Dalrock's Googlebomb

Dalrock is asking for help, and I'm happy to oblige.

Lastly, my original post is now mid way down at the bottom of the first page of google results for Single in the Suburbs. I’m hoping as more visitors see that page it will keep moving higher up. Perhaps some of my fellow bloggers will be willing to assist by linking to my original post with the text Single in the Suburbs. Together we may even prevent at least a few kids from growing up in broken homes due to frivolous divorce.

No Problem, Dalrock.

Single in the Suburbs.

Hope you have as much success as Bardamu had with Vajazzle.

Now She's Thinking

Ok...after "attacking" Laura Wood and calling her the Emoting Housewife, I must give her just due when she does live up to the title of her blog.

As I first wrote in my initial critique of her criticism: "She has some good points for which I often find myself in agreement with..."

Sometimes, she really does "get it" when she's not defaulting to her sense of self-righteous, moral-superiority.

I only know Game second-hand. I do not read Roissy, who is an advocate of sexual conquest and freedom. I think of Game as Youngfogey described it, as “acting like a man.” When someone says a man should “use Game” in a particular situation, I can, with a fair degree of accuracy, predict what he means. Game strategies do make sense in some circumstances. However, I can’t comment on the ideas of many of those who write about Game.

Many men find themselves, because of feminist indoctrination, trying to appease and gratify the emotions of women. This can be a tremendous mistake and that is a valuable insight of Game. We live in a feminized, therapeutic culture where many people believe that if we are always sincere and let all our feelings hang out, relationships will thrive. This is not true. Neither men or women like to be involved with someone who is a pushover or who has no will or mind of their own. Women especially are better off when their spouses are more assertive than they are. But that is a simplistic statement. Marriage involves the whole of our personalities. It’s a complicated affair. Game is not applicable in many situations.

I'm sure she does not "read" Roissy, like she doesn't "read" the Spearhead...

...but here, she does demonstrate a grasp of the concept as to why so many men -- not just PUA's and aspiring PUA's, but Patriarch's and other God fearing, morally conscious men -- believe in Game.

She's right too, about it not being applicable in every situation...especially if the ONLY objective is to preserve the marriage, no matter how unhappy or abusive it is. Sometimes, when a man gains an understanding of Game, he realizes their is no "fixing that which is broken beyond repair." But this clear understanding from the insights gained from studying game gives him the courage and gumption to make the tough, painful decisions that must be made to finding the kind of relationship he wants. Some women are either grown so contemptuous and disgusted with their pedestalizing spouse, or are too thoroughly programmed by cultural feminized indoctrination to recognize the value of submission to a worthy man in marriage.

Game gives men involved with such women the awareness that he does not have resign himself to staying in that state of emasculated submission.

The Conspiracy Without the Theories

LOLZLOZLOZLZOL!!

Don't count on your major media corporate news networks and their newspapers, magazines, websites and TV shows (both mainstream and alternative); nor your publicly funded, government-approved broadcasts on regulated frequencies for TV or the radio, to give you the truth.

They all either broadcast total fabrications or, worse yet, half-truths to make the lies seem more credible...and they ALWAYS misdirect the attention of the masses. This is how they keep we the sheeple plugged into the matrix and overdosing on blue pills from understanding what we are seeing them do before our very eyes.

But don't worry -- one need not concern themselves with the Illuminati - the Council on Foreign Relations - the Bilderbergers - the Tri-Lateral Commission - the Jewish Bankers implementing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or even about recognizing the Brave New World Order Matrix of feminist-socialist fascism gradually taking over all cultures and countries of the world. You only need to recognize that all of these things are theories.

Theories that seek to explain the motives of the rich and powerful oligarchy who don't even bother to hide their actions from public purview any longer. It is the way in which we who are their serfs, debt-slaves and chattel try to comprehend the logic and reasoning behind their socio-pathic psychosis.

They are plainly and openly sheering the wealth, freedom, labor and very lives from this herd of sheeple we call humanity, as they laugh at the inability of most of the sheeple to even recognize what is being done to them.

