega male with social proofing, which helps them get more chicks, but this is a different kind of social proofing than that which the Alpha male gets.

The “true” Alpha – the highschool football star who’s screwing the prom queen - doesn’t need to be sexually promiscuous in order to be social proofed. He is social proofed already by dating the best chick. All the other girls “know” who the best chick is, and they hate her with an envy that would turn Kermit the Frog three shades greener than he already is. Also, every girl would like to replace the prom queen herself, because they all know that the prom queen’s boyfriend is the highest value male and whoever can displace the prom queen will become the new female atop of their female ranking. In other words, the “real Alpha” doesn’t need to screw dozens of chicks to have social proofing. He’s already got it by banging the hottest chick, which every other girl wishes she could be. Should he and the prom queen split, there will be a plethora of women from the lowest sexual rank to the highest trying to achieve status by being the prom queen’s replacement. He will be snapped up again very, very fast by another very high value female, and he will again ignore all the women below that level.

Another factor that has enabled Omega behavior to be successful is urban anonymity. It is easy to be a “sexual sniper” in the big city where the Omega can easily disappear into the background before the valuable Beta class finds him out and ruins his life. You cannot rise in socio-sexual ranking when you are constantly cuckolding all those around you, whose co-operation you would need in order to gain social power in society. Keep in mind that urban growth is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. For most of history humans lived in relatively small, rural communities and they needed the co-operation and respect of those around them, especially other males, in order to survive.

An apt example of these forces and their results is found within economics. In Keynesian Economics, we see all kinds of market distortions. Low/negative real interest rates discourage savings in favor of spending – and anyone with half a brain knows that you can’t spend yourself to prosperity. However, when faced with falsely imposed negative interest rates, spending money suddenly does make more sense than saving money which will have less value in the future. In Keynesian Economics, low interest rates also lead to excessive speculation, when anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that sound investing is more profitable in the long run than risky speculation.

In the same way, what we really have going on in society is almost a “Keynesian Sexual Marketplace.” In other words, a false economy based on Government Totalitarianism, enabled by Urban Anonymity, and fortified by relentless propaganda encouraging the “average Beta” to assume the traits of the weak-willed Zeta – with some further false sexually economic factors in the form of the pill and abortion – all combining to skew the “free sexual market.” The whole thing is as false as fiat money is to gold, and should these factors be removed, humans would likely revert back to a more traditional sexual marketplace – the kind often ballyhooed about in foreign cultures where things are not as far along in their screwed-upness as ours.

If it were not for things like government totalitarianism, women who mate with the scum class would find survival very difficult for themselves and their spawn. Many would likely die – and rightfully too, according to nature - for choosing an anti-survival strategy of mating with powerless Omegas who are unable to properly pair-bond. “True Alpha” males – those with high social and sexual value – would survive the best, as they have the best ability to provide, and all the lower ranking males and females (the Beta class), would again quickly pair off simply for survival’s sake. No animal, with the exception of perhaps lemmings, chooses anti-survival methods of living.

As for the Omega class, were it not for urban anonymity where they can disappear before being forced to deal with the consequences of their actions, they too would likely disappear quickly – most likely at the hands of the socially valuable Alphas and Betas. If you lived in a rural community and decided to try and screw 100 of the local women, you can almost be guaranteed to make at least 100 very motivated lifelong enemies. Keep in mind that women are like monkeys, and don’t let go of one branch until they’ve gotten hold of another. Each time an Omega “scores” another man gets screwed over. Except for virgins, pretty much all women are romantically involved with someone at the time they decide to discard the old for the new. This is not conducive behavior for gaining social power amongst the other males surrounding the Omega male, and in fact will soon leave him completely powerless and struggling for survival. If an Omega were the town blacksmith and he screwed 100 of the local women, he would soon find a large portion of the town shunning him and taking their business to the next town, if someone didn’t outright kill him first for his cuckolding behavior. There is very, very little survival value for a woman and child to be attached to an Omega male. Without government welfare picking up the slack and creating a “Keynesian Sexual Marketplace,” the natural market would soon see both the Omegas and their lovers removed from the race.

And herein lies the problem with “game” as it is put forth in the Manosphere today. We have the Omega class (low value males – lower than Beta) posing as Alphas (high value males), and since Omegas are the scum class rather than socially powerful Alphas who have other males’ cooperation (along with high female attraction), the Omegas are flourishing while Beta males are floundering after being relentlessly propagandized to emulate the weak-willed traits of the Zetas. And, in many ways, Omegas are scum for how they treat other males. Read through the game blogs and simply observe how many Omegas there are that think it is their right to screw other men’s wives and see how many of them chuckle at their cuckolding of other men. This is deviant behavior, and certainly not “Alpha.”

