The Hammer & Sickle Diet

Many MRA bloggers have taken great pains to make the connections between feminism and communism and there role in undermining Western Civilization to prepare the way towards global governance. Rob Fedders from No Ma'am recently connected all of the dots regarding feminism, communism, suffrage and the lie of democracy on a recent comment over at the Spearhead.

But there is another connection between the goal of the social engineers who are carrying out the long march through Western society...

Mary Sparrowdancer, an investigative reporter for Rense.com, recently published an article entitled US Communism, Food, Healthcare, which discusses in part what she calls the Sickle & Hammer diet:

It was the industrialization of grain agriculture that should have eventually given us a very clear clue of the identity of those taking over the United States from the inside. Our clue should have come from the flag of the former USSR, which contained the symbols that represented communism: a hammer and a sickle. The hammer represented industrialization and the sickle represented agriculture. The combination of industry with agriculture is one of the ten steps toward achieving a communist state as outlined by Marx and Friedrich Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

I've spent an innumerable amount of time researching the various tangential points regarding diet and industrial mono-cropping and the propaganda for which the big, agricultural corporations have financed and disseminated...but I never once thought to try and make the same connections to the ill health of our modern conventional wisdom regarding diet and nutrition, are the same ones connected to the very same cultural Marxist social engineers fomenting of the gender war and the feminist movement!

By the early 1900s, the Communists had succeeded in putting a Comrade in the White House, who, acting as a dictator then helped them establish Marx's income tax on Americans' labor, thus now redistributing private wages that belonged to the laborer to others who the State felt "needed" them. This was unconstitutional and historically forbidden in this Republic. He also created a banking monopoly called the "Federal Reserve," and established State terrorists called the Internal Revenue Service who would enforce and carry out the confiscation, redistribution and abolition of private property. The U.S. also witnessed the finalization of the compulsory state "education" of all children in all states throughout the nation. The "demoralization" phase was well underway as the dreams and individuality of the nation's children were snuffed out, their creativity dampened while they were given an abysmal "standardized" education that would prepare them to become a nameless laborer working 9-5 for industry. Changes and amendments were also made to the Constitution to better suit Communist goals, and the Communist party gained complete control of the media. At that same time, the nation's diet changed when Americans began to rely upon the "standardized" grain-based diet of Marx's industrialized agriculture.

No wonder we have an unconstitutional bureaucracy such as the US Dept. of Agriculture's "Food Pyramid" that recommends 8 or more servings of GRAIN based foods at the base!

As recorded by the US Census Bureau, industrialized corn production went from 7.5 hundred million bushels in 1870 to almost 27 hundred million bushels in 1900. Just as communism focuses on the importance of the State and its redistribution of wealth to the masses than it does on the individual, mass production in industrialized agriculture cannot waste much time concerning itself with the quality of any particular product. There was a problem with that mass produced corn.

I wish it WAS a problem...in fact it's actually gotten worse since than. Look at your ingredients on almost any packaged, processed food product in your grocery store. There's a good chance there is some form of corn in it: Dextrose, maltodextrin, High Fructose Corn Syrum, corn oil...other than Soy, Corn is in everything!

The new "progressive" farming goal was to grow a limited variety of grain and cereal crops on vast tracts of land. Chemical fertilizers were used to force crops from the exhausted earth without concern for that impact. Heavy machinery replaced the once important farmers who, in the past, represented over 90% of the US workforce. This progress of industry was also without concern for the damage to the earth, topsoil, farming or families. Local family farms were absorbed by agricultural monopolies, and processed grain and cereal products became massively available, as planned.

Remember this the next time you read some propaganda or some useful idiot repeating the lies about how everyone should go vegan to "save the Earth!" Mono-cultured industrialized agriculture has been one of the most environmentally destructive practices ever inflicted on the face of the Earth!

In the process, however, many Americans lost their former easy access to local, fresh fruits and fresh vegetables. Therefore, the industrialized grain movement not only changed America, it also drastically altered the diet of Americans. For the first time, like laboring peasants elsewhere, Americans became largely dependent on a diet of grains.

