Saturday, May 28, 2011

The Real Oppression of Women Under Patriarchy





Go to any blog, message board or online magazine's comment section in which the topic regards the past system of Patriarchy, and the inevitable argument always gets put forth: that the past system was oppressive because it trapped innocent women and children in marriages to abusive, tyrannical men.

As bad as the current regime of feminist no-fault divorce-a-palooza and the ubiquity of single mother households becoming the primary makeup of the 21st century home, many women will acknowledge the injustices and drawbacks of the current dystopia, but still argue from the position that it is still an improvement over the dreaded oppression of Patriarchy's past.

Yet, when you take a step back and look at the big picture, what do we see when it comes to women, and their choice of sex partners and sperm donors for their offspring? Time and time again, under the current regime in which women have all the choices in mating and reproductive decisions, with the power of the State backing them up in whatever direction they choose...many, many women choose to remain or frequently return to violent partners over and over again.

It gives lie to the idea that freeing women from the constraints of Patriarchy would allow them to escape abusive spouses.

When one does a google search on "why women return to abusive partners repeatedly" you find out such fun factoids like: "A battered woman leaves her partner an average of seven times before she breaks with him permanently."

Browsing through the first two pages of those search results reveals one thing all the websites dealing with that topic ALL have in common: they all absolve the woman of any responsibility for her choices and offer rationalizations and excuses as to why she has no choice but return to her abuser over and over again. Low self esteem, societal dissaproval, emotionally still 'in love," manipulation by her abuser...blah, blah, blah.

Here's an idea: women who repeatedly return to an abusive man and continue to have sex with them and pop out children with them are sexually attracted to these abusive men because they are violent.

All of these excuses and explanations are rationalizations avoiding the dark truths of female's base sexual nature and attraction towards the dark triad of masculinity traits.

No matter how many times it's claimed, it's logically impossible to believe this notion that the majority of husbands and fathers in the bad old days were unjust tyrants abusing their wives and families with reckless abandon, deliberately hurting their spouses just because they could. If that were the case, and the vast majority of married men were unjust abusers, the feminist movement would have never ever gained society- wide traction. MEN had to vote to approve FEMALE suffrage. If all men under dastardly Patriarchy were hell bent on oppressing all of women-kind, suffrage, no-fault divorce and all the other aspects of today's feminist zeitgeist would have never come to pass.

Feminist gains were achieved with male compliance, apathy and acquiescence.

That's because while we may have a lot more "beta" males in society today due to our cultural programming that psychologically emasculates the majority of males than would naturally occur under a strictly traditional Patriarchal society, even back than, the majority of males were still "beta." They got married and their wives still ruled the roost in all but name. As I wrote over at Alte's:

For instance, my own grandparents….both grew up during the depression and had already had 4 children by the time the sexual revolution rolled around in the 60′s. There was a tyrant in the house..and it was certainly not my grandfather. My grandmother wore the pants. What she said, goes. Patriarchal oppression….HAH. My grandmother would’ve laughed at the idea that she was oppressed just because she was a SAHM and took my Grandfather’s last name.


The difference between back then and now, was divorce laws that favored men and the society-wide stigma against divorce meant men could beta-ize and their wives couldn't just up and leave them.

It has always been so, that most males in any human society will be mostly beta. Alpha's are always the select few, amongst the mass of average, beta males.

No, I do believe I've figured out the real meaning of oppression under Patriarchy.


The biggest oppression the majority of women experienced in the past was not abusive, asshole, Alpha thugs...it was being trapped in marriage to a contemptible Beta she had no sexual attraction towards. Now THAT that was some SERIOUS oppression from the female point of view.

Now that Patriarchy has been deconstructed and marginalized by the feminist movement, there is no longer any reason why a woman who got married and had children, and grew to despise her beta-ized husband, to have to stick with "'til death do us part."

Remember Roissy's Maxim #51? "For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta."

That's under today's Matriarchal zeitgeist.

Now women can marry a beta, pop out some kids, eat, pray and than find an alpha to love for 5 minutes while she divorces the beta and locks him into years of indentured servitude via child support and alimony.

But under the bad old days of Patriarchy, if a woman settled for a beta, it really was "'til death do us part."

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Corporate Whores & Mass Media Terrorism




It's that time again....

...time for another round of terrorizing we the sheeple via mass media propaganda about a common food item most of us consume.

Yes, it's time for another round of mass media "RED MEAT CANCER SCARE!"

In my last post, commenter Dan Dascalescu left the following:

You do realize that you are pitting one particular case against mountains of large-scale clinical trials (for instance this study on daily red meat consumption which shows that cancer mortality in men in the highest quintile of consumption is increased 22%, and the cardiovascular disease mortality in women consuming the highest quintile of processed meat is increased 38%.)

You have quite a burden of proof upon your shoulders.

Not quite, Dan. Funny that I had this post on the back burner for a couple of days...but your comment got me inspired to finish it up.

Before I even clicked on your link, I already knew where this was going...but I clicked anyways.

The study conclusion reads "Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality", but please see the "Adjusted model" results in the results tables of the study. For example, cancer mortality in men in the highest quintile of consumption is increased 22%, and the cardiovascular disease mortality in women consuming the highest quintile of processed meat is increased 38%.

Were have we seen this kind of thing before?

So, knowing what to expect, I click on Dan's link to the PubMed Abstract:

Abstract
BACKGROUND:

High intakes of red or processed meat may increase the risk of mortality. Our objective was to determine the relations of red, white, and processed meat intakes to risk for total and cause-specific mortality.
METHODS:

The study population included the National Institutes of Health-AARP (formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons) Diet and Health Study cohort of half a million people aged 50 to 71 years at baseline. Meat intake was estimated from a food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline.


Same story, different channel.

Dan, if you're reading this, understand that correlation does not equal causation. But the journalists who right these "scare" stories can't seem to grasp this. They just read the PubMed abstract, write their story for corporate mass media dissemination about the dangers of red meat consumption, and BOOM! Once again, "everyone knows red meat is bad for you!"

Now, as I indicated earlier, I began writing this post several days ago...because I also saw a similar article in the same vein: Cut red meat intake and don't eat ham, say cancer researchers: World Cancer Research Fund advises people to limit consumption of beef, pork and lamb and avoid processed meat

I didn't even bother trying to find the source article. I already know it's going to lead to the exact same thing - an epidemiological study based on food questionnaire results. It always does whenever you look into these "RED MEAT" mass media terrorism campaigns.