I have seen it pointed before in Game circles that “Alphas” like to consider all women “theirs” and will try to undermine “Betas” to protect his harem. This is, I believe, incorrect. It is deviant Omega behavior that does this. The Alpha has lots of social co-operation in society because he has only one chick – the hottest one – and he stays with her, thereby not screwing over multitudes of other men whose cooperation he needs in order to accomplish things. It is the Omegas that choose to screw multitudes of people over in order to achieve their sexual goals. And you can see this anti-social Omega behavior well coming out in the Game community as they all laugh and scoff at the “insecure Betas” they screwed over and cuckolded. You can also see it lately arising from those who outright condemn the “Betas” in the MRM that are “bitter losers” for not being a “dominant” arse like themselves and taking what they can get.

The Omega male will also support feminism in many regards, as it makes women sexually loose and into bonafide sluts. The Omega gamesman wants women to be sluts with a screwed up, anti-survival sense of mating, and the Omega wants his sexual competitors to be denigrated, taking on Zeta male traits, to the point of them being sexually unattractive to the females in his line of vision.

Keep in mind how many of the practitioners of PUA-game have no qualms at all about cuckolding other men – something which many of them openly recognize as the equivalent of “rape for men,” – and yet, so many of them brag about bringing this great harm to other human beings. They quickly denigrate others for calling them out on their shoddy behavior by claiming they are simply “insecure Betas.” This is not socially constructive behavior. Most faux-Alpha Omegas are actively trying to dominate other men in order to raise their sexual ranking and are quite pleased when they succeed in doing so. This is deviancy and is not conducive to social climbing but rather, it produces the opposite.

Think of the guy in the pub who always tries to comb everyone else down with his superior IQ, his superior vehicle, his superior house, his superior fighting (bragging) skills, his superior blah blah blah, compared to your stupidity, your piece of crap car and house, your wimpy attitude… yeah, that is usually the guy that ends up sitting alone in the corner all alone because nobody likes him and nobody wants to co-operate with him. Now think of that same guy but now he is trying to dominate you by sexually stealing your woman, and everyone else’s woman too! Not only is it homo-erotic to try and dominate other men by proxy through women, but it also might convince some of those men to get up out of their chair and deal with the situation in a very primal way. This is not the behavior of an Alpha who has high social standing, but is deviant behavior typical of the scum/criminal class, creating damage wherever they go.

Does this mean that Game doesn’t work? Absolutely not. It works very well – especially in our false sexual marketplace coupled with the ability to disappear into a large urban environment where getting along with others socially is not nearly as important as it was only 150 years ago, and throughout most of human history before that. Also, knowing that Beta males are being socially conditioned to adopt Zeta behavior is enormously useful to regular men/Betas. Hopefully it will help the average man reverse the damage which the Zeta-promoting feminist propaganda has brainwashed him with.

Omegas support feminism because it suits their deviant agenda perfectly and also coincides with their deep dislike of other males (society), whom they often try to dominate through having sex with their wives.

But Omega is not Alpha, because Omegas make too many enemies to be socially successful with other men, and when other men don’t want to co-operate with you, you may find yourself truly screwed in society, which in turns makes Omegas of extremely low mating (survival) value. If/when our governments goes broke, as well as everyone else along with them, and the failures of society can longer count on being “bailed out,” the false sexual marketplace will disappear. Without this government interference, women who choose low-value, high mate-count Omegas will again be forced to pay, and pay dearly, for their anti-survival mating strategies and the true Alpha & Beta paradigm will again reappear, simply because of survival strategy.

These are the times we live in. With Keynesian Economics and the false influences it causes, one would have been a complete fool to have sat in gold bullion from 1980 to 2000 while sitting out the rising real-estate market because of “false Keynesian influences.” You still have to live in the times you are presented with until natural forces once again over-rule synthetic ones. In the mean time you have to survive and see that your needs are still met. And so it is in the sexual marketplace of today, where men have to adjust their behaviour to ensure their needs are met, and thus certain aspects of game are indeed advisable to utilize. But, in the back of one’s mind, it would probably be wise to remember that we are living in the times of a false sexual economy and eventually natural forces will overwhelm the synthetic ones. Natural forces have a habit of doing that.



