I Create As I Speak

In the time before writing, and then the advent of technologically enhanced communications allowing mass media, when someone wanted to manipulate others, they had to convince them to fall prey to their racket with only their words.

The original racket of manipulation and sheeple herding through oral communication, is clearly described in the New Testament of the Bible, when analyzing Jesus Christ's critique and condemnation of the Pharisees and their practice of Priestcraft. Based on the "Traditions of the Elders" in which the Pharisees claimed divinely granted powers through oral transmission of the laws from God to Moses, the Pharisees set themselves up with one heck of a racket for power to dictate and control the behavior of their followers, as well as giving them their own authority for taxing the wealth of their subjects. THEY claimed their power as lawgivers was invested into their class by the spoken word of God. This is the traditions of the elders that was then transmitted through the ages by an oral tradition amongst the Pharisees.

Thus, by claiming a divine source of oral tradition for their laws directly from God, they created the original "Matrix" of artificial and abstract construct of reality to set themselves up as the Theocratic rulers of society. In other words, by claiming God told the progenitors of their Priest Class an oral law, THEY were able to construct an entire social order and cultural hierarchy, setting themselves up at the top, to receive the tributes, indulgences, tithes and other offerings from the masses below who were seeking redemption for their sins....and those sins were defined by the words of the Pharisees themselves, citing their "Traditions of the Elders" as their sole authority to rule society.

THEY spoke. The sheeple listened and obeyed, accepting their oral claims of God's authority, thereby submitting to the creation of the Pharisee's system of Priestcraft hierarchy to enable their authoritarian control and exploitation of the masses.

This is their "magik" and it's the same name of the game as it ever was today as it was thousands of years ago. The answer to it then, is the answer as it is now: the Truth that will set us free... free from the rule and control of THEY who defile all of mankind by speaking the evils of their heart to rule and control we the sheeple through the propagation of their lies and deceit to create our current dystopia.





I've often written off the value of the higher education I attained while attending five years of institutionalized indoctrination in the hallowed halls of academentia at my State University, as mostly a giant wast of time. I largely credit all my graduate studies at the University of the Autodidact as the most influential and meaningful on my present condition in this life as a raving conspiritard in our Brave New World Order.

But it was the years I spent in Business School majoring in Marketing that is probably most responsible for  eventually helping me to open my eyes to the reality of our world and how our rulers use mass media and transhumanist technological "progress" to socially engineer we the sheeple. For in retrospect, I realize that all of those classes on Marketing were nothing more than a study of the oldest tactic employed by THEY who sought power and control over their fellow human beings: divide and conquer. And the best way to divide and conquer, is to get we the sheeple to divide ourselves by categorizing and segmenting ourselves based on both objective and subjective differences they create for us out of thin air.

The study of Marketing in undergrad Business school is nothing more than studying the art of psy-ops and propaganda to get the viewers and consumers to divide and conquer themselves so as to allow the marketer to capture the targeted segment of consumers in order to convert them into cash cows that can be continuously milked until dry.

In one of my classes, we spent well over a month worth of classes analyzing "Generations" and the generalizations that define each era so as to forge your message to more effectively reach your targeted market. We studied the various stereotypes, generalized habits and attitudes of the Silent Generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and at that time, the emerging Generation Y. We also dedicated some classroom discussion time on speculating about the generation that came to be known as the Millennials. Over at the Dusk in Autumn blog, agnostic has got a lot of insightful posts regarding the differences between the various Generations. But if you really want to see the differences, look at the interactions of the mostly Generation X dread ilk over at Vox Popoli and the Boomers anytime Vox Day makes a post on the topic.

It would be insane to try and argue that there are in fact no differences between the various generations of the 20th and 21st centuries...but I have a different contention to make on the topic. Prior to the advent of mass mind control enabled by mass media technology, there was no real substantial differences between generations...at least not the sort that so thoroughly and contentiously divided us for the past century. Culture was far more static and slow changing, and influenced much more by religion and cultural traditions and norms.