This new diet was not based on the nutritional needs of individual, but on the needs of the grain-agriculture industry. The new American diet suddenly went from a varied diet with plenty of fresh, locally grown fresh fruits, and fresh vegetables, fresh clean local dairy and meats, to a diet based on cheap, mass-produced, starchy grain and cereal products that had long shelve lives and could be easily transported over vast distances.

Bacon and eggs was once the ubiquitous mainstay of the American household for breakfast. It still is in the UK. But not America. Grain based foods have become what people consider a "healthy" breakfast, no? Corn flakes, bran flakes, bagels, pastries, breads, pancakes, whole grain cereals...

...What's for breakfast, Komrade?!?!

The food industry was no longer local, decent and trustworthy, but was now "standardized," dangerous and frequently filthy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would eventually issue a piece of propaganda called the "Food Pyramid," which advised Americans that their diet should have a foundation consisting of starchy breads, cereals and pastas, "6 to 11 servings a day." It was a recipe for disaster.

Indeed. She than goes into greater detail about how the first experiments in mass producing corn products resulted in a pellagra epidemic because the industrialization process removed much of the nutritional content of corn grains, which caused widespread malnutrition. But the milling process that devitalized the corn was too profitable for the industrialized production...so they "enriched" the resulting products with synthetic vitamins so that pellagra would no longer be caused.

Remember this little piece of knowledge the next time you go grocery shopping. Note the wide variety of products with the label "enriched" on there.

Understand that "enriched" means the processing the food has undergone has devitalized it and eating it in it's processed state will cause malnutrition...so they've 'enriched' it.

That's because REAL food that nourishes and strengthens your body is food that is fresh, naturally produced, AND IT SPOILS. It is not conducive to mass production in a central location and transportation over long distances and for long term storage!

Coincidentally, this is also why Milk is pasteurized - which destroys the vitamin and nutrients in the milk, and why it has to be homogenized and fortified! All so it can be mass produced, stored and shipped!

This is what has been done to the American food supply, writ large!

The resulting systemic symptoms experienced by an entire nation of Americans on a hammer and sickle diet would also be chemically treated, just as they are today, by the wealthy, industrialized "medical" monopoly machine, which was also created during the Progressive Era.

Which is precisely why the medical industry almost always focuses on pharmaceutical solutions to alleviate symptoms rather than actually taking a good, hard look at dietary effects on degenerative diseases, and recommending changes in eating habits to restore health...

...there's no profit in that!

In 1901 the American Medical Association (AMA), reorganized, establishing a new policy-making body, and "policy-making" as well as "regulations" would soon become a form of new power and wealth opportunity for the industrialists. In perhaps one of the most unique methods of securing a monopoly and eliminating competition, Fred Kilmer, the Director of Scientific Affairs for Johnson & Johnson, gave his expert opinions regarding public health to the government in order to help formulate a law that would become known as "The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906." This would eventually become the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This law prevented the sale of "adulterated or misbranded" foods, drugs, medicines, etc. According to the American National Business Hall of Fame, while the "less scrupulous" competitors of J&J were forced to change their methods and products, "all of Johnson and Johnson's products and processes met the new regulatory standards" that their employee, Mr. Kilmer, helped write.

Gee, this sounds familiar too! See how that works? Large, industrial corporation funds the creation of a regulatory agency that produces guidelines that penalize or eliminates competition. Remember the equation I came up with last month: Government Regulation + Industry = Cartel.

Medical journals dating back to the 1800s reveal that physicians were well aware then of the dangers of a starchy diet. Physicians also knew then about the need for catalase and other enzymes from fresh raw foods, and that the diet must optimally be based on a wide variety of foods producing the slightly alkaline pH in which many diseases, including cancers, cannot thrive. Catalase converts the extremely toxic (and flammable) hydrogen peroxide that accumulates in our bodies to harmless water and oxygen, but catalase is destroyed by high heat and an improper diet. Without catalase and other enzymes from fresh raw fruits and vegetables, foods are not properly digested.