Bonecrcker #43 – Women Behave Like Beavis and Butthead

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

The First Thing To Go Out Of Your Buddy's House When He Gets Married Is...

QUOTE: "The reality is that female trolls who frequently derail discussions, are scared. Women are scared men will or have found out the truth about women. Women work hard to hide from men who they really are. Women work hard at creating an avatar that enables them to manipulate men. Men-only gatherings present the ultimate insecurity for women, that their mask of deception will be torn down and the unpleasant truth about women will be exposed to men."

That’s a pretty good way of describing it. It’s like they know if all the prisoners start talking, they’ll figure it out that something is wrong, and they’ll escape. In projection terms, it makes one wonder what women have always been talking about at their Koffee Klatches, doesn’t it?

What’s the first thing that goes out of the house when your best buddy gets married?


And the rest of his friends… especially the unmarried ones.

She’ll allow him some “approved” friends alright – the husbands of her friends, and they are allowed to go to approved events together – like bowling night for two hours on Thursday night – maybe. In the winter. If it doesn’t interfere with his kitchen-bitching duties too much.

Mostly I’ve found that even when in “just a boyfriend/girlfriend” relationship with a woman, my relationships with my friends deteriorates – sure because of “less time spent together” – but even more, is how often when you do see your friends, the women are with the guys and so conversations become “approved for mixed company” and after a year or so, you start to realize how while you are still friends, you never really “talk” anymore. In fact, you can’t remember the last time you really “talked” with your friend – you know, the reason you actually became friends with the guy for in the first place.

You have no idea how many friends I have “lost”… lol, usually for about 4 or 5 years – until the rotating polyandry, er, divorce court, plunks him back into my life again.

Hmmmm. Same phenomenon as what is going on here, but in a different area of life?


Excerpt from the essay: A Bachelor’s Complaint of the Behaviour of Married People – by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834)


But this is not the worst: one must be admitted into their familiarity at least, before they can complain of inattention. It implies visits, and some kind of intercourse. But if the husband be a man with whom you have lived on a friendly footing before marriage, if you did not come in on the wife's side, -- if you did not sneak into the house in her train, but were an old friend in fast habits of intimacy before their courtship was so much as thought on, -- look about you -- your tenure is precarious -- before a twelve-month shall roll over your head, you shall find your old friend gradually grow cool and altered towards you, and at last seek opportunities of breaking with you. I have scarce a married friend of my acquaintance, upon whose firm faith I can rely, whose friendship did not commence after the period of his marriage. With some limitations they can endure that: but that the good man should have dared to enter into a solemn league of friendship in which they were not consulted, though it happened before they knew him, -- before they that are now are man and wife ever met, -- this is intolerable to them. Every long friendship, every old authentic intimacy, must he brought into their office to be new stamped with their currency, as a sovereign Prince calls in the good old money that was coined in some reign before he was born or thought of, to be new marked and minted with the stamp of his authority, before he will let it pass current in the world. You may guess what luck generally befalls such a rusty piece of metal as I am in these new mintings.

Innumerable are the ways which they take to insult and worm you out of their husband's confidence. Laughing at all you say with a kind of wonder, as if you were a queer kind of fellow that said good things, but an oddity, is one of the ways -- they have a particular kind of stare for the purpose -- till at last the husband, who used to defer to your judgment, and would pass over some excrescences of understanding and manner for the sake of a general vein of observation (not quite vulgar) which he perceived in you, begins to suspect whether you are not altogether a humorist, -- a fellow well enough to have consorted with in his bachelor days, but not quite so proper to be introduced to ladies. This may be called the staring way; and is that which has oftenest been put in practice against me.

Then there is the exaggerating way, or the way of irony: that is, where they find you an object of especial regard with their husband, who is not so easily to be shaken from the lasting attachment founded on esteem which he has conceived towards you; by never-qualified exaggerations to cry up all that you say or do, till the good man, who understands well enough that it is all done in compliment to him, grows weary of the debt of gratitude which is due to so much candor, and by relaxing a little on his part, and taking down a peg or two in his enthusiasm, sinks at length to that kindly level of moderate esteem, -- that "decent affection and complacent kindness" towards you, where she herself can join in sympathy with him without much stretch and violence to her sincerity.