This time, I tried a different tact. I wanted to see just who was funding this organization to produce these kinds of studies to scare us all into forgoing meat in our diets. A cursory Google search of "WCRF Corporate Sponsors" didn't reveal any WCRF lists of sponsors, but it did reveal the American affiliate of the WCRF, the AICR or American Institute of Cancer Research. There list was rather illuminating.

The Dole Nutrition Institute "Delivering Nutrition Naturally! Dole just made it easier to learn how to eat the right foods and live a better, healthy life!"
Eat Right! Fruits! Vegetables! Salads! Juice!

Nah, there's no motive to promote less red meat consumption and more fruits and vegetable consumption from a fruit and vegetable corporation like Dole...right?

Take a look at another corporate sponsors page, Giant Food LLC, and their healthy ideas page. The graphic displaying processed food products under their "healthy ideas" logo are the typical fare of so-called 'healthy' mass produced food, like whole grain pasta, orange juice and egg beaters "low cholesterol" egg substitute.

Nah, this corporation wouldn't have anything to gain by people making their grocery shopping decisions with the fear of red meat in their minds...

Another sponsor is Standard Process Whole Foods Supplements. From their "importance of whole foods supplements" page, we get the following:

Given proper nutrition, the human body has an amazing ability to heal itself. If properly fed and given the right nutrients, the human body is designed to repair itself. To do so, we need to eat a healthier diet, exercise, and take high-quality supplements made from whole foods. Whole food supplements supply our bodies with nutrients we are not getting from our diet, all the vitamins, minerals, trace minerals, and phytonutrients that foods possess in a way that nature intended, in a whole food form.

Think they wouldn't sponsor red meat demonization studies so people buy their supplements rather then eat the meat that contains many of the vitamins, minerals, trace minerals and nutrients?

Some other sponsors include The California Walnut Commission (eat nuts for protein instead of red meat!), The National Onion Association (eat more vegetables instead of red meat!), The National Fisheries Institute (eat white meat instead, like FISH!), and of course, without any surprises, we have the United Soybean Board.

You think the number one Big Agriculture crop used in making "Vegetable Oil" and "Vegetable Protein" wouldn't have an axe to grind against red meat? Nah.

I'm convinced that the entire demonization of red meat by the corporate mass media is a deliberately disseminated misinformation campaign to get consumers to buy the processed food products of Big Agriculture instead of fresh meat.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Unconventional Health Care



I've often read various comments from people on teh interwebz regarding healthcare advice, that one should take what their Doctor's tell them, and do the exact opposite to ensure good health. When it comes to diet and lifestyle advice...it may not be too far from the truth.

But when it comes to emergency medical situations, this can be a life threatening attitude. The modern allopathic health care system is very good at dealing with traumatic wounds and critical medical conditions, as well as providing corrective surgical procedures that can improve ones life dramatically.

To some, there is nothing of merit in the current health care system, it is all a fraudulent industry designed to profit off of sickness and death. There is most certainly aspects of the industry that are like that...after all, if widespread knowledge of nutrition and health were widely practiced, health care insurance claims and pharmaceutical prescriptions would not be industries that are nearly as lucrative as they are today.

In other words, emergency medicine is great...preventative health care has been hopelessly corrupted to ensure a steady supply of customers in the future.

What other conclusion can you draw, when one can actually look at the literature and TV Programming found in hospitals and Doctor's offices across the country, advising nutrition and behavior that is detrimental to human health over the long term?

To summarize:

  • Eat a diet rich in whole grains, vegetables and fruits.
  • Only eat lean, white meats, avoid red meat as much as possible.
  • Always choose the low fat or non-fat foods when grocery shopping.
  • Use vegetable oils instead of animal fats whenever you cook.
  • Avoid eating salt.
  • Remember that the key to weight loss is to eat less/exercise more.
  • Count your calories.
  • Monitor your cholesterol, if it's too high, you will need medication to control it.
  • Avoid going out in the sun during the hottest part of the day...from 10:00am to 3:00pm.
  • If you must be outdoors during that time, make sure you use sunblock.

These things are all articles of faith promoted by Western Allopathic Medicine. Through self experimentation, I think I can safely conclude that these are all lies, and following them religiously will inevitably lead to sickness and ill health.

Yes, we are all going to die someday.

But I'd rather maximize my short time in this life with the best health and vitality possible until I head off to my dirt nap. Widespread, long lasting, good health is simply not profitable for the health care industry so they do not have an interest in promoting it. Remember that the next time you are receiving diet and lifestyle advice, and take it with a grain of salt.

Conventional medicine can help you...and it can hurt you. Only you can decide which advice and treatment options are more likely to do one or the other.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Are you a Conspiracy Realist, Theorist or Skeptic?


Inspired by boredom, bad weather keeping me indoors, and the Are You A Sheeple? quiz, I created:

The Conspiracy Quiz

Friday, May 20, 2011

How Not To I.D. Genetically Modified Food at the Supermarket



UPDATE - Thanks to commenters Scott and jay for providing links pointing out that this PLU number can be used to identify GMO was an idea that was created to implement by grocers so they could differentiate their own produce, but because GMO labeling is voluntary, nobody uses it because the popular backlash against GMO is so strong, they know any PLU label that began with 8 would reduce sales.

Ah well, looks like I'll have to stick to farmer's markets for produce if I want to be 100% certain to avoid GMO. I'm leaving it posted so other people recognize it as misinformation as well.


For those of you who care about whether or not you're eating GMO Frankenfoods, this article I came across via Strike-the-Root gives us the following info:

Not many consumers realize that the FDA does not require genetically modified food to be labeled. That’s because the FDA has decided that you, dear consumer, don’t care if the tomato you’re eating has been cross bred with frog genes to render the tomato more resistant to cold weather. Some consumers may not be concerned with eating Frankenfood, but for those who are, here’s how to determine if the fruits and vegetables you’re buying are (GM) genetically modified.

Hat tip to Marion Owen for her valuable information. Here’s how it works:

How To I.D. Genetically Modified Food at the Supermarket =

For conventionally grown fruit, (grown with chemicals inputs), the PLU code on the sticker consists of four numbers. Organically grown fruit has a five-numeral PLU prefaced by the number 9. Genetically engineered (GM) fruit has a five-numeral PLU prefaced by the number 8.