So effective, so devious, so enticing is the illusion they weave with their mass media and government sponsored, institutionalized indoctrination, they know they've got the masses domesticated, pacified and ripe for harvest.

What does it really matter trying to understand why they do it?

Whether they are Jews trying to institute a centuries old plan for world domination, or they are 33rd degree-freemason satanists doesn't really change the easily observed actions of those who are the highest levels of power in this world...

...you need no other explanation than the good old sins of coveting the accumulation of power and wealth. That theory is good enough to explain this "Conspiracy."

Know why the Arab world is in revolutionary mode right now? It really has nothing to do with the reasons your sexy FOXNews Neo-con feminist parading her legs and tits in skimpy "business attire" tells you.

Nor the reasons an effete, measured and reasonable-sounding, emasculated voice of a Mangina SWPL Journalism Grad-school drop-out reads into an NPR microphone.

Nor the corporate sponsored patriotism of right-wing, Neo-Con bombast flooding the AM airwaves.

Nor any other media outlet financed by either corporations or the Government.

They are all playing their own role in sowing confusion and making everyone focus on "the left" and "the right."

One gigantic, sophisticated game of pin the tail on the donkey...no, on the elephant....no, on the donkey...the elephant...donkey...elephant...donkey...

It's much simpler to point out the real culprits, because they do what they do, and they are quite open about it.

Bankers. Wall Street. The owners of the real wealth and power in the world.

They've set up the game, they know all the rules, and they are running away with it because the majority don't even know the game is being played.

Just look at what the Federal Reserve Policies are doing to the price of food in the global economy.

Educate yourself on exactly what inflation, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and the policies and actions that have been enacted by the Government and the Federal Reserve in the name of "fixing" this economy they've deliberately created. The truth couldn't be more obvious.

I just came across this article, Growth or Hot Money: What's really affecting food prices?, regarding the role that "Ben Bernanke's policies" (he's just the puppet for the owners of the Federal Reserve Cartel) of "printing" all that fiat currency and what it is doing to the global economy. In short, it's driving up the price of food. This is the real reason why revolution is now occurring. The hungry masses will no longer tolerate repressive, authoritarian regimes when they can no longer afford to feed themselves.

Sound crazy? Read.

And now comes Ben Bernanke, chairman of the US Federal Reserve, former chairman of the Princeton Economics Department, with a claim so dumb that we don’t what to think. What’s the matter with Princeton? What’s the matter with economics? What’s the matter with the Fed? What’s the matter with Ben Bernanke?

The Telegraph has the report:

Ben Bernanke…has dismissed the idea that the central bank’s policies are to blame for the rise in global food prices to a record high…

Now, let’s see. The Fed adds $2 trillion to the world’s supply of “hot money.” Maybe that has no effect? What do you think? The Telegraph continues:

Mr. Bernanke said that the rapid growth of developing economies was behind the increase in food prices, rather than the Fed’s decision to embark on a second, $600bn (£371bn) round of printing money. “Clearly what’s happening is not a dollar effect, it’s a growth effect,” Mr. Bernanke said in a rare question and answer session with journalists at the National Press Club in Washington on Thursday.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) has warned that high prices, already above levels in 2008 which sparked riots, were likely to rise further.

The FAO measures food prices from an index made up of a basket of key commodities such as wheat, milk, oil and sugar, and is widely watched by economists and politicians around the world as the first indicator of whether prices will end up higher on shop shelves.

The index hit averaged 230.7 points in January, up from 223.1 points in December and 206 in November. The index highlights how food prices, which throughout most of the last two decades have been stable, have taken off in alarming fashion in the past three years. In 2000, the index stood at 90 and did not break through 100 until 2004.

Well, how do you like that? It’s growth that it driving food prices to records. Not money printing.

But wait…hold on…is the emerging world growing faster now than it was two or three years ago? Nope. Hmmm… Is the growth a big surprise? Did something happen to make investors and traders suddenly realize that…well…hey…the world is growing!

Nope.