But the advent of the tell-a-vision, radio broadcasting, the consolidation of print media and the popular music industry all gave those with the same agenda of societal control as the Pharisees of old, the means to "Speak" to the mass audience so as to create such artificially imposed divisions as "generations." THEY told each different generation that the older generations were "uncool" and "old-fashioned." With mass media and commercial consumerism, THEY were able to institute a continuous, dynamic change in music, dance, fashion, clothing, hairstyles, slang and lingo, and ultimately an ethos and moral code for each generation of youth entering their young adult years, so that THEY successfully severed the connections between generations to divide and conquer we the sheeple.

Just for one example of this, we need only look at the differences in marriage and family between the different generations. Our Grandparents were for the most part the last generation that followed the patterns of multiple generations that preceded them. They mostly dated, got married, had sex, then had children. Our parents dated, got married, had sex, had children, got divorced, dated, re-married, had more kids and often got divorced again. We (GenX) dated, had sex, had children, then got married, then divorced, then remarried. The younger generation don't date, they hook up and have sex with a multitude of partners (or they're incel and resort to teh Pr0n, or gay or transgendered or whatevers). Marriage is mostly out of the question, whether they have kids, use birth control, or have abortions or not.

The common cultural ethos and paradigm that drove the changes in mating patterns and family formation (and disintegration) trends are all different for each generation, and it was this artificially created division causing each successive generation to reject the former generations morality that lead to this cultural devolution and attitudes towards family over the span of a few decades.

The entire story of the 20th century, is one of mass culture-driven generational division, so that we have now reached the stage where we are nearly conquered and subjugated to the worldwide Brave New World Order they have been inexorably working towards for aeons.

THEY are only as successful as they are, because we give them and their 'magik' its power when THEY speak and we listen. The only way to break the spell THEY have over us, is to stop listening.

Who's this "We?"

I've said this once before, but, a few outspoken liberals I've known were like sports fans that refer to their team as "we."it's always "we" have the right to make people do this, "we" have the authority to regulate that. As if the person is part of the ruling elite simply by rooting for its politicians.

Just like the sports fan says "we" as he sits on his couching watching the team, the liberal voter says "we" while being controlled by the ruling class. - "Van," commenting at Vox Popoli

The ruling class, the elite....those who are at the top of the metaphorical pyramid, maintain and consolidate their power through the primary tactic of divide and conquer. The most effective way to divide and conquer we the sheeple, is to manipulate our thoughts and behaviors by appealing to collectivist ideology we've all been programmed with by our society's educational system and mass-media-driven culture.

Who's the King? The Owners of the World's Central Banking Systems

The idea of WE is to make you forgo taking care of ME. In the above diagram (H/T Alte), the Freemen, Villeins, Cottagers and Slaves all have self-conceptions of their place in this infernal hierarchy, and how they differ from the other strata...and most never give it a second thought that while their may be some substantial differences, we are all still serfs, either locked into indentured servitude to the usury cartel, or we are enslaved by perpetual dependency on the Nobility's social engineering programs for the redistribution of resources from one Serf strata to another.


In my view, WE need to break away from this collectivist mode of thinking. It is the only way to counter the divide and conquer tactics THEY are using on us.

The first step in countering the divide and conquer by appealing to collectivist thinking is to stop using WE arguments during any discussion or debate.

"Well, WE did enslave black Africans by taking them from their homes and forcing them to work in the cotton fields!"

"After all, WE did take the land away from the Native Americans!"

"WE saved the French from the Germans in World War 2!"

"WE won the Superbowl!!!!!"

"WE get the leaders WE deserve since WE vote!"

WE did no such things.

Just because you have been indoctrinated to identify yourself along lines of Nationality, Gender, Ethnicity or any other means of differentiation, doesn't mean your responsible for the actions of those who may share those same similarities.

But by making you accept collective responsibility, THEY make WE much more easily divided and conquered, because we become concerned with the US versus THEM amongst the various collectives within the serf strata of the pyramid...all the while carrying on in oblivion to the machinations of the upper tier.

Liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, welfare dependent minorities, tax paying entrepreneurs, small business owners, indebted college graduates who are unemployed food stamp recipients still living in Mommy's basement...the differences between these various collectives in socio-economic behavior can be stark in terms of basic morality, behavior and world views. The squabbling, finger-pointing and scapegoating between such seemingly disparate factions are inevitable. But we are all more alike than most care or dare to realize.

The terms of our servitude may differ, but WE who are amongst the Serf classes are all enslaved in one way or another





Of course, this post is not a screed against any and all forms of collectivist thinking. How apropos that as I was writing this post, I took a break and surfed the blogosphere and read the latest over at Sunshine Mary's: Creating a Tribal Culture, in which she gives us a long awaited update on Joseph of Jackson, a man who was excommunicated from his local Temple of Churchianity for daring to teach young men the concepts of game - focused on simply approaching and developing rapport with young women in there church.

JoJ's update is simply inspirational! Read this comment on that thread to see what became of JoJ and his quest to bring Godly Game to goodly Christian young men.

I have always maintained that any movement that arose from the MAndrosphere would be destined for failure. It would be co-opted and marginalized the moment it coalesced into some centrally controlled entity - just like both the Tea Party and Occupy movements were. As I've written many times before,

"This is why their can be no "movement." There is only recognizing TRUTH and using that to guide your own personal life decisions."

The MAndrosphere will never succeed as a political movement. Instead, as Rob Fedder's points out, it will achieve it's most profound effect as a manifestation of fourth generation guerrilla warfare waged on teh Interwebz.

Now, of course, I am not advocating doing anything violent, but rather taking the concept of decentralization found in Fourth Generation Warfare and adapting it to the internet. There is no "leader" of MGTOW to attack or discredit. We are all leaders of our own movement, and if one of us is removed, there are more nameless people to take his place. 

What JoJ has done, is something similar, but instead of working alone, he's recruited young men and formed a tribe with a common objective based on the truth he discovered from both the MAndrosphere and the PUA camp he actually attended. Armed with this knowledge and skills honed through much practice, they've begun there own counter-offensive to seize their Church back from the grips of Feminist Churchianity and restore it to it's proper, Biblical-ordained Patriarchal order.


As JoJ emailed to SSM:

To begin, I need to cover human beings as a group first.

To that end, I would state that mankind is tribal by nature. We break off into small groups for protection and unless you have been raised in an environment that is centralized, people generally prefer remaining tribal. It’s all over our subconscious likes and dislikes if you know what to look for. To anyone who lives in America and enjoys the Andy Griffith Show, you are witnessing a yearning for a tribal society. One in which you know everyone, and everyone knows you. Where your specific gifts are genuinely unique because there aren’t enough people for your gifts to go to waste.

Excellent observation! This yearning to belong to a tribe is precisely the innate need the social engineers of our Brave New World Order have played off of in using their collectivist arguments hold sway in the minds of masses. The thing is, they want us all to identify with one of the tribes for which they control the narrative.

This is why they've effected the long march to tear our closest familial and communal bonds asunder with their feminism, liberalism and collectivism programming, why they've subverted our churches and our schools....so that we do not identify with localized tribes with close familial bonds and commonly held interests. Instead, they want us to identify with larger "super" tribes...like"Republican" or "Democrat", "Liberal" or "Conservative."

What JoJ has done, is create the kind of "WE" in-group we should not hesitate to embrace. This is the only real sort of "movement" that WE will ever have in effectively seeking to refuse and resist the agenda of population control THEY have for us all.

Coming to Terms

I was writing out a response to Dalrock's latest, and realized it was turning into something more substantial than a comment, so....here it is as a post.

Seems like certain sectors of the mano-andro-call-it-what-you-like-o-sphere go through a cycle of discussing the unique nomenclature that has become accepted and recognized in our fringe sector of teh interwebz. First it was the concept of hypergamy, now it's solipsism's turn. Interestingly enough, this latest debate comes from Susan Walsh at HUS demanding a concrete definition for the term solipsism and the luminaries of our crazy little niche like Vox and Dalrock then weigh in with their own takes.