For example:

A conventionally grown banana would be: 4011

An organic banana would be: 94011

A genetically engineered (GE or GMO) banana would be: 84011

These tips are specially important now that over 80% of all processed foods in the US are genetically modified. Many countries in the European Union have been banning GM products and produce (including Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg). We say “Eat healthy, buy or grow organic”.

I always just assumed that by going paleo, and avoiding processed foods as much as possible would mean one would also avoid GMO foods. I did not realize that GMO produce has already infiltrated the marketplace. I thought GMO was largely confined to corn, wheat and soy crops to allow them to thrive under repeated pesticide spraying.

I will definitely be looking at the PLU's the next time I'm in a grocery store shopping for produce.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Re-thinking Things


One of my favorite Paleo bloggers, Melissa McEwen, wrote a post almost a month ago that is still getting comments over at her place, Hunt, Gather, Love.

That post is titled: We are going to have to rethink things, won't we?

When I was a freelancer and I worked from home it wasn't so obvious to me why Americans are so unhealthy. Now it's totally obvious. Cooking and the housekeeping the accompanies it takes time and when every adult member of the household works 40 hours a week, that becomes very difficult. It's even worse because most people don't particularly enjoy their jobs and would like to come home and do something they enjoy. Wouldn't it be great if everyone loved cooking? But it just doesn't work that way.

No, it certainly does not. Used to be we lived in a world of clearly defined gender roles, men worked, women cooked. That state of affairs simply would not do!

I don't have children and I struggle to cook every day. What's the point of all the productivity gains we've made if we all have to work the same amount of hours? When I first started working I once tallied up the percentage of my life that would be spent at work or commuting at the current rate and it was too depressing a calculation to repeat.

One of the first realizations you have to come to if you decide to eat better to lose weight and achieve better health, is that you are going to have to re-orient your daily routine to fit in cooking as an integral part of your lifestyle. There is no two ways around it.

Housekeeping is very difficult when there is no one keeping house, when it's an afterthought in an exhausting day. Me? I'd love to work fewer hours and while I'd have to cut back on some things, I feel my quality of life would be higher. But there aren't many jobs available for 15 or even 30 hours a week and almost none provide any kind of benefits.

One of the most devious schemes ever implemented by our corporatist state was the idea that an employer should become the primary provider of "benefits." These benefits become a form of self-imposed serfdom. Kinda hard to tell your company that they want you to do something for which you object to...because you can't afford to get fired, or to quit, or you'll lose your health coverage. So you suck it up and deal with it. Back to work, you human resource!

Perhaps we should just give up and acknowledge that the price of the American workforce is that few people have time to cook healthy meals. Then we need to focus on having better restaurants. Right now if you are eating out a lot, you are probably getting tons of vegetable oil. Even Thomas Keller, Michelin-Starred Chef, uses canola oil at his enourmously expensive restaurants.

I'm certainly not aiming to bust on Melissa, as I respect her blogging and her obvious intellect greatly, but she misses the forest for the trees here...

This is the price of socially engineering the gender "equality" of the American workforce. The cooking of the stay at home Mom used to be the primary source of nutrition for her entire family. Now she's a tax paying human resource along with her babies' Daddy working to pay off the debt for affording the lifestyle appearances of the mythical middle class, American dream. The fast food restaurants, public school cafeterias and convenience food manufacturers are now feeding the masses.

In short, the functions of the stay at home mother have all been outsourced to the giant corporations.

The idea that career is a form of fulfillment is a fantasy for all but a lucky few.

Oh yes, and that fantasy was the precise dream sold to the masses to get the American female out of the kitchen and out into the workforce. That way they can maintain the lifestyle of buying things we don't need, with money we don't have.

In reality, this idea is just a way to make people feel better about having to give their lives away for trivial things. By the time they retire, their health is so battered that they spend the remaining years shoveling pills into their mouths in a nursing home.

To paraphrase the late George Carlin: It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.

It's time to put work back in its place- it's a way to make a living for most of us and a lot of us would be willing to trade off some income for more time. More time to acquire healthy food, cook it, keep house, spend time with our own children, enjoy life...

To think...this was the basic reality for most women in those horrible, oppressive days of the 1950's that have been so reviled and mocked by today's modern-minded progressive.

While we may want to re-think things, you may come to the realization that it's all been thought out for us already.

Transcription of an excerpt from Aaron Russo’s last interview before his death in 2007:Reflections And Warnings: An Interview With Aaron Russo, Entire Film


Well one of the things he told me was that.. he was at the house one night and we started talking and he was laughing and he said,

“Aaron what do you think Women’s Liberation was all about?”

And I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point and I said,

“I think it’s about women having the right to work to get equal pay with men just like they won the right to vote.”

He started to laugh and he said,

“Your an idiot.”

And I said,

“Why am I an idiot?”

And he said,

“Let me tell you what that was about. We the Rockefellers funded that.”

“We funded Women’s Lib and we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and television (through) the Rockefeller Foundation…”

And he says,

“You wanna know why?

There were two primary reasons.

And one reason was we couldn’t tax half the population before Women’s Lib and the second reason was now we get the kids in school at an early age.. we can indoctrinate kids on how to think and with it break up their family. The kids start looking at the state as the family.. As the schools as the officials as their family.. not the parents teaching them. And so those were the two primary reasons for Women’s Lib.”

Monday, May 16, 2011

Quiz: Are You A Sheeple?




Take the Sheeple Quiz!


#1) The purpose of the mainstream media is to:
A) Keep you informed.
B) Feed you misinformation while keeping you distracted from the real issues our world is facing.


#2) Social Security is:

A) A financial safety net that makes sure people have a retirement income.
B) A government-run Ponzi scheme that requires more and more people to keep paying in just to stay afloat and will ultimately collapse into total bankruptcy.


#3) The fluoride dripped into municipal water supplies is:


A) A naturally-occurring mineral.
B) An industrial chemical waste byproduct.


#4) When you donate money to find the cure for cancer, that money goes:

A) To fund research programs that assess actual cancer cures for the purpose of freely sharing them with the public.
B) To fund mammogram campaigns that actually irradiate women's breasts, causing the very cancers that earn huge profits for the cancer treatment industry.


#5) The national debt is:


A) Under control and will be paid off in a few years.
B) Out of control and will spiral into a runaway debt collapse.


#6) GMOs will:

A) Feed the world and prevent starvation.
B) Threaten the future of life on our planet through genetic contamination and widespread crop failures.



#7) The FDA protects:

A) The people from dangerous medicines.
B) The financial interests of the drug companies.



#8) The EPA's real agenda is to:

A) Protect the environment.
B) Protect the financial interests of the chemical companies whose toxic products destroy the environment.



#9) The Federal Reserve functions to:

A) Stabilize the economy and keep America strong.
B) Loot the economy and control America's economy for the interests of the few.



#10) The purpose of TSA checkpoints at airports is to:

A) Keep air passengers safe and secure.
B) Indoctrinate Americans into surrendering to police state invasions of their privacy.


#11) The practical function of the U.S. Supreme Court is to:

A) Protect the constitutional rights of the citizens.
B) Legitimize federal tyranny over the People by ignoring the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.


#12) Vaccines are based on:

A) Gold standard science that conclusively proves their safety and effectiveness.
B) Quackery and fraud combined with a persistent medical mythology that utterly lacks a factual basis.



#13) Herbs and superfoods:

A) Are medically useless and cannot treat, prevent or cure any disease.
B) Contain powerful plant-based medicines that can help reverse and prevent disease.


#14) In Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, America:

A) Led a humanitarian effort to save innocent people from tyranny.
B) Waged an illegal imperialist war to occupy foreign nations and control their oil.



#15) The U.S. Bill of Rights

A) Grants you rights and freedoms.
B) Merely acknowledges the rights and freedoms you already possess.



Score your Sheeple Quiz

To score your Sheeple Quiz, simply count the number of times you answered "A" to the questions above.

If you answered "A" 10 times or more...

You are a total news-watching, gullible fairytale swallowing Sheeple! Be sure to keep taking those medications and watching more network news. Don't bother thinking for yourself because you seem to be incapable of accomplishing that...just stick to your bleating.

If you answered "A" fewer than 10 times...

You are sadly Sheeple-minded but there is hope for your rescue. Learn more about the world around you and train yourself to think critically so you can depart from the herd mentality.

If you answered "A" fewer than 5 times...

You are an unusually intelligent free-minded thinker who questions the world around you and doesn't buy into the usual propaganda. You still got suckered on a few items, so there's more yet to learn. But you're on the right track!

If you answered "A" exactly zero times...

You are the complete opposite of a Sheeple. You're independent minded, well informed and probably a regular reader of Hawaiian libertarian. Stay on track and question events in the world around you. Eat more superfoods to maintain your healthy immune system and cognitive function. Avoid the toxic chemicals in foods, medicines and lawn care products. Keep reading the alternative press and voice your intelligent views to others willing to listen. (But don't waste your time on those who aren't.)



Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Who is Keoni Galt?



I started using the nom de plume, Keoni Galt, approximately two and a half years ago. If you haven't figured it out yet, Keoni, is the Hawaiian translation for the Christian name John.

My development of a libertarian philosophy had nothing to do directly with Ayn Rand. My influences have primarily been the writers and bloggers I've been reading for close to a decade now, regarding Austrian economics and it's credo of non-coercive cooperation in a true free market economy. I was introduced to the theory by Vox Day, who's arguments at his blog eventually converted me from a right wing neo-con warmonger to the anti-statist anarchist I am today. Links at his blog lead me to LewRockwell.com, and the Mises Institute. Later, I stumbled across a hardcore anti-Statist, anarchist website, Strike-the-Root, that has put the icing on my ideological cake.

Confession time: I've never read Atlas Shrugged. I once started it when I was younger, and I just couldn't keep up the interest in it. At that point in my life, It was too boring for me to even get to the 3rd chapter. I've always intended to get around to reading it, but I've yet to pick up my paperback, dust it off, and begin the hard slogging. At this point in my life, I think I wouldn't find it quite as boring as when I attempted it when I was an idealistic 20 year old that still believed in the "American Dream."

While having failed to get past the 2nd chapter, I've read plenty of reviews, critiques, and opinions on Rand's seminal work. Some people have made a lot of assumptions about me since my blog is entitled "Hawaiian libertarian" and I've begun using "Keoni Galt" as my pen name. They automatically assumed I was a so-called "Randian Objectivist."

I'm not an "objectivist" nor am I a "Randian." Or maybe I am, and I just don't know it.

But I did read an excerpt of Atlas Shrugged awhile back: John Galt's Speech, "Who is John Galt?" and I agree wholeheartedly with the core message of Mr. Galt.

The return of the great depression has been very humbling, but educational for myself. I got introduced to the realities of true independence and self-reliance. I had come to a crossroads thanks to a dramatic reduction in income: practice what I preach, or sell out and get on the dole and accept dependence of the government's entitlement programs to feed my family.

Plenty of people tried to talk us into signing up for welfare and WIC when our baby was born and they know that my income has fallen to the point at which we are eligible for these entitlement programs.

Fuck that.

I refuse.

People say that all those years of financial success and paying taxes should entitle me to "take some back." That's what "the safety net is for," people say.

I say that had I a choice, I would not have paid those taxes in the first place...but because I do have a choice, I will not alter my principles out of convenience.

I've also embraced the "Gone Galt" concept as much as possible.

I've turned down offers of employment for new jobs for which I could earn more money (and pay more taxes).

I put one of my vehicles in storage to avoid paying our State's ever increasing vehicle taxes.

I shop at farmer's markets where I'm not paying sales tax as much as possible.

I've changed my witholdings to have as little income taxes withdrawn from my paycheck as possible.

In short, I look for as many ways to starve the beast as much as possible, without crossing the line to get the authorities to come after me.

Fuck this system and it's inherent corruption. I will support it as little as I possibly can, even if the economy recovers and my business picks up again. To paraphrase Rand's protagonist:

I'm on strike against the State's creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties.

I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.

--

Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?

Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.

Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than its neighbors.

--

To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.

If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.

The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

If these excerpts from Mr. Galt's speech are the ethos of a Randian Objectivist, than I accept that label without reservation.

Monday, May 9, 2011

The Paleo Diet is Not a Panacea


I had no idea my last post would get so much attention. I was caught off guard by a linkage from Mark Sisson on Friday and it brought a batch of folks here who have never seen my little outpost on teh interwebz before. As anyone who's been a regular reader here would expect, the reactions have been mixed.

Of course I'm not surprised at the folks who've come here and checked out the archives and got upset with my "manosphere" topics. Some commenters at MDA called me a jerk, a misogynist, controlling and domineering and (my personal favorite) "SCARY."

Muahahahahaha! Wait til they get a load of Roissy or Ferdinand...

All that aside, I'd like to clarify a few things...based on some of the criticisms folks made both here and over at MDAs.

My last post was not intended to be a "My kid is better than yours" screed to stroke my own ego.

At all.

I've merely noticed what I see as quite common differences between most babies I know of who are fed formula from birth, and are fed commercially bought baby food once they start eating solids. I've changed plenty of diapers in my lifetime, long before I had my child's diapers to change.

I've also seen the difference in my own bowel function after I gave up the SAD diet and adopted paleo diet principles. It is not "luck" or "genetics" that my child has never had real problems with digestion or diaper rash. As I wrote, when we went traveling, we fed baby the highest quality, organic vegetable and meat baby food you can buy from the store. 4 days of such fare changed babies diaper results dramatically.

Which brings me to a recent comment made today over at MDA's by a Daniel Merk:

The paleo baby article makes me chuckle. Our son is now 1 year old. He’s never had grains, legumes or dairy. He has horrible GERD/Reflux and on meds. He was colicky and still never sleeps through the night. His poop is solid, but not perfect. He loves meat more than fruit and loves all veggies. He begins almond/coconut milk because our PED asked us to give him milk and we are against it so she ok’d coconut milk as long as he was not allergic.

Look folks, this is not black or white. It's not "PALEO WILL GUARANTEE YOUR BABY WILL BE PERFECTLY HEALTHY." Some people can eat the healthiest diet possible, and still experience health problems. That's life.

As I wrote earlier, my baby did get sick with a rather nasty head cold. During that episode last month, baby was congested and constantly miserable. It took almost 2 weeks for baby to get well. During those 2 weeks, we did experience what it's like for newborn parents who are awoken by a crying baby multiple times throughout the night. Not fun.

But once baby recovered, it was back to full nights of sleep and awakening cheerfully most mornings.

I never claimed that this idea that Paleo dieting will make people have "perfect babies" that are the envy of all SAD parents. There are so many factors that can contribute to how a baby develops, diet is just one variable.

But it is, IN MY OWN OPINION, a very significant variable in the overall equation.

I have empathy for parents with colicky babies. I've read up on colic and I understand that Doctor's still don't know precisely how and why some babies experience it and some don't. I personally believe that colic can be caused by a variety of different factors, with diet being one factor. But I still believe, as with adults, that it is an important one. If avoiding SAD staples lessens the chances of your baby developing colic, why would you be critical of someone advocating it?

Everyone knows of the anecdote of the person who lived to 100 years of age chain smoking cigarettes and chugging hard liquor until they died peacefully in their sleep. Doesn't mean you should take up chain smoking and hardcore alcoholism in an attempt to replicate that feat.

But some of the commenters here and at MDA act like the diet and other things I've done with my child have no significance...nor relevance. It's just luck. As if we could have adopted a vegan diet at conception, fed the kid soy formula from birth, and still have the exact same baby I described.

That is just ludicrous.

The nutrient dense foods advocated by the Paleo diet can have profound effects on adults who stop eating the USDA Food Pyramid designed SAD...what makes you think similar effects wouldn't be experienced by infant nutrition as well?

I've seen plenty of newborns in my own extended family, in which babies didn't support their own heads with their necks until they were well over 1 month old. I've seen babies who's eyes didn't even fully open until 2 weeks. And I've certainly changed my fair share of diapers from babies on formula/commercial baby food. In fact, in my own experience, these are the norm amongst most people's infants.

Personally, I'd rather that all of the experiences I related in my last post were common, unexceptional occurrences in today's world. It's a travesty that so many kids are raised on formula and other garbage...or that expectant mothers are encouraged to eat "heart healthy whole grains" and to limit their saturated fat consumption.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Paleo Baby





I strive to try and maintain some semblance of online anonymity with this blog. Because of this, I've deleted many an intended post here and elsewhere as I was composing it, because it gives away too much personal info. I've had several life altering events I've blogged about in the past year, but one thing I haven't touched on yet has been the birth of my first child. In order to write this post while attempting to keep up my pretenses of anonymity, I will refer to my child as "Paleo Baby" for the rest of this piece and avoid gendered references to the child.

Now, I've spent a good deal of time blogging about dietary and nutrition issues, and have related many of my own personal experiences I've undergone since I began eating foods contrary to the conventional wisdom of mainstream society. But I've done more than put my money were my mouth is...I've put the dietary principles I blog about into practice with raising my child. In short, my baby is being raised loosely following the Paleo diet guidelines. Another way to put it, is that I've not only put my money where my mouth is, I've put my progeny where my advocacy blogging has been.

It has been an uphill battle with most people. Paleo Baby's doctor, my wife, my in-laws, my own parents...all have argued, disagreed with me or have expressed incredulous amazement when they see me do things that are against conventional wisdom with regards to raising and caring for paleo baby.

I don't give a damn. As far as I'm concerned, the results speak for themselves.

It started at conception. That is when I essentially took over the grocery shopping (my wife loves pasta and bread, I had to take over the shopping to get that stuff out of the house) and cooking at least 50% of the meals in my household. I made sure to feed my pregnant wife ample supplies of proteins and fats, while eliminating all sugars, processed snack foods, and Omega-6-rich vegetable oils. I highly restricted all grains, bread, pasta and other such high-carb fare...including "heart healthy whole grains."

I fed my wife plenty of bacon, eggs (from our own pastured chickens) fried in a mix of bacon grease and butter (the highest quality butter from grass fed cows - either Anchor brand from New Zealand or Kerry Gold brand from Ireland), and a wide assortment of vegetables also sauteed in butter/bacon grease. This was breakfast every single day for the past two years.

Dinners were largely consisted of vegetables and meat...especially red meats - buffalo, grass fed beef, free range chicken and pork, as well as fresh caught fish. All vegetables were liberally buttered and salted with fresh ground sea salt. We would also regularly eat tubers like sweet potato and yams deep fried in extra-virgin coconut oil. In short, if you believe in the lipid hypothesis, my pregnant wife should have gained 300 lbs. and died of a heart attack shortly after birth.

Except she actually lost weight in all the right places. Her pregnancy was all belly, while she burned off excess fat in her arms, legs, upper body, neck and face. See, prior to pregnancy, she would regularly eat junk food. While she was basically following my paleo diet at home, she regularly ate pasta, bread, fast food, restaurant foods and drank soda and ate snacks and such while at work and out with her friends. Once she got pregnant, she got serious and cut all of that out "for the baby." When she was 9 months pregnant, you could not tell she was carrying if you saw only her back view.

Another thing that nearly everyone couldn't believe we did, was eschew any prenatal vitamin supplements. The only supplement my wife took during her entire pregnancy was a high quality fish oil pill to get EPA/DHA.

When Paleo Baby was born, there were a number of things that confirm to me that we did the right thing.

Paleo Baby was born with eyes wide open. I have no doubts Paleo Baby could see within minutes of birth. When I held baby for the first time, I was greeted to two wide eyes that tracked my head and hand movement from the get go. I've never seen a newborn like that before. This seems to jibe with this article: Vegetarian Mothers Depriving Young Children & Unborn Babies of Essential Vitamins

What Parents Should Know About DHA

In order to fully understand the importance of choosing the right omega-3 fatty acid supplement, it is necessary to understand how crucial a role these nutrients work to maintain health. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is one of the most important fatty acids in the body. It makes up 40% of the fatty acids found in the brain and 60% of the fatty acids found in the retina, which is why it is so crucial for thought processes and maintaining healthy vision, and why parents should ensure that the body has enough of it. DHA is also one of the building blocks of neural cells, supporting mental faculties on a cellular level. In infants and fetuses, the addition of DHA to formula has been shown to improve cognitive function and improve macular development. The benefits of DHA do not only extend to infants and fetuses. In pregnant women, DHA has been linked to improved eyesight and attention.

Paleo baby had plenty of DHA in vitro.

Paleo Baby head was being fully supported by the neck since 10 days of age. At 10 days, I could hold baby upright without having to support the neck. Sounds unbelievable?

Paleo Baby is also the most cheerful, easy going baby I've ever encountered. Paleo Baby regularly sleeps the entire night through, and only occasionally wakes up in the middle of the night to breastfeed. In those cases, baby than falls back asleep and stays that way the rest of the night. It's been like this from newborn to the present day.

Paleo Baby is the very anti-thesis of a colicky baby. 80% of the time baby awakens without crying. Paleo baby will coo, giggle or laugh until my wife or I awakes to feed or change the diaper.

Thinks this sounds preposterous? Check out this article: Why a steak for pregnant mothers could stop babies crying

It's not just the steak. It's the FAT. All that glorious, "artery-clogging" and "fattening" saturated FAT.

Note that while the article suggests that expectant mothers should eat steak, it still has to end with a quote from a so called "nutritionist" (who turns out to be a VEGAN!):

But nutritionist Yvonne Bishop-Weston warned: 'Meat comes with saturated fats which can hinder the body's use of essential fats needed for the baby's brain and nervous system development.'

I suggest all nutritionists and dietary experts who peddle such garbage should all be rounded up and shipped off to FEMA camps where they can be fed all the high-carb low-fat vegan crap they try to guilt trip the rest of us into eating. If it's so good for us all, they should thrive, no? They can eat like birds, I'll stick the diet of an omnivorous predator species, thank you very much.

But I digress.

The following is a list of food and practices I do in raising Paleo Baby, for which I get raised eyebrows and regular objections to, by doctors, relatives and friends alike when they here or see me doing as such:

- No formula. Ever. Breast milk 100% for the first 4 months, and still only breast milk in addition to solid foods.

- First solid food at 4 months? Pureed buffalo, salted and sauteed in butter. I looked at the sheet of paper Paleo Baby's pediatrician gave us that recommended a schedule for introducing solid foods. I ignored it. The supposed first food was supposed to be pureed grains like rice, corn along with other vegetables. It recommended only introducing meat when baby reaches 9 months. I laughed out loud at that one.

- We make 95% of all the baby food paleo baby eats from fresh ingredients. Grass fed beef, free range chicken, wild caught fish, free range pork. All cooked and salted with fresh ground Hawaiian sea salt, and pureed with a wide variety of vegetables and butter. Broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, sweet potato, asparagus, spinach, zucchini, green beans, peas. The only fruit is an occasional little bit of banana or pear, and only given after eating full portions of the main food first. We always feed paleo baby until baby is full and doesn't want anymore.

- Paleo baby also eats 100% organic, whole milk (full fat) yogurt, and full fat sour cream, as well as a wide variety of, high quality cheeses like brie, cheddar, mozzarella, muenster, feta and organic cream cheese.

- I regularly give paleo baby hunks of meat, bacon, fish, and seafood. Pieces that are too big to swallow, but perfect to gnaw on to get the flavor and the FAT.

- Paleo baby has never eaten any sugar, high fructose corn syrup or any kind of soy or wheat derived food product. No cookies, crackers, cereal, "num nums" etc.

- Paleo baby also sunbathes every day at high noon if the weather is conducive. No sunscreen. We carefully monitor baby as we sunbathe. We've been doing this regularly for months now, and Paleo Baby has a nice tan, and has never been sunburned. This is the big one that gets so many friends and relatives upset with me. When we go to the beach, I'll take Paleo Baby into the water and some relative or friend will ask me if I'm going to put any sunscreen on baby. When I politely decline, they look at me like I'm some kind of monster purposely going out to broil my child into a burnt crisp.

- Paleo Baby has only had one head cold to date. Paleo Baby is almost 1 years old, and has been exposed to a variety of sick people, and has only gotten sick once. No ear infections, diarrhea or other common childhood ailments.

- Paleo baby only had diaper rash once (because we were out and about, and didn't change the diaper for over 4 hours or so). We have tubes and tubes of diaper rash paste given to us as baby shower presents, sitting unused and unopened.

- Paleo Baby's diapers are almost too easy to change. The crap is solid, not that smelly, and easily cleaned up with a single baby wipe. It is very rare that more than one wipe is required to adequately clean up after changing a diaper. I know this is related to Paleo Baby's diet...because we recently went on a trip and bought a bunch of "organic" jarred baby food for the convenience of not having to bring along our baby food maker. Baby did not like it (probably because none had good FAT in it, like all the butter Paleo Baby is used to), and ate with half the gusto as usual. Paleo Baby had soft, runny, stinky diapers that required multiple wipes to clean up. Within a day of returning home and resuming the fresh homemade paleo foods, crap diapers went back to solid and less smelly and easily cleaned as before.

On the most recent check up with Paleo Baby's Pediatrician, she commented that we were the most well-rested, relaxed and least distressed parents of an infant she's ever seen. We are not sleep deprived, and we do not have frayed nerves because baby cries so infrequently, and is easily pacified.

The Pediatrician also informed us that Paleo Baby is in the 94% percentile of all babies in the country with regards to height...and 40% percentile in weight. In other words, Paleo Baby is taller than most, and is at what she described of as the perfect weight. She essentially told us that most babies are fat all over, Paleo Baby only has fat thighs and cheeks. Paleo Baby actually looks somewhat muscular (for an infant). I believe that's because most babies are fed soy formula and lots of sweets and grains. Not many babies have a diet for which the majority of the calories comes from fats and proteins like Paleo Baby.

Paleo Baby also has not manifest any sort of allergies as of yet...which also jibes with the idea that gut bacteria is the primary component of the immune system, and babies not fed formula or high carbohydrate grain-based foods will have a much better immune system than babies on the standard American diet (SAD starts at birth...). Paleo Baby's gut bacteria is obviously thriving and doing it's job as it was intended.

I note that the average parent of a newborn nowadays is continually handing off grain/sugar based cereals and snacks to their kids, and the kids will actually start crying until they get their fix every hour or so. The only grains Paleo Baby ever gets is some white jasmine rice blended in with some form of animal protein, and that is only during meal time. Paleo baby eats 3 square meals and nurses 2-3 a day.

Yes, I'm aware that many parents will often brag about their progeny and proclaim them special and unique. It's natural. I'll just say that I'm no stranger to baby's. I come from a large family. I have been babysitting and tending younger siblings and cousins -- that is feeding, burping and changing baby diapers since I was 10 years old. In addition, several of my friends have also had children within the last couple of years as well. The contrasts between Paleo Baby and all of the new born baby's my peer group's experiences are rather stark and obvious. We are regularly told by our friends that they wish their own children were as easy going and well tempered as Paleo Baby.

Most think I'm crazy for insisting on the diet and other things I do with Paleo Baby.

Than they always tell us how lucky we are.

I don't think luck has anything to do with it.

Now I'm not going to claim Paleo Baby is perfect. But it's quite obvious to me that Paleo Baby is well fed, and adequately nourished from the nutrient dense, high-fat diet, and the differences in behavior, demeanor and development are obvious. I know why...even if others don't or won't believe it.

On the other hand, if someone wants to discount this testimony and just attribute it the luck of baby having superior genes, I won't argue with that either. :)

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Social Dominance





There are a number of words that are common jargon used in the manosphere that have negative connotations to people unfamiliar with the functional meanings of the terminology and how they apply to interpersonal relationships.

The word 'dominance' is foremost amongst such terms in causing an immediate negative reaction to newcomers to this corner of the interwebs. This is most likely due to the popular myth of "equality" that so many people think of as the "ideal" state of a male/female relationship.

Women especially seem to recoil in disgust when they first encounter the term being discussed by men on what they need to develop in order to become more attractive to women. They immediately associate dominance with 'abusive' and 'controlling.' This is the feminist cultural programming that causes this default reaction to the term. Many women don't even realize that 'dominance' is one of the primary traits of attractiveness that draws them to men who have it...or makes them shiver in disgust at the very idea of man who has none trying to get physically intimate with her.

A better way to think about dominance, is charismatic leadership. The most effective leaders are always the kind who inspire their followers to want to follow them of their own volition.

I sumbit that this is the true essence of game. When a man approaches a woman and opens her for an attempted seduction, he is essentially demonstrating to her "this is of my style of leadership, do you want to follow?" Note that this applies to both a man approaching a strange woman he's never met before and propositioning her...and a long married husband seeking marital relations with his spouse.

One of the staples of game advice for newcomers is to strive to be "dominant" and to "own the room" and work to be the Alpha Male of the Group (AMOG)...and they become domineering, mistaking that for dominance. I've made this mistake myself. When I first discovered game theory, I took this idea of AMOG and social dominance and misinterpreted it as a directive to hold as many people spellbound as I could with my loquacious, verbose monologues, not letting anyone get a word in edgewise. This is not being the alpha. It's being a self-absorbed, narcissistic douchebag. I would domineer conversations rather then lead them, failing to inspire others to join in with their perspectives and experiences.

While I eventually figured out that effective conversation requires a dialog rather than a monologue, it was largely due to experiencing a plethora of negative feedback -- mainly from my wife: "Why did you just talk over everyone there and not let anyone else speak? You were so rude!" Instead of being the AMOG, I became the ADOG....

Needless to say, my faux-alpha posturing was not achieving the desired results...with my friends, acquaintances, nor my wife. I eventually figured out the idea of "owning the room" in a group dynamic was from leading a conversation and finding ways to involve everyone in contributing, instead of lecturing in excess, projecting the idea that I love the sound of my own voice above actual conversation amongst the group.

But I never really understood, in explicit terminology, why my initial attempts to be the AMOG failed.

I just came across a recent article at The Art of Manliness that gave me another great "aha!" moment of understanding when I considered my past experiences in retrospect. My first attempts at being the AMOG, resulted in myself becoming a conversational narcissist.

In "The Pursuit of Attention," sociologist Charles Derber shares the fascinating results of a study done on face-to-face interactions, in which researchers watched 1,500 conversations unfold and recorded how people traded and vied for attention. Dr. Derber discovered that despite good intentions, and often without being aware of it, most people struggle with what he has termed “conversational narcissism.”

Conversational narcissists always seek to turn the attention of others to themselves. Your first reaction to this statement is likely, “Oh, I don’t do that, but I know someone who does!” But not so fast. Conversational narcissism typically does not manifest itself in obviously boorish plays for attention; most people give at least some deference to social norms and etiquette. Instead, it takes much more subtle forms, and we’re all guilty of it from time to time. Everyone has felt that itch where we couldn’t wait for someone to stop talking so we could jump in; we pretended to be listening intently, but we were really focusing on what we were about to say once we found an opening.

In hindsight, this was one of my biggest problems. Hell, sometimes I still struggle with it....especially after a bit of an over-indulgence in libations. Thanks to this article, I now have an explicit framework of understanding, which, I think, should help me to abstain from this in the future.

I'll work on it.

A good conversation is an interesting thing; it can’t be a solely individual endeavor—it has to be a group effort. Each individual has to sacrifice a little for the benefit of the group as a whole and ultimately, to increase the pleasure each individual receives. It’s like a song where the rhythm is paramount, and each person in the group must contribute to keeping that rhythm going. One person who keeps on playing a sour note can throw the whole thing off.

That’s why it’s so important that conversations are cooperative instead of competitive.

This is where I had my "aha!" moment.

During a conversation, each person makes initiatives. These initiatives can either be attention-giving or attention-getting. Conversational narcissists concentrate more on the latter because they are focused on gratifying their own needs. Attention-getting initiatives can take two forms: active and passive.
Active Conversational Narcissism

The response a person gives to what someone says can take two forms: the shift-response and the support-response. The support-response keeps attention on the speaker and on the topic he or she has introduced. The shift-response attempts to set the stage for the other person to change the topic and shift the attention to themselves. Let’s look at an example of the difference between the two:

Support-Response

James: I’m thinking about buying a new car.
Rob: Oh yeah? What models have you looked at?

Shift-Response

James: I’m thinking about buying a new car.
Rob: Oh yeah? I’m thinking about buying a new car too.
James: Really?
Rob: Yup, I just test drove a Mustang yesterday and it was awesome.

In the first example, Rob kept the attention on James with his support-response. In the second example, Rob attempts to turn the conversation to himself with a shift-response.

The shift-response if often very subtle. People put in a nice transition to disguise it by prefacing their response with something like, “That’s interesting,” “Really? “I can see that,” right before they make a comment about themselves. “Oh yeah?” And then they’ll tie their response into the topic at hand, “I’m thinking about buying a new car too.”

Now it’s important to point out that a shift-response just opens up the opportunity for a person to grab the attention, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to. It’s a matter of intent. You might simply be looking to highlight what the other person has said and share a bit of your own experience before bringing the conversation back to the other person. That’s a healthy and natural part of the give and take of conversation. Let’s turn back to Rob and James:

James: I’m thinking about buying a new car.
Rob: Oh yeah? I’m thinking about buying a new car too.
James: Really? Maybe we could go look around together.
Rob: Sure. So what models are you looking at?
James: That’s the thing—I’m not sure where to start.
Rob: Well, what are the most important things to you—fuel economy, storage room, horsepower?

So here Rob interjected about himself, but then he turned the conversation back to Rob. Conversational narcissists, on the other hand, keep interjecting themselves until the attention has shifted to them. Like this:

James: I’m thinking about buying a new car.
Rob: Oh yeah? I’m thinking about buying a new car too.
James: Really? Maybe we could go look around together.
Rob: Sure. I just test drove the Mustang yesterday and it was awesome.
James: That’s cool. I don’t think I want a sports car though.
Rob: Well, I want something with at least 300 horsepower and definitely leather seating. Did I ever tell you about the time my buddy let me take his Maserati out for a spin? Now that is an automobile.
James: Which one of your friends has a Maserati?

Most conversational narcissists–careful not to appear rude – will mix their support and shift responses together, using just a few more shift-responses, until the topic finally shifts entirely to them. Conversational narcissists succeed when they elicit a support response from their partner. “Which one of your friends has a Maserati?”

To summarize, it’s fine to share things about yourself, as long as you loop the conversation back to the person who initiated the topic. The best rule to follow is simply not to jump in too early with something about yourself; the earlier you interject, the more likely you are to be making a play to get the attention on yourself. Instead, let the person tell most of their story or problem first, and then share your own experience.

While the examples given involve to guys talking, this applies more so to male-female conversation. A dominant man that is highly attractive, is one who can lead a conversational dialog with support responses rather than competitive ones. Note the advice here: it’s fine to share things about yourself, as long as you loop the conversation back to the person who initiated the topic.

When you do this, you demonstrate your dominance. You're leading the conversation, not controlling or domineering it. In a group setting, the AMOG will be the guy who finds ways to include everyone in the group to relate their experiences or perspectives to add to the discussion. This is one I figured out through trial and error when I was being domineering rather than dominant.

Passive Conversational Narcissism

Conversational narcissism can take an even subtler form. Instead of interjecting about themselves and trying to initiate a new topic, conversational narcissists can simply withhold their support-responses until the other person’s topic withers away and they can take the floor.

To understand how this works, let’s first look at the three forms support-responses can take—each one represents an ascending level of engagement and interest with the topic and speaker:

Background acknowledgments: Minimal acknowledgments that you’re listening such as, “Yeah,” “Uh-huh,” “Hmm,” Sure.”

Supportive assertions: Acknowledgments that show active listening. “That’s great.” “You should go for it.” “That’s not right.”

Supportive questions: Questions show that you’re not only listening, but are interested in hearing more. “Why did you feel that way?” “What was his response when you said that? “What are you going to do now?”

A conversational narcissist can kill someone’s story dead in its tracks by withholding these support-responses, especially by not asking any questions. Etiquette dictates that we don’t ramble on and share every detail of a story right off the bat. We say a bit, and then wait for further questions, so we know that the person we’re speaking with is interested in what we have to say. In the absence of such questions, the speaker will begin to doubt that what they’re saying is interesting. So they’ll stop speaking and turn the attention to the other person. A victory for the conversational narcissist.

Conversationalist narcissists will also show their disinterest in the speaker by delaying their background acknowledgments–those all important “Yeah’s” and “Hmmm’s.” Good conversationalists place their background acknowledgments in just the rights spots, in the small natural pauses in the conversation. The narcissist tries to adhere to social expectations by giving the speaker some cursory acknowledgments, but they’re not really listening, and so they throw them in there just a few seconds off. The speaker easily picks up on this skewed-timing and will stop talking and shift their attention to the narcissist.

Ever here a woman lament that her husband or boyfriend "never listens to me?" This is the genesis of that complaint.

Avoiding these pitfalls of conversational narcissism will have you well on your way to becoming a competent and charismatic conversationalist. Once someone introduces a topic, your job is to draw out the narrative from them by giving them encouragement in the form of background acknowledgments and supportive assertions, and moving their narrative along by asking supportive questions. Once their topic has run its course, you can introduce your own topic.

This article has some great advice...but add this into the precepts of Game and the picture of social dominance that women find highly attractive becomes clear. When talking one-on-one with a woman you have romantic designs on, don't be competitive in your conversation, be supportive - but make those supportive assertions or supportive questions based on common game tactics: cocky-funny negs (which can be in the form of questions) or humorous observations that provide the opportunity for shared laughter without interrupting the flow of her topic.

This goes doubly so in group conversations for which a woman you are interested in or are already in a relationship with, is present. Show the ability to lead a group conversation that involves everybody participating (even if only marginally) and has everyone amused, laughing and enjoying it, you will be demonstrating your 'gina tingling dominance.

Social dominance is not the same as being a conversational narcissist, domineering a competitive debate. You may "win" the debate, but you lost out on creating good vibes, shared laughter and increasing your perceived charisma...which, as a man, is your primary trait for attracting female desire.