Then, how come prices are shooting up now? Why didn’t they shoot up 4 years ago? Or 2 years ago? Or last year? What has changed?

Well… How about the $1.5 trillion of brand spanking new money that the Fed put into the world’s money supply in 2009-2010? And how about the $600 billion more it’s pumping in now?

That’s new, isn’t it? So, here’s a wild and crazy idea. Maybe…just maybe…the fundamentals of supply and demand really do work. Maybe…just maybe…if you increase the world’s hot money supply (hot money does not come from an increase in real wealth or consumer demand…but from central banks’ low interest rates and money printing)…well, maybe prices on global, auction-priced goods – such as food – go up.

Just look at what is happening to other global, auction-priced goods. Oil, for example, soared above $100 over the weekend. And look at gold. Put oil and food in terms of gold and what do you find? That they haven’t gone up at all! What does that tell you? That the “growth” hypothesis is nonsense.

In other words, yes…the developing world is growing. It has been growing at a high rate for the last 20 years. Nothing new there.

What’s new is that central banks are printing money at a record pace. They are creating more bubbles.

Isn’t this going to end badly? Why would governments play such a dangerous game? Aren’t they putting their own credibility, currencies and solvency in jeopardy?

Yes, of course they are.

Why are they doing this? Why? WHY?!?!!?

Because they can.

And as I wrote earlier, they are not even trying to hide it.

But there is something you have to understand. Governments always look out for the elite groups that control them. They’re not necessarily concerned with the betterment of humankind…or even the best interests of their own people.

Here’s an example, from The New York Times:

Public deficits and debt relative to gross domestic product have ballooned in the last three years for one simple reason – the big banks at the heart of our financial system blew themselves up. On this point, the conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which appeared last week, are very clear and utterly compelling.

No one forced the banks to take on so much risk. Top bankers lobbied long and hard for the rules that allowed them to behave recklessly. And these same people effectively captured the hearts, minds and, some would say, pocketbooks of the regulators – in the sense that a well-regarded regulator can and often does go work for a bank afterward.

Meanwhile, Barry Ritholtz says the feds are using Fannie and Freddie as another way to shovel taxpayer money to Wall Street. As you know, the Fed already plays Sugar Daddy to the bankers. If the bankers have some trash mortgage-backed security that they lost money on, the Fed buys it from them at an inflated price. Of course, just having the Fed in the market buying MBSs inflates the markets.

But it turns out, the Fed isn’t the only one. The US Treasury also gave Fannie and Freddie a blank check to save the housing industry. But they let the housing industry go bust. Instead, they took the money and saved the housing industry’s creditors. The big banks, in other words. Wall Street. The richest of the rich.

Why should taxpayer money be used to bail out the rich?

Well, they’re not just rich. They’re powerful. They’re the people the government was set up to protect. Give the feds a break; they’re just doing their jobs.

The private sector innovates. Government procrastinates…hesitates…and vegetates.

That’s just the way it works. That’s what government has always been for. The government of ancient Egypt protected the pharaohs. The government of the Ottoman Empire protected the Ottomans. The government of Genghis Khan looked out for Genghis.

And who does the US government look out for? Naturally, it looks out for the elite groups that control it. Who’s that? The big banks, of course.

We live in a world run by Bankers. Don't take it from me, just follow the fiat money and the politico-whores in government it enslaves.

We are all buttthexed now.

Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me

The recent little fracas I started between The Thinking Housewife and The Spearhead produced some excellent discussions and commentary...not just "evil attacks" as she and her White Knights of Churchianity characterized the debate as.

One of Laura Wood's White Knights (he himself proudly called himself that, I'm not using it as a sarcastic jibe here,) than wrote several blog posts with his own perspective on our little disagreement when he responded to Laura's hysterical cry of persecution in the face of  "attacks." It's obvious to see that some of the more reasoned, logical arguments some men bothered to comment on at his blog got him to at least consider changing his mind about The Spearhead and the men's right's movement in general, as he went from ridiculing men's rights issues and game, to a more sober, serious rumination: Is the MRM wrong but useful? How then can we fight feminism?

