Friday, October 30, 2009

You Have A Choice...

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

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

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

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Sheeple Watching - Modern Femininity

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

Traditional Femininity Stands Out

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

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

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

For once, they would be correct.

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

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

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

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

But the woman who truly stand out amongst the crowd, are those that defy the modern conventions, embrace tasteful femininity, and resemble a metaphorical flower amongst the weeds. Even here in Hawaii, where we have a somewhat specialized fashion sense influenced by our unique cultural conditions, it's apparent that the vast majority of women generally follow the typical models I previously detailed. The traditional feminine clothing specific to Hawaii is the mu'umu'u (it's NOT pronoucned "moo moo," it's pronounced moo-ooh moo-ooh), and most women in Hawaii (who were born and or raised here) have at least one mu'umu'u hanging in her closet.

But where it was once daily wear, it is now usually reserved for only church wear or family type events. Yet it was only a generation ago...hell, in my lifetime, that I recall most females, young and old, here in Hawaii, who wore mu'umu'u on an almost daily basis. I still remember my 3rd grade class when most of the girls wore dresses and mu'umu'u...but by the time we were in high school, the cultural inculcation of androgyny or hyper-sexualization had taken hold and rendered traditional feminine wear nearly obsolete.

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

It seems as if women en mass in our 21st century Brave New World Order have all been inculcated to embrace either androdgyny or exhibitionism in their clothing and fashion choices.

Both extremes are meant to either nullify or over-excite the human males hard-wired biological response to visual stimuli of the female form. In either case, it seems to me that the social engineers who have mutated cultural norms of fashion for traditional femininity into either extremes, have deliberately done so to help foment the modern gender war we all currently endure.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

It's All About Hypergamy

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

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

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

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

First and foremost is the term hypergamy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Anakin's response is failing that test miserably.

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

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

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

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

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

This was my response to Anakin's post:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's it.

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

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

We are all sinners, no?

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

Friday, October 16, 2009

Government Regulation + Industry = Cartel

Government Regulation + Industry = Cartel

Cartel = Corporatism

Corporatism = Economic Fascism

This is the reality of how the US economy exists today. Some economists call it a "mixed" economy. A little bit of socialism here, a little bit of capitalism there...

...but let's still call it a "free market," than blame the absence of "regulation" or "de-regulation" as the culprit of the problems so as to encourage more Government regulation, changing the "mix ratio" giving us more socialism and less capitalism.

The latest example is the leftist's useful-idiot-Goebbels-wanna-be, Michael Moore, making a propagandumentary that highlights all of the problems and injustices caused by the Corporatist/Fascist system and blaming it all on "Capitalism." The worst part is that Moore's film was financed by the very same Banksters he supposedly exposes and criticizes in the film!

To people that still don't understand that we in fact do not live in a free market, capitalist system, here's the breakdown as simple as it can get:

"BIG" Business lobbies politicians in the Government.

The Government than passes legislation that "regulates" the industry of that BIG Business entity.

Typically, the regulation results in exorbitant costs for any business in the industry to comply with those regulations.

Thus, the "BIG" Business entity that already has a huge revenue stream or financial backing happily pays all of those costs associated with complying...while smaller companies who can't afford it go out of businesses, and entrepreneurs that want to enter the market of that industry are effectively barred from competing because they cannot both pay start up costs to enter the market AND all of the costs associated with "regulation."

In this way, the BIG Business entity is able to buy the Government's cooperation in creating a Cartel.

This is the essence of Economic Fascism. The Government/Industrial Complex, writ large, across many industries.

Anytime you here the phrase "BIG BUSINESS" you need to understand that the media and the leftists use of it to imply greedy, unscrupulous capitalist pigs - but the reality is NONE OF THOSE "BIG BUSINESS" entities they are excoriating or lamenting could have gotten that big without some form of Government action that gives them Cartel monopoly powers!

While Government Cartels have indeed become a huge portion of the overall economy, there is still thousands of small businesses that do manage to exist, and even profit in the sectors of the economy are still free from "regulation."

Yet everyday, the Government is actively working in cahoots with the Big Businesses that continue to ply them with campaign contributions and party donations to continue to expand the sphere of Big Government/Big Business monopoly.