Decent diets consisting of colorful fresh fruits and vegetables were important preventative prescriptions in the 1800s, along with plenty of fresh air, sunshine and exercise.

First, they corrupted our food supply. Than they told us that the Sun would kill us all with skin cancer. Only now studies are showing that vitamin D deficiency is one of the primary causes of ALL forms of cancer!

By the mid 1800s it had been "proved beyond question" that eliminating or even reducing "starchy and saccharine substances" ­ most notably white bread ­ from the diet of a diabetic, would result in a decrease in urinary sugar output. The elimination of starch, therefore, was already being used as a treatment for diabetes. It was also known in the 1800s that if the diet contained dairy it must be in the form of unadulterated, raw, chilled, and scrupulously clean dairy, rather than industrialized dairy because only fresh and raw foods contain the full matrix of nutrients needed for optimal health.

All of the nutrient-based knowledge once available to us in the 1800s was thrown out the window during the Progressive Era, when, as monopolies were being established in the U.S., propaganda told us that modern is always better and new is always improved. We can now see that this was and is a lie. Deaths from heart disease and cancers have continued to climb since Americans were switched to the hammer and sickle diet. According to "The War on Cancer," in the year 1900, there were 12,769 deaths blamed on cancer. The number of deaths blamed on cancer during the year 1940 was 158,335. The number of deaths blamed on cancer during the year 2001 had reached 553,768.

According to a report written in 1960 by the American Association for Cancer Research, "Cancer patients had a 22 per cent lower liver catalase activity than cancer-free patients." According to a National Institutes of Health report, a 1996 study of breast cancer risks found that "Vegetable and, particularly, fruit consumption contributed to" a decreased risk of cancer. They concluded, "thus, the preventive potential for fruit consumption has widespread implications." According to a report found on the American Academy of Periodontology, "Research has shown, and experts agree, that there is an association between periodontal diseases and other chronic inflammatory conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer's disease."

Industrialized medicine, however, pays almost no attention to basic nutrition and the effect it has on the human body. According to the AMA's "Concise Medical Encyclopedia" of 2006, they were still advocating the USDA's now slightly revised Food Pyramid, which is still promoting a hammer and sickle diet but with new emphasis now on "whole grains."

As those of us that have discovered the Primal Diet know full well...the difference between processed grains and "whole grains" in terms of dietary health is like the difference between smoking filtered and un-filtered cigarettes. One will kill you faster than the other...but you're just as dead if you smoke 'em long enough.

While the government refuses to acknowledge its own folly, the FDA recently sent warnings to 29 fruit growers for claiming health benefits found in their fruits, including reports of pain relief that many experience after drinking tart cherry juice. According to the FDA warning, "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man-are drugs." Cherries are now drugs, and therefore they are now in need of more regulations.

Isn't it wonderful that we have an organization such as the FDA looking out for us and protecting us from unscrupulous fruit growers who would DARE to make unfounded and non-peer-reviewed-researched health claims for their produce?!!?

Sheeple Watching - FUPA

The second in a series of random observations and fleeting thoughts that flit through my mind lately whenever I walk about in public and observe the average, brainwashed, indoctrinated and oblivious American Sheeple.

The Definition of Insanity

Most people have heard of the old "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it to come out different."

The old maxim popped in my head the other day while I was standing in line at the grocery store, watching a FUPA in front of me loading up her purchases onto the checkout stand's conveyor belt.

For those unfamiliar with the term, FUPA stands for Fat Upper Pubic Area. In other words...not typically overweight people, not even obese people...but morbidly obese folks.

And it seems like there are more and more of them everywhere I go.

Now lest you think I'm taking this opportunity to cruelly point the finger of ridicule on the morbidly obese, let me make myself clear: seeing such people makes me sad and angry. I'm NOT engaging in an exercise of cruelly indulging in personal character-diminishing schadenfreude here.