Another way (for the ways they have to accomplish so desirable a purpose are infinite) is, with a kind of innocent simplicity, continually to mistake what it was which first made their husband fond of you. If an esteem for something excellent in your moral character was that which riveted the chain which she is to break, upon any imaginary discovery of a want of poignancy in your conversation, she will cry, "I thought, my dear, you described your friend, Mr. -- as a great wit." If, on the other hand, it was for some supposed charm in your conversation that he first grew to like you, and was content for this to overlook some trifling irregularities in your moral deportment, upon the first notice of any of these she as readily exclaims, "This, my dear, is your good Mr. ----." One good lady whom I took the liberty of expostulating with for not showing me quite so much respect as I thought due to her husband's old friend, had the candour to confess to me that she had often heard Mr. -- - speak of me before marriage, and that she had conceived a great desire to be acquainted with me, but that the sight of me had very much disappointed her expectations; for from her husband's representations of me, she had formed a notion that she was to see a fine, tall, officer-like looking man (I use her very words); the very reverse of which proved to be the truth. This was candid; and I had the civility not to ask her in return, how she came to pitch upon a standard of personal accomplishments for her husband's friends which differed so much from his own; for my friend's dimensions as near as possible approximate to mine; he standing five feet five in his shoes, in which I have the advantage of him by about half an inch; and he no more than myself exhibiting any indications of a martial character in his air or countenance.


Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Philosophical Difference Between Capitalism and Marxism

What probably differentiates the Capitalist/Western System from Marxism/Communism the most is the completely opposite philosophies involved with each. It is rather tiresome to hear people continually point out all of the evils of Capitalism when Capitalism itself is a response to these very problems.

Capitalism is based upon the Bible. One inherent characteristic of The Bible is that it declares the imperfect nature of man which mankind is unable to correct, and therefore mankind must endure imperfection (sin) on this earth while we are here. Only through salvation and God’s power will things ever be “perfect” for us – and the Bible tells us not to even attempt to change this, but rather to work within the framework given to control these human imperfections. The Bible tells us to resist our temptations/evils, but also tells us we will never succeed in defeating evil – only God can do that.

Btw – I am not a Bible-banger promoting Christianity here. I am only pointing out the philosophical thought pattern that helped form Western Civilization, and because these thought patterns were based upon the Bible, the philosophical position of the Bible was also the philosophical position of society. The Bible preached that there is Black and White, Right and Wrong, and that only God can change these things – we cannot!

Therefore, Capitalism is not some attempt to create a utopia where evil does not exist, as so many Red-Sympathizers continually falsely allude to. Rather, Capitalism is the acknowledgement that humans are greedy and self-centered – that humans are inherently flawed – and Capitalism creates a framework to contain these baser, less honourable human instincts, and harnesses them in such a way that greed/self-centeredness are both more or less controlled, and that they are mostly directed in a positive manner for the greater good.

It is not much different than marriage 1.0 harnessing the human sex-drive and “putting it to work.” Capitalism merely harnesses human greed and “puts it work.” It’s kinda like we generally consider explosions to be dangerous and bad things, however, a controlled explosion in an environment of a cylinder and piston, as in a car engine, makes explosions positively beneficial for humankind.

An essential characteristic though is that these faults are inherent in humans and we cannot fix them, but rather, with must work with these flaws as we live in a flawed world.

In the nineteenth century, things began to change – philosophically speaking. G.W.F. Hegel identified “Dialectical Thought” and philosophically “proved” that “The Truth is Relative.” The idea of “The Truth is Relative” set the entire West upon its ear, after centuries of people using the Bible as the “standard” of Truth – and as far as the Bible goes, nothing is relative. God’s word in the Bible is ABSOLUTE TRUTH and it is not negotiable.

But, it is this idea of “relative truth” that Marxism is based upon. Also, Marxism is the belief that MAN is God himself, and therefore man has the power to change the fundamental nature of humans. It does not believe in firm rules about right and wrong – all truths are relative, and man himself gets to decide which truths he may follow. Also, if man is God himself, who puts limits on his behaviour or what he deems possible? After all, he deems himself even so powerful as to defeat the nature of humankind itself and create a Heaven on Earth. Why am I reminded of the arrogance of the Tower of Babel?

The Capitalist system forthrightly acknowledges that man is imperfect and will always BE imperfect. Sin is part of the world, and we have to live with it.

Marxism claims that man is God, and that through evolution and blank-slate hocus pocus, humans themselves can improve upon their nature so much that they can completely rid the world of all evil and create a Heaven on Earth, where we don’t need God’s offered paradise. (Who cares what God promises when WE are God?). Oh, and by the way, I recently read a history book describing the times of Stalin's five year plans - it said that most civil servants were making 4000 rubles a month while the peasants working on the collective farms were making around 150 rubles a month. Human greed and self-centeredness exists in the Marxist/Communist system just as much as it does in the Capitalist system.