This is the very essence of Obama's Health Care "REFORM." It's the blatant attempt by BIG Pharma and BIG Insurance to create a new and improved Cartel.

Sheldon Richman writes in his article Obama's Health-Insurance Cartel
exactly how Obama is using the exact same approach as Michael Moore, in claiming his reform will garner the benefits oft "competition" and "choice" when in fact his proposals are going to result with the exact opposite results:

President Obama and other advocates of nationalized health insurance have tried a variety of sales pitches, which indicates their difficulty in getting traction with the public. The latest is “competition and choice.”

Who could be against those things?

Well, Obama for one, followed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House member Barney Frank, and everyone else who favors what is question-beggingly called reform. The word reform suggests not just change but improvement. Therefore, to call the proposals to nationalize the medical-insurance industry reform is to assume precisely what is in dispute and must be proved. The argument is — or should be — over whether the proposed changes indeed are reform. To call them reform before the debate has even begun is to rig the discussion. It’s an old — and sadly effective — bit of sophistry.

But let’s get back to competition and choice. I contend that what Obama favors would produce the opposite of competition and choice: cartel and restriction. This is so clear that it’s hard to believe an intelligent person surrounded by economic advisers wouldn’t know this.

Just like Michael Moore blames the problems of Bankers like Goldman/Sachs and their collusion with the Government to fleece the tax payers with a bailout on "FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, so to does Obama use the same tactics in pointing to the problems that were created by Government's involvement in the health care market, attributes it to the 'Free Market' and offers MORE Government in the market as the solution!

Apparently members of Congress and the administration don’t know about the Internet, which performs the same function for every other good and service. If there’s no health-insurance market on the Internet, it may be because government forbids interstate competition, in order to protect the states’ ability to burden their residents with coverage mandates for hair transplants, in vitro fertilization, and other things offered by privileged businesses.

Competition by many businesses results in a 'race' by businesses to get the most customers from their competition by continually working to offer the best service or product at a price that makes them more attractive to customers than all of the other competitors in the market.

But if Government intervention via "REGULATION" reduces competition, you lose the incentives of free market competition to promote competing businesses to innovate and improve their product or services...afterall, the Government's regulations have made sure they won't HAVE to because there is no competition to take away the customers by offering a better product or service than they are.

For all his talk about choice and competition, what Obama proposes is more of what we already labor under: corporate-state bureaucratic decision-making. The status quo is not the free market. It is a system of government-business collusion that, among other things, welds workers to their employers. Obama’s scheme would simply be more of the same. The reason Big Pharma and Big Insurance favor the scheme is that everyone would be forced to buy their products or coverage for their products, with the taxpayers picking up most of the tab.

Obama offers no radical break with the present but only a further application of the statism that brought us the current morass.

Unlike many right wing conservative Republicans who claim that Obama is a socialist, I don't believe he's a socialist per se.

He's a Fascist, the kind that supports socialist ideas to sell the masses on the benefits of implementing his fascist (corporatist) agenda.

The Temper Tantrums of 21st Century Sheeple

The feedback to my response to the feminist brouhaha at the Spearhead a couple of days ago have given many a brainwashed, 21'st century sheeple a chance to vent their emotions and reveal the depths of their indoctrination by today's matriarchal dystopia of a society.

One in particular dedicated a pretty long rant on her own blog to me. I responded to her on her blog...and I'm giving her the benefit of my the doubt when it comes to my expectations that she will allow my commentary to stand on her blog unedited or un-deleted. We all know how 21'st century sheeple spewing feminist indoctrination love censorship.

So I've copied and pasted my response to her here:

I'm sorry if you've lost the custody of your kids in a divorce or got the short-end of the stick in a sexual harassment claim at work. I'm sorry that there are too many American sitcoms that show men in positions of buffoonery and incompetence. I'm sorry that you somehow feel that feminist progression is bringing you down.

You refer to unjust child custody cases, false sexual harassment claims, and the subversive and demeaning portrayal of men in the mass media...and you relate this to "feminist progression."