But the reason I post on this topic is not because I wish to continue the debate between the "traditionalists" and the "manosphere," (Laura never did respond to my response, claiming that no further discussion is necessary since I refused to moderate the more extreme comments at the Spearhead...despite the fact that I do not moderator powers there,) but rather to highlight a brilliant comment by one "Kel," which was really more of a testimony of a traditional Catholic who immediately recognized the truth of "GAME" and how it changed his whole viewpoint on his religious beliefs:

As a traditional Catholic, I think there is extreme wisdom in “Game.” I was, and am, a traditional Catholic. But when I read Roissy and learned about game, it’s as if many delusions of women were swept away in one fell stroke. I realized how blinded I was to the existing culture, and how manifestly corrupt things have become, because I was pedastalizing women. In reality, Christianity teaches that no one should be pedastalized, that all are sinners. But in practice, especially today, the stink of Satan exists even in the Church and this stink has at its source the pedastalization of femininity.

Patriarchal traditionalists claim that proponents of Game are engaged in an objective evil because Game treats as its baseline assumption the idea that a woman is at her core a biological organism that primarily responds to her biological influences instead of rational/moral influences, which is dehumanizing, objectifying and therefore evil. Women listen to their “tingle” instead of morality or reason, and the science of Game is to understand that fundamental female motivation.

To this objection, I think that the patriarchal traditionalists are overreacting. Saying that a hungry man will eventually grab for food is not objectifying him by reducing him to fundamentals of gastro-intestinal chemistry. Likewise, it is not objectification to understand that a woman who wants exciting sex will therefore grab for exciting sex. Biological functions are a reality to be dealt with. If society made gluttony a fetish (and in some way, it has) and proclaimed that eating to obesity is the right and should be the desire of all women, and that 400 pound women were living life to the fullest and the subject of movies like “Eat, Pray, Eat Some More”, understanding the dynamics between that public call to gluttony and everyone’s basic need to eat would be very useful for a person looking to find a thin partner. Likewise, understanding society’s pervasive promotion of hypergamy, and how it turns a natural sexual desire into a fetish of misandry, is useful for a person either looking to avoid it or deal with it in his own way. That is what Game is about. It deals with the intersection of basic, fundamental biological urges and the cultural reality we are in today.

Furthermore, patriarchal traditionalists objectify women anyway. They treat all of them as objects. Glass objects, to be revered and fawned over, but objects nonetheless. They have made femininity into its own God, violating a fundamental commandment that they claim to uphold. Yes, to the outside observer, when the traditionalist patriarch places women on a pedestal, he is making femininity into a New God to be worshiped in violation of the First Commandment. The actual teaching of Christianity is not so blind, which proclaims that all people (including women) are sinners and that the flesh is weak in all of us (including, and sometimes especially, women). Patriarchial traditionalists, with their pedestalization of femininity, have violated their own core beliefs and mock the tenets of their own faith. And God will not be mocked.

I’m a practicing Catholic but I think that so-called “patriarchal traditionalists” are fundamentally blind to a big part of reality. In reality, Christianity is not going to improve things here. It has always failed to conserve its political strength, and it will continue to fail, because Christianity is not about practical politics. “My Kingdom is not of this Earth,” He said. And Jesus was right. His Kingdom IS not of this earth, and the world hated him and will continue to hate him. You want to be Christian, you’re going to have to bear a cross. And so Patriarchal traditionalists are chasing a dream if they think that their strong faith will produce practical results. It will not. Jesus has all but said it will not. There is NO prosperity gospel. Being a believer won’t earn you riches nor will it make society more fair towards men. If anything, it WILL get you thrown to the lions. And while a pagan society that fed Christians to the lions eventually converted to Christianity, it took nearly 300 years and the blood of countless martyrs. And unfortunately, we can’t wait another 300 years between the time Christians are fed to the lions and the State officially blessing Christianity. Men have problems now and can’t wait for the blood of martyrs to fertilize the ground.

Amen, Kel.

Is the Misandry Bubble Getting Ready to Pop?