I'm sad and angry that we live in a society and culture for which lies and propaganda propagated for a wide variety of reasons, has resulted in a populace of people that have been slowly poisoning themselves to death on foods under the mistaken notions of what is and what is not a nutritious and healthy diet.

And while I do feel pity at the victims of these lies and propaganda, I still hold people to a standard based on my own values of personal accountability. Which brings me back to my observations of the FUPA lady piling up her assorted grocery choices onto the conveyor belt at the checkout stand and my opening quote about the definition of insanity...

Why can't this lady, like millions of other people out there who are morbidly obese, make the connection between all of the food products she's buying and consuming, and her state of extremely ill health?

Her cart was overflowing with diet cola, fat free frozen "Weight watchers" dinners, fat free dessert cakes and crackers and chips, and fat free yogurt and fat free ice cream, along with meat and produce.

How many years can such people continue to buy and eat this garbage, and see the kind of results that look back at them in the mirror every day? Is it not INSANE?

Take a look at any packaged, processed food item found on the shelves of the grocery store...most of these products have some sort of label indicating "fat free" or "Lite" or "Low Fat."

As I've written extensively on in the past, one of the biggest lies ever promulgated by the giant Food processing industry was the implications via marketing slogans and promotions on their labels that eating "FAT" makes you fat. There are literally thousands of products in grocery stores that all promote this absolute lie.

Hell, you can actually buy ground meat that is CHEAPER because there's more fat in it's content.

And you have people, herded to their grocery stores like sheep, mindlessly buying these products and eating them...thinking they are at least trying to do something about their dreadful health problems associated with morbid obesity...and actually contributing further to their problems.

Than they get desperate and resort to literal modern day butchery procedures like bariatric surgery, to try and fix a problem...rather than actually deal with taking an objective look at their dietary choices and come to the rational conclusion that eating all of this fat free and lite foods ISN'T WORKING!

But I guess the conventional wisdom and current zeitgeist as promoted endlessly by our mass media culture is too powerful a force to overcome.

There's a reason why large scale dairy producers have a vested interest in selling and promoting all of this 'fat free' and 'lite' dairy products: all of the butterfat is the primary ingredient in producing the highest quality ice cream and butter..which of course sells at a premium price.

And what better way to make a fortune off of both ends of the spectrum than to take the fat from the dairy to produce a premium priced dessert foods and taking the leftover, de-fatted, de-flavored, and de-vitalized by-products, add a bunch of sugar and perhaps natural and artificial flavors, and than sell it as health food? And millions of fat and obese people buy this stuff thinking it will help them in their futile battle of the bulge that they are so obviously losing...

The situation here is absolutely ludicrous...I still have a hard time accepting that people are so deluded and brainwashed by marketers and duplicitous government agencies that have colluded with processed food manufacturers and giant agricultural corporations into promulgating such dietary lies, that they are unable to make the connection between their ever expanding waistline and all of that fat free, lite "food" they're buying and eating?

I almost wanted to grab this lady by her shoulders and point to her grocery choices and than point to her FUPA and ask her if she can't figure out why she's buying all of this "health" food and not getting healthy? HELLO?!?!? IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

It disgusts me.

Worse yet, I cannot be too judgemental, because it was only about 4 years ago that I myself awakened from the blue-pill reality of our matrix-like existence.

I was developing my own unhealthy deposit of belly fat and a double chin while shopping exactly like this lady I was observing.

I was drinking diet soda every day.

Eating "low fat, low sodium" turkey bacon.

Ground Turkey substituted for all of our recipes that called for ground beef...because they were "leaner."

Sustitute sour cream. Fat free yogurt. Substitute sour cream that was "lite." Fat free Coffee Mate "cream." Fat free soy milk instead of real milk. My wife and I were buying and consuming this artificially produced CRAP for YEARS.

I graduated from High School weighing 155 lbs.