Yet you have the temerity to pass judgement on me and call me stupid? You don't even see the contradiction in your hissy-fit of outrage.

Notice how the implications of this paragraph prove EXACTLY the point I was making, and your too stupid to even realize it.

In the name of female oppression, you've been brainwashed by school, TV, radio and the news to accept the idea that men need to be oppressed for females to progress.

You're a misandrist, in addition to being stupid.

NONE-THE-FUCKING-LESS: the female version of Starbuck, the omnisexual Captain Jack Harkness, and the people who slash Kirk and Spock ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SHITTY EXPERIENCES.

My, you sure curse and yell alot. How ladylike. I'm sure you have a whole array of quality Gentlemen who can't wait to spend quality time with your sparkling, pleasant personality!

But that's besides the point, my dear. What you fail to recognize is that these examples that you've cited, represent something real. They perfectly represent the exact phenomenon I was pointing out in my article. They represent this ubiquitous cultural message that permeates every facet of our ethos that demeans masculinity while worshiping femininity. It is this relentless and ubiquitous message that has deluded millions of silly, overly-emotional drama queens like yourself to fly into an emotional rage at merely reading the thoughts of somebody that doesn't agree with your politically correct indoctrination.

More gay and female (and everything in between) characters in sci-fi television and film are a step forward, not a step back. They had another brick to the foundation of sci-fi, they don't destroy it.

It's spelled SCY-FY. Epic Fail. SRSLY.

For you and PMAFT to act as if this destroys everything you know and love about sci-fi doesn't show that you're a misogynist, it just shows you're ignorant.

As you've already demonstrated a severe lack of reading comprehension, it would perhaps be a waste of my time to try and point out to you that MY article had nothing to do trying to prove PMAFT's article was right or wrong.

I don't agree with his point 100%...but my post was not to back up his argument more than it was to point out the groupthink mentality of all the brainwashed sheeple like yourselves that came to the site to spew misandrist, pathetic shaming language.

The entire thrust of my article was to point out that the attempts to shut down the debate by branding us 'misogynists' are hypocritical and lack any intellectual merit or logical consistency.

I'm surprised, in fact, that you feel this way, considering there's still a lot of concerning debate about how women are portrayed in sci-fi tv and film (see the debates surrounding Lt. Uhura in the new Star Trek movie). What's also interesting about you feeling as if you're under some kind of attack is the fact that you seem to forget the main block busters of summer in this year were all catering to traditional male demographics - Star Trek, Terminator: Salvation, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen all had leading male heroes saving the world, one way or the other in a mostly, traditional male-hero way.

You're conflating my observations of the fem-tard invasion of the Spearhead with PMAFT's argument. Personally, I no longer immerse myself in pop culture bullshit on the television and in the movie theaters. I no longer care to consume feminist indoctrination and emasculating cultural cues as "entertainment." All designed to give women like you a false sense of 'strength.'

Oh, and I don't "FEEL" I'm under attack.

I KNOW for a fact that in the name of "feminist progression," the legal system and mainstream society have been turned into a system designed to enslave, demoralize and emasculate men. But instead of laying down and taking it, a few of us have awoken up to this reality and are choosing to stand and fight back.

There were definitely a lot of supporting female roles in these movies who were sexy, kick-ass and contributed to the storyline... but they were still just supporting. Somehow, I think even supporting female roles are too much for you and PMAFT to handle.


The most tiring argument you brainwashed femtards use is this utter rubbish that when men resist these idiotic, fantasy-laden portrayals of strong women and emasculated men in popular culture, is that we can't "handle" even seeing a fictional representation of a "strong woman."

Believe me dear, I can "handle" strong women quite easily.

The real deal is WHY WOULD I WANT TO?

Why would I want to interact with a person that thinks they are superior to men simply because she has a vagina?

One that sees no problem with a society that promotes destroying families by taking Men's children away from them?

One that sees no problem with false sexual harassment claims that cause men to unjustly lose their jobs, get stigmatized by society and have their reputations ruined and even imprisoned?

And you think it's "feminine progress" and that supporting such injustices is indicative of being a STRONG woman? No thanks. Like most Womyn's Studies useful idiots, you mistake being a bitchy, stubborn and narcissistic as characteristics of "strength."

We've come a long way as far as female empowerment goes, but we've got a long way to go still.

You've come a long way baby!

I guess what I'm trying to say both to you and PMAFT is this:

The vaginas are not here to ruin your fandom, they're here to make it better. Trust me on this.

Better for who? Thanks for demonstrating your female superiority complex. Gyno-centric narcissism is the first red flag in identifying the indoctrinated thoughts of a 21st century sheeple.

If you can't accept that, well...

...I just feel sorry for you.

Somehow, I think I'll manage to live with myself.

Oh, btw, perhaps you can surprise me and actually have the guts to allow this comment to be posted on your blog.

Better yet, feel free to try and make a substantial, intellectual and logical argument instead of venting about how you FEEL about anything I've written.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Raising Awareness, One Person at a Time

As I've written before, I don't believe changes in the culture and all of the problems associated with our BraveNewWorldOrder are going to be effected by a movement of activists.

There will be no groundswell support of a grassroots movement that will bring about the changes to the current system of injustices caused by the cultural marxist social engineers.

The only thing any of us can do, is to work to raise awareness, one person at a time.

Individuals, who make decisions and set their life goals, all done in AWARENESS of exactly what system and what world we actually live in.

Just as the the recent lamentations of career women who near menopause and begin to question the femininst orthodoxy that had them pursuing careers instead of child too does the effects of writing about and debating the various issues on the internet also raises awareness and helps people to see the world AS IT IS...not how the mass media, educational institutions and groupthink of our politically correct culture tries to make all of us perceive it to be.

From yesterday's post at the Spearhead, in which I posted a general response to all of the feminist-beholden women and mangina's that shrieked in outrage that anyone would dare to say the feminization of the SciFi channel was a bad commenter going by the handle D'mas had this to write:

The funny thing is that not so long ago I would have supported those women complaining about that Sci-Fi post, and totally. Things started to change when I realized that all the insults they used (loser, can’t get a date, blah blah blah) described me and my friends- the very same guys who stood up for them. In fact, I knew even back then that a lot of the guys saying things like Tech, or Roissy said, were getting the girls, and lots of them. That hurt me a lot- much more than I was willing to admit at the time.

I don’t think I’m misogynistic, and I don’t agree with everything I read here, but I do think I’m being more realistic about life nowadays.

I think this sort of thing is only going to increase as more and more men like D'mas begin to see the manifestations of the programmed misandry of the useful idiots that accept the feminist ideology uncritically and without reservation.

On a related note...

Isn't it amusing that all of the feminist minded folks that dropped by the Spearhead to register their indignation...just about all of them engaged in shaming language...the "small penis", the "can't get laid," the "no woman would want you" variations of ad hominem attacks.

Notice how almost all of these harpies and mangina's that resorted to this attack, also leveled the charges of sexism and misogyny?

Is it not in fact the very height of SEXISM to insult someone by focusing on their sexual desirability to the opposite gender?

Is not calling a woman fat, ugly, and so undesirable that only a lesbian Womyn's Studies professor would want to have sex with that not "SEXIST?"

Yet, it's no different than these people using the exact same SEXIST attack on men they disagree with.

They're hypocrites and they don't even realize it.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Misogyny in the Age of Misandry

We live in the Age of Misandry...and one of the primary features of this epoch is the present reality that most of the denizens are utterly convinced that we actually live in an Age of Misogyny.

Kinda like a President of a country that is engaged in two different wars of foreign occupation winning the Nobel "Peace" prize...but I digress.

Take the latest invasion of commenters over at the Spearhead.

The original article was based on making the observation that the science fiction genre has undergone a feminization process. Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech (hereafter referred to as PMAFT) actually presented several concrete examples of just exactly what he meant by making that claim.

The bevvy of responses have been quite the revelation.

The term misogyny and misogynist are used so readily and easily, it almost makes one wonder if in fact it is really nothing more than a Pavlovian conditioned response. As soon as any observation, fact, or notation is made of a gender dynamic that questions the culturally indoctrinated feminist orthodoxy, the terms "MISOGYNY" and "MISOGYNIST" comes flying out like dog spittle at the sound of a bell.