Capitalists are like the car engine utilizing dangerous things (explosions) for the greater good. Marxists are people who want to create explosions from water rather than gasoline, not caring that water is not combustible – what does it matter to them? They are God after all, and even physics/nature must bend to their will.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Feminine-ism: The "Nicest" Ideology in the World

“Feminine-ism” is a manifestation of the “feminine spirit” or, the “feminine principle.” Often we refer to “the totalitarianism of women,” and really what it is is the feminine principle which is trying to impose niceness on us. This is the underlying evil of the feminine principle. Women have no concept of cause and effect, but they do want everyone to be nice and they are willing to use totalitarianism to force it upon you.
Look at the Temperence Movement that arose at the exact same time that women’s political power starting coming into our culture. Ah, Prohibition! Some men (and even a few women, gasp!) are lousy with hooch, and some families are negatively affected by it. Therefore the government should pass totalitarian laws forcing everyone to be nice and stop drinking. Of course, this led to the rise of wonderful citizens such as the mass-murdering Al Capone and his mirror image, the thugs with guns that enforced the laws at women’s insistence. But as always, everything women do is indirect so, when their totalitarian actions caused a massive disaster, women easily side-stepped the blame and said, “See! It is the evil men who are the criminals, and it's the violent thugs with guns that leave other men bleeding in the gutters. Oh my, we are such victims now, we can hardly walk the streets! Pass more laws to make everyone nicer!" It's a dangerous spiral that “seems nice” on the surface, but quickly turns into an ugly totalitarian monster where the only “safe” and “nice” thing to do is sit at home and watch the ceiling fan go round and round – until, that is, women start talking about how it would be “nice” for the environment if we only have electricity for 3hrs a day, and so they pester and badger men to impose more laws upon society to make everyone “nice” in that regard too.

There are no limits to how much “niceness” women will impose upon others. They are like a horse that's gotten into the oats, and will keep eating until they bloat up and die. The one thing women have actually invented is a quite remarkable perpetual motion machine that creates laws imposing niceness forever and ever.

Women view us as little boys and they want us to play nice. If we don’t play nice for them, they have lost control… because men don’t play nice at women’s insistence. Men might play nice for their own reasons, but never at a woman’s insistence. Boys succumb to mother's power, but men realize the true nature of women and that the “unfair sex” can’t keep two thoughts straight in their heads past the next glittering trinket that distracts them, completely cleaning their brains of whatever thoughts someone falsely deduced were actually in there to begin with. Women have power over little boys – watch a woman looking over her brood and see how she gets them to “play nice.” She exercises her power over them to impose “nice” on them, and if they aren’t nice… “Wait till your father gets home!” – More indirect social aggression, with the intention of imposing “nice” on people – through the force of others.

The males of Western Culture are suffering from a form of arrested development because of the overwhelming feminization of our society. Women don’t think they should let males grow out of boyhood (where women are in 100% control of them) and into men because women have zero control over a man. And despite their protests to the contrary, they have to change their panties every half hour when in the presence of a man - someone they can’t control because he has risen above her petty bullshit in the same way that an adult rises above the pettiness of a child.

Look at everything that feminine-ism has imposed upon society:

- No more grades in school, because failing is not “nice.”
- No more keeping score in schoolyard soccer games, because losing isn’t “nice.”
- No more boys playing with finger-guns, because that is not “nice.”
- No more women having to raise their bastard spawn alone, because it isn’t “nice” of men to make her pay for her own mistakes.
- No offensive language in the workplace that isn’t “nice.”
- No boss demanding she work a full day for her pay, rather than “flex-timing” at his expense – because it would be “nice” for him to think of the children, rather than keeping his business afloat (and providing jobs for others).
- No men hitting on them that they don’t like, because they don’t find it a “nice” experience.
- Nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice.

"Everything that is not forbidden will be mandatory" -- Big Sister

“Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. … Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as ‘macho,’ a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. … Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women.” -- Fred Reed

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........

Further Reading:

Rites of Passage - Boys to Men

Philalethes #1 – Feminist Allies?

The War Against Men – by David Shackleton


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis 

Sunday, January 15, 2006

MGTOW as a Form of "Cultural Game"

Women aren’t gonna stop eating our lunch because it's “the right thing to do.” They are only gonna stop when we stop them from doing it.