Only when I hit 220 lbs. at 32 years of age, and had to begin contemplating buying new clothes to accommodate my expanding waistline, did I finally take a good hard look at my diet and come to the conclusion that something wasn't quite right...I finally asked the questions about the conventional wisdom I had unwittingly followed for years:

What if it had all been a big fat lie?

A Woman's Nation Changes Everything

Welcome to our Brave New World Order folks, because it’s certainly a very different world for everyone than it was just one generation ago. James Brown once soulfully wailed “This is a MAAAAN’S WORLD….but it wouldn’t be nuthin’ without a woman to care!”

My how the times have changed.

We now have Maria Shriver exultantly declaring “It’s a Woman’s Nation!”

Continue reading at the Spearhead...

You Have A Choice...

You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.


You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.


Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.

Sheeple Watching - Modern Femininity

The first in a series of random observations and fleeting thoughts that flit through my mind lately whenever I walk about in public and observe the average, brainwashed, indoctrinated and oblivious American Sheeple.

Traditional Femininity Stands Out

The vast majority of females in the public sphere generally present themselves in two different categories: masculinized, empowered and uncaring of presenting an attractive image to males, or hyper-sexualized attention whores emulating sluts that advertise their wares for all to see.

The masculinized women I refer to is not necessarily lesbians or hardcore feminists...but rather women who eschew femininity. In this category, there are two subsets: Women in pants, pantsuits, slacks, or female "power suits" with shoulder pads to simulate masculine shoulders. These women are dressed to be "empowered" and ready to compete with men in the world of white collar business. The ironic thing about this fashion trend is that it was mostly inspired by the feminist doctrine that women should dress like men in order for men to "take them seriously" in the world of business. The contention that women must dress like men to be taken seriously by men is indeed the perfect indication that feminists that pushed this idea do not understand what it is about women that men "take seriously."

The other kind of masculinized fashion sense is the jeans, sweatshirts, sweat pants and T-shirt types with tennis shoes or flip flops on their feet. They deliberately dress to downplay their feminine appearance. This one, I think, appears to be much more prevalent amongst the majority of the female herd members of 21st Century American Sheeple. I find this current cultural zeitgeist to be particularly demoralizing. It's the deliberate social engineering to make the world a much less visually appealing place. Some feminists would gleefully declare that last pronouncement as a blow to Patriarchy.

For once, they would be correct.

Now this thought occurred to me, when I was walking around downtown Honolulu this morning and observed the vast majority of females dressed as one or the other specimens I previously detailed. About 100 yards away, across the street, I observed a women wearing a dress. A regular, non-slutty dress that was tasteful and extremely visually appealing because it projected femininity in a non-promiscuous manner on a purely aesthetic level.

As we walked towards each other, I quickly realized that within 20 yards, it became apparent that she was actually quite unattractive when it came to her facial features...but her feminine appearance definitely went a long way towards softening up her asymmetrical face, acne scarring and crooked nose.

In Hawaii, we guys have a saying for this...it's called "Good from far...but far from good!' Nevertheless, this perception I had of her really drove the point home in my mind - the loss of the conventional standards of femininity in dress has made the world a much less beautiful place to behold. Even ugly women can avoid visual offense to male sensibilities if they project femininity in their dress and mannerisms! Of course there are plenty of women who just plain don't care about appealing to men's visual sense. I consider this a society-wide tragedy of epic proportions.

The flip side of that coin, of course, is the women who play up their sexual assets to inspire and over-excite their appeal to male visual stimuli response. This, of course, is much more common on the night time scene. In fact, many of the women who dress either as the masculinized, androgynous womanoids in either jeans t-shirts and tennis shoes in the daytime, or the "empowered" business attire during the day, will than go home, and get dressed up as exhibitionists for their night time recreation. As a normal male that certainly enjoys female visual stimuli, I still find such revealing attire a sad state of affairs. Women who dress like in this picture do project an aura of promiscuity - that they are open to propositions for casual sex with strangers. Even women who do not intend to do so, and are in fact interested in meeting a man with whom they want to pursue a serious committed relationship, still present themselves as promiscuous sluts when they are out and about for the evening, simply because that appears to be the norm of female attire in this day and age.