The Fifth Horseman's predicted that eventually The Misandry Bubble is going to pop by 2020.

Perhaps the groundswell of outrage showing up in the comment section of Kay Hymowitz's WSJ shaming screed is an indication that this bubble is going to pop much sooner than 9 years from now...

As Ferdinand Bardamu noted:

The silver lining in Hymowitz’s noxious screed is that virtually the entire commentariat is united against her. There are hundred of comments on her article and I can’t read them all, but from what I’ve seen the ratio of haters to supporters is at least nine to one...

Dude...that was 2 days ago. There are now 1327 and counting responses, and it still looks like it's about the 9-1 ratio of commenters castigating Hymowitz for her misandry and constant anecdotes regarding the injustices of our society towards men.

As Ferdinand noted:

This is momentous. As recently as a couple of years ago, an article like this would have gone unnoticed by men, part of the white noise of misandry blasted into our ears all the time. Now, whenever women like Hymowitz rear their ugly faces to condescend and blame us for the country’s ills, there’s a horde of angry men to descend upon them and drop truth bombs until they cry. A sea change is occurring, with the ideas of the manosphere leaking out into the public at large. It’s men – on strike!

From my point of view, this looks to me like a true, grass roots movement of AWARENESS.

Remember Joseph Goebbels, the Third Reich's Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda's most famous quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Indeed, the TRUTH about the extent of misandry-based injustice and what it is doing to our society as a whole, is the greatest enemy of the current Matriarchal state...and it seems like there is a groundswell of people are beginning to recognize it.

Perhaps all this MRA/MRM blogging over the last half decade really IS having an effect.

When I first began blogging in 2007, I remember one of my first posts that got my first, substantial positive response (Back than 9 comments was 'substantial' at this blog...lol): MRA In Your Personal Life.

I am of the opinion that being an MRA carries a responsibility to it that requires far more than logging on to the internet and raging on your blog about the unfairness, inequality and stupidity of feminists and their useful idiot manginas. Don't get me wrong, the proliferation of MRA blogs is vital in raising awareness, because it seems to be the only venue at this time in which MRA ideas can be discussed and disseminated to a wide audience, as almost all other mediums of communication have been corrupted by feminist group think and PC conventions. I myself lived a life of ignorance and just kind of went along with the general theme of feminism's ubiquity in the mainstream Western consciousness until I discovered MRA blogs.

That was in 2007...and now that seems like such a long time ago. These ideas, these TRUTHS are now hitting the mainstream. Just 4 years ago, the manosphere was just a tiny lunatic fringe on the interwebs...it is now percolating into the mainstream en mass.

Looking back on my thinking back then, I think I severely underestimated the effect of manosphere blogging on the popular culture at large:

But the most important thing to remember is this: no matter how hopeless it seems, we MRA have the ultimate weapon on our sides in combating the rising tide of feminist thought...the truth.

Truth is our ultimate weapon, and we need to wield it wherever and whenever it is prudent to do so. This means we need to speak up when we can to help raise awareness of the ignorant and to counter feminist myths that are repeated as facts, and to identify and counter the folly of misandry whenever we encounter it in the real world. This, I believe, is far more important than blogging.

Perhaps blogging is really all it took to raise awareness to the current level we are seeing. I've recalled many a person blogging and commenting that the entire manosphere blog world was mindless venting and in the end will never amount to a hill of beans.

It is now patently obvious that those criticisms are utterly mistaken.

MRA blogging HAS raised awareness...and the awareness of the TRUTH is hitting a critical mass much quicker than I think even the most optimistic of Masculinist bloggers thought possible just a few short years ago.

It almost seems...


...revolutionary!

Is Your Home a Haven or a Hellhole?

The blogger at Mormon Men has announced that he recently filed for divorce.

Having extended family members who are Mormon, I understand that this is a somewhat heavy decision not taken lightly, since one of the primary tenets of the Mormon church is people who are married, are married for eternity, in this world and in the next.

Given the quality of his blogging and his harsh introspection of himself and his own role in his marriage that brought him to this point, I'm quite certain he has come to realize he had no other choice.