For all those who understand “game,” you certainly must realize that aloof indifference does not stop women – it makes them try to be noticed harder. If you ignore them, they will escalate until you do pay attention to them.

You have to keep in mind with men and women as well, that when a boy sins it is overt. He shouts and screams and kicks and makes a big scene that you cannot miss. And then he stays quiet again for a long, long time, causing no trouble, until the next overt outburst. But women are covert and their outbursts/sins are subtle but last for a much longer period of time. A woman can keep a subtle running battle going for months and even sometimes years at a time, like Chinese water torture.

And, practitioners of game also should know the rule of “it’s my way or the highway, Toots!” and that any man who doesn’t want to be ruined by woman has to learn to say no without bothering to explain, and say it often… no… No… NONO!!!
Merely because I said so.

Just because I want it that way.

Tough. There’s the door.

Well, this is merely game on a cultural level. Women really are powerless without us. That vote they keep yacking about doesn’t mean a thing without men enforcing its power. Everything that permits the “you go grrl” culture is provided to women by the indulgence of men. If men left the building, women’s vote couldn’t enforce a single thing – because their vote and their rights are not based upon “the barrel of a gun,” but rather upon indirect social manipulation of the people holding the gun.

If men leave the building, women will follow.

I think men understanding how women are manipulating us – as put forth by guys like Schopenhauer – will do ten thousand times more for our “movement” than any amount of billions of dollars funnelled to lobby-groups to manipulate the law into something even worse than we have today.

As much as women like to say that men don’t leave them alone, if the men said “fine, see ya” and actually left, the women would follow us to the ends of the earth.

And if they don’t… tough.

It’s such a joke for women to come around here and try to con us into believing how much we want and need them, when almost none of the men here are on their forums seeking them out. They find guys who are busy with other things and completely ignoring them, and try to intrude and take over. This is the entire history of “feminine-ism.

And, herein lies the proof of the big lie, and the big paradox for women. Accusations that men don’t care only work when men do care. In order to get his mind in the right frame where he can attract women, he has to reach the place where he no longer cares if he does or not – and in many cases “not” starts to win.

Further Reading:

Western Culture’s Inability to Pass Feminism’s Shit Tests

MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........

Friday, January 13, 2006

MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way

QUOTE: "MGTOW was never anything but a tool." – Ragnar

Actually there is one aspect of MGTOW that has not been utilized yet.

On a philosophical level, MGTOW is the answer to the Marxist Dialectic. If ever one studies the dialectic and how it is used to manipulate, you will see the one constant recommendation for how to “stop” the dialectic: Step out of it.

That means that on a philosophical level, you must “step out of the cycle” and take a stand. To stop the dialectic you must stop rationalizing to the lowest common denominator, stand up straight and tall, and declare, “THIS is right, and THAT is wrong. I will not budge.”

On philosophical level, MGTOW is the “right way” to fight this.

QUOTE: "…many don’t regard MGTOW as philosophical at all. Long ago Zenpriest/Jadedguy wrote something like that in a discussion at the old board. The opposition then was that we need action now – no philosophy. Futhermore MGTOW has started a life of it’s own and who can speak against that? LOL! Make a stand we should – I absolutely agree." — Ragnar

Yes, the philosophy stuff is not as flash as visions of planting a flag victoriously on Iwo Jima, and thus many men reject philosophy – however, just like the US Air Force doesn’t have much use for $100 million figher jets when your enemy isn’t fighting you in the air but on the street with low tech car bombs, so is this a different kind of warfare and it requires the proper tools to win the struggle.

In order to illustrate why making a stand is so important, one has to understand how the dialectic uses “consensus” to change the views and attitudes of the population. Here is a diagram I have which illustrates the general mechanics of the dialectic and how it can be used to alter the truth, or rather, to create new truths. Keep in mind that an important component of dialectical manipulation is thinking three steps ahead.

“Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion.” — Leon Trotsky

So, dialectical thought manipulates the truth in the same way that a still picture is used, in multiple series, to make a motion-picture. In the same way, the dialectic makes “new truths” by pitting a “thesis” (truth) against an “anti-thesis” (anti-truth) – these two truths argue and argue and argue against eachother until they reach a consensus, or a compromise of the two. This compromise then becomes a synthesis, or a synthetic truth, which then becomes the new “truth,” (now you can repeat the whole process over again with a new argument) and like how still-pictures in a series creates a motion picture, a series of these new “synthesized truths” can lead to a completely altered sense of reality, and adhere to that reality’s “logical” conclusions.

This is why I always yammer on about the value of Absolute Truth.