But the woman who truly stand out amongst the crowd, are those that defy the modern conventions, embrace tasteful femininity, and resemble a metaphorical flower amongst the weeds. Even here in Hawaii, where we have a somewhat specialized fashion sense influenced by our unique cultural conditions, it's apparent that the vast majority of women generally follow the typical models I previously detailed. The traditional feminine clothing specific to Hawaii is the mu'umu'u (it's NOT pronoucned "moo moo," it's pronounced moo-ooh moo-ooh), and most women in Hawaii (who were born and or raised here) have at least one mu'umu'u hanging in her closet. But where it was once daily wear, it is now usually reserved for only church wear or family type events. Yet it was only a generation ago...hell, in my lifetime, that I recall most females, young and old, here in Hawaii, who wore mu'umu'u on an almost daily basis. I still remember my 3rd grade class when most of the girls wore dresses and mu'umu'u...but by the time we were in high school, the cultural inculcation of androgyny or hyper-sexualization had taken hold and rendered traditional feminine wear nearly obsolete.

I can't tell you how many times I've experienced an almost breath-taking shock when I've been around women I've known and socialized with for a long time...who all adhere to some various sense of masculine dress for the majority of their lives...who on some rare occasion, put on a feminine, non-promiscuous dress and shoes. It's a dramatic transformation...but it's only so shocking because indeed, as of nowadays, it's so uncommon.

It seems as if women en masse in our 21st century BraveNewWorldOrder have all been inculcated to embrace either androdgyny or exhibitionism in their clothing and fashion choices. Both extremes are meant to either nullify or over-excite the human males hard-wired biological response to visual stimuli. In either case, it seems to me that the social engineers who have mutated cultural norms of traditional femininity into either extremes, have deliberately done so to foment the modern gender war we all currently endure.

It's All About Hypergamy

It appears the debates between the relevancy, validity and morality of "Game" continues with both sides somewhat "talking past each other." I'm going to attempt to break it down to it's bare bones to try and foster a better understanding for "game" detractors, and to also explain why Game "works" across the spectrum of male and female relations.

In my view, I believe the biggest problem is largely of semantics. Many social conservatives and religious oriented detractors and critics of "game" have a hard time overcoming their sensibilities and moral sense of right and wrong when it comes to the terminology employed by "Game" proponents to gain a true grasp of the basic principles underlying "Game."

I myself thought at one time that the term "Game" was too loaded with negative connotations and that those of us that understand it should seek to come up with a better term for it...but I've since changed my mind about that, and I'll save that topic for another time.

Nevertheless, the misunderstandings that abound still need to be addressed.

First and foremost is the term hypergamy.

Hypergamy is the primary reproductive biological imperative of female sexuality. Whether you're a godless atheistic darwinist or a devout religious person, recognizing this basic fact need not be a point of contention, but rather an observation of reality. Either women evolved and adapted this hypergamous instinct as an evolutionary strategy...or God designed women that way on purpose. And while both views come from a very different starting point, they both have practical applications when it comes to understanding female sexuality and how it drives female mating strategy.

Because strategy is what it's all about. Mating strategies of men and women are nothing more than the reproductive biological imperative: Women are instinctually attracted to male dominance and men are instinctually attracted to female fertility. Both instinct-driven strategies are either God's or Natures way of ensuring the best means of ensuring the procreation of the next generation into an environment with the best chance of success in continuing the propagation of the species.

No amount of feminist social engineering, indoctrination or propaganda is ever going to overcome this basic instinct...it will only mislead people that believe in it down a path of unhappiness.

No amount of Christian-based moralizing and caricaturizing of male sexuality as depraved and female sexuality as chaste purity and virtue are going to overcome this instinct either, and it too only leads to shared misery of both men and women that adhere to it.

Both the religious and secular foundations of these shibboleths are destined to failure because they fail to understand the role of female hypergamy in the female mating strategy.

