Opportunity Costs Are About Much More Than Simply $$$

This blog has never been one that had a lot of regulars that debate and socialize in the article comments threads. The responses are sporadic, and I think I get a lot more "Anonymous" posts than your average Manosphere blog. I am fully aware that the full range of topics I write about can be eclectic and many times "off the beaten path," and that's fine. This blog is really nothing more than an outlet for the things I don't really get to discuss in real life within my social peer group and family. It was only two months ago that I even discovered that Blogger had begun to offer traffic stats and such back in 2009...but looking at them confirmed what I have always suspected - I have far more readers than one would guess just based on the comments.

What amuses me though, is that I never know when a piece I write is going to get a lot of comments or not. Sometimes I write something that I expect will generate a lot of comments, and it only gets only 1 or 2 responses...and other times I write something I expect to get little response and the opposite happens.

My last post, Explaining Opportunity Costs to Career Women
was one such surprise. The most amusing thing about it was the response by the person who's offhand comment over at OneSTDV's inspired the post in the first place.

I wasn't really out to 'get after' her...but that her comment that "she had it all" is one for which I've heard many a career woman exclaim. A lot of women fool themselves into believing that they did in fact "achieve it all." The only real point I was making is that 'having it all' is physically and temporally impossible.

As that prolific poster Anonymous wrote:

What kind of math puts more than 24 hours in a day?

What kind of math allows you to be in two places at once (home and work)?

What kind of math will convince your kids that they're better off spending 8 hours a day with a stranger rather than their mother?

I guess such basic mathematical logic was to hard to comprehend for a successful career woman like jz.

She actually commented and confirmed precisely the point I was making, but still failed to get it. Just as I suspected, she had a Nanny perform the Mommy role for her.

For 12 years my 3 kids were cared for in our home by the same woman. She is a physician's wife whose own children had grown.

No matter how well qualified she was, she was still hired to do the things you did not have the time for while you were busy with your challenging work making all that stunning income.

Her nurturing of them included intangibles that I could not have provided,

You could have. You just chose to pay someone else to do so for you.

including occasional same age playmates (her nephews), an exceptionally playful nature, new games, and she even took them on a mini-vacation. Each day she came, we spent time talking about how the day went. As a young mother myself, I valued her advice.

Do you really think that the amount of time and effort you put into your career, had it been applied to raising your children, you really believe you could not have provided them with games, mini-vacations and same age playmates?

The years progressed, she had grandchildren, and my own daughters babysat for her grandchildren. My kids were home for Christmas and they met to reminisce with her.

She was a great nanny who grew close with your children to the point that they treat each other like family. It is great that you were able to provide this sort of influence for your children....but it is THE POINT you keep missing. This is precisely why YOU did not "HAVE IT ALL." Your nanny had all of the things that I refer to when I say you could not have had it all. That is the opportunity costs you paid to focus on your career and paying another woman to raise and nurture your children for you.

Even in my part time years, I was paid beyond my wildest expectations. Contrary to happy platitudes, money does buy happiness.

I guess you missed the point of my headstone graphic on the last post?

It buys global adventure travel, choice of schools, choice of recreation, and choice of neighborhoods.

Of course, no one can deny the advantages wealth provides. But the human relationship of nurturing and parenting your own offspring? You wouldn't know, because you outsourced it. Perhaps that bought YOU happiness, as your children "flourished" under the nurturing of the hired help...so now you have the perfect status symbols to brag about when condescendingly telling the lowly proles how you in fact "have it all!"

No family energy is wasted on financial anguish.

I'd bet when your children were little, they had another sort of anguish to deal with. I'd bet my last dollar that at one point or another, your kids asked their nanny why Mommy is hardly around.

The OP knee-jerked on materialism, which is just trivial thinking.

My perspective on materialism is anything but a knee-jerk response, and it is certainly not trivial. What is trivial thinking is that by attaining career success to afford a luxury-filled lifestyle, is that you "had it all."

You didn't. You had material success, but you did not have maternal success. You paid someone else to do that for you.

By staying in the game, I can now stockpile money for grandchildren that I hope to have someday, and I can contribute to political causes.

JZ, those are important things to work for. Someone has to earn and provide for the family. I am NOT criticizing you out of some notion that you are a bad Mom for having a career and earning lots of money. We all have to do what we have to do to put food in our bellies, roofs over our heads and clothes on our backs. That you were a financial success is obviously a great source of pride...as it should be.

The only point I'm taking pains to point out to you is that despite your claims, you DID NOT HAVE IT ALL. I am only insisting on the truth here. You had a lot...but you missed out on a lot of things that you paid somebody else to experience for you while you were out dealing with the challenging work making your stunning income.

You've internalized the lies of our modern world - that financial and career success is the be all-end all measurement for success. Deep down, some part of you has to realize that your kids are bonded with and closer to their nanny than they are to you.

Which is precisely what I mean by you did NOT "have it all."

Now I can earn for another 15 years; SAHMs experience the opportunity cost of staying out of the market.

And career women experience the opportunity cost of staying out of the home and paying someone else to make it a home for you.

So, I'll reiterate that some women can have it all.

Only if you define "ALL" in terms of materialism.

You state that my dismissal of materialism as the measure of success was trivial.

I find it incredibly sad that you trivialize the most meaningful aspect of having and raising children...actually spending substantial and meaningful time with them as they grow. I'm sure you had many a moment that you had a moment of realization buried within yourself, covered up and hidden with rationalizations and justifications...moments in which you noticed the bond your children had with their nanny instead of you. Who did they run to for comfort when they got hurt as children? I bet there was multiple occasions in which they ran right past you (if you were even there...) to the comforting arms of their nanny.

This is my final comment here, because this is a blog that I do not respect.

I'm sure I'll manage to carry on...but I thank you for proving my point for me despite missing it for yourself.

Explaining Opportunity Costs to Career Women

In his latest post, The Housewife Paradigm, OneSTDV writes:

So the vast majority of women leave the home to do what: fetch coffee, take phone messages, babysit, and complain. Or, they could tend to the needs of someone they truly love instead of their irascible boss. They could prepare a nice home, pristine and comfy for their husbands and family. They can be present when their children arrive home from school, for emotional support, advice, homework help, and general supervision. They can spend many of their days socializing with other neighborhood housewives, fostering communal bonds amongst nearby families who ultimately become close friends.

Instead, we encourage women to slave away in a cubicle, convincing them that such empty work offers them satisfaction not available with her own husband and children.

Why of course...with her own paycheck, she can than participate in the official religion of USA Inc...worshiping at the alter of materialistic-based consumerism! What about all the shoes and handbags that could be bought with the extra income! Surely we must not deny women the opportunity for such fulfillment as a well stocked, walk-in closet!

But some anonymous female commenters on his thread raise some interesting points:

As a talented female academic, I disagree with you. I have no desire to "return to the kitchen." I don't think you will get women to subscribe to your idea in large numbers. And if you, as a society, don't keep your women happy, you won't be happy either.

Now just what is a "talented academic?" A womynz studies lecturer with tenure? And if society is supposed to keep our women happy, it sure seems like the current paradigm of encouraging all women to get educations and careers instead of getting married and raising children as housewives has failed spectacularly in that regard...

Never fear though...there are still a number of ladies who believe that despite the widespread decline in female happiness in the past 40 years, they've managed to HAVE IT ALL!

Take a look at another female commenter on OneSTDV's article:, jz wrote:

We tell women the conventional wisdom, "you can't have it all." In fact, some women (myself) have had it all: flourishing children, challenging work, stunning income, and a fun husband.

There are so many meme's and shibboleths that manifest in such a short statement...

First of all: "We tell women the conventional wisdom, "you can't have it all."

Oh dear. In what part of the world does jz live in? The idea that women CAN HAVE IT ALL is one of the most popular memes to permeate our feminist-driven mass media culture for close to 50 years now! Most women don't hear that message "you can't have it all!" and when someone tries to point it out, they usually respond like jz here: "In fact, some women (myself) have had it all!"

Why is such beliefs not surprising at all?

But let's look closer at how jz defines HAVING IT ALL:

"...flourishing children, challenging work, stunning income, and a fun husband."

Flourishing children

No doubt this is based on her kids getting good grades in our dumbed-down education system. She might even go the extra step here and have them enrolled in all sorts of extra-curricular activities like organized team sports or music lessons. Her kids may in fact be "flourishing." But how would she know, since she's not around while they're flourishing? She's at her career, HAVING IT ALL. I guess there's dinnertime conversation...if there not like most modern day families eating their dinner in front of the television, perhaps they do talk about the days endeavors in school.

Challenging Work

Now one cannot deny that in fact "challenging work" can certainly be rewarding...but I would point out the implications of such a statement in the context of a woman declaring that she HAS IT ALL. By describing her career work in those terms, she is also implying that a stay at home housewife's work is NOT challenging...that raising children is not as challenging - which also implies that it is not as rewarding.

But don't worry! They're getting good grades! They're on the local championship soccer team! The kidz are FLOURISHING!!!!

Stunning Income

Which probably means jz and her "fun husband" most likely outsource much of the domestic tasks and chores necessary to keep a house clean and functioning. Gardener, maid, nannies....STUNNING I tell you!

Here's one thing women like jz fail to understand until it is too late...

There is only so much time in a single day. You can only do so much with that time.

You cannot "HAVE IT ALL" because most of your time, effort, energy and attention is focused on your 'challenging work.' If it didn't require all of that, it wouldn't be challenging.

Therefore, time spent on the career, means time NOT spent in actually raising your children. You let the schools and after-school organized sports or lessons handle most of the "challenging work" in that department for you.

You may not realize it now, because your kids are "flourishing" and you get to brag to your work peers that your kids got great grades...

...but just how much of a part of their lives are you really?

Maybe one day, when you are at home and retired, enjoying your stunning income...and you realize that your kids are flourishing in their own careers, and the only time they call or visit you is when they HAVE to (like your Birthday or the Holidays), and you'll realize that you don't really know them as people (but your nanny who actually raised them does!) you'll discover that you in fact did not HAVE IT ALL.

Avoiding the Fate of the AMC

From the SpearheadFiles
February 14, 2010

In the terminology of the Venusian arts aka "Game," the acronym AFC, stands for Average Frustrated Chump. This article deals with an even sadder specimen of the male species – the Average Married Chump.



Disclaimer: This article is intended for those of us suckers, fools, naive idiots and morons that either got married before we knew better (such as myself), or are dumb enough to sign on the dotted line for Marriage 2.0. despite knowing better. Yes, we get it, all you MGTOW-ers and PUA-ers – getting into Marriage 2.0 with a Western Woman is dumb, crazy and foolhardy. Better to go your own way and avoid women altogether…or just game the young sluts or crazy cougars for commitment free, protected sex. Believe me…we get it.

Nevertheless, there are men that have or intend to get married. This column is intended for those of us that are crazy and foolhardy enough to think we can actually marry a Western woman and and have children to create a family – and not be emasculated, pussy-whipped, cheated on, cuckolded, divorced and ass-raped with vagina-mony and child support judgments in our Soviet-styled family court system. In fact this article is actually about how a married man under today’s marriage 2.0 regime can actually do his own part to avoid all of the pitfalls and dangers of today’s divorce – child support racket.

I write this disclaimer, simply because I’ve observed numerous discussions of marriage in the “man-o-sphere” invariably always have a chorus of MGTOW-ers and PUA-ers that always have to weigh in with their “you married guys are idiots” or ” it’s best to avoid marriage all together.”

Thanks guys…we already know. We still have to deal with our own realities, and telling us over and over again how stupid or foolish we are may make yourself feel better about yourself and the path you chose to follow…but it doesn’t actually help those of us that are already married or who intend to get married and have children in the future.



Most of us already know what Marriage 2.0 means. Most Spearhead readers know about the history of the feminist movement and it’s deliberate and destructive unleashing of the demons of unrestrained female sexuality upon society. They actively subverted and corrupted Marriage 1.0 – the institution of Patriarchy – to deliberately destroy the foundation for civilized society, so as to build a Brave New World Order based on the illusion of “gender equality.” That, of course, was merely the mechanism to inculcate a sense of victim-hood into women so that they would rebel against the gender roles that were clearly defined under Marriage 1.0, and forgo getting married at a young age when they are most fertile, so that the likelihood of having multiple children in stable  homes with a Father as the primary authority figure in that home, would become a near obsolete anachronism. The proof is in the pudding – the Demographic decline of the West is a fact, and proves that the real goal of feminism was and is all about population control.

By taking up the mantle of Patriarch, and having a successful marriage with multiple children -- while increasingly dangerous to men and their children under the current feminist regime -- is in fact a blow to those that seek to prevent the formation of stable, male-headed nuclear families in the first place.

So what can you, as a man, do, to become that Patriarch whose wife and children love and respect?

While it is a complex issue – and there are so many variables at play, it is impossible to ensure ONE CORRECT way to make a marriage in today’s feminazi-fucked world work, there are a number of things you can do to at least lessen the odds as much as possible.

To start with, there are a few things that all men who are contemplating marriage need to consider:

The Principle Feature of Female Sexuality is Hypergamy

Unless you understand this principle fully and completely, you will have trouble in your marriage.

To put it succinctly – the key to surviving — and indeed, even thriving — in marriage 2.0, is to behave and conduct yourself as if you were in marriage 1.0…the old school definition. You must "wear the pants." You must be the literal and figurative Head of your household. If you cannot do this, than marriage in today's Brave New World Order is not for you. You should indeed go your own way or confine yourself to gaming women for short term relationships with no commitment implied or given.

Remember: NO woman respects a man she can rule. Any man she can rule, is a man she will have contempt for. Any man she has contempt for, she simply cannot lust. And if she doesn’t lust you, she certainly will not “love” you.

To put it even simpler than that, you need to understand the key to a successful marriage is establishing and maintaining a relationship based on the reality of her hypergamous instincts. The first thing you must do to ensure success, is of course to choose the “right” woman.

So what are the qualities of the “right” woman? After all, we men of The Spearhead, hold a special scorn for women that continually make the empty claim “Not all women are like that!”

In terms of morality, attitudes and behavior, indeed, not all women are “like that.” There are women who have been raised in an environment that makes it far more likely she will have the self-control, maturity and awareness to accept your leadership role to make sure you have a successful marriage.

In short…here are the characteristics that make a successful marriage with a Western Woman more likely -

* Was she was raised in an intact, happy nuclear family?

This is perhaps THE most important prerequisite you should have in assessing whether or not the great risks involved with marriage in today’s society are worth taking on with any particular woman. In many ways, we human beings develop the same attitudes, behaviors, habits and ethics of the people who raise us. From childhood, we are given a template of life that we both consciously and subconsciously follow. Women from a broken home were raised within that template. When a woman comes from a broken home and raised by a single mother, she will internalize the same attitudes and behaviors of her mother, the same attitudes that broke her own mother’s home up greatly increases the chances that she will break up your own home that you try to make with her as well. This is especially true if she comes from a broken home for which the mother places all of the blame for the breakup of the marriage on the ex-husband/father.

* Does she have a positive, respectful relationship with her Father?

Take careful note of any prospective wife’s relationship with her father (the guy she considers as the primary male that raised her..not necessarily her bio-dad). Does she respect him? Is he an authority figure to her that she admires, and will listen and follow his advice? If she doesn’t respect the male authority of the home she was raised in, she’s not going to respect your attempts at exercising male authority in your home either.

* Is she is younger than you?

This one factor really gives a man a “head-start” in establishing a relationship of proper balance – one in which the man and the woman fulfill their complementary gender roles. It also increases the likelihood that she is either a virgin or relatively inexperienced. By virtue of your older age, you will hopefully have accomplishments, achievements and experience that she will admire and respect. She will be “looking up to you” from the very beginning. That’s a much easier place to maintain your “up” status if your relationship is founded on that to begin with. Besides, if your goal is to have multiple children, it doesn’t make sense to marry an older woman. How many kids did Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore have again?

* Does she have a sense of moral awareness and justice?