Absolute Truth does not compromise. It scoffs at “consensus.” It takes a stand – Absolute Truth is a male principle. Relative Truth, while also present in males, is a female principle. This is something illustrated even in the story of the Garden of Eden.

So, think about how the dialectic can work to alter truth and also, destroy things.

Imagine that you believe 1 + 1 = 2 (Thesis), and your opponent’s argument is 1 + 1 = 3 (Anti-thesis). The anti-thesis argument asks you to compromise to reach an agreement, a consensus, a synthesized truth somewhere in between 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3. In this case let’s say we reach consensus half way – so, now we have 1 + 1 = 2.5 (Synthesis/New Truth)

Well, for some things, you cannot compromise. Not one frickin' millimeter.

1 + 1 = 2! No matter what you friggin’ say! No matter how many people in society say it is 2.5, I DON’T GIVE A SHIT, 1 + 1 = 2!

What good does 1 + 1 = 2.5 do for society, or even 1 + 1 = 2.1?
Once an Absolute Truth is identified, one must refuse to compromise it.

Marxism abolishes Absolute Truth. In a Marxist society everything is a Relative Truth. One thing you will hear many people who lived in Communist regimes claim they found to be the worst aspect of it all, were the lies! Everything becomes a lie, and there is no more truth.

Of course, one of the reasons why Communists abolish Christianity is because it competes with them for the allegiance of the masses, but another reason is because the Bible is firmly rooted in Absolute Truth, and it stops the dialectic dead in its tracks. God’s word is Black and White, and it does not compromise. Thus, it is very difficult to manipulate the dialectic when there is a standard of Absolute Truth to compare it to.

I sometimes suspect that this is why so many people in Communist countries were so willing to risk their lives to be Christians, and why when they got their hands on a Bible, they would take it out of its hiding place and go to read it again and again and again… sure, there is the Christianity/religious aspect to it, but also, it might possibly be the first time that person was exposed to Absolute Truth and they became addicted to it.

The Truth, the real truth, is addictive. Think about all of you guys who have been following along in the manosphere over the years… why do you hang around? Why do you keep coming back? I think it is because the manosphere is speaking the Truth and you find it addictive – infuriating for sure – but the Truth is very addictive.

Making a philosophical stand is of the utmost importance in defeating this whole gong-show.

Good thing for men that Absolute Truth is congruent with the Male Principle, as well as the willingness to sometimes stand on your principles, and refuse to compromise your position simply for the sake of going along with the crowd.

Would you rather be “right” according to the crowd, and thus use 1 + 1 = 2.5 in all of your worldly dealings, or would you choose to be willing to Go Your Own Way so you could live in a functional world where 1 + 1 = 2?

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........


Further Reading:

A Leading Philosophy Rather Than a Leader

Western Culture’s Inability to Pass Feminism’s Shit Tests

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Social Strategy: How Men And Women Are After Different Things When They "Debate"

Men and women are after different things when they “debate.”

Men tend to, but not always, hold the truth to be the decider of the debate. (Manginas excepted – thus the name). The man who illustrates the truth the best, is generally considered the winner of a debate. Women, not so much. And don’t forget, women scoff at our “school yard rules.” Nothing seems sillier to a woman than the male “code.” When women fight/argue, there are no rules she adheres to. Women decide who “wins” a debate by who has been the snotty-mouthest and emotionally manipulates the other into submission. There truth matters not a bit to women.

Angry Harry made a really good comparison on his website once:

Men love to watch sports. They will spend hours watching men kick balls, shoot pucks, pot golf balls etc. etc. They will memorize stats, and they will see strategy everywhere in a game of sports. Men positively thrive upon these things.

But women?

Not so much.

However, when women watch Soap Operas, they do the same things as men watching sports – except they do it for social strategy. Women see social strategy everywhere in soaps… how Kathy manipulated her love interest David into lying to his wife Ruth, causing them to have a big argument, driving David right into Kathy’s loving arms… and the affair begins.

Social Strategy.

That's why soap operas are popular with women. It's what Cosmo magazine is chock full of: How to socially manipulate people.

Socially manipulating people is what women do.

In fact, it is one of the only things they do.

I think one of the absolute best things men can do with women is follow the advice of so many of those “misogynists” of old, and view women as children. “A woman is the most responsible teenager in the house.”

Of course, it is not actually that they are children. It is more likely that they do not develop the same sense of principle and justice to navigate the world, because society enables them not to have to. Regardless of whether they are or not, I think in almost every aspect – from game to simple conversations – a man is advantaged by continually reminding himself that “women are teenagers.” They exist somewhere in between child and man.