It all boils down to the basic fact that women are driven at a subconscious level to mate "up."

When it comes to "long term game" or dealing with it in a relationship, your mate will always subconsciously be judging your hypergamous position with regards to her in your relationship.

Think of it as a scale, with hypergamy on one end and beta-spinelessness on the other.

As long as your scale is tipping towards the hypergamy side, she's happy, she's in love, and your relationship is "working." Even if you occasionally backslide into some Beta behavior, as long as the majority of your relationship dynamic is tilted towards your status as a leader that she can respect and follow, you will not experience serious relationship discord.

But should you tip towards the Beta side far too much, it's a virtual certainty that she's going to "fall out of love" or start becoming dissatisfied with every facet of her life. Believe me, when you are running afoul of her basic hypergamous instinct, it will poison everything else in your relationship.

Marriage counselors and relationship advice folks always try to do scientific polls on the primary causes of divorce and/or relationship failures. They always point towards "money" or "infidelity" or some other easily recognizable "cause."

But what never gets addressed is the underlying female instinct of hypergamy.

A married couple can and will become a stronger, closer and more intimate couple in the face of severe difficulties and hardships in life...as long as the women has not developed Beta Contempt for her man. From a personal perspective, when I was in the death throes of marital beta-tude, minor financial troubles would turn into huge conflicts that would last for days...whereas nowadays we've never been worse off financially due to our current Great Depression 2.0, yet we get along better than ever.

Every instinct in every fiber of her being screams out for mating with a man who is "up" on the hypergamy scale. If your on the beta side, every little thing you do, every problem you both face, every obstacle and stumbling block in life will be magnified and intensified in her emotional reactions and her "feelings" about the Beta contempt she has for a man she no longer feels like she's "married up" with.

Another obstacle that seems to be hard to overcome appears to be an almost post-traumatic stress disorder reaction that manifests itself amongst many of Game's detractors - the minute a "Game" proponent tries to explain or encourage men to try and understand how they could apply the Game principles, critiques and criticisms of thought, ideas or actions in that context, they are reflexively deflected or rejected as nothing more than the equivalent of "shaming language."

Their is a substantial difference between trying to help someone recognize that a certain behavior is an attraction and respect killer to the female's attraction instincts by pointing out to them 'That's Beta,' versus a feminist or a mangina trying to silence debate by insulting someone simply to shame them into silence.

But I digress.

The primary point here is that whether you like it or not, the reason why "Game" has gained so much traction as of late, is because whether you agree with it or not, whether you are turned off by the hedonistic and what many consider the immoral pursuits of some of it's proponents (the PUA's), is because "Game" only WORKS because it is based on recognizing the principles of the female biological imperative, hypergamy.

Whether you are a devout Christian saving yourself for a marriage consecrated by God, or an aspiring player looking to engage in hedonistic indulgences with as many willing women as possible, understanding the principles of the female biological imperative will go a long way to understanding how to succeed at whatever avenue you choose to pursue.

When She Asks You About Your Past...THIS is how you respond.

Anakin Niceguy, the Biblical Manhood blogger who I do respect despite some vehement disagreements with him in the past about the relevancy of "GAME" on relationships -- Christian AND secular -- was giving advice to young men who's potential woman in the beginning stages of a relationship asks him about his past...more specifically about his prior usage of porn.

Men, if and when the subject of your past comes up with a Christian woman, be honest and ask her if she is going to hang it over your head. Because if she is not resolute about letting the past be the past, then you and her are going to be miserable together.

No, you will be miserable together because by taking this line of reasoning with her in the first place, you are ceding the moral authority to her, giving her the upper hand in the relationship dynamic and basically acting like a spineless, Beta wimp that is afraid of her disapproval and future anger.

Always remember that in order for any male/female relationship to work, SHE HAS TO RESPECT YOU to feel attracted to you.

See, Anakin's response was an intellectual and logical response to what is essentially nothing more than the Christian woman's version of a shit test.