Observe her attitudes and beliefs when she is presented with scenarios, dramatized performances or real life examples of the issues that are directly related to marital success. What is her opinion of a friend that she knows is cheating? Does she condone, excuse or justifies her friends or family members doing things like cuckolding, cheating, or divorcing? What are her opinions of movie stars, rock or pop stars and other celebrities that engage in all sorts of marriage destroying behaviors? Does she hold men and women equally accountable? Does she think it was perfectly alright for Tiger Woods wife to hit him with a golf club? Take stock of all the examples that show her attitude when they present themselves. All of the attitudes she expresses that adhere to what feminist society would consider ‘politically correct’ are bright, red flags.

Ignore them at your own risk.

* What are her life goals? Does she understand the realities of her own biological clock and the opportunity costs of pursuing the education/career track versus having children?

Listen to what she says are her primary goals in life. Is she following the feminist script of education-career- then maybe a kid or two onto the road of fulfillment and "having it all" as a supermom? Or is she perfectly content to stay home and raise children? Will she support you in your own career goals? Will she complement your own life’s mission goals…or is she determined to set her own goals (which inevitably end up competing with yours, not complementing them.)

* How does she manage money and credit?

Is she a compulsive shopper? Does she consider shopping to be a primary form of entertainment? Most importantly…does she have credit card debt? If she finances her compulsive clothes shopping with credit cards that she never pays off in full, she will be dragging you into debt slavery right along with her after the wedding. Oftentimes, the “experts” will cite “money troubles” as the leading factor in a marriage breaking up. In politically incorrect terms, this usually means she spends more than they can pay off, and she resents him for failing to “provide.”



Now, let’s just say you think you’ve found “the one” who fits the bill. A woman that is least likely to give you the gift of a broken home, child support/vagina-mony mandated slavery and alienated children. You go ahead and get married.

While the previous list of characteristics are definitely founded on the principle that “not all women are like that,” after all, not all women are raging sluts living the feminist dictated lifestyle, it is after marriage, when you settle down into a routine of daily living with each other, that in fact you will find out that ALL women ARE indeed just like that.

Lose her respect, let her take the role of authority in the house, and you’ll see how ALL women are driven by their hypergamous instincts. While she may be in fact a woman who steadfastly doesn’t believe in divorce…who takes her vows seriously (probably because of a religious belief), perhaps she won’t divorce you — but eventually you’ll wish she did. Her contempt for you and your emasculated state will absolutely pollute your home environment. Her disrespect for you will infect your children, poison the atmosphere and you will end up with what is commonly known as a “dysfunctional” family.

How do you avoid this? Here’s a list of bullet points to consider:

- Strive to lead your home on solid moral principles, especially focused on honesty.

- Study “Game” or learn the art of seducing women. Than seduce your wife…over and over again.

- Don’t become predictable.

- Constantly DHV (Demonstrate Higher Value). Always remind her at every opportunity that presents itself as to how lucky she is to be married to YOU.

- “Neg” her regularly with light-hearted, playful teasing.

- Learn to recognize her shit tests.

- Understand that ULTIMATUMS are the ultimate shit test. Never, ever, EVER give in to an ultimatum.

- Call her on her bullshit…the biggest of which is using sex as a bargaining chip. The second you give into her attempts to make sex a bargaining tool, you’ve placed your sex life into the category of competitive rather then complementary. It’s a power play you WILL lose.

- Be decisive and confident. Ask her for her opinions…but NOT her approval. This also ties in with not being predictable. Plan things for her and your family to do…but don’t tell her about it. Just tell her “we got plans, get ready.” Give her as little details as possible — only enough to ensure she wears the appropriate apparel. Tease her whenever she asks about your plans…in this way, you build up her sense of anticipation and mystery. If you learn to do this right, you can actually make her excited about doing things that would otherwise be repetitive and mundane.

- Never let her dictate big purchasing decisions. You can take her opinion into account…but remember that you should have final say. No bargaining either. “We’ll get the minivan now, you can buy your sports car later.”

- Maintain friends and interests of your own…especially those considered “masculine.” Hunting, fishing…whatever. Something for which you can go and do without her. Never give up your hobby or recreation ESPECIALLY if she tries to get you to stop. Hunters, hunt. Fisherman, fish. Surfers, surf. Skiers, ski. Ballplayers, play ball. She knows what kind of guy she’s marrying and the hobbies he enjoys. Her trying to get you to quit your hobby or activity is really just a shit test to see how much of a spine you have.

- Never EVER let her “OWN THE HOUSE.” Don’t let her designate one area as your “man cave” and the rest of the house is her domain to decorate and furnish as she desires. Let her have some rooms…like bathrooms and kitchens (especially since your not going to marry a woman that isn’t spending significant time in the kitchen in the first place…). Make sure the common rooms have evidence that a MAN lives there too. This, of course, does not mean you shouldn’t have your own “man cave.” Just make sure it is not the ONLY room in the house that looks like a man dwells there.

- Do NOT be afraid of her emotional state. She is a woman, and emotional instability is simply how she is designed. As Roissy stated so eloquently in his The 16 Commandments of Poon:

"You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her."

If all this seems like a little too much to remember, there is a simple shortcut you can use to keep yourself in check. When talking with her, or contemplating talking to her, you can maintain the correct relationship dynamic by asking yourself a very simple question in your mind: “Am I talking to her as if she were my lover…or as if she were my mother, and I her child?”


You don’t ASK FOR PERMISSION to do anything. That’s what a kid does, begging mommy for permission.

She’s not your mommy…never forget that. Because as soon as you fall into that role, you will become that AMC. That pathetic version of a walking zombie, trapped and miserable in a sexless marriage to a woman that doesn’t respect you, and is not motivated to stay in shape and attractive for you.

We all know that marriage in this day and age is mostly a bad deal for men…nevertheless, if you do decide to take the plunge, remember that you do have some control in how it turns out.



Notable Commentary from the Original Post


Wulf February 14, 2010 at 14:26:

Excellent article and advice.

I did it, but not with an American girl.

25 years ago I realized my choices here in the U.S. were dubious at best, so I chose to marry a Chinese girl from overseas. In-laws 15,000 miles away is an assetand a Chinese father-n-law will tell his daughter to “fly-right” if he senses anything negative over the phone.

We’ve had a girl and a boy together. They are out of High School and the daughter is on her own. Parenting in today’s culture of death is quite difficult.


Elusive Wapiti February 14, 2010 at 16:39:

Amen Amen Amen.

In my first marriage I married a peer with well-hidden justice issues and with parents who disliked me.

She also had a thick umbilicus to Mommy–I recommend that fellow readers add this to your list. A difficulty in cleaving from one’s parents will be a barrier to cleaving to you.

All of these led to marriage destruction and my enslavement.

I remarried a woman 7 years my junior whose parents like me and who don’t sow seeds of discord. The difference is amazing. While I don’t do all the things you recommend, I do quite a bit. Bottom line is that I’m much happier.

PS happy v-day to everyone.


Welmer February 14, 2010 at 16:47:

"Elusive Wapiti wrote:She also had a thick umbilicus to Mommy–I recommend that fellow readers add this to your list. A difficulty in cleaving from one’s parents will be a barrier to cleaving to you."

Yes, in-laws can wreck a marriage. I think baby boomer mother in laws are awful. I’m worried that if I meet another woman I’ll be very distrustful of her parents, if not outright hostile toward them. I was always a polite, accommodating son in law, and for that I got a knife in my back and my children hijacked by my MIL.

Now and Then: Feminism in 1970

If There Had Been Teh Interwebz 1970...Murray Rothbard would have been THE red pill dealer of his era.

I've read many Rothbard articles regarding Austrian economics, and he was one of the best sources of insight on topics such as how modern banking works, and how the central banks play a key role in the boom-bust business cycle. However, Rothbard was a prolific writer, and I've not even come close to reading the entire catalog of his work over at Mises.org. Thanks to LewRockwell.com, for the first time, I came across this Rothbard article: The Great Women's Liberation Issue: Setting It Straight

Written in 1970, it's interesting to note that much of what Rothbard wrote about in that era, applies perfectly to the feminist influenced society of the present day.

Some excerpts from Against Women's Lib: 

It has become impossible to avoid being assaulted, day in and day out, by the noisy blather of the Women’s Movement. Special issues of magazines, TV news programs, and newspapers have been devoted to this new-found "problem"; and nearly two dozen books on women’s lib are being scheduled for publication this year by major publishers.

In all this welter of verbiage, not one article, not one book, not one program has dared to present the opposition case.

Well, there's our first difference between now and then.....now we have the manosphere.

Throughout the whole gamut of "liberation", the major target has been the harmless, hard-working, adult WASP American male, William Graham Sumner’s Forgotten Man; and now this hapless Dagwood Bumstead figure is being battered yet once more. How long will it be before the put-upon, long-suffering Average American at last loses his patience, and rises up in his wrath to do some effective noisemaking on his own behalf?

42 years after Rothbard wrote this, the answer to his question remains elusive. We now have teh interwebz where we have begun the process of fighting back. But while we are quickly growing, we are still fringe, and nowhere close to being widely recognized. The blue pill is still prolific amongst the masses.

Decades before guys like Warren Farrell debunked the female wage gap, Rothbard had already done so in a single paragraph.

The lower average income for women can be explained on several grounds, none of which involve irrational "sexist" discrimination. One is the fact that the overwhelming majority of women work a few years, and then take a large chunk of their productive years to raise children, after which they may or may not decide to return to the labor force. As a result, they tend to enter, or to find, jobs largely in those industries and in that type of work that does not require a long-term commitment to a career. Furthermore, they tend to find jobs in those occupations where the cost of training new people, or of losing old ones, is relatively low.

These tend to be lower-paying occupations than those that require a long-term commitment or where costs of training or turnover are high. This general tendency to take out years for child-raising also accounts for a good deal of the failure to promote women to higher-ranking, and therefore higher-paying jobs, and hence for the low female "quotas" in these areas. It is easy to hire secretaries who do not intend to make the job their continuing life work; it is not so easy to promote people up the academic or the corporate ladder who do not do so. How does a dropout for motherhood get to be a corporate president or a full professor?

The next paragraph finally shows us a major difference between now and then:

While these considerations account for a good chunk of lower pay and lower ranked jobs for women, they do not fully explain the problem. In the capitalist market economy, women have full freedom of opportunity; irrational discrimination in employment tends to be minimal in the free market, for the simple reason that the employer also suffers from such discriminatory practice. In the free market, every worker tends to earn the value of his product, his "marginal productivity."

1970 was a good decade before affirmative action laws kicked in and an entire generation of children had yet to endure 18 years of feminist social engineering via the public schools and pervasive mass media indoctrination.

In 2012, there is no "free market." Discriminatory practice is encouraged and enforced by the Government, and employers who dares to "irrationally" discriminate quickly find themselves facing regulatory sanctions and persecution from the Government.

Most folks in the manosphere understand the role of Cultural Marxism in the ascent to primacy the feminist movement has achieved in our society today.

It should be emphasized that, in contrast to the Women’s Lib forces who tend to blame capitalism as well as male tyrants for centuries-old discrimination, it was precisely capitalism and the "capitalist revolution" of the 18^th and 19^th centuries that freed women from male oppression, and set each woman free to find her best level. It was the feudal and pre-capitalist, pre-market society that was marked by male oppression; it was that society where women were chattels of their fathers and husbands, where they could own no property of their own, etc.¹ Capitalism set women free to find their own level, and the result is what we have today.

42 years later, we don't really have capitalism and women are no more free than anyone else in our Brave New World Order. 99% of We the Sheeple are plugged into the matrix in one way or another. Very few are truly off the grid and free. Most of us have to pay our pound of flesh to our feedlot masters, one way or another.

But let's get back to how "the more things change, the more they stay the same" theme of this post:

I believe that modern American marriages are, by and large, conducted on a basis of equality, but I also believe that the opposite contention is far closer to the truth than that of the New Feminists: namely, that it is men, not women, who are more likely to be the oppressed class, or gender, in our society, and that it is far more the men who are the "blacks," the slaves, and women their masters. In the first place, the female militants claim that marriage is a diabolical institution by which husbands enslave their wives and force them to rear children and do housework. But let us consider: in the great majority of the cases, who is it that insists on marriage, the man or the woman? Everyone knows the answer. And if this great desire for marriage is the result of male brainwashing, as the Women’s Libs contend, then how is it that so many men resist marriage, resist this prospect of their lifelong seat upon the throne of domestic "tyranny"?

Indeed, as capitalism has immensely lightened the burden of housework through improved technology, many wives have increasingly constituted a kept leisure class. In the middle class neighborhood in which I live, I see them, these "oppressed" and hard-faced viragos, strutting down the street in their mink stoles to the next bridge or mah-jongg game, while their husbands are working themselves into an early coronary down in the garment district to support their helpmeets.

Every manosphere blog at some point or another has made these same basic premises.

Alas, Dalrock has also been noticing a present day emerging trend that shows us another difference between 2012 and 1970 - we now have a large segment of young, unmarried women, who no longer insist on marriage....at least not until they've had their fun, earned their credentials and established their careers and paid off their student loans and signed up for mortgages and auto-loans and started their retirement plans, only find themselves thinking about marriage when they suddenly understand what the term "biological clock" and "babies rabies" means.

Rothbard's next point is another good one:

In these cases, then, who are the "niggers": the wives? Or the husbands? The women’s libs claim that men are the masters because they are doing most of the world’s work. But if we look back at the society of the slave South, who indeed did the work? It is always the slaves who do the work, while the masters live in relative idleness off the fruits of their labor. To the extent that husbands work and support the family, while wives enjoy a kept status, who then are the masters?

lozlzolzol. Here was Rothbard in 1970 pointing this truth out. Most did not listen. Many women heeded the call of the pied pipers of cultural marxism, and gave up their master role to go to school and enter the workforce and become competitors with men. We are all human resources now.

There is nothing new in this argument, but it is a point that has been forgotten amidst the current furor. It has been noted for years-and especially by Europeans and Asians – that too many American men live in a matriarchy, dominated first by Momism, then by female teachers, and then by their wives. Blondie and Dagwood have long symbolized for sociologists an all-too prevalent American matriarchy, a matriarchy that contrasts to the European scene where the women, though more idle than in the U.S., do not run the home. The henpecked American male has long been the butt of perceptive humor. And, finally, when the male dies, as he usually does, earlier than his spouse, she inherits the entire family assets, with the result that far more than 50% of the wealth of America is owned by women. Income – the index of hard and productive work – is less significant here than ownership of ultimate wealth.

Here is another inconvenient fact which the female militants brusquely dismiss as of no consequence. And, finally, if the husband should seek a divorce, he is socked with the laws of alimony, which he is forced to pay and pay to support a female whom he no longer sees, and, if he fails to pay, faces the barbaric penalty of imprisonment – the only instance remaining in our legal structure of imprisonment for nonpayment of "debt." Except, of course, that this is a "debt" which the man had never voluntarily incurred. Who, then, are the slaves?

 Rothbard also brings up the phenomena we in this sector of teh interwebz refer to as The Kitchen Bitch.

If our analysis is correct, and we are already living in a matriarchy, then the true significance of the new feminism is not, as they would so stridently have it, the "liberation" of women from their oppression. May we not say that, not content with kept idleness and subtle domination, these women are reaching eagerly for total power? Not content with being supported and secure, they are now attempting to force their passive and long-suffering husbands to do most of the housework and childrearing as well. I know personally several couples where the wife is a militant liberationist and the husband has been brainwashed by his spouse to be an Uncle Tom and a traitor to his gender.

In all these cases, after a long hard day at the office or at teaching to support the family, the husband sits at home tending the kids while the wife is out at Women’s Lib meetings, there to plot their accession to total power and to denounce their husbands as sexist oppressors. Not content with the traditional mah-jongg set, the New Woman is reaching for the final castrating blow-to be accepted, I suppose, with meek gratitude by their male-liberal spouses.

While I've already pasted a lot of excerpts here, I'll close out with this one, which decades later, Rush Limbaugh later paraphrased to good effect:

Jealousy of pretty and attractive girls does, in fact, lie close to the heart of this ugly movement. One point that should be noted, for example, in the alleged economic discrimination against women: the fantastic upward mobility, as well as high incomes, available to the strikingly pretty girl. The Women’s Libs may claim that models are exploited, but if we consider the enormous pay that the models enjoy-as well as their access to the glamorous life-and compare it with their opportunity cost foregone in other occupations such as waitress or typist-the charge of exploitation is laughable indeed. Male models, whose income and opportunities are far lower than that of females, might well envy the privileged female position! Furthermore, the potential for upward mobility for pretty, lowerclass girls is enormous, infinitely more so than for lower-class men...

1970 or 2012, nothing's really changed. Rothbard was writing an article clearly pointing out the logical fallacies of the feminists arguments...but they only reached a very small segment of readers. So here we are 42 years later, still writing much the same, a truly organic and authentic grass roots movement here on teh interwebz. Remember one of the primary strategies employed by propagandists seeking to control our behavior and thoughts: repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. They've been repeating their lies for close to half a century. For a time, just prior to the internet going public and global, it had become accepted as truth.

Not anymore .

Counter-Intelligence Ops in the MindWar

We are in the midst of a multi-generational MindWar, and for most of us, our patterns of thoughts and behaviors are already conquered and occupied territory. So what exactly is this "MindWar?"

From MindWar: How Military PsyOps Plan to Control your Mind:

Sometime in late 1980, then-Col. Paul E. Vallely, the Commander of the 7th Psychological Operations Group, United States Army Reserve, Presidio of San Francisco, Ca., co-authored a discussion paper, which received wide and controversial attention within the U.S. military, particularly within the Special Operations community. The paper was titled "From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory," and it presented a Nietzschean scheme for waging perpetual psychological warfare against friend and enemy populations alike, and even against the American people.

Perpetual psychological warfare even against the American people? I would say especially against the American people. And noting the identity of one of the co-authors of this MindWar protocol is rather illuminating:

The "MindWar" paper was disturbing, for reasons beyond its fascistic and occultist content. For one thing, Colonel Vallely's co-author was a PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader named Maj. Michael A. Aquino. Five years before the circulation of the MindWar paper, Special Forces Reserve officer Aquino had founded the Temple of Set, a Satanic organization which was the successor to Anton Szandor LeVay's Church of Satan. Aquino would soon be grabbing headlines, which persisted throughout the 1980s, as a leading suspect in a nationwide Satanic pedophile ring, that particularly targeted daycare centers on such military bases as Fort Bragg and the Presidio.

Furthermore, Vallely and Aquino's MindWar scheme is remarkably similar to the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program launched by the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon, under the direction of Irangate figure Adm. John Poindexter. Ostensibly, the Total Information Awareness global propaganda and mega-data-mining plan was scrapped after a series of negative news stories, but Pentagon sources have reported that the program was merely "taken into a black box."

This article was written back in 2007, when the Total Information Awareness program was supposedly scrapped. That was then, this is now.

MindWar must be strategic in emphasis, with tactical applications playing a reinforcing, supplementary role. In its strategic context, MindWar must reach out to friends, enemies, and neutrals alike across the globe—neither through primitive 'battlefield' leaflets and loudspeakers of PSYOP nor through the weak, imprecise, and narrow effort of psychotronics—but through the media possessed by the United States which have the capabilities to reach virtually all people on the face of the Earth. These media are, of course the electronic media—television and radio.

State of the art developments in satellite communication, video recording techniques, and laser and optical transmission of broadcasts make possible a penetration of the minds of the world such as would have been inconceivable just a few years ago.

Our minds, bodies, spirits and our very souls are under a constant barrage of strategic and tactical assaults by this new age weaponry of psychotronics that THEY are employing against us all. It is one of my self-assigned missions in life (and with this blog) to try and wake others up to this so that they can see the reality of the situation. We are in the midst of this MindWar, a war that most don't even realize is being -- and has been -- waged on us all for quite some time. I'm sick and tired of seeing all the people I know and love being poisoned physically, mentally and spiritually by those who wield these evil weapons of disinformation and deceit.

The following post is but one example of my own personal attempts at counterattacking this perpetual psychological warfare and it's devious weapons of deceit and corruption. The MindWar is being waged on us all, and it's up to each and every one of us who recognize that we really are under siege from a deliberate and purposeful enemy, to refuse and resist wherever and whenever possible.


 

I've known her since she was a little girl. My wife and I used to occasionally babysit her and her older sister when she was a toddler. I am an old friend of her family and I've watched her grow into a beautiful young woman who turned into a bride and now a young mother. Now she occasionally watches mine since she's a stay at home mother.

She now has her own toddler, and she's become quite the homemaker. I admire what she has become, for there was a time in her mid-teen years, that I thought she was going off the track and headed towards the usual Brave New World Order Jezebel script of sterile consumerist-credentialism chasing and bad-boy carousel riding.

Then she met her husband, who was a man with a plan, an entrepreneur, a hard worker and a natural born leader. She followed him, and supports him as a wife and stay-at-home mother, and she is now in my opinion, in a much better place, as she supports him in working towards his vision of self-employed freedom from the rat race of our modern Babylon system. He and I agree on much about our modern world. While I am not explicitly "red pill" in my conversations with him, we agree on much of the topics I write about regularly, here on this blog.

On occasion, I have reasons to drop by her place and will inevitably have some in-depth conversations with her. I am like an Uncle to her, and she trusts me totally, and she often asks me for advice. When it comes to her marriage and her husband, I long ago set boundaries on those conversations. I will not listen to complaints or criticism's of him, that is not my kuleana. At this point, she already knows how I will react to such gossip and she generally refrains from it when I am around. That being said, there have been a few occasions where she laments her lot in life as a stay-at-home mom and homemaker.

I said she is a good woman, not perfect. She is just as susceptible to the whispers of discontent that our culture promulgates, like almost all other woman are in our present dystopian age. As I have some understanding about the female id, thanks to years of studying this thing we call "the red pill," I know she is simply being tempted by the curse of Eve and can't help but feel like she's missing out on what our regularly scheduled programming tells her she's giving up, by being a stay-at-home mom and dedicated wife to her husband. It is during conversations like these that I try my hand at "slipping the red pill into her drink," and I get to expound on the topic of opportunity costs for career moms.

I play the devil's advocate against this devilish society and it's cursed whispers of temptations for women to fall prey to envy, greed, ingratitude and manufactured discontent in the pursuit of HAVING IT ALL. I point out all of the benefits of her life are creating things for which money cannot buy. Despite all of our current society's zeitgeist being arrayed against her and her husband's current arrangement, the benefits of persevering against the conventional wisdom that is inspiring her occasional bouts of discontent, will pay off in the end. There are far more important things she is building up and creating, rather than being just another human resource for the corporate borg and an All-American debt serf.

When she complains about having to cook and clean all the time, I point out how healthy she and her family are. How most other children of her peerage are ill behaved, overweight and/or sickly, while her well-fed family is thriving. I tell her their is no way around it. Somebody has got to cook, and since her husband is the breadwinner, nourishing him and feeding him before he heads out to face the world and earn the means of their sustenance is an irreplaceable part of the effort for her family to succeed.

I often remind her of how cooking for family is one of the strongest bonds parents and grand parents create with their relations. As I've sat at the dinner table of her grandparents when she was young and shared the meals her Grandmother used to cook from scratch, I can bring up her favorite meals she used to enjoy and how they give her fond memories of her Grandmother who passed away years ago. When I point out to her that all of her efforts at daily cooking is now giving her own child the same fond memories and experiences she had, she can't help but smile and I can see the manufactured discontent that is the plague of our modern zeitgeist drain from her eyes.

When she is upset that she never has "time for herself" I tell her to look at her growing child and enjoy what she has, for all the other young mother's that work a 9-5, don't have time for themselves either. Their time is their bosses, their jobs and their corporate companies who dictate their life's hectic schedules. These working mom's miss out on their children's first steps, and all the other "firsts" that are part and parcel to the joys of watching them as they grow. Money can't buy the vicarious experiences of seeing the world through fresh, virgin eyes of your children's experiences. It is some of the best parts of parenthood, and she's there for every moment of it...while her friends are off at work and their children are stuck in daycare. When I say to her, "Why would you want to be anywhere else?" she concedes the point and brightens up a bit.

She often feels like she's losing out on a chance for education to "become somebody," I point out to her that most women her age, take on massive loans to attend college to attain credentials (a piece of paper!) that they will then have to pay for, for the rest of their working lives.

I point out that their children are being raised by minimum wage workers and they never really bond with their parents (at least not like how her own child is very close to her) because they spend most of their waking lives with people who are not family. Those women who dedicate themselves to education and career end up with disaffected and distant children, and result in families who are not close-knit and do the bare minimum to stay in touch once they reach adulthood and go out on their own.

I use a plethora of examples of people we know in common, who follow the typical Brave New World Order life scripts and now have broken homes, enstranged children and dysfunctional relationships. The glamor of credential-certified achievement and consumerist-driven careerism and all of the material amenities and technological luxuries and distractions that are a part of our present existence, are all false promises of illusory happiness. In the end, none of it matters if the pursuit of such things come at the cost of that which should be most precious to us - our families and close relationships with others.

My reminders to appreciate what she has and what she experiences different from all the other education and credential and career-driven peers her age, seems to lift her spirits and help her renew her appreciation for all that she does have. I point out that for the most part, what she feels like she's missing out on, are nothing more than deliberate delusions created by our societies ubiquitous propaganda to serve the benefits of others and not herself or her family.

She's smart enough to recognize the truth of my observations and commentary, and I literally got to see the pay off in real time recently, when I heard her in conversations with others in which she echoed my words, sentiments and observations.

I was in earshot of her and a group of her peers at a holiday event, and watched as her friends bragged about their careers and material acquisitions that their paychecks finance. When it was her turn to share her own perspective, it was with satisfaction and a bit of pride when I heard her relate many of the things I myself have pointed out to her in our past conversations, when she struggled with her momentary discontents. It is times like those for which I am eternally gratefully for all this time I've spent here on teh Interwebz. Not only has it made a difference in my own life, but also in the lives of those I care about.

This is but one example of how I seek to utilize the knowledge I gained in all these years out here on the fringes of the fever swamps. To not just survive, but thrive amongst the idiocracy of the sheeple herds created by our current dystopian era. To do so, one has to learn to recognize the lies and deceit designed to skew our lives and make us subconsciously follow the sheeple herding script of our mass media and institutionalized educational system.

Having the chance to take this knowledge and have a chance to pay it forward to benefit those people for whom I care about, and help to forge those symbiotic relationships that create true community, is how I get my profit from all this time spent online for the better part of the past decade.

The only way to gain ground and fight for victory in this 21st century MindWar, is by waging guerrilla operations of subversion and fight the manufactured narrative of our Brave New World Order, one mind at a time. Every chance I get to subvert the popular narrative and deliberately instilled discontent amongst the people I care about, is a chance to engage the enemy and wage this war of resistance. I shall never surrender.