Schopenhauer’s essay on women is bang-on:

"So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice .” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defense with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women, 1851
It makes perfectly good sense to me why religions such as Christianity try to remove women from philosophizing about their doctrines, or why in Buddhism it is said that women cannot become Buddhas. It also makes perfectly good sense why men of the past used to often have “men only” spaces where women were forbidden.

When discussing matters, men and women are not even after the same things.

Because women are based in relative truth, it doesn’t matter how often you pin them down, as soon as you do they create a new truth in their minds and just carry on – because her goal is not to find the Truth at all, but that is what the man she is arguing with is after and he thinks she is after Truth too.

Truth, as well as morals, are only important to women when it suits them. The instant the Truth conflicts with their agenda, they have no problems at all changing it and carrying on – because what they are really after is manipulating you. The most manipulative is “the winner.” The one who manipulates the most crapola upon the other is the one who walks away being “right.”

Truth matters not a bit in deciding who was “right.”

You can catch a woman dead to rights in a lie, like a child with cookie crumbs still stuck on the corner of her lips insisting she wasn’t in the cookie jar – it simply does not matter to them. They just create a new truth in their heads and carrying on as if nothing matters.

And, there’s really no point in trying to “convert” them. It matters not a bit to convert such a creature anymore than it does any good to convince three year olds that the Tea Party campaign is the right one.

Even the women that have been “converted” are simply incapable of rising above these things, and as soon as circumstances change, making her previous stance unsuitable for her, she rearranges the truth and carries on as if she has no clue to what you are talking about – nor can you hold her to what she said yesterday. So, what’s the point?

There was a very well-known Meritorious Mediocrus in the MRM a few years back. She had everyone bamboozled that she was “not like that.” She spoke and blogged and moralized and agreed and agreed and agreed… and all the men were happier than pigs in shit that there was, finally, such a good example of woman… they didn’t have to take women off the pedestal – not all of them, anyway.

However, suddenly a lot of shit hit the fan. (I don’t know the details, just bits and pieces which are not important). She got herself onto the divorce-conveyer belt.

“Shared- Parenting? Huh? What you talkin’ about, Willis? Unreasonable child support? But I neeeeeeeeed it!”

Yeah, uh huh. What a waste of time and effort for all the men who wound up pedestalizing her. She was no different than the rest, and her “principles” were subject to change simply upon the convenience of where she is in life.

Over the years, I suspect you might see the same thing from someone like Alte, too. She's not that old – around 30, I think. She has admitted to us that before her husband, she used to be a “man-killer” who brought emotional harm to her previous boyfriends for no real reason or purpose… and now suddenly, she has found God and submission to Him and her husband is what it's all about… until the divorce, then it becomes perfectly possible for women to move on into a new fantasy life, and forget all about the morals she had in the previous years, and she morphs into something completely new again.

Even in relationships with men, women are completely malleable. The girl you dated at 21 who screwed you over and 23, is not even the same person when you speak to her again at 28. This is because women are “empty vessels” who seek men to fill the void. Each time a woman gets together with a new man, it is based upon hypergamy – he becomes her new hero, and thus she completely adapts her morals and character to be his view of the ideal woman. When she grabs hold of the next branch, erm, man, all of her morals and character again change to adapt to be the new man’s ideal woman. When you look at it that way, how can one ever then assess a woman’s “true character?” It doesn’t exist.

There is no point in arguing with them, and there is no point in having their input into Men's Issues.It is best for men simply to take a position and staunchly never budge. Do not bother explaining yourself to women; it is futile. Either they find your logic to be sound and they will conform themselves around you, or there is no further hope in converting her to your way of thinking. A man has to come from the attitude of "it's my way or the highway." A woman - or especially her friends - may call this asshole behaviour, simply because you are not willing to grovel like a servile worm for her approval. But deep down every woman loves this about a man. There is a difference between being an asshole and being confident and assertive.

We have entirely different strategies and entirely different views of reality. It’s best to just chase them off so the men can get back to business.

Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?

Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships. – a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989

Off to the koffee-klatch with you and the other clucking hens!


Further Reading:

Bonecrcker #51 - Don't Argue With Women 

Philalethes #3 - The Anti-Logic of Women

The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel – Dec, 26, 1868

Tom Pry's Wife -- by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834)

Point, Counterpoint – Rollo Tomassi

…. \_/...........