And Anakin's response is failing that test miserably.

All of you "so-cons" and MGTOW'ers that agree with Anakin's line of reasoning and think that "GAME" is an immoral, sinful, unnecessary and/or "changing yourself to cater to women," I say to you that have missed the forest for the trees.

"GAME" is just as important to your relationship in a Godly, Christian marriage as it is in a Pick Up Artist's attempts to seek out casual sex from women of loose morals.

This is because GAME, at it's essence, is understanding the base nature of female attraction...hypergamy.

The most god fearing, devout religious woman STILL needs to have a husband that inspires respect and admiration from her to maintain her level of attraction and "love" for him. This is the true essence of what hypergamy is.

Some "SoCons" have taken this to mean that woman will always leave or dump a man when a more dominant male comes along. This is not true, and is a complete misunderstanding of what applying "GAME" to a long term relationship means. The principles of hypergamy simply means that no woman will have feelings of love or attraction for a man she cannot respect. Attraction is NOT a logical, intellectual exercise. It is not a rational judgment that women make. If you act as if you are beneath her, that you are afraid of her emotional state, that you are afraid of her "using something against you in the future" you are acting in a manner that will trigger her hypergamous gut instincts of disgust with a mate she does not consider worthy of following.

This was my response to Anakin's post:

Anakin, this is just another instance of "LTR GAME" and how your difficulty in comprehending the relevancy of 'GAME' and how it also applies to a Christian relationship just as much as it does to PUA looking for meaningless sex.

This should be a BONUS for you in dealing with your woman. This is the opportunity to show her that you are man that has developed himself into a moral agent of character, through trial and error.

First of all, you should NEVER BE AFRAID TO TELL THE WOMAN THE TRUTH.

She is supposed to be your potential love mate, NOT YOUR MOTHER.

Second of all, she will only be able to "hold it against you" in the future if you go about it all wrong.

If she asks you 'Did you ever watch porn' it's not the fact that you admit it, but HOW you do it that will determine her reaction.

Are you going to act guilty and shameful? Are you going to essentially make an admission in a manner that cedes the upper hand of moral authority to her? Because in doing so, you are literally GIVING her the stick to beat you over the head with later.

This is exactly what I meant when I came here a while back and talked about "MANNING UP."

I did not use that term to "shame" men, but to give real helpful advice in dealing with relationships...because I've been there and done that.

You need to understand that your instinctual response to what is essentially nothing more than a "shit test" has set you up for failure:

"Men, if and when the subject of your past comes up with a Christian woman, be honest and ask her if she is going to hang it over your head."

This is completely BETA. This is ceding the power and authority in the relationship even before it truly gets started. There can be NO GOOD OUTCOME FROM DOING THIS.

By asking her if she is going to hang it over your head later, you are virtually guaranteeing her that she will! Because you've just placed yourself in your relation to her as beneath her. This will than create contempt for you, as all women, Christian or heathen harlots, all desire to "mate up."

First and foremost, I agree with you about being honest. You should have NO reason to lie to her...because YOU SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF HER "HOLDING IT AGAINST YOU LATER!"

You do not "ask her how she feels about it." You do not try to sugarcoat or make it sound any better OR worse than it is.

You stick to the facts. You should tell her "yes, I used to watch porn. I realized that it was damaging my spiritual essence, it was corrupting my character, and I quit watching it and I've learned that I'm a much better man for having developed such self-control."

And that's it.

If you handle it right, she will respect you for your no-apology, no wimpering, simpering, begging of her to not 'hold it against you' style. She will respect THAT kind of honesty...because you will DEMAND it with your demeanor.

Now, I realize that you and many other men that come here have already made up your minds to remain celibate. I'm trying to explain to you that your cynical view of women is predicated entirely on not only fear of her shit tests, but that you are already predetermined to fail them because of your fear of her doing what only comes naturally to her.

We are all sinners, no?

So why should you be afraid of telling your woman that you've learned from your past sins, and are a better man for it now?