And the women commenters? Just about all of them took personal offense, and proceeded to resort to the entire catalog of shaming tactics as well as bear their personal testimonials about how they were Science Fiction fans their whole lives...and that women have always been involved in writing science fiction!

You don't say, ladies?

Here's a sampling of these comments:

News to me that science fiction is a “male form of fiction”. Specially as I’m female and have been a fan of science fiction almost as soon as I could read.

Notice the immediate assumptions here. Calling Science Fiction "a male form" is cause for immediate offense!

Never mind that women and girls can be fans of NFL Football almost as soon as they could watch TV, I guess it would be offensive to point out that the NFL is a "male form" of competitive sport.

We women have always been there and fans of science fiction. Even my mom was a fan.

Would someone kindly show me where PMAFT wrote anywhere in his article that women couldn't, shouldn't or have never had anything to do with reading or writing science fiction?

But thanks for letting me, a woman, know that I’m not welcome in the world of sci-fi. pointing out the change in themes and gender focus in a genre, from a more masculine-centric to a female-centric one is the same as letting women know that they are "not welcome?" I guess pointing out the typical portrayal of incompetent fathers being berated and emasculated by empowered super mom characters that are ubiquitous in today's mainstream TV shows means women are no longer welcome to watch sitcom TV anymore?

You ladies are certainly showing exactly where the stereotype of women letting their emotions override their logic comes from...

Awww, poor baby. Sorry to hear about your dick falling off because women are reading (and writing!) good science fiction. But that’s okay — there’s plenty of Perry Rhodan left out there for you.

Oooh, shaming language! PMAFT will just have to live with the humiliation. Somehow, I think he'll manage...

Thursday weighed in with a good observation:

I agree with the general point of this post that any area of culture that doesn’t go out of its way to be female friendly is automatically deemed to be defective.
Not just defective, I would add "offensive."

Indeed, that is exactly the impetus behind the large number of like-minded responses PMAFT's original article elicited!

The best way to promote real misandry in society is to make everyone think the existence of mythical forms of misogyny is the problem.

UPDATE: I just submitted an article to the Spearhead that was meant to directly address all of the visiting commenters, entitled We Are All Misogynists Now.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech’s article about the feminization of Science Fiction television brought to The Spearhead a horde of blue pill-taking, politically correct, indoctrinated and brainwashed commenters only too eager to spit out their Pavlovian-conditioned, pre-programmed responses to any conveyed idea that runs counter to the mainstream, Gyno-centric cultural values of our BraveNewWorldOrder.

Continue reading at the Spearhead >>

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

The Spearhead

Recently I volunteered to become a contributor to a brand new online Men's Awareness Magazine founded by Welmer and written by a slew of "Roissysphere" bloggers, The Spearhead.

My first contribution I wrote was a two part feature about Women's Suffrage, entitled The Despotism of the Petticoat.

My latest offering is a post about The Corruption of Federal Grant Funding:

Do you fully understand the role the Federal Government plays in using tax dollars to fund the creation of so many of the problems we currently face today in our BraveNewWorldOrder? It is carried out under the noble sounding name of “Federal Grant Funding.”

Continue reading at the Spearhead...

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

As I do not watch any TV news channels, and I no longer read newspapers to get my news, I was unaware that someone, somewhere decided that October was Breast Cancer Awareness month...until I watched NFL Football this past weekend and noticed most of the players had hot pink colors as part of their uniforms (Note Brett Favre's shoes in the above picture.)

While my first reaction is to roll my eyes and view this as yet another attempt to interject gyno-centrism in one of the last bastions of pure masculine competition in our culture (why is there no "prostate cancer awareness month?" for which the NFL has all the players sport blue?), I do have to say, I don't really see anything wrong with an effort to "raise awareness" about a disease that does in fact maim and kill so many women nowadays.

But the thing that drives me most insane is that the entire "awareness" campaign is based on pushing for women to go get regular mammograms to screen for cancer.

What about the awareness of the lifestyle factors, dietary choices and other behaviors that make women much more at risk of developing breast cancer in the first place?

Now, of course, much of the debate on dietary causes of cancer (in short, a lifetime diet heavy in sugars, carbohydrates, and Omega-6 fatty acids from vegetable oils), is considered controversial, there is one factor that is a considerable risk elevator that you never hear about in the mainstream media: the ABC connection.

Yes, if we are going to spend an entire month in an effort to "raise awareness" about breast cancer, this is one factor that definitely needs to be exposed and promulgated into mainstream consciousness!


In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436)

As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease.

If feminists truly cared about ensuring that women could avoid developing Breast Cancer, you'd think they'd want to make sure women knew about the risks that abortion has for them, now wouldn't they?

I've never heard a feminist or women's activist group...or even a mainstream media news story on Tell-A-Vision ever mention the ABC connection...have you?

Friday, October 2, 2009

The Network of "Enlightened" Women

I recently came across the following website, NEW: The Network of Enlightened Women.

At face value, much of what this group represents is a somewhat positive development - they are a conservative-based backlash against the feminist liberal culture of college campuses across the country...a reaction to religious-minded women to the Womyn's Studies curriculum.

What's wrong with that, you might ask?

Plenty, if you read further into their agenda and their ideology.

The most glaring point for me is the assumption these "enlightened" women advocate - while they oppose the liberal/libertine excesses of modern feminism, that they reject promiscuity as empowering, that they oppose the inculcation of victimology in women, that they encourage their members to revel in femininity and modesty (all of these are good things), they still accept the basic premise that is the foundation for promoting the feminist movement: that women are morally superior creatures to men, that men were oppressive, and that the initial feminist movement was just and necessary because women were in-equal and oppressed in the past.

In this way, they are actually just as subversive and destructive in promoting their agenda as any other feminist group.

From their "Educate" page, in discussing promiscuity, we get this gem:

By women’s view of empowerment being linked to sexual promiscuity we in fact undermine the very foundations of femininity. This promiscuity devalues women by men seeing them as something that can be used for their own ends and women accepting this status as the tools of men.

Feminists threw away the moral superiority of women, a beautiful counteraction to the physical superiority of men.

If they had used any other term, like emotional bonding, or nurturing or some other feminine asset as a superior trait that balances out men's physical superiority, there would be nothing wrong with this statement.

But no...what we get is elitist, hubris-laden femininity.

It is a manifestation of "benevolent" Matriarchy...

..but it is Matriarchy nonetheless.

See, "moral superiority" has nothing to do with gender. It is a personal character trait that does not develop innately...but rather, it is a conscious decision to adhere to an abstract principle, even if it painful or detrimental to the person that decides to adhere to it.

Just how "morally superior" is ANY woman that ascribes moral INFERIORITY to an entire class of people, based on nothing but their gender?

Just like the most ardent, man hating feminazi, these upstanding, modest and feminine women of religious conviction are just as convinced of their superiority over men when it comes to the idea of character.

It gets worse too.

On the next issue of the educate page, they resort to the old shaming language of any other strident feminist...

Since January, students have been nominating male ASU students for performing a gentlemanly act. The ten most-nominated gentlemen will be honored at a catered dinner event.

To promote the Showcase, the NeW chapter at ASU has created a short video asking students four questions: What is a gentleman? What are the characteristics of a gentleman? Are there gentlemen at ASU? Are gentlemen an endangered species?

Student answers range from the serious to the comical. For example, some student responses to the question “What is a gentleman?” include, “just a man that has manners I guess,” “well, we don’t know. We haven’t ever seen one before,” “someone who opens doors, is chivalrous, and a nice guy,” “a gentlemen is a person that likes to do nice things and doesn’t really ask for anything in return” and “someone who is nice and courteous and is always looking out for other people before themselves.”

Oh the irony.

You conservative, modest women long for the days of chivalry! If only Men would be Gentlemen again! If only men would be nice and courteous and look out for other people (that should be replaced by "female"), before themselves, everything would be just fine and dandy again!'s an attitude that is still based on female superiority.

These conceited ladies completely fail to understand the truth of their predicament.

There are no gentlemen anymore, because there are no more ladies.