When MEN first began comparing notes on their experiences with the female gender on teh interwebz, there were a few common characteristics they noticed that were generally applicable - hypergamy and solipsism were two words that sort of fit the bill as to what they were trying to name as generalized patterns of feminine thought and behavior.

To look at the literal dictionary definition of either term doesn't really fit.

For example - the literal definition of hypergamy, is women will always seek to marry up the higher socio-economic class hierarchy.

Well....that definition was obviously arrived at when lifetime marriage was the norm. As we all well know, lifelong, monogamous marriage is no longer the norm (ENJOY THE DECLINE!), but it has been noted that women still seek to "mate up" in some form or another. So we here in the andomanofuckitsphere began to use it in a more general term that doesn't strictly adhere to the dictionary definition of the term.

Now take solipsism.

Imnobody at Dalrock's commented:

According to Merriam Webster:

SOLIPSISM
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also

: extreme egocentrism

You speak as if only the first definition was true, but “extreme egocentrism” is a valid meaning too.

Just like hypergamy is literally defined as "marrying up," solipsism is one of those terms for which it fits well enough to become a commonly accepted term in describing this observable, common female trait.

"Extreme?" That judgement rests on an individual basis for how the solipsism expresses itself from any particular female...but when you compare the basic level of ego centrism between Men and Women....this is where we find the term solipsism fitting.

In a general way, women are much more ego-centric in their communications and perspectives then the average man is. So from a man's point of view (and this is the MAN-o-sphere we are talking about here) female solipsism does seem to be a good term describing ego centrism in the female as being extreme in comparison to the average man's expressions of ego centrism. (NAMALT...of course. Plenty of men were raised by single mothers and are imprinted with a solipsistic outlook on life).

That women personalize ideas whenever they partake in an online debate is something commonly recognized by many....NAWALT being the most common expression of female solipsism. It doesn't have to be extreme, nor does it have to be to the point of deviant narcissism either.

Hypergamy and solipsism - two terms used to describe commonly observed aspects of female behavior, both with Dictionary definitions that do not really fit with what we are talking about here in our little corner of the web....but for those of us who understand the concepts underlying the literal definitions, they are perfectly applicable usage of words to clearly communicate the ideas under discussion.


Finally, I must reiterate the following: like hypergamy, solipsism is not a negative trait, or a positive trait, nor is it something a woman consciously does. It just is how she was designed (or evolved, whatever you believe).

Solipsism and hypergamy are intrinsic behavioral traits of the female id. It's a feature, not a bug.

Expanding the Taxonomy of Male Classifications

Eveybody's favorite Christian Libertarian anarchist blogger, Vox Day, recently posted about Roissy and his practice of classifying men into the Alpha/Beta dichotomy.

VD wrote a pretty good taxonomy that definitely expands on what many critics of game and Roissy have always pointed out as Roissy's ideological weakness in using only two definitions of male behavior on the spectrum of male value in the sexual marketplace's hierarchy.

Before I present Vox's list, I do want to note that I think Roissy's focus on a Alpha/Beta dichotomy is useful as an intro for people who have never heard of "game" in the first place to gain a solid understanding of the differences in male behavior and demeanor.

Vox's expanded taxonomy seems to be a pretty good breakdown that accounts for all of the variations people always seem to question Roissy about. Roissy's comments are often filled with queries about behaviors such as "Is this "beta" or "alpha?" Am I a "greater beta" or a lesser alpha." Etc.

Perhaps Vox gives us a more useful taxonomy here:

Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you've seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can't deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!

Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They're popular, they do well with women, they're pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha's natural self-confidence and strength of character. They're not leaders and they're not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they're Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won't change their game because they don't really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha's endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile.

Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy's Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it's just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I've gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.

Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you've found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement "all are fallen" applies to women too. She isn't any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are.

Lambdas - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.

Sigmas - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture.

Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them.