Once you take the red pill, there is no going back to the blue pill.

One realization he came to in explaining his reaction to his decision really resonated with me:

The most persistent feeling I get however is a sense of relief: relief at having not brought children into this, relief at not having to be a punching bag any longer, relief at being able to come home to my dog and have my house be a haven instead of the place I have to be the most on my guard.

One point I frequently reiterated in my past posts regarding relationship dynamics, and the plight of the Average Married Chump, is for men to ask yourselves if a behavior you are engaging in is the behavior of a man interacting with his lover....or a little boy answering to his angry mother.

If it's the latter, than chances are you are living the uncomfortable and hellish existence of the AMC. As I wrote in The Primary Trait of the AMC: Fearful Dishonesty:

Take the old axiom to heart - honesty IS the best policy. If you can't be honest about something, than you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Are you afraid to come home and deal honestly with your wife?

Are you fearful of what you think will be her anger and disapproval if you tell what you're doing, feeling or thinking?

If this is how you feel, you are not living in a real home.

Remember the old saying, "Home is Where the Heart is?" That only applies if you relish being in your home in the first place. And that 'aint gonna happen if you live every waking moment in your home, fearful of upsetting your wife. Lying to her to try and avoid upsetting her only makes it worse, because even if you don't consciously realize it, you will hate yourself for living a lie.

Home is supposed to be your sanctuary. Your place to rest, relax, and recharge, so that you can get ready to go out and face the world another day...knowing you can come home and let your guard down and just enjoy the company of your family upon your return.

How can you do that when you're afraid of doing or saying something, and than having to deal with an upset tyrant of a spouse?

That is because you are not supposed to be under the dominion of her emotional state in the first place.

This is precisely why so many men work all that overtime when they really don't have to. Or why they always go to bars or clubs or buddy's houses to drink and try and forget the conflict, anger and disapproval they know they are in for when they walk through the door of their home.

I know, because I've lived it.

Things are much different for me now. I look forward to coming home every single day. I look forward to talking with my wife, seeing her smile, hearing her laughter, eating her cooking. There are times where we are invited to attend events and occasions, and I prefer staying home. Home is what you make of it, and the woman you choose to put at the heart of it.

Here's to Mormon Man finding his haven.

The Moral Sex Responsible for Taming Men

A female commenter going by the moniker paigeu, left an interesting comment on the Hooking up with the Dark Lord post.

I can see the truth in it all but it is very embarrassing. I grew up with the idea that women were the moral sex and were responsible for taming men.

The average manosphere blogger or commenter would guffaw at such a statement and immediately relegate it to just another manifestation of the solipsistic superiority complex of the typical modern,Western female.

Worse still, it is the attitude instilled by the modern White Knights of Churchianity. This is the precise attitude that shaped the unhappy home I grew up in, and drove me from the church's regular membership.

But on further consideration...there is truth to be found in this statement.

As women are the gate keepers to sex, they ARE the "moral sex." The morality that women ascribe to their sexual behavior is responsible for the state of morality in society and the general culture at large.

In other words, there cannot be a few alpha players banging multitudes of women, if there are no large number of sluts willing to sleep with men they just met. There cannot be a rash of husbands abandoning their wives for younger women, if there are no younger women willing to be home-wreckers.

The only way men can be "tamed" by the "moral sex," is when the female sex adheres to a code of morality that promotes the building of civilization...Patriarchy.

This is essentially what you see manifest in cultures for which the morality of matriarchal promiscuity is it's centerpiece: untamed males, running wild, contributing to the decline of civilization.

But when women channel their sex into the system of Patriarchy, requiring them to submit to chaste monogamy and embrace their femininity to be complementary partners to their husbands, the male is "tamed." She doesn't truly tame her through force - since a man who can be cowed into submission by a woman's sheer will of force is most likely tame to begin with - she inspires him to tame himself.

My ruminations on paigeu's comment brought one of my favorite movies to mind, Clint Eastwood's The Unforgiven.

The background story of his character, William Munny, demonstrates this principle. A former scoundrel bad boy thug who was inspired to change his carousing, wild ways into becoming a family man.

Men are not "tamed" by chaste, virtuous women because the woman demands it. Not because she forces him against his will either. No, she tames her man by inspiring him. By giving him a happy home graced by her femininity, he is content to forgo the hedonistic pursuits of the untamed culture of rampant female promiscuity. Eastwood's character stopped drinking, gambling, gun-fighting and carousing in saloons to become a farmer and a family man.

Even after his wife died and he decided to try and gain the whore's bounty to get some desperately needed money, it took him a long, long time to awaken the beast within, the one that he had tamed for such a long time. Throughout most of the movie, it is comical to see him try and regain his former "bad guy" ways.

It takes the sheriff displaying his best friend's body in an open casket for the entire town to see that William Munny finally unleashes that long-tamed beast within, and in the film's climax, he walks coolly into the sheriff's office full of armed men, outnumbering him 10 to 1, and guns them all down in a cold blooded, unflinching manner. The untamed beast wiped out the entire organization of law and order in that town in under 10 seconds.

This is exactly what is happening in our current society that celebrates and advocates female promiscuity. This is why we have overflowing prisons of young men, most of whom come from single mother households.

Our current system is designed to empower women by dis-empowering men. To promote their competitive role with males, and to remove any personal consequences for female promiscuity.

When the majority of a society's women embrace this, the men have no reason, motivation or desire to even try and tame the beast.

Feedlot USA

Look at this photo. These cows are eating corn and soy. Look at the food labels from the products you buy in the grocery store. Do you like your feed?



"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" - J.W. Goethe

I was at the feed store the other day buying chicken feed (non-soy based feed, of course).
While I was waiting for the store clerk to see if a certain kind of feed was in their warehouse, I was standing around and looking at all of the other products they had on display for animal husbandry.

My eyes fell upon a castrator up on the wall. What do farmers, ranchers and herders use a castrator for? To emasculate the males so as to regulate the breeding of your animals, and to make the males less aggressive and easier to control.

This is especially important when you put a large amount of animals into a feedlot to fatten them up for slaughter. Emasculated males don't fight over access to females. They simply eat and get fat, increasing their profitability for their owners when it's time for harvest.

That's when I realized that our current society is nothing more than the ordinary citizenry being treated as animals confined to a feedlot system to fatten us up for slaughter...all for the lucrative profit of our owners.

Instead of a physical pen keeping the sheeple herded into close proximity with each other so our owners can give us specific feed to fatten us up...

...instead of physically emasculating the men with a castrator to control their behavior...

...our feedlot owners have erected the barriers to this virtual feedlot within our minds.

The feedlot we inhabit is a mental construct. The barriers were erected by our institutionalized education system and our mass media driven culture. The largest section of fencing is "conventional wisdom." That is the strongest means of keeping the herd in strictly controlled confinement.

It keeps the herd eating their fattening, health-destroying feed. It keeps us from naturally procreating offspring in the normal numbers we would if we lived in a natural state in the wild. It keeps us from forming self-contained and self-sufficient units called "families." It's much easier to control one giant, homogeneous herd than it is to control a large amount of loosely affiliated family units.

They are fattening us up to profit off of the problems and dysfunctions that their feed and health programs for the herd invariably cause for each individual.

They want us to eat like grazing ruminants, contrary to nature of the predator species that we really are.

They use societal programming like feminism and all of the legal ideas, legislation and enforcement regimes that it entails to castrate manifestations of male virility in society.

To control the herds population growth, you castrate the males.

To control the herds behavior, you control the female behavior and the castrated males will follow suit.

Yes, we are all sheeple, confined in this feedlot we call "Civilization."

The one thing you must learn though, is that being stuck in this feedlot is your own choice. You can ignore the barricades they've erected to confine us. You can step out of it's confines and live life in it's natural state...uncontrolled, un-herded, and free of castration.

But you need to be able to recognize the barricades for what they are, in order to escape it.

Hooking Up With the Dark Lord

Roissy seