You are on page 1of 262

The Philosophy of Men Going Their Own Way

Chapter One: Introduction to 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 Pooktells 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. PRIME STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS 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. MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY 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. IF ITS NOT RIGHT, GO YOUR OWN WAY! 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

A Leading Philosophy Rather Than A Leader

Lots of men are waiting around anxiously for some great leader to arise and lead others in their fight for rights. And, lots of men have now waited for decades for "Spartacus" to appear. But he never will. There are a variety of reasons for this, of which I will not go into great detail here, but let's just say that there are aspects of the male psyche which make such a scenario highly unlikely. A philosophy, however, with contributors to it men could follow that! A philosophy based upon Truth (with a capital T) could be a unifier. All people like to adhere to Truth. And between Christians and non-Christians, there is no conflict in seeking truth. Seculars value Truth. And, in the Bible, whenever God refers to himself it is usually in a riddle: - I am who I am - I am the beginning and the end/the Alpha and the Omega - I am THE TRUTH! Every riddle God gives in the Bible to his identity is also synonymous with Absolute Truth. God is Absolute Truth. Absolute Truth existed before we were here, and it will exist after we are gone. The Absolute Truth just is It is what it is (I am who I am) the Absolute Truth doesnt need to explain nor justify it just IS. The Absolute Truth exists on a different plane than we do whether we figure out the true nature of Absolute Truth or not, does not in anyway refute the existence of said Truth.

If there is one principle to unify us, it must be Absolute Truth. It is something both seculars and Christians can agree are of the utmost importance in seeking. A unifying principle, based upon seeking Truth. The idea of a leading philosophy rather than a human-leader has enormous advantages. One must keep in mind the two pictures (small and big) of everyday life (fighting for our immediate rights and quality of life) vs. the philosophy of life/guiding principles upon which the justification for our demands lie.

You cant really have one without the other. Thats why we have to go back to guiding principles. I like the pyramid of Truth idea of John Locke/Founding Fathers: 1 Gods Law/Absolute Truth 2 Natural Law/Apparent/Objective Truth 3 Civil Law/Relative/Subjective Truth It works like one of those Russian dolls, where the one fits inside of the other, in order to contain the wild malleability of the human mind (we can justify anything if we really want to, ie. Relative Truth Jail is full of innocent people). If a Civil Law/Relative Truth contradicts a Natural Law/Apparent Truth, then the Civil Law/Relative Truth is a false one, and so forth. In this way, the lower truths are contained by the higher truths, and thus we are provided with a philosophical framework that anchors us to reality. Now, some things that were true yesterday are no longer true today. Changes to medicine and technology can indeed change what is True. (200 years ago, I would have said it is absolutely true that man does not have the ability to fly, let alone propel himself faster than the speed of sound but today, the Truth is different the Truth evolved). Also, sometimes things we assumed were true (earth is flat) are also illustrated to have been false. We need something higher than apparent truth. Absolute Truth is purity. It controls all other truths. It is without fault. It is never wrong. It is enduring, it never changes. It couldnt give a rip if we understand it or not. It is eternal, and it exists on an entirely different plane than us, and often, our understanding. That we thought the earth was flat had no affect on the physics that ruled the earth and the solar system. On that level, our understanding is irrelevant. Absolute Truth trumps all, no matter what we conjure up in our brains. I think after a while of studying this whole malaise we are in, eventually one gets exposed to the changing philosophies of mankind such as how a change of thinking about fraternity and equality arose out of the French Revolution and this led to a philosophical change in the way society in general viewed reality. It is often pointed out that this philosophical change is what led to the birth of Marxism and feminism (Relative Truth Uber Alles). Therefore, if one stands back and looks at the big picture, I think that there has to be an underlying philosophy that has to win out over the other. We need a new philosophy. We need a new change in philosophical thought. A new Age of Reason; a new Renaissance of Thought; we need to philosophically defeat the ideology that has gripped our society to our detriment. And dammit, why the hell shouldnt it be us that creates/sparks it? I am pleased to see more and more men starting to put the pieces together and understand how civilization works as a machine, that there is cause and effect; that certain things need to be in place in order for other things to occur. I think many men are beginning to understand that there are some unpleasant truths (and pretty lies), but the unpleasant truth rules over the pretty lies. This in itself is a turn back to the Absolute Truth. Lying/Ideology doesnt change the way the world actually is. When confronted with a higher truth, lower truths must be adjusted to accommodate it. A way to think of building a philosophy is to think of something like the Martial Arts. There really isnt a leader, but there is a right way and a wrong way, even though sometimes there are variations upon the right way. And, Martial Arts acknowledges certain Truths (both physical and philosophical), and puts them together into a discipline, or a framework, that over-all creates something very powerful and useful. We should forget about a leader and rather look for leading principles, of which it is of the utmost importance that Absolute Truth be the base of it all. Our ultimate goal should be to seek Absolute Truth, for it trumps all else. (Even ***gasp*** equality is trumped!)

Once we have philosophical principles, then we can build. I like building shit, dont you? We should build ourselves a philosophical ladder, so men can get themselves out of this sewer. Just like we understand how marriage puts sex to work by harnessing the sex drive of men and attaching itto children through women, if we look at the mechanics of these things and understand the truths of them, we can identify the base elements of what keeps that machine running and cut off the unnecessary riff-raff. We have to have philosophical principles underlying us, otherwise right and wrong will be forever malleable and that is just continuing to live in the sewer of Feminism and Marxism. No thanks! Many things can be integrated into such a philosophical machine. For example: Many things in the Bible can be shown to have a mechanical purpose like how its laws and morals have resulted in a civilization creator by the way it structures society. These are truths that exist both within, and outside of the religion itself. There is quite an easy over-lap here. But also, I suspect that Buddhist thought might also be able to integrate in, for it also seeks Truth, and just as how we can recognize the Christian Model for creating civilization, I believe there are certain Truths that can be illustrated through Buddhisms disciplines of utilizing ones mind through meditation and so on to find peace. I think there are mechanical Truths, aside from the religious aspect, which helps Buddhists find peace with themselves in the same way that I believe there are mechanical Truths to the power of prayer, to the power of mentally acknowledging the limit of being able to control everything about you, and submitting to a higherpower so you dont go cuckoo. In no way does acknowledging these mecahnical truths discredit the idea of God, but it doesnt demandyou believe in God either. And, it also allows that both Buddhists and Biblical Wisdom tap into the Absolute Mechanical Truths that make up the Universe. In this way, the Truth has not been compromised, nor the religious beliefs of Buddhists, Christians, Seculars, or even Hoobie Joobie-ists such as myself. Christians, Buddhists and Seculars can all three hold black-belts in the same martial art without compromising their religious beliefs, cant they? Anyway, this line of thought comes because Ive been dialing it back, and dialing it back aaaaaand dialing it back to see at what point there is a common-denominator where all of us can co-operate together on something.

When I realized that even as internet writers who use word as weapons, we cannot even convince 15 or 30 writers to make an agreement to start introducing simple words and phrases within their articles, so that over time we may start to manipulate the English language to our advantage in the same way that others have done in the recent past (like when the name of husband or wife was changed to the uni-sexual "partner" to allow for the integration of the gay marriage debate into society) Lol! Well, that is something pretty simple, I think. But it is just not achievable in that way. So, until such a simple thing can be accomplished, all construction on the Tower of Babel should cease and desist! This is why I keep thinking that perhaps the only thing we can truly build is a philosophy to pass on to other men and since men wont co-operate on a damn thing, any philosophy has to start on a personal basis. It has to serve the individual on a personal level first. It can build itself further from there if it so chooses, I dont know. But I have come to the conclusion that the only thing we can build is a philosophy to help ourselves first to navigate this world. For example There is a maxim that seems to run all the way from the personal/micro-level, right to the macro-level, which is that promiscuity leads to clashing with the law. The more sexually loose you are, directly increases the amount of exposure to the steel fist of the law. I wish I had kept it, but I once seen a comparison between sexual freedom vs. all other freedom. And it is quite amazing. If one practices sexual restraint, hosts of other freedoms become possible. However, the more sexual, the more laws are needed to keep things going. Highly sexual people vastly expose themselves to risks of totalitarianism, and all the way to the top, a highly sexual society necessarily becomes totalitarian to survive.(Divorce Laws, Child-support, Welfare, etc.) However, if you limit your exposure to these dangers, even on a personal level, our society still provides a pretty good and free place to live in. Government cant come after you for child support if you have no kids. (Sex). And on it goes Alimony, TRO bullshit, DV Charges, VAWA/IMBRA on and on it goes but the one thing that is a constant they all ultimately derive from sex. Limit your exposure, and all of those things are not really much of a problem for you.

It seems like a truism to me a principle. And that doesnt mean a philosophy based upon that truism has to demand 100% sexual restraint but it could demand that one acknowledges the truth of it, and therefore is not blind to it, and thus becomes responsible for his own actions. (Which is surviving in this world, rather than just being tossed about by it).

Anyway, I suspect that this is the only thing we will truly be able to build. Philosophies to help guide men through life with truisms such as these, but they have to start on the personal level first to provide that benefit to each man directly at the outset. Maybe after that, the collective consciousness of like-minded men will slowly retake the culture. MGTOW Taking the Personal Out of The Political

On Generalizations

I sometimes wonder where the argument you cant generalize comes from. Isnt this the most idiotic idea in the world? And it escapes from peoples lips without even a thought of what they are doing or saying. Of course you can generalize. In fact, you must generalize. To fail to generalize is to demand that all things must only be regarded in terms of the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator doesnt particularly lead to the highest pinnacles we can achieve, does it? The you cant generalize zealots dont seem to have really thought things through very well. They are thinking one-dimensionally. A more complex, and more proper way of thinking is that there are individual groups and there are individuals within those groups. For example, saying something like women have larger breasts than men is a sweeping generalization. But, it is a true one even thoughsome women have smaller breasts than some men. In the collective group of women there will be some individual women who have small breasts, while in the collective group of men there will besome porky men sporting a set of man-boobs. But only an idiot would try to cherry pick a flat chested woman and stand her next to a

man-boobed male and claim that this is in any way a reflection of human intellectualism, therefore, we should not say that women have larger breasts than men anymore. It is lunacy! The only thing we might be able to learn then is that both men and women have nipples. Wo w! Stop everything right there! The Tower of Babel is already reaching into the heavens! What more could we possibly learn? Generalizations are absolutely necessary in order to learn anything. Of course, what one cannot do is take one individual and generalize that the entire group resembles that individual. Take Marc Lepine, for example. Feminists have been screeching for over two decades now that Marc Lepine is proof of the murderous hatred menharbour for women. Now that is pure lunacy. The actions of one manis in no way a reflection of the mentality of the 15,000,000 other men who live in Canada. That is a wrong generalization. But, to say that men are taller or heavier than women? Yes, this is a proper generalization, because the majority of men are taller and heavier than the majority of women even though in some individual cases, you will be able to see a taller or heavier woman than a man. We generalize that birds fly. But oh my gosh! You cant generalize like that! Dont you know that Emus, Ostriches, Kiwis and Penguins dont fly? This is such a lame argument, and it ought to be obvious even to the simplest of simpletons that any biologist worth his salt must necessarily generalize that birds fly. Look up, grasshopper not down! Many of the arguments that get put forward in regard to sensitive issues (like the War of the Sexes) automatically get dismissed with the intellectually retarded retort, you cant generalize like that. Nonsense. In fact, no-one is going to figure out one damn thing about anything if they fail to generalize. Ignoring the similar actions/traits/situations in 80% of the cases because 20% of the cases do not coincide well how is that gonna make you smarter? Huh? The thing to keep in mind is that there are individual groups (ie. men and women), and there are individuals within those groups. The way to learn something is to recognize that the trait of the group follows in this direction, even though there are individual exceptions which follow that direction. Its time to stop looking for the lowest common denominator. Tell people who use the generalizing argument to shut the hell up. In general, those people dont have two brain cells to rub together and arent worth listening to anyways. There are individual groups, and there are individuals within those groups. Previous Index Next

If its not right,Go Your Own Way!

.................... ..oooO...........

..(....)........... .\..(............ . \_/........... ....Oooo.. ....(....) ..)../.... ..........(_/...... ....................

"Meanwhile, as long as there's one honest woman living at the temple atop Mount NAWALT in Tibet..." -- White Knight

Mathieu of Boulogne (1295) on NAWALT From The Lamentations of Matheolus Yet one might disagree with me, criticize my conclusion. and, putting forward the opposite point of view, suggest that my words are completely untrue. For, if some women are evil and perverse and abnormal, it does not necessarily follow that all of them are so cruel and wicked; nor should all of them be lumped together in this general reproach. A speech is badly composed if one's general conclusion is only partly valid. Logic hates this type of argumentation. Nevertheless, this present work, which expresses the pain in my heart, wishes me to exclude nothing, but commands me to push my argument to its logical, if extreme, conclusion, which is that no good woman exists. Solomon, in his works, makes an amazing comment, which supports my case, for he exclaims, "Who could find a virtuous woman?" The implication here is, of course, that this would be impossible. Since he says this, who am I to disagree? Why should I be shocked? What's more, he says that a base and broken man is worth more than a woman when she's doing good. Thus there is no woman worth anything at all; I don't need to look for further proof. That's enough logical demonstration. My exposition is clearly valid, for woman has - and there is ample evidence of this - deceived all the greatest men in the world; I shall be basing myself on rational argument. If the greatest are deceived, then the lesser naturally fall. In the street where I live they say that what applies to the greatest amongst us applies even more to lesser mortals. Who were the greatest lords? Who has ever heard of greater men than Solomon or Aristotle? Yet good sense, riches and reason were not worth a dung-beetle to them; all were made to look as if they had gone out of fashion; these men were both outmanoeuvred by women, deceived, vanquished, and tamed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Belfort Bax on NAWALT It seems not much has changed in a century, but this is a beautiful reply (Notice how he only responds to male feminists? Lol!): The Fraud of Feminism - Belfort Bax, 1913 pp24-26 At the time of writing, the normal person who has no axe to grind in maintaining the contrary, declares the sun to be shining brightly, but should it answer the purpose of anyone to deny this obvious fact, and declare that the day is gloomy and overcast, there is no power of argument by which I can prove that I am right and he is wrong. I may point to the sun, but if he chooses to affirm that he doesn't see it I can't prove that he does. This is, of course, an extreme case, scarcely likely to occur in actual life. But it is in essence similar to those cases of persons (and they are not seldom met with) who, when they find facts hopelessly destructive of a certain theoretical position adopted by them, do not hesitate to cut the knot of controversy in their own favour by boldly denying the inconvenient facts. One often has experience of this trick of controversy in discussing the question of the notorious characteristics of the female sex. The Feminist driven into a corner endeavours to save his face by flatly denying matters open to common observation and admitted as obvious by all who are not Feminists. Such facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar to the female sex, commonly connoted by the term hysteria; the absence, or at best the extremely imperfect development of the logical faculty in most women; the inability of the average woman in her judgment of things to rise above personal considerations; and, what is largely a consequence of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and fair play among women in general. The afore said peculiarities of women, as women, are, I contend, matters of common observation and are only dis-puted by those persons--to wit Feminists--to whose theoretical views and practical demands their admission would be inconvenient if not fatal. Of course these characterisations refer to averages, and they do not exclude partial or even occasionally striking exceptions. It is possible, therefore, although perhaps not very probable, that indi-vidual experience may in the case of certain individuals play a part in falsifying their general outlook; it is possible--although, as I before said not perhaps very probable--that any given man's experience of the other sex has been limited to a few quite exceptional women and that hence his particular experience contradicts that of the general run of mankind. In this case, of course, his refusal to admit what to others are self-evident facts would be perfectly bona fide. The above highly improbable contingency is the only refuge for those who would contend for sincerity in the Feminist's denials. In this matter I only deal with the male Feminist. The female Feminist is usually too biassed a witness in this particular question.

For a man to pretend to understand women is bad manners; for him really to understand them is bad morals. Henry James Many people who read the following pages within The Philosophy of Men Going Their Own

Way will reflexively be uncomfortable with what they find. "Why, it's misogynist! The author must be living in his parents' basement and has probably never been laid in his life! He must have a small penis! He must be a dead-beat dad! He's just bitter! He certainly doesn't understand women very much!" Well, no, no, no, no, no and no. I live in a nice little one bedroom condo. I have slept with the mid-double digits of women and even lived with a few of them, so while I am no stud, I am no virgin either. My penis is average sized. I have luckily never been married and I have no children. The only thing I am bitter about is how the Truth has been hidden and manipulated to bring harm to men, women and children, and I understand women and sexuality well enough to have compiled this "book," rather than just fling about emotionally charged insults. I started studying this subject back in 2004 and when I was diagnosed with cancer in 2005, I found myself with free time on my hands while I was going through treatments. I decided that I could either watch TV, or I could put the time to use and learn something instead. At that point I started reading and researching in earnest, often spending eight to ten hours a day on it. Originally, my doctors figured it would take around six to eight months to get through the chemo and to the other side... but it took much longer. Three and a half years, to be exact. So I got much deeper into this than I had originally intended, and afterwards, well, I just kept at it. It had become a habit, I suppose. Or perhaps it is better described as being unable to look away from a horrific train wreck. I am now about nine years into my studies on this subject. It takes a man a lifetime to find out about one particular woman; but if he puts in, say ten years, industrious and curious, he can acquire the general rudiments of the sex. O. Henry, Heart of the West (1907) There's a difference between how a married man knows women and how a bachelor comes to know them. The married man, through the course of spending his life with the same woman, will naturally come to know her individual quirks and personality flaws. We all have them, and so does his wife. The married man therefore believes that Not All Women Are Like That. The bachelor starts out from the same place as the married man. He falls in love with a woman, discovers her quirks and flaws, and as the relationship spirals out of control he thinks to himself, "I must have just been unlucky and ended up with a faulty one." And so off he goes and finds another, thinking that she will be different. When the second love ends the same way as the first, he starts to doubt himself. Maybe he is the problem. After all, he is the constant factor in this equation. And so, off he goes through life until he loves yet another, and this time he focuses on changing his behaviour. Then he loves another, and another, and still, they all end up being remarkably similar experiences - often even down to the very words she says when in the same situation. Finally, he comes to the amazing conclusion that yes, something is wrong with them! All of them! And thus, with enough notes to compare from various women he has known intimately, a pattern begins to emerge, and once he begins to identify it and map it out, he starts to see it everywhere. Further, as he ages and his old friends disappear into the void of marriage, he begins to hang out with more and more bachelors, and as they compare stories, he discovers that they have had similar experiences as him throughout their lifetime too, which begins to solidify his conclusions.

Marriage hides the nature of women while bachelorhood exposes it as life goes on. I've read before that if a man reaches the age of 38 without having married, the likelihood of him ever marrying is negligible. This is why. He's figured out "the game" in ways that not even men who have been married multiple times ever will, and he knows it is all an illusion one that does not operate in his best interests. Marriage hides the true nature of women as a sex from men, while bachelorhood exposes it. The feminists have indeed destroyed "The Feminine Mystique" in their bid to free women from men by destroying marriage. The more men that remain bachelors, the more that women will fall from the pedestal they have traditionally been placed upon by men. It is not hatred to recognize the true nature of woman any more than recognizing grizzly bears are carnivores instead of herbivores means that I hate grizzly bears. It merely means that I recognize the Truth and will act accordingly.

Misogyny versus Misandry

Much of feminist theory is based on the belief that misogyny is inherent in men, and thus the dreaded Patriarchy is a natural extension of this inbuilt negative attitude towards women which men possess. But ask yourself, is this really true? Is it true that men are naturallymisogynistic towards women? Is it true that most of the men you meet think negatively of women? Is it true that when in the locker-room the men conspire to hold women down? Is it true that businessmen would secretly conspire to throw away their profits by paying men 30% more wages than women, simply to keep women from reaching their true potential? Is it true that 1 in 4 women will really be raped in university, and by extension that therefore 1 in 4 men are rapists? Do you really believe that 25% of the men you know are secretly raping women?Really? None of this rings true for me. In fact, what I see are enormous amounts of men tripping over themselves to praise women. I see men worshiping women as some sort of goddesses. I see men apologizing for the most nonsensical and trivial things simply out of fear of offending women. I see our world leaders praising women while shaming men in order to win votes. I see men trying to one up other men, proving to women that not a smidgeon of misogyny exists in their souls. I see men constantly believing that it is other men who are treating women badly, but certainly not his enlightened, sensitive and equitable self. And those other men? Well, they also believe they are more enlightened than the rest of those misogynist men out there! A few years back, Dr. Helen did a couple of interviews with Richard Driscoll, author of You Still Don't Understand. During the interviews, Dr. Driscoll cited a survey which illustrated that 14% of men were resentful or were almost always resentful of women. However, the same survey also illustrated that 34% of women surveyed were resentful or were almost always resentful of men. That is nearly two and a half times more women that are resentful towards men than is conversely true of men being resentful towards women. Misogyny, as men are routinely accused of, simply is not as rampant as society claims. In fact, the hatred of men is far more prevalent than the hatred of women. "Misandry" still gets underlined by my spell-checker because it is a concept that hardly exists, even though the evidence of it is all around us - if we only cared to look.

It is not in men's nature to be harmful towards females. Just the opposite. Men work like slaves to provide for them and often will even sacrifice their lives for women. Does that seem consistent with some inherent misogyny found within males to you? "In fact, everywhere in nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female. This goes down to the level of
plants which 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."

One of the most significant things I learned in studying this subject was about All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom. For example, there are certain species of lizards where there are females, but they have somewhere in the past stopped producing males (or have never produced males to begin with). Females "are" the species (in all living things) because they are the ones who control reproduction. If there is only one sex, it must be female or the species will die out. Further, the reason why a species either creates or stops creating males, is in relation to what the females want. They create males to do things they cannot do, or are unwilling to do, themselves. In other words, on a very basic level in nature, the entire purpose of the male is to serve "the species," which is by default female. And this goes even deeper yet, down to our genetic and evolutionary level. These all-female populations can only exist and thrive in ecological niches. As soon as they have to compete with a species that has both males and females, they get over-run and die out because they have little ability to adapt. It is the male that mostly evolves the species, becausethe male has far more variability. What happens is that mutations in the species mostly happen to the males, and when a positive mutation happens, the female breeds with him and "saves" the mutation in her genetics which get further passed on through the species. Thus the male "evolves" and the female "saves" the evolution. So even on that level, you can see that the male serves the female. What is really amazing is how this exists in every living thing on earth, and a biologist will confirm it is so except that the same biologist will deny it exists in humans as he or she reflexively believes that men hold all the power in humans, rather than women. Although, in their defense, it is somewhat true, because while we are of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. We are humans and we have the ability to live at a higher level than animals. What we did somewhere in the past was we re-ordered this, the only creatures on earth to have

done so, and we rose up from being beasts in the field. But even so, on a very deep level of our existence, males are still serving the needs of the females. The question becomes (or was in the past), are we going to serve women as animals, including all of the harshness that comes with that brutal world, or will we do it as humans, and enjoy all the benefits that civilization bestows upon us? .

Misogyny in Religion, Myth and History


A few months before I started up this blog back in 2006, I had pretty much walked away from the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) because I couldn't see anything they were saying that made sense. All they wanted was "equality" (which is not achievable) and they had dozens of little robots running around making sure that no-one generalized and most of all, making sure that no-one expressed even the slightest 'misogynist' thoughts. It was as braindead an experience as living your life in a kindergarten class. They certainly weren't seeking the Truth. So I left them to their political correctness and Went My Own Way. . Soon after, I found myself reading a website about the legend of Atlantis. This was not a weird way out there site, but rather it argued that Atlantis and the Garden of Eden were one in the same. In fact, it argued that all religious paradises and many of our ancient myths & legends were essentially about the same story: that all of our human ancestors had experienced a global, cataclysmic flood at the end of the Pleistocene, some 11,600 years ago, and all of our religions and mythical stories about paradise lost and a flood (or rising waters) are a "twinkling remembrance" of what happened to the humans who lived through that time. Thus, it explored quite a bit of the similarities between various religions and beliefs that existed around the globe. It was one of those experiences that just "clicked" in my mind, and I began to see things in different ways after reading it. For example, I started thinking, "If I were the last adult alive amongst 100 children and given the responsibility of passing on 'what I know today' to them, while recognizing the human trait of wishing away inconvenient Truths, how would I go about this so it would last for them centuries into the future? Well, I would write it down in an unchangeable religion."

Shortly after, I watched a video of a university lecture which had a fellow who had studied the ancient Hebrew language and texts, and as he was interpreting parts of them, he noted the misogyny that was found in them - and in fact, was embarrassed by it enough to offer an apology to those in the lecture hall. (See? If misogyny was innate to men, they wouldn't automatically apologize for that which someone elsehad said. They would just shrug it off and not care). Some of the things he pointed out were that Sodom and Gomorrah, the two most wicked cities in the Bible, are the only two cities in the entire region that are referred to in Hebrew as feminine. (As in, how French has masculine and feminine). He further mentioned that the most evil of demons were always portrayed as female. Also, there is the story of Adam's first wife, Lillith. There are two accounts of how humankind was created. In the first, man and woman were created at the same time, while in the second, Adam was created first, with Eve being created later. In the Hebrew texts, Adam and Lillith were equals, and as such she often challenged Adam's authority and always rebelled against him. She would even complain to him, during sex, that she had to lie beneath him, which she didn't think fair because they were equals. Eventually, Lillith left Adam, but from her sexual union with him she spawned many demons which went forth to plague mankind. When we get to the second story, that of Adam and Eve in the Garden, Eve was created after Adam -

from his rib - and when God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden, he told her when he cursed her that her desire will be for her husband, and he will rule over her, thus completely the opposite of the equality that Adam and Lillith had shared. These things were, of course, all very interesting. But what I found the most striking out of the entire lecture were the professor's profuse apologies for "misogyny." It made me step back and ask, "But why is that 'misogyny' in there? Doesn't anyone ever ask that question?" And, apparently, no-one does. We just continue writing it off to men's innate, evil, misogynist nature - even though, as I pointed out earlier, if we opened our eyes and actually looked at the world around us, we would see that men are far more prone to practice irrational and blind love of women than misogyny. And, just as the men of the modern day always think it is the other men who harbour misogynistic attitudes towards women, we also believe that our modern enlightened selves are better than those othermisogynistic men who existed in the past. But, what do you do when Greece and then Rome arise as two of the premier civilizations in human history? And yes, you can point out their "misogyny," but you can't deny their excellence. It is said that when Alexander the Great was handing King Darius III of Persia his ass on a silver platter, Darius lamented, "My men have become women and my women have become men." (In other words, they embraced androgyny - and this is true, if you examine how their customs changed over time). And look at what comes from Rome, but the same warningwe find about Adam and Lillith's equality:
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor (There's a story similar to modern "slut-walks" found in

that link, by the way.) . I have also read of the effects of hypergamy and Briffault's Law in Rome, as it related to a woman's dowry and how it changed over the course of history in relation to divorce laws. At first, when a divorce occurred, the husband would keep the dowry, and divorce was low. Then the laws changed and after divorce, the dowry would return to the wife's father, and divorce rose. Finally, after divorce, the wife kept possession of the dowry herself, and from there, we find that in Rome they said "women marry intending to divorce, and divorce intending to remarry." (Sound familiar? Ever heard of starter marriages?). Thus, they had to pass draconian laws trying to force men to take them on as wives, because the men wanted nothing to do with them, and their birthrates declined to a point where it was a jeopardy to the state. We find the same tale in Aristotle's Spartan Women, except in Sparta they further undermined hypergamy and Briffault's Law through their inheritance laws:
"And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below

1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin." .

We see the same thing, over and over again. In fact, written some eight decades ago, Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin, chronicled the rise and fall of over 80 cultures and in each case he found that "misogyny" was present at the beginning and during the rise of the culture, while equality and the feminine principle dominated the decline and the eventual collapse.

I believe that one of the reasons we only find this sort of "misogyny" in religion and myth is because, first of all, books like the Bible are unchangeable because they are based in Absolute Truth. They are further found in myths and legendsbecause men, somewhere in the past, must have figured out that women will never allow the Truth about them to be openly discussed, so they passed it on in different ways - through the "twinkling remembrance" of our ancestors.

Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there's worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness. John Seldon (1584-1654)

After all, when looking at the concept of All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom, which we discussed further up, can't you see its relationship to the legend of the Amazonian Women? "There has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth." -- Spinoza And can you see it further in some of our great feminist "thinkers?" "If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001 "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future - If There Is One - Is Female What happens throughout history is that women censor all of the negative observations about them into oblivion, and men, in their desire to serve and please them, will enable them - much like how companies like Symantec, the producer of Norton AntiVirus (who produce terrible products anyways), will try to label any website speaking of these issues as a "hate" site. The only way to get things "through" and passed the burning desire of the male to please the female, is to enshrine it in something absolute like the Bible, or hide it in myth or legend.

Is the Truth Misogynist?

The term "misogynist" is one that indicates emotion. It means a hatred or dislike of women. The academtards with subversive social agendas have been trying to rejig the English language by insinuating that misogyny means someone who doesn't believe in equality, or voting rights, or whatever other feminist jargon they tack onto it - basically insinuating that anyone who doesn't support their political and social agenda is misogynist. But this is nonsense. Just because someone doesn't believe children should have equal say as their parents does not mean they hate children. The "misogynists" of old, such as Otto Weininger or Arthur Schopenhauer or Aristotle or the Bible don't hate women. They disagree with the feminist agenda, for sure, but there is no "hatred" in what they say. They are merely trying to reveal the Truth. The Truth has no feelings. It does not feel love or hatred. The Truth has no agenda - unlike the multi-billion dollar feminist industry. The Truth does not assign blame, nor does it concern itself with hurt feelings. The Truth just is. Often in the following pages you will see me refer to a "hierarchy" that goes like this: God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children. This "hierarchy" exists on many levels and does not indicate any particular superiority, although those who believe in the religion of equality are instantly incensed by it. It also works backwards in much the same way that it works forward. For example, children are considered more valuable than adults, and women are considered more valuable than men. Further, children are at war with their parents, but parents are not at war with their children. Women are at war with men, but men are not at war with women. Men are at war with God/Truth, but God/Truth is not at war with men. And it descends from here as well. Only when man is in proper relation to the Truth, can he expect woman to be in proper relation to him. This is something hard-wired into our biology and it has been with us from the beginning. Our civilization is a "machine" that harnesses our sex drives and life forces for the good of us all. I don't really believe that men are any more superior than women, but I don't believe we are "equal" in all things either. I believe we both have strengths and weaknesses. I believe that men and women possess different kinds of power. I believe that men make very poor women and women make very poor men. I think androgyny is the most destructive notion we've ever unleashed on our great civilization, and I don't support the feminist movement's agenda to further destroy us by brainwashing more of this androgyny into society. If that makes me a misogynist, so be it. I feel no shame. If the Truth is misogynist by modern definition, then I stand with the Truth proudly.
. Previous Index Next

If its not right, Go Your Own Way!

.................... ..oooO........... ..(....)........... .\..(............ . \_/........... ....Oooo.. ....(....) ..)../.... ..........(_/...... ....................
. Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been mens work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the barricades between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be happy when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be free she shouldnt object to men being free too, should she?) I hope they will feel fulfilled when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subways buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks. ~ Taylor Caldwell, 1970

Guide to Birdwatching in the Manosphere

Many men love to stroll through the lush forests of the Manosphere, as there is much to see and behold. One can find all sorts of things, from young saplings yearning to reach the open sky, to mighty sequoias offering a sense of security in their strength, along with respite from the outer heat within the ambiance of their shade. .

. As one walks through this unique atmosphere, it is quite common to hear the chirping of several different types of birds. The birds are part of the forest and therefore I would like to provide the following Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere. . One might spot an Elusive Wife perched on a branch overhanging your path. You veterans know her well. She is the one who has the perfect life; her marriage is free from strife, her children are raised the perfect way, and youll see her in church twice on Sunday. She will pleasure her husband anytime he desires, sex in their marriage is still burning fires. Her home cuisine is delicious, she insists he will say, and to top it all off, from this path shell never foray. .

. The Elusive Wife is most often a traditional stay-at-home mom who believes in the message of the MRM. Shes the one who never lets any man forget that "he should keep on looking because there are still good women out there!" Her song goes something like this: "Look at me! Look at me! This is how it can be! Look at me!"

The Elusive Wife appears to support men's issues, but really, those more jaded and experienced within "The Movement" will recognize that the Elusive Wife is concerned about men mainly because she is scared shitless of men waking up to the scam. She wants men to return to their masculine role of pandering to women's every whim, slaving away like a mindless drone for her and her children. It is noteworthy that the Elusive Wife's husband never comes online, gushing about his wonderful life with his wonderful wife. Nope, only she speaks of how blissfully contented her husband is with her. He smartly (or cowardly) remains silent. . The Elusive Wife says she is interested in men's issues, but what she really wants is to ensure that men keep serving women. She does this because, deep down, she knows she would be screwed if it were any other way. She knows she is a preferred human and wants desperately to maintain that concept. She has a manipulated man-slave at her finger tips and she damn well knows what a good con-game women have been running for thousands of years. . Another species which may appear is from the genus Mountainous Mammarious. You can tell a Mountainous Mammarious is in your neck of the woods because of her distinctive call, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!" .

. She too fully believes in men's issues, and that's why she plunks her self-described Victoria Secret satin pantied ass (page 9, item C), right in the midst of as many men as she can find. She brightens up the whole board with her cheerful song, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!" which is interspersed amongst every comment she makes. . She agrees with everything and befriends all. She often provides some useful services to humanity, like informing men of what it is like to grow breasts, menstruate, or have an ovary removed. The only thing she complains about is how uncomfortable it is to always have her lacy, Victoria Secret brassiere straps (page 11, item B) cutting into her back, due to the imbalanced weight proportioned towards her front. You see, she helps men better understand things from a woman's perspective. She flits in and out of blogs and forums, always spreading her good will towards her new found friends, and of course, announcing her arrivals and departures with her cheerful song, "DEE, DEE! DEE, DEE... Dee, Dee... Deeeee, deeeee.... .

A third species of woman is rather an interesting one which is called Meritorious Mediocrus in Latin. Meritorious Mediocrus is perceived as a great Amazon bird of prey to many of those within mens circles. Tales of her exploits become legendary and her name is revered wherever she goes. Even in far away lands, children are regaled with stories about the brave and mighty Meritorious Mediocrus. .

. There is a natural problem built within the species Meritorious Mediocrus though, and this is why some experts wish to rename this bird as Annika Sorenstamus. You see, Meritorious Mediocrus gets an enormous amount of attention for placing 96th out of 111, simply for being a woman. No-one knows who was 97th, 95th or even 5th - but everyone knows when Meritorious Mediocrus places in the bottom 15% of the field, and she receives gratuitous adulation for her accomplishments. . We see this same phenomenon all throughout society. A woman accomplishes something "great" simply by becoming, say, a firefighter. In fact, a newspaper story might appear on the front page because of this particular example of a Meritorious Mediocrus, and sumptuously entertain the readers with her heroism in becoming a firefighter. A man, however, who is stronger, faster and has fifteen years experience on her, will not receive any praise for his "accomplishments" unless he charges fearlessly into a blazing orphanage and single handedly rescues a dozen toddlers. Then of course, when he is done, he sees a little girl crying that her kitten is still trapped inside. So the male firefighter again gallantly dashes into the inferno, intending to rescue the kitten, only for the entire building to collapse upon him, killing him instantly. That story will make the eighth page in the same newspaper. . The problem with Meritorious Mediocrus stems from her fame and influence far outstripping her insights and accomplishments. The effect of this is that the lower end of the spectrum tends to have a louder, more influential voice than the higher end of the spectrum. And somehow, there is just something not right about that. Its like the natural hierarc hy of the universe gets turned upside down. . The fourth type of bird one may encounter hails from the species of Achievus Consensus. This bird's entire purpose in life seems to revolve around convincing men that they will accomplish absolutely nothing unless they manage to get women onboard. (She might cite examples of how men completely failed to create a civilization because women didn't participate). As absurd as it sounds to an outsider, Achievus Consensus has some kind of magical hypnotism in her song that makes men agree that, indeed, no flock of sheep can properly succeed without a sufficient number of wolves in its midst. .

. Despite her hypnotic melody, however, when one digs deeper down it becomes apparent that while Achievus Consensus knows a few peripheral issues, when push comes to shove she knows nothing of substance. Biologists often argue whether Achievus Consensus is from the greater Cuckoo genus or if she is just a crossbreed of the Elusive Wife and the Meritorious Mediocrus. . There is a good case to be made for the crossbreed theory of Achievus Consensus in that she is sometimes very active like the Meritorious Mediocrus while at the same time displaying some traits of the Elusive Wife. She never lets you forget how much she is doing for your benefit while at the same time reminding you that she, and other women, are not all like that. . I, however, tend to agree more with the theory that Achievus Consensus is a sub-species of the Cuckoo because of her continual shaming references to what other women, not her, think about our views. The Cuckoo theory is further backed up in that the Achievus Consensus seems stuck on the belief that men somehow have to convince women to let them do want they want. Achievus Consensus talks like men are small children who need to ask Mom's permission to play outside after supper. . Now, although I am describing several completely different species here, one should not forget that they are still from the same overall family within the animal kingdom. This reality is starkly revealed when a man dares to challenge one of them. The flocking instinct of these creatures automatically kicks in and they all gather together, descending upon the transgressing man as if in a scene from Hitchcock's The Birds. .

. Of course, men rarely stick up for other men at the best of times, so the offending man is often left outnumbered. Even worse, some of the other men in the near vicinity were lured in by the message of the Elusive Wife, because she always sings of a dream which he once had, but never attained. Other men are still thinking about the Mountainous Mammarious' Victoria Secret satin panties, which he looked up online after she let it "slip" that they were the ones one Page 9, Item C. Several men will have enormous respect for the achievements of Meritorious Mediocrus, thinking those achievements make her above reproach, while others are still in a hypnotic trance from listening to the song of Achievus Consensus, who has been admonishing them to get women onboard so "they can accomplish something." . The result? . Well, no other man will dare speak up once he sees how all the birds attack, as if eagles plucking at Prometheus' liver, and more, how few of the other men will even try to shoo the eagles away. .

. Soon, all the men are "kept in line" and with everything they write there will be a subconscious concern

that the women will be offended. In a month or two, the men are posting less and less while the women are posting more and more, until the few women begin dominating the conversations of the many men. . Now, a mens forum may try to counter this by creating a "sub-forum" that only allows entrance to men, so they can speak freely without concern of offending the women... but, come on now... a few women show up on a men's forum, and that forces all of the men into a private room in the back? How often have we seen that happen in society? I am starting to find forums with too many women on them to be an excellent way to gauge what happens in the greater society when women show up. Once a forum has gotten that far, it is quite literally, for the birds. Society is no different. Have a look at our governments. .

. There are two other types of birds that may appear as well. . The first is the much touted Odd Duck. (She is easiest to notice by the characteristics of reading much and talking little). Similarities to her extend well out of the bird family and into other parts of the Animal Kingdom. Take piglets, for example. Every litter of piglets has a runt that is odd. However, it is the other piglets that make the runt to be odd. And so it is with the Odd Duck in the Bird Family. What makes her odd are the other ducks, and how her behaviour is different from the normal behaviour of ducks. Therefore, in no way ought she be classified as an entire species of her own. And thus, I feel justified in talking little more about Odd Ducks. .

. The final bird one will encounter is the Cawing Crow. These birds are hardly a rarity though, and you need not be within the rich splendor of the Manosphere to find them. In fact, these birds are so common that many men report sighting them in their own backyards! .

. There is no beauty in the song of the Cawing Crow. In fact, you downright hate the sound; it's just so damn irritating! . Everybody else hates the sound too, and that's why nobody in the Manosphere complains much when you take out that weak, old BB gun which your dad gave you for your 12th birthday and start taking potshots at it. . "Ping!" . You bounce a BB off the Cawing Crow's tail feathers and she flies away.

. You would think that would be it, and the Cawing Crow would have learned a lesson... but, alas, what do you hear out your window again tomorrow? . "Caw, Caw!" . "Damn irritating Cawing Crow," you exclaim, grabbing your BB gun as you rush out the door in your socks. . "Pow!" You let off a shot and see a few black feathers erupt into the air as the Cawing Crow takes flight with a stinging in her side. .

. The next day? Sure enough, theres the Cawing Crow again, irritating you with a song akin to nails on a chalkboard. . "Pow! Pow! Pow!" . You hit your target with all three, but this time the Cawing Crow does not fly away. She has learned that the BB's won't kill her but will just bounce off her thick feathers, even if they do sting a bit. . Soon it becomes almost like a game between you and the Cawing Crow, and she shows up daily knowing full well that she will be greeted by multiple potshots at her. Yet, she keeps showing up, day after day. . You have a BBQ one day in the backyard with several of your friends, and they have heard your amazing tale of the Cawing Crow that never goes away - so they each bring their own BB guns along to the BBQ. . "Pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, PING!" Volleys of shots fly at the Cawing Crow, most hitting their mark, and yet, she still doesn't fly away!

. Wtf? . "What's the point?" one might ask. "You are not accomplishing anything." . Well, there is a point. You are becoming one hell of a good shot, and the Cawing Crow has helped you to become skilled at picking off a target with that weak, old BB gun from a considerable distance. .

. Compared to the other birds, the Cawing Crow is at least serving a purpose that is valuable to the MRM. I would rather have ten Cawing Crows than one Elusive Wife, one Mountainous Mammarious, one Meritorious Mediocrus and one Achievus Consensus. . At least with the Cawing Crow, you both know where you stand, and after a while you have to grant the Cawing Crow a certain amount of respect, if only strictly for the amount of abuse she is willing to take while still coming back for more. . Hey, I never said that the Cawing Crow was the smartest bird, only that you have to respect its temerity to some degree. . And this, gentlemen, brings us to the end of our Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere. Be sure to keep your ears open for their songs and your eyes sharp to spot their various distinguishing traits, so that you may pass on any sightings to your fellow travelers in the Manosphere.

Chapter Two: Sexuality

Male and Female: Equal but Different
Males and females are polar opposites. They are as up is to down as night is to day. One thing that is common to all opposites is that by the very nature of being opposite, they must be equal. If they were not equal, it would be impossible for them to be opposite. In any given year, at any spot on earth, there are an exactly equal amount of daytime hours and nighttime hours. The same is true of males and females; they are polar opposites and therefore are equal. However, we are not talking about legal

equality here, but rather the essence that makes male and female has equality unique unto itself. .

. In terms of intelligence, men and women are equal in that the average IQ of all males is equal to the average IQ of all females. There is a difference in how these equal intelligences are arrived at however. Female intelligence is clustered around the mean far more than male intelligence. There is far less variation in female intelligence. To put it more simply, the female populations intelligence tends to be concentrated in greater numbers around the average IQ of 100, while the male population has a greater range on both the high and low IQ scale. A far greater percentage of female IQs reside between 90 to 110 than males, while conversely, males inhabit the extremes of IQ between 70 to 130 in far greater percentage than females. The more you go to the extremes, the more it becomes virtually all male, in both high and low. When one takes all of the IQs of the female population into account to find an average IQ, and then takes all of the IQs of the male population to find their average, the collective IQs of the two sexes are virtually identical, even though there are vast differences in their variability. .

. When one looks at happiness, we find the same thing as we find in intelligence. Researchers have discovered that when they ask men to rate the periods of their lives where they feel satisfied or dissatisfied, they find that men have a major spike of dissatisfaction commonly known as Mid-Life Crisis. When asking the females, what they find is that women do not have a major mid life crisis like men; however, they have several mini mid life crises that occur at various times in their cycle of life. When the researchers total up all of the time in a males life to find his average happiness and compare it to the females average happiness throughout her life, what they find is that both males and females have almost the identical average amount of happiness in their respective lives. However, the males midlife crisis is far more intense than anything the typical female will ever experience but, he only goes through it once.

. If we look at sin, or good and evil, what would you expect to find except again the same phenomenon? . When a boy is bad it is very noticeable and often in the form of an outburst or some form of physical aggression. It is very hard to miss a males evil because its nature is overt and it occurs as a spike. Male aggression is stereotypically to hit, kick, shout or destroy something. The boy may go through long periods of nothing followed by a spike that is hard to ignore. . A girl, on the other hand, uses covert aggression. More commonly this is known as Social Aggression or Relational Aggression and it is stereotypically a female form of aggression. Its nature is to use gossip or social manipulation to hurt the targeted party, and this necessarily occurs over a longer period of time and is less visible than the males aggression. . What we end up seeing is that male aggression occurs as a noticeable spike that lasts only a short time while female aggression is less intensebut lasts over a longer period of time. When we average out the two forms of aggression, we again will find that both male and female are equal, but different. .

. The essence of maleness is that things occur with infrequent but large spikes while the essence of femaleness is that things occur with more frequent but less identifiable rhythms. When one averages them out, men and women are equal yet they have gotten to their equal averages by different

means. Now, to the point of equal but different, it must also be noted that male and female sex drives are equal but different in the same manner as the above examples. Jack Kammer, in his online book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? said it best, so I will steal his example: Male sexuality is like a pushy door to door salesman; it picks one target and gets in your face so much that you simply cannot ignore it. Female sexuality, however, is like annoying junk mail. It is everywhere and steadily drones on and on at everybody, whether they are the intended target or not. While males may think about the sex act itself more than women, the equal opposite is that women think about being sexy to the same degree. .

. Males and females both have equal sex drives, but they work in different ways. Even physically, men and women are equally sexual. Men have fewer but far more intense erogenous zones, while women have erogenous zones located all over their bodies. In fact, it is fair to say that a womans entire body is an erogenous zone that is dispersed with lowered sexual sensitivity but over a greater area, making it equal to the mans. This is why women are so much more into intimacy and the mental aspects of sex. Her entire body is involved in having sex whereas only certain, but more intense, parts of the males body are. In the end of it all, men and women both have equal desires to have sex and to be sexual creatures, although they are expressed in different ways. Women have their biological clocks and get baby rabies that demand of them to go out and get impregnated with the same intense irrationalness that men display when they are willing to do anything to copulate with a female, including the willingness to commit treason or sell out ones own mother. It is horribly inaccurate for one to say that only men want sex. It is far more accurate to say that both men and women want sex equally. In fact, the only imperatives of all living things is to: 1). Survive, so

that one can: 2). Reproduce. All other things are in support of these two imperatives that are universal to all living things. Males and females both have an equal desire to do this. Sex is the core of existence itself. We may think that we humans are smarter than animals, but when it comes to sexual instinct we are animals that follow the same mating patterns as most other species in the animal kingdom. This has become even more evident since the sexual revolution arrived and women became free from pregnancy via the pill, and free from the social stigmas associated with being a loose woman. One needs only to look at studies of sexually transmitted disease by gender to see that STDs affect a far greater percentage of the female population than the male population. There is a reason for this: 80% of the females are sleeping with 20% of the males, and those males are the alpha males in society. Humans have reverted back to the mating instincts found in most of the animal kingdom where the alpha males breed most of the females, while the beta males breed with none. .

. Again, you can see that male sexuality and female sexuality are equal yet opposite. This equal-opposite aspect of sexuality is essential in understanding patriarchy and why things were set up in certain ways, which I will attempt to describe and explain in my next post.

Sex Sells...
The following quote comes from Legends of the Fall, the movie which cemented Brad Pitts status as a sex symbol throughout our culture. Pitts character, Tristan Ludlow, had long flowing hair and looked wild. He was the untamed one in the family, so tough that nothing could hurt him; he and the grizzly once shared blood and now they were one spirit. A woman would likely be wise to stay away from such a man, this character with a raw animal streak running through his soul but yet, there is a soft side to him, a sliver of emotion that he hides, and reveals only to the women he loves.

Yes, the quintessential love interest The setting of the scene from which this quote comes is one in which Tristan (Pitt) is sitting outside talking with his younger brother Samuel (Henry Thomas), who is home from college with his fiance Susannah (Julia Ormond). Samuel, a virgin, shyly inquires of his more experienced brother about the ways of sex and how to make sure he is good at it, because Susannah has said she does not want to wait for marriage .

Tristan: Samuel, God bless you. You are good at everything you do. Im sure itll be the same with fucking. Samuel: Tristan, really. Were talking about my future wife. Tristan: Oh, youre not going to fuck her? Samuel: No! Im planning to be with her. Tristan: I recommend fucking. Samuel: Youre impossible! Tristan: You brought it up!

My goodness, Tristan! How could you talk about a woman in such a disrespectful way? That is not how Nice Guys talk about women! Nice Guys know that women are delicate creatures whose sexuality must be respected. For her to lower herself to a mans level and have sex with him indicates that a Nice Guy must worship her body, mind and spirit as the precious jewels which they so obviously are And how come women still find your character so sexy, Tristan? How can you suggest taking that nubile young woman and fucking her rather than being with her? I wonder how many women in the theatre smirked when they heard that line "I'd recommend fucking."? Whats up with that? And to the readers of this fine blog who thought those lines were humor directed at the males in the audience, I encourage you to unplug from the fematrix and realign your mind with notion that the above scene, including the raw language, was in the movie solely for the women, with the intention of creating a character which females desire. Society would have us believe that it is the men in society that are sex obsessed. Men are the ones who cannot control themselves. But remember, in my last piece we discussed that men and women are polar opposites who are necessarily equal but different, and thus womens sex drives are also equal to mens, but different. .

. While men may think about the act of sex on a frequent basis, women equally think about being sexy to a similar degree. They actively put on make-up, do their hair, wear push up bras and revealing clothes, and they are continually concerned if their jeans make their ass look big (no, your big ass makes your ass look big). The obvious motive of looking sexy is to attract sexual attention. What did you think it was for? Womens natural sexual desire, however, is to have sex with a male who is dominant over them. They dont want to sleep with a Nice Guy who respects them; there is n o excitement in that. They want a man who takes control of them and fucks them. Making love is for suckers. Wimps make love and talk about being with the glorious creature known as woman. Women would rather be dominated and get fucked. We men rarely talk about sex, however. Men behave completely opposite of women, who talk amongst themselves about the most intimate details of the sex act, from their partners physical attributes and performance to the daily ins and outs of their relationships. Men, on the other hand, rarely discuss the actual details of sex nor do men relate the turgid tale of the mating dance which got them into their sorry predicament with a woman in the first place. But women never shy away from talking about sex. Men fail themselves miserably by allowing feminists to dominate all talk about sexual relations between humans. Feminists, in their attempt to destroy civilization, have tried to take this natural sexual phenomenon of women being attracted to domination and twisted it into something which it is not. They have insinuated there is something evil about the natural sexual interactions between man and woman. One wonders how many of my good readers have ever picked up a romance novel. Not many, I would guess, as this genre of literature is aimed solely at a female audience. Romance novels are to women what Penthouse magazine is to men: Pornography intent on titillating the natural sexuality that exists within. And who is the stereotypical masculine love object in the romance novels that women read? Well, heres

a clue he is not a Nice Guy! .

. No indeed! There is usually a Nice Guy somewhere in the story line he is the one who gets replaced by the dominant rogue who at first infuriates the main character with his callousness, while at the same time intriguing her. The plot builds as does the sexual tension between the main character and the antagonist. He is a brute, an animal uncontrollable. She is a lady and does not consort with the likes of him and yet, something about his demeanor makes this man linger in her mind even when she is not in his presence and that makes her angry at him. She becomes determined not to give in to the advances of this knave. She is a princess, after all. The Harlequin climax arrives in a scene where the woman finds herself alone with this bull of a man. There is passion, electricity he makes his move she resists and pushes him away, but he is not willing to back down so easily. This beasts sexual desire for our fair maiden roars as if it were an uncontrollable inferno. He grabs her roughly in his arms. She feels his raw strength as he pulls her into his muscular chest and lowers his mouth over hers. No, she mumbles half-heartedly, I mustnt! Our rogue listens not, and continues ravaging our heroine with his lips when she feels his strong hand cup her breast, causing her nipple to harden beneath her thin blouse She can resist no more; her own animal desires begin to overcome her rationality. She gives in and lets this beast take her. Her clothing comes of quickly and roughly amidst the passionate kisses she is no longer in control, the universe has overwhelmed her she feels his hardness enter her, penetrating both her body and soul as their passion develops into a surreal exper ience that transcends life itself

Yes, this is women's porn! .

. And in womens porn, she gets dominated. In fact, by all legal standards of the modern day, womens porn involves being sexually assaulted and then raped by a man who ends up completely owning her entire existence. And women buy these books and read them for a sexual thrill men dont write this shit, nor do they buy it or read it. This is the essence of female sexual seduction: He makes his move she resists he doesnt take no for an answer she resists some more his animal desire for her prevents him from stopping s he says no again, but this time only half heartedly he continues, and she finally gives in and submits, so overwhelmed is she with desire that things are completely out of her control. She gets dominated by a man who is superior to her. And notice that the dominate man is not with her. Nope. He fucks her. Perhaps this is why the sexual fantasizing of being forced to have sex is so popular with women . Being forced to have sex is essentially rape, and yet numerous women actually masturbate to the fantasy of this crime.

Have you ever masturbated to the thought of your car getting stolen? The eroticism of being dominated and forced is that it allows the su bmissive to do things they would not normally do to come out of their shell, as it were. She may deny that she is the type of girl who will willingly do certain kinky things, but if she is being dominated and is told to do them then she can partake in these deep desires without having to blame herself for it she was forced to do it, after all. (This is the essence of most BDSM, btw). Another favourite fantasy among women is getting a good spanking from her man. . . Yes, the amount of ladies that are turned on by thought of being put over a mans knee and having her bare bottom smacked is truly amazing. And how dominant of the man and submissive of her. All Pick Up Artists (PUAs) know that women desire to be dominated this is the PUAs entire game. The techniques may vary, but essentially all successful PUAs spend their time around a woman establishing dominance over her. The PUA does not monkey around with respecting her and glorifying her with trite comments of her being a strong woman. Thats what Nice Guys do. The PUA lets a woman know pretty quickly that he wants sex from her. He is a lover, not a friend. He finds something to tease her about, putting her down in a fun way, to establish dominance. When they walk off the dance floor, he puts his hand on the small of her back so he can gently direct where she walks - taking control of her. He basically spends his entire game displaying that he is superior to her be it physically, emotionally, cerebrally or whatever else. The PUA knows that if she views him as superior to her, he can have her panties around her ankles in no time. .

. In fact, the act of sex itself can be viewed as the ultimate act of dominance and submission between a man and a woman. Think about it. What could be more submissive than to be a woman whose body is penetrated and humped madly until she is left full of a mans semen, essentially leaving her bred. The sex act itself is domination and submission, and while a man may find it erotic to look down and see the submissive woman he is screwing, the equal opposite is that she finds it erotic to look up at the dominant man who is screwing her. Notice that in the act of sex it is usually considered to be the man that is doing her, rather than the other way around. This is the essence of hypergamy. Hypergamy is basically a desire for dominance from ones mate. Women are definitely hypergamous. Dont believe me? Have a look at the next 10 couples you meet. Who is taller, the male or the female? You will notice that females nearly universally date men that are taller than them. A 5 10 woman will be dating a 61 male. A 5 6 woman will date a 5 8 male. But it is pretty rare to find the 5 10 woman dating the 5 8 male. . . Who makes more money, the male or the female? You will find nearly universally that the man makes more money than the female. Male lawyers date female secretaries. Male doctors date female nurses. Male factory workers date waitresses. This is nearly universal. What is hard to find is the female doctor dating the male nurse, or the female CEO dating the struggling male poet. . . Who is more intelligent, the male or the female? It is pretty common even for females to admit that they must date men who are smarter than themselves. Why do women nearly universally list confidence as a sexually attractive trait in a male? Because confident males are dominant males, thats why. Confidence is derived from the power one possesses. Females are naturally attracted to males that are dominant over them. Feminists are furious at this natural phenomenon in much the same way they are furious that women are the natural bearers of children. From their anger against heterosexuality, they have attacked both men and women by trying to criminalize human sexual behaviour. Feminists tell women that the kind of sex they naturally desire, the kind women themselves read and fantasize about it in Harlequin romance novels, is in fact rape: Compare victims reports of rape with womens reports of sex. They look a lot alike [T]he major

distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it. Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, Hard Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation, Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991. And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference. Susan Griffith, Rape: The All-American Crime Without the typically virulent feminist anger, the following concept could easily be described in an erotic way, suitable for a romance novel: Mens sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out. Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires womens own. A woman who has sex, therefore, does so against her own will. , even if she does not feel forced. Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.) Even the dominating act of a man filling a woman with his semen, the very act that causes life itself, is sought to be criminalized and degraded by feminists: Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence and the spray of semen Cheryl Clarke, Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance, in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing By Radical Women of Color How odd then that most women seem to downright prefer to have bareback sex. Why, it is as if they actually enjoy getting this terrifying semen inside their bodies! Yes indeed. And when a woman actually has good, enjoyable sex the kind that grips her body with a shuddering orgasm - this is apparently a bad thing according to feminists as well: When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression. Sheila Jeffrys Perhaps she is eroticizing her own oppression because it is what naturally gets her rocks off. Why is it chic and cool to keep a vibrator in the nightstand, but oppressive and degrading to orgasm from the natural act of sex? Men did not plant this idea in womens head that they must be submissive. In fact, since most men are beta-male Nice Guys who talk and act respectfully to women while never getting laid by them, it is pretty obvious that it is not men who are responsible for this phenomenon of domination-submission that causes women to get turned on. Most Nice Guys believe the exact opposite that if he glorifies and praises her, she will like him more. Wrong! No, men did not force women into submission women naturallydesire men who are better than them. They want men who are taller than them, who are smarter than them, who are richer than them. Women sexually desire men who are more powerful than them and this power naturally exudes from a man who possesses it in the form ofconfidence. Yes, hypergamy.

This does not mean that all men make more money than women, nor that all men are smarter or more powerful than women it just means that a woman does not find men who have failed to surpass her own power to be sexually attractive to her. A 510 woman is obviously taller than a 58 man, but the odds are that she is not sleeping with short stuff. She is most likely sleeping with the 61 man that lives next door to him while the short man is likely dating a woman even shorter than himself. Dominance has an equal opposite: Submission. In my next post, I will attempt to explain how hypergamy existed in the past, and how it has been manipulated in the present as a weapon against men, women and civilization.

Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers

In my last post, we discussed the phenomenon of women possessing equal sex drives to men, yet different by virtue of being hypergamous. The essence of hypergamy is that women are attracted to males who are dominant over them. Dominant males are Alpha males. .

. But what is it really that makes an Alpha male? Is one naturally an Alpha male or does the Alpha male come into existence because of the sum of certain Alpha qualities that he possesses? I believe the answer is obvious. It is the nature of certain qualities, or features that are Alpha related, which together add up to create an Alpha male. Not all males who are strong and muscular are Alpha males just because of that one feature they possess. In fact, some body builders are the wimpiest mangina Beta males I have ever met. They couldnt get a w oman naked if their life depended on it. All males possess both Alpha and Beta qualities. The more Alpha qualities, the more overall Alpha-like that male becomes. The less Alpha qualities, the more Beta-like he becomes.

Often when it is discussed why males of the past were placed in positions of headship in the family and society, we declare that its because of mens linear thinking ability. That his natural appeal to reason and rationality makes him better suited for these positions as opposed to women, whose multi-tasking brains are based more on emotion than cold, hard logic. I dont disagree with that assumption. However, I would like to propose that there could also be a further motive for such a divide in gender roles. Perhaps society was also structured in such a way to create more Alpha qualities amongst the greater population of males, thus making a greater range of the male population sexually attractive to the females. With mainly men in the workplace earning money instead of women, a broader spectrum of the male population would appeal to females because of the Alpha quality of money/resources they would possess. With mainly men in positions of power in society (government etc.), more men would appeal to womens sexual desires because of the power they possessed. Who was it that said Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.? Why, it was Henry Kissinger. Now Im not sure, but somehow I dont think that Kissinger is particularly the type of man that could be considered classically handsome. And yet, he managed to nail uber-fembot, Gloria Steinem.

. Poor little Ms. Steinem, despite all that pink slipper stomping, she was still a slave to her biology. Aint Mother Nature a bitch? You see, there is not much genetic diversity in the natural herd-like system which works with women only humping the 20% of males that are Alphas. There is plenty of diversity from the male side of the equation, but little diversity from the females side.

. It seems that womens sexual nature has compensated for this by use ofRotating Polyandry, whereby women skip from Alpha male to Alpha male, ensuring that their lifetime supply of 400 eggs get fertilized not by just one male but several, in a rotating mating cycle. Rotating Polyandry is an interesting concept whereby the whole notion of love is based on a mating cycle of a few years enough for a woman to be protected and provided for during the time when she is absolutely the most vulnerable. This period would be when she gets pregnant, gives birth, recuperates, and then nurses and cares for the child until it is no longer solely dependent on her for survival. (I.e. The child can walk, talk, and feed itself). This should all take around 4 years or so from start to finish.* (See study at the bottom of this article). Then she moves on to the next male and repeats the process. (Sound familiar?) By going to the next male, she would ensure some genetic diversity amongst her offspring and thereby, increase her chances of passing on her genes throughout the ages. In fact, the whole way that love works seems to support this theory. Love to men is based on what he gives. Love to women is based on what she gets. Plus, it has been noted many times that women dont really love men. Only gay men love men. Rather, women love being loved. And since, to a woman, being loved means that she gets, it is fair to say that women actually love money and the trinkets that being in love gets them. Womens love is parasitic. Mens love is the host. And this would make sense. If womens love is based on this parasitic function to ensure her and the childs survival, she would seek out the male with the most power and the most resources. Males with these qualities are Alpha males. They are the prime targets for a woman to wish to be in love with. But anyway, back to the main point of why there might have been a sexual reason for placing men in a position of headship in society and the family.

These positions that men have traditionally held, those of wealth creation, of positions of power in society, that of the head of the family and so on, are all positions that naturally add to the Alpha qualities of males all males. Thus, with more males possessing Alpha qualities through their societal role of headship, there are more males for the females to be sexually attracted to. .

. Once this is accomplished, we achieve our genetic diversity amongst the population by bringing more of the males directly into the breeding process, rather than relying on womens tendency for Rotating Polyandry. .

. What this model does is it brings more of the males in society into marriage by providing more females who are sexually interested in them, and therefore more men in society also have children that are their own and become motivated to work. Once men have their own children, men willingly become yoked to them and will do whatever it takes to ensure their survival. This is what Daniel Amneus calls putting sex to work in his online book, The Case for Father Custody With male headship in society and the family, more females are attracted to more males and therefore more males get put to work. And, of course, due to the males linear thinking brain, which invented everything around you with more than two moving parts, when all of the men in society start working and inventing and so on, sooner or later you will wind up with that great thing we call civilization. .

. Now, lets go back to the concept of Rotating Polyandry and the parasitic nature of womens sexuality. Womens sexuality is designed to take resources from the male in order that she and her child might survive. Mens Alpha qualities are based on his power and resources. The more that a man gives to a woman, the less he has himself. In a sense, he gives his Alpha qualities to the woman and in doing so he becomes more Beta. Slowly on, his Beta qualities will overcome his Alpha qualities and the woman will find him less desirable compared to other males out there who havent had the Alpha sucked out of them yet. We see this phenomenon over and over again. Women are complete sex fiends while dating a man, and then soon after marriage she becomes less interested in sex. Why? Because she is now in direct possession of many of his Alpha qualities. They were transferred to her via marriage. His work (paycheck) becomes her equal possession whereas before marriage, this resource was his alone. His power to leave her is gone and therefore he has less negotiating power over her when she is being shrewish. It goes on and on. With men in positions of headship in society and the family however, there are certain elements of his Alpha qualities that the woman cannot suck out of him. No matter what, he will still be the breadwinner, he will still be the one with power in society and he will still be the dominant figure within the home. Certain parts of a mans Alpha qualities were protected from being gobbled up by the woman. Therefore, he still remains more Alpha in the womans eyes and thus her sexual attraction for him remains greater. This would enable the relationship to endure longer than it would naturally and this is something that is needed for the full potential of the putting sex to work concept to be realized. With the runaway feminism we see in the modern day, this destruction of mens Alpha qualities is even further magnified. A woman earning $60,000 a year does not find a man earning $50,000 a year to possess an Alpha quality because of it. With the full force of the corrupted DV Industry behind her, the wife's manipulation of State force far exceeds any physical dominance he previously had. In fact, she is the physically dominant one within this paradigm because State force allows her to push, kick, yell, scream, threaten and intimidate with impunity. He must meekly cower and accept it or the State will come in and beat the crap out of him on her behalf. There is nothing too Alpha in regard to the man in this situation at all. With the Divorce/Alimony/Child Custody Industry behind her, a mans paycheck (his resource dominance) becomes hers whether she keeps him around or not. Another Alpha quality removed from men by feminism and the State.

With the television running 24/7 in most homes, even mens intellectual dominance is under attack. Remember that most women declare they dont find men attractive unless he is smarter than her? Well, the only males that are portrayed as intelligent on television are single men. Husbands are portrayed as dumb oafs on TV and women are constantly encouraged to scorn their husbands as too stupid to do anything right. Lets not even get into the subject of DOprah Winfrey. In fact, most of the Psychology and Therapy Industries support this stupid husband attack on men as well. Virtually all couples/marriage therapists attack the husband by default, declaring that the problems in the marriage are his fault because he is too stupid to know how to read his wifes ever changing emotional state with ESP. She changes her emotional state more times than her underwear, yet men are somehow stupid for not knowing that what she wants now is entirely different than what she wanted a half hour ago. Feminism supports all of this nonsense because they are married to Marxism, which wishes to destroy Capitalism and civilization. They fully well know that destroying marriage will bring us back to this: .

. And they know that when society adheres to this sexual model, men wont be putting sex to work and our civilization will return to this: . . But hey, thats all fine and good as long there is gobs of commitment free sex and women dont have to feel "oppressed" in any way. . Marriage is already a natural Beta Maker, and presents many challenges to men and womens sexuality. . Feminism took these problems and intensified them to the point of the absurd.

. At least with savages practicing Rotating Polyandry in the past, once the woman had parasitically sucked all the Alpha qualities out of a man, the discarded male was at least free from her and could go about rebuilding his resources and his life again. . Not so anymore with Feminism. Nope, now after a man is discarded, the woman can keep a leech like sucker attached to him via the State, while she finds another Alpha male to turn into a mere Beta.

Empty Vessels and Relative Truth

All truth to women is relative. It is men who seek Absolute Truth, or rather, have a better ability to get closer to the Truth. Women find truth through the consensus of the herd. If the herd believes 1+1=3, then it is right because the herd believes it is so. If tomorrow, the herd believes 1+1=1, then that will be right because the herd believes it is so. This is why you see women are so much more attuned to changing fashions and why it is often social proofing that decides for them who is a sexy and desirable man. What the herd believes is right is the "truth" for women. It is men who insist that 1+1=2, I don't care how much you cows moo at me. "... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?" -- G.F. Hegel This is very old and part of the human condition. In fact, the story of the Garden of Eden is very much about the Absolute Truth being over-ruled by the Relative Truth of Eve.There was only one rule in the Garden DONT EAT FROM THAT TREE! There was only one truth that Adam and Eve had to follow and here is where it gets interesting, because Eve was deceived but she was not particularly lied to. In fact, the serpents assertions are perfectly valid, although very craftily worded:

- The serpent was right when he says you will not surely die. (He was right, they did not surely die After being tossed from the Garden, God offered them a path to salvation and eternal life if they chose

to follow Gods path). - The serpent was right, when they ate the fruit, their eyes wereopened, and they did become like God and gain knowledge of good and evil. And then Eves female rationalizing hamster wheel starts churning, m ired in Relative Truth. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Because it was good for food, pleasing to look at, and desirable for gaining wisdom Eve rationalized to herself why the Relative Truthwhich she wished for ought to be able to over-ride the Absolute Truth that existed. .

. Ahem could placing the Relative Truth we create in our brains over the Absolute Truth that exists in reality be the original sin? Also to note here in the Garden story is the difference between men and women, and something we also often speak of in the MRM: Adam, the mangina, simply went along with her. . 1 Timothy 2:12-14 RSV I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Adam was not deceived. He sinned willingly. Eve deceived herself with her female driven hamster-wheel of a relative-truth laden brain but Adam was not deceived at all. He was standing right there and was not deceived; Eve gave it to him, and he was still without sin at this point but like a mangina eager to please he said, Sure thing, Toots! and swallowed er down whole.

Adam sinned willingly, but Eve was deceived. To Adam he said, Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, You must not eat of it, (Mans Curse) Its pretty clear. Between Adam and Eve, God expects a different level of cognition God expected Adam to know better than Eve because Adam has the capability to know better. Of all of the things that were in the world during the Garden, the only thing not directly from God is Eve. She was created from Adam, who was created in Gods image. Adam is a copy of God, and Eve is a copy of Adam Adam is one step closer to God/Absolute Truth than Eve is. . 1 - Absolute Truth = God 2 - Objective Truth = Man 3 - Subjective Truth = Woman . Everywhere in nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female. However, while humans are of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. It was when humans started putting the male principle in front of the female principle that we stopped living like animals and rose up from being beasts of the field. . Buddhism also acknowledges the way a woman's mind is mired in Relative Truth. .

The course of a river and a womans mind both wander. Water is malleable, it turns here and there when rocks and mountains block its path. Women are like this. They are inconstant as water. Although they know what is right, when they run into the strong will of a man, they are checked and turn in bad directions. The right fades like a line drawn on the water. Womens nature is unsteady: though they see what they should be, they soon become what they should not be. Buddhahood is founded on integrity. Therefore, women, who are easily swayed, cannot become Buddhas. Women have the five obstacles (inability to become anything great) and the three followings (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son). Thus in one sutra it is written: Even should the

eyes of all the buddhas of the three worlds fall to the earth, women cannot become Buddha. Another text says: Even if you can capture the clear wind, you can never capture the mind of a woman. -- Buddha - from Selected Writings of Nichiren You can also see how womens truth never really exists by the way they relate to men sexually. Many men will notice this if they meet up with an ex-girlfriend after a few years of not seeing her. She is an entirely different person than who he remembered her as. It is as if the girl he once knew was completely false and no longer exists. Women are empty vessels they conform themselves to whatever man they are currently with and take on his truths, that is, until herrotating polyandry shifts her to her next man, then she takes on the new guys truths.

. "As a rule, the woman adapts herself to the man, his views become hers, his likes and dislikes are shared by her, every word he says is an incentive to her, and the stronger his sexual influence on her the more this is so. Woman does not perceive that this influence which man has on her causes her to deviate from the line of her own development; she does not look upon it as a sort of unwarrantable intrusion; she does not try to shake off what is really an invasion of her private life; she is not ashamed of being receptive; on the contrary, she is really pleased when she can be so, and prefers man to mould her mentally. She rejoices in being dependent, and her expectations from man resolve themselves into the moment when she may be perfectly passive." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character,Woman and Her Significance in the Universe For example, Ive known one woman for many years now. When I first met her, it was through snowmobiling. I was an avid snowmobiler and so was her boyfriend. She was really into snowmobiling just loved it until after four years, she broke up with her boyfriend. She never went sledding again.

The next guy she was with though, was really into drag-racing. She ended up marrying that guy, and really got into drag-racing. In fact, she ended up becoming the President of the Drag Racing Association of the town she lived in until she divorced the guy. Now she couldnt care less about drag-racing. The guy she is with now is a sheep farmer and breeds border collies on the side. Now she has a government job which monitors forage for sheep farmers, and she is a member of the Border Collie Breeding Association or something they travel all around to dog shows etc. and she is really into it. That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.-Schopenhauer, On Women Now, does such a woman actually have a personality of her own? No. She finds her personality through her man. She has no truth of her own it is always relative and is always subject to change. This is one of the reasons women give men fitness tests/shit tests. They test him for the strength of his character, and if they find him suitable they will conform themselves around him. Thus, it is important for men to know themselves, take a position, and staunchly never budge. XV. Maintain your state control You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her. Roissys Sixteen Commandments of Poon The problem comes in when we falsely believe that men and women are equal, and thus let women lead us. They cant, for they are full of relative truth their truth doesnt exist, not for long anyway. It is why women resent men so much who dont take the lead. It may satisfy a womans ego to have her husband grovel before her, but what she needs is for a man to be strong so she can conform herself around him. She needs his truth in order to find herself through him. Whats going on in society is that as a culture we have been failing feminisms shit tests and have become weak men. A man should also never be afraid to lose a woman for once you are in that position, she is the leader and he is the follower. If as a culture we are failing feminism's cultural shit tests, the solution is to become Men Going Their Own Way. See ya toots! Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. If the men leave the women will follow, because female independence is an illusion.

You're Such a Tool!

. "Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs." -- Immanuel Kant, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, Southern Illinois University Press 1978, originally published in 1798 One thing our society struggles with as it continually fails feminism's cultural fitness tests is the silly notion that men and women are "equal" and thus we are essentially coming at each-other from the same point of view regarding our interactions with the opposite sex. This is the wrong way of thinking. We are not "blank slates" who are different merely because of society's externally imposed social constructs upon us. In fact, anyone who believes in evolution would scoff at the idea of men and women being essentially the same. Natural Selection is what "evolves" us. Sharks mate with the fastest swimmers and the sharks best able to feed themselves. By selecting those with the genes which display these traits, they continually evolve to become better swimmers and better predators. Animals evolve to do the tasks which they are best suited for. Thus, the sharks of today are likely "better" sharks than the sharks of 10,000 years ago as the genes of those best at survival continually get passed on more often than those who fail to survive.

Between the sexes, we also evolve to do the tasks which we are best suited for. You can see that men and women are physically different, each being designed for what they do best. Certainly there are some social constructs that society imposes upon men and women, but they are based on our biological natures, not upon the blank slate. In women's case, their entire bodies are designed for giving birth and caring for children. They have wide hips to give birth and have breasts to feed children with. Note that it is also these traits - women's "curves" - that are a large part of what men find sexually attractive in women. It is their "reproductive features" we find attractive. Further, even a woman's mind has evolved to make her more suitable for rearing children, thus a woman's "multi-tasking brain" is more suitable to care for children - or to do other tasks while also caring for children. But it goes even further than this multi-tasking feature. Women are somewhere in between that of a man and a child. Often times, the men of old observed women were merely children of a larger growth: Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.-- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women Women have mentally "evolved" to be something intermediate between the child and the man. We have all heard that women are more emotional than men and are more "in tune with feelings" than men. And this is correct, for tell me, how do infants communicate except through the language of emotions and feelings? How does a baby indicate it needs to be fed? It is through the emotional response of crying certainly not by saying, "Hey momma, bring those soft, round milk thingies over to my mouth." Children communicate emotionally, and since women have evolved to become "better carers of children," they have also evolved to be more in tune to the language of children, which is emotion. We also often hear that girls mature faster than boys. This is also true, and to refer back to Schopenhauer again, he acknowledges this as well:

Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-andtwenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important.-- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women The reason girls mature mentally before boys again goes back to their biological function as the bearers of children. Everywhere in nature, when an animal is physically capable of giving birth it is also mentally developed enough to care for its offspring - at least in the most primal of ways. This is also true of human females. When they reach puberty, they are mentally mature enough to give at minimum the basic care to an infant to keep it alive. Even though we don't encourage girls to have children as soon as they reach puberty, we do see in our culture that adults begin to trust girls at the age of puberty for tasks such as babysitting, thus lots of girls in the 12 to 14 age group begin to earn some pocket money in this manner - they have become mentally mature enough to adequately do the task. Why does Schopenhauer indicate women reach the maturity of their reasoning and mental faculties at the age of eighteen? Well, what would be the evolutionary advantage to women growing out of this phase of relating to children and beyond it? There is none. But then, what is it that men have evolved to become? The first thing we have to realize is that everywhere in nature, the male is the sexual servant of the female. "This goes down to the level of plants which 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." -- Zenpriest Men have evolved to become the best providers and protectors we can possibly be in order to meet the needs of the female - especially during her most vulnerable time, which is when she gets pregnant, gives birth, recuperates, and then raises the child until it becomes self-sufficient (ie. It can walk, talk and feed itself). This whole process takes about four years to complete, and then her rotating polyandrycycle kicks in and she discards the male in order to seek out a new man to repeat the cycle again. This is the primitive method of assuring genetic diversity amongst her offspring, which increases their overall chance of survival. So aside from merely being sperm donors, men have also evolved into being the best at what we do - and these are also the things women find attractive in a man: our protecting and providing skills. We have developed upper body strength which is vastly superior to the female's, and so it is tall, strong, broad shouldered men which women find sexually attractive. Men have developed linear thinking brains which help us figure out how to perform specific tasks as efficiently and productively as possible. No matter what men set out to do, aside from raising children, women cannot compete with men on a level playing field because we have evolved to best perform our tasks in order to make ourselves useful to women. Most women admit that they are sexually attracted to men who are more intelligent than they are - this does not mean that all men are are smarter than all women, but merely that each woman tends to seek out a man who has higher intelligence than she possesses. But ultimately, men do all of these things in service of women, in the hopes of gaining - or maintaining her favour. However, the kink in this plot is that women don't actually "love" men, only gay men truly love men. Rather women love being loved. "Love" means different things to men and women. "Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so

intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale . Think of a man as a stick in a woman's hand - a tool which she uses for her own purposes. The woman with the biggest stick will fare better in society than women with smaller sticks - or especially women with no sticks at all. This is a further reason for women to give men fitness tests - to test how strong of a stick he is. If she finds him sufficiently strong, she will begin to conform herself around him, creating the illusion that she is his ideal mate so that he will begin to fall in love with her and thus become useful to her as a "tool." .

This is one thing that men must always keep in mind in his dealings with women. For women, their love is parasitic - it is based upon what she gets from a man. But for men, their love is the host to the parasitic nature of the woman - it is based upon what he gives. "When I started researching this book, I was prepared to rediscover the old saw that conventional femininity is nurturing and passive and that masculinity is self-serving, egotistical, and uncaring. But I did not find this. One of my findings here is that manhood ideologies always include a criterion of selfless generosity, even to the point of sacrifice. Again and again we find that 'real' men are those who give more than they take." -- David Gilmore in his 1990 book Manhood in the Making Also, one must keep in mind that relationships don't mean the same thing to women as they do to men. Relationships are a "tool" for women - they get things from it, or rather from the man. Women get over relationships far more easily than men do. They are never as deeply "in love" with a man as a man is in love with the woman. Men and women are polar opposites. We are two sides to the same coin, but those sides are not the same. Women have more emotions but they are shallower. Men have fewer emotions but they run deeper. In an evolutionary survival scenario, it makes sense too, that men would love

women deeper than women would "love" men. It is a man's deep love that will make him sacrifice his produced goods and even his life for the woman he loves. This rarely happens the other way around. While there is an evolutionary survival advantage for the female to lose interest in a man after completing her four year rotating polyandrycycle, there is no similar advantage for the man to lose interest. In fact, just the opposite. It is in both her and her offspring's advantage to have the man still hopelessly in love with her, providing and protecting his brains out while she slyly seeks out her next suitable mate before giving the present "tool" his walking papers. Everything a man does in a relationship is in her benefit. This is the basis of Briffault's Law. 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 It is also important to note 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). Briffault's Law is the reason the most important word a man must learn in his relationships with a woman is "No!" If a man keeps nothing for himself and simply gives it all to her, she has no reason to continue to associate with him. No matter what he does, it soon will become "What have you done for me lately?" 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 wont spend $100 for roses on Valentines Day. No, were 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 youve been evicted that is what your girlfriends couch or your parents spare room is for. NO! We wont get be getting married. No! You are not going on the pill so we can have bareback sex. No! No! No! No! No! NO!

. There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dads 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.

Women's attitude to men is easiest to understand by comparing it to our attitude towards a job. Whether we love our job or not, most of us think we must have one. We often think a bad job is better than not having a job at all. No matter how much we may love our job, we'll jump ship and go with a better one if it's offered. And no matter how good our job may have been for us in the past, if something happens that upsets us, the love has probably gone forever. We don't ever think we are owed for the past. For women, attracting a man and using him for her own designs is her job - it is how women survive.
- What do women have jobs for? To entertain themselves while they aren't working - The Predatory Female Women never want to be without a "tool" in society, for it is through her man-tool that she accomplishes what she needs in society - thus, women are like monkeys and never let go of one branch until she has gotten hold of the next. This is why you usually find that at the end of her relationship with a particular tool, er, man, there is always another man hanging around somewhere in the wings. Female "independence" is an illusion. What women's independence actually means is that they want the freedom to change from one tool to the next without consequences. Men would view independence in a much different manner.

In fact, Buddhism acknowledges the three phases women go through of using men as "tools" for their own designs during their lives: Women have the five obstacles (inability to become anything great) and the three followings (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son).-- Buddha - from Selected Writings of Nichiren In her youth, a woman gains her power through her father - he is the "tool" that serves her and represents her in society. In adulthood, she gains power through her husband, who spends his life's energy providing for her and the offspring they produce together. In her old age, she gains her power through her son. In each case, she uses a man as her tool to deal with society. I can certainly attest to the last one about the son with my own mother. Since my father died a few years ago, it is now me who my mother uses to navigate life. When she has a problem, she comes to me to deal with it. If she suspects the mechanic at the shop is trying to rip her off, it is me who goes there to talk with him. When she needs to make a financial decision, it is me who she seeks advice from and who she hands over the authority to make ultimate decisions. Since she lost my father as her "tool," she transferred the responsibility to me. She is not independent as a man would be. I'm not upset about it. It is the natural order of life. And since she didn't stuff me into a daycare, allowing strangers to raise me, but rather did a good job for me as a true mother when I was young - nor did she selfishly destroy our family with divorce, but stayed with my father for 48 years (and I'm sure not all of those years were easy ones), I am willing to let her use me as her "tool" in her old age because she deserves it. We are failing feminism's cultural fitness tests because we are not asserting our authority and telling women, "NO! You can't use me as your tool for free. We are humans, not monkeys." And since men's love is "the host" for women's "parasitic love," it is essential that the host leads the parasite, rather than the other way around. When the parasite leads, it destroys both the host and the parasite, but when the host leads, both organisms can survive. NO! Learn to say it, and learn to say it often. You don't even have to be rude about it. You could also say "NO MA'AM!" Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. If the men leave the women will follow, because female independence is an illusion.

Rites of Passage - Boys to Men

Quite often when we think of Rites of Passage the image of a primitive society performing some bizarre ritual comes to mind, such as the Vanuatu Land Divers.

"Both a harvest ritual and a rite of passage amongst the tribes of the small pacific island of Vanuatu, land diving is now a tourist phenomenon. The men who live on Pentecost Island in Vanuatu, climb a rickety 98-foot-tall (30-meter) tower, tie vines to their ankles and dive to the ground, falling at speeds around 45 mph (72 kph). When a dive goes correctly, the person gets close enough to touch his shoulders or his head to the earth. However, unlike bungee jumping, these vines arent elastic and a miscalculation in vine length could lead to broken legs, cracked skulls, or even death. Boys once they have been circumcised at about age 7 or 8 begin participating, though they usually are permitted to jump from a shorter tower. As a boy makes his first dive, his mother holds an item representing his childhood. When he jumps, she throws the item away. Divers also refrain from sex the day before they jump legend says it will cause the jump to go badly." -- 10 Bizarre Rites of Passage I, however, would argue that rites of passage are actually more of a sign of an advanced society. It is patriarchy that builds civilization. Patriarchy is the idea of "putting sex to work," which is based on theancient contract of marriage. The ancient contract of marriage is aneconomic contract whereby a woman "sells" her sexual reproductive abilities to a man (ie. the children of marriage are his children, not hers) in return for the superior protection and providing abilities a man can, and will, procure once yoked to children of his own. What does this have to do with rites of passage, you ask? Well, in order for men to be attractive to women, a man must surpass the female so that he has some tangible benefit to offer the female which she either cannot do herself, or is unwilling to do herself, and therefore fulfill Briffault's Law: 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 tak es 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). It is the nature of the female's mothering instinct to be 100% totalitarian. Small children need this type of totalitarianism or they would soon get themselves into all sorts of trouble. Thus every boy starts off life completely dominated by a female and it takes a decisive change to escape his mother's gravity field and grow into a man so that the next generation of women will have men to marry. For all the ballyhooing in the media of "the man-child" and for all the haughty snipes of women at males to "be a man," they don't seem to understand that in order to be a man, he cannot behave like a woman. Our thoroughly feminized society has relentlessly propagandized us to believe "the right way" for humans to behave is "the female way" while at the same time has attacked and derided everything that once defined masculinity as "macho" and unfavourable. Just as children are not equal to adults, men are not equal to women - a "man," who is a man in the true sense of the word, has surpassed the level of women and has grown beyond it. This fulfills Briffault's Law and also enforces the hypergamy which women need to be exposed to in order to be sexually attracted to a man. Thus, a family hierarchy develops - and this hierarchy works... we know it works because we have historical evidence of it working for several thousands of years in our very own Western Culture the family as based upon the Bible. Man --> Woman --> Children It's the natural order of things. Women take care of themselves and children, and men take care of themselves, women and children. It does not work in reverse. Lots of women spit and fume about this, but what they are forgetting when they are told Biblically to submit to their husbands, is that husbands are also commanded to submit to God, or to The Truth. And as Jesus pointed out, to rule is to serve. Thus, this is the proper ordering of human existence if we are to live above that of the beasts of the field. Only when a man lives in proper accordance to The Truth can he expect a woman to be in proper relation to him. God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children In reality, there is no such thing as equality. All relationships are hierarchical in one way or another. Sometimes they change, or often what is going on underneath is entirely different than what appears on the surface. The men who stood on the deck of the Titanic so that their women could survive is an example of how the underlying hierarchy is often different than the social appearance of hierarchy. "But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle, The Spartan Women "Equality" really only has meaning in relation to the sphere of human law - in the realm that all people are equal before the law in regard to their rights as put forth by the American Founding Fathers: The rights to self-ownership, life, liberty and property. Certainly not the "right" to a job, or to healthcare, nor to be able to vote to bankrupt the future of one's children so that we may party it up today on their credit card bill.

"Men" are not on the same level as women. When men consider themselves "equal" to women, they are resented and disrespected by women. The sexes are different, and thus need different things from eachother. Women need men to be their tool in society, and therefore men have to bring something to women that women cannot do themselves. (Watch how birds court each-other) Thus, if he remains "equal" to a woman, she has no use for him. A "man" has to graduate beyond the level of women - if he doesn't he will be completely flattened by women when he encounters them. It is women's natural right to be in authority over children but it is not right for women to be in control over men. If a man behaves as a boy and relates to his wife as "Is it OK for me to be me, Mommy?" he is not a man equal to women he is beneath them. This is what happens in many marriages today - the husband ends up treating his wife as his mother, and as such she begins to resent him. How can something that is her own creation (a boy, a child) be equal to its creator? "If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE Only when boys separate from the totalitarian power of the Mother and grow into men do they truly have a sphere to address women and from which women respect them as men. However, women instinctively try to prevent boys from leaving their field of power - children are women's "possessions" and who wants to lose a possession? To mother, he will always be "her little boy." Also, it is not wrong for it to be a struggle to escape the totalitarianism of mother, for manhood not "won" is not manhood at all. Women cannot show boys how to become men because it is an entirely foreign concept to them - just as children cannot show adults how to behave because adulthood is something children simply don't understand. Women are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict, which might cause people's feelings to get hurt, and thus, they try to prevent boys from growing away from their field of influence and into men. "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 neighbors 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 be women; women want us all to be women." -- Fred Reed Women want us all to be women - or children - because that is what they understand. They have no comprehension of "men" or what it takes to be a man. Children deprived of their fathers through divorce are horribly abused in this way, for they get "aborted" at the female/child stage of development and have far greater challenges "growing into men" and learning how to address women in any other way than seeking the approval of mother. Along with the thorough feminization of our culture, so have we removed many of the aspects that used to make boys into men, and in turn we are finding that there are less and less "men" for women to want to associate with. Once a woman enters into a male institution, it immediately becomes feminized - thus we now even see that girls are allowed into the Boy Scouts. Men and boys need to have places separate from women where they can meet and be men, free from female influence.

Learning self-reliance and self-confidence is essential for boys. Thus things such as camping and learning how to build fires from scratch are good builders of character for young boys. Women are creatures who depend upon others, but men are creatures who must depend solely upon themselves. Not only must they depend upon themselves, but they must also be able to depend on themselves in excess, or they will not become sufficient "tools" for the next generation of women. In our feminized school systems, when children play sports like soccer they no longer keep score so that the children's feelings will not be hurt by being "losers." This again undermines masculinity. When I was a kid, I played on a soccer team and we were the worst team in the league. I don't think we won a single game all season - but our coach did a very good job with us in teaching us how to lose gracefully. It builds a boy's character to lose and accept it. Many endeavors a man takes on in life will not be successful, but learning how to lose gives him the confidence to try anyway... and if he keeps on trying because he is not afraid of losing, sooner or later he will find success. Our schools are "aborting" boys development by robbing them of the opportunity to lose - and when they can't figure out why boys aren't developing properly, they fill them with Ritalin rather than addressing the fact that boys and girls are different, and need different strategies to develop. Learning to deal with the bully is also a rite of passage for many boys. I remember as a young boy when my father taught me how to stand up to the bully. I had gone to a private Christian school as a child and there was this one kid named Peter who was constantly bullying me. Two grades higher than me and bigger than me. One weekend we were at a church camp-out, shortly before my 11th birthday, and Peter started picking on me and shoving me around in his usual way. I remember I went running back to find my Dad and told him what was going on.

My dad told me, "Boy, there's just some times that you are gonna have to take care of these things on your own." I still remember his words, and in fact, have followed lots of them to this day. - Always walk from a fight, but never run. - There's a time for talking, and then there's a time to stop talking. - Once you get into a fight, fight to win. But even if you don't win, you've got to show him (and the others) that when they mess with you there's going to be consequences. I recall him providing me with a strategy too. "There's nothing 'fair' about this fight. This kid is two years older than you and he's bigger than you. If you have to knee him in the nuts, then do it, and start punching him - and don't stop until he's on the ground." I remember walking back out to where all the kids were playing, and that's how it worked out. He started shoving me around again, and I kneed him right in the nuts, and punched him in the head about five or six times as he was going down, then I turned and walked away. Everyone was shocked. When I walked back amongst the row of RV's, as soon as I rounded the corner, there popped out my old man (he must have been watching). I was trembling like a leaf. He just put his arm around me - never said a word to me about it, neither good nor bad - just walked with me. Today, here in Canada, there is a great big "anti-bullying" campaign going on. All the kids are encouraged to wear pink shirts to symbolize they are against bullying, there are bullying "hotlines" set up, and every time there is a conflict between two kids, the mothers are called in to the principal's office to "work things out." Apparently, at some school in Toronto, there is a ten year old boy who decided he was gay (how can you decide you are gay when you are ten?). In order to keep this "gay" ten year old from being bullied, the school has appointed a teacher to walk around with him full-time to keep him safe. The old

"schoolyard rules" have been completely abolished and we are raising our boys to be feminized sissies, not independent men confident in their own abilities. Being bullied is part of life for men and it is important for them to learn how to stick up for themselves. Re-framing this culturally, the boys of today are similarly being bullied by feminists. It's a similar 'fair' fight. They're bigger, smarter and they fight very dirty. And this is something this generation of boys needs to sort out themselves, because the older guys will not be around forever. Perhaps becoming Men Going Their Own Way and passing feminism's cultural fitness-tests might be the new Rite of Passage for the boys and men of today and tomorrow. Related: Diagnosis ODD -- by Hawaiian Libertarian

"Mothers find in their children satisfaction for their desire to dominate, a possession, an occupation, something that is wholly intelligible to them and can be chattered with: the sum of all this is what mother love is; it is to be compared with an artist's love for his work. Pregnancy has made women kinder, more patient, more timid, more pleased to submit; and just so does spiritual pregnancy produce the character of the contemplative type, which is closely related to the feminine character: it consists of male mothers." -Freiderich Nietzsche

Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager In The House

At first it may seem like an assault against your good senses to think of adult women as mere children or

teenagers. How could they be? They go through life and mature just like men do, dont they? Once they are thirty or forty, dont they behave as adults just as thirty or forty year old men do? Actually, there is much evidence to the contrary. Perhaps men are so keen to believe that women mature the same as them (throughout their entire lives) because in the early stages of our lives, females do actually mature faster than males. The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight and twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is a reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling things to the most important. -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851) The reason why females mature faster than men is not some particular triumph for them, despite how women seem to enjoy throwing this little tidbit of information around. As I described in my piece "You're Such a Tool", what it really has to do with is women being the biological bearers and caretakers of children. They mature faster than males because once they become fertile after puberty, they must also have the mental capacity to care for the children they might bear. Nowhere in nature is there a female organism that is capable to give birth to offspring that is not also developed enough yet to care for the offspring. This not only manifests itself in hips capable of giving birth and breasts able to produce milk, but also in a mental maturation that enables them to provide basic childcare. You will notice as well, even in our present society, it is when girls reach around the age of twelve that they begin taking up babysitting and it is around puberty when adults begin entrusting young girls to care for infants alone. This merely coincides with female biology, as it is also at that age that girls become physically capable of bearing children, and their mental maturity matches their biological maturity. The difference between men and women in maturity, however, is that while females mature earlier in life, they also stop maturing at around the age of eighteen, as Schopenhauer aptly observes. And while men dont catch up to womens maturity until they reach around age twenty-eight, after that the men keep maturing - often throughout their entire lives. It becomes like the comparison of three-month fermented wine served in a box of Chateau Cardboard to single malt scotch, aged for decades in an oak cask. As such, women do mature faster than males, but stop maturing at around the mentality of an eighteen year old (or also, I suppose, to the maturity of a 28 year old man), leaving the woman as literally, the most responsible teenager in the house. It is interesting to note as well how many men claim that it is at around age 27 or 28 that they begin to figure things out in regard to women, or at least much more so than they did earlier in life. Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, and foolish, and shortsighted in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strictest sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best of intentions, could do in her place. -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851) The reason why women stop maturing at around the age of eighteen also has to do with their biological destiny as child-bearers and caretakers of children. As Schopenhauer notes, women can toy and coo with a child all day long and seemingly enjoy themselves, while what man could do in their place? Women, as they are wont to brag to us, are also more emotionally tuned-in than men are. Womens emotional proclivities are directly related to her childrearing duties which biology has assigned to her. Babies, for

example, communicatesolely through emotion and even as children grow into toddlers and then children that communicate with words and language, a lot of their communication is still through emotion, and so women are at an intermediate stage of development between that of a child and an adult man, or in other words, a teenager. Furthermore, in regard to womens emotional state, it ought to be noted that one cannot be emotional and rational at the same time, so it is not that females are both more emotionally in-tune while remaining rationally above it all. Just the opposite is true. The more you emote, the less you think. Take someone suffering from road-rage, for example. The emotions of anger so cloud the drivers brain that he can even unthinkingly commit acts of violence, only to deeply regret it later when his emotions have subsided. As women are generally in a much more emotional state of mind than men, so do they not use reason and rationality to guide themselves as much as men do.

Whats Mine is Mine and Whats Yours is Ours

What husband doesnt come to understand this is the true nature of marriage after a time? But ultimately, is this not merely the same attitude that teenagers take within the family?

Think about how a teenager refers to the family sedan, which the parents paid for, as our car. But the ipod which he purchased with money he earned part-time at McDonald's is his i-pod. Is not the teenagers/childs default that his parents possessions are ours while those possessions he purchased with money he earned himself are his, and his alone? This directly mimics even my own parents marriage, where my father worked his entire lifetime to pay the bills for the family and put a roof over our heads, but when the kids were off to school and my mom took up working, the money she earned doing so was her money. It did not go into the family pot as my fathers income did, but became her own special money in almost the same way that a childs allowance or earnings are his money.

Womens Fitness-Tests are Similar to the Boundaries Which Children Seek

Anyone who has raised children knows that children seek boundaries and are happiest when they find such boundaries exist and understand there are consequences when they cross them. A child who does not have boundaries set by his parents will in the short term get his way, but will ultimately come to resent everything around him and become miserable. Women are not much different. They will instinctively fitness-test a man with all kinds of irrational and basically abusive behaviour, to test the steel content of his balls by his ability to pass such tests and not put up with her crap. If the man passes her tests, she calms down and is content to live within the

boundaries of behaviour which he sets for her. Once she knows there are boundaries and her man is willing to enforce them, she knows that her man is a capable provider and protector and she can relax and feel confident following his lead. The behaviour of children seeking boundaries set for them by their parents and the fitness-testing behaviour of women with their lovers is remarkably similar.

Men Love Women, Women Love Children, and Children Love Puppies
There is an order to how love works and the order works only in one direction. You can see hints to this in the Bible, where husbands are commanded to love their wives while wives are commanded to honour their husbands in return. Children as well are commanded to honour their parents. Love is a hierarchal beast that descends downward. The only way it works in reverse is via honour and respect, because the reciprocal love is never equal. A child will never love its parents in the same fashion that parents will love their child. You will readily see parents willing to sacrifice for their children sometimes with their very lives but rarely will you see the same in reverse. In fact, even in society as a whole, we consider it to be the right thing when a father or a mother sacrifices their life in order to save the life of their child. The whole of raising children to adulthood involves enormous sacrifice on the part of the parents in the form of time, frustration, freely giving resources, the denial of the parents dreams, and so forth. It is never returned to the parents on an equal basis, not even when the child reaches adulthood, for by that time the child will likely have children of his own to whom he bestows most of his love upon. Although having children is a one-way-street of parents sacrificing for the betterment of their child, they are still instinctively compelled to do so even though, rationally speaking, it is not in the best interests of the parents. What parents can expect in return is that their children honour them and respect them for their sacrifices but their love will never equal that which their parents have for them. It is just not part of the natural order of life. In the same way, a womans love for a man will never be equal to a mans love for a woman. The natural order and a womans hypergamous nature dictate that the man must be on a higher level than the woman. A man can love a woman just as a woman can love a child, but the reciprocal love is returned only in the form of honour and respect. Just as a child instinctively expects its parents to take care of them, so does a woman instinctively expect her man to take care of her. It is a one-way street. A woman will never be able to equally return a mans love for her. At best, she can honour and respect him for what he does for her. In fact, in the form of romantic love, you will find that women are not so much in love with the man as an individual person, but rather they are in love with the relationship. The man is merely a role-player and is easily replaced by another taking on the role. If any man expects to be an equal partner with his wife, he will soon find his woman disrespecting him and seeking out a man who is decidedly not her equal to lead her. They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of

gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please. -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851) You cannot expect a woman to be your true confidant, your soul-mate, and your respite to lean upon during the stormy times in life. That is your role for her benefit. It does not work in reverse, for as soon as you believe it can work that way, she will lose confidence in your ability to lead her and begin to resent you. She will go about illustrating her resentment by making your life as miserable as she possibly can.This may be one of the hardest lessons for a man to learn in lifebecause it turns the whole notion of modern love as an equal give-and-take relationship upon its ear. The implications can be rather depressing, as it means that on a certain level a man will always be alone. A parent who expects their child to also be their equal friend to lean upon for support, will also find himself sorely disappointed with the results. The child instinctively expects the parents to be superior and to cater to his needs. Expecting the reverse will only result in a resentful child and a heartbroken parent. The same order must be maintained between a man and a woman, lest she become resentful and seek out a man who actually will lead her.

The Terrible Twos

If one looks around at today's culture and takes note of all the destructive effects of the female attitude of entitlement, then went on to devise social controls which would prevent such destructive effects in the future, I think you would end up with social values very much like the ones currently labeled "patriarchal." Rather than viewing feminism as "conditioning" women to behave in completely self-centered ways, I see it more as a case of feminism regarding the socialization process which countered the natural tendency of all organisms toward selfishness - as "oppression." Every parent who has had daily involvement in raising a child is familiar with the stage called "the terrible twos." This is the stage during which the naturally selfish infant is forced to come to terms with the fact that their desires will not always be met and their will not always prevail. I have no doubt that if the child were able to express what it knows in its "special infantile way of knowing", that it would consider the imposition of external values on it to be "oppression."

The vast majority of women I have met have seemed to be stuck emotionally at about age two. Any frustration of their desires would result in a tantrum. In many cases these were more subtle than throwing herself on the floor and thrashing around, but it was a tantrum nonetheless. So, rather than saying that feminism "conditioned" women to behave in an immature, selfish, and totally self-centered fashion, I would describe it as feminism destroying the social value system and the process of conditioning women out of their infantile and narcissistic world view. -- The Wisdom of Zenpriest

Your Bratty Little Sister

... Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in the world they are most proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which by the way they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man who talks more seriously to them, and who seems to consult and trust them; I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it. ..." -- Lord Chesterfield, Letter to His Son (1748) In the sense of seduction, a man is well advised to treat a woman as if she were his bratty little sister: The more you patronizingly treat women like bratty kid sisters, the more their vaj takes over their critical thinking skills. It all harkens back to the one fundamental principle guiding male-female relations: Chicks love submitting to powerful men. And what is a bigger demonstration of male sexual power than believing that a woman is so far beneath you that she is the equivalent of a child, hardly deserving of a serious answer or an emotional investment?

So what does everything she does is cute mean in practice? It means not getting riled up when she tests you. It means not explaining yourself when she stamps her wee feet and wags a finger at you. It means never acting apologetic when shes upset with some mysterious infraction youve committed. Keep in mind that when a woman gets upset, at least half the time shes not really upset with whatever misdemeanor shes accusing you of; shes just upset that your behavior caused a temporary reversal of gina tingle induction. The everything she does is cute game tactic is defined more precisely as an inner game refinement. When you start thinking of women as adorable brats who know not what they do, you start treating them in ways consistent with your beliefs. With enough reprogramming in the right direction (i.e. kicking the supports out from under her pedestal), soon the words coming out of your mouth will be effortless verbal expressions of what you actually feel. And therein lies the secret to being a natural naturals truly believe the charmingly jerkoff things they say to women. -- Chateau Heartiste (Also see "Lesson Thirteen: Charm is Treating Women Like Little Girls" -- The Book of Pook)

Despite what most relationship experts try to tell you, the key to a successful relationship is not about open, honest communication.

It is true, there must be a form of mutual respect, but the respect cannot be equal in all ways. A parent can respect a child and respect the childs needs, but for a parent to treat the child as an equal would be a grave mistake. In a similar way, a man can respect a woman, but if he deems to treat her as his equal, she will soon come to resent him and leave to seek a man who actually portrays himself as superior as a leader to her. She seeks this instinctively. She is an empty vessel who seeks to be filled with a strong man's "truths." In the realm of seduction, a woman also seeks out a man who is able to behave in a superior fashion to her, so even if you are not yet convinced that women are as mere children but only of a larger growth, you would be well advised to treat her as one if only from the standpoint of keeping her romantically interested in you. When a man marries a woman, he doubles his duties while halving his rights. This was true even in the days of Marriage 1.0. It is a large responsibility involving much effort to take on a wife, just as it is for one to take on raising children. You cannot expect children, or women, to fulfill your needs for emotional intimacy nor to be someone to lean on during times of strife. Just the opposite, for that is your duty as a parent and also as a husband. Most of our modern laws, and nearly all of the experts in the social sciences, have done everything they possibly can to undermine a mans ability to properly husband his wife. The current state of affairs completely upsets the natural hierarchy between man and woman. In the same way that it would be nearly impossible for parents to properly raise children if the government passed a plethora of laws deconstructing parents natural roles and restricting them from setting boundaries for children, so it is increasingly difficult for a man to properly fulfill his leadership role that women instinctively seek and need. When children have legal authority over their parents, chaos will ensue, just as in Marriage 2.0 where women hold supremacy over the husbands, the practice of matrimony will only harm and bring resentment to all parties involved, making one ill-advised to seek such an arrangement in life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Feminism starts out being very simple. It starts out being the instinct of a little child who says its not fair and you are not the boss of me, and it ends up being a worldview that questions hierarchy altogether. -- Gloria Steinem, in the two hour HBO special on the life of Gloria Steinem entitled, "Gloria: In Her Own Words."

Social Strategy: Why Men Shouldn't Argue with Women

Dominating Clock -- by Mathieu of Boulogne, 1295 A.D. This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron. 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 dont 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 -mouthiest and by who emotionally manipulates the other into submission. The truth matters not a bit to women.

"If men are always more or less deceived on the subject of women, it is because that they forget that they and women do not speak altogether the same language, and that words have not the same weight or the same meaning for them, especially in questions of feeling. Whether from shyness or precaution or artifice, a woman never speaks out her whole thought, and moreover what she herself knows of it is but a part of what it really is. Complete frankness seems to be impossible to her, and complete self-knowledge seems to be forbidden her. If she is a sphinx to us, it is because she is a riddle of doubtful meaning even to herself. She has no need of perfidy, for she is mystery itself. A woman is something fugitive, irrational, indeterminable, illogical, and contradictory. A great deal of forbearance ought to be shown her, and a good deal of prudence exercised with regard to her, for she may bring about innumerable evils without knowing it, capable of all kinds of devotion, and of all kinds of treason, "monstre incomprhensible,'' raised to the second power, she is at once the delight and the terror of men." -- The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel, Dec. 26, 1868 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 Kathys 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. "Truth" as men know it does not exist in the same way for women. Women are "herd creatures" and thus women find "truth" or right and wrong through the consensus of the herd. It is what the herd believes is correct that women believe is "truth." Thus you see women are much more attuned to eternally changing notions such as fashion, or how they use social proofing - the consensus of whom the herd finds a sexually desirable man - to decide for their individual selves which man they find sexy. Men simply "know" what they find sexy in a mate, but women find men sexy because of other women's sexual preferences. "... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who

knows how?" -- G.F. Hegel When women argue, they are not trying to find the objective truth but rather are after manipulating the other(s) into feeling unified with them towards their opinion. If the herd believes 1+1=3, then it is correct - because the herd believes it is so. If tomorrow, the herd believes 1+1=1, then that will be correct - because the herd believes it is so. It is men who insist upon the objective truth - based on principle and universality - and continue to argue 1+1=2, no matter how much you cows moo at me. Women are not after finding the correct answer, but rather they are after manipulating others into feeling they are right and their opponent is wrong. In other words, they are socially manipulating their opponent when they argue, rather than seeking the actual, objective truth. 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. This does not mean a man can be foolish and disregard women as harmless children, for as Schopenhauer observes, women are naturally furnished with the tools of dissimulation - the behaviours akin to a pool hustler - and this feature is innate in women and is found as easily in the stupid as well as the very clever. Men should be very guarded when in an argument with someone who naturally dissembles. "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 I can well understand why in the old days, when there were such things as "gentleman's clubs," that even all of the staff were male. Once a woman enters into group of men, the group automatically becomes feminized. It also makes perfectly good sense to me why religions such as Christianity try to remove women from philosophizing about their doctrines and they state that women are not allowed to speak in

the church nor hold office or authority over men. They naturally lead away from the Truth. Just because a woman says something that makes sense once, is no guarantee that the next thing out of her mouth also makes sense... and they all, by human nature, put the female's needs before the male, and manipulate away from the Truth with the ease, taking men along with them like the Pied Piper. Buddhism also says thatwomen cannot become Buddhas for much the same reasons. When discussing matters, men and women are not even after the same things. Because women are based in relative truth, it doesnt 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 hethinks 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 wasnt 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. " is just such responses citing a single, artfully mischaracterized example to refute a carefully made argument that long ago led to the bit of male traditional wisdom that advises, Never argue with a woman. Because women dont ordinarily engage in discourse to discover the truth as men do, not always, but men can be held to it if confronted, while women will dodge

(a.k.a. change the subject) but merely to win. And alls fair in war and love. Love here defined as any encounter between the sexes, and alls fair because thats how women fi ght" -Philalethes #8 - When the Cow Rides the Bull, Priest, Watch Your Skull. And, theres really no point in trying to convert them. It matters not a bit to convert such a creature any more than it does good to convince three year olds that Ron Paul is the right candidate for President. 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, whats 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 didnt have to take women off the pedestal not all of them, anyway. "Phew!" However, suddenly a lot of shit hit the fan. (I dont 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 pedestalized her. She was no different than the rest and her principles were subject to change simply upon the convenience of where she was in life. Even in relationships with men, women are completely malleable. The girl you dated at 21, who screwed you over at 23, is not even the same person when you speak to her again at 28. This is because women areempty 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 mans ideal woman. When you look at it that way, how can one then ever assess a womans true character? It doesnt exist. There is no point in arguing with them, and there is no point in having their input into Men's Issues.Having a woman "help" with Men's Issues is like having a five year old "help" you put up wallpaper. No thanks! "...the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy." -- The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women 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 beingconfident and assertive. We have entirely different strategies and entirely different views of rea lity. Its 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: Thats their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just dont find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships. a radio interview, WCVTFM (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 Zenpriest #50 - Listening to What Men Really Say Tom Pry's Wife -- by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834) Wisdom and the Weather -- by G.K. Chesterton Point, Counterpoint Rollo Tomassi

- For woman the temptation to misuse cunning (for example, to deceive) corresponds to man's temptation to misuse power. The fact that the woman's guilt is always more strongly emphasized than the man's is basically an indirect compliment to the woman, an admission of the degree to which she is the stronger sex in cunning. -- Woman/Man - from Kierkegaard's Journals

Very Few Women Are Capable Of Empathizing With Men

Very few women are capable of empathizing with men. There are about as many women who have the ability to empathize with men as there are children capable of empathizing with adults. This is what most men fail to grasp, and why they go round and round in circles trying to "explain things" to women. Women just don't care. We are here for their purposes, not ours. "Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day

long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale Esther Villar says about the same thing, over and over again, in her book "The Manipulated Man." What men don't "get" is that we (men) are a "business" to women. The attention women can get from men is their survival tactic. It does not mesh with the male survival drive, which is "go get" or "go create." Sadly, we men have a hard time understanding that women rarely have the same desires as we do. Women are designed by nature to look "yummy" to us so that we will give of ourselves to women. This is nature. It is not nature for it to occur the other way around. It works the same way as with women and children. Children will rarely care for the mother the way that the mother will care for the child. Children are not designed to empathize with mothers in the same way that mothers are designed to empathize with their children. Women will never "care" about men in the same way that men "care" about the wellbeing of women. It has always been women who have walked out on men more than the other way around... it has always been women that have been more opposed to adultery laws than men... the 10% of children are the result of cuckolding is supposedly a fairly consistent stat over time/history/populations. We are designed like this by nature, and men who are sitting around and waiting for women to smarten up and show men the proper amount of empathy/sympathy are being no more intelligent than a mother sitting down and crossing her arms until her children show a reciprocal amount of empathy for her... both will be sitting there for a looooong time. You can even see how this works with the way that men and women buy family vehicles. The wife and kids are always put in the best vehicle/mini-van/SUV as possible to "protect them" etc. etc. while the husband drives the run-down piece of crap to work... when the time comes that the husband gets a second vehicle you can usually hear the wife chirping in, "We had to get Joe a new truck... because the last one wasn't safe and we don't know what we would do if something happened to him." That's the way it has always been and the way it will likely always be.Men are a tool to women... a "business." And to successfully work that business, they must always appear in the needy/attention category. Babies who don't cry don't get milk... and women who don't get attention don't get taken care of by men. It is an innate feature of humans. Women do control society's values and mores... they lead with what they think is fashionable, and men follow, because by nature we aredesigned to give women what they want. Women "are" society. What women's wants are is what society's wants are. This is where women are lying when they talk about the dreaded "patriarchy." The patriarchy only existed because women explicitly approved of it, and endorsed it morally - causing the men to follow suit. This is what is happening today too. Most of the anti-feminist battle is not going to be between men and women... it is going to be between women who want a "traditional man" and those who want a collective "government husband." In both cases the women are advocating for men to take care of women - with little concern for the man's wants and needs - one wants a personal slave to serve her & her offspring, while the other wants a slave class to serve women and their offspring in general.

It's the way human beings are designed. Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same. It's not going to change. These are the types of factors that have to be taken into account every time someone starts advocating for "change" or even worse, "equality." (GAK!)

he Jiggly Room

. Ah, yes. Boobs! . Two things that are constantly on the minds of both genders are a woman's breasts. Of course, fembots have been convincing women that men are pigs because they can't keep their eyes off of a woman's chest when they talk to her. Bad, bad, men! They treat women like nothing more than sex objects! .

. Yes, men are pigs! . But, why aren't women considered to be pigs when they expose the fleshy globes for the whole world to

see? Does anyone really believe that a woman "innocently" didn't realize that she was advertising her jahoobies when she pulled on a blouse like this in the morning? .

. Women, unlike men, never buy clothes without trying them on first. When the above (appropriately faceless) woman bought that blouse, she first pulled it on in a dressing room, stood in front of a mirror , and I guarantee you that her eyes were fixed on her boobs in the mirror's reflection. It is no accident when a woman displays cleavage. It is not like accidentally walking around with your fly unzipped. . Back in the day, before I unplugged from the fematrix, I used to make damn sure that I never looked at woman's boobs when talking to her, no matter how flagrantly she displayed them. I listened to the ceaseless propaganda about how degrading it was for a man to talk to a woman's chest instead of her face, and I let non-logical PCism cloud my mind and not think about the woman's role in all of it. . Women are intensely aware of their boobs. Before puberty, girls ache for their first training bra. Flat chested teenage girls are viciously jealous of the girl who blooms early and receives male attention for it. At the same time, the earlier bloomer hears the propaganda about how degrading it is for men to like her breasts and goes into her first, of many to come, victim modes and allows her clouded female brain to be contradictory by believing she's a victim of her boobs while secretly loving it and playing on her sexual power over the boys at the same time. Of course, the woman who remains flat chested into adulthood believes she is equally victimized because she doesn't receive similar male attention. . Women buy bras that make their boobs look firmer than what they are, that lift and separate them to make them more appealing, there are padded ones to make them bigger, and they can even buy ones with built-in hard nipples. Women are intensely aware of their boobs and the power that they wield. Boob jobs are the number one plastic surgery done in our femi-narcististic world. . When this woman left the house in the morning, she knew she was putting her boobs on display for the world. Go ahead. Have a good, long look at them! That's what she wants - no matter what her flapping gums might be currently whining about. .

. "Talk to my face, not my chest. Pig!" Says the appropriately faceless creature. . This reminds of what I once read in Jack Kammer's excellent book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make All The Rules, in which Mr. Kammer makes a keen observation about the difference between Men & Women's sexuality. He says that when a man "comes on to a woman," it is like dealing with an annoyingly pushy door to door salesman who targets one customer and digs his heels in trying to convince the one person in front of him. But women's sexuality is advertised like annoying junk mail (or internet spam). It is ever present. You cannot escape it. She advertises to the whole world and whether the recipient wants to recieve her advertisement or not is of little concern to her. She targets everyone and plays the numbers game of "if I advertise to 100 people, I will get one nibble - and if I advertise to 1,000 people, I will get 10 nibbles." . So, let's get it straight. Women who show off the jahoobies, are trolling for sexual attention. It is very rare for a woman to "accidently" let someone see her fleshy globes. A woman who wears a tight, form fitting blouse like the following, fully well knows that her blouse accentuates her breasts: .

And when a woman leans forward and "accidentally" lets you look clear down her blouse to her belly button, like the following, it is no accident either. .

. Don't believe me that it is no accident? Then ask yourself why only women with "boobs to be proud of" allow this. How come flat chested women never "accidentally" flash the mammaries? How come older women, whose boobs are well passed their prime years, are never giving you shots like that? How come men aren't wearing shirts that show off the man-boobs every time they lean over? Because the women whose cleavage & boobs you do see are quite aware that they are "accidentally-on purpose" doing it. That's why. . "Now, Rob," you say, "what's the big deal?" . Well, as some of you may know. The only Television I watch anymore is the Business News Network. A few weeks ago I was watching and listening for business reports of various natures when, in typical TV propaganda fashion, the filthy TV programmers decided it would be prudent to have a short 5-minute interview with some stunned female academic who was "an expert" on workplace etiquette. It didn't take this harpy with a BS in Academia more than one breath after introducing herself before she femimoaned about sexual harrasment in the workplace, like when male co-workers are looking down a woman's blouse. . I just can't tell you how much it annoys me that the only "intellectual" thing that "academic" women seem capable of discussing, when interviewed, is women's victimhood in some way at the hands of those awful males. I taught the TV screen a few things about how foul my mouth can get when confronted with sexist women like that. . But it reminded me of a place where I worked once, and where I had a lower-level manager who was a woman. . Now, this woman came to work each day like a tarted up little whore. Her blouses would be unbuttoned down to the maximum point - as in, undo one more button and she would be displaying below the bottom of her bra - you know the type. This woman, every day, wore very short skirts - very short. Short enough that everyone knew she was wearing stockings instead of pantyhose, because the lacy top of the stockings would sometimes come into display if she bent over to pick something up etc.

. But what this woman, a manager, used to do to me was complete sexual harassment. Passive sexual harrassment. On several occasions, when in her office discussing various work related issues, this woman would lean back in her chair, locking her hands behind her head like she was stretching - and lean way back, with a short skirt, legs open, and display clear shots up her skirt of the crotch of her panties. .

. I don't believe it was an accident. Exhibitionism is a top female sexual fantasy. . And here becomes the situation: You have to talk to a woman, out of work related neccessity, who is either leaning forward to talk to you, and fully displaying her cleavage to you - or she is leaning back and talking to you, fully displaying the crotch of her panties. Yet, you are expected to only be looking her in the eyes while she is displaying herself like a Penthouse Centerfold. She is looking at your face, and if you should allow your eyes to betray that you are fully aware that she is displaying herself sexually, YOU could be charged with sexual harassment in the workplace and not her! You could lose your job, wind up being sued, and have difficulty securing another job - the stakes are positively huge! . Now, the thoroughly corrupted feminist legal system has ambiguously defined Sexual Harassment in the Workplace as "that which would make a reasonable woman uncomfortable." But what about men? This woman made me uncomfortable in the workplace! I even contemplated discussing it with higher level management but I decided against it, contemplating that if I allowed them to know that I had been seeing down this woman's blouse and up her skirt, that I would get the boot for sexually harassing her. So I kept my mouth shut and endured the tightrope that this sexually flagrant harlot forced me to walk. And it did affect my professional performance, because I dreaded dealing with her, and that did affect the bottom line profitability of that particular business. I go to work to make money, not to ogle women. And the owner of the company started the business to make money, not to provide some tramp a venue to fulfill her exhibitionism fetish. .

As I previously pointed out, women don't put themselves on display by accident. All women know this. Women are very aware of how to hide their bad features and accentuate their desireable features. The boobs you see are boobs you are meant to see. Yet, should some woman level a charge of sexual harassment against a man for looking at the boobs that you were meant to see, all the other women will quickly rally around the "afronted" woman and support her over the male pig. Even though they full well know "the game." At best, the other women will remain silent and not call the exhibitionist woman out on her bullshit and let the man go down in flames. . Women should be discriminated against in the workplace until they all start dressing for business instead of dressing for attention. It's about time that women start showing up in suits, with a tie, so that they are forced to "button up." Otherwise, given the sexual harassment bias of our legal system, coupled with female sexual fetishes, women are a profit draining lawsuit waiting to happen and it is justifiable to unemploy their asses.

Hypergamy and Briffault's Law

I think its 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, Briffaults 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 Briffaults 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 wont spend $100 for roses on Valentines Day. No, were 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 youve been evicted that is what your girlfriends couch or your parents spare room is for. NO! We wont 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 doesnt 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 womens love for a man is rarely as deep as the mans 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 womens 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 timelimited. 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 reapply 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 womans 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 shes 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 fucks 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 IOIs (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 exhusband/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 Briffaults Law. It works just like people being in the market for buying a car. Allpeople 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 buyers 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 dont mind your car, but now it is becoming ho-hum, but its 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 whats available, and finally you work up the courage to go in during business and take one for a t est 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 1870s, the principle of Briffaults Law was enforced and overcome/fulfilled because if a woman left the husband, she lost both her children and access to Dads 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 1970s 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 Dads 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 1970s 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 didnt 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 wasnt THAT difficult to divorce before the 1970s lol, look at Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe). What really happened in the 1970s was that women entered the work-force in large numbers thus, it further undermined Briffaults Law (Dads 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, dont 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 Briffaults 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 dont bring her back here.

Chapter Three: The Gender War

The Fish and the Bicycle

The most insidious effect of affirmative action quotas is a kind of psychic castration the removal of the source of a mans identity. By contriving the nonsense that women can do whatever a man can do (which they obviously cant), theyve leveled mens purpose to the extent that men effectively have no purpose. The equivalent would be to remove womens wombs, and render them sterile. Its not just messing with the laws of supply and demand and cheating men out of their rights its about annihilation of identity and purpose. -- codebuster, from a comment at The Spearhead

I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm. -- zenpriest, Hate Bounces

The problem here is women are totally lying about wanting to be empowered. To have power, one must have independence and be self-reliant. This is the exact opposite of what women and children have been for most of human history. Instead of being independent and self-reliant (ie having power) they have been dependent and relied on men for everything. In return, there is a bunch of stuff they are expected to give men..certain roles they must perform for the system to work. Now, a handful of women have always been an exception. I can totally see how more women would want to have power by becoming self-reliant and independent. BUT THATS NOT WHAT THEY ARE DOING! Instead, they want to be empowered but still rely and depend on men for everything. They think they can do this by creating various ways and means to force us to take care of them, both as

individuals and a society, without giving anything in return. They dont want marriage but they still want money from men via alimony and child support. They want to vote but dont exercise wisdom in what they vote for. They want jobs but are pathetic as employees, but God forbid you fire them, youll get sued (plus they will trade sex for promotions).-- Bonecrcker #78 Women Are Lying About Wanting To Be Empowered

"...Traditionally, the raw sexual and economic facts of marriage have been politely concealed by superadded ideas such as romantic love and gallantry. In the years following the Second World War, such antiquated fashions were with increasing rudeness torn from the sexual act by fraudulent sex "scientists" and pornographers. But the economic realities have not similarly been dragged into the light of day. On the contrary, our prosperity has made it easy to downplay them even more than in the past. An example of such polite concealment is found in the traditional etiquette with respect to greeting newly married couples. It was customary to say "congratulations" to the man, but never to the woman; to the bride one offered only "best wishes." The pretense was that the man was receiving an unmerited windfall. The reality, of course, is that the man assumes the principal burden in marriage. For women, it is an economic bonanza. One factor in the disintegration of marriage and sex roles is that, spoiled by prosperity, women actually came to believe the chivalrous pretense and forgot the underlying economic reality. They expect men to be grateful for the opportunity to support them. ... It is a case of gallantry being abused by its beneficiaries. Under such circumstances, men cannot simply go on behaving in the old manner as though nothing were wrong. It is incumbent upon them to fight back against the forces arrayed against them, in part by emphasizing some home truths about the economic realities of marriage. Perhaps it is time for young men to stop paying for dates and coyly explain that they are "saving their wallets" for marriage. If that sounds cynical to a traditional sensibility, my answer is that such cynicism may simply be the price for reestablishing the natural family as the basis of our civilization." -- F. Roger Devlin, Home Economics II

In truth, women are no more independent than they ever were, but because theyve transferred the job of protecting and caring for them from the men they personally know to the State, they can pretend to themselves that they no longer need men. Modern women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. All thats changed is that men, who still do all the dirty, dangerous jobs that must be done, and pay all the taxes and alimony and child-care payments, and fight the wars, etc. etc., that enable women to have the comfortable world they want, no longer get the respect we used to get in return. In the long run, this is a recipe for disaster. We may be stupid, but were not harmless. -- Philalethes #27 In the Battle of the Sexes, If She Wins, She Loses

Women only have what rights we give them. The real core of the problem with women is other men. The men who open their wallets in a snivelling desire to get laid. The men who pass foolish draconian laws to solve problems that dont exist. The men who promote women in return for sexual favours. The men who marry obviously inferior women. And most of all, the men who swallow the most outrageous of lies, rather than bother to think critically about what is happening both to them and everyone around them. The bottom line is women have no real power, no intrinsic power. They are totally, completely and

permanently dependant on men for power. This situation is deeply rooted in our biology and not going to change because some wacko broads think it should. We created this hobgoblin ourselves, feed it and keep it alive despite its obviously odious nature. The very moment we stop, it will evaporate in a puff of smoke. Women know this. Their biggest fear is we will wake up and know it too. -- Bonecrcker #121 Women Only Have What Rights Men Give Them

there is no equity between the sexes. They are indispensable one to another, but one is the leader and the other led. The ram is the master of the ewe; the reverse would be an aberration and monstrosity. The pride of the American women will bring about a reaction; for whatever these ladies are they owe to man. If the latter wearies of his generosity and leaves them to their own merits, the expiatory plunge will oblige them to measure the immensity of their ingratitude. Nature has willed the subordination of woman. Civilized man dignifies his companion, submits willingly to grace, sweetness, frailty, creates for her the right to protection, gives her a privileged place. But the condition is such that, if she denies the bene- faction and claims to have earned what has been given to her and to be indebted to no one, her benefactor may bring this course to an abrupt end. The illusion consists in this: superiority constitutes a moral duty on the part of the superior towards the inferior, but inferiority does not constitute any legal right on the part of the inferior over the superior. Generosity is beautiful and noble, but it is optional; the cripple who demands that he should he carried dispels one's desire to aid him. Man enjoys protecting woman, but when woman imperatively summons him to serve and protect her, he whom an entreaty would have softened loses his inclination at once. By substituting the legal sphere for the moral sphere, the emancipation of women will desiccate society, as legal charity destroys real charity, as love by command would sterilise the marriage-bed. -In asking more than civil equality and economic equality, women are playing a dangerous game. Equality in services will be demanded of them, and this will serve them right. -- The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel, August 8, 1876

"...That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest." -- Arthur Schopenhauer - On Women (1851)

Marriage is Fraud
[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce? Answer: Ah I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, Women were owned as chattel! .

I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights. You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom. Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they knowthat woman is obviously in the wrong? Its because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know. But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that dont become the alpha male who b reeds the whole lot of women? Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselvesindividually. Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplusof labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival. When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage: Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.

Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour. Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract. The male sells his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproducti ve ability. The female sells her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour. In order to sell something, you first must own it yourself, and upon selling it, you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based onproperty rights. In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer theownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takesownership of his surplus labour as payment for it. . So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once owned as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a womans sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to own her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them. (Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property). This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away. This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone stole the sexuality which was his property. This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property? So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were owned as chattel. A wifes sexuality (NOT her person), was very much owned by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husbands own children. But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths. The part of the women were owned as chattel song leaves out the second verse, which is and men were owned as beasts of burden. . . Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox! bellows the wife. You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you! For eons, mothers have told their daughters, Why buy the cow when the milk is free? You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man's surplus labour. And benefit from a mans surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did! . She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves. She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other

women. Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a mans labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable. So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general. Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive. Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this. Have a look around the room you are in. Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man. Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood). Thus, when you hear that marriage is the foundational building block of society, you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather,advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty. Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history. So, back to the original question: "Do you believe women have the right to divorce?" My answer is a resounding NO! Why, you might ask? . Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldnt be allowed to marry in the first place! It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce. You see, in the 1860s, the wonderful womens rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature but is the bond that creates civilization. Before the 1860s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had paid for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not own her person, but in marriage he did own her reproductive ability and the products thereof. The transferring of these property rights back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward. Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. Noone ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been

born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could. But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to own what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to own what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children. Now, all through up until the 1970s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract. If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it. If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesnt it? Therefore, there were many things which constituted fault. Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted fault. If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for abandonment, and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract and you would be liable for any damages caused by your fault. That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and dont deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed. But, in the 1970s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in peoples complex personal relationships, and therefore No Fault Divorce was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isnt it? They have no troubles at all finding fault in cases of domestic violence.) So what have we got left here? WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE! What was originally based on a woman selling a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as payment, has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a mans surplus labour as payment for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD! If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car. The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is yourproperty and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because it is in the best interests of the car is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract. Yup. But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract. The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the vendor still has the right to make you into this: .

. Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox! bellows the ex-wife. You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MYchildren and I own your labour! You own nothing! MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED! MARRIAGE IS FRAUD! DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS! . Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living like this: .

Have nothing to do with them. Do not oppress them with marriage. Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home. Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know? Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too. Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down thatBride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking... now move on and think more wholesome thoughts. Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women cant stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them. And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually selling to you. Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support the herd of single and divorced mothers along with theirferal children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else's property. You dont owe the herd anything. They dont even want you to be part of the herd. You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a good boy. There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it cant be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone elses ben efit then. Give them as few tax dollars as possible. Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:

. Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy? . Why even bother with a cow that doesn't give milk? Let alone pay for one.

Women Pursuing Their "Dreams and Aspirations"

QUOTING A FEMALE: "As long as mothers and/or wives dont allow their careers to consume their lives and interfere with their God-given duties, then I dont see a problem. Women have their own aspirations and dreams as well just like men (and no I dont believe that the only reason people have careers is to make money)." --I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their own dreams and aspirations. Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are, sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into. One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community, and so on, and so on, (&, btw, who doesnt?) and will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria. Now, that is all good and fine in fact, it might even be noble. But, look at the friggin absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).

A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job, that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone! And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly

reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time? Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets to boot! And today? They have liberated themselves into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with labourers, forcing both men and women to work fulltime jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here? And now, if they get to do such a thing called social rewards even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances. Oh well, Ladies. I guess youve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years. --QUOTE #2, A MAN: Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others. Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize womens bloated paychecks. If women were as altruistic as you claim, theyd recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasnt happened because women largely live in their own self obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the womens liberation movement because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions." --No doubt, I agree with much of what you say. Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed either with themselves, or their own sex. And, I dont doubt that often times the charity work they did in the past was done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, Its not charity if you talk about it. And Ill bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that werent doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong. But, at least the way it was before, it took features of woman-ness and harnessed them for the betterment of society including their own families. Much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I dont think the women of old cared so much about keeping the door stoop swept because of respect for what their husbands would think, but more to make sure that the other women thought well of them, and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door.

And, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.

Do You Believe Women Have the Right to Freedom of Speech?

Question: Do you believe women have the right to freedom of speech? Answer: I believe all people should have the right to freedom of speech. However, I am curious as to why feminists Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin should frame the question in a way to make it gender specific. Perhaps they feel that women should have free speech, but not men? It is certainly not anti-feminists who are opposed to free speech. In fact, some of us are antifeminist because we believe in preserving free speech. Feminism is the movement that wishes to make anyone speaking out against it guilty of hate crimes. Where Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin get the idea that anti-feminists are against freedom of speech can only come from the projection of their own feminist evil desires. Who was it that became famous for wasting $75,000 of taxpayer dollars by creating a report for the Status of Women Canada which recommended that websites who opposed feminism should be placed on a Hate Watch? Hmmm who was that again? Oh yeah, it was the feminist professor, Pierrette Bouchard, from Laval University. Mzzzz Bouchard, great feminist thinker, does not believe in free speech. (I know, I know. Feminist thinker is an oxymoron) . The danger of such laws as feminists have put forward are that they outlaw the truth. Yes, thats right. What Hate Crime Laws do is make the truth irrelevant and illegal. Under Hate Crime Laws, if say, an incredibly intelligent anti-feminist should quote domestic violence facts which illustrate that women are just as violent as men, such as those put forth by Stats Canada (the Government) itself, the truth does not make you innocent of committing a Hate Crime. You see, Hate Crimes are designed so thatanything which is said about the protected group must be stifled, because even the truth can cause ill feelings towards them. But yet, this is what feminists are trying to do to an unsuspecting population. They are trying to outlaw the truth because they know they have been cooking the books and slanting their position to such an enormous degree that even a quick glance will reveal their dishonesty and unravel their totalitarian agenda. Feminism cant handle the truth because there is nothing truthful about feminism . It is truly staggering to see the backroom manipulations, from our own governments to the United Nations, all trying to get speaking out against the political movement of feminism to be declared a Hate Crime. If feminist theories are sound, they should stand up under intense scrutiny, dont you think? What are they so scared of then? On the subject of free speech and freedom of the press, I do, however, believe that there should be some regulation to impose some badly needed checks and balances.

Yes, yes. I know. That goes against my general libertarian ideals. But, media is somewhat unique in its function of maintaining liberty. In fact, the media is supposed to be mandated to help maintain liberty by continually questioning and highlighting various aspects of society. The whole idea of free speech is supposed to be a check and balance within itself, and this is what it is supposed to mean in our constitutions. It works on a free market type of idea. It was originally intended that there should be hundreds, if not thousands of ideas and viewpoints put forth to the people with free speech. If someone believes in an idea, he should be able to buy a printing press, set it up in his garage, and start speaking and spreading his ideas around. If his ideas are sound, they will rise in popularity. If his ideas are stupid, some other guy with a printing press will write about it and his ideas will fall in popularity. All along, free speech frommultitudes of sources should theoretically self regulate itself. What was never intended, however, was a media monopoly, as we currently have. Here in Canada, we have only two companies who own virtually all of the media. In the USA, there are five companies, I believe. We might have multiple newspapers and multiple news channels on TV, but they are all owned by the same companies and they all spout forth the exact same message. This effectively destroys the part of free speech which is supposed to maintain liberty. Media is unique in the way that it is mandated to maintain liberty. The media has failed us horribly. The way the internet is working, with thousands and millions of voices all competing with eachother is exactly how free speech is supposed to work. It makes one wonder then, why those in government (ie. Nancy Pelosi) immediately charge forward trying to regulate free speech on the internet, often in the name of protecting political agendas such as feminism. The internet does not need to be regulated, it is self regulating just as free speech was intended to be. How come the government does not attempt to break the media monopolies to encourage more free speech? Rather, government is trying to stop the first breath of free speech we have heard in decades by trying to regulate the internet. They are scared shitless of free speech. They know that agendas like feminism are heavily based in Marxism and have been used against the people to socially re-engineer them. They know that with free speech, these agendas will no longer be protected and permitted to go along unnoticed. There is treason afoot, and unregulated free speech from little ding dongs like me is fast revealing it. The millions of voices are getting louder and louder.Communist based agendas like feminism are coming under the microscope and are found to be lacking. I dont think there is any anti-feminist that is opposed to free speech. Quite the opposite. But, I can see why feminists continually try to end free speech under the rubric of Hate Crimes Legislation. Feminism knows that if society is allowed to closely examine her silk panties, it will be discovered that they are soiled with skid marks.

A Woman's Right to Choose

"[Do you believe women have the right] to bear children when they wish to?" Answer:

I suspect this is a trick question that deals with abortion, and not actually womens natural right to bear children when they wish to. All females in the animal kingdom have the natural right to bear children,as I have already pointed out in a previous post. Also, note that women are the ones who are in control. They choose to either abstain or get naked and spread their legs. They are the ones who know best when they are ovulating and thus are directly in control of The Rhythm Method. They are the ones who have the pill, condoms, IUDs, spermicides, diaphragms, hysterectomies, the morning after pill, and abortions at their disposal. After giving birth, they are the ones who can decide to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or anonymously abandon it at a hospital, police station or fire department without fear of legal repercussions. A man has only the choices of abstaining, condoms or vasectomy. And yet, society whines relentlessly at the man for getting herpregnant. This is entirely absurd, and it would appear to anyone on the outside looking in that women are complaining of oppression because they are the ones with all the choices. But, I digress. Lets get back to abortion. . . I am sure that feminists will fast point out that 2/3 of the population supports abortion. But, as with almost everything that feminists say, they are only speaking in half truths. What these types of abortion-support statistics are based on is that when surveyed, 1/3 of the population supports abortion-on-demand, 1/3 does not support abortion-on-demand but does support abortion in cases of incest, rape or when the mothers health is at risk, and the remaining 1/3 are opposed to all kinds of abortion. Feminists are quite aware that most un-informed people naturally choose cohesion to the larger group and that is why they dishonestly skew these statistics to make it appear that most of the population supports abortion. Everybody wants to be a moderate who is in agreement with the majority. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, sometimes even used in brainwashing techniques, and feminists manipulate it ruthlessly. When one examines things a little closer though, it becomes apparent that abortions performed on victims of rape and incest, or those performed when the mothers health is at risk; make up such a miniscule percentage of the total amount of abortions performed that it is far more accurate to say that 2/3 of population are opposed to the majority of abortions that being, abortion as a means of birth control. What a sneaky little trick that our esteemed academics have played on us with this wordplay . Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels applaud them heartily from the depths of hell. But, this whole argument gets even more absurd than it would first appear, precisely because feminists have successfully fought for the right to choose. In a previous article, I pointed out that children are the product ofwoman's sexuality, which she owns 100%. It used to be that upon marriage; a woman "sold" her sexuality to a man and took his surplus labour as "payment" for it. Thus, the children of a marriage used to be considered the husband's children, while children born out-of-wedlockwere considered to be

the woman's "property." In times past, it was often considered the morally right thing for a man to do to marry a woman who got herself pregnant by irresponsibly using her sexuality out of wedlock. Society benefited from this socially manipulated moral pressure, as it has always been known that fatherless children were detrimental to society, thus the negative connotations associated with the word bastard. But, underno circumstances was a man legally obligated to give the child his name, to take ownership of the womans sexuality through marr iage, and thus, make her child into his own. But we live in different times today than we did in the past. We now have a plethora of birth control methods that have been made available to women. (Not men. Aside from a permanent vasectomy, mens birth control methods have not changed much at all). And, to top it all off, if a woman fails to use all of the various birth control methods available to her, she is still offered the ultimate choice to kill the baby via abortion. And, lets make no mistake about it; it is HER CHOICE, not the mans, and not anyone elses. Is this not the core of the feminist mantra, "A Woman's Right to CHOOSE"? Is not this right to choose enshrined in the laws of almost every Western nation? So, I want to put a little comparison into your head to fully illustrate how absurd this argument has become. Imagine Dick and Jane, two platonic friends, are walking down the street together and they pass a car dealership, Fembot Motors. They stop and admire a shiny new Corvette together. They both get a twinkle in their eye and smile as they see the other has the same thought: Lets take this car for a test drive! So, Dick and Jane roar out of the dealership in the Corvette. First Jane drives the car, then they switch positions and Dick drives it home. Ah, the joy of driving! Their hearts pound with excitement. The exhilaration of controlling a powerful beast! But, they never had any intention of actually buying the Corvette. They are just joy-riding. Upon returning to the dealership, they toss the keys back to the salesman, say thanks, and carry on walking down the road together without a care in the world. But, alas, a month later Jane calls up Dick and informs him that she returned to the dealership after their test drive and purchased the Corvette, signing a 4 year lease with payments of $1,300 a month. Now she wants to know if he will man up and help her make the payments on it, because after all, they went on the original test drive together. Jane claims that he planted the seeds of desire into her head which caused her to choose to purchase the Corvette. Of course, Dick tells her to get bent. She chose to purchase the car of her own free will and he is not responsible for her choices. Jane does not allow things to just quietly go away and take responsibility for her choices, however. No indeed! In fact, she gets herself a lawyer and Dick is served a summons to appear in court where Jane is bringing a lawsuit against Dick, to force him to pay for her new Corvette. Dick goes to court as he is required to, and walks out complete ly dumbfounded by the judges decision: Because Dick went on the original test drive with Jane, the judge declares that Dick is liable to pay damages to Jane. After all, Dick planted the seeds of desire in Janes head by agreeing to go on a test drive with her. Therefore, the court declares that Dick is responsible for Janes choice to purchase the car. Since Jane is the one who has the responsibilities of driving the car, washing the car, and providing a parking space in the driveway for the car, Judge MacKinnon rules that its only fair that Dick contributes

his share to the upkeep of the Corvette: Dick must make the $1,300/mo lease payments, in addition to paying for the insurance, gas and maintenance to operate the car. Dick requests of the judge that he be given the right to drive the Corvette himself from time to time, but Judge MacKinnon rules against Dicks request because it is not his car, and therefore he has no "rights" to it! You can see why being a Dick is not a good thing to be. But, is this not the exact situation we are now presented with since women have the right to choose?" Most places have laws on the books called Fetal Murder Laws. Take states like California or Texas, for example. Fetal Murder is considered to be a Capital Crime, punishable as if the fetus were a living, breathing human being. Killing a fetus in these states is considered equal to murdering a human being. But, how come then, a woman and her doctor are not charged with murder in the event of an abortion? It is because of the woman's right to choose, which even supercedes murder laws! And, lets just clear this up a little. It is not that the woman is choosing whether she wants to have a fertilized egg inside her or not. She has already passed up on choosing several safe and easy birth control methods before she got to the Right to Choose phase. What a woman is choosing is whether what is inside of her is a hu man life to be honoured and revered, or just a useless piece of tissue to be flushed down the toilet. If she chooses that the fetus is just a useless piece of tissue instead of human life, then the state fully backs her up and says the fetus is not alive, and therefore she cannot be guilty of murder when she rids herself of it. But, if she chooses that the fetus is to be a baby, then the state backs her up and says that if someone causes her fetus to miscarry, that person is guilty of homicide of taking a human life. So you see, while a woman may have a fertilized egg inside of her as a result using her sexuality with a man, the right to choose dictates that it is nothing until the woman chooses, of her own free will, whether or not she wants this thing to be a baby or disposable garbage. And, God forbid that she loses that right to choose. Why, that is enshrined as a womans civil right, and to deny her this choice is to oppress her! (Mother Nature is a really oppressive bitch). But, it is clear that if a woman has a right to choose, then she does not actually become pregnant until after conception. She becomes pregnant only when she chooses to of her own free will. So, how on earth can feminists and the corrupt courts possibly demand that a man should be legally and financially responsible for her choice? If she chooses for it to be a human life and have a baby, then it is absolutely no different than if she chose to go into a fertility clinic and become pregnant through artificial insemination. And, in such situations, she is responsible for the consequences of her choice, including financial responsibility. A man should only be responsible for the child if he himself has chosen to be so of his own free will. And, that choice usually comes through marriage.

Are women to be treated as children in our society? Why dont feminists demand an end to this insulting farce and declare that women are independent and can handle responsibility for their own choices?Why do they insist that others should pay for their choices? Rights without responsibilities is the state of a child. Responsibilities without rights is the state of a slave . Rights with responsibilities for ones own actions is the state of a full fledged citizen; a full person under the law. Why do feminists keep demanding that women be treated like children and men like slaves? Why dont women stand up and declare their equality by refusing to be coddled as though they're toddlers who cannot be held responsible for their own choices? Why are women granted the right to be dead-beat citizens? Its time to choose to woman up, ladies. Whats taking you so long to choose to grow up?

When Shit Gets Sold as Soap...

Yes, it'll get you squeaky clean and make you smell good too! . Have you ever noticed how much of feminism could be classified as a form of projection? Collective projection, to be more accurate. Virtually every accusation that the feminist movement levels against men could easily be seen as women projecting their own behaviours onto others (men), and this is why, I believe, that women are so prone to believe that men are doing all of these evil things to them because they can identify with such behaviour inside of themselves. . First, let's look at the whole false notion of the super-sized "boy's club-cabal" floating around out there, occasionally refered to as The Patriarchy. .

. As pretty much every man with an ounce of common sense and observational abilities will declare, there just is no freakin' Patriarchy anywhere to be found out there. . Men do not give other men special treatment because they are men. In fact, most men will readily attest that it's a dog eat dog world and we're all wearing Milk Bone underwear. Have a look at some of the completely ludicrous accusations that have been leveled against men - like the wild notion that men get better deals when they buy cars because they have testicles between their legs. What freakin' nonsense! As any man reading this will readily attest to, nowhere in our economic system will another man give me money, or choose to make less profit on me because I belong to the male sex. . I have never experienced the far reaching benefits of the Patriarchy, nor have I ever experienced any boy's club that tries to discriminate against, or exclude women from anything - well, not since I was 8 years old and tried to keep girls out of my tree fort. . I have never worked at a place where the men secretly conspired to give eachother advantages over female co-workers... but I have experienced working at places where myself and my male co-workers have caught several women conspiring in secrecy to make sure that women outperformed their male coworkers. It happened when I was working in a high-pressure commission sales environment. It was a fair sized staff, 12 in sales (11 men, 1 woman), 3 in management (2 men, 1 woman), and 3 receptionists (all women). Now, don't go thinking it was discriminatory that there were 11 men and only 1 woman on the sales staff. The general manager tried and tried to increase the ratio of women on his staff, and hired several women while I was there, but the women he hired just kept quitting, some in tears, because they couldn't cope with the high pressure of commission sales. . What was discovered by myself and my male co-workers, however, was that the three receptionists were sending double the amount of first-time customers & phone calls to the lone saleswoman, and the female manager was turning over double the amount of clients to the saleswoman as she was to the men. .

When it was brought to the attention of the General Manager, by 11 pissed off employees, he called the only 5 females that worked at the place into a meeting and after some intense grilling, the women finally admitted that they were purposefully sending more business to the woman than the men, because they wanted to make sure that a woman was the top saleperson. And not only that, but they had discussed, in secret, how they were going to go about doing it! And let's make this clear, every single woman that worked at that outfit was in on this secret conspiracy. Gee... sounds an awful lot like that far-fetched notion of patriarchy that women keep accusing men of... except the patriarchy-boy's club is the wrong gender, because what was really going on there was a matriarchal girl's club, which designed itself to discriminate based on gender. . So, I maintain that women believe in so many of these far flung notions about men because women know that women themselves do these things and therefore they rationalize that if they were men, they would discriminate against women in the same way. . There is no secret patriarchy - but there is a secret matriarchy. . Now, of course, I just gave out one example, which by no meansproves the existence of the secret girl's club. But here's a simple test you can do yourself which will strongly indicate that women, perhaps because of their herd mentality (as in, protect the herd first), do belong to a matriarchal conspiracy and are wilfully complicit in denying that such a thing exists. It just takes a little awareness, and a few separate conversations with the same woman. . First, what you have to do, is play on a woman's most favourite subject: Her own victimhood. This is the only way to get women to turn on other women. Ask her a question about how nasty her female classmates in highschool were capable of being and she will go into a tirade about how manipulative and bitchy girls can be - or ask her if she prefers to work with men or women. Women always tell you that they like working with men, because their female co-workers are constantly stabbing eachother in the back and bring so much politics into the work place. This is about the only time that a woman will turn on the herd, when you start questioning her about how mean the the herd treats her. But make note of how easily you can get her to admit that she knows women can be mean, nasty, manipulative creatures and file that away for future conversations. . Sometime, in the near future, you strike up another conversation with the same woman, and try to bring up a discussion of how a woman might possibly be aggressively manipulative against men by leveling false accusations of sexual harassment against a man, or how a wife might be psychologically abusive with manipulations against her husband... and watch the very same woman who recently told you how mean and nasty she knows women can be, suddenly clam up about how women might be doing some very mean things to men - if she doesn't blow up in your face with righteous indignation for saying what she herself had recently admitted to, except applying it to men rather than her own victimization by bitchy women. She will automatically go into "protect the herd/Matriarchy mode" and deny everything about women's sometime awful behaviour. . But now you know she knows, and you will no longer believe that she "doesn't get it." Rather, the only conclusion left is that she gets it - and she gets it well - but that protecting the Matriarchy is far more important to her than justice or honesty. One might even refer to such behaviour as amoral. . There is no Patriarchy, but women readily believe that it should exist somewhere, because it is a projection of what they know about being part of the "Girl's Club - the Sisterhood!" And after decades of women (and men) searching for the Loch Ness Patriarchy, the only conclusion that the fembots can come

up with to explain why they can't expose it is because it is "institutionalized." Yes indeed, the Patriarchy is civilization itself. Hmmm. . One can really see the lunacy of the whole "Patriarchy" argument when one looks at Social/Relational Aggression, which is stereotypically described as female aggression. Of course, one is hard pressed to find studies about this form of aggression in terms of female on male aggression, but it is ever present when one looks for women being victims, of other females. Then suddenly it is a serious issue, also known as girl bullying, which specifically uses forms of mental manipulations via secret gossiping, character assasinations and ostracizing, and mostly by convincing others to conspire against the victim along with the main aggressor. . . Bullying Styles . "Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve namecalling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends. . There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992).However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994). . There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995)." . Please note: Styles of aggression more salient to girls typically involve conspiring with others to hurt someone, kind of like, um, a cabal, a girl's club, the Sisterhood... and notice how female styled aggression always revolves around plausible deniability. "Who me? I didn't do anything!" . Is it a stretch to take this beyond childhood female on female bullying and say that women also aggress against men in the same manner? . "Patriarchy" is pure projection of what women know about "the Sisterhood." They believe the Patriarchy exists because they know the Sisterhood exists. . So... . How far does this collective projection go? . . What about the feminist claims that because men make up the majority of politicians & judges, our legal system has been tainted to prefer men's concerns over women's. Yet of course, we all know this isn't

true. Male politicians have passed an obscene amount of laws pandering specifically to women's concerns and there is no politician alive that has ever been elected to office by campaigning for issues specifically benefiting men. Yet, when one looks at the female politicians, it is easy to see that this false accusation against men is nothing more than projection of what females do when they get into office or powerful positions - the vast majority use their power to specifically benefit their own gender. The accusations that men are doing the same to women is so obviously false that it can be nothing but projection of what women know they would do if they had "men's power." And they have proved it by doing so. . How about the false accusation that men regard women as objects, as chattel, as a means of production? Hmmm... I don't know, but women obviously regard men as a work animal which women use to provide for food, clothing, shelter and luxuries for herself and her children. And women believe that her husband's labour is her property. This is why she sues her ex-husband for it after divorce. Who is treating who like a yoked farm animal, like chattel? . Hmmm... if women were running the world, there would be no more war? Well, since women got the vote around 90 years ago, the world has embarked on the most violent, most war filled century in the history of mankind - all during a time when women did/do run the world, because they hold 53% of the vote, and therefore they controlled those who started said wars and destruction. . Yup, even on the internet, we now hear things about how bad, bad men are "cyber-stalking" women and threatening violence and rape against feminists who blog man hatred on the web. Lol! Holy Projection, Batwoman! Is there one single anti-feminist on the internet who has not, over the past few years, been subjected to relentless threats of violence from cyberstalking feminists and mangina's who believe that anyone speaking out in opposition of them is fully deserving of any and all vile threats that can possibly be conjured up? Please! . In almost every single accusation that feminists throw at men, one can find projection of their own horrible behaviour onto the behaviour of men. And they get away with it because women in general can readily identify with these kinds of behaviour. Projection! . This is not new. These ideas about women's behaviour and moral character have been around for a long time. From the Bible to Aristotle, from Kant to Schopenhauer... and as "misogynistic" as feminists keep claiming that these people are, thus the reasoning for censoring the thousands of years of "Gender Studies" that existed before feminism, no-one has been better at proving correct these previous notions about male and female characteristics than the feminists who hate them the most, and the mainstream women who are complicit in letting them get away with it. . Man, this is great soap!

Age is a Social Construct

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of "age" struggles. I believe in championing the cause of child suffrage. In this day of "equality" it is an outrage that children don't have equal rights with adults. I believe in equality and all human beings are equal, therefore children should have equal rights. Age is nothing more than a social construct, designed by adults, to enable the adult oppression of children which has been present for thousands of years. What is age, after all? What does 10 years old mean? It means the earth has circled the sun 10 times; it means the earth has spun around on its axis between 3,652 to 3,653 times. That the earth circles the sun, or that there is existence of night and day, is of zero consequence to personal development and has nothing to do with a human's ability to reason.

Therefore, it is obvious that age is a social construct, created and perpetuated by adults, to enable the oppression of the young since the beginning of time. These talks about the young not possessing the same capacaties as adults are corrupt. That adults state the young are amoral is an idea born of ageism, and such ideas must be driven from society. Equality for the young! Give the young equal rights and privileges under the law, including the vote. Don't you believe in equality? How can you believe in equality if you regard the young as second class citizens to adults? You ageist pig! Adults have been oppressing the young with violence (spanking) and they believe it is their "right" to punish the young at their whim. To adults, the young are property to be owned. Just as chattel, adults see in the young nothing more than a means of production (chores). Adults believe the young exist solely for the furthering of adult pleasure. The young are forced to wash dishes so the adults can relax and revel in their percieved superiority over others; they are forced to mow lawns under the heat of the sun while adults sip iced tea spiked with gin. Adulthood is based on violence, power and domination. The young are dominated by their parents' leering eyes and their authoritarian voices. We live in an adult culture and adulthood must be abolished! If the young had the vote, there would be no war. The young wouldn't allow it!

[Fast Forward to the year 2020] Hurray! The young have been granted full equality under the law! Let us embrace this new modernized society which reveres the dignity of the young and regards them to be fully "equal" with adults, who had been oppressing them for thousands of years!

[Fast Forward to the year 2070AD] Andy Dorquin (8 years old), world renowned professor of Young and Ageism Studies at Harvard University releases another of many recent studies illustrating that although the young have had the vote for 50 years, there is still much left to do before the full equality of the young will be realized. It is obvious that there is institutionalized oppression of the young for we can see that the young only earn $0.15 on the dollar to that of adults, and the young are vastly under-represented in both CEO positions and Political Offices. The only way to counter this is to pass Affirmative Action laws which counter "institutionalized adult privilege."

[Fast Forward to the year 2071AD] Politicians throughout the Western World pass "No Fault Youth Emancipation Laws" even though, strangely, there is no massive outcry from the general public for such a reformation of family law. Youth emancipations from their parents instantly rise 500%, and because of the coupling of the afore mentioned law with the principle of "the best interests of the child," parents are legally obliged to financially support their emancipated progeny who they now never even see. In most cases, parents are ejected from their own home because the court will rule that it is in the best interest of the child to have their own house. To ensure that adults don't become dead-beat parents, the government creates Youth Maintenance Offices to extract monies from parents. The Youth Maintenance Office is granted the legal power to garnishee wages, imprison the rotten dead-beat parents, and suspend driver's licenses and passports to

give it some teeth.

[Fast Forward to the year 2073AD] The Supreme Court rules in the landmark case: Row vs. Waid, that youth have the unilateral right to choose to euthanize their parents at any time in their parents' natural life. The ruling is based on the notion that it is unjust for an adult parent to spend their progeny's inheritance, which rightfully belongs to the next generation. My parents, my choice!

[Fast Forward to the decade of 2080-89] The youthist movement, in an effort to eradicate institutionalized adulthood, begins to Newspeak the English Language. Even the words "year" and "day" are viewed as oppressively ageist, so they are renamed "Solar Revolution" and "Terrestrial Revolution" respectively. Many radicals within the yoothist movement begin to refer to themselves as "yunge" rather than young; "yooth" rather than youth. Often, the yunge are seen sporting t-shirts with a slogan reading: "This is What a Yooth Looks Like." Some adults begin to realize that things are going horribly wrong with civilization and begin to try to reason with the yunge. Since yooth now have equal rights even within the parents' own home, yooth have begun demanding that the only food to be served in the house should be chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner, 365 Terrestrial Revolutions a Solar Revolution. Parents, believing the propaganda hype that the yunge are "equal," think they can reason with them by explaining that chocolate cake can be great, but too much will make them fat and unhealthy, thereby leading to a worse life for all of them. Most yooth respond with yelling and shrieking accusations of "ageism." Some yooth, however, take heed and agree to eat one brussel sprout with their usual helpings of chocolate cake. The parents are pleased that they have made at least some progress and have a renewed hope for the future... until they watch with horror as the yooth pulls out a bottle of chocolate syrup and smothers the brussel sprout with it. "What?" The yooth snarls at the parents, "I'm eating the damn sprout." The parents are shocked by the yooth's eyes, which betray a contempt for them that extends into the soul itself.

[Fast Forward to Solar Revolution 2094AD] The Violence Against Youth Act (VAYA) is passed in an attempt to curb the institutionalized Adult Violence against Youth which is rampant throughout society. Scolding becomes recognized as abuse and yooth are granted the ability to file restraining orders against their parents if they fear that they might get scolded. Refusal to raise a yooth's allowance becomes deemed "financial abuse," a form of psychological abuse.

[Fast Forward to Solar Revolution 2107AD] To date, over 40 Million parents have been euthanized at the hands of the yunge. Approximately 1 in 2 yooth are emancipated from their parents and although the courts force parents to

financially support the yunge after emancipation, a large portion of the emancipated yooth are living in abject poverty inside of filthy, unsanitary, government provided box-apartments. Cities and rural communities alike are teaming with crime. Adults fear even talking to children because VAYA laws have been twisted and distorted to such a degree that even normal speach can land an adult in prison if the yunge decides to be in a vindictive mood. Western Civilization has stagnated and is no longer economically viable because of Affirmative Action laws designed to get rid of the $0.15 Wage Gap, and adults often are choosing careers in manual farm labor so they don't have to work beside the yunge who gravitate to the more pleasant intellectual of jobs, which would be better served by adults. In places where the yunge are present in large numbers, there is a direct increase in the number of "yooth harassment" charges resulting from anything which a yunge person finds dissaggreable. Sometimes "yooth harassment" charges are leveled against an adult, whose life gets shattered, just out of a yooth's desire for attention. Adults don't know how to behave around the yunge at all anymore and many adults have chosen reproductive sterilization as the answer, to counter their growing fears of having the little monsters even more in their life than they already are. Some yooth are beginning to realize that things are getting worse, rather than better. These are usually the ones that are on the brink of adulthood themselves. Occassionally you will hear one of them acknowledge that it is time for an "Adult Rights Movement," but they almost always follow it up with: "As long as it doesn't take away from Yooth Rights." A philosophy has recently arisen called AGTOW (Adults Going Their Own Way), consisting of adults who choose to be ethical sociopaths, turning their backs on the cultural decay which is present at every turn, from the workplace to the media, from the government to the churches, from the yooth run schools that don't teach anything to even the hostility of the yunge to them as they walk down the street. If this is a better society, they can all rot with it... ----------------------------------------------------------------------[Rewind to the year 2007 and the present situation society is facing] Now, of course, I don't mean to say that women actually are children.They exist somewhere in between and most notable, they "get things" from others in the same way children do. (By getting attention and appearing as victims). But when I talk about the amorality and dissimulation found within women, I don't think it is a stretch to say that there are some serious moral challenges which women naturally face. Even look at the difference in the MRM where the men are constantly running around scolding eachother to 'not say that' about women. That is men adhering to their sense of justice and morality and they are quite concerned about "fighting fair." Note that the feminist movement was never afflicted with this, because women in general didn't really care about how badly the feminists were trashing their own husbands, sons, fathers and brothers. But what on God's Green Earth makes people think that men and women are the same in all things? In their mentality, in their needs, wants and abilities? Psychological differences between the Sexes ARE NOT a social construct. (The word "Gender," however, is a Feminist Construct). I do not believe it was a mere coincidence that the Suffragette Movement was born at virtually the same moment as the birth of Marxism. (Yes, I know there was "talk" before that, just as there was SocialistTranscendentalism decades before Marxism). Have a look at what Marx says:

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx He says he is going to take the philosophies of the day, up to the 19th Century, and use them to manipulate the world according to his designs, with the goal of changing society into something never seen before - to defeat God and Nature. What century were people like Schopenhauer from? You know, the ones who openly philosophized about female dissimulation and amorality? Who heavily influenced Marx with his philosophies about the Dialectic? Why, it was Hegel! And what did Hegel believe about women? "... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?" -- G.F. Hegel It is also interesting to note that Hegel believed that the origin of the Universe was God - the Absolute Spirit. Yet, what did the evil rot-bag bastard, Karl Marx say? "My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism." -- Karl Marx One can spend countless hours sifting through the writings of the philosophers and what they believed about women. In virtually every case you will see a commonly acknowledged theme of women's challenges with "justice" and "morality." And, I mean you can go way back! "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx It is only in the past few decades that these views have been eradicated from our consciousness. Why is that? Look at what is going on around us! The "old philosophers" beliefs seem to hold much more truth and value in them than what spews out of the mouths of the modern gender-idiots in Cloud Cuckoo-land. Society is not better because of feminist inspired amorality and dissimulation. Isn't it amazing how the leftist brownshirts will screech and holler anyone down who notices any difference between men and women, yet at the same time they also screech down anyone who questions the Theory of Evolution? If you are someone who regards Evolution as "fact," you would also have to acknowledge that men and women's behavioural instincts would have "evolved" to help them survive. What Schopenhauer says about women having the "tool of dissimulation" to counter the physical supremacy of males makes perfectly good sense from an evolutionary perspective. How can "gender" be a "social construct" when the same feminists who are shoving that nonsense down our throats are also smugly telling us that testosterone makes men more violent, or that women are superior multi-taskers and communicators? "Gender" is a feminist construct - nothing more. One that has been dreamed up to enable the manipulations of women's worst natural traits in order to transform society and bring about the Marxist Utopia of "Equality." In a way, I feel sorry for women that they have been manipulated by these evil people to become what we now know as the "modern woman." They knew that men would never turn on

women, therefore, they used women's natural weaknesses to turn women on men. Women will never turn on children either, but it is possible to turn children on women. What do you think is the purpose of attaching the "Rights of the Child" to the UN's CEDAW Agreement? It is to begin to create a situation such as described above. The Plot goes as follows: Men (cares for) --> Woman (cares for) --> Children . Step #1: Use feminism to manipulate what was known about women to create this: . Men (pushed away by) < -- Women -- > Children . Step #2: Use children's rights (and divorced parents rights) to manipulate children to create this: . Men (pushed away by) < -- Women (pushed away by) < -- Children . They had to start with women. It would not have worked in any other way. . "Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx Tell me again that you are an Egalitarian. Please describe equality to me. Are children equal to adults? Should they have equal rights? Bears and Foxes both get their food from the same forest, but go about it in vastly different ways. Now try and make the fox get his food in the same way as the bear. Good luck! The sooner that the MRM gets their head around that notion, the better.

Women's Studies 101A, Winter Semester

In this class, we will see how women have been sheep who have bought into the Marxist anti-society philosophy hook, line and sinker. Naively, women have believed that feminism was about women's rights

and giving them greater equality. Shamefully, feminism hid this vile filth from society by manipulating academia, media & government. . "The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State .

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." -- V.I. Lenin .

. "The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 .

. "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537 .

. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971 .

. "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18 .

. "Women, like men, should not have to bear children... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977) .

. "If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any

individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100 .

. "The care of children infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation... [This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179 .

. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman .

. "It takes a village to raise a child." -- Hillary Clinton .

. "Mmmm...Roasted Useful Idiot for Dinner!" -- Rob Fedders, No Ma'am Blog, 2007 . Question: What are permanently unmarried women, whose illegitimate children have been taken from them to be raised by the state, good for anyway? . Answer: Work. Pay Taxes. Go Home. Feed Cats. Repeat until death.

Chapter Four: Marxism

On Red Herrings and the Totalitarian Trap
Many people will instinctively try to dismiss the notion of feminism being Marxism as some sort of redherring related to tin-foil-hat "conspiracy" theories. However, a quick perusal of the quotes at the top of this blog ought to discredit that notion enough for a reasonable and rational man to inquire further into the subject. .

. I maintain that the communist connection to feminism is not "a red herring," but rather that all arguments except "feminism IS communism" would be the "red herring."

What Is Marxism and How Does It Work?

First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policingdescribing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read. (I really cannot praise that article enough. One could spend years and years reading horribly dry Marxist literature, and then further years deciphering it in an attempt to understand it... or one could spend 20 minutes reading Phil Wort's article and learn more than enough about the general philosophy to have an intelligent conversation with the former.) It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism: 1). Karl Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophies of George W.F. Hegel to whom we can attribute the following maxim: "The Truth is Relative." Therefore, Hegelian philosophy will argue the possibility that 2+2 = 4 can also mean 2+2 = 3, or 9... There are no absolute truths. This was a mind blowing concept at the time, for people back then lived in a world where God DOES exist, and there was no questioning the black and whiteness of that within society. Hegel changed that. Also of supreme importance is to acknowledge Karl Marx's statement: " The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." That one statement of Marx should always be kept in mind. Not only did he have in mind some fantasy about the kind of humans that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his use of the philosophies of the day are specifically designed to enable the changes which allow Utopia to come about. He is contemplating how to use "The Truth is Relative" to alter society for his own purposes. This is why he is considered a revolutionary. His philosophies are geared towards destroying society, allowing its ashes to fertilize the Utopian soil upon which the flower of his new form of mankind will flourish. Marxist philosophies include much study on how to mass manipulate society. 2). After the Russian Revolution, a leading Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, visited Lenin's Soviet Union to witness for himself how Marxist Utopia was progressing. Lenin had seized control of Russia via violence and then foisted Marxism upon the Russian people by use of force, and waited for Utopia to arrive. It didn't. So Gramsci set about to tackle the problem of why the people did not embrace Marxism, but rather only paid obligatory lip service to it. Gramsci concluded that Marx had not gone far enough by only identifying the economic system as what holds society together - so he expanded it to include society's culture and he identified the various pillars which created societal cohesiveness by way of culture. Gramsci essentially said that if one could destroy cultural pillars like religion, the family, nationalism etc., society would self-destruct and then Marxist Utopia would naturally occur without the use of violent revolution. He concluded that if a "long march through the culture" could occur, ultimately destroying his identified pillars of society, then society would self-destruct and there would be massive chaos out of which the population would request the government to impose totallitarian control in order to "stop the madness." It is important to note that the goal is to create conflict, not to stop it. 3). There once were two schools in the world dedicated to studying Marxist theories. One was in Russia

and one was in Frankfurt, Germany. Thus the name "The Frankfurt School." The Frankfurt School, to put it simply, dedicated itself to tasks such as identifying what factors are necessary to form human cohesiveness at the level above the family unit... the community. This was because the family was identified by Gramsci as a "societal pillar" which needed to be destroyed. Those of the Frankfurt School also put effort into the study of mass-psychology with the specific intention of how to destroy the societal "cultural pillars" which had been identified by Gramsci - they wanted to find out how to destroy such pillars without the use of violence which Lenin had displayed, and set about to study various techniques which would encourage the populations to willfully throw aside cultural values - without the use of force. Therefore, they designed the notion of Critical Theory. The Frankfurt School disbanded when Hitler took control of Germany and its academics fled the country and integrated themselves into various areas of the Western World. 4). Critical Theory is essential to understand. The idea behind Critical Theory is to use criticism (based on "the Truth is Relative") to destroy by continual division. A necessary tool for Critical Theorists is the Agent Provocateur, for without someone starting the argument, Critical Theory never begins. A conflict must be started for the plan of Critical Theory to be implemented. The second tool Critical Theorists use is the natural human behaviour of fearing difference from the crowd. An example of this is the use of Political Correctness to slowly encourage mass acceptance of an idea. Human alienation is a powerful threat and therefore there is a strong urge to compromise your own principles in order to maintain social cohesion with the larger group. AND... that last tool Critical Theorists employ is a specific tool of brainwashing which can trace its origins to torture - they just took the physical parts out, but left the mental aspect in. This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values: 1 UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence, 2 - MOVING the subject to the next level, 3 FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs. (Repeat until the desired destruction occurs.) . So, could you destroy something absolute like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement. .

It's all pretty simple, 1 orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which the National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood (N.O. M.A.A.M.) files their taxes based on the "orange calculator." There is no need to change this system, because it works. Along comes Delilah, an Agent Provocateur, and she notices my system - to which she points out that oranges are made up of segments. In fact there are 10 orange segments which make up an orange. "Fair enough," I say, "there are oranges and there are orange segments which make up 1/10 of an orange. The math still works." .

. The next time I see Delilah, she argues with me that it is discriminatory for me to consider an orange segment to be only 1/10th the value of an orange. She argues that without the segments, the orange wouldn't exist, therefore each segment is worth FAR more than just 1/10th of an orange. The "truth is relative," remember? She tells me that it is discriminatory to consider the "traditional orange" to be more valuable than orange segments and she demands that I acknowledge that all parts of oranges are important, whether that be "traditional oranges" or orange segments. By allowing her to define an orange as a "traditional orange," I have already lost half the battle because by such a definition one has to acknowledge that there are types of oranges other than the traditional. As time goes on, Delilah's friends start to grumble, anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe. NO MA'AM doesn't respect all types of oranges equally and believes that traditional oranges are superior to other types of oranges... what a BIGOT! The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal Equality for Orange Segments." I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!

Connecting the Marxist Dots

Think this is a joke? Just another "Red Herring?" Let's put it all together. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx Antonio Gramsci theorized how communism would naturally take place if the identified cultural pillars of society were deconstructed by "a long march through culture." Critical Theorists devised specific schemes to enable "a long march through culture" by use of "Critical Theory."

"We shall destroy you from within!" Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate. Classic Hegelian-Marxist Theory is illustrated by this statement, which is critizing feminism : "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." --Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York Basic Books, 1994) p.116 Feminists and Gay Rights Activists have collaberated on a joint attack against marriage & the family, which Antonio Gramsci & the Frankfurt School had identified as a "cultural pillar" which must be destroyed.Take note of the theme which permeates from the following quotes from feminist & gay rights activists and see if you can spot the Marxist revolutionary ideology: "The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971 "A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161 "It [Gay Marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." - Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30 Read those quotes carefully and then sit back and ponder for yourself the following: - Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change? - Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender?Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?" With the word "sex" there is only male and female. - Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this

not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families? - Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife? - Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention. - How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry only a scant few years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family?" All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots. (Also, see my piece: A New Kind of Bigotry) These examples are all indicitave of a Cultural Marxist plan to use Critical Theory to destroy marriage, which Antonio Gramsci had identified as something which needed to be destroyed. How many other areas of Western Life have been attacked by such a ploy? Also, take notice something which is pure genius on behalf of the Cultural Marxists. They have chosen their Agent Provocateurs to argueagainst Nature! What a stroke of genius to have picked arguments which can never be won. There will always be these arguments that women are not equal to men, or that gay-marriages are not equal, because they cannot be equal by natural design! Imagine rallying people together to "fight the ocean's tide" or to "stop the moon." You will have them at your service for eternity. The night will never be equal to the day, no matter how many street lamps you erect. But the fight will always continue, because you will always be able to point out that the battle still hasn't been won... and that's the point. Marxism needs conflict for its agenda. 100 years ago, people didn't run to the government to tell them what their family life was all about. And this is the real danger and the real goal of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. It encourages people to take something which the government didn't previously control, and then cause as much chaos and confusion in it as possible... so that people run to the government to "settle their differences" and thereby grant to the state the "power of definition/settlement" over something which it previously did not have power over. Even those who are for "traditional families" are lost in this quagmire. Once upon a time, no-one questioned the word "family." There was only one kind of "family." Now, without society requesting that government be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people. The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed! No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Communism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.


The Dialectic, Useful Idiots and Consolodating the Gains to the Left
My last article, Marxism, Red Herrings and the Totalitarian Trap, argued the case that feminism and Marxism are one in the same. Or more accurately, feminism is one arm of the Cultural Marxist's war on Western Civilization's "cultural pillars." The main weapon used to fight this war is Critical Theory, which was defined by a student of the Frankfurt School as the "essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism." How can mere criticism be used to collapse a culture, you ask? Well, we're not exactly talking about the kind of criticism typical of a nagging wife, but rather a purposeful and precise attack designed to alter the perceptions of "the truth." Therefore, Western Civilization could be made to sabotage itself in very destructive ways until there was such chaos that the people would willingly give up their freedoms and request a totalitarian government to stop the madness. Think of it this way; if during an actual physical war you could make all of your enemy's compasses read south when they are in reality headed east, you could create untold havoc for them without ever firing a shot.

This is the principle behind Karl Marx's statement, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." Marx wanted to create an entirely new human civilization based on his ideologies. In order for him to do that, he reasoned, the present civilization and social order must be destroyed. Since he was heavily influenced by G.F. Hegel, who philosophically came to the conclusion that "The Truth is Relative" (truth is always subject to change and never absolute), Marx was reallysaying, "I am going to use this concept of The Truth is Relative to destroy civilization for purposes of my own design." This is why Marxism is a revolutionary ideology. It is conspiratal right down to its very core, and yet there is nothing "tin-foil-hat" about it. It's done right in the open... in fact, since it is attempting to change society's understanding of the truth, it is necessarily done in the open. What's the purpose of altering your enemy's compass if you then hide it so he can't use it?

Dialectical Arguments
To understand what Marxists are trying to do, one must first understand what Hegel did with the dialectic.The dialectic was not invented by Hegel and it is nothing new. It merely means opposing

positions, or in other words, an argument. Traditional logic says that if Position A (1+1=2) is correct, then Position B (1+1=3) is incorrect. Pretty easy speazy, eh? In Hegelian terms, Position A is called the Thesis (position) and the opposing argument is called the Anti-Thesis (opposite position). Essentially what Hegel did was take the two and equalizedthem, claiming the truth was found in the Synthesis, which means the consensus or compromise, between the two. The Synthesis then becomes the new truth (Thesis), and the next Anti-Thesis is pitted against it creating yet another Synthesis (New Truth), and so on and so on, like a staircase. Now, this is not an easy subject, nor is it easy to keep one's attention focused on it. But, a diagram of how it works is much easier to understand.

The staircase kind of works like precedents that are set in a court of law. A previous court case (argument) concluded in a certain way, thereby setting a precedent. That precedent is then often used in future court cases as an established truth upon which even further arguments are based. This staircase has been going on in regards to the Gender War as well, and looks something like this:

(You can substitute Affirmative Action for Man Tax, or any other host of discriminations against men based on the inequalities between the sexes generated by "The Truth is Relative.")

Now, keep in mind, that is merely what Hegel did. Marx then said to himself, "How can I use this Hegelian Dialectic thing-a-ma-jig to change the world?" What he concluded was that he ought to "stand Hegel on his head." Karl Marx starts by saying I want that Man-Tax to appear in society, now what arguments can I create which will lead to that conclusion?

In other words, once you declare that feminism IS Marxism, you are also declaring that on a philosophical level, it is indeed a top-downconspiracy. There is an intentional destination of Marxist arguments, whereas Hegel's version builds the truth "naturally" and in a more haphazard way. You can also see the need for Marxists to think two, three, four or five steps ahead. In fact, I've read before that many Marxists who became national leaders, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc., rose to prominence in large part because of the status they generated by showing how well they could manipulate dialectical arguments. Here is what one famous Marxist had to say on the subject: "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 Where most people run amock is they are only thinking about one argument at a time, rather than in a series of them all linked with the intention of arriving at a pre-determined goal.

Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess

After the Russian Revolution, Lenin wrote that he would install a Marxist bureaucratic government without the support of dedicated Marxists. Only the inner elite of his circle would understand the political structure he was building, while others would be manipulated to forward his agenda by their natural vanity and ambition to gain favour so as to further their political careers. He called such people "Useful Idiots." Furthermore, he understood that an angry pressure builds up (backlash) when manipulating masspopulations and this pressure needs a release valve. Lenin combined this knowledge within dialectical manipulation and allowed for controlled backlashes that, in fact, furthered his agenda even though it

appeared to oppose his goals. "It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war." -- V.I. Lenin This is kind of a difficult concept at first, because it doesn't make much sense on the surface. The shortest route between point A and point B is a straight line, and that is how most people think things work - and usually they are right, except when dealing with Marxists. "Wishing to advance in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintences, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrubt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forwardbackward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically. The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable portion of the time. Lenin wrote the textbook, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Chinese Communist schoolchildren are taught to do the dialectical march taking three steps forward and two steps back. If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving we will obviously be deceived" -- Dr. Fred Schwarz, President of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade OK, so they go two steps forward and one step back. But what's the point of that? Well, the point is that the backlash consolodates the gains! The general modus operandi is to push hard with radical leftism. Of course, radical leftward movements cause lots of social upheavel, such as how the radical move of No-Fault-Divorce has caused untold grief in our society for all parties involved. After time, enough people are angry and bitter about these policies which harmed them on a personal level that a backlash movement begins to develop.That backlash is then "released" to let off the steam, but the backlash is only allowed in ways that concentrate more power in the hands of the State. These things don't happen fast, mind you, but take several years - often a generation. Lenin sped things up by using government force and direct violence, but Lenin was only one faction of Marxist theory, which is obviously called "Leninism." Another faction is called "Fabianism."

The Long March Through the Culture

Fabian Socialists adopted their name from the Roman general, Fabius, who battled and won against the infamous Hannibal with his elephants when he invaded Italy. Hannibal had a vastly superior army than Fabius but was far from his home and supplies, so Fabius organized a campaign of hit-and-run tactics against Hannibal's army. He harassed and confounded the enemy, wearing them down bit by bit over time until finally Hanibal capitulated and admitted defeat. Fabian Socialists adopted Fabius' strategy, veering away from Lenin's use of violence to speed things up. Instead, the Fabians used techniques involving time to alter perceptions of the truth. In my last article, I wrote about how the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory utilizes brainwashing techniques to alter the population's perceptions of the truth. The basic plot is to unfreeze the subject from his current comfort level and move him to a different level, thenfreeze them at that next

level until they have accepted their new paradigm as "normal." This technique was based on the practice of torture, but merely removed the physical parts of it while keeping the mental aspects intact. For example, prisoners of war often have described the mental aspect of weeks or months spent in isolation as more damaging to them then the actual physical tortures they endured. Alienation from the group is a very real threat to humans, as we are naturally social creatures. Political Correctness was first invented by Lenin (he called those opposing his views "Enemies of the State") and later it was used by Stalin to run his opponent Leon Trotsky out of Russia and into exile in Mexico, where he had a date with an ice-pick. The technique of using time rather than violence is the only thing that changed with the Fabian's viewpoint on Marxism. They agreed with Lenin's goals, but only differed with him because he used violence to speed up the populace's willingness to accept his dictats. Really, if you have a look at it all, what took Lenin four years to implement has taken the Fabians/Cultural Marxist 40 years to replicate. But the end result is pretty much consistent. For example, a few years after the Russian Revolution in 1917, Lenin declared "International Women's Working Day" on March 8th, 1921. He bragged about how he had created the first system of equality and had liberated women from their chains. Lenin instituted no-fault divorce, easy abortions, state-run daycare centres, community kitchens, sewing centres, and other such things to alieviate women from their biological duties to children and family, and put them to work with the pick-axe and shovel. He claimed he had ended discrimination against women and had liberated them by doing such. It took him four years, by use of violence, to implement his policies. In contrast, after forty years of second-wave feminism gradually eroding society, we have arrived at virtually the same place. We now have feminists screeching at the government to impose upon businesses such things as corporate run daycare centres and flex-time so that they may realize their true "equality." (Which can only be enabled by state totalitarianism). In the last few Canadian elections, state-run daycare has been a constant issue. It's only a matter of time before it becomes reality. Basically, everything which Lenin declared he had done to make women "equal" in 1921, is now being seriously debated in our own legislative assemblies in the present day, and no-one bats an eye about it. Why is it like that? It's because of gradualism. For example, the population was unfrozen in the 1970's when we introduced the radical concept of NoFault-Divorce (which the population did not request). This has caused untold grief for millions of people, but after 40 years, and a generation or two of children raised in broken homes, no-one really questions the right to unilaterally force a divorce upon another party. We assume it is normal, even though it is a recent phenomenon that has only existed for around 40 years in Western Civilization's multiple-millenia existance. What's happened is enough people in society have accepted the notion that divorce is not only normal, but it is a right. Most 40-somethings like me can only remember a distant time in their early existence when divorce wasn't the norm. A cultural paradigm has shifted, by use of gradualism and time. Now virtually everyone has 50% or more of their relationships ending in divorce, or was raised in a broken home to begin with. Divorce is so "normal" that no-one even questions its validity. The proper acceptance of new values, via brainwashing techniques, has been achieved. And now, the push is on for "shared-parenting" to alieviate the problems created by the divorce epidemic. Nobody is openly questioning if we should abolish No-Fault-Diivorce. No, not at all. All that is being said is that the system

ought to be re-organized to make it more fair. Divorce is part of our culture now. The "acceptance" phase is now complete. It's time to move the family unit on to a further totalitarian idea that destroys the family, commonly known as Shared-Parenting, where the courts will decide every facet of people's children's lives, right down to the times they are allowed to see their parents. which religion they ought to subscribe to, and how far away their parents are physically allowed to live from them which removes their right to freely move about the country. And of course, this is what Marxists and radical feminists (the same thing) have wanted all along. "The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67] "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18 "[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100 "[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294 "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman "The care of children infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179 "It takes a village..." -- Hillary Clinton "How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar "The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254. "...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose

divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 "[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977) Wow! Those gringas really don't like marriage and children! But it's pretty easy to see what is happening. No-one in our current society is demanding of the government to end No-Fault-Divorce and restore things sanely to the way they were before. Instead, vast lobby groups of disenfranchised fathers are merely complaining that they should have "sharedparenting." In other words, since fathers are marginalized and don't often have sole custody of their children, they would rather that neither the father or mother had custody in favour of the court keeping said custody, and then dictating baby-sitting duties between the father and mother. If there is any dispute, the government will arbitrate it. If there is anything at all which is displeasing, the courts will handle it. If the father wants to take to the child to a Catholic church, while the mother is a dedicated Wiccan, it will be the courts who will paternalistically decide what is in the best interests of the child. Has the government then not effectively taken custody of the children? And isn't that what they wanted all along? The backlash to the right is used to consolodate the gains to the left. It's not a backlash to the way things were before. Rather, while the backlash movement thinks they are winning, in effect they are being mere useful idiots and only furthering along the Marxist and Feminist goals of removing children from their parents and placing them into government custody. After 20 or so years of this - long enough to allow society in general to accept the new normal, an abrubt turn will occur and radical leftward movements will again appear, further removing freedom. And the marginalized fathers of today will no longer be able to complain about their situation... after all, they won! They got their shared-parenting... and all of the totalitarianism that comes along with it. "Destroy the family, you destroy the country." -- V.I. Lenin

It's Not Marxism Because...

One of the most common arguments I see made against the notion that feminism and Marxism are one in the same goes something like this: "Feminism and Marxism aren't related because Stalin's policy of xyz was certainly not feminist!" (or Mao's, or Pol Pot's or Gorbachev - take your pick). Another common argument goes like this: "Russian women aren't raving feminists like American women, therefore, Marxism and feminism aren't related." Well, all these things may be true, but, one must also realize that Marxism is kinda like Christianity in that while it has a large over-riding ideology, there are many different denominations with varying

beliefs. Marxism as well has many different types. Lenin's interpretation of Marxism was one such type, called Leninism, and when Stalin took over he interpreted Marxism in a different way - over-riding some of Lenin's beliefs - and thus becoming "Stalinism." Mao as well interpreted Marxism differently from Stalin, and this became known as "Maoism." So, just as it is false to say that Protestants aren't Christians because they don't have a Pope and never go to confession, so is it false to say that Marxism and feminism are unrelated because of reason XYZ during Boris Yeltsin' s vodka soaked tenure at the helm. Mostly when people such as myself assert that Marxism and feminism are one in the same, it has a lot to do with the philosophies behind Marxism, such as the oppressor vs. victim class, the use of the Marxist dialectic to manipulate the population, the "end-goal" of Marxism & feminism being remarkably similar, and most of all it comes from Engels' own words (Marx made a few references to liberating women, but Engels really got into it). Furthermore, after the Russian Revolution, Lenin (not Stalin or Kruschev) erected a near perfect feminist Utopia. (Stalin, in fact, removed many of Lenin's feminist policies because it was obvious how much it was harming the people and thus, the state). "A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806 A few years back, Carey Roberts wrote several articles on this very subject, and I would like to quote a few of them to illustrate why the Soviet Union under Lenin is often referred to as a feminist Utopia. From The Marxist Prescription for Women's Liberation: "In the 1840's, Marx concocted this bizarre theory: Since working men were oppressed by capitalist economies, then women were doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and patriarchy. This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto: "What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production." In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family, Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal oppression: "The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children."" (Here are a few more quotes that follow with this Marxist-feminist theme) "The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (New York, International Publishers, 1942), p.58 "The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67]

"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." -- Eleanor Marx (Daughter of Karl), The Woman Question From When Family Dissolution Becomes the Law of the Land: "So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified. In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law." But Lenin's dream of gender emancipation soon dissolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos. First, the decline of marriage gave rise to rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists complained that comrades were spending too much time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill their revolutionary duties. Not suprisingly, women who were sent out to labor in the fields and factories stopped having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman had borne six children. By 1991, that number had fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is unprecedented in modern history. But it was the children who were the greatest victims. As a result of the break-up of families, combined with civil war and famine, countless numbers of Russian children found themselves without family or home. Many ended up as common theives or prostitutes. In his recent book, "Perestroika," Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil: "We have discovered that many of our problems -- in children's and young people's behaviour, in our morals, culture and in production -- are partially caused by the weakening of family ties."" Here is a little more Marxist-feminism, from Lenin's March 8th, 1921 speech on International Working Women's Day: "But you cannot draw the masses into politics without drawing in the women as well. For under capitalism the female half of the human race is doubly oppressed. The working woman and the peasant woman are oppressed by capital, but over and above that, even in the most democratic of the bourgeois republics, they remain, firstly, deprived of some rights because the law does not give them equality with men; and secondlyand this is the main thingthey remain in household bondage", they continue to be household slaves", for they are overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household. No party or revolution in the world has ever dreamed of striking so deep at the roots of the oppression and inequality of women as the Soviet, Bolshevik revolution is doing. Over here, in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law. The Soviet power has eliminated all there was of the especially disgusting, base and hypocritical inequality in the laws on marriage and the family and inequality in respect of children. This is only the first step in the liberation of woman. But none of the bourgeois republics, including

the most democratic, has dared to take oven this first step. The reason is awe of sacrosanct private property. The second and most important step is the abolition of the private ownership of land and the factories. This and this alone opens up the way towards a complete and actual emancipation of woman, her liberation from household bondage through transition from petty individual housekeeping to large-scale socialised domestic services." It's not hard to see why the Soviet Union after the Revolution is so often referred to as a feminist paradise, eh? So, when and why did it change? From "Roots of American Culture and Community in Disarray" -- Statement of Bill Woods to the Committee on Ways and Means: "FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM? Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current family law system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and Americas welfare state, was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state childrens facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. Americas fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart. Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate..." As one can plainly see from the evidence which I have put forth herein, feminism and Marxism are intricately linked. The fact that Stalin changed the Soviet Union's family policy after he took power in no way discredits that Lenin attempted to create a feminist Utopia after the Russian Revolution. He obviously based his feminist policies on Marx & Engels' ideas on the subject. Feminist goals are 100% aligned with the ideas put forth by V.I. Lenin, and thus ought to be more accurately described as Marxist-Leninist. Feminism is very much based upon Marxism. "The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

"The Misandry Bubble" Burst a Decade Ago

There is a much vaunted article floating around the internet called "The Misandry Bubble" which claims that the war against masculinity will "burst" in the year 2020. Until then, the author claims, everyone with a vested interest in maintaining a campaign against men will "double down" in their efforts to control and enslave them. It's an interesting thought, but I disagree. And since the author is clearly using stock-market terminology, let's have a quick look at some other maxims regarding "bubbles."

"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
This would seem to be the case today, that the feminist juggernaut is still marching forward at full steam ahead. I mean, how could it not be? There are "End of Men" and "Woman's Nation" articles being published all the time. Every female failing somehow ultimately becomes the fault of a man, or men, somewhere, at some obscure point in history. Women dominate our universities and are cheering the displacement of men in the workplace, somehow believing that men's harm is women's gain. A wise man that has been around the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) for over forty years once related how he thought that during the 1990's men would finally wake up to the toxic nature of feminism and what it is has done to the attitude of Western Women. "I went through wave after wave of false hope. When MacKinnon and Dworkin, in conspiracy with the religious right and the John Ashcroft types, pushed through the Minneapolis and Indianapolis porn ordinances, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When the famous "1 in 4" faked research came out, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When Fruity Faludi came out with her book, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When Lorena Bobbit mutilated her husband and was

cheered by millions of women, I thought that would be a wakeup call..." -- Zenpriest #35 - How Was This Allowed to Happen? "You can thank Oprah for peddling her message of female victimhood and male perfidy to millions of women who lapped it up - loving the hating of men. You can thank all the dozens of trailer-trash panderers - Sally Jesse, Maury, Phil, Geraldo, Jerry, and all the rest - for serving up their multiple daily servings of emotional road-kill which millions of women lapped up like flocks of emotional buzzards. And, you can thank the millions of these so-called nice, average, normal women who just loved to bash men, complain endlessly about petty crap like toilet seats, cheered on Lorena Bobbit when she castrated her husband and played the abuse excuse card. You can thank the lesbians who have dominated wimminss studdees programs turning out thousands of what Christina Hoff-Sommers calls hate-intoxicated little zealots and creating a climate that Daphne Patai calls Heterophobia. You can thank the millions of female teachers who have led the War on Boys and when they couldnt stamp out the masculinity in boys, decided todope them with dangerous drugs in order to turn them into compliant zombies." -- Zenpriest #49 Let Women Win the Battle of the Sexes .

. All of these things peaked during the 1990's, not during the 2000's. In the 2000's we were simply dealing with the aftermath of the hateful policies which were justified by the anti-male biases of the 1990's. Sure, the VAWA was renewed in the 2000's, but it was originally created in the 1990's, in response to the Super Bowl Sunday Hoax.

"Bubbles can only be seen in hindsight."

It was during the 1990's that Oprah Winfrey and Jerry Springer types sky-rocketed into the spotlight before them, in the 1980's, there was really only Donahue - and he was not nearly as ridiculous as those who came after him. Although he was no great triumph for humanity either, at least he also interviewed people like Ayn Rand who tore into feminism on his show. But it was during the 1990's that those who

replaced Donahue went full tilt against all things male. During what decade did all the women giggle amongst themselves about their "starter marriages?" In which decade did we start drugging our boys with ritalin on a truly massive scale? It was during the 1990's that we completely ripped apart our school system and re-arranged it in favour of girls. It was during the 1990's that we went whole-hog on gender in the workplace, being even prohibited by law from reasonably inquiring if a young woman of 20-something plans to have children in the future, and using this information to best allocate business resources. What decade was it that Catharine McKinnon managed to find sexual harassment behind every water-cooler? Almost all of the really truly abusive policies feminism has graciously served up to us were the result of the extreme anti-male biases found back in the 1990's, not in the present day. Comparing today to the 1990's, the amount of new policies being erected by feminists is truly miniscule. Today, they are mostly just fighting to hang on to their ill-gotten gains which they achieved during the 1990's.

"The next bull market is always in a different area than the last one."
The maxim of "bubbles can only be seen in hindsight" similarly applies to the next bull market. Rarely do people identify the next bull market when it's in its early stages. It is the same psychology that drives both, but they drive in different directions. For example, the majority of people didn't believe the tech bubble had burst back in 2000. When they seen Microsoft trading at 50% the value of the previous year, they rationalized it was screaming value and bought some "on sale," so secure were they in their belief of the value of such stocks. A year later they had lost money hand over fist, but still believed. And then they held on and still believed some more. A really good example I know well, because it was here in Canada, was a company called Nortel which was the Canadian tech-industry's darling and at one time the largest company (by market cap) in the country. If I recall correctly, it was trading at +$120.00/share in 2000. People bought back in at $60.00, thinking it had "corrected enough" and presented great value... by December 2002, Nortel hit an all-time low of $0.70. When the economy started picking up again around 2003 and 2004, Nortel zoomed back up to $7.00 and then $9.00, convincing people that "Nortel was back on track again and presented great value." People again piled in, and two or three years later, Nortel went broke and shareholders lost every last penny they had invested. That was some great value! Conversely, a bull-market began in commodities back in 1999 and 2000. It was dismissed by all but the most fringe of contrarian investors. Gold, after all, was a barbaric relic, and the tech-boom was going to revolutionize everything about the marketplace. Everyone from governments to hedge-funds to small individual investors dumped their barbaric relics. When gold almost doubled in value, the naysayer's still had the public opinion in their pocket. One of the biggest jokes amongst gold investors today is this video that the anti-gold crowd circulated and laughed about, their point being that since gold had reached $500.00/oz, its run was over and the "gold bubble" was going to burst. .

. Today, it makes for great giggles to still hear the same people calling gold at $1600.00/oz as a bubble. The fact is, many "savvy investors" completely missed the bull-run in gold & commodities, and they are still convincing themselves to keep missing it. Sure sure, the gold "bubble" will burst one day and end in tears. However, that bubble will not burst until everyone, even the long-term critics, change their attitudes and pile into gold and commodities with reckless abandon. You can only tell in hindsight when a bull market has started, just like you can only tell in hindsight when the bubble "burst." (This is why contrarian investors follow the idea of "get in early and get out early.")

The Feminist Bull Run is Over; The Anti-Feminist Bull Market is Already Underway
Today, we hear more anti-feminist rhetoric being bandied about than ever before - or at least since the sexual revolution uprooted every social more that once built our great civilization. The media no longer completely dismisses anti-feminist ideas, and even though they often still mock them, they are becoming more and more willing to entertain ideas opposing the hate-filled dogma of the past decades. Many ideas which were considered "fringe" only five or six years ago are now being reported on in various news sites. Furthermore, the underlying culture is leading the way. If you go to articles like The Atlantic's "The End of Men," and read through the comments section, you will see waves of men showing up to tear the author, and the magazine, a "new one." This not only didn't occur in the 1990's at all, but even only five years ago the vast majority of news-sites, blogs and so forth, automatically deleted any comment that was not supportive of feminism. This is simply not true anymore. People are getting angry about feminism all throughout society today.

Culture Leads Laws; Laws Don't Lead Culture

The culture of the West changed before its laws did, as is always the case. The 60's, 70's and 80's tore up our culture root and branch, altering many of our previous generations social mores. It was after this culture had changed, during the 1990's, that anti-male laws really began to swing into action. The

culture had changed and now laws had to be created to reflect the new culture. This is always the way it works. And this is also the way the "Anti-Feminist Bull Market" is going to work. More and more people are waking up to the fact that feminism has screwed us all gently with a wooden spoon. These people are angry at those who harmed them. Feminism has caused lots of harm to lots of people - including women themselves. The culture is already changing, and it will continue to change over the next several years until the fevered pitch of their demands over-shadows all other issues. It will bethen, and only then, that the laws start to be changed to reflect the cultural values of the general population. I strongly suspect that rather than the "Misandry Bubble bursting" by the year 2020, what will really be happening is the "Anti-Feminist Bull Market" will be well on its way and the culture will already be reflecting changing social mores.

They're About Done with Feminism, Anyway

I remember when I first became attuned to the fact that feminism and Marxism were so closely related. I had already realized something was deeply wrong with the ideology, but just could never put my finger on it. At the time, I had volunteered to shovel some gravel for the MRM's newest branch called Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). This was back in 2006 and what I was doing was creating a website called theMGTOW Library, where I was trying to catalogue men's articles into some sort of useful, coherent fashion for others to draw upon. I was (and still am) very computer illiterate, so one of the founders of MGTOW named Zed, held my hand as I blew up the website over and over with my ignorance of all things computer related. But something happened to me as I read all of those articles, especially those written by Carey Roberts back in 2004 and 2005 which so solidly argued the case that feminism is the mirror image of Leninist Russia. Suddenly the scales fell off and my eyes were opened. I couldn't believe that this was going on and furthermore, I became convinced that there must be some men out there who were trying to fight this Marxist scourge. I had been putting in a lot of effort, but eventually started to get ticked off. "Hey," I scolded Zed. "I have been working my butt off here, and dammit, I want to be let in to the inner circle. I mean, what the bloody hell is being done about this, and why do you guys keep me on the outside?" The answer I received? "Sorry, buddy, there's nobody here but myself and Larry (another fellow who was working to maintain MGTOW sites). There is no secret cabal. It's just us two mooks, and now you." Well, of course, I felt rather foolish. But soon we were discussing the situation and what it all entailed. Then Zed said something which hit me right between the eyes. "The powers that be are about done with feminism anyway," he said. "Pretty much all of the goals which radical feminists were promoting in the past have come to fruition, or are very near to it." And he's right, of course. There are a few loose ends to tie up, but most of the battle has already been fought and won (by them - lost by us). The family really has been altered. Divorce is now as common as life-long monogamy. It is normal for children to come from broken homes and not have a father in their

lives. Government sponsored welfare and affirmative action have replaced the husband's role, destroying the demand for marriageable men, just as Roxanne Dunbar and Kate Millet predicted back in the 1970's. Sure, individual feminists like Amanda Marcotte still ferverently believe the battle is not close to being won, but Marcotte is merely a useful idiot. The powers that be will toss her into the furnace with the rest of the rubbish the instant that her usefulness disappears. .

. So, what's next? What were the original goals of this Cultural Marxistplan? Well, in regard to the ladies, it was to achieve "true equality" by putting women back into the public work force, thereby destroying the entire concept of the family. In order to do this, women must be relieved of their biology as mothers, which is why V.I. Lenin instituted such things as no-fault divorce, easy abortion, community kitchens, sewing centers, housekeeping services, and state-run daycares. The goal of this, however, was not to "empower" women. That's just what was said. Quite frankly, if you want to argue that Lenin was altruistically helping women be all they could be, you would be sorely mistaken. The goal was to take children away from their parents and bring them under the control of the state, instead of parents. Families, say Marx, Engels, Lenin and Feminists, are the founding cornerstone of Capitalism, and therefore all discrimination and oppression ultimately stems from the family. But, no matter how much women hate men today, and no matter how much money they make shuffling papers around mindlessly in their cubicles, do you think that women would ever willingly give up their own children? I think not! The way to remove children from their mothers, via Marxist techniques, would be to abandon the cause of women and take up the cause of men. It can easily be pointed out now that it is men who are not treated equally, and dialectically speaking, it is quite easy to see how disenfranchised fathers could be

manipulated into thinking shared-parenting (or, marriage 3.0) is in everyone's best interests, and thereby empower the government to take custody of children away from mothers and place them in the custody of the State - who will then decide a baby-sitting schedule for the sperm and egg donors. It is also not a stretch for oversight committees to be erected to ensure the "ongoing best interests of the child." Heck, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's thesis compared children in the family to the corruption Indians experienced on the reserve. That wingnut Marxist believes that the government should create a new bureaucracy to represent children separately from their parents. In other words, each child ought to have a legal-aid lawyer representing them, so that their parents don't abuse their power over them. This is not something new, mind you. People have tried to separate parents and children before. The 2000 Supreme Court Case, Troxel et vir. v. Granville, upheld the "presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children." This was also previously defended back in the 1979 Supreme Court Case, Parham v. J.R..Writing back in 1979 for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger declared that ever since Blackstone, who wrote in 1765, the law "has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children." The idea of government taking custody of children today, however, is much greater than in the past. As the Bull Market in Anti-Feminism develops, more and more fathers are going to demand the government grants shared-parenting, which is quite obviously the foundation for government taking custody of children. Is it such a stretch of the imagination to see courts appointing government representatives - an unelected bureaucracy - instead of parents, who will decide what is "in the best interests of the child?" Just because a backlash is developing against feminism does not mean it is a good thing, nor that it can only benefit men and society. Many of the things the MRM are requesting is in line with feminism - DV shelters for men is one example, and would only serve to increase government power in the home, not decrease it. I can't bear the thought of men being manipulated into becoming Useful Idiots who further feminist and Marxist goals. Can you? "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman . Women's Studies 101A Sex in the 90's -- by Rollo Tomassi

The Marxist Dialectic of the Family: Part I - Marriage 1.0 versus The Tender Years Doctrine
"What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production." -- The Communist Manifesto .

. Marriage 1.0 versus the Tender Years Doctrine The battle to change Marriage 1.0 starts with The Declaration of Sentiments in 1848. The Declaration of Sentiments is the "official start" of feminism as a movement. Two other things happened in this year. The first was that 1848 was the year of revolutions around Europe, where many nations in Europe succumbed to the ideologies of liberal reformers and politicians began to radically alter forms of government while technological progress had radically altered the lives of the working classes. Socialist thought was already heavy in the air and had been brewing for some time already. The second was Karl Marx' release of the revolutionary Communist Manifesto wherein it is important to note that he begins the dialectical manipulation in the first line. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Really? Is that true? Marx was declaring an anti-thesis to start a dialectical argument. (There is no way that the history of allsociety is the history of class struggles.) This is exactly what the Declaration of Sentiments does as well. Here is how Elizabeth Cady Stanton starts off her list: "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her." Do you see the similarity to Karl Marx's statement above from the Communist Manifesto? It is simply untrue and there are hosts of factors she is ignoring. In fact, it is so ridiculously wrong that one doesn't even know if it ought to be refuted. It's like saying the sun exists at the bottom of the ocean. But truth is not the point. The point is to present an anti-thesis to the thesis so that dialectical manipulartion can begin. .

. There are 16 points made after this statement. They all are either false statements, in that they don't take into account a vast amount of other factors (it's only relatively true) or they are simply false statements altogether. For example. Points one to four are about the vote and that men had prevented women from voting on the foundation of the society they live in. But 99.99% of men didn't have anymore say in it than women (Only 55 delegates were present at the Constitutional Convention) - yet all men are to blame. In point four she declares that the elective franchise is the first right of a citizen. Yet that is blatantly untrue. Men did not yet even have universal suffrage in 1848, and 'the right to vote" is guaranteed nowhere. (Landless white men did not receive suffrage until 1856 while non-white men received suffrage by 1870). Your rights are supposed to be guaranteed despite how the majority votes, remember? And the US Founding Fathers mentioned "democracy" nowhere when they created a republic (rule by law, not by sentimental voting). Every point in the Declaration of Sentiments is built on such wobbly logic. As far as undermining marriage goes, this is addressed by points five to eight: 5 - He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. 6 - He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns. 7 - He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement. 8 - He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.

Point five is obviously not so much a point in itself, but rather a lead-in to explain her anti-thesis for the next three points. Point six is claimed to be an abuse which men have perpetrated against women, yet the laws she is talking about were designed specifically for women's benefit in the marriage contract. It was not possible for spouses to own property independently from eachother. As soon as a marriage occured, all titles went into the husband's name. It was arranged this way because women hypergamously tend to marry men with more resources than they have. The vast majority of women "move up" when they marry. Very, very, very few women move down when they choose a long term mate, even today. What this law really did was combine the male's greater financial wealth (in 99% of cases) with that of the lesser wealth of almost all women who got married. You see, if women are allowed to keep property titles outside of marriage, then so would the men be allowed as well. And if that were the case, the majority of wives would not be able to fully benefit from their husband's productivity and wealth creation. It's a blatant lie to describe this as an act of tyranny and oppression against women. However, it does start the dialectic, and it does end up that these laws are scrapped - leading to the undermining of marriage considered as "one flesh." Point seven can hardly be made into a case for the oppression of women at the hands of men. Let me get this straight. You breaking the law and me doing the time in jail for it is me oppressing you? Have a look at how this man oppressed his wife: Sends Husband To Jail To Aid Suffrage Cause -- The Milwaukee Journal, Sept. 21, 1912 Mrs. Mark Wilks, whose husband is in jail because she refuses to pay her taxes, is credited with discovering a new and formidable weapon for the suffragettes. The suffragettes are generally women of property and they will follow Mrs. Wilkes example immediately, it is said. The plan will work only in cases of husbands whose wives have independent incomes. Nor will it work in cases where the husbands pay taxes on their wives' incomes. Some husbands, like Wilks, haven't enough money to pay their wives taxes. Suffragette husbands who can pay are counted on to refuse to do so. Thus will a large portion of the Englishmen with suffragette wives be in jail shortly. Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife's property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income tax - $185 - and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless his wife pays or the law is changed. When at liberty he is a teacher in Clapton. .

. After they dialectically changed the property laws, splitting husband from wife, they still didn't remove the responsibilities from the husband. Can you imagine it? Your wife inherits a $5 million estate that requires $50,000/year in taxes. You make only $45,000/yr, and when your wife refuses to pay the taxes, you go to jail for tax-evasion on her behalf. You have no way out. You have no right to take the funds out of her estate to cover the expenses. The oppression of women, you say? It kind of makes sense why all property was put into the husband's name, wouldn't you agree? The eighth point is the one which undermines the ancient contract of marriage entirely. The ancient contract of marriage is not about romantic love. Those notions are relatively recent. No, it was aneconomic contract between a man and a woman, whereby the man trades his lifetime's work of generating "excess resources" - which he is far better suited to procure than women - for children that are his own. In other words, he would have 100% presumed custody of any children produced from the woman's sexuality for the duration of their time together. It was about the concept of property rights, or in this case, of custody rights. The products of his wife's sexuality (children) became "his" and the products of his life's work became "hers." I would die before I will give up the child to its father. -- Susan B. Anthony, Quoted in Phyllis Chesler, Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 38. Also, Elizabeth Cady Stanton claims this practice of father-custody was built on the presumption of the supremacy of man. This is another lie. The reason why ancient marriage was structured that way is because there is a hierarchy of how "love" works. It kind of goes like this: Men love women --> Women love children --> Children love puppies. Men's love for women is greater than women's love for men, just like parental love for children is greater than children's love for their parents. The Bible indicates this principle when it commands men to love their wives, but commands wives to honour their husbands in return, just as children are commanded to honour their parents, not love them. When children are placed in the position of 100% presumed custody of the father, it strengthens the weakest bond in the family - that between father and children. Fatherhood mostly doesn't exist in the animal world, while motherhood is positively everywhere. By attaching fathers and children directly to one another, the mother now equates her children with the father. If she divorces the father, sheknows she will lose access to her children. Therefore, in order to maintain her love with her children

she must also maintain her love with their father. If one believed that men and women were the same, one might project the female behaviours of today in modern family court as how men abused such rights in the past. However, this is not the case. Men's greater love for women than women have for men made it that the vast majority of men never tried to remove their wives from the children. However, after presumed custody was shifted from father to mother by around the 1870's, divorce rates began rising... and kept rising right up until the present day. .

. There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dads 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. The ultimate problem of marriage and divorce today stems from the dialectical arguments the suffragettes introduced a century and a half ago, wherein they undermined the ancient contract of marriage which had held marriages strong and divorce rates low constantly throughout the West's long history. This was far more significant than anything the second wave feminists did with no-fault divorce. How did the suffragettes dialectically change custody? Well, it didn't happen all at once, but rather in small incremental "concessions" made by society to appease the shrieks of the suffragettes. Eventually it developed into the Tender Years Doctrine. This is the beginning of the "Best Interests of the Child Doctrine," (something which is purely relative, whereas custody laws are exact and absolute) and we have been dealing with it ever since. The (British) Custody of Infants Act of 1839 already gave judges some power to over-ride a father's custody rights in certain instances, particularly in establishing mother-custody for children under seven years old. By 1873, Parliament extended the age of mothercustody to sixteen years, effectively undermining father-custody altogether. (In some states, the age was thirteen). This is known as the Tender Years Doctrine, and although it was first established in Britain, it spread around the world fast as the British Empire was at its peak in the late 19th Century. The Tender Years Doctrine was similarly used in the USA as a principle in the courts to establish the arguments of parental custody.

Because the rest of the points of the Declaration of Sentiments are not directly addressing the points I am making in this article (they are about property tax, the workplace, education and religion/morality), I will not go into an in depth explanation of them here except briefly to point out that consistently these arguments are fabrications or half-truths that are not so much meant to be truthful, but rather to start dialectal manipulations. ***note*** There is a long stretch of time between the suffragettes and "second wave feminism." Many people consider them to be entirely different movements. However I can assure you that from a Marxist perspective, they are both after the same dialectical goals. (This applies to other areas of society as well, such the vote and the effects of universal suffrage on the mechanics of our governmental structures.) Keep in mind that the suffragette movement "peaked" after World War One and on into the Roaring Twenties - a time of plenty when it was easy for society to afford feminist ideology. When the Great Depression came, followed directly by the Second World War, the West went through extreme hardship and it was women themselves who openly opposed feminism. For example: When jobs were scarce, it was basically women who shoo'd other women out of the workplace because it meant that a working woman had taken away a job from some other woman's husband, thereby harming women. After the extreme hardships of the 30's and 40's, we have only one generation which lands us squarely into the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's, where feminism and Marxism picked itself up and kept on marching. Part Two of The Marxist Dialectic of The Family: Marriage 1.5 versus The Second Wave, will be addressed at a later date. Be sure to tune in. I know you're all on the edge of your seats. Until then, keep your stick on the ice. Womens Studies 101a

The Marxist Dialectic of The Family: Part II - Marriage 1.5 versus The Second Wave
Part I .

. Often we identify the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws in the 1970s as the beginning of the divorce epidemic. As I pointed out inPart I of this series, this is not entirely accurate. The divorce craze actually began back in the 1860s and 1870s when the Suffragettes undermined father-custody with the Tender Years Doctrine and mother-custody became the norm, thus voiding one of the core tenets of marriage in the first place - which was bringing men into the reproduction process in a meaningful way so that their higher provisioning abilities could be utilized for the greater good of both families and society. Its not like No-Fault Divorce had no impact on divorce rates it certainly did! But it more or less streamlined a process that had been well under way for over a century. Contrary to popular belief, obtaining a divorce before the 1970s was not that difficult. Marilyn Monroe divorced three times between 1942 and 1961 while Elizabeth Taylor had four divorces under her belt and was working on her fifth when No-Fault Divorce became law. Before No-Fault Divorce was enacted there were just a few more hoops to jump through, in an effort to find fault. But lets make no mistake, if a woman wanted a divorce she could get one. Of course, with fault divorce, it extends that one must prove that an actual fault had occurred. There were many things which constituted fault, including adultery, alcoholism, insanity, abandonment, and a host of others. But the most pernicious to the institution was the fault called cruelty. The word cruelty was an undefined term that much resembles the word abuse today becau se almost anything could be construed as cruelty. An argument that made her cry could be deemed cruel. Not paying enough attention to her could be deemed cruel. Well, you get the idea. Just look at how many things today are classified as abuse which really wouldnt be claimed as abuse anywhere else in society except in male-female relationships. Take that meaning of abuse and simply replace it with the word cruelty and youve pretty much got the spirit behind the system. Over years of having a relationship with someone else, it is pretty easy to find something that can be considered abuse or cruelty in one way or another. So, what happened in divorce cases before No-Fault Divorce was that a trial occurred to prove the husband was cruel and therefore, a divorce ought to be granted. This

caused much dragging out of peoples dirty laundry and it was pretty much a joke. Belfort Bax referred to the cruelty argument for divorce as a complete sham over a century ago already, indicating that it was all about taking normal human interactions and having a lawyer twist things around to portray the husband as some heinous monster when the reality was far from it. No-Fault Divorce was really more about not making lawyers and judges into hypocrites for orchestrating such a charade and simply saying, Give her the damn divorce already and lets just get it over with. Women have always gotten what they wanted from the courts when her adversary was a man. Dropping the need to prove cruelty simply streamlined the process and stopped making the courts look like such hypocrites. Prior to 1970, the law usually justified its wrecking of families on the grounds either of adultery or of extreme cruelty. The sexual revolution has now made adultery a right for women (a womans sacred right to control her own body); extreme cruelty was usually understood to be a legal fiction meaning no more than that one of the spouses, usually the wife, wanted out. The pretense that the husband was an extremely cruel man was in most cases sufficiently absurd that it embarrassed even judges and lawyers and it was felt necessary to reform divorce by perpetuating the same destruction of families under a new terminology. This is called No Fault divorce. There were label switchings. Divorce was renamed Dissolution of Marriage. The Plaintiff was renamed the Petitioner. The Defendant was renamed the Respondent. Alimony was renamed Spousal Support (the ex-wife was no longer a spouse, but calling her one justifies taking the mans money). Th e real core of the change is that it was no longer necessary to prove extreme cruelty to inflict upon the husband a more severe penalty than is imposed on most low-income black male felons. Daniel Amneus,The Case for Father Custody, p.215 As you can see, while the introduction of No-Fault Divorce certainlyhelped to fuel the divorce craze by streamlining the process, it was definitely not the sole cause of the break-down of the family... so, what other factors were involved? .

. One of those answers can be found in the present day, as our great altruistic feminist sisters attempt to "help" the women of the third world. There is a feminist propaganda advertisement that appears here in Canada on a regular basis which particularly irks me because of its blatant lying right off the bat. The feminist organization CARE put on the ad which starts off by saying something along the lines of "No-one can understand a woman's life in the third world better than another woman anywhere in the world." It's such an obvious slap in the face to not only men in general, but also to bloody common-sense. They mean to tell us that a woman working at her NGO job and living in a high-rise condo in downtown Vancouver has a better ability to understand the life of an impoverished woman in the third world collecting and burning camel-dung over an open fire in her mud-hut better than her husband, sons and fellow countrymen do? It's just bloody absurd on the face of it, so I once perused their site and here is what I found: "When a girl in the developing world receives seven years of education, she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children." Now, don't get me wrong. I don't particularly have a problem with girls receiving an education, but what I am pointing out is that feminists know that what they are doing is altering the conditions of the nuclear family by pushing women into the workforce where they will be directly competing with men. Of course, the same website claims that women put 90% of their income back into their families but makes no mention of the percentage of income the men put back into their families (Do the men spend 50% of their income at the local tavern and the other 50% wagering on cock-fighting in the alleyway?) Nor does it indicate what kind of families they are talking about. Do they mean husband-wife & children families, or are they discussing female & children families? You only have to look at our recent economic crisis of 2008/09 to see what feminists consider "family." While men lost their jobs in significantly larger numbers than women, when job recovery began to occur, feminists started complaining that men were getting re-hired in larger numbers than women. (Kinda makes sense, eh? If three times as many men lost jobs as women, a similar ratio of men ought to be rehired during a recovery - except in femi-supremacist 50/50 land). Then, feminists tried to claim that men were receiving hiring preference because they had families to care for and complained because women had families they were providing for too! Yes indeed, but the difference is what kind of families we are talking about. A man providing for his family generally means that the man, his wife, and their children all get food put on the table whereas for the most part, when a woman provides for her family, they mean there is food on the table for the single/divorced mom and her children. There is no man being provided for in this equation. Women don't care for men - they care for themselves and their children. A single mom "family" leaves the male out of the equation, where he starves on the street corner alone - it certainly does not lead to general economic improvement if the male gender is left to suffer in poverty separately from families. In the traditional nuclear family, men, women and children receive the benefits of the man's labour but in the new single-mother "family," only women and children receive benefits. The men just magically vanish to... who knows where? The radical feminists of the Second Wave understood this as well: "How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar . A significant factor in our culture which led to the destruction of the family was women entering the workforce en-masse in the 1970's and 1980's. Whereas Briffault's Law was undermined by the Suffragettes transferring presumed Father-Custody into Mother-Custody with the Tender Years Doctrine in the 19th Century, Second Wave feminists undermined hypergamy by encouraging women to abandon their

traditional roles and compete directly with men in the workplace. Previously, a woman's standard of living significantly improved upon marriage as men were socially conditioned to work like mules to provide for their families. After the second wave arrived, women were encouraged to "have it all" and be both high-earning career chicks and brave single-mother-victims at the same time. Of course, there is nothing wrong with women aspiring to do something more than live up to traditional sex-roles, but overall in our culture, women have merely cooked the Golden Goose by insisting on pursuing their dreams and aspirations. Yes, they want a high-flying career so they have money, but they also want their work to be socially beneficial (who doesn't?) and they also want their careers to be flexible enough to allow them plenty of time to spend with their families - not necessarily hers and her husband's family. They had all of that in spades before Second Wave feminism appeared on the scene, but were convinced by feminists that it wasn't good enough for them. Like greedy children, they had to have it all! "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18 "If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100 .

. Second Wave feminism made no bones about their goals to destroy marriage, believing that true equality for women could not be achieved in the nuclear family. They pushed women into the workforce enmasse because they knew doing so would undermine one of the major reasons women entered into the institution of marriage in the first place - access to the husband's paycheck along with the higher standard of living he provided. This massive entry of women into the workforce where they began directly competing with men for their traditional roles likely had far more to do with undermining marriage than the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws, which merely streamlined a trend that had been happening for a century already.

Also, the Second Wave did everything they could to destroy "the mating dance" between men and women. Men are the designated initiators in sexual relations. Women attract and men pursue. That's just the way it is. However, just because men are the designated overt initiators does not mean that women are innocent little darlings, simply fending off multitudes of horny men at every corner. They are just as complicit in the mating dance as males. Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the mans attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties] Importantly, the women also se emed to control the encounter what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around, says Grammer New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001 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. (Note: This is similar to mating behaviour in other mammals, like rats). 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 .

. . Thus, the old saying, "He chases her until she catches him." Kinda makes you wonder what the whole feminist campaign about "No Means No!" was about in the 1990's, doesn't it? Some studies have indicated that in a typical male-female sexual encounter, the woman will give off up to 150 rejections, either verbally, physically, with eye gestures, and so on, until finally saying "yes" to sexually accepting the man as a mate. Quite obviously, "no" only means no when a man says it. These types of campaigns were designed to drive to the sexes apart by monkeying with the basics of the mating dance - which women insist on perpetuating, no matter how much men get criminalized for doing what she desires in the process. A similar thing has happened in the workplace where women once often found a husband. Today, after a plethora of sexual harassment laws being introduced into the workplace, anyone in a position of power could get into no end of trouble for trying to woo a woman who is subordinate to him - yet, women in the past often married their bosses. Remember, women are hypergamous and seek out men who are more powerful and wealthier than they are, thus, it is natural for a woman herself to be attracted to someone in a position of authority over her. But, since men are the designated initiators in the mating dance while women always hide behind plausible deniability, it is the male's part of the dance that had to be outlawed in order to drive the sexes apart. When desiring women is outlawed, only outlaws will desire women. .

. The William Heatherington Spousal Rape Trial in the mid-1980's was the final death-knell for any semblance of marriage resembling that which had existed for millenia before in our culture. Not only was this trial a complete mockery of justice but it undermined the very basis for marriage, which was a vehicle to contain human sexuality and channel it positively into something that benefited both families and society. This was the end of expecting that sexual relations were to be a part of marriage. If your wife - your lifelong mate - is no more of your expected sexual partner than a strange woman you have just met at the pub whom you have to woo and game into having "intimate relations"... then what is the point of setting up a legal framework such as marriage to contain two people's sexuality into the institution in the first place? Keep in mind as well, like Daniel Amneus pointed out in the quote at the beginning of this article, the sexual revolution had also made adultery a "right" for women (her sacred right to control her own body). If there is no expectation of either sex for the husband, nor the expectation for sexual fidelity in marriage... then... um... what is the point of a marriage? It has been deconstructed into basically nothing at all. The above points I have addressed in this post are but a brief synopsis of how feminism sought to undermine the institution of marriage and drive the sexes apart. There are, of course, dozens, if not hundreds of other examples that could be used, but that would also make this piece into a full dissertation rather than an article for a blog post. The points I am trying to get at here is that while NoFault Divorce certainly had an effect on our cultural values towards marriage and family, it more or less simply streamlined a process that had been well underway for a century before. The real insidious aspects of Second Wave Feminism were more about undermining the basics of male-female attraction. Many men who are reading this are at least somewhat familiar with the principles of game and as you can see, much of what was going on was the deliberate undermining of men's and women's natural hetero-sexuality, making it as difficult as possible for them to get together and form unions the way they had done for centuries already in our culture and it ultimately left us with what we today call Marriage 2.0, a fraudulent contract that in no way resembles anything of marriage 1.0. Basically men who get blindsided into signing on the marital dotted line are left as virtual slaves to their wives, unattractive in any way to their spouse's sexual desires, and without any benefit for themselves to look forward to but the peaceful slumber of death.

Civil Unions and Shared Parenting

The argument often used against Same Sex Marriage is that it should not be called marriage but rather a civil union call it ANYTHING you want, just dont call it marriage!

But advocates for Same Sex Marriage simply refuse to rename it, despite such civil unions not really differing from marriage in anything but name. Have you ever asked yourself why? A quick perusing of the following quotes ought to give a hint to the answer: Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality. -- Paula Ettelbrick, Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405. "A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161 "It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30 "[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1. There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends totransform the current parameters of marriage and create somethingcompletely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at urinal of eternal victimization, despite the obvious contradiction of each groups fundamental premise that being that feminists entire raison d'tre is based upon Gender is a Social Construct and therefore women are discriminated against because the testicularly challenged are treated differently (while born fundamentally the same), whereas Gay Rights Activists argue that they are born gay (refuting gender is a social construct) and therefore they are victimized because they are born that way, and thus should not be discriminated against. The two arguments are mutually contradictory at the most fundamental level, and the two groups ought to be enemies and yet, they obviously arent. The reason is that the radical wings of both factions have the same fundamental goal: they both wish to alter both the family unit and society into something completely new. Roosevelt, meet Stalin, yo new fwiend and ally!

Something very important in order to transform marriage then, is to make sure that the new models that come out are still called marriage. It would be much harder to transform the meaning of marriage with civil unions, if civil unions were not also called marriage. How will they transform marriage and society this way? Well, in Canada we legalized Gay Marriage back in 2005, and by 2006 (and using the justification of gay marriage now being normalized), Gay's shoved their agenda into our schools and by 2007 a court in Ontario had already declared two married lesbians and one sperm donating father to all three be equal legal parents of the same child. Obviously, the dialectical path towards polygamy is set wide open by this ruling... does anyone else see how they are able to purposefully "transform" society in this way? (***2013 Update: In March 2013, British Columbia's new Family Act went into effect. This law forces defacto marriage upon all common-law couples after two years. Further, the act allows for five parent "families." A sperm donor, an egg donor, a surrogate, and two homosexuals who adopt the child, can all be equal parents of the same child.) Thats why Gay Rights Activists are so adamant about it being called marriage. If it were called civil unions the Marxist plan to alter society dialectically falls flat on its face. Everything will stall at the civil union level, and once society accepts the term civil union and identifies it with Gay People, it will become monumentally difficult for them to further alter society with this plan, or to be able to rename civil unions as marriage later on. Much of Marxist dialectical movement is based upon the general publics perception of an issue, rather than the reality of it. Either they get it right in the beginning, or there is not much point in carrying on. Now, lets examine for a moment the feminist goals for transforming marriage and the nuclear family. Youll fast see its not just Patriarchy that they are against, but also theyre furious as hell at Mother Nature for giving them ovaries! Even nature victimizes women, and this also must change! "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18 "[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." --Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294 "...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981

"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977) "[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100 "The care of children infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179 It takes a village. -- Hillary Clinton Not only do feminists want to destroy patriarchy, they also want to destroy motherhood, something very dear and precious to most females, and likely something they will not give up voluntarily. There is a hierarchy to the way that humanity works. Many men are discovering certain elements of it through what is commonly known as game, but essentially, the hierarchy of humanity works like this: Man --> Woman --> Children And this is a strong inclination within humans as well. Students of game will understand that women do not want to be sexual with men who they do not deem superior to them, and will reject all men they deem inferior. The woman desires the hierarchy, and men fulfill womens desire within it. Never ever forget, however, that to rule is to serve.And this is what most men did with their hierarchal powers see The Titanic. Men did not use their powers to harm their wards, but rather used it to protect them, and often sacrificed directly towards this hierarchy to their own detriment. Parents (ie. mothers) do the same with their children while parents have the enormous capability to bring harm or to exploit their children, 99% of parents do not do this and it is not because of the law that parents are altruistic towards children (The US Supreme Court even ruled that parents naturally act in their children's best interests, both in 1979 and in 2000.) in the same way, it is not because of law, or even social mores, that men treat women the way they do. They do it because it comes from somewhere deep within humanity. It is very, very difficult to get men to turn on women. In the same way, it would be very difficult to get women to turn on children. The hierarchy just does not work that way. It is, however, monumentallyeasier to get women to turn on men. When you transvalue the hierarchy (place lower values higher up, and higher values lower down), working it against itself backwards works like a charm! You can convince women to turn on men much easier than convincing men to turn on women. In the same manner, you can get children to turn on parents much easier than you can get parents to turn on their children. Its just the way the world works.

Man < -- (pushed away by) Women -- > Children That works, as we all well know. Feminists have successfully destroyed marriage and the sexes are repelling from each-other because the hierarchy is messed up. If you give women economic and legal power over their men, women will abuse it until it just becomes downright dangerous for a man to engage in this tortuous practice known as Marriage 2.0. And, if you wanted to completely destroy parenthood, another stated goal of feminism? Why, just repeat the process that was done to destroy the bond between man and woman namely, start giving the rights of the child more importance than the rights of the adults responsible for them. Man < -- (pushed away by) Women < -- (pushed away by) Children The same thing that happened to men and women regarding marriagewill happen to parents and children if the powers that be are allowed to elevate the rights of the child to over-ride the rights of the parent. How will you raise a child properly if sending them to their room becomes psychological abuse, or if with-holding their allowance is deemed financial abuse or if forcing them to eat their vegetables is considered some other sort of totalitarian abuse. (If I had a hammer, Id smash vitamins!) Take note, Hillary Clinton fully believes that parents are not qualified to represent the best interests of their ownchildren, and therefore the state ought to create a rambling bureaucracy of civil servants and lawyers to represents childrenindependently of their parents. This is the exact same system that divided men and women pitting their interests against each other by dialectically manipulating the legal system. Men and women are in a parasitic type of relationship wherein the man gives of his surplus resources to the woman. Parents and children are in exactly the same type of scenario, and as has happened with men and women, when you allow the parasite to lead the host, all you end up doing is destroying is the host. Parents and children will work the same. And I promise you, there does not have to be some grand conspiracy manipulating every law and specific aspect of what will happen next. Simply screwing up the hierarchy will suffice. When children have more authority than the parents responsible for them you will have already stuck a stick in the spokes by default. Destruction is now not only likely, but in general society it will be virtually guaranteed just like placing the authority of women over and above the authority of the man responsible for protecting and providing for her has only led to abuse, not solutions. The history of woman is the history of the worst form of tyranny the world has ever known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts. Oscar Wilde Children are even weaker than women! Placing the rights of the child over the rights of parents will lead to the same results only worse! And, btw, since the destruction of marriage, who makes up the majority of parents nowadays? (Hint They are among the testicularly challenged). Now, often times round here you will hear me refer to The Dialectic, and all of you know that this blog frequently refers to Marxism and how feminism is married to it. One thing however, that does not get mentioned too often here or elsewhere is that Marxism and the Dialectic does not work in a straight line. The general failure of us to realize this is why we keep getting our asses handed to us. We are

playing checkers with people who are playing chess. The way it works is like a zig-zag. The Marxist dialectic pushes radically to the left until a backlash builds up, and then the backlash is released in order to consolidate the gains to the left. "It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war." -- V.I. Lenin So, the way it works is that radical leftism is introduced into society much like how No-Fault-Divorce was introduced into our society. This was a radical move that completely re-organized societys most fundamental building block and take note that there was no massive public outcry demanding such a thing. Society didnt even conceive of such a thing marriage was simply marriage, the way it had always been. However, No Fault Divorce was implemented anyway and we all know the results. In the past decades we have witnessed a plethora of problems arising because of this radical change. However, this change has now taken place long ago, and the vast majority of the population does not remember, nor can even conceive, of a society where divorce was not the norm. Take note that this was not the case when NoFault-Divorce arrived on the scene, but after a couple of generations being exposed to it, it is now considered so normal that it is hardly even conceivable to us to try and rid society of it rather, now we simply want to alter it. (This is a classical brainwashing technique, btw - 1- "un-freeze" from current acceptance levels, 2 - Move the subject to a new level, 3 - "Re-Freeze" at the new level until the change has become normalized/accepted, 4 - Repeat the process until the proper amount of "movement" has taken place). This is how it is done when you implement Marxism via gradualism while Lenin did it fast and encouraged people to go along with him via threats of violence, gradualism does it by slowing things down so that people forget. If you study a little closer, you will discover that we have, indeed, spent the past forty years implementing the exact same types of social changes that Lenin did in his first four years of rule. The amount of time is the only difference. Lenin used violence within four years, and our system of Marxism is using forgetfulness/the generation gap over a longer period of time. The ultimate result is still the same, however. So, back to the idea that the backlash to the right consolidates the gains to the left. What happens after a radical leftward change has occurred is of course a plethora of problems arising in society from said change. The people that are mostly affected by it are those that will push back against the radical leftism with, of course, a rightward/conservative political movement. What happens though is that the backlash movement is not one that attempts to dial back the cause but rather attempts are made to alter the results. So, in the case of marriage in the modern day, the backlash is decidedly not pushing for an end to No Fault Divorce, nor are they pushing for a restoration of Full Father Custody (the way marriage was originally intended, and existed up until the 1860s). What they are pushing for is shared parenting. A further aberration of the original concept of the family, and something that has never existed in history. But, the backlash to the right will solidify in the minds of the population that implementing No-Fault-Divorce was proper, although it needed to be tweaked a little to make it more equal and fair. The concept that children need two fulltime parents will also be demolished. The need for State Funded Daycare will be increased as now there will be two parents disadvantaged rather than one and, as always, both parties will now be running to the government to beg and plead for the court to decide

exactly the time, place, and even how a parent may interact with his own child (or, more accurately, herchild). Some freedom! Wheras once parents would have run a pitchfork through any government personnel interfering with a citizens home-life, then covered him with oil and lit him on fire with torches in the town square, we now have both mothers and fathers running to the government to beg and plead for crumbs and scraps from the same table that the people once owned and both sides will think they are winning some precious equality, while being grateful to the government for providing them with something which was never the governments in the first damn place. This is the totalitarian trap. You cause as much problems and confusion in a certain area as you possibly can, and out of the confusion you will cause despair amongst the people who will then run to you and demand you fix it, which of course you will but in a way that suits your purposes, not of the masses of plebes who are only there for your satisfaction anyways. Ah yes, consolidate the gains until the people have internalized the change, which they will if you allow a measure of backlash to appease them, and allow some time for the changes to internalize, and then begin radical movements to the left again. One thing though, once the backlash accepts the watered-down consolation prize, they cannot easily push further because they have already been appeased! Once something like divorce has been reorganized to make it more equal, added on top of the fact that most of the population doesnt even remember a time when divorce was not rampant in society, to take it further than the appeasement makes in nearly impossible. Back to the beginning of this essay and the difference between Civil Unions and Same Sex Marriage, you can see why the Gay Rights community was so adamant about retaining the word marriage rather than using Civil Union. Using the word civil union would greatly hamper Gay Activists in their attempts to alter the meaning and structure of marriage it had to retain the same name. If they would have gained under the name civil union, the effects upon marriage would have been negligible - and also, their ability to re-push the issue into societys limelight would have been greatly diminished, because the general population would have already come to believe that Gays had been appeased, and wouldnt want to tolerate their bullshit all over again. It's kind of a one shot deal. What will Shared Parenting do to the radical changes in the structure of the family over the past decades? Will it roll back the changes or will itcontinue to alter the structure of the family? Will it make divorce more or less acceptable in society? Will men be able to use it as a stepping stone to further their goals, or is it an assured permanent dead-end with minimal benefits? How can feminists and the powers that be pursue their stated goals of removing motherhood from the experience of womanhood? They certainly wont be able to use women to do it directly out of their own self interests but could the coupling of childrens rights to the already diminished fathers rights be used to dialectically destroy whatever remains of parenthood, and pass all authority over to the state? The only thing that supercedes the best interests of women in our society is the best interests of the

child. I hope the shared parenting movement does not get made into useful idiots, promoting further destruction of the family while believing they are preserving it. I could easily see that women will be given "equal rights" in parenting as men, given that men have virtually no rights at all. I understand why Gays insist on calling Same Sex Unions as marriage - because they aren't nearly done with transforming it and they knowwhat they are doing. On the otherhand, with Shared Parenting, "defenders" of the family and fatherhood are cutting themselves off at the knees - not understanding what they are doing - as they are not willing to dialectically reframe the debate in a way that does not dead-end themselves into the Marxist web.

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 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 dont 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 its 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 doesnt have much use for $100 million figher jets when your enemy isnt fighting you in the air but on the street with low tech car bo mbs, 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 realitys 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 opponents argument is 1 + 1 = 3 (Anti-thesis). The anti-thesis argument asks you tocompromise to reach an agreement, a consensus, a synthesized truth somewhere in between 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3. In this case lets 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 DONT 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. Gods 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?

Chapter Five: The Philosophy of the Truth

The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth
I think there is something very fundamental about Absolute Truth overRelative Truth which is the very basic to the nature of humans that which separates humans from animal living and allows us to rise up from being beasts of the field. Of course, the tool which humans have been given by God or by Nature our equivalent to which every animal has been give his specialty (elephants have tusks, giraffes have long necks) - is our ability to choose, and of course, along with the ability to choose necessarily comes the ability to question. And in order to go from question to choosing an answer, there is the necessity to rationalize. Virtually all of human power resides in this feature. These are things humans can do which no other animal can do. Everything else works on pure instincts. But This power we have to choose is like all power it has the potential to be dangerous as much as it has the potential to be beneficial. I think the concept of power needing to be tempered before it becomes something useful certainly makes sense. And so it is that our human mental abilities need to tempered, or perhaps a better phrase is "anchored to reality," or else we humans also have the ability to think ourselves right off the rails and into la-la land. We humans kinda have a lemming feature built into us where we think ourselves to death. In fact, this is the story of the Garden of Eden in a nutshell: It is a story of the battle of Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth, and the danger of what happens by placing the Relative Truth higher in importance than the Absolute Truth. It is a story about humankinds ability to bend the truth to over -ride reality often with dire consequences.

. There was only one rule in the Garden DONT EAT FROM THAT TREE! There was only one truth that Adam and Eve had to follow and here is where it gets interesting, because Eve was deceived but she was not particularly lied to. In fact, the serpents assertions are perfectly valid, although very craftily worded: - The serpent was right when he says you will not surely die. (He was right, they did not surely die After being tossed from the Garden, God offered them a path to salvation and eternal life if they chose to follow Gods path). - The serpent was right, when they ate the fruit, their eyes wereopened, and they did become like God and gain knowledge of good and evil. And then Eves female rationalizing hamster wheel starts churning, mired in Relative Truth. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Because it was good for food, pleasing to look at, and desirable for gaining wisdom Eve rationalized to herself why the Relative Truthwhich she wished for ought to be able to over-ride the Absolute Truth that existed. Ahem could placing the Relative Truth we create in our brains over the Absolute Truth that exists in reality be the original sin? Also to note here in the Garden story is the difference between men and women, and something we also often speak of in the Manosphere: Adam, the mangina, simply went along with her. . 1 Timothy 2:12-14 RSV I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Adam was not deceived. He sinned willingly. Eve deceived herself with her female driven hamster-wheel of relative-truth laden brain but Adam was not deceived at all. He was standing right there and was not deceived; Eve gave it to him, and he was still without sin at this point. But like a mangina eager to please, he said, sure thing, Toots! and swallowed er down whole. Adam sinned willingly, but Eve was deceived. To Adam he said, Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, You must not eat of it, (Mans Curse) Its pretty clear. Between Adam and Eve, God expects a different level of cognition God expected Adam to know better than Eve because Adam has the capability to know better. Of all of the things that were in the world during the Garden, the only thing not directly from God is Eve. She was created from Adam, who was created in Gods image. Adam is copy of God, and Eve is a copy of Adam Adam is one step closer to God/Absolute Truth than Eve is. And, when regarding how male and female brains work in order to ascertain truth, this holds true men and women find truth in different ways. G.W.F. Hegel describes the phenomenon in the following way: Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educatedwho knows how? G.F. Hegel Women, because they are herd creatures by nature, find Truth by consensus among the herd. If the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 3, then it is right, because the herd says so. Tomorrow, if the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 1, then that will be right, because the herd says so. The herd is always right.This is why women are more attuned to fashion, which is forever changing, and it is the underlying cause of the phenomenon in Game known as Social Proofing. Women believe a man is sexually valuable because the rest of the women around her find him sexually valuable not because of any particular iron clad attributes or principles mind you but simply because all the other women believe a guy is hot, so will the next woman believe it as well. The herds consensus is what is right, and it is subject only to itself. You can see this all through females nature, in that right down to even their genetic make -up, they huddle around the average/mean in far greater concentration than males, who exist outside the herd and exists in the outer extremes of averages. ie. There are more males than females with an IQ of 140, but there are also more males than females with an IQ below 70. The males are on the outside of the herd and the females ARE the average, or, they are all clustered around the average. (Heh, this even goes into female psychology, where far fewer females desire to truly stand out from the norm in areas such as company CEO - than men do and the differences are signficant!). In this way, it will always be males, in the aggregate, that are better equipped to find Absolute Truth.

It will be the males who will, like an angry MGHOW, declare: BULLSHIT! 1 + 1 = 2!!! I dont care what you say, I dont care if all you cows believe 1 + 1 = 2.5, I will refuse to comply with you because, dammit, 1 + 1 = 2! In this way, it is important for the male principle to lead the female principle, because the male principle is closer to Absolute Truth than the female principle. The female principle is almost pure Relative Truth. Now, the male principle has relative truth in it too lots of it! Look at all the manginas out there! Men desire to follow womens Relative Truths because that is what we would do if we behave like animals, driven by our baser instincts. But mans mind is better equipped to discover Absolute Truth than the females, and thus, having men/the male principle leading a society will lead to that society following much closer to Absolute Truth a much safer place to exist than a world full of Relative Truth, where nothing stays real. "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you..." Because you listened to your wifes Relative Truths you were cursed, Adam. You should have held true to the Absolute Truth, and all would have been fine. Even after she had already bogged herself down with her Relative Truths, Adam should have been a MGHOW and stuck to his principles based upon Absolute Truth. All would have worked out fine for him. .

- It was Eve who seduced the man - in compensation there is no undertaking more appealing to a woman than to become loved by someone who has gone astray and who now, in loving her, will let himself be led along the right path. This appeals to a woman so much that she is not infrequently deceived, because such a person puts everything over on her - and she believes everything - perhaps also because the thought of being the man's savior is so very satisfying to her. -- Woman/Man - from Kierkegaard's Journals

Men, Religion, and Morality

The ever-diminishing role of Christianity in our society is pretty interesting, and of course, is tied into all of this stuff about Marxism. Its a pretty difficult subject to discuss dispassionately, which is what is required, and is necessary for rational thought to move forward. I've read that Harvard was originally mandated to be Protectors of the Truth. And at the time, they felt they could actually identify truth, because during that age, they used the Bible as an anchor of Absolute Truth to identify what was true and what was not. When Hegel came out with The Truth is Relative, it set the whole system into the toilet because it got rid of the anchor of Absolute Truth. The concept of God is black and white. Gods word is Truth. However, of course, we are able to recognize that truth often does change, or, truth often is relative. And herein lies the entire problem, I think. Human nature, and the need to control it. In many ways, I agree with Hegel & Marx that indeed, the Truth is Relative. But, from a position of what works for a civilization? Well that must have elements of an Absolute Truth to it, or cultural hegemony will never arise, and civilization will never occur. The human brain is enormously malleable, and it naturally tends to lean towards Relative Truth. We often use our brains to justify what we would like to be true, rather than what actually is true. Jail is full of innocent people. Morality is forever malleable unless attached to an absolute truth. From an anthropological sense, human beings naturally create religions. Every civilization that has ever existed has adhered to some form of religion. It seems to be a necessity for the human condition. And, look at how different morality can develop in different ways. Think about the typical movie scene of the virgin tied to a stone slab, about to be sacrificed to the Volcano God. The people that lived in such civilizations thought nothing immoral of such a situation, yet, when other civilizations encountered them, they were horrified by their lack of morality.

Morality can go in many different ways, and indicates that indeed, from a big perspective, truth is relative. But even if it is, it is not a good thing for civilization to not have any absolutes. Its for similar reasons that we have the Rule of Law and a Legal/Court system. You and I can argue and argue, and both of us will create a belief system for ourselves, justifying our position to ourselves, and creating a reality in each of our own minds which will forever contradict the others view of reality. Therefore we must have a court system to decide, hopefully with impartiality, what is right and what is not. An absolute. Without it, things would never function. A civilization needs a religion in the same way. And all things considered, Christianity was not the worst one we could have wound up with. The way I look at it is, when everyone points out how hypocritical and evil it has been in the past well, that is not Christianity per se, but rather, it is the nature of humans that is trying break free from the bounds that Christianity tried to place upon them. It doesnt matter whether Christian or Marxist or Muslim or the Hoobie Joobie Mumbo Spirit, it is human nature to try and manipulate and force ones will upon others. In that sense, Christianity has been not too bad, because it is firmly based in the concept of Absolute Truth and can be used to pull us back from the brink of La La Land when we get a little too insane. It is an anchor. I think the history of the West would have been a lot worse without the Bible than it was with it. If you want to know why most Communist countries abolish Christianity, it's because it is firmly rooted in the concept of Absolute Truth which is directly at odds with dialectical manipulation. The Bible zaps it into oblivion as the two cannot exist in the same philosophical space. The Bible is timeless... it doesn't change with the times nor the political environment. How we interpret parts of it might alter with the times, but the book itself stays the same - and that generates certain "goalposts" that stay constant in our society throughout the ages. Things can only be manipulated so far before the Bible starts to constrain them. It is for this reason as well that far-left politics is so adamant about Evolution. And again, one has to look at the Evolution debate a bit dispassionately. Marx and Engels were extremely excited when Darwin came out with his theory because it was the science that supported their political philosophy namely, that the Truth is Relative. Evolution indicates that the truth is forever changing. What was true yesterday, is no longer true today. Therefore, what is true today, does not neccessarily have to be true tomorrow. This was great for Marx because he is preaching the political philosophy that mans condition can be altered, basically by use of force. One can therefore force an evolutionary direction upon mankind. Kinda like how an arborist prunes a tree to control how it grows and shapes itself. Whether one believes in Evolution or not, this very important political aspect rarely gets mentioned in the debate, but it is core to the importance of a lot of philosophy about truth. This is why the left gets angry so quickly whenever someone begins to discuss intelligent design. If intelligent design were to be proven, it would indicate a plan, which would indicate the existence of Absolute Truth and the entire political philosophy of the left would fall to bits. They need evolution to be true for more reasons than what they claim so does the Creationist side the Intelligent Design side

doesnt, however, because it is much more dispassionate, in my humble opinion. It is unfair to lump Intelligent Design in with Creationism, and yet politically, that is often how it is dismissed. Much of anthropology has been shattered by the insistence of adherence to this as well, and anyone trying to suggest that those primitive people from the past were perhaps a helluva lot smarter than we give them credit for is automatically drummed out of the discussion and called a loon. And yet, the ancient Sumerians had the knowledge to weld gemstones together, which is something we still cant replicate today. The religion debate is interesting, because it is about Absolute vs. Relative Truth. If a society always tends to create a religion, would you rather have one based in Absolutes, or would you prefer one that is forever malleable? It has elements that come down to the similar situation as, would you rather live under a government that was ruled by whim and emotion (Democracy), or would you rather live under the Rule of Law?(Republic)

Rising Up from Being Beasts of the Field

. QUOTE: "I think that the closest that we can get to an absolute truth might be termed objective truth, which starts with an objective assessment of existence and leads to falsifiable conclusions. In a sense, one starts with axiom(s) and follows the logical consequences." Yes, but remember how the Founding Fathers/John Locke look at truth and lock one into the other. 1 Gods Law = Absolute Truth 2 Natural Law = Objective Truth

3 Civil Law = Relative/Subjective Truth I agree that the best we can know is the objective truth but we must go higher and acknowledge the existence of this Absolute Truth because sometimes the objective truth changes, with history or technology or what not, what is true today is not true always. An example of this is found in Orwells book 1984. The storyline is essentially a struggle between the Relative Truth (or lies) surrounding the main character who believes in an External Truth. And, aside from direct philosophical discussion about finding Truth what I keep seeing is the necessity for Truth to exist. An external truth one that cant be changed one we cant deny. Whether there actually is Truth might not be as important as the human need to believe in Truth. There has never really been a civilization that has ever existed that did nt have some form of religion. In order to rise up from being a beast of the field we need to grab onto a Truth a never changing one. In Angry Harrys piece Men Are More Intelligent Than Women, he points out how the more you emote, the less you think and which sex would one think, even by their own admission, is the most emotional, and which sex, by their own admission, is more in touch with their emotions? Alright ladies, Ill believe you. But it is also clear that, the more you emote, the less you think. The more your emotions lead you, the less your reason leads you. Passion is all great and fine, until it becomes murder in the heat of passion or a bazillion other things resulting from a highly emotional state leading to a person not thinking. Life by passion is the life of living by instinct which is the life of an animal. Now, I am not a neurosurgeon either, but I have read of the three brains. The first brain/lower brain/reptilian brain is the one that doesnt think. This is the one where your fight or flight comes from and a whole host of other things that dont involve thinking. It is also where our sexual instinct comes from. "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 cats skull and suck out all the cortex. Sexual and mating behavior was not affected at all, but social behavior was destroyed." The next brain is the mammalian brain, and this is the brain where emotions come from, or "our passions." The new brain, or cortex, is where we think. So, in order to rise up from being beasts of the field we have to think.

As we get assaulted with things violently or emotionally or in any number of ways our brains shut down. The thinking brain will shut down in favour of the mammal brain, which will in turn, in emergency, shut down if it has to and run completely on instinct fight or flight. There is no thinking or emotion in it. It just happens. So, we have to keep rising up in order to find enlightenment. And now, these highly emotional creatures with hairy triangles between their legs, what do they do to us? They get our emotions running all the time. All of the girls that wing their shaming insultsaround are trying to control men emotionally instead of rationally. There were several posts near the end of The Elusive Wapitistotalitarian essay a while back where we were discussing Schopenhauer and Weiningers observations on female manipulative behaviour, and how women have challenges with truth and a lack of moral character because, to women, their passions cause them to change the truth to be that which they want it to be right now. If it suits her to change the truth 20 minutes later, she will do it, even though it contradicts what she said earlier 100% and she actually believes it, it appears! The Feminine is constantly manipulating away from the truth with emotions. If there is an external unchanging standard of truth to compare things to, men can much better pull themselves out of being led by their mammalian brain, and lead themselves by their thinking brain. By the way. Guys like Weininger as well, he talks about the Male Principle/Condition and the Female Principle/Condition. This is true the Masculine and the Feminine is within each of us. Just like in the diagram of the Yin and Yang, there is a dot of the opposite within each half. What happens is that men have the Masculine Principle as their dominant characteristic while females are dominated by the Feminine Principle. Noone is purely male or purely female. This is why you get variability between the behaviours of individual men and women, but still can generalize behavioural characteristics that relate to each sex sepearately.

. "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you"

Truth, Truth, Truth... What is The Truth?

"Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable... Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth." -- George Orwell QUOTE: "Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers/John Locke got the order wrong. The way that it is actually practiced is the only way that it can be done (since we are on the inside looking out): 1 Natural Law = Objective Truth 2 Gods Law = Absolute Truth 3 Civil Law = Relative/Subjective Truth This is the correct order because religion also uses the Scientific Method (Objective Truth), just not very well. Yes, you are right I have struggled with this before too, and this is why I say the need for Absolute Truth to be placed highest, may actually be important to human nature beyond even the scope of whether that truth is true. I have come into this from the scope of what Karl Marx is trying to do. Well, one thing Marx says he wants to do is to Dethrone God and Destroy Capitalism.

In other words he wants to destroy the Absolute Truth. How come? Because it prevents him from manipulating the subjective truth into overcoming the objective truth. (The world of Orwells 1984). Humans have the ability to be blind to the objective truth because of how they allow their brains to process subjective truth. In other words, humans often get so confused with the subjective/relative truth that they manage to convince themselves that the objective truth does not matter thats why there has to be an Absolute Truth above the Objective Truth. Take the way constitutions of free countries have constitutions pegging themselves to an Absolute Truth, whereas countries without freedom have no Absolute Truth, but only Subjective Truth with the subjective truth creating objective truth. 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 versus the United Nations constitution (a knock off of all totalatiarian govt): 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. The reason why Founding Fathers place rights in the hands of the Creator, is because what God gives, only God can take away in other words, the tendency of mankind to trick himself with the subjective truth into not believing in the objective truth is completely curtailed by placing rights out of reach of mankind. If we ever end up re-writing our constitutions to remove "God" from them, please, oh please, let me get my rights from Santa or the Easter Bunny, rather than the state and its subjective laws. I have much more faith that Santa won't come like a thief in the night to take back my rights, than I do for the government refraining from curtailing my rights in the future - especially in a democracy. Whether God is real matters not so much as that God pins down the Truth so that we dont convince ourselves that what is all about us is not true the same way we have convinced ourselves of such nonsense as feminism has produced. As far as anyone objectively looking at t he situation, they would declare we are nuts and should just open ours and yet, what is happening in society? We are choosing to place the Subjective above the Objective. And that is very dangerous! Now, think about how looooooooooong it takes to create civilization. It does not happen overnight. We have been following the Bible for approximately 3,300 years. (The Pentateuch was written by Moses, and Moses is thought to be contemporary of 1300BC or so). During that timeframe, the Truth has more or less stayed the same.Humans are prevented, by the existence of an unchanging absolute that trumps all others, from convincing themselves that the

subjective truth is higher than the objective. Sooner or later, humans will convince themselves to overlook some sort of objective truth in favour of the subjective truth and then Absolute Truth will wipe them from the face of the earth just like Sodom & Gommorah. Perhaps it will be that we convince ourselves that refraining from sexual monogamy is silly that religion thing telling us not to hump like monkeys is just that religious trappings. (Using the subjective truth to convince ourselves of what we wish to be true, rather than what is actually true). And so, everyone throws away their sexual restraint because they believe they are seeing objective truth, and perhaps 40 years later, STDs start becoming so rampant throughout the population that the fertility rates begin to decline or perhaps, the unordering of the male > female > child hierarchy, while it looks to be objectively smart in our heads, turns out to be something which repels men and women from eachother, and our birthrates decline below replacement until we are wiped from the face of the earth. SMACK! says the Absolute Truth. Start over and dont make that same mistake again! How would a civilization manage to stay on the right path for thousands of years, while always having to battle this human tendency? I suspect that it could not, unless it somehow managed to contain this human tendency and the best way to do that is to place an Absolute Truth above all others for those things we know we need to do in order to sustain ourselves, but have a tendency to wish wasnt true. Whether that truth is real or not, is less significant in this purpose, than the need for Truth to exist. I think it was Voltaire who quipped If God did not exist, it would be neccessary to invent Him. (Although, I dont know if he was referring to my argument but you get the point). What Karl Marx believes he can do is change the world into a Utopia by manipulating truth. The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it. Karl Marx He means he is going to take philosophy, and use it to manipulate reality in order that he might change the world. And this is what he does, by using the Relative Truth uber Alles which his predecessor Hegel identified with the Hegelian Dialectic. 1 Relative Truth 2 Relative Truth 3 Relative Truth (And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, this is the Feminine Principle, and it is also the animal principle. Animals live completely from moment to moment everything is subjective to them their instincts lead, not their reason). Karl Marx believes, through use of evolution, that he can bend the truth and by bending reality he can evolve mankind into a newform of human one that has never existed before.

He believes if he can manipulate reality, he can remove mans greed and desire to put self first et c. etc. and then a completely new form of mankind will emerge, unencumbered by mankinds worst traits, and therefore, he will have defeated God because he will have created Heaven on Earth. (Marx wants to make the Lion lie down with the Lamb). One of the reasons why the Bible is so damaging to Marxs plans is because it places Truth out of his reach and therefore Marx is severely handicapped in manipulating the truth for his own designs. And, like I pointed out before, it appears that Marxism and Animal-ness are very closely related in how they process Truth, and in fact, Marxism is as old as the Garden of Eden itself. So, lol, I guess what I mean is, there are two roads here: One can look at Truth for the purpose of seeking Truth. and There is also a human need for A truth to exist, in order to temper mans mind, so that he doesnt behave like a lemming and kill himself with his brain that sometimes can create realities inside of our heads that dont really exist (or will unwittingly kill us). QUOTE: "As long as those above are supporting a specific Absolute Truth, those below (who are willing to accept truth that is independent of evidence) will be prevented from mucking things up, in a specific way. But when those in charge wish to move in a different direction, all that they have to do is make a few minor modifications, like a farmer changing the fence lines..."

Yes, I know. This is why I quite often look at books like the Bible, and, realizing how incredibly wise it is in regard to understanding human nature, I have concluded that regardless of whether God exists or not, that book knows more about human nature than I, or anyone else around me does so the Bible ought not to be dismissed lightly. Also, keep in mind that this is how cultures grow. They start off small, with perhaps a few hundred people hanging around on an internet forum within a larger culture that perhaps might not even acknowledge they exist but eventually, if their formula is correct, they will out-succeed the rest by following their form of Truth until they overtake the culture. It appears that all cultures start out small, adhering to one form of truth (Cultural Hegemony), and because they have got the right kind of formula in their truth they grow and grow over time, until they overtake the culture. That seems to be the way it works rather than a small group of people convincing a large group of people of the error of their ways. Without one truth no Cultural Hegemony can occur, and thus, neither will civilization appear.

QUOTE: "For something to be an actual Absolute Truth, it would need to be pinned to objective reality, in order to be truly out of reach of mankind while being directly accessible to all." I think the exact same thing sometimes I say, when we identify a Truth, we have to pin it to the wall. (So that some asshole doesnt come along and try to alter it with subjective truth). Lol! But how you can you pin any objective truth to anything, unless there is an absolute to pin it to? Btw, I have sometimes philosophized it Absolute Truth can be created outside of the religious realm with mathematics, for instance. Could mathematics be used as a replacement pin? For example: If we know that divorce/feminism causes ever falling birth rates and yet we also know we need X number of babies to move forward then the maximum tolerance of divorce that society can handle without destructing is X% of marriages ending in divorce. Can that create a morality that humans can follow? BUT, then you also start getting into the law of unintended consequences as in, is it also then morally proper to say this is the maximum amount of old people we can tolerate in society, while still sustaining ourselves therefore Scary business, when we think we are God. The Bible knows a lot more than people give it credit for. I suspect it might still suprise us and show that it still knows more than we do like how STDs due to promiscuou sness are causing our fertility rates to fall. (It is not just that we are choosing NOT to have children, but also, we are physically having more problems having them in many cases due to STDs). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------"People have always spoken of the absolutely necessary [absolutnotwendigen] being, and have taken pains, not so much to understand whether and how a thing of this kind can even be thought, but rather to prove its existence.... if by means of the word unconditioned I dismiss all the conditions that the understanding always requires in order to regard something as necessary, this does not come close to enabling me to understand whether I then still think something through a concept of an unconditionally necessary being, or perhaps think nothing at all through it." -- Immanuel Kant, Critic of Pure Reason . Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. ... Thus it is, today, after Kant, an audacious ignorance if here and there, especially among badly informed theologians who like to play philosopher, the task of philosophy is represented as being quite certainly "comprehending the Absolute with the consciousness," somewhat completely in the form "the Absolute is already present, how could it be sought somewhere else?" as Hegel has expressed it.-- Friedrich Nietzche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Further Reading: The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field The Feminization of Christianity In the Beginning

Totalitarianism and the Female Principle

One of the biggest reasons why totalitarians like to have society led around by the feminine principle is because it is based in Relative Truth, like all things female, whereas males can sometimes, because of the differing nature of the way their brains work, see the Absolute Truth and keep us on the straight and narrow. Dont forget, females find their notions of right and wrong from the consensus of the herd. If the entire herd believes that 1+1=3, then it is right because the herd believes it is so. (See how women run after changing fashions, or how social proofing works in deciding what is a desirable man the herd decides instead of the individual). Some men, not all, will find the absolute truth and start boldly declaring, BS, you silly cows! 1+1=2. Its just the way it is! I dont care how much you argue against it! It is almost always men who arrive at this conclusion, not women.

It is in no way indicitive that all men will arrive at these conclusions, only that, because of the notion of male extremes, (ie. males inhabiting both the low and high extremes of IQ in greater numbers than women), more males will arrive at the Absolute Truth (a representative of God, thus man being in Gods image because he has better capability to arrive at the Absolute Truth than women do). Totalitarian regimes do NOT want the male principle that attaches itself to the Absolute Truth to lead society because the Absolute Truth never changes, but would rather society be led by the Relative Truth of the female principle. This way society can be more easily manipulated to do the bidding of the elite leadership. ----------------------------------------------

The thing what most people fail to understand when they talk religion and Christianity is exactly where Judaism started. The first time God makes a covenant which starts the whole ball rolling, is with Abram/Abraham. Who was Abram, and where did he live? Well, depending on how you time-line the Bible, (count backwards from Jesus or count forward from Noah and the great deluge that physically occured 12,000 years ago during the Pleistoscene) he either lived in Babylon or in its predecessor, Ancient Sumeria. (Sumeria is the father of Babylon in the same way that England is the father of America).

The nature of these civilizations is important to observe, because both were heavily matriarchal as well as totalitarian, and had gobs of sex worship involved. Sumeria itself became the first successful civilization precisely because when they conquered other peoples, they did not abolish their religions, but rather adopted them. This made the conquered quite agreeable to remaining conquered. Almost all of the gods in these civiliations involved sex, or had specific consorts who they bumped uglies with. The ancients often played soap opera with them, creating stories of betrayal, divorce, and so on with them. When they worshipped their gods, they often used sexuality to express themselves. God from the Bible also existed in these civilizations. He was known as El. To understand this connection, first keep in mind that Abram was the son of an idol-maker. An El is a singular idol, and a table full of El idols would be called Elohim, which is the God referred to in the beginning of the Pentateuch. (The first books of the Bible). Btw, idol worship was not forbidden until Moses wrote the Pentateuch several centuries (or millenia) later. El was known all throughout these civilizations. He was the G od of Shem, son of Noah, ancestor of Abram. El was the god of the flood, and the Sumerians fully acknowledge the flood. In fact, Gilgamesh of Sumeria was the son of Ham, another son of Noah (who didnt follow Noahs God), and Gilgamesh was furious with El for destroying his ancestors with the flood and swore revenge against El. At any rate, El was not a popular god in this culture because El was pretty much the only god that did not have a consort. In other words, since El was an unmarried MGHOW, the worship of El did not involve sex worship and had no female influence. People didnt like that much at all . When Abram left this civilization and went out into the wilderness to escape the wickedness all around him, he took with him The god of Shem, who brought Noah through the flood. Once in the wilderness, God makes a covenant with him follow ME! I am the ONE true god (I am the Absolute Truth MY truth is higher than all the other gods and their truths out there). It is the founding of Monotheism. Follow the one TRUTH I put in front of you, and put no other truths before me. Abraham following El was specifically different than all other religions at the time, as it was pretty much the only religion that was not mired in sex worship and the relativity of the female influence. ------------------------------------------------------correction: Gilgamesh was not the son of Ham, but the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham, who was the son of Noah. (I was one generation off) This connection comes because there is speculation that Nimrod in the Bible, who built the Tower of Babel, was actually Gilgamesh. The tower of Babel was built as a defiance against God and the flood, and of course, Gilgamesh was the great king who rebelled against the god of the flood. Nimrod merely translates into The Rebel, and is not actually someones name, and so it is speculated that calling him The Rebel instead of his name is a form of insult, like calling Obama Big Ears rather than by his name. The ancients also refused to say Gods name in returning insult. -------------------------------------------------------Furthermore, when one looks at the ancient Hebrew texts (not neccessarily the Bible), it becomes even more clear how much this anti-female-influence is part of the patriarchal religion founded by Abraham.

The ancient Hebrews banished even the mention of female goddesses/demons from their texts (including the books that ended up in the Bible). When Moses kept coming back and finding the people worshipping the male god known as Baal, the odds are that they were also worshipping his female counterpart (who I believe was called Ashtaroth). There is never mention of this in the Bible, but, in the surrounding cultures, if you worshipped Baal you also acknowledged the existence of his goddess lover. Likely, when Moses got angry about Baal worship, it also involved some form of sexworship. In the ancient Hebrew texts, you will find all kinds of underlying misogyny towards the female influence. In the texts which did mention goddesses & demons, the most evil ones are always the females. Also, you will find that the names Sodom and Gomorrah are the only two cities mentioned that are in the feminine, like how languages such as French have masculine and feminine. In other words, the two most wicked cities ever known to man that were so evil that God wiped them from the face of the earth, are also the only two cities in the entire region that are in the feminine. There is much evidence of what was going on back then. They were very much trying to stamp out the kind of nonsense that the females relativity brings into religion. Small wonder matriarchal religions have so much sex worship in them, as sexuality is the #1 sphere of influence females possess.

SH#13 - The Male's Ability to Reach Truth

I have a question about your post on the idea that men base their lives in more rational ways, along with accepting things that cant be changed, while women do the rationalization hampster. Arent men the ones who will speak out against tyrants, set themselves on fire, or join a bloody revolution in the hopes that good change will come. Those are give leaps of faith and they arent logical. Not only are they faithfully telling themselves that their revolution will create a better society but Im not sure whether or not they think they will be creating a better life for themselves (logically they arent). I say this because I think its a weakness to be bound by logic and accept that with is in some calculating manner. If you arent willing to over react, and basically take stupid risks, then someone else can come along and rob (no pun intended!) you by manipulating your predictable, logical, behavior. Changing examples its why the US could never nuke Russia just to get an edge. If Russia were purely logical, and we sent one nuke to them, they should not retaliate and lush for peace to stop further bloodshed. If Russia was illogical they would retaliate and hope that the US doesnt retaliate back.. As far as the mrm goes, I am hoping that men can SOMETIMES damn the consequences and make a somewhat illogical demand that can still have good consequences. One example is the demand that wives should have to work/earn as much as husbands. But the current fact is that hypergamy can screw the man that does. However, if many men demand the same illogical thing, the game has actually changed and hypergamy no longer works. This is actually an example of group work in.which benefits only come when everyone works together. But on the personal level, it will require men, who want to improve their own lives, a degree of cognitive dissonance. In short, good results can happen from some irrational, at least stepwise irrational, thinking. @ Fondueguy, Sorry, I didnt see your comment back here.

Yeah, you make some really good points. One thing that should be made clear, I guess, is that men arent logical simply by virtue of their birth. Men are mired deeply in Relative Truth and Emotion just like women are.We are of the animal world and we all have that mammalian emotional brain below our "thinking brain" which, like animals, runs on "passion." The real difference is that men have better ability to get there or over-ride their Relative Truth and hold the Absolute/Objective to task. In fact, Id go as far to say that 99% of men arent much better at controlling the rationalization hamster than women. Look at the game guys finding reasons that excuse the ones of them who cuckold other men, while at the same time boldly declaring cuckol ding is the equivalent of rape for men. But, if someone is going to get out of it and move towards the Truth, it will be a man in 99.9999999% of the cases. For example, about the only female philosopher I can really think of is Ayn Rand. However, who were Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Nietsche, Kant, Schopenhauer, yaddah yaddah yaddah if not but men? There has never been an excuse for the virtual non-existence of female philosophers. There is simply no excuse for it such as historical oppression or misogyny. There are no materials needed for philosophy except pen, paper and brain and pen and paper are optional. You can be in a prison cell and be a philosopher. You can be in a Nazi concentration camp and be a philosopher. You can be on your deathbed with tubes shoved all through your body, and be a philosopher. So why is it always men, and not women, that become significant philosophers? Its because of our brains. 1 Gods Law (Absolute) God 2 Natural Law (Objective) Man (Gods Image 1 step) 3 Civil Law (Subjective) Woman (Mans Image 2 steps) If women find truth via consensus or democracy, which they do, then truth really doesnt ever exist at all. Today, 95% of the herd believes (1+1=3) so that is truth to them. Tomorrow, 95% of the herd believes (1+1=1) so now this is true to them. Sometimes even, they stumble upon (1+1=2), but the next day they will easily be back to (1+1=4). The herds consensus is always right. Men do the same thing. In fact, we do it right here on this very board, with upvotes and downvotes. (Does having 95 upvotes vs. 3 downvotes really indicate that person is truthful? Nope, just popular but lots of people follow the highly upvoted peoples ideas over the downvoted ones). Some of us men me included get very worked up emotionally over these issues men are not free from emotion. In fact, there is much to the argument that mens emotion is at minimum equal to womens. The difference being that men have fewer types of emotions, but they are deeper. Women have more kinds of emotions, but they are shallower. Men have a harder time letting go of love than women do break-ups are far more damaging to men than women. Men stand on the deck of the Titanic because of their emotional deepness towards women they would rather themselves die than see something they love (women) die. Who commits suicide more often? And what is suicide if not being overwhelmed by emotional grief and despair? But these emotions too, are more linear. They are more real, ev en simply by virtue of being harder

to change. If you are in love one minute and five minutes later are no longer in love, did love really exist? However, its probably safe to say that even if it takes you longer to fall in love, but that love lasts for several years, that kind of love is more real. Mens emotions stay on track more often than womens. Lol! OK, thats getting a bit off topic. I guess what Im saying is that men can be held to task with the truth. I have a pretty good chance of going over to Roissys and taking on commenters who on one hand call cuckolding rape for men, and on the other, completely justify their own cuckolding behaviours as just a stupid beta. It might get messy, but if I wanted to be an asshole, I could hold their feet to the fire no matter how much they squirmed, and both they and everyone else, would be able to see the truth. I may not leave as a popular guy, but there would be no doubt of who is right. Men can hold eachother to the truth. They can be held to task on direct inconsistencies. etc. etc. Ever argue with a feminist? No matter how solidly you build your case, it will always be nuh-uh and well, not in all cases and not all women are like that and blah blah blah. I dont think Ive ever seen a man really win an argument with a woman. Might as well spend your day nailing pieces of jello to the wall. Cheers for the comment, Fondueguy.

Chapter Six: The Political and MGTOW

The Keynesian Sexual Marketplace

The art of seduction, commonly known as "game," has become a big focus in the manosphere over the past few years. I would like to make clear that I believe many of the elements of game are real and I agree that men should know about 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, I learned about game in a bit different of a way than most. First, I learned via observation and through

two friends of mine who both had extremely high partner counts - one I estimate has slept with 200 people and the other I suspect is in the 400 range. (Both are 40'ish now and the numbers add up over the decades). Things like social proofing and increasing one's sexual market value by "climbing" from one chick to the next I had figured out on my own by the late 1990's. But it wasn't until I read the Book of Bonecrcker at somewhere around 2005 or 2006 that I really seen it laid out in print in a way that corresponded with my own life experiences and observations. The Bonecrcker is different from much of the game-o-sphere in one key way: His definitions of Alpha, Beta & Omega are entirely different from the conventional definitions we are using today. I still believe that he is closer to the underlying "Truth" with his ordering of these definitions because he goes beyond merely "scoring" and a high partner count in his definitions for he includes social status and the ability to co-operate with other men - in order to create power - as part of his definition of "alpha." 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 Alpha males dont 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. Think back to when you were in high-school. The star quarterback, while he could have shagged a lot of 6s, 7s and 8s, 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 7s. 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 they are so often derided 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 sexualsocial rank. It just doesnt 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 sociosexual 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 dont 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 miss ing. 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. One must keep in mind that human beings naturally exhibit pair-bondingand Alphas still pair bond while Omegas do not. Most high partner count people I know, such as my two friends I mentioned above, are Omegas, not Alphas. They are the sexual deviants with numerous sexual partnersbut 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 high-school football star whos screwing the prom queen - doesnt 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 queens 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 doesnt need to screw dozens of chicks to have social proofing. Hes 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 queens 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 cant 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 weakwilled 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, an d 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 survivals 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 motivatedlifelong enemies. Keep in mind that women are like monkeys, and dont let go of one branch until theyve gotten hold of another. Each time an Omega scores another man gets screwed over. Except for virgins, pretty much all women are romantically involved withsomeone 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 didnt 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 quandary 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. There are many who believe that when out pussy-hunting, it is their right to screw other mens wives and then get a chuckle at their cuckolding of other men. This is d eviant behavior, and certainly not Alpha. I have seen it pointed out before in Game circles that Alphas like to consider all women theirs and will try to undermine the 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 in high partner count males who laugh and scoff at the insecure Betas they screwed over and cuckolded.

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 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. Others are quickly denigrated 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. Both of my high-partner count friends I ended up ejecting from my life because the troubles they brought about to themselves, and by extension to me, was enormous. They also had no qualms of sleeping with their friends' girlfriends if they could get away with it. "Bro's before ho's" had no meaning to both of my high partner count friends and there was constantly a shit-storm following them around because of it. The one - the guy who has slept with around 200 women - was relentless in trying to cock-block his friends in regard to women, unless he had banged the woman first. As long as he had screwed the chick first, he was OK with one of his buddies dating her after. I also discovered over time that he had slept with almost all of his friends' wives behind their backs at one time or another - usually during times of marital difficulty - and he even had it down to a science. When you start hearing about "nailing your friend's wife game," you know you are getting into the deviancy quadrant. 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 he is trying to dominate you by sexually stealing your woman, and everyone elses 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.

On the other hand, I know two "true alphas." They are both assertive and dominant with their women. The one guy is one of my best friends. My jaw just dropped when I seen him walk in with his new girlfriend the absolute hottest girl in town. You know what? He refused to have sex with her for the first two months they dated... said he didn't want to until he knew they had real feelings for each other (ie. qualifying). He also told her she was not allowed to work as a waitress at a pub or anything like that - he just would not stand for it, having all kinds of men at the pub always hitting on her. She conformed herself around him and they have been together now for around 16 years. When you went to their house, you rang the door bell and knew you had to wait for five minutes because they had to get dressed - after 8 or 9 years, they still had sex four times a day. The last time I was there (I don't live in the same town

anymore), he was in the shower while she called and left a dirty message for him on the answering machine... I was in the living room having a beer with his dad and he was in such a hurry to get out of the shower so we wouldn't hear that he fell, ripped the curtain off the shower, and ran out naked to stop the recording. Me and his dad laughed at him repeatedly all night. But good for him it is like that after all those years. The other "alpha" I knew was a guy who married a chick fifteen years younger. He was 40 and she was 25 when they met. They had been married for a little over ten years when I knew them. He had been through the divorce wringer before and told her they were going to follow gender rules, and that was that. They would have me over for dinner, and afterwards, I would try to help cleaning up and doing the dishes. "No no no, Rob," he would say to me. "We follow gender roles in this house. You came here to help me put siding up on the house for a weekend and she didn't help because that was man's work. Now it is time for her to do her work. Let's go into the living room and watch NASCAR." You know, it was one of the best working marriages I've ever seen. She was very happy.
Both of these men were very popular and had lots of friends as well as respect in the community. There is definitely a difference between these men and the two high-partner-count friends I had, who got into fist fights almost as regularly as they got laid. The two "true alphas" had enormous social respect and cooperation while the two high-number friends had a vast number of enemies and were always looking over their shoulder. Does this mean that Game in the conventional sense that we have come to know doesnt 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. But Omega is not Alpha, because Omegas make too many enemies to be socially successful with other men, and when other men dont want to co-operate with you, you may find yourself truly screwed in society, which in turn makes Omegas of extremely low mating (survival) value. If/when our governments go broke, as well as everyone else along with them, and the failures of society can no 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 passing on the rising realestate 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. Perhaps the term Ethical Omegas ought to be created. It is unadvisable to pair-bond in our current political climate and yet men's need for sex is very real and cannot be denied, thus men ought to make sure that their needs are met while protecting themselves as much as possible therefore it is indeed wise to emulate certain Omega traits such as avoiding "one-itis." But, in the back of ones 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.

Bull Herding in the MRM

Have you ever seen a herd of bulls? Neither have I. It is the anti-thesis of all things "male" to become like a herd. Herds are the nature of females, not males. Yet, whenever talk arises of what men should do about the Gender War, the first thing everyone shrieks for is "unity." Often we hear criticism amongst men themselves that the Men's Movement is not a "real movement" because it does not resemble the feminist movement. "See! Men don't have vast lobby groups, therefore they aren't a movement. And look! Men aren't burning their gonchies in rallies numbering in the thousands, therefore there is no 'Men's Movement.'" It really goes to show how feminized our entire culture has become that men, in response to women's excesses, would actually try to emulate female behaviour in order to ameliorate their grievances. There is a lot of confusion about what Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) means. Some define it as the marriage strike, others call it swearing off women altogether, and yet others will claim it means becoming a hermit and shunning society. I have been involved in MGTOW since close to its inception and as such I also have come to know several of the people who founded it as a concept. MGTOW is not a "movement" so much as it is a cultural and philosophicalobservation about men's behaviour. Men have been unable to find unity in their response to feminist tyranny. Lots of men agree things have gone way too far, but that is essentially where the agreement ends. Men are individual creatures, not herd creatures, and as such they have not "unified" in a front against feminism. In fact, if you look around the MRM, what you will find are hosts of "armies of one." What happens is that some men eventually get fedup waiting for others to get their shit together and just go out and start doing things on their own. Virtually all progress, research, articles and websites in the MRM are the result of an "Army of One." In fact, this very website you are reading is the result of an army of one - my own. MGTOW, at its inception, was an observation that each man was "going his own way" and failing to unify like a herd of feminists would. It is in the nature of males to do so, just as it is in the nature of males to observe the Truth about such behaviour and work with it rather than try to cover it up.

Let me ask you, how can men fight to save masculinity by adopting feminine traits? Wouldn't doing so nullify the entire notion of masculinity and make us into mere women with penises? Men do not unify as herds and they do not make nearly as good of victims as women do. The MRM has been trying this abomination of nature for several decades now, whether arguing about DV shelters for men or for men's "right" to be a house-husband supported by his wife's earnings (AKA a "kitchen bitch"). It always fails, thankfully, because it goes against nature. As of yet, masculinity has not been destroyed, and once men recognize the difference between masculine principles and feminine principles, they tend to say, "The hell with you all, I'm going my own way."

Female Power versus Male Power

Women are lying when they claim they had no power in the past. We may not have accurately described female power but this is actually in keeping with the feminine: All things female are covert while the male is overt, and so it is that female power in society is also covert. Although it is true that men have held most overt positions of power in the past, one must keep in mind that they were only permitted to do so because society socially condoned such practices. Society (ie. the herd) falls under the domain of the female principle and further, our social mores are controlled by women. What women want, society wants. What women find socially acceptable, society finds socially acceptable. Women have enormous social power while men have very little. "Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them little." -- Samuel Johnson Over 100 years ago, E. Belfort Bax was writing how a man could never expect to receive justice from a court of law when his adversary was a woman. Justice is only achieved between a man and another man, and the only time a woman receives punishment from the court is when she has done something to harm another woman. When it comes down to man versus woman, the woman always fares better. This is not something new that has arisen recently, as you can see, but rather is something that is innate to humans. Everywhere in nature, males are the servants of the female. Furthermore, women have spent the past several thousand years evolving to better manipulate males to do their bidding. "A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in womans nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretense." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women What men do with their positions of "power" in society is serve the needs of the female. Even the socalled "oppressive" things of patriarchy past were done for women's benefit. Take the practice of placing all of a woman's property holdings into the husband's name upon marriage. While feminists claim this was indicative of women being "non-persons," what it actually did was benefit women enormously.Women are hypergamous by nature and as such, seek out men who are more powerful and have more resources than they themselves have. Thus, upon marriage, the male's property holdings were generally much greater than the female's, and by combining the two upon marriage the female received the right to her husband's property. If wives could maintain property outside of marriage, then it stands that so could husbands. If property were able to remain legally outside of marriage then women wouldn't be able to fully take advantage of men's higher provisioning abilities. It was in the wife's best interest for her property to be co-joined in such ways. Wouldn't you agree to co-join your assets with Bill Gates if it meant you gained access to his fortune and further, received inheritance rights to it upon his death?

Since it was ultimately in women's favour for it to be handled this way, society condoned it. The introduction of labour laws, such as limiting the work-day for women and children to a maximum of eight hours, was done for their benefit. Men still had to work long, hard days in the fields and mine shafts, but society thought it wrong that women should spend lengthy days in the hazardous conditions of the workplace, and so laws were enacted to protect women - not men - from such harsh conditions. Feminists, in their hate-fueled rage against nature, have tried to complain that such acts were the result of an evil patriarchy conspiring to hold women back, but they are plain and simply lying. In fact, as Angry Harry points out in his two excellent pieces, Women - Weak and Pathetic? and Did Women Really Want to Go Out to Work?, it was women who fueled such movements as it was considered by society (ie. women) that women leaving the workplace was a great step forward for womankind, and so, because women socially condoned it, that's what happened. Here is an extract describing the situation, from David Thomas' book Not Guilty: The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure." Further evidence to support this position is provided by a 1936 Gallup Poll asking a national sample, "Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her? By overwhelmingmajorities, both men and women said that she should not. However, a few decades later, women decided that they belonged in the workplace again and, as Esther Villar pointed out in The Manipulated Man, in very short order, the laws changed by the early 1960's to grant women equal pay and opportunity with men in the workplace - and of course they blamed it all on men, even though it was women themselves that had earlier condoned lesser pay for women and encouraged men to be the sole breadwinner so that women could leave the workplace. As you can see, in each case, what women wanted, society wanted, and thus it came into being. Men were just the toolswho facilitated society's (women's) desires. "Woman, weak as she is and limited in her range of observation, perceives and judges the forces at her disposal to supplement her weakness, and those forces are the passions of man. Her own mechanism is more powerful than ours; she has many levers which may set the human heart in motion. She must find a way to make us desire what she cannot achieve unaided and what she considers to be necessary or pleasing; therefore she must have a thorough knowledge of man's mind .. she must learn to divine their feelings from speech and action, look and gesture. By her own speech and action, look and gesture, she must be able to inspire them with the feelings she desires, without seeming to have any such purpose." Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile Men's power comes from conquering the outside world while women's power comes from conquering the will of man and encouraging him to willfully surrender his power unto her when it suits her purpose. Think about how women claim they were powerless because for a few decades they didn't have the vote. Did they pick up guns and overthrow society to get their way? Nope, they bitched and moaned and cajoled men into doing their bidding. They did the same things with the Temperance Movement. Women decided what was socially acceptable, and then harassed men into doing their bidding - and the men did it! Women's social power is enormous and far outweighs men's social power. Men are playing a fool's game if they think they can compete with women on this level, for that is where the heart of female power lies. Men are as horribly outmatched by women on this level as women would be if they deemed to "overthrow men" by lifting weights and taking boxing lessons in an attempt to physically subdue them. Why should men then try to form a movement on the basis of the female principle when it is under this very principle that men have little ability to compete? Seems pretty stupid to me and it can only lead to disaster. Much of this warped thinking is still based in the false Boomer-topian ideology that men and women are essentially the same, save but for externally imposed "social constructs." This is a false ideology and as such, actions based upon it can only lead to false conclusions. A "men's movement" must reflect male principles rather than female principles. Herds of bulls do not roam the countryside.

"We Must Get Women On-board!"

This is one of the most common arguments the Men's Movement has made over the past decades. Those who make the argument are both right and wrong at the same time. As I have pointed out, women control our social mores, therefore, in order for society to improve the conditions of men and end the Gender War, women must want the conditions of men to improve. Not much happens that women don't approve of. "Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx The mistake "the movement" has continually made is falling for the notion that men and women are essentially the same and therefore what makes sense to men also must make sense to women. Men are based upon principle and logic and therefore continually appeal to women from a position of justice. This is the wrong tactic to take with women, for as has been pointed out throughout history, women have no sense of justice. "...women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.(9) So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no 'sense of justice.' --Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women It makes no sense to appeal to women's "sense of justice" when such a thing is foreign to the female principle in the first place. Furthermore,women have very little ability to empathize with men. "Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale There is a hierarchy in how our society "works." It looks like this: God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children --> Puppies Men care for themselves, women and children, while women care for themselves and children. It does not work in reverse. Men expecting women to empathize with their plight are just as foolish as parents expecting children to empathize with them and "do the right thing" simply because it is the right thing to

do. Both will be waiting for a loooooong time before nature re-orders itself in such a way. Appealing to women's sense of justice, or arguing with women by use of logic, is a fool's errand for women aren't creatures of logic in the first place, but rather are creatures of emotion and self-fueled narcissism. 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: Thats their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just dont 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 Relations between the sexes were originally set up as an economic contract whereby men and women both mutually benefited from interacting with each-other in lifelong marriage. Granted, in almost every situation one can find, women benefited far more than men, but this is the nature of human relations. It has always been a 60/40 deal in favour of women, but the difference between the "bad old days" of yesterday's patriarchy and our modern embracing of matriarchy is thatthe culture used to have a

carrot and stick approach if you were a good beta provider you got 1) sex, 2) family stability and intimacy, 3) children you could pretty well count on being your own, and 4) social respectability.

Then women and the culture said, To hell with the carrot, gimme two sticks! and figured they could keep browbeating men into living up to their old roles while at the same time browbeating men for living up to those roles. Since the advent of marital rape laws, there is no longer an expectation of "sexual relations" within marriage. Family stability has been eroded by the divorce culture which ultimately was born out of transferring presumed custody of children from the father to the mother back in the 19th Century. We are told today that "all children are legitimate" and in fact, men are forced by law to support children that women have cuckolded them with. And finally, the social respectability of being a family man has been completely undermined by a culture that portrays fathers as buffoons whose wives and children have to constantly tolerate their endless social blunders and ineptness in handling all things about them. Yet, somehow, women's illogical brains still seem to think that men will continue to live up to their old roles and "man up" to keep women happy and floating in money and trinkets. Women don't understand The Law of Cause and Effect very well.

Giving Women the Husbands They Deserve: None

As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, MGTOW is not so much of a "movement" as it is a cultural and philosophical observation of how men are responding to the society which surrounds them. Men are not herd creatures like women. They do not band together and beg for sympathy as women do. Men are far more individualistic than women and they are also far more adaptable. And this is what men are doing - they are adapting to the changes in our culture. Several distinct strategies have emerged for men which they choose based on their individual preferences. If a man wants sex, he learns Game. If he wants peace, quiet and freedom from nagging, ragging, bitching, complaining, whining, pissing and moaning, he becomes a Ghost. If he wants a family, marriage, and kids, he goes expat or imports a foreign wife. In other words, as far as our culture goes, men are "going their own way" whether we like it or not. There are millions of "wildcat strikes of one" in which men are acting upon their own individual, adaptive choices. These numerous individual choices eventually culminate themselves into a "movement" that can't really be defined as a "movement" but certainly does have an impact upon the situation of larger society. Men have tons of options today and really dont need the government to do squat for them. Meanwhile, the women who have won the gender war and now have A Womans Nation are left holding the bag of being the breadwinner and raising the kids by themselves, and some of them are still up for quick lays but not marriage in other words, they are fine with being pumped and dumped.

Appeals to women's sense of justice and pleas for sympathy continually fall upon the deaf ears of women, for women only have empathy for themselves and their children. Women will not change this until the situation impacts them directly. The battle between the female principle and the male principle always works in this manner - it is like the Yin and the Yang - one overtakes the other until the other overtakes the first again. The male principle is responding to the excesses of the female principle, and it is doing so in its uniquely male way - the opposite of the female herding instinct - by being individuals who take action, or sometimes non-action, and doing what serves men the best in the situation they are presented with. Sure, sure. This cannot go on forever, as if men and women fail to get together and create future men and women, the human race will not go on. But you know what? It is not solely men's problem. Women are complicit in our society's social structuring and when men's withdrawal from our historical role begins to impact women directly, they will change things to re-empower men so fast that there won't be any way to stop them... of course, they will blame men for it along the way - it is what women have always done. We live in a false sexual economy that is propped up by excessive government interference. Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. Once the government can no longer adequately provide for them - as is fast becoming the case as our Boomer-topian cultures financially struggle to keep from collapsing under the weight of female inspired socialism - women will turn on a dime and insist that men live up to roles that suit women's purposes again - and they will take away the two sticks and provide a carrot again if it so suits their purposes, not men's. However, the carrot will likely have to be presented amidst a delicious stew with beef, onions and other tasty morsels in order for men to willingly don the yoke of "patriarchy" again. Until women come around to this conclusion, and devise their own plan for enticing us back, men should let them change their own damn oil and continue to follow the male principle by Going Their Own Way.

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 womens 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. Of course, this led to the rise of wonderful citizens such the mass-murdering Al Capone and his mirror image, the thugs with guns that enforced the laws at womens 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 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. 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 dont play nice for them, they have lost control because men dont play nice at womens insistence. Men might play nice for their own reasons, but never at a womens insistence. Boys succumb to mother's power but men realize the true nature of women and that the unfair sex cant keep two thoughts straight in their head past the next glittering trinket that distracts them, completely cleaning their heads 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 how she gets them to play nice. She exercises her power over them to impose nice on them, and if they arent 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 dont think they should let males grow out of boyhood (where women are in 100% 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 cant 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 isnt 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 isnt nice of men to make her pay for her mistakes. - No offensive language in the workplace that isnt 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 dont like, because they dont find it a nice experience. - Nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice.


EOTM: The Ultimate Hypocrisy: An Alleged Movement for "Gender Equality", with a Gendered Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want s ex, 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Further Reading: 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

How to End Domestic Abuse

"[Do you believe women have the right] to be free from domestic abuse?" Answer: Yes! In fact, I think that we should strive to put an end to all forms of domestic abuse, and I dont think we should rest until domestic abuse is completely eradicated from our society. I also think that domestic abuse should be removed from society not only in the terms of male on female violence, but also in regard to female on male violence. Ill bet you think that Im going to start quoting statistics illustrating that females are just as violent as males, dont you? Come on, admit it!

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I dont think thats the best way to end domestic abuse. I believe the best way to end domestic abuse is to simply abolish the term domestic abuse from our language, from our mindset, and definitely from our courts. Im serious. Out of all the feminists who cry out to end domestic violence, to all the holier than thou academics who study domestic abuse in an effort to solve it, to the plethora of politicians who pledge to pass more laws to prevent it, and yes, even to the multitudes of Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) who demand to be included as victims of it, have you ever heard of such a sound plan as mine? I am the only one with a sure fired, guaranteed formula to actually end all forms of domestic violence! Why, oh why, am I paid so little? Why do we have the term domestic abuse in the first place? Werent there already laws in place that protected us from violence before the feminists thought up the term domestic violence? Living together in the same house does not somehow free one from impartial judgment by the law of the land. At least, I cant find the law which says that it does, or ever did. Were there laws on the books that granted spousal immunity in regard to general assault and battery laws? Could you legally murder your spouse before the term domestic abuse was concocted, or did homicide laws protect people regardless of their marital status? If someone were to, say, threaten to pound something into my thick skull, can I not go to the proper authorities, report it, and ask for a restraining order regardless of whether the person is in my immediate family or not? Wasnt all of this covered already before the term domestic abuse became a household word at the behest of the feminists socially redefining academic and legal juggernauts? We can end domestic abuse completely by simply getting rid of the term itself and going back to allowing the law to protect us in the way it used to. Abracadabra! Poof! Gone! Ill send the government my bill. And by golly, YES, I will accept that tenured position at the University of British Columbia! Does anything better illustrate how sick we have become as a society than the phenomenon that we can

no longer comprehend how to function without begging the government to impose more laws upon us? Not only do we ask for less freedom, but we demand that problems becompletely solved by passing more and more laws until every last aspect of the problem is gone. Imagine a lobby group was formed to end speeding and they pledge to keep fighting until every last speeder is removed from the roads. It starts off small, perhaps with a policy of zero tolerance for being even one mph over the limit and increasing the fines by 50% to hurt people in their jeans. But, some people are still speeding. What to do, what to do? Well, lets give speeders points on their drivers license which will increase their insurance premiums! Zooooooommmmm!!! The sound reverberates in a rubber -neckers ears. There out to be a law! he exclaims, Doooooo something! So, we pass a law that anyone caught speeding will have their car impounded for 6 months. But still, someone will speed, somewhere. I think you can see where this is going. In the end, there is absolutely no possible way to remove every last speeder from the road except, that is, to make it illegal for anyone to drive a car, period. That is the only possible end to the equation. And so it is. Transportation by automobile benefits mankind to an enormous degree, but there are certain negatives we must accept that go along with the positives. If we want easy, fast mobility and cheap transportation of goods, we must also accept there will be a certain amount negatives that are unavoidable. There will be speeders, there will be accidents, and there will be injuries and deaths. And we must accept that there will be these negatives or we will not receive the positives. This concept is all around us in nature. Mankind must not be as smart as he thought if he cant see what is all around him. .

. People who say they will not rest until the problem is completely solved are preaching totalitarianism and should be made to spend an afternoon in the stocks; letting some tomatoes smarten them up a few IQ points. The world will never be perfect.

Only Marxists preach that they can create Heaven on Earth. And they preach it will be achieved by slavery to a totalitarian state. Marxists are evil idiots. Many feminists and academics are unabashed Marxists. Have a look at how the Abuse Industry works with our children. Instead of asking a hard working farmer and his wife of 40 years how they successfully raised eight lawabiding, successful children, we ask someone completely different for expert advice. Who do we ask? We ask an angry 45 year old lesbian with a Ph D in Whatchamacallit, who herself comes from a broken home. She has one 3 year old child which was spawned by Thomas the Turkey Baster. These kinds of people are our experts. And, what do our experts recommend? Parents should not be allowed to decide how to discipline their own children! Some parents have overdisciplined their children, and therefore no parent should be allowed to discipline their child with spanking. That parents have successfully raised their children with the aid of physical discipline for thousands of years now becomes irrelevant to our academic gods. Times are different now. Yes, fine individuals like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were spanked as children, but children were born with leather asses back in those days. Children born today are different from them. Cant you tell? They now have three arms and green skin! Parents have been wrong for thousands of years," cries our Sapphic guru, and some parents have abused spanking to the point where it is physically abusive, therefore NO parents should be allowed to do it! It is much better to let a child learn that playing in traffic is dangerous by sitting the five year old down and explaining it to him. If discipline is needed, a time out is recommended, and ultimately, children need to figure out and learn these things on their own anyway. That Mack truck has a natural lesson it will teach your child, so what the hell do you parents think you are doing, giving your child a smack on his bottom? You Cretins! You see, our intellectuals have manipulated our legal systems with a belief that it is better to have all children raised at 50% capacity, rather than to have 95% of children raised at 100% capacity, with the remaining 5% raised at 25%. They believe they can prevent this: . . By making everyone live in a Utopia that looks like this:

. . Our lesbian lecturer will tell us that this is for the greater good, but it becomes obvious that she is not an expert in mathematics. You see, 100% of the population at 50% equals 50%. But (95% of the population at 100%) plus (5% of the population at 25%) equals 96.25%. A population operating at 96.25% capacity is greater than one operating at 50%. Whos telling who about the greater good? Everywhere you look in nature you will find this formula. Its time for us to recognize that laws can also be repealed! We already had legal mechanisms protecting us from violence. We didnt need to have a whole further myriad of never ending laws bringing the whole herd down to 50% capacity. And we certainly dont need to lobby to be included within them, feeding the Utopian beast even more. End the Abuse Industry NOW! Its the only sure fired way to rid the world of Domestic Abuse. . "Heaven on Earth" is a nice fairytale theory. But in practice it becomes a Living Hell.

The Women's Vote Question

[Do you believe women have the right] to vote? Answer: Im not sure that a person who believes Somalia is in the Balkans should have a say in who represents us in foreign affairs. Im serious. Furthermore, I dont believe that 51% of the people should have the ability to vote to take away the rights of the other 49%, but that is exactly the situation we find ourselves with in a system of Universal Democracy. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin I think that questions like should X have the right to vote? could be compared to a typical family: Imagine four children and two parents.

Should everyone have an equal vote in this six person family? Why or why not? Arent they all equal human beings? Why or why not? I think most rational people would say the four children should not be allowed to outvote the two parents; yet, they still have the right to live in the familys house and to sit at the familys dinner table. Dont you agree? Is there a situation where this should change? What if, say, the oldest two children go out and get jobs and start paying room and board? Should that increase the power of their wishes? Many people would say that it should, and I dont disagree. But wh at if the two oldest children decide to vote to knock out all the walls in the basement so they have greater space to play floor hockey? Should they have the right to do such a thing just because they have a vote? I think most people would agree that just because the two older children now have a greater say, this in no way gives them the authority to break certain general rules. And what if the two children who now pay room and board decide to vote that Mom and Dad should pool their monthly incomes with them and thus greatly increase the resources available to them? Should that be allowed? Why or why not? Perhaps, the two children paying room and board might vote that Mom and Dad should purchase a second car for the kids to drive, or for an expensive swimming pool in the backyard. Should that be allowed? Why or why not? I think most people would agree that low income people having the right to vote to take away the resources of high income people, and use those resources to benefit themselves (the low income people), is nothing more than legalized theft. Why should a low income person be entitled to steal the resources of the higher income person? In the story of the Good Samaritan, he stopped along the way and gave of his own resources to help someone in need. Would he have been a Good Samaritan if he had stopped you by gunpoint, stole your resources, and gave them to the needy? I think he would have been a Crap-Ass Samaritan. Dont you? And what if this Crap-Ass Samaritan ended up stealing so much of your resources that you no longer had enough left over to actually give anything of your own accord? I dont think that is a good situation at all. Do you?

To answer the original question, "[Do you believe women have the right] to vote?", I dont think that anyone should have the right to vote unless they can demonstrate they possess enough understanding of our countrys constitution and history, plus illustrate they have an adequate understanding of political science in addition to a basic general knowledge of both domestic and foreign affairs. We make people take a test to ensure they are knowledgeable and responsible enough to drive a car. Dont you think it would be equally wise to make people take a test before granting them the p ower to drive the country? I do. I also think we should be living in a country that adheres to the principles of a Constitutional Republic, which means that the people are equally responsible to a system of impartial rule of law and where no man or woman is above the law. And I think that the leaders of this Constitutional Republic should be decided by a LimitedDemocracy. A Universal Democracy, however, is a really, really bad idea and never leads to a good end. "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788 What most of the political correctoids fail to comprehend when they screech about democracy and womens right to vote, is that our countries were not intended to have universal democracy not for men or women. There are far too many people who believe Somalia is in the Balkans for that to have been a wise idea. Even men did not have the vote for much longer than women. Oh sure, some men had the vote and held positions of power, but the vast majority did not. Most countries in the Western World began granting the right for landless men to vote during the mid-Nineteenth Century, anywhere from 50 to 60 years before it was granted to women. Men certainly did not have the vote for thousands of years before women. The rise of the philosophies of Socialism began in earnest during the time frame of the mid-Nineteenth Century to the early Twentieth Century. It was also during this time frame that our Western countries changed from adhering to the principles of a Constitutional Republic to those of a Universal Democracy. "Democracy is the road to Socialism." Karl Marx Yes indeed, Mr. Marx. And it is interesting to note that a fairly good spattering of the Suffragettes were deeply involved with the Socialist Movement. One naturally wonders then if their demonstrations for democracy had more to do with the advancement of Socialism than it did with the issues of womens rights.

In fact, one might say that a wise person who wishes to condemn that women did not have the vote for the approximate half century when only men did, would do well to at least examine the arguments of those who opposed womens suffrage before attempting to speak with authority on the subject. Dont you agree? Should one undertake such a task, one would soon find that many of those who were opposed to womens suffrage took such a stance out of concern for preserving the nature of the state. They were concerned about the changing of the principles of a republic into the principles associated with a democracy, and what affect womens nature would have on this. You see, it has long been known that women tend to choose collective security over individualism and freedom. This was well known in the past and it is still well known today. Sure, sure. Some men will choose security over freedom as well, but in general women choose collective security while men choose individual freedom. Have a look at who the majority of women vote for today as opposed to men. In the USA, women overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party and its socialist principles of bigger government while men tend to be the majority of supporters of the Republican Party, which theoretically stands for smaller government and more individual freedom. In fact, here is a study titled Did Womens Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? -- by John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny. It illustrates that since the ad vent of womens suffrage in the early Twentieth Century, women have consistently voted for larger government and more Socialist policies. Now, all political correctness aside, if it is shown that the womens vote is slowly but surely changing our countries from places which enshrine the values of freedom into nations which do not allow for freedom, but rather enshrine the values of totalitarian Socialist government do you think that people should have the right to discuss this phenomenon freely with out the shrill chirping of feminists and their mangina enablers in their ears? I mean, you do believe in free speech, dont you? And oddly, free speech is actually a universal right which is laid forth in our constitutions while, curiously, the universal right to vote is not. Even a five year old has the right to free speech, but not the right to vote. One might even go so far to suggest that a responsible citizen has aduty to point out that if we keep following down this road without creating some checks and balances, we soon will wind up with a form of government in which none of us has the ability to vote at all. Political correctness coupled with intimidation from feminists and manginas does not change facts, and such people who believe that they have the right to vote for the destruction of the constitutions upon which our countries are founded, are in fact exercising a vote of treason. People who would vote for treason, regardless of their sex, should not have the right to vote at all. Dont you agree? "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" ~Benjamin Franklin

Republic versus Democracy?

I came across this speech the other day and I found it very intriguing, so I thought I would share it with my readers and see what they think of it. Some things that stick out in my mind, while reviewing it are: - George Orwell's being upset over realizing that democracies are bound to fail - This statement: Democracy is the road to socialism. -- Karl Marx - And, how does the following information affect our views of Universal Men's Suffrage in the mid-1800's and Universal Women's Suffrage in the early 1900's? --Robert Welch, from a speech at the Constitution Day luncheon of We, The People in Chicago, on September 17, 1961 (reprinted in the June 30, 1986 issue of The New American magazine): "By the time of the American Revolution and Constitution, the meanings of the words republic and democracy had been well established and were readily understood. And most of this accepted meaning derived from the Roman and Greek experiences. The two words are not, as most of todays Liberals would have you believe -- and as most of them probably believe themselves -- parallels in etymology, or history, or meaning. The word Democracy (in a political rather than a social sense, of course) had always referred to a type of government, as distinguished from monarchy, or autocracy, or oligarchy, or principate. The word Republic, before 1789, had designated the quality and nature of a government, rather than its structure. When Tacitus complained that it is easier for a r epublican form of government to be applauded than realized, he was living in an empire under the Caesars and knew it. But he was bemoaning the loss of that adherence to the laws and to the protections of the constitution which made the nation no longer a republic; and not to the f act that it was headed by an emperor. The word democracy comes from the Greek and means, literally, government by the people. The word republic comes from the Latin, res publica, and means literally the public affairs. The word commonwealth, as once widely used, and as still used in the official title of my state, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is almost an exact translation and continuation of the original meaning of res publica. And it was only in this sense that the Greeks, such as Plato, used the term that has been translated as republic. Plato was writing about an imaginary commonwealth; and while he certainly had strong ideas about the kind of government this Utopia should have, those ideas were not conveyed nor foreshadowed by his title. The historical development of the meaning of the word republic might be summarized as follows. The Greeks learned that, as Dr. Durant puts it, man became free when he recognized that he was subject to law. The Romans applied the formerly general term republic specifically to that system of government in which both the people and their rulers were subject to law. That meaning was recognized throughout all later history, as when the term was applied, however inappropriately in fact and optimistically in self-deception, to the Republic of Venice or to the Dutch Republic. The meaning was thoroughly understood by our Founding Fathers. As early as 1775 John Adams had pointed out that Aristotle (representing Greek thought), Livy (whom he chose to represent Roman thought), and Harington (a British statesman), all define a republic to be a government of laws and not of men. And it was with this full understanding that our constitution-makers proceeded to establish a government

which, by its very structure, would require that both the people and their rulers obey certain basic laws -- laws which could not be changed without laborious and deliberate changes in the very structure of that government. When our Founding Fathers est ablished a republic, in the hope, as Benjamin Franklin said, that we could keep it, and when they guaranteed to every state within that republic a republican form of government, they well knew the significance of the terms they were using. And were doing all in their power to make the features of government signified by those terms as permanent as possible. They also knew very well indeed the meaning of the word democracy, and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to avoid for their own times, and to prevent for the future, the evils of a democracy. Let's look at some of the things they said to support and clarify this purpose. On May 31, 1787, Edmund Randolph told his fellow members of the newly assembled Constitutional Con vention that the object for which the delegates had met was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy.... The delegates to the Convention were clearly in accord with this statement. At about the same time another delegate, Elbridge Gerry, said: The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots. And on June 21, 1788, Alexander Hamilton made a speech in which he stated: "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." At another time Hamilton said: We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy. And Samuel Adams warned: Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide. James Madison, one of, the members of the Convention who was charged with drawing up our Constitution, wrote as follows: ...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Madison and Hamilton and Jay and their compatriots of the Convention prepared and adopted a Constitution in which they nowhere even mentioned the word democracy, not because they were not familiar with such a form of government, but because they were. The word democracy had not occurred in the Declaration of Independence, and does not appear in the constitution of a single one of our fifty states-which constitutions are derived mainly from the thinking of the Founding Fathers of the Republic for the same reason. They knew all about Democracies, and if they had wanted one for themselves and their posterity, they would have founded one. Look at all the elaborate system of checks and balances which they established; at the carefully worked-out protective clauses of the Constitution itself, and especially of the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights; at the effort, as Jefferson put it, to bind men down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and thus to solidify the rule not of men but of laws. All of these steps were taken, deliberately, to avoid and to prevent a Democracy, or any of the worst features of a Democracy, in the United States of America. And so our republic was started on its way. And for well over a hundred years our politicians, statesmen,

and people remembered that this was a republic, not a democracy, and knew what they meant when they made that distinction. Again, let's look briefly at some of the evidence. Washington, in his first inaugural address, dedicated himself to the preservation of the republican model of government. Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was the founder of the Democratic Party; but in his first inaugural address, although he referred several times to the Republic or the republican form of government, he did not use the word democracy a single time. And John Marshall, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, said: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos. Throughout all of the Nineteenth Century and the very early part of the Twentieth, while America as a republic was growing great and becoming the envy of the whole world, there were plenty of wise men, both in our country and outside of it, who pointed to the advantages of a republic, which we were enjoying, and warned against the horrors of a democracy, into which we might fall. Around the middle of that century, Herbert Spencer, the great English philosopher, wrote, in an article on The Americans: The Republican form of government is the highest form of government; but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature -- a type nowhere at present existing. And in truth we have not been a high enough type to preserve the republic we then had, which is exactly what he was prophesying. Thomas Babington Macaulay said: I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both. And we certainly seem to be in a fair way today to fulfill his dire prophecy. Nor was Macaulays contention a mere personal opinion without intellectual roots and substance in the thought of his times. Nearly two centuries before, Dryden had already lamented that no government had ever been, or ever can be, wherein timeservers and blockheads will not be uppermost. And as a result, he had spoken of nations being drawn to the dregs of a democracy. While in 1795 Immanuel Kant had written: Democracy is necessarily despotism. In 1850 Benjamin Disraeli, worried as was Herbert Spencer at what was already being foreshadowed in England, made a speech to the British House of Commons in which he said: If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditures You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, and your freedom less complete. Disraeli could have made that speech with even more appropriateness before a joint session of the American Congress in 1935. And in 1870 he had already come up with an epigram which is strikingly true for the United States today. The world is weary, he said, of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians. But even in Disraelis day there were similarly prophetic voices on this side of the Atlantic. In our own country James Russell Lowell showed that he recognized the danger of unlimited majority rule by writing: Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor. W. H. Seward pointed out that Democracies are prone to war, and war consumes them. This is an observation certainly borne out during the past fifty years exactly to the extent that we have been becoming a democracy and fighting wars, with each trend as both a cause and an effect of the other one. And Ralph Waldo Emerson issued a most prophetic warning when he said: Democracy becomes a

government of bullies tempered by editors. If Emerson could have looked ahead to the time when so many of the editors would themselves be a part of, or sympathetic to, the gang of bullies, as they are today, lie would have been even more disturbed. And in the 1880's Governor Seymour of New York said that the merit of our Constitution was, not that it promotes democracy, but checks it. Across the Atlantic again, a little later, Oscar Wilde once contributed this epigram to the discussion: Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people. While on this side, and after the first World War had made the degenerative trend in our government so visible to any penetrating observer, H. L. Mencken wrote: The most popular man under a democracy is not the most democratic man, but the most despotic man. The common folk delight in the exactions of such a man. They like him to boss them. Their natural gait is the goosestep. While Ludwig Lewisohn observed: Democracy, which began by liberating men politically, has developed a dangerous tendency to enslave him through the tyranny of majorities and the deadly power of their opinion. But it was a great Englishman, G. K. Chesterton, who put his finger on the basic reasoning behind all the continued and determined efforts of the Communists to convert our republic into a democracy. You can never have a revolution, he said, in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution. And in 1931 the Duke of Northumberland, in his booklet, The History of World Revolution, stated: The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise. While an even more recent analyst, Archibald E. Stevenson, summarized the situation as follows: De Tocqueville once warned us, he wrote, that: If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event will arise from the unlimited tyranny of the majority. But a majority will never be permitted to exercise such unlimited tyranny so long as we cling to the American ideals of republican liberty and turn a deaf ear to the siren voices now calling us to democracy. This is not a question relating to the form of government. That can always be changed by constitutional amendment. It is one affecting the underlying philosophy of our system -- a philosophy which brought new dignity to the individual, more safety for minorities and greater justice in the administration of government. We are in grave danger of dissipating this splendid heritage through mistaking it for democracy. And there have been plenty of other voices to warn us." Robert Welch, from a speech at the Constitution Day luncheon of We, The People in Chicago, on September 17, 1961 (reprinted in the June 30, 1986 issue of The New American magazine) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Were our state a pure democracy there would still be excluded from our deliberations women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issues, should not mix promiscuously in gatherings of men." -- Thomas Jefferson

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

QUOTE: "However, I think they may be wrong when they go on to say [marriage 1.0] was good for civilization too. Perhaps the inability of Western cultures to pass the shit test of feminism comes directly from allowing too many Betas to breed in the past and pass their passive and compliant genes down through the gene pool."

I sometimes suspect that this is what we are supposed to do. To pass the shit test there is something better on the other side, something we are supposed to find out maybe something that will change us, but we are never going to get there until we pass these shit tests that keep destroying us. Many messages have been sent to us, obviously trying to warn us about something. These things are, I think, twinkling reminders of humanitys past. The story of Pandoras box the legend of Atlantis the Garden of Eden Jason and the Argonauts Egypts Punt They are all of a similar theme, containing similar messages or warnings etc. They are talking to us from the deep, deep past. Perhaps if we pass the shit test and finally figure out how to stop destroying ourselves like pathetic lemmings, our civilization will develop enough to finally figure it out. What it is, I dont know. Maybe its a better way of living. Maybe without civilization always collapsing and needing to be rebuilt, we will figure out how the hell to get out of the solar system, maybe find other lifeforms? because our technology wont reset 500 years back in time if we dont collapse. I know it sounds kinda New Age, but, imagine how different the world would be today if say, Rome had never degraded its principles, and it had never fell. How advanced do you think our technology might be today if that had not happened but rather they kept pushing forward, advancing and learning, all the way up to the present day? I suspect I might be taking my hover-craft to the corner store instead of my crappy old car. Who knows? Maybe we figure something out. But it does seem like we keep getting sent warnings from the past from our ancestors saying watch out and fix this problem. Ill tell you one thing what I see our moral codes try to tell us not to behave like animals. That means not succumbing to our base passions, such as monkey sex without responsibities. Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet etc. etc. all things that animals do, but which humans are told not to do. The Point is to rise up from being beasts of the field of living like animals and basing our decisions in passion, rather than reason. If the point is to be anti-animal and pro-reason, then I wonder what would happen when we finally figure out how to stop destroying ourselves by succumbing to our base animal passions, of which our sex drives are most likely the strongest, and the way women stop men from thinking and rather living by pure passion, as they do. Maybe if we overcome this lemming tendency that has plagued us for thousands of years, there is something else on the other side. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Further Reading: MGTOW as a Form of Cultural Game Fitness Testing (Shit Tests)

SH#8 - The Political

The reality is that you are a participant in the historical process. You dont get to choose not to have a philosophy. You only get to choose which ideas youll hold on to (Im paraphrasing Ayn Rand here). MGTOW doesnt take the men who embrace it out of history. They are a part of history and functioning as part of the dialectic. The only way you can leave the historical process behind is to die or miracle yourself to another planet. Boxer

I think I see what you are saying here. What you are saying is that I am merely adding another antithesis against the current synthesized truth, even if my anti-thesis is truly the Absolute Truth. Kind of like this: [(1+1=2) + (1+1=3)] divided by 2 = 2.5 (Synthesis) [(1+1=2.5) + (1+1=4)] divided by 2 = 3.25 (Synthesis) [(1+1=3.25) + (1+1=2)] divided by 2 = 2.625 (Synthesis) Am I correct that this is your point? In this sense, I have not stepped out of it but merely added to it? Well, here is my thinking, in regard to stepping out of it and perhaps its a little sloppy to truthfully consider it as stepping out of it, but as a personal to the political solution for a man to base a life philosophy upon, here is the notion I am going after: If I go back to the beginning of the the argument, I am closer to the truth than I am by adding to the argument, so I will stop furthering it and base my actions on what I can objectively identify as being closest to the truth. Lol! OK, thats a little round and round, but perhaps thisunfinished article I am working on will make my thoughts a bit clearer: The Marxist Dialectic of Marriage

Im going after personal solutions that take the political out of it. Rather than furthering the dialectic with Marriage 2.0 versus the Backlash, I am better off simply to go back to the beginning of the argument, examining how Marriage 1.0 was structured, and figuring out how I can best serve myself with it. For example, rather than running to the government to grant me shared parenting, as an unmarried man who has never had children, I dont particularly think that the next synthesized truth that sharedparenting will create in marriage will be to my benefit at all. Shared-parenting does not make the prospect of marriage for a single man any more attractive, but rather less attractive. If I really wanted to do what is best for me, I would take the fact that Marriage 1.0 had Father-Custody as a corner-stone, and I would seek ways to reconstruct that from the beginning of the argument. I cannot create Marriage 1.0 in the current society I live in I have to accept that as fact, but I can certainly recreate aspects of it by recognizing the truth that was at the beginning, rather than from the synthesized truth which is in the present. So, I would be better off, if I desired to have children, to recreate Father-Custody via the route of surrogacy. Only have girlfriends never consider Marriage 2.0 or Marriage 2.5 at all perhaps a livein girlfriend if you must etc. but because she has no custody claim to my child (unless you are stupid enough to allow her to adopt), I have effectively re-created Father Custody, or at least parts of it. And that is better for me and my child. I agree that it furthers the dialectic, however, by stepping out of the current argument, and going back to the first argument, I am working closer to the truth rather than further away from it. Another example is one that my own father, a business owner, related to me about 15 or 20 years ago. It became forbidden back in the 90s to ask women in a job interview if they planned on having children in the future. This was blatant discrimination against business owners, because as my father related to me back then, it costs around $10,000 to him to replace an employee. There are training periods to go through, customers have to get used to the new hire, etc. etc. overall it takes about a year to get a new employee up to snuff and working at 100%, and costs around $10,000 either in

training or lost productivity. Employee retention was important to him for this reason. Further, he said, (we were hiring a certified partsman) if he hires a woman, spends a year and $10,000 getting her up to snuff, when she gets pregnant and takes 1 year off for maternity leave, he has to keep the position open for her and give her the job back in a year. Well, we only needed one partsman in our store we didnt have five that could take up the slack. So, he would have to find another certified partsman one who would be willing to only be employed for a year and then be unemployed again and this would mean $10,000 spent on training him, plus, anyone he could find that would accept a mere years employment, would most likely be a bottom of the barrel employee costing him even beyond the $10,000 by an unknown degree, and then further expenses when the woman comes back after maternity leave to get her back up to 100% after having a year off. And then she can do it all over to you again a year or two afterwards. I mean, talk about equal pay compared to a man! She gets the same pay, but drains perhaps $25,000 or $50,000 out of his pocket over a five year period that someone who doesnt want to have children would. His solution? Since he is not even allowed to ask, he will not consider hiringany women under 35 years old. Of course he cant say that out loud, but thats the policy going on his head. In my view, he want back to the beginning of the argument, accepted what was real, looked at what he could do with it, and made a rational decision based as closely upon the truth as he could. He simply refused to play the game, and he benefited from doing so. Also, regarding the Truth, I think the way that the Founding Fathers structured their views of Truth in an order of value is the proper way to regard such things. 1 Gods Law (Absolute) 2 Natural Law (Objective) 3 Civil Law (Subjective) If a subjective truth contradicts an objective truth, the subjective truth is false. And if an objective truth contradicts the absolute truth, then it is false. All truth is not equal.

The Pitfalls of Inviting More Government into Our Lives

QUOTE: "Rob has written a lot about the pitfalls of inviting even more government intrusion into and control of your life." Free men dont beg for a piece of the pie from the master. Free men bake their own damn pies, and tell everyone else to fuck off! If you think the government will solve your problems with shared parenting, you are begging for your piece. If you think the government will solve your DV problems with DV Shelters for men, you are begging for your piece. I prefer to associate with men who dont realy upon government to solve their problems.

Government is only preferable because it is removed from the imperfections of mankind and transformed into some entity nobody really understands, called government. It's because government is abstract from most human thinking that people believe they can foist their personal problems off onto some generic entity called government which we can imagine in our minds should be perfect. History has shown is this exactly the wrong approach over and over again! And yet, because government is removed from the personal and thus also, personal responsiblity, it's easy for us to blame all of our problems upon this impersonal entity which does not represent us personally, but is in the abstrac t, and thus, perfectable in our minds. No wife thinks her husband is perfect. But she thinks the abstract of government, which she doesnt understand by nature, is somehow perfect because it is abstract. Government permission is not the answer. In fact, it is THE PROBLEM! --QUOTE: "I hear you Rob, but how does that pertain to mens rights? For example, most fathers are awarded custody about 7% of the time. Women obtain custody 93% of the time. And of course there are a whole host of other mens issues. Do you have any position on these at all? Thats cool if you dont; Im just curious." OK, But I am bit going to write out a big explanation however, I am going to ask you to answer me. Almost every shared parenting activist cannot manage to w rite about their goals without decelaring except in cases of Abuse!!!! Now, if you want to follow that route, and say that women will recieve lesscustody, and less money from a non-abusive father than from an abusive one (which will be the case), should I believe there will beless or more men falsely accused of abuse, as a result of shared parenting? Second question, Do you think those people who advocate for Shared Parenting, despite knowing the increased amount of fathers that will be falsely charged with abuse should they be let off the hook and be allowed to blame this increase in false abuse cases on the government or are the Shared Parenting advocates also directly responsible for their actions, and the results? Is only the government accountable, or also those MRAs who will be sticking more innocent men into prison for their own personal benefit and yet, blaming it all on the abstract, impersonal, government? So far, in my time in the MRM, I have not yet ONCE seen a Shared Parenting activist address these issues: 1 They are increasing the motivation for women to NOT have an amicable divorce. In fact, they are trying to SOCIALLY SANCTION divorce, by coming to a consensus. (Rob pukes up a bit of Marxist bile). 2 They are increasing the motivation for wives to make false accusations of abuse in order to gain money.

3 They are increasing the motivation for wives to make false accusations of abuse in order to gain solecustody. 4 - They totally wish to sidestep that shared-parenting will automatically restrict the right to freely move about the country. As in, if you are divorced and in a shared parenting situation, you will have to go to court and beg a judge to allow you to relinquish your shared parenting responsibility (which will eventually become mandatory) should you need to relocate to another city to find employment or whatnot - and so will your ex, and so will the person who remarries your ex. What a great way to bring in "papers please" type of totalitarianism into our society when we travel/move about the land. It's all for the children, after all. The advocation of this issue which we can all agree upon will doenormous damage to men. Just not currently divorced fathers, I suppose who seem quite willing to fuck over the fathers that will come in the years after them, in order that they may get their piece of pie today. But, some of those fathers that come later will be their sons! --QUOTE: "Perhaps, as F. Roger Devlin says, it is time to initiate full custody." You are certainly right about Devlin he gets it! Especially when you see him at the end of his Rotating Polyandry & Its Enforcers essay. Of course, Its Enforcers was written by Baskerville yet anothershared parenting advocate, and yet another academic leader that is acceptable. Devlin notes, at the end, that indeed it appears that a system of sole father custody is most likely what is needed and I applaud his courage in seeking truth. For, as he notes, as far as Baskerville goes, while he might agree with sole father custody in theory, he doesnt believe it is acheivable, it is too fringe and therefore some form of shared parenting yada yada equality yada yada I have no brains yada yada because I have a Ph D yada yada and I have been brainwashed yada yada Devlin asks a very poignant question after this (paraphrasing): How ridic ulous was it for gay activists 30 years ago to talk of same sex marriage, until today where it is talked of without a smirk on peoples faces? Surely, it is not a stretch for fathers to reinstate that which has always been in the face of what we have today! Yet, this is the wimpiness what we hear today. Devlin makes a point after that, which I also fully agree with, that most of these shared parenting activists seem to miss the point of activism is to move the fringe. The fringe controls the middle of the road. Those of you who have been following along with my posts over the past while must know what I think about the Absolute Truth and the need to take a stand. This is exactly the same thing, you guys. Shared parenting is 1 + 1 = 2.3

We all know reality is 1 + 1 = 2 I dont support living in a world where the math doesnt work and shared parenting doesnt work. Short term solutions = long term problems. It is not responsible for parents of today to foist their problems onto kids of tomorrow the way the parents of my generation dropped the ball and foisted no-fault-divorce the next generations this is our no-fault-divorce. I just cannot imagine absolutely any benefit that shared parenting will add to humanity in the future. What the hell are people thinking? Involving government into the family even more???? Even Baskerville a man whose fame is made upon being screwed by government doesnt seem t o get it. Everyone sees the government as some abstract perfectable entity rather the faulty individuals in front of them. Thats why they run to them asking for their piece of the pie, along with the other serfs. I guess the thing what gets me so hopped up about things like Shared Parenting and DV Shelters or rather me too Mra-ism is, this isexactly the reason I have been shrieking about Marxism for years! And while people certainly understand when they see the word Marxism that looks like, and sounds like, that thing called Marxism not enough of us seem to get it, what it is about, and it is crucial that we do. Look, this isnt a fight between men and women so much as it is a fight against our freedom. Women are simply the best way to start the machine to self-destruct. But, they only start it! We finish it! It will be us who closes the barn door the backlash consolodates the gains. They said they wanted to remove children from their parents obviously, it is easier to remove fathers than mothers and if you follow the Marxist line further, it should be obvious that upon the backlash that the fathers will remove the mothers from their children. When might this happen? I dont know maybe they will wait until around 50% or more of children arent raised in homes with fathers. Whenever that may be. Feminism is toast this bus is turning our way. You can tell me if you think it is an accident or not. According to the agendas stated goals themselves, it is about time for them to discard fem inism and allow a backlash. So far, all I see is Marxist approved Backlash.

So far, this hasnt worked out well for anyone in the world. But every one of the people who fell for it thought that it would. And so do we.

Government, Keep Your Thievin' Mitts Outta My Pockets!

. QUOTE: "which is part of the reason I don't mind a little wealth redistribution. I also believe that if we aren't ensuring that individuals with the most merit are educated properly then we are harming our competitiveness versus the other world powers in the long run." Those two things, wealth redistribution & ensuring individuals with merit are educated properly to promote competitiveness, are in opposition of eachother. Its like pushing and pulling at the same time. The only type of wealth redistribution scheme that has any merit at all is a consumption tax. This is what the USA (& other places in the West)used to have, and it is also what many tax havens such as the Cayman Islands or the Turks and Caicos Islands still have. For example, in the Caymans, you pay about 33% tax on what you spend. (Or import). Not on what you earn. That is why things are so expensive there but, they have no income tax, property tax, inheritance taxes, capital gains or dividend taxes etc. And this does promote wealth distribution, because rich people spend more money than poorer people. But, if a person were to work hard, and be thrifty at the same time, it is much easier to pull ahead and start getting your money to work for you, rather than you working for your money. For example. If you live here in Canada, and gross around $4,000/month, after taxes and deductions,

you will be left with around $2,700-$2,800 net take home pay. And from there, you pay for your living expenses, most often eating it all up. However, the other way around is, I earn $4,000 a month, with zero tax, but I pay $2,750/month for living expenses plus $925 in consuption taxes for my goods, totalling up my expenses, including tax, to $3,675/month, and I am now $325/month ahead of the game than the other way, and since I am now batting above my living expenses, and I can directly control my living expenses, hot damn am I going to be motivated to hustle my ass to make some more money. Why, I might even get up off the beach and put in a few hours overtime! That leads to excellence. In the same way, I see no problem with wealth redistribution via things like mill rates for property taxes, as per the justification put forth by Adam Smith on that particular subject: Since wealthy people have larger houses, with more things in them to protect etc., it is only fair that their property taxation be higher (as per assessed real estate value, which again becomes a controllable consumption tax, rather than each citizen paying exactly the same amount regardless of their real estate value) because they have more to protect, and therefore are more in need of things like fire and police services, and often times will use them more. Fair enough. However, progressive taxation on income is a silly invention, that retards economic growth, and removes the motivation to excel by merit There is a reason that Karl Marx puts this out in the Communist Manifesto because he wants to destroy Capitalism, and civilization. Also, anything the government touches generates about 30% wastefulness compared to the private sector. And while the government needs 15 workers plus 25 supervisors just to change a friggin light bulb, the private sector manages to crank out a miracle a minute. We should stop punishing the private sector and people with initiative, and start punishing the government instead. Most people are just willfully blind to what they are saying the government should do. For example: With the Haiti Earthquake, the Canadian government offered to match any private donations made by the people to Haiti. And here everyone goes off nodding their heads, Yup, yup. Tis a good thing they do that. Uh huh, uh huh. No it isnt! I not only feel like taking out my whacking stick on the government, but also on the people who feel this is a good thing. Hosers! .

. What is really going on is they are saying, Geez Fedrz, how generous of you to reach into your righthand pocket and give away $100 to Haiti. So, allow us to reach into your lefthand pocket and match that with another $100 of your money. Whack! Fedrz swings his whacking stick. Whack! Whack! WHACK! Assholes did the same thing with the Tsunami, after the citizens donated hundreds of millions of dollars privately, and the government didnt want to appear cheap. I guess better a thief than a cheapskate, eh? .

. Whack! But, if any one feels the overwhelming need to redistribute any of their hard earned cash to someone who needs it my pockets are feeling a little light especially after the govt has been pick-pocketing my generosity, as well, my beer kitty jar could use some wealth redistribution from other peoples labours. Whack, goes the whacking stick. Keep your theivin mittens outta Robs pockets! .

What's Next? Cries of Sparta?

Um, actually Yes! Lol! I had a case of rant-itis the other day over at Dr. Helens, not that you care to read my ramblings oh, wait why are you here again? Anyway, the gist of my argument was that academics are stooooopid, and it must be the biggest stimulus package of all time to have thrown away scores of knowledge about humans & the relations of the sexes that was known in the past, under the horrific charge of misogynist, only to now pay our modern-day slackademics big bucks to rediscover it. Captain Chivalry showed up with his cape wrapped tightly around his eyes as well as a professional victim-screecher, er, dissimulator well, anyway, the link is up there. It was good fun. Anyhow, It seems the equality-seekers have found another university study revealing some shining light on knowledge never before known. I guess we can now talk about it, since the seekers of truth have sanctioned it with a real study! Yippee! It must be real now! Study Shows Disparities in Criminal Sentencing The assessment of fees and fines also appears to be influenced by defendant characteristics: H ispanic defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than white defendants, and male defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than female defendants. The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State

(dumb dee dumb dumb moving along) The report urges the state to overhaul the way Superior Court judges assess those penalties. Attorney Marc Angelucci writes that this study corroborates others that show, for example, gender differences favoring women are more often found than race differences favoring whites. (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v.35, pp.136-68) Ssh! Quiet! Can you hear it? Clickclunkcreeeeeeek. Yup. Thats the sound of yet another door to the Mysteries of the Universe being unlocked by our modern high priests, the Slackademics. Yessirree! And the Dean of the Department of Useful Idiotology recommends the following actions: Step One: Run to the government. Step Two: Hold onto your crotch like a toddler needing to pee. Step Three: In the whiniest voice possible, repeat the following phrase: DOOOooooOOOoooOOOooo something! Were not EEEEeeeEEEeeekwal! Of course, for a lot cheaper, they could have just read this kind of stuff: Excerpts from The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state / in those states in which the condition of the women is bad,half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury / But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. Huh? Whatchoo talkin about, Aristotle? You mean to tell us that its near impossible to bring both sexes equally under the law? I call BS! Has there been a peer-reviewed study done on this? No? Then shut up, you misogynist! Telling us clearly with your words that women belong in the kitchen! The nerve!

Obviously women never get into trouble with the law because they never sin! Dont you believe in equality? How else can you explain it? (Dissimulation = A form of deception similar to pool hustling). Excerpts from Schopenhauers Essay on Women 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 cuttlefish with its dark inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence 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 for the very stupid as the very clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to those weapons when attacked; and they feel that 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" Holy crap, Arthur! You Neanderthal! How dare you say that women should be chained to the bed but the chain should be long enough to reach the kitchen? Whats that? You say it should reach the bathroom too? Cause you aint cleanin no toilets? What do you mean Darwinists ought to believe this too? Youre so full of it. One of the basic premises of Darwinism is that animals devolve into creatures that are less suited for tasks and defences isnt it? Well, since I do believe that men and women are equal but vastly different, and especially since I believe that we are equal in sin lets make sure that men dont get let off the hook completely. Heres an excerpt of Otto Weiningers preface from Sex and Character: "Where my exposition is anti-feminine, and that is nearly everywhere, men themselves will receive it with little heartiness or conviction; their sexual egoism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be. I need not say that I am prepared for the answer women will have to the judgment I have passed on their sex. My investigation, indeed, turns against man in the end, and although in a deeper sense

than the advocates of women's rights could anticipate, assigns to man the heaviest and most real blame." Okay then, as long as its men that are being blamed and not women! Mutter, mutter youre still a cretin mutter. The fact is that women have always been able to get away with being treated with kid gloves. Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty-one. But, Lizzie Borden was not punished. Scores of people rushed to her defense and she was acquitted. There was no investigation afterwards. When was the last time a woman was executed in the USA anyway? How many men have been executed since then? And theyre just figuring out that men and women arent treated equally before the law? Why wasnt Genene Jones fried? She was a mass baby killer. Shes getting out of jail in another 8 years. She should have swung from a rope, and then gotten fried. Better yet, she should have been hung from an electrified rope! Belfort Bax, writing in1908s The Legal Subjection of Men and in 1913sThe Fraud of Feminism wrote extensively of the phenomenon of women being treated more leniently than men by the courts so much that, well, I just dont even know where to begin. You can find examples of all sorts. From society demanding that innocent fathers also be charged when a woman alone commits infanticide to 14 year old boys being charged for sex crimes when engaging in the deed with 16 year old girls who were the sexual aggressors to demands that men who hire prostitutes ought to be charged equally as the prostitute herself Kinda makes you think that academics who claim to be studying this stuff while putting out their palms and asking to be paid for it well their integrity certainly ought to be scrutinized, or at the very least, the integrity of their superior degrees. Of course, one could always just do a head count of how many men are imprisoned in the country and then do the same for women of course, there are not equal numbers mainly because women sin less. Isnt that right Mr. & Ms. Equality, Ph D.? You could probably just google it. Women have been performing the same types of crimes for a long, long, looooong time already as well. Genesis 39 is the story about how Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphars wife for malicious purposes. Judges 4:21 describes the Mary Winklers of old killing men in their sleep: But Jael, Hebers wife, took a tent peg and seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died.

There is nothing new under the sun we have only wilfully thrown away all of the old knowledge about the sexes and we did it all to make the ladies happy. Its time to stop listening to these charlatans and toss slackademia into the sea where it belongs. The Social Sciences in particular ought to get an extra ass-kicking. Its time to start telling people who demand a peer -reviewed study to prove something, to shove it up their ass. Is that where the Absolute Truth originates? From a panel of idiots giving another idiot the thumbs up? Sure, there are some uses for slackademia. Toilet paper has some uses too. But, its time to tell the Ph Ds and other slackademics to shut up and sit at the back of the bus theyve done more than enough damage already. Its not something that has spun out of control in women, but moreover, its that society has thrown away the previous knowledge of how the sexes worked and somehow, idiotically, now believes that men and women can be treated equally under the law. It is impossible to treat men and women equally under the law. Thats why society used to treat men and women differently. Men respond more to being controlled by the law, but women respond to socialization and shaming to fashion, as it were. The Marxists who were behind the Womens Movement from the beginning knew this too. See what one of the most esteemed forerunners of Marxism thought of the subject? Women may have happy ideas, taste and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated who knows how? G.F. Hegel In other words, women form their ideas and opinions from fashion and socialization, rather than by universal principles and logic. While men are controlled by the law, women are controlled by socialization and shaming. And since women dont much care what we men think, such socialized and shaming control must come from other women. And thats usually how it was done the older ladies clucked and shamed the younger ones, and shunned the women who behaved outrageously. (They do just the opposite today, and their socialization encourages bad behaviour). This does not mean that women are only good for cooking and birthing babies although, given our below replacement level birthrates, a few babies might not be a bad idea. And yes, a good meal once in a while would be nice too. But no matter how much that is given to lobby groups to change the law, it still wont matter.

There are fundamental differences in how we operate. Trying to control women by the same factors that are used to control men is completely fruitless. One might as well try to keep a flock of geese in a field by use of a cattle fence. It aint gonna work. Men and women must be treated differently. Far more effective than funding lobby groups to bully the government to pass more laws would be for men to start brainstorming on how to motivate women to start shaming the sense into eachother. As Karl Marx himself noted, women are society they lead, since men are the sexual servants of the female. Too bad they lead by a sense of fashion and sisterhood, rather than by the logic of universality and the rule of law. Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included. Karl Marx (Keep in mind that Marxs idea of social progress is the destruction of Western Civilization) Aristotle explains this in the The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women as well. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Aristotle Dont expect any help from the ladies though. For as Aristotle further points out: the influence of the Lacedaemonion women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. Aristotle Is this not what we see all around us as well? There are obvious things wrong, and every time a man tries to point out the obvious, the women all gather around him and throw every damn monkey wrench at him as possible. Making sense does not matter to the ladies but throwing monkey wrenches at the men does matter. That our children inherit a safe, stable and prosperous society is truly the utmost best interests of the child that there is but, point out the factors that are destroying us nope, here come the ladies and their senseless monkey wrenches. They obviously feel that bitching at men and confusing everything what men say is the main purpose of their lives. Otherwise they would smarten the hell up and recognize that they are also part of society and thus, are also part of the problem and the solution. They refuse to do that. The ladies love to dissimulate. SPARTA! Fedrz cries. The professional victim/dissimulator, that showed up to argue about senseless crap over at Dr. Helens is a good example of the type of help we can expect from the ladies as our civilization begins to crumble about us.

There was a reason why things were the way they were in the past. No, women dont necessarily need to be in the kitchen. Who ever said that, except for the monkey wrench-throwing women themselves? Women would obviously rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something. If society refuses to acknowledge these things about the way the sexes interact with eachother, then no amount of laws being changed, or studies being done, will ever help not one single bit! These academics discovering such things while accepting payment for it are discovering jack -shit. It has all already been discovered and socially censored into oblivion under the politically incorrect charge of misogyny. Why were things in the past so misogynist? That is the question that our ill-esteemed academics ought to be studying. The blanket reason for why has been the evil patriarchy, when it is obvious all around us that the old guys were right, while the new intellectuals of slackademia are spineless idiots. Remember the first reason God gave when he cursed Adam and kicked him out of Paradise: Genesis 3:17 (17) To Adam he said, Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, you must not eat of it, Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

Chapter Seven: The Personal and MGTOW

The Liberation of Men
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." -Genesis 3:16-19 And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men's curse as their own. And what's a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women's curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it - even if men were so stupid to want to. Apparently though, this is not the case in reverse, for women seem to not only be agreeable to take on

man's curse, but they are downright using every bit of power their feminine wiles can muster to force it into social and legal acceptance, and if it tosses men aside in the meantime, then so be it! Ever heard about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn and the great whitewashing of the fence fiasco? Well, this situation is similar, except that the one's holding the short end of the stick (men) aren't the one's doing the manipulating! .

. No, in the situation of men's curse, it is actually the women that are manipulating behind the scenes for the curse of toil and labour, without any real encouragement (nor discouragement) from the males. Apparently, women are demanding to alleviate men from their curse. Well, gosh and golly, I suggest that the slaves let them! What slave on the plantation would scorn his master for demanding the slave work less, so that his master may reap the benefits of being a cotton-picker? But, it's not all quite so simple. Perhaps we should look at this a little closer.

Doing the Math

This morning, as I was watching the Business News Network (B.N.N.), Rona Ambrose, the Canadian Minister for the Status of Women (S.O.W.), trumpeted out the same old tired song about women on executive boards once more. The refrain goes like this: "Research has shown that having more women on executive boards is good for the economy. Therefore..." .

. Really? Is that so? Or is it simply that when you only consult advocacy researchers from an ideologically

driven and politically activist arm of academia (Women's Studies), you will only receive results that are consistent with their ideology. For example, since the stock market crashed back in 2008-2009, the Business News Network has relentlessly trumpeted that women who were investment managers fared better than men, because women are more "risk averse." And this is true, so long as you cherry-pick through your research and ignore any factors which don't support your ideology. The real truth of the story, however, is that while female investment managers lost less money during the crash than male investment managers, in the run-up to the crash, women also created less wealth because of their aversion to risk. All you have to do is run a few numbers to see what a fraud the Business News Network is promoting as "fact." For example, if a man invests $10,000 and averages a return of 9% a year for 8 years, he will have $19,926. Then when the economy collapses and he loses 20% of it, he will be left with $15,941. And, if, during the same time frame, a woman invests $10,000 and averages a return of 6%, after eight years she will have $15,938. When the economy collapses and she loses only 10% because of her aversion to risk, she will have $14,345 left. Hmmm... so, sure, during the market crash, it appears that she "outperformed" because she lost only 10% as opposed to the man's 20% loss, but overall, you would still be better off with the man's pot of cash than with the woman's. In fact, the man still earned 11.1% more than her during the same time frame. These are quite some "facts" media shills like the Business News Network are promoting, aren't they? Indeed, making less money than men shows how superior women are, so long as the real facts are distorted and hidden. Makes you wonder why anyone would watch such a channel trying to learn "the facts," doesn't it? I guess they are trying to make sure that women aren't oppressed by math. Another ideologically driven "fact" that gets bandied about is that women somehow bring more ethics and morality to the workplace - especially when they are on the board of directors of major companies. This "women are more ethically pure fact" is just more smoke and mirrors, since it has long been known that while men are more prone to break the law with crimes of violence, women break the law in greater numbers than men in crimes of deceit, such as perjury, fraud and embezzlement. The shucksters in academia and the media get their "women are more morally pure" trope from the fact that women are prosecuted less for these crimes of deceit than men are. Women are also given far lighter sentences for the same crimewhen they are actually convicted (this is true of all crimes), and so it is that there are more men in prison for crimes of deceit than women, even though women commit the majority of deceit crimes. This is indeed an interesting fact that insinuates many things about our society and our notions of "equality under the law," but in no way does it stand as valid research which proves women's ethical and moral purity is greater than men's. For these very women who release such "facts" which are obviously lies in themselves, it illustrates something very negative about their ethics and morals in the first place, wouldn't you agree? And yes, my goodness, I know, women only receive $0.76 for every dollar a man earns! This has been debunked so many times by so many people that I feel rather foolish even mentioning it, but here we are. Women are not paid $0.76 for doing the exact same work as men, (this has been illegal in America since the Equal Pay Act back in 1963) rather, because of the choices women make and the lesser hours they actually work throughout their "careers," they only earn 76% of the wages that men do. Imagine for a moment that there are two young boys, Jack and Tom. Both are eight years old and have identical abilities in every possible way. Both of them have a dream to be accepted to the basketball team when they enter university, and so they start practicing for when the day comes that they will be

given the opportunity to try out for the team by shooting hoops each day after school. .

. Jack dedicates himself by shooting hoops for 60 minutes every day. Tom, however, has taken it upon himself to also have a paper route so he can earn a little pocket-money, and in order to make the time for delivering his papers, he only practices for 45 minutes a day. After four years of practice, 12 year old Jack will have spent 1,460 hours practicing as opposed to Tom's 1,095 hours, and by now, Jack is able to put the ball through the hoop with 8 out of every 20 attempts. Tom, however, is only able to sink 6 out of every 20 attempts, because he practiced less than Jack. Out of frustration at his lack of performance, Tom wonders if perhaps basketball isn't for him after all, and so he quits practicing and takes up karate instead, while Jack continues shooting hoops faithfully for 60 minutes a day. But after three years of karate, the now 15 year old Tom decides that he really did like basketball better than karate after all, and so he quits his karate classes and resumes practicing hoops for 45 minutes a day. At this point, after 2,555 hours of practice, Jack is able to sink 14 baskets out of 20, but Tom, who hasn't practiced at all in the last three years and is now a bit rusty, is only able to make 5 out of 20 baskets. But, both boys continue practicing for the next three years until they finally enter college and are able to try out for the team. By now, Jack has spent 3,650 hours practicing and he can sink 20 out of 20 shots every time and he easily gets accepted onto the team. Tom, however, has spent only 1,916 hours practicing over the past ten years and is only able to make 10 shots out of 20... and so he doesn't make the team. The two boys were of identical ability, remember, and their outcomes were different onlybecause of the choices each boy made throughout the past ten years. Had Tom made the same choices as Jack, he probably would have made the team too. It's pretty easy to see how this translates to the workplace. Is Tom only getting "paid" $0.50 for each $1.00 Jack makes? Nope, he's getting paid exactly what he deserves. Is there a patriarchal basketball players club conspiring behind the scenes to keep Tom off the team? No again.Choices have consequences. What a revolutionary concept!

All you need to know about how false the $0.76 propaganda which academic and media charlatans like BNN spews forth is this: If it were true that women only made 76% of the wages as men for doing the exact same thing with the exact same efficiency, then there would be no shortage of people who would simply buy a company, fire all the men, and replace them with the far cheaper labour of women. They would make money hand over fist while putting the competition out of business for secretly conspiring behind the scenes to pay men more than women. It's such a simple formula for success that it's amazing no one has thought of it before, eh?

Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcomes?

You can see the fraud of feminist "academics" and the media's complicity in perpetuating their lies fully exposed by the way they reported on Wal-Mart's recent Supreme Court case regarding whether there was "a culture of discrimination" against women in their organization. Keep in mind that even though WalMart successfully defended themselves, they did not entirely "win" either. It was because feminist lawyers tried to launch a class-action suit that the Supreme Court said there was no definite policy at Wal-Mart which favoured men over women, and thus they did not entirely throw the law-suit out, but rather said that it must be dealt with in the lower courts on a more individual basis instead. And how did the BNN cover this story? Why, in order to get a "balanced and unbiased" view on the decision, they interviewed a feminist from Eastern Canada and another feminist from Western Canada. (Gee, I guess degrees in Journalism are about as useless as degrees in Women's Studies). The consensus was that this culture of discrimination against women was allowed to persist because there were too many of those dastardly right-leaning men on the Supreme Court still perpetuating the infamous "Old Boys Club." But don't worry, they pointed out that soon Obama will be able to stuff a couple more of these "morally and ethically pure" women onto the Supreme Court, so that when a case like this is inevitably brought before the court again, the decision will be in favour of women. What they glossed over completely, however, was the absurdity of the argument itself, and the dire implications it would have had on Wal-Mart, as well as every other company in America, and they failed to extrapolate the implications further to its effect on the economy over-all. One of the core arguments of the lawsuit was that men were promoted to management positions ahead of women because women were unable to work as many hours as men and women could not as easily move to undesirable locations where they would more easily advance their careers because of the other responsibilities women had outside of the workplace, such as caring for children or elderly parents. In other words, if we take this back to our basketball example with Jack and Tom, the argument becomes that since Tom had other things to do besides practice shooting hoops, such as his paper route and karate classes, the university had no right to "discriminate" against him for only being able to make 50% of the baskets as Jack, and both boysshould be equally accepted to the team, regardless of their actual performance abilities. That's literally what was being argued in this Wal-Mart case. Because women have other responsibilities that are completely not related to the workplace, it is workplace discrimination for them not to receive promotions and pay commensurate to those who actually did work more hours and made more sacrifices which advanced their careers. Thus, if the BNN were actually in the business of reporting the facts, and Wal-mart had lost their case,

rather than reporting it as a "triumph for women," they would have been more accurate to report it as follows: "Wal-Mart Forced to Replace Top-Notch Management with Mediocre Employees. Long-Term Outlook for Stock Valuations is Grim!" This is not a slam against women, this is simply the truth. It wouldn't matter if the employees were male or female. If you take employees willing to work 60 hours a week and relocate wherever they need to, and replace them with employees only willing to work 40 hours a week and only in desirable locations, it doesn't matter which gender, you would be severely handicapping the company. In the same way, if Jack and Tom's university would insist that out of the five basketball players on the court, at least two players who are capable of making 20 out of 20 baskets must be replaced with players only capable of making 10 out of 20 baskets, the performance of the team would suffer especially against teams that are not burdened in the same way. It is pretty easy to see the numbers. If five players take 100 shots and 100 of them go through the basket, such a team will far out-perform a team that can only make 80 out of 100 baskets, which is exactly what would happen if the team were to replace two players at Jack's 100% ratio with two players at Tom's 50% ratio. And you thought globalization and cheap foreign labour was the only reason the Western World is falling behind the Developing World, eh?

Equal or "Equal?" (Wink! Wink!)


. "Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991 When the Status of Women Canada, the "academic" juggernaut of Women's Studies, and the Business News Network (BNN) continually make the case that more women deserve to be on executive boards regardless of their abilities (due to outside choices women themselves are making in their lives), you will

discover they never argue that it extends that women also, therefore, deserve to be equally represented in jobs that don't carry prestige and high pay. After all, when was the last time Minister Rona Ambrose got on the TV and argued how ridiculous it is that women are "oppressed" because they make up less than 10% of the garbage collectors in the country? I mean, you would think that the government would want women to take on more of the low prestige, dangerous and dirty jobs, since careless and clumsy men are accounting for over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths. The government and Canadian employers would save billions a year in Worker's Compensation expenses by increasing the amount of women in these types of jobs. This is simple feminist math. If over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths are males, then if we increase the amount of women in these positions to 50%, we will reduce such injuries and deaths by around half as well! It's so simple! Of course, you know I am being facetious. But seriously, what does anyone think will happen to the men who are in these high paying, prestigious jobs such as CEO or Chairman of the Board? When the government of Norway made it law that all corporate boards must have at least 40% women, do you think they simply created more positions and only hired women until they made up 40%, or did they keep the amount of positions the same, fire the required amount of men, and then replaced them with women? I think you know the answer without my stating it. What you find in the workforce is the same that you will find almost everywhere else when you compare men and women. While our averages are pretty close to the same, how we reach those averages is quite different. For example, men and women both have similar averages of IQ, however there is far greater variability in male IQ than in the female IQ, which is clustered around the mean in greater intensity than with males. Thus, even though we have similar averages in IQ, there are far more males who inhabit the areas of extremely high IQ and extremely low IQ. This translates also into the workforce, where you will find that the very powerful and wealthy (like CEO's or those on executive boards) are mostly male, and also that most of the very poor, like the homeless, are male (85% of the homeless are males). It's not only intellectually dishonest to selectively observe only the men who have risen to the top while at the same time ignoring the men that have fallen through the floor, but it is also socially irresponsible. It's like taking the examples of Denzel Washington and Will Smith as successful and powerful black millionaires, and therefore claiming there is no poverty problem in the Black Community. But this is exactly what is done every single time that "our betters" in the government, academia, and the media address women in the workplace. If, as a society, we are going to boot out qualified men from top positions to make way for less qualified and less motivated women, it will cause a chain reaction all the way down and increase the amount of those at the bottom. After all, if those who would have merited an executive board position are restricted from achieving those levels, they will be stuck being over-qualified and underpaid at the middle-management level, where again, they will be displacing those who should have merited middle management positions, and forcing those men downwards to lower management and basic employee status. Thus, the men currently in those lowest of positions will be losing their jobs and sleeping on the streets.

The Return of Aristocracy

It's not hard to see that if fully qualified men are displaced from high level prestigious positions, to be replaced with less qualified, less motivated women - while at the same time ignoring the fact that

women are not equally represented in the less desirable positions like garbage collector, ditch digger, or enemy moving target - we will be returning to an aristocratic class structure in society, except based on gender rather than bloodline. .

. Again, it is just simple math. If women only replace men at the top, in the most prestigious and well paying of jobs, then you are virtually guaranteed to increase the amount of men in the dredges of the workforce, or drive those men out of the workforce entirely and into the streets. Quite frankly, men would be twits if they continued working their tails off 60 hours a week trying to get ahead in the corporate rat race, if they had no chance of making it because a woman who only works 40 hours a week will be preferred for the job anyways. It will very quickly become that men will simply stop trying to be successful in those jobs at all and abandon them en masse for jobs where they don't have to put up with such nonsense. You don't think that will happen? Have a look at how men have virtually disappeared from the teaching profession since every man in close proximity to a child has become viewed as a pedophile. Men simply said, "No thanks," and moved on to other professions. In a generation or two, you will see the class distinction between men and women quite clearly. Women: Good paying, high prestige jobs in air-conditioned offices. Men: Shutting up and shoveling the gravel to keep the electricity on and the sewers working. That's some "equality." .

Hypergamy and the End of Marriage

. The essence of hypergamy is that women "marry up" while men "settle down." Thus, we see in society that, while men are not necessarily "better" than women in general, women do insist that the men they marry are "better" than they are. Male doctors marry female nurses. Male lawyers marry female secretaries. Male factory workers marry the waitress at the diner, and so on. Conversely however, female CEO's do not marry auto-mechanics, but rather, they tend to seek out a mate who is "higher" than she is. The problem is, when you are a female who is near the top of the economic food chain, there are very, very few males who meet this criteria, and of the ones that are actually around, hypergamy dictates that those males are attractive to all the different levels of females below him. Not only are there slim romantic pickings for women at the top, but they have to stand in line with, oh, about a gajillion other women for the only men they are attracted to. Now, many women counter this by saying that they "had to" marry upwards, because it was the only way they could be socially and financially mobile under the dreaded Patriarchy. If men were just to step aside and make room for women at the top, things would change. It's too bad that this is not the case though. In fact, there is much evidence that it is not men's super-sized egos that demands they must earn more money than their wives, but rather it is women themselves that are angry at husbands who don't earn as much money and thus, they aren't "pulling their weight." This is further evidenced by "kitchen-bitch" marriages, where the roles are reversed with a female breadwinner and the man being more focused on the home. The divorce statistics for regular marriages are bad enough, but in kitchenbitch marriages, divorce rates sky-rocket to 90% - yes, that high! Hypergamy is a very real force to be reckoned with - especially if we are to continue shoe-horning women into top positions of power and wealth. If we create an aristocratic class of women and a peasant class of men, then marriage - as screwed up and broken as it already is - will pretty much grind to a complete halt. The prince marries the maiden Cinderella who scrubs her step-mother's floors, remember? Snow White did not marry one of the Seven Dwarves.

Perhaps now you can understand why men work their tails off more than women to have a successful career. It fulfills women's hypergamy and makes men sexually attractive to women, whereas women are not considered either more nor less sexually attractive because of their social and financial status. They don't have near the motivation for it as men do! Furthermore, women are not socially considered to be deadbeats if they are not economic performers, nor are they considered to be "bums" if they take a few years off and let their husbands fully support them while they pursue other things they want in life. Working, for men, is not a choice like it is for many women. Either men work or they become invisible. It only makes sense then, that men will put in more effort to make their jobs "work" for them, while women, who have other options, will not view the workplace with the same intensity as men. "Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male." -- Newsletter of the Women's Freedom Network, Spring 1997

Mutilated Beggars
During the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, we termed the resulting recession as "the mancession" because the vast majority of the jobs lost were those done by men. If I remember correctly, it was three men losing a job to every woman who became unemployed. But, when the economic stimulus was injected into the economy, they had feminists appearing on the Business News Network (BNN), madder than wet hens that women were not equally receiving stimulus money as men. It really did make sense that more money was spent on men's jobs than women's, since those were the vast majority of the unemployed, but feminists demanded 50/50 equality in the spending of stimulus funds. See how this works? America had become A Woman's Nation because they finally outnumbered men in the workforce, and they were so gracious about it that they cackled and laughed and wrote about The End of Men, spitting in men's faces when they were down. But when it came time to deal with the problem and get men back on their feet, they screamed and wailed that they were victims for not receiving equal funds funds they did not need nearly so much as men. And further, when people mentioned that a lot of those men were supporting families, you could almost see the hatred spill from the now ex BNN news anchor ess, Kim Parlee's eyes, matching the spirit of her "unbiased" panel: a gaggle of feminists pulling The Mutilated Beggarargument. You see, women support their families too! Therefore, it was sexist to insinuate that it was higher priority to put those men back to work instead of women. .

. Except... let's not forget that, at the behest of feminist and media brainwashing, we now claim that "all families are equal." But they aren't. When we talk of men and their families, we are talking about a man, a woman, and the children they might have together. When we talk of women and their families, however, we are talking about a single or divorced woman and the children she has. The man is non-existent in this paradigm. But does that mean that man has truly ceased to exist? Nope, what it means is that the man, whose job was taken by a woman, is now sleeping down by the river beneath a bridge. You see, men take care of themselves, women and children. But women? They take care of only themselves and children, while leaving the man to fend for himself. Thus, if you wanted to benefit the mostpeople in society with jobs, you would first give the work to men who then turn over their paychecks to their wives. This simply does not work the same way in reverse.

This Way to See the Great Egress!

"There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting "This way to see the great EGRESS!" The herd surged through the gates and found out that "egress" means "exit."" .

. Feminism has done far more to liberate men than it has to liberate women, although most men don't think it has at first glance. All throughout history, men have had the curse of having to work.Society greatly enforced the "gender role" of men being the breadwinner who then passes on "the bread" to females. Up until the feminist revolution of the past fifty or so years, the only men who got away with being socially acceptable without tying themselves to the responsibilities of a job, a marriage, and supporting a wife and children, were eccentric rich men. For the rest, if you didn't follow in the condoned path you were considered a social outcast. But remember, men only need to expend around 20-30% of their labour ability in order to survive - when yoked to a woman and children, the excess went to them, not to the man. Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. This goes all the way back to when we were living in caves. When the woman heard a rustling outside, she pushed her caveman out first, using him as a shield to check if it was a sabre tooth tiger. Once the area outside of the cave was secure, the woman took over the immediate area around the cave while she sent the man further out into the dangers of the wilderness to hunt mammoths and bring her back some meat for dinner. Once the male has made things safe and easy, the woman takes over and pushes the man away, insisting he move on and make more things safe and easy... and when he succeeds in doing it, she takes over that space too! The same thing happens in the workplace. Work was never been "fun" for men. It has been oppressive and often downright dangerous. The 50 some odd men who gave their lives so that the Hoover Dam could provide electricity for women and make their lives much easier probably didn't feel overwhelmed with their "patriarchal power." But, as soon as men make a certain area of the workforce safe and pleasant, women immediately move in and claim they were "oppressed" by not having the opportunity to do such work throughout history. Today, women are not claiming they are being "oppressed" by not being represented in great numbers in the construction industry. But this kind of work is often dangerous and dirty, climbing around on roofs and scaffolding while pounding away with a hammer and being exposed to all sorts of inclement weather. However, once construction work becomes so computerized, safe and pleasant that one can build a house by sitting in an air-conditioned box, pushing buttons while gabbing mindlessly with one's friends, women will claim they have been "oppressed" throughout history for being "denied" the opportunity to do such work, and they will force the men out so that they may exercise their girl power.

I say, "Let them!" Sure, men still have to find some work to do in order to provide for themselves, but so long as they aren't attached to women and children - which feminism has done everything possible to make happen they really don't need to work that hard. If you don't get saddled down with debt for a useless degree, or a useless McMansion, or a useless wife who secretly hates your guts, but rather find something decent to do like being an electrician or a plumber, you could easily save up enough money by 35 or 40 to run off to Mexico or Thailand and live like a king, never having to be a wage slave again. Women are demanding to have our curse because "They don't need no Ma-yan!" Let them take it! Work sucks! A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work! You Go, Grrrls! Men have better things to do! .

MGTOW Activism - Part One

The difference between being a Men's Rights Activist (M.R.A.) and being Men Going Their Own Way (M.G.T.O.W.) is the way in which we deal with the situation at hand. While both have pretty much identified the same problems and concerns in society, the approach to "fixing" these problems is entirely different. In fact, they are so different that they are in direct opposition with each-other. .

Change comes from within.

MGTOW: Taking the Personal Out of the Political

To refer to the MGTOW Manifesto: "The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!"This is something that is not congruent with the Men's Rights Movement's (MRM's) form of activism, which by its very nature is political. In other words, the goal of the MRM has always been about such things as raising money to fund lobby groups which demand the government change XYZ for them. (Take your pick: Divorce reform, child custody reform, men officially included as domestic violence victims, male-studies at universities, ad nauseum). In each of these cases, men are demanding of government to fix their problems for them and in doing so, they are increasing the scope which government has over our lives. It suggests that men are incapable of changing their lives unless the government assists them in doing so. Don't get me wrong. Sure, some things only the government can fix... but the fixing they need to do is repeal laws and get out of our lives, rather than expand their laws so that men are included under their umbrella of power. This is not just a small difference between MGTOW and the MRM, but rather, it is a fundamental difference that makes them as opposite as night and day! In fact, I would go so far as to say that the very fact most men seem entirely unable to consider any form of action valid besides "running to the government," is merely further evidence of the feminization of our culture. The "male principle" is independence, freedom and self-reliance, while the "female principle" is dependence, security and 'Someone! Anyone! Please fix this for me! Don't you know I'm a victim?!?" "Movements, like harems, herds, and other collectives, are for females. Its been remarked that mens first priority is freedom, while womens is security. Thus women are natural herd animals, for security is most easily and immediately found in numbers. And thus the inclusion of women in political life must inevitably lead to totalitarian collectivism, as it has everywhere its been tried at this point, essentially the entire planet, which is fast turning into one vast nursery, where everything that is not prohibited is compulsory. Women instinctively seek the security of such an environment; when women rule, this is where everyone must live. . Do you want to be free, or do you want to be taken care of? Answer this question honestly, and

youll know where you stand on the malefemale spectrum, regardless of what form your personal plumbing may have." -- Philalethes #10 - Male vs. Female Thinking As we all know, feminism and the totalitarian growth of government hasn't really helped women as much as everyone reflexively thinks. It has distorted women's thinking into believing they have become "independent" by not needing any looooser ma-yaan to provide for them... but only because they have substituted the support of the men they married in the past, for their dependence on their new alphahusband, Big Government. They are still as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland, just like they have always been. The only difference is that now they have unwittingly taken on Men's Curse as their own. Also, now that they are under government "protection," they may soon find that what was once a social expectation of them to fulfill certain obligations to individual husbands who loved them and cared for their well-being, will become a legal expectation to fulfill obligations to their collective husband, The Government, who has no feelings for them, and throughout history has proven to be downright harmful to them. Government, bureaucracies, lobby groups and academia are appealing to women, and increasingly to men, as "the solution" to any and all problems because such organizations are relatively abstract, distant, conceptual entities which can easily be imagined to be perfectible. Ultimately, one should think of it in this way instead: Would you give authority to your neighbour to decide how you should live your life, and allow him to punish you if you didn't agree? Most would say 'no' pretty fast, wouldn't they? But, the people in government are the exact same fallible and self-serving people as your neighbour. It's when they're in an abstract concept like government that we trick ourselves into thinking that they should do the right thing and be void of any other influences. History is filled with examples of people making this mistake, and many of them were not able to live to regret it.


. When government bureaucracies, lobby groups, or activist arms of academia are created, they almost immediately turn into organisms that serve themselves first and foremost, while hood-winking their supporters and the public in general into believing they are serving some higher altruistic purpose. One of the main reasons this happens is because they operate under the "budget principle" rather than the "profit principle." Both of these principles work under the same human motivations of greed and the desire for power & prestige, but they differ in how they achieve those goals. Under the profit principle, one satisfies greed, power, and prestige by making more money. Thus profits are made larger by creating a greater demand while cutting away unnecessary costs. In order to do this, companies advertise to increase the desire in people for their products, while cutting costs by laying people off, off-shoring their manufacturing, or automating their labour force. Under the budget principle, greed, power and prestige are satisfied by showing a need for larger budgets. Thus, the directors of government bureaucracies and other such organisms always come in over-budget, and then run to their benefactors with their hands out in order that they may meet this need. Now, for the most part, I consider myself a capitalist (small "c") and prefer the profit principle over the budget principle. Private enterprise creates a miracle a minute while government bureaucracies fumble around making excuses but never performing. Thus, we see in Canada that when we de-criminalized marijuana and made its medical use legal, 15 year old boys were able to grow killer weed in their closets without their parents finding out, while a gaggle of government scientists in multimillion dollar underground facilities were unable to produce marijuana with sufficient THC levels to benefit cancer patients, resulting in those cancer sufferers still seeking black market outlets to satisfy their needs. However, I also see an inherent problem with the profit principle, such as when mega-companies like Merck are able to influence government policy to artificially create a demand for their products, like Gardasil. I don't have an answer for this completely, except to point out that if the government didn't have the authority to artificially create a demand for Gardasil, companies like Merck wouldn't seek to influence the government in the first place. Also, there comes a point when mega-companies become so large, that Capitalism ultimately become a form of Communism in itself. Thus, the small mining town where the lone mining company also owns the town store and extends credit to keep its employees enslaved to them, which is no good either. Further, in the U.S.S.R., the car manufacturer Lada was essentially granted the evil of monopoly capitalism, in that no matter how crappy of cars they built, they still had a 100% market share, which undermines the notion of a miracle a minute. (If you don't like our Lada cars, you are more than welcome to go down the street and buy... a Lada!). Lol! But we're getting off topic here! The budget principle, however, is truly insidious. It outright seeks to create problems and inefficiencies. If a bureaucracy has a budget of $100 million, the only way to gain power is to get that budget up to $120 million. And once a budget of $120 million is achieved, they again show they are short of cash, and do whatever they can to intensify all sorts of the problems that still need to be fixed, so that they are granted a budget of $150 million next year. What they absolutely don'twant to do, however, is actually fix any of the problems they are tasked with solving, because then their budget would be reduced to $75 million, and those within that bureaucracy would lose power and prestige. Thus, a bureaucracy's goal is to create as many problems as they possibly can, while dealing with them in the most inefficient ways they can get away with.

It pains me deeply to see how Men's Rights Activists (MRA's) seem to believe that creating White House Councils on Boys and Men, or Male Studies Departments in academia, will magically behave differently than any other bureaucratic organization that has come before them - which is mainly to say that they will simply feather their own nests. Like I said earlier, the only reason MRA's believe it to be so is because such organizations created to "solve" our problems are abstract, conceptual entities that should operate in "this" manner or "that" manner. If we wouldn't allow our neighbours to decide who we are and how we "should" act, why should we assume that Warren Farrell, Stephen Baskerville, Strauss & Gelles et. al. are somehow morally above others? If you watch them all closely, and read their "solutions" to our problems, they all boil down to "the government must..." and "more funding is needed..." and... and... and... Dr. Phil and Warren Farrell are simply different ends of the same spectrum as it is. Both have achieved fame and wealth from the Gender War, not by actually solving it. In fact, had Farrell "solved" the Gender War only a few years after he got booted from being the head of the National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), he would not have sold so many books, as he would be just another schmuck with a useless Ph. D. in Psychology (Even my dumbass, irritatingly feminist sister has one of those, and nobody knows her name!). As it sits, Farrell would suffer greatly if the Gender War actually stopped tomorrow. Plus, not only has he many times recommended fallacies such as "equality" since he became the foremost (and best paid) men's activist, but often he recommends more androgyny, which we all know is a complete disaster! Furthermore, androgyny is completely against the MGTOW Manifesto, which has the stated goal of instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women! That is decidedly not about androgyny or equality (at least not beyond equality under the law as defined by the American Founding Fathers). I highly encourage you to watch this video by Ezra Levant, which illustrates so plainly and clearly how any organism that is created, no matter how noble and pure it sounds on the surface - such as encouraging people to stop smoking - ultimately turns into a self-serving, lying, statist organization that either simply feathers its own nest, or benefits its master (Big Government), in order to maintain its funding - while accomplishing absolutely none of its stated goals! Organisms representing men will become no different. Why? Because it is in their nature! .

Left. Right. Left. Right.

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent them." -- Karl Marx The debate over whether one ought to vote for left wing parties or right wing parties is never ending. Just to be clear, I would prefer a right-wing, conservative government, but the truth is that it doesn't really matter because such a thing simply doesn't exist anymore. Furthermore, most people have no clue where most parties actually sit on the political spectrum anymore anyways. Take our ruling Conservative party here in Canada. It gets bandied about all the time that they are right-wing (spit) nazis who are like the George Bush Republicans in the States. But the truth of the matter is, we haven't had a political party as right-wing as the US Republicans for decades. Our present Conservative party is actually a centrist party, and if one were to place them on a political spectrum compared to the States, they would actually be the same or to the left of the Obama Democrats. So what's the point? People think the Conservatives are evil because they are the furthest to the right in Canada, and yet, the same people think Obama is the Messiah because he is the furthest left in America. If Obama were a Canadian, he would be a Conservative. It's all just silly. Even more troubling is that since we stopped teaching civics classes in our schools several decades ago, replacing them with social-studies, we have stopped educating the masses on their rights and why our forms of government were created in the ways in which they were in the first place. I have opted out of voting altogether. In our elections, only about 60% of the people actually do and it gets to be less and less people each year. Pretty soon, since we are running under a democracy, the majority will not have given their consent to be governed, and no winning party will truly be able to claim a mandate... which hopefully will cause a host of problems and force the government and the governed to examine our political systems a little closer and actually re-learn the importance of setting things up in the proper ways. Well, one can dream. We are supposed to have a Constitutional Monarchy in Canada and a Republic in the USA, both of which have similar features which counter the evils of democracy. This also blows all sorts of holes in women's cries that they were "oppressed" for not having the vote - here's a clue, there is no "right" to voting for either sex, just like there is no "right" to a job, cheap housing, or free healthcare. "Rights," as they were originally intended, are supposed to protect us from the government, not to empower them to "fix things" for us. The real government isn't the people you vote to represent you in Parliament or Congress anyways. The real government is the unelected bureaucracies right beneath them - the ones that never change and are unaccountable to the people. I mean, does it matter whether the Conservatives or the Liberals are in power? (or the Republicans or Democrats in the US?). Has the judge in your community's divorce court changed? Does it change his biases? Does it change the bulk of the 900 miles of legislation and policy that backs his authority? Do the police automatically allow more freedom when a "right wing" government gets elected and then clamp down harder under a "left wing" one? Nope! They just keep marching on the same no matter what. Do all of those bureaucracies (organisms) that have been formed to "protect" or "help" us stop creating policies that only feather their own nests? No again. It just simply doesn't matter. The real government is the bureaucracies beneath the elected government, and it marches on no matter what.

An Awareness Movement

A long time ago, Zed and I were having a conversation during which he related to me the Disney story of Fantasia. .

. Sometimes, no matter what you do, you can't stop something once it has been put into motion. All you can do is let it run its course. In other words, you can't put the genie back into the bottle, or, as was the case with Pandora's Box, once things are gone, they are gone, and all that is left is hope. In the meanwhile, it's time to recognize that a storm is coming, and since it's smearing shit in our faces, it's obviously going to be a shit storm. Not only will being a political activist simply further the dialectic and empower the government to have more control over our lives, but things are way too far gone already for this to be stopped. The time to stop it was forty or fifty years ago. Today, we must figure out ways to adapt and survive - and thankfully, adapting is what men excel at. I am not Jesus Christ. It is not my destiny to be the saviour of the world. Furthermore, as a bachelor in a world that constantly undermines any action I may take to be part of society in a meaningful way, I don't owe society anything more than it owes me - which I am constantly told is nothing. Therefore, all that I owe is to myself, and what I have come to realize over the years of studying and writing about these subjects, is what I ultimately owe to myself is as good a life as I can live with the cards that are dealt to me. Life has never been a cakewalk for men, but things are certainly better for us today than they were throughout most of human history, regardless of the social climate of the present day. What I can do, however, is stop trying to paddle against the river's current and rather, turn my canoe around, seek safety and shelter, and clear away as many snags along the shore as I can so the filth will pass by me as quickly as possible. This notion is best described by the phrase "being an Ethical Sociopath." All I can do is take the red-pill, bring awareness to others of what is going on, and hopefully help them figure out how to pull themselves out of the fire before they get too burnt. This is not a political movement. It is an Awareness Movement.

MGTOW Activism - Part Two

In MGTOW Activism - Part One, we explored the notion that MGTOW is about "Taking the Personal Out of the Political," which is more congruent with the male principle of individuality and freedom than the

female herding instinct which creates thoughtless movements like feminism. Also, we touched on the fact that movements which beg the government to make our lives better simply creates organisms which serve no other purpose than to empower themselves while increasing the scope of power big government has over our lives. Such movements are not compatible with the MGTOW Manifesto, which states its only three goals as "to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work towards limited government." Therefore, we concluded that MGTOW is not a political movement, but rather it is an Awareness Movement. In this article, we are going to explore these notions a little deeper, namely, discussing what men can actually do about fighting back against the situation we find ourselves in. It is not in men's nature to sit idly by and passively wait for others to fix things for them. Just the opposite. Men's nature is to Shut Up and Shovel the Fuckin' Gravel!

When Doing Nothing is Actually Doing Something


. A friend of mine has a niece living in Ontario who is around 18 or 19 years old. Like many girls that age, she met a boy and fell madly in love with him. And yes, you guessed it, he is not particularly what one would call a Nice Guy. At any rate, I suppose the young couple felt that the world was against them, but none of that mattered because they could live on their undying love. So, the girl quit her job, and the two of them packed up her car and ran off together with about $1,800 between the two of them. She also skipped out on the payments for their escape vehicle, for which her grandfather had co-signed the loan, forcing him to take over the payments. After a few weeks, they wound up in Newfoundland, broke, where they requested some charity of her other grandparents who lived there. These grandparents had an old cabin on their property where they told her they could stay... the only thing is, the cabin had no electricity or water, and it was March, and still very much winter. They had to chop wood for the stove for heating and cooking, and also, had to carry buckets of water into the cabin from the frozen creek. It didn't take too long before the phone calls back home started coming, requesting money to help them out. The answer was, "No, get a job." A little while later, more phone calls, "But we don't like chopping wood and carrying water!", to which the reply was another simple, "Tough. Get a job!" The whole extended family agreed to "do nothing." And in doing so, they very much did, "do something,"

didn't they? The same strategy can be applied to Western women. As The Eternal Bachelor (used to) have on the top of his blog, "Giving Women the Husbands They Deserve: None!" There is no point in arguing with women and trying to convince them to see the light. That door was closed several decades ago. Many of you have read Rollo Tomassi's excellent essays on "The Female Imperative." Essentially, women "are" society, and what their wants are is what society's wants are. What women find disagreeable, society finds disagreeable. They are "the herd" and the males in the herd either serve their purposes or they are ejected from it. Women also don't understand the laws of cause and effect very well. The only way to get women to see that it is in their benefit to have men respected is to make them suffer the consequences of treating men so poorly. Since women control our social mores, once having men dis-empowered in society starts to harm them directly, there will be no stopping them in agitating for men to be re-empowered. Lots of MRA's whine and moan that "we must get women on board." True enough. The problem is that women won't get on board until it is in their best interests to do so! This is something that really chaps my ass about Trad-cons and Christians. They want to "save" marriage, and encourage men to keep marrying, without expecting that women must change to make it worth men's while, nor addressing that marriage itself must be restored to its original meaning - and then they point to the Bible and blah blah blah. All I have to say to them is: "Until you get off your asses and create a form of marriage that actually represents what the Bible intended, STFU and keep your spinster daughters for yourselves! Don't expect me to immolate myself upon the marriage pyre for a false notion of marriage in a society that actively criminalizes everything about men and Biblical marriage as God intended it!" (You might even, like, you know, try to use that "rights" thing called Freedom of Religion.)

. Only when it is in women's (society's) best interests to re-empower men, will women (society) re-

empower men. They hold all the cards on that level - it is where their power lies. But to keep propping women up, simply because it's what men have always done, will not work. It just enables further bad behaviour. If my friend's family had just sent the niece money and propped her up despite her behaviour, she wouldn't have learned her lesson either. However, men also have to start realizing where their own power lies. We might be the lowest on the totem pole as far as human sympathy goes (Men love women, women love children and children love puppies), but the whole of society only works so long as men are willing to be invested in it. Women, children, and the government all need men far more than we need them. Men can survive with a pocketknife and a garbage bag. Everybody else, not so much.While women are demanding their new husband, big government, give them affirmative action to be equally represented in the cush and often nonproductive jobs, like government bureaucrat, tenured professor in women's studies, or executive board members, they still expect that men will continue to do all the shitty jobs that need to be done in society, like digging the ditches, keeping the electricity and sewers running, and providing fodder for enemy gunfire. We used to do all of these things because of the of the respect which women (society) gave to us for doing them. In other words, we wanted women's social approval and affection for these things, and we used to get it. Now, we are told we are looooosers for doing it, but they still want us to "man up" and do it all the same. Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if the men just worked enough to get by, and then eventually quit showing up and went ghost? Such a strategic retreat is what men must do, and thus, we are Men Going Their Own Way.

We Speak Our Views on the Internet

The internet has been the greatest thing to happen to free speech since Gutenberg invented the printing press. .

. Actually, it is beyond the printing press! We are sharing our stories and our life experiences in ways men have never done before. One thing we are finding is that we are not alone in our observations. Thus, we reach out to other men in the hopes that they may learn from our experiences and our mistakes. It is not much different than what every women's magazine has done for decades, except that our views were historically suppressed to satisfy the feminine imperative. (Women, er, society, has never liked us talking of these things in the same way women have talked of us). There is no right way or wrong way to be a MGTOW Activist - it is one of the features of MGTOW, so I'm not going to try and shoehorn in what makes an MGTOW or not. However, there are certain things we have discovered that worked for us in the past. Start Your Own Blog or Website A long time ago now, I used to regularly read William S. Lind's columns about Fourth Generation Warfare. Now, of course, I am not advocating doing anything violent, but rather taking the concept of decentralization found in Fourth Generation Warfare and adapting it to the internet. There is no "leader" of MGTOW to attack or discredit. We are all leaders of our own movement, and if one of us is removed, there are more nameless people to take his place. Just like in Vietnam or the recent wars in the Middle East, it really doesn't matter how many multimillion dollar, high-tech jet fighters you bring to the battlefield when the enemy is not engaging you in the air, but rather with booby traps made from bamboo or low-tech car bombs parked on the side of the street. It doesn't matter how many drills your platoon practices, nor how informed your CO is on military battlefield tactics, if your enemy refuses to engage you openly on the battlefield. In fact, if you can't even identify your enemy from the friendlies, the entire notion of organized armed conflict gets completely demolished. We can take these concepts and adapt them in a non-violent fashion for use on the internet. Now, of course, blogging can be a lot of work and not everyone has the time nor the ability to regularly do it. I spend a lot of time writing my articles - often six or seven hours or more of thinking, researching,

writing and then re-writing. Some people can whip out articles like it is nothing, but not all of us can. There are other things you can do to create awareness though. Just simply starting a blog aggregator is a good idea. Even better are aggregators that print out the entire article. Why is this beneficial? Because many of us who do run blogs get attacked by people like Symantec/Norton AntiVirus, or Google will monkey with our search results or, our websites simply disappear - as often happens with Proboards. When an aggregator copies our entire article, it circumvents what these a-holes are trying to do to silence us, because now there are more places on the internet to access the information and be picked up by search engines, and it also provides an automatic back-up of articles in case a website does "mysteriously disappear." Another easy thing to do is simply find a blog or a particular article that you endorse and then enter the url for it along with your name & other info when you make comments around the internet, so that you are giving exposure to ideas you endorse simply by making the comments you make already anyways. A few years ago, I used to regularly get hits from a fellow who commented all over the internet on a variety of subjects as "L. Walker - Man of Color", and for each place he commented, he linked in my Marriage is Fraud article, and thus I got exposure from oodles of places, and it took hardly any effort from him at all. Thank-you, Mr. Walker. A really good web-page to use for this isWedded Abyss, because it was designed for this purpose - to give a brief summary of our views, while linking to a variety of sites where people can go to explore these concepts at a deeper level. If you do start your own blog, here is a quick tip: don't publish all of your articles all at once. What I mean is, lots of guys start up a blog, get really excited about it, and crank out one or two articles a day every day, and then find that within two weeks they are burnt out. What you need to do is make a post every three days or so when you first start out (later, after you are established, an article every week or so will keep the hits rolling in). So, when you have all that energy at the beginning, go ahead and write your articles, but schedule them accordingly by spacing them out. You will be glad you did, I promise. It will also give you the luxury of not being under the gun to write something simply to keep your blog running, and thus, you will find that if you are writing two weeks ahead of publication, your articles will be of much higher quality. Also, keep in mind that when you first start your blog, your hits will be minimal, no matter how many articles you write. So don't blow your brains out over articles that hardly anyone will read. Your goal should be to provide something every few days so that people will know to keep checking in, and thus, you will begin to get exposure by others linking to you. Furthermore, if you find yourself frustrated with writer's block, never forget that you can always plumb the depths of The Wisdom of Zenpriest and Eye of the Mind. Zed has given explicit license for any of his words to be used by anyone, in any way, to further the cause of men. In the same spirit, I have given permission at the beginning ofThe Philosophy of Men Going Their Own Way for it to be used by anyone wishing to promote the philosophy. I am not doing this for fame or money. I am not using my real name, and I don't even try to make money from Google Adsense. I am doing this because I want men to get up off their asses and stand up for themselves. If taking one of my articles and using it directly for your own blog, either in full or in part, helps to accomplish this, then do it! That's why I put them there! Linkage is Good for You Be sure to link to others, especially those that link to you. I check my stat-counter almost every day, and if I see that a new blog has linked to me, it will automatically get linked in my blogroll. I want them to get exposure, and further, the more exposure they get, the more I will get in return! I also link to blogs that I have read which don't yet link to me, but I go through my blog list every few months and clean out the ones that have not provided a reciprocal link to my blog. Why? Because I want those who scratch my back to get the most amount of traffic I can provide them with, and clogging up my blog list with oodles

of links to those who are unwilling or just don't care enough to link me back, lowers the exposure those who do support me will receive, and this in turn harms me. .

. An exception I have made to this is linking to blogs which are run by women. You might think it misogynist, but that is not my motivation - in fact, to a certain degree, I think some of them have more or less decent insights, although they are always clouded by the female imperative, and many of them are pretty sneaky on entirely different levels. The reason I don't link to them is because of men! Nothing pisses me off more than offering a man the red-pill, and then watching him run with it to some woman to request her approval for whether he should swallow it or not. I notice this phenomenon every time some woman enters the manosphere. They really don't say anything significant compared to the men in the manosphere, yet within a few months they become one of the most popular bloggers around, while men with far more profound things to say languish in No Man's Land for years before they get similar traffic - from men! What is really going on is that women have enormous social power, while men do not. Even though it is merely words on the internet and not a real woman, many men in the manosphere seem desperate to get a woman's social approval for their views, or they believe a woman's views are "more correct" than the men's. It kinda reminds me of how a cat will catch a mouse and then bring it to you, believing you are the head of the pride, to see if you want to eat some of it too. It's really come to piss me off over the years to see yet another bimbo show up in the manosphere, write a few trite comments about men in society, and within six months her site is getting 2,500+ hits a day - from men! It's like the Pied Piper playing her song "Not All Women Are Like That!" These men are desperate to find at least one woman in the world to keep on the pedestal and I just refuse to provide them with the illusion of it. Plus, nearly all of the women I have seen in the manosphere will, eventually, betray their ideals the moment it becomes in their best interest to do so. The whole situation is enough to make one a full-fledged misanthrope! . "Where my exposition is anti-feminine, and that is nearly everywhere, men themselves will receive it with little heartiness or conviction; their sexual egoism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Author's Preface . Another thing I tend to avoid is linking to big blogs. First of all, they don't link to me so I don't "owe" them anything. Now, I get it, if they linked to everyone who linked to them, they would have blogrolls

that numbered in the thousands. But on the same token, if they are so large, then they certainly don't need me to link to them in order to get exposure. Everybody knows who the big blogs are already, whether I link to them or not. Also, it kind of negates the notion of "decentralization" to have big websites acting as a clearing house for all of our ideas. I prefer to send my traffic to the smaller guys so that they may get their legs under them and grow into big blogs themselves. I'd like to see dozens and dozens of really big blogs dealing with men's issues, but this will never happen if we ignore the little nuts who may grow into a mighty oak, in favour of only looking at the full grown oaks and simply wishing there were more of them around. Back when MGTOW first debuted in 2006, we used to do something called "shout-outs." Basically, anyone who showed that they were flying the MGTOW flag and were committed to maintaining a blog, got a public shout-out to the other MGTOW bloggers so that he would be entered as a link on everyone's sidebar, and also to provide the newbiewith some traffic to get his legs under him. It also had the benefit of providing the person who did the shout-out, to be able to take a few days off of blogging while directing all of his traffic to someone who needed it, while still providing one's readers with, well, something to read. Here is a shout-out for someone you may recognize. Marky Mark just did one the other day. And here was mine. When I got my shout-out, it was probably the most significant thing that happened to me in my entire blogging career. Before that I was only getting about 75 hits a day, but suddenly I was getting Eternal Bachelor's 2,000 hits a day all directed to my site and I was like "Holy Smokes! I'd better sit down and write some good stuff while I can!" After the shout-out disappeared into Eternal Bachelor's archives, my blog settled in to about 400 hits a day, and from there it steadily increased. In part it kept on increasing because of the exposure I had received, but even more so, once I had the exposure I was highly motivated to keep it by continuing to provide my readers with more content. And here I am, seven years later, still running my blog! So, don't forget to take care of the little nuts, for they will be the oaks of tomorrow if just given the chance to grow. Don't Delete Your Blogs Of course, not all people will want to keep blogging forever. If you no longer feel the motivation, that's fine. It is a thankless job and the pay sucks. But please, oh please, don't delete your blog! Not only does it remove from the internet a significant body of work that others might find and read, whether old or not, but it also removes all of those links in the articles, in the comments, and on the sidebar, which support those of us who still are blogging. Most guys who quit blogging have not lost the faith in the message, they simply are fed-up with blogging. There's nothing wrong with becoming a Man Going His Own Way (MGHOW) and moving on - in fact, it is one of the natural conclusions of MGTOW. But please, if you've found a path to enlightenment through MGTOW and the manosphere which resulted in you starting up a blog, leave your work up so that others may find it, and so that the links in your blog may direct others towards those who are still actively blogging about it.

We Legally Reduce Any Tax-Paying


. MGTOW does not advocate doing anything illegal - ever. It does, however, promote thinking outside of the box in order to dis-empower those who seek to bring harm to men either for profit or for the desire for power. Therefore, it goes without saying that you should boycott the products of companies who disrespect men. Companies like Norton AntiVirus, who produce terrible products anyways, are easy to identify. But there are many others - many, many others. Trojan condoms used to have an ad portraying men as pigs, and General Motors thought the way to attract females into buying Cadillacs was by showing ads of inept men being scorned by a snotty bitch of a woman. I notice lately that almost all boat manufacturers now portray women at the helm in their brochures, with the man playing kitchen-bitch in the background, despite the fact that boat purchases are predominantly a male dream instead of a female one. The list is endless. But it goes further than simply switching products, because no matter what, even if you went to another company, they will sell men down the river in a heartbeat too if it means expanding their sales by even one percent. The best way to hurt consumer culture's desire to crap on men in order to create greater profits is to find ways to remove yourself from needing their products as much as possible. Longtime MGTOW, Richard Ford, has a blog called Six Million Pounds that focuses on finance, and further, about working less and stretching your dollar. One simple thing that can be done to harm consumer culture is to buy high-quality products that will last you a lifetime, rather than cheap garbage that keeps you coming back every few years to replace it. Another thing you can do is focus on getting yourself debt-free, so you no longer have to work like a slave to pay for useless crap you don't really need as a MGTOW. (For example, if you are a single guy, do you really need a three bedroom 1500sf house, or would a 750sf cottage do you just as well, and cost you less in upkeep?). All of these things attack the very system that purposefully harms men. First off, it obviously decreases the profits of those companies, but furthermore, it also harms our biggest enemy, Big Government, by

decreasing their tax revenues. What do you think all of the "stimulus" the government has injected into the economy over the past years is all about? They want to do things like re-inflate the housing bubble, so that people will feel richer and go back to borrowing against their home equity to buy useless crap. In other words, they know that our economy is fueled by debt, and the best way to keep the economy going, and thus their tax dollars coming in - which funds vast bureaucracies which further harm men, like Women's Studies - is to keep people perpetually enslaved to debt in their desire to "get more useless crap." It does this on several levels. First off, you work harder to make more money, thus the government takes more of your money through income taxes. But also, the more profits these companies make, the more the government makes from them in taxes. Furthermore, the more people spend, the more the government receives in consumption taxes, like sales taxes. And, the more people desire to buy useless crap, the more these companies will hire other people to produce that useless crap, thus providing the government with more people's incomes they can tax, and so on, and so on, and so on... Another thing you can do to harm those who are harming you is what I call "victory labour." Think about it in this way: Here in Canada, it costs around $2,000+ to heat one's home for a year. Now, in order to come up with that $2,000, I have to go into the work-place and exchange about $3,000 in labour, so that after the government takes off its income tax, unemployment insurance premiums, pension plan deductions etc. etc., I am left with around $2,000 net, which I will then apply to my heating bill. So really, the heating bill costs me $3,000 instead of $2,000. If I made $17.50/hr working 40hrs/wk, I would come to about $3,000/mo in gross income. So, it would cost me one full month's labour to make enough money just to heat the house for a year. On the other hand, my province of British Columbia is chock full of trees. I could spend two or three 8hr days cutting down trees and carting them back to the house, and perhaps another four or five days chopping wood to burn in the wood-stove, and that should be enough to keep me warm for the year. Well, in the first situation, I have to work 172hrs in order to have heat in my home. In the second situation, I only have to work around 60hrs to heat my home for the year. What do you think pays better? (I'd be earning the equivalent labour value of $50/hr in the second situation). And, as a further bonus, I've legally avoided giving the government $1,000 in income taxes, which they will use to fund the bureaucratic organizations which harm men. Further, I will have robbed them of taking tax income from the gas company's profits, and also, I will have reduced the income tax they are able to siphon off of the gas company's employees. Ha ha! Now we are talking about kicking them in the pants, aren't we? This can be applied to hosts of things. Victory labour in the garden. Victory labour by fixing my own car. Victory moose-hunting, and so on. The quicker you get yourself debt free, the less beholden you are to a paycheck, and the more you can put concepts like victory labour to use. .

A MGHOW victory-fishing for the cause!

. And just think, with all the free time you have created, you might even be able to become a MGTOW blogger like me!

The Fine Art of TV Repair . Is something wrong in your house? . Is there a constant subtle drone always permeating throughout what should be your retreat from the harsh world? . Do you think that Man Hatred is just everywhere? . Chances are, your TV is broken! . Therefore, No Ma'am will provide you with an easy, illustrated, 4-step method to fixing your "best friend." .

. -------------------------------------------------------. STEP #1: Get the Proper Tools .

. The best tools for TV Repair can likely be found in the backyard shed. Two favourites are the pick-axe and the sledgehammer. Also find some gloves and safety goggles - The Safety Bear recommends this, so I will defer to his judgement in regard to safety. .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------. Step #2: Swinging the Pick-Axe . . Take a few steps to the side of your friend and grasp the pick-axe firmy with both hands. Your aim should be directly for center of the screen, as this is where the heart of the problem is. . The swing is performed much like a golf swing. Keep your eye on the center of the screen from the beginning of the swing right through to the end. . Bring the pick-axe behind you and begin your swing. Your upper body should shift the energy through your shoulders while at the same time, the weight of your body should shift from your back foot through to your front foot. Remember to keep your eye on the center of the screen throughout your swing ! . The above illustration is an example of the results of a good first swing. The pick-axe should penetrate to the heart of the problem with a depth of at least 6 inches. A professional TV Repair Man consistently hits 10 inchers, but 6 inches is the minimum penetration needed. . -------------------------------------------------------------------. Step #3: Sweeping the Field .

. Sometimes it is best to change tools and grab your sledgehammer for this task. . You must remove all of the glass to fully repair your TV. . Don't be afraid to choke up on the hammer nor to get down on your knees to get every last piece of glass out of there. There is nothing "sissy" about this. The only "sissy" thing would be to not do a thorough and complete job. Anything worth doing is worth doing well. . Notice the craftsmanship of this professional job in that he has even removed the knobs. This attention to detail is the mark of true guildsmanship, but you need not be this fancy. Removing the glass will most likely fix your problem completely. . This is also an excellent time to have a look around inside the TV. You will realize that there is really nothing of substance behind the glass. . ----------------------------------------------------------------------. Step #4: Call the Wife . . With the most manly bellow you can muster, holler out the following words:

. "Woman! Come Hither!" . A real professional might manage to include the following: . "And bring me a cold one!" . But your main job is to have the wife come and look at your craftsmanship. . You can now gently explain to the missus that you believe in the "Eek-Wallet-Tee" of both sexes equally doing the housework. Point out that you have done your 50%, and the other 50% is the clean up - so hop to it! . Be sure to stay with the missus while she works. This is where the cold one would have come in handy, as it would give you something to do rather than just stand there doing nothing. . Don't be afraid to direct your wife to any teeny tiny piece of glass that she may have missed. You might impart some manly wisdom at her here by telling her that "anything worth doing is worth doing well!" . ----------------------------------------------------------. You're all done! . Go back into the house and see if that annoying drone of man-hatred has disappeared. . And rest assured, it will only get better from here! . Good job! Mr. Repairman!

Zenpriest #59 - The Most Important Lesson a Man Can Ever Learn
QUOTE: "When one considers that one must "game" a woman, even your wife, in order to keep her around, then it also means that you must always be operating at a "higher level" than her. It totally negates the whole notion of having a "soul-mate" and means that on many levels, a man will always be alone." That is probably the most important lesson a man can ever learn. Intimacy with a woman is impossible if you have any interest in being her lover. If you are fine with being one of her grrrlfriends, and don't mind the stupid messed up games women run on them, then you can share to your heart's content - and will always be on the LJBF ladder. The fundamental problem with today's concept of marriage is that it seems both men and women expect their spouse to be all things to them - lover, confidante, helpmate, "soulmate", co-housekeeper, and cowage-earner. With so many role demands, it is inevitable that everyone will fail at some of them. That is why the old division of roles worked fairly well for most people - each could concentrate on a few things they were good at, and leave the rest to the other person. The fundamental dilemma for men is that as they age they slow down. They get tired and sometimes need someone to lean on. Marriage 1.0 worked fairly well in this regard, as it also worked for women

who had lost all their physical attractiveness. If they had managed to become friends and partners in the early years, that would often carry them through the aging years when neither of them had what it took to find and snare a new partner. Under the new rules of marriage 2.0 a man has a choice - being alone in an expensive manner, or a notso-expensive manner. The loneliest men I know are married men trapped in a loveless marriage to a perpetually complaining slug who they nevertheless have to enslave themselves to support. I look at their lives and they are as good a definition of hell as I need. Alone = freedom. The tiny crumbs of affection that WW dole out today are priced way way over what they are worth.

SH#7 - The Personal

@ Boxer et. al, My apologies, I said earlier that I would get back on MGTOW after a bit of reflection. I had a halfwritten response on the go when a minor family-related issue came up, and I havent been able to finish it, and I suspect I wont be able to finish until tomorrow I havent gotten into the political yet, nor have I proof read what I have written yet. But, I do have about two pages or so of the basic foundation of what Im going to build upon, for how to escape the dialectical manipulation, and I will post it now. If you wish to deconstruct what I have so far, feel free. *** In any event, MGTOW doesnt take you out of the dialectic. Theres no way to get out of it. MGTOW makes you a force opposed to the current paradigm, which expects all participants to punch time clocks and contribute to the replication of the social order. Boxer Im going to use some references to Christianity in the following, but I hope that it doesnt devolve into an athiesm vs. the sky-fairy type of BS. I am nottrying to convince anyone to take up Christianity. Thats your own business, not mine. (While I was raised in a Christian family and att ended church while I lived in my parents house a rule I have not attended Church in 20 years except for weddings and funerals). The reason to use Christianity is as aphilosophical reference to the Absolute Truth which is represented in our past culture as God, and which is the counter to Hegels Relative Truth, which dethroned the Absolute Truth and caused a massive shift in the way we organized our views of the world. When anthropologists study cultures, one of the most important things they seek to understand is that cultures religion as it is one of the best ways to decipher other parts of the culture. In the West, it is fairly safe to say that Christianity is the dominant culture or at least of the recent past. (ie. Lets forget about Judaism and Rome etc. just to keep things simpler and look at times when Christianity was dominant in Europe The Middle Ages to the recent). Therefore, to make any reasonable observations about our culture and its subsequent changes, the dominant religion (and shifts away from it) must also be observed. Now, one of the things that was significant about the Bible, was that while it told us to fight against evil and to resist it, the Bible assures us that we cannot defeat it. Only God can defeat evil. We, as humans, simply cannot defeat it. This is quite significant, because it puts us into the frame of mind that we must accept the world as it is, and make the best of it while we are here.Effective people do accept the world for what it is, and then they work within that paradigm to make the best that they can. Ineffective people rail against that

which simply cannot be changed. I might really, really, really want to be a successful business owner with the force of my life, but if I was born in the 1920s Soviet Union, I would do best to accept that this is simply not an option, and is not going to be a reasonable option within my lifetime. Since I only have one life, I would do myself the most favours by simply accepting that fact, rather than railing against it. The Serenity Prayer comes to mind here: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will; That I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him Forever in the next. Amen. I think you can see, beyond the religion, the value and wisdom of living under this idea. Some things can be changed, other things simply cannot. The effective man living a good life, fights for what is possible, and accepts not all things are and works around it. This is the first part to stepping out of it. Accepting the world for what it IS. We all do have a choice of whether we want to live by the Real Truth or by the Relative Truth. On a personal level, nobody can force my mind to believe this: [(1+1=2) + (1+1=3)] divided by 2 = 2.5 (Synthesis) [(1+1=2.5) + (1+1=4)] divided by 2 = 3.25 (Synthesis/New Thesis) etc. etc. My mind is my own property. Not even the State can take it from me. No matter what, I can choose for myself whether that kind of m ath will rule my life. And, as the MGTOW Manifesto declares: If its not right then Go Your Own Way. As for me and the house I will build with my life, it will be based on 1+1=2. Not 1+1=3, nor 2.5, nor even 2.000001 if I can help it. The end. And this is very male. In fact, it is this very aspect of the males insistence that 1+1=2 versus the females belief that 1+1=3, that has pulled us out of the caves and into the highrise. It is the female principle that is mired in Relative Truth womens sense of fashion changes with the consensus of the herd, their views of desirable men are based with social proofing which is mere further consensus of the herd, and so on. The male principle says its 1+1=2, silly cows! I dont care how much you moo at me.

Heck, even Hegel acknowledges this: Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated who knows how? G.F. Hegel Yup. The male principle is based on the insistence that 1+1=2 because of principle and logic (Its not to say men always get there, or never screw up, but we get there far more often than women do). Women are educated by the herds consensus itself. If the herd believes that 1+1=3, it is right because of the herd says so, and simply for that reason alone. Women are the human form of Relative Truth, otherwise known as The Rationalization Hamster. What cannot be changed? Well, women for one, and human nature for two. You cannot change women. You are not God. You cannot change Human Nature. You are not God. All you can do is accept it for what it is (1+1=2) and use that kind of math to build your life around these things. Now, in the philosophical sense, I have already defeated the Dialectical Manipulations at least in my own mind. And of course, this is the most important place of all. I have stepped out of it. Im not gonna argue with women they dont argue for the same reasons we do. Men argue to seek truth, and hold each-other to truth. With the male principle, the guy who gets closest to truth is the winner. Women argue to socially manipulate, and the woman who wins socially (kinda like, um, getting the most up-votes in a comments section) is the one who is the winner and is considered right. Democracy is a female principle and always ends in instability and destruction. Republic (Rule by Law/Principle) is a male principle and provides stability and structure upon which further things can be solidly built. And it matters very much which leads the other. ------------------------------------------------

Chapter Eight: Conclusion

SH#11 - What, Exactly, Are We Fighting For?
Avenger makes a good point when he says the pendulum will swing back, and then asks, how does this benefit you? . For example, Angry Harry has often pointed out that when feminists cry of the abuses of women in places like Afghanistan, if you look at the men, they are treated even worse. And, if you look at the abuses women endured in the past centuries, you will find that in every situation, men had even worse abuses to endure. It is a feature of human nature. It is just like no matter at what place, or in what time, children are always treated better than adults its just the way humanity works. . So, after Feminism subsides, how will things change? Do you really think it will be any different?

Women will still be treated better than men. They have been since the dawn of time, and they will be until closing time. . This is why it is so dangerous to have the MM try to set up things like lobby groups and government bureaucracies to oversee the welfare of men and boys. It is so open ended, and because of the very nature of humanity, means they could perpetually justify their existence until it becomes just another oppressive, statist organization that harms everyone but themselves. Its so freakin open ended and fights a never-ending battle against nature that how could it not be a disaster? If I start a lobby group to stop the tide I will forever be able to show the demand for my group is real, because the battle is still not won. See, here comes the tide again. Gimme more power to fight it! . Far better, if you must support some organization, that they have a clear mission statement and acknowledge they will disband after achieving their goal. (Ie. Fighting to remove Bill C-79 from the legislature). . But then, what are the actual goals that men want? . No matter what happens, compared to women, men will still be treated as lesser than females. That is simply a feature of human nature that cant be changed no matter how many laws are made or discarded, nor how many lobby groups are formed to fight the tides. . Accepting this as true does not mean admitting defeat. It means working with the way the world IS, rather than fighting against it. It does not mean men cannot try to create or remove laws which make their lives better but no matter what happens, at the end of it all, men will still be treated relatively worse than the females in society are. . Related: Philalethes #15 - Women Are Out of Control in Our Culture

MGTOW as a Form of "Cultural Game"

Women arent 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 its my way or the highway, Toots! and that any man who doesnt want to be ruined by woman has to learn to say no without bothering to explain, and say it often no No NO NO!!! Merely because I said so. Just because I want it that way. Tough. Theres the door.

Well, this is merely game on a cultural level. Women really arepowerless without us. That vote they keep yacking about doesnt mean jack shit without men enforcing its p ower. Everything that permits the you go grrl culture is provided to women by the indulgence of men. If men left the building, womens vote couldnt enforce shit 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 dont 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 dont tough. Its 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 d ont 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.

SH#5 - The Only Way To Win A Dialectical Argument

The only way to win a dialectical argument is to step out of it. This is why I am such a hardcore MGTOW. The MGTOW Manifesto hasnothing to do with marriage striking or swearing off women. It is about instilling masculinity in men, instilling femininity in women, and working towards limited government. But on a completely different level, it is also THE ANSWER. There are three levels men are getting screwed on. 1). The Personal Our personal lives are put at too much risk given the way the government has interfered in our interpersonal relationships. We all know this one, and this is why MGTOW is so associated with the marriage strike. 2). The Political The way they screwed us into this situation was by making The Personal into The Political. And the way out of it, is to Go Your Own Way MGTOW takes the Political out of the Personal. If I step out of it, I am not affected by the Political. If I dont believe the lies, I can Go My Own Way. I can reduce my work-load and legally reduce the amount of tax dollars I give to a state that wants to wring every nickel out of me and hand it over to political causes and social

manipulations I expressly disagree with. Theyre still gonna take my nickels, but theres just gonna be less nickels to take. Im Going My Own Way and deciding what my life will be about - "So I took off my hat and said imagine that. Me! Working for you! 3). The Philosophical The way Marxists manipulate the Dialectic cannot be countered by a grassroots movement. Its like a fly caught in a spiders web. The more he fights back, the more trapped he becomes. Marxists work top down and are waiting for the Useful Idiots to build a grass-roots movement to ask for some equality pie. Then you suddenly find yourself further into the web. You cannot win by fighting it. You can only win by not playing the game and stepping out of it. Literally, stepping out of the Dialectic and returning to Absolute Truth is the right and proper way to defeat the Dialectical manipulations. It is the only way that works. Men Going Their Own Way is the Right Way. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know I shouldnt step into it with this guy but Me thinks, by Brians own logic, that he is a Marxist. Marxists, after all, promote mass-murder. And here we have someone who is promoting the massmurder of people he deems enemies. Of course, there is always a justification somewhere. That is the problem with Marxist thought, because it is bound to no Absolute Truth, only Relative Truth. Once you only have the Relative Truth, there is a justification for everything and anything somewhere which is the real problem that makes so many Marxists into horrific mass-murderers. We see the same relative thinking logic at play here with Brian suggesting the demise of his enemies. Further to add to my case, you can see how Brian finds a Thesis from someone and then obviously provides an Anti-Thesis to the argument, wishing to come to some sort of Synthesis through debate. It is a hallmark of Marxism. Some examples: At March 29, 2012 at 13:54, I made a very lengthy comment that related how the West was mired in Marxism, wherein I discussed Hillary Clintons role, the United Nations CEDAW Agreement which is already signed by all but a few of the nations of the world, and so on. I also clearly related that their goal was to bring us under Marxist control, along with the whole world and warned several times that the West is almost already there. Further, I discussed Transvaluation to illustrate one way how the West is being conquered. At March 29, 2012 at 14:15, Bryan replied in his first line: I agree with 98% of what you stated and goes on to relate that the 2% he doesnt agree with is that they want to evolve people, but rather mass-murder them. Or in other words, Brian pretty much agreed with my premise, except the small flaws he pointed out. However, at March 29, 2012 at 23:45, he tells me that I ought to know how to recognize Marxism because it is here, right in my own country of Canada and he now indicates I dont know how to

recognize it. Do you recognize that Canada is functionally and de facto a Marxist nation Not the hardcore Soviet variety, but Marxist regardless This is an anti-thesis on several levels. Well, first of all, he has already acknowledged before, that I did indeed know that Canada is pretty much a Marxist State in his own words he indicated such by agreeing with 98% of what I said. However, also note that he declares that Canada is a functional and defacto Marxist state not the Soviet hardcore variety, but Marxist regardless. Well, now he is offering an anti-thesis to his own newly synthesized thesis, that being, Marxism is not about evolving people, but mass-murdering them. Well, is Canada genociding the politically incorrect? Not as far as I know. We do, however, try to socially engineer and evolve our people through peaceful means. But mass-murder? Nope. So, if Marxism must involve mass-murder, then it is impossible for Canada to be Marxist. It simply doesnt fit the definition Brian himself gives. It is an anti-thesis to his own thesis. It does, however, fit my definition, that Marxism does not have mass-murder as an ironclad cornerstone, but rather is more about evolving people into new, better humans. In Canadas case, we concentrate on social evolution certainly not mass-murder. Another anti-thesis Brian gives is: Of course Marx wanted mass-murder! He just couldnt say it directly. But thats what he meant! Well, this is interesting conjecture, but since he doesnt clearly and objectifiably advocate this, it is 100% unprovable. However, he then wants me to keep climbing his staircase of synthesized truths by trying to goad me into disproving something that is not even provable in the first place. If Brian cannot clearly provide evidence for his new thesis because by his own acknowledgement, it didnt happen except in the way Brian himself reads between the lines, then it is the height of insanity to ask another to waste his time disproving it. How? By giving cites and quotes? The only thing to do is to step out of it, (it being this dialectical nightmare of synthesized truths) for it is impossible to argue with a Marxist who adheres to truth that changes simply to suit ones own purposes. OK, I said my piece about Bryan. You cant really blame such stuff as comparing dicks in cyber-space. Someone was here giving out gobs and gobs of free info, without arguing with anyone at all. Someone else comes along and undermines the living piss out of him by sneaky manipulation and completely dishonest logic. When Person A says piss up a rope, the manipulator screeches about what an asshole the other person is and all the people who were only half paying attention to the discourse go tsk tsk, the boys are battling and comparing dicks in cyberspace. Its not just the circular firing squad that causes MRAs to fail. Its the fact that the people who actually

do have knowledge are tired of being forced to argue with people, for no reason, and are not even allowed to become angry aboutblatant manipulation. Small wonder they throw up their hands and say fuck it then, I could have saved you five years of searching, but you can all piss off and do it for yourself. It is for this reason that the MRM never gets anywhere more than anything else. Nobody manages to stick around for more than three years. Even now, I have not been around the MRM all too much over the past year or so, and I only recognize about 15% of the names now. Of the guys I started MGTOW blogging with years ago, there must only by 2% of them still at it. We dont have a university to go to, and despite the great work guys like Bill does with his articles, the theory of MRA (counter to feminism) is built right here, in the comments section. Thats why reading the comments in MRM sites are so much more productive than in other sites. There are some guys around that have so much information in them, they could fire out links, quotes, concepts on almost any subject you could come up with. They have honed their writing skills, they have read, studied, pondered, read and studied some more, sometimes over decades. But they never stick around for more than a little while, and then move on maybe to return but quite often not. The result? The MRM stays about age three. It has been age three ever since I found it. Everybody starts from square one, finding everything out for themselves, gets three years in, and leaves. Rinse. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat. Its been going on for three or four decades now. Age three forever.

The Legend of the Selkie

Some years ago, through the usual discourse of mindlessly arguing with people on the internet, I met a woman online who went by the handle of Selkie. I had no idea what a selkie was, so I typed it into Google and discovered an interesting legend that I believe is directly about human sexuality. The mythological selkie is similar to a mermaid, except the selkie is a seal which can shed its skin and transform into a human being. The selkie can be either male or female, but most are female. Once they are in their human form, if their seal skin is taken or hidden from them, they are unable to turn back into a seal and thus cannot return to their home in the sea. Now, as the legend goes, female selkies make great wives when in their human form and so men would hide the skins of selkies so they would stay with them, for if she found her skin she would right away put it back on, abandon her human husband and escape to the sea to seek out her male selkie lover/husband. There is an interesting twist though, in that even after she abandons her human husband she will return from time to time to visit the children which she had while with him. The male selkie, according to the legend, has enormous powers of seduction. His favourite love interests are married women who are dissatisfied with their marriage, and often he seduces the wives of fisherman while their husbands are away at sea. The legend of the selkie seems to be a way of telling about the nature of human sexuality. The seal skin represents human sexuality in its natural form, as is often discussed within circles of the Manosphere. The stories have elements of suppressing female sexuality, which makes for great, reliable wives, but when she is unrestrained with her sexuality, she instantly uses it and reverts back to her natural state and in her natural state as a seal, she seeks out the cad, the male selkie who is like her, and is a master seducer who plays upon womens emotions. This seems very much like the whole concept of game when understanding human sexuality. The male PUA is very much like the female in the way

he seduces women - he understands about womens emotions and how to manipulate them for his own benefit - which is very similar to what women tend to do with their sexuality when relating to men. There are many myths and legends that discuss the nature of females. I think this is so because, as Philalethes often points out, women are society. What women want, society also wants. What women find desirable, society finds desirable. What women frown upon, society frowns upon. Women are society with males as mere interlopers in their midst, doing womens bidding. Often women are referred to as having a herd mentality. I agree with this. And what is a herd made up of? Mostly females with only a few males, or sometimes just one male. The rest of the males the outliers, or the betas that have been rejected by the herd, are always desperately competing to be let back into the herd though and that means doing what the herd finds desirable. But anyway, since women are society, and since women absolutely despise having anything negative about their natures brought into daylight, they screech and shout and shame such things back into the deep darkness of the closet, and then society forgets all about them again as time goes on. I think many times in the past, men have observed the nature of females (and males) and it seems to me that there is a consistency in what they find, and of course, it is very similar to what we have been discovering over the past years in our discussions of feminism and the destruction of the family. Every time I see a legend like the selkie one, I think to myself, Ill bet that comes from a man/men who 'figured things out' and also recognized the only way to send that message forward through time without being thwarted by the totalitarian nature of females, is to disguise it in a myth or a legend." Something that I find interesting about the legend of the selkie though is how it makes mention that after the selkie abandons her human husband to go back to the sea, she will return from time to time to visit her human children. This legend is old, as most myths & legends obviously are, so of course it comes from a time when father-custody was the norm. It was not until the 1800s that presumed father-custody was undermined, and presumed mother-custody took its place. Ive read before that it was when this transformation was completed that the divorce rates began to slowly but steadily increase. The whole point of marriage used to be father-custody. Back before the days of romance, when marriage used to be an economic contract, marriage & wedlock birth was all about putting children into the possession of men. In the rare event of a divorce, the custody of the child was automatically given to the husband. If the child was young, the mother would sometimes care for it until around 6 or 7 years old, and then would be forced to turn over the child to the father for education and proper discipline. The whole concept of wedlock birth is to create legitimate, father-custody children. When an oopspregnancy would occur, the first question out of the womans mouth would be will you give the child your name? As in, will you make this child legitimate, and show it by giving him your name and not a hyphenated pseudo name either! Women dont actually need marriage to have children. They can get boffed by any number of men through a variety of seductive techniques, of which I think we are all aware of. Men however, did need marriage to have children, and thus, children born within wedlock are to belong to the man, while children born out of wedlock are to belong to the woman. The parts of the selkie legend that discuss how she would come back to visit her children even after abandoning her husband seems to support the concept that divorce rates began to increase after presumed custody was changed from the father to the mother. Also supporting this notion is the evidence put forth by present day joint-custody advocates, who state that divorce rates significantly drop when sole mother-custody is not expected. Of course, women file for most of divorces as we all

know, and so not having sole custody of the children significantly deters them from destroying their families, and rather encourages them to try harder to make things work. Sure, one can write this off to saying that removing the financial incentives to divorce will lower the divorce rates, but keep in mind another thing one will find about women and sexuality throughout history is that it has always been that women have ended relationships more often than men. It is part of human nature that women do this, regardless of financial incentives. It seems though that placing the children in a situation where it is presumed that the father will gain custody upon the ending of marriage, is enough to encourage women to over-ride this instinct what they have.

Man Going His Own Way (MGHOW)

When I have one foot in the grave, I will tell the whole truth about women. I shall tell it, jump into my coffin, pull the lid over me and say, Do what you like now. Leo Tolstoy .

Ghost Nation
There is a generation of men fading from view. This is a global phenomenon but it is particularly noticeable (if this is not a contradiction in terms) in the feminist countries. Men, who have been pushed to the margins in so many ways have simply elected to disappear. I would imagine that as many as one million men have disappeared either partially or completely from view in the United Kingdom alone- meaning one in twenty or so of the native born male population. For the most part this disappearance has occurred without anyone noticing particularly because it has

consisted of a gradual fading from view rather than a dramatic exodus from the mainstream. I call these men the Ghost Nation and would like to introduce the term to common use. How does one become a citizen of the ghost nation? It occurs in many ways, very few of them are pleasant. First of all one may become a member of the ghost nation by virtue of coming from a broken home. They have never seen either parent work and are told daily that men and boys are useless. As a result they never get the habit of work and drift around the edges of crime. Women coming from the same background have an option that is not available to men and this is to become pregnant. This ensures the basics of life and gives purpose. Young men have no anchor whatever, other than the gangs they may belong to and other groups of men they may hate. He is how young men come to religious fundamentalism, political extremism and violence- a life has to be about something and these mens lives are about nothing at all. These men are among the most dangerous beings upon the face of the earth. These are the men who make revolutions, a barbarian army within the city walls. They may create or destroy and have no place in the existing order of things and no loyalty to it. I call these men the ghost army simply because they have no dealings with wider society and are thus invisible to it. They rarely vote and own nothing. At present their anger is purely destructive and tribal in nature- directed against other races and other subcultures such as followers of other music. Older men are joining the ghost nation more consciously and for other reasons. We (for this is my group) have clearer moral guidelines and have rejected crime and parasitism. Nevertheless we have no place in the existing order of things. Some of us have lost everything through divorce and realised that marrying in the feminist world is simple slavery. We know that no matter how honest we may be the courts and legal system will punish every good deed. Therefore we work at things that interest us. We become harder to control because we are no longer willing to work inhuman hours for a womans approval. Gradually we extricate ourselves from everything we have been brainwashed to believe is normal. This includes consumer credit, expensive chemical sludge pretending to be food and that strange 19th century invention, the career. Gradually we eliminate, point by point, everything that ties us to the feminist state. This takes both economic and emotional form. Rather than let the media form our opinions for us because we are too tired to do anything else, we form our views actively on the internet. Gradually, gradually we fade from view. We cannot even talk to people who are

still within the system because most of them can only talk about their work. The third group is those who are nearing retirement. They know they will be rich almost anywhere other than the feminist nations and therefore become free at the moment they are no longer needed by feminist society. Have you seen yourself in these three groups? Are you a citizen of the ghost nation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To All: Read "Atlas Shrugged" and see how nothing today is really any different than it was decades ago when a brilliant and insightful woman chronicled the inevitable results of a society addicted to destructive consumption. Decide whether you are a creator or a looter, and whether you can commit to the Pledge:
"I swear, by my life and my love for it, that I will never live my life for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for mine." If you can, then: Harm none, do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law. This is John Galt speaking, I WILL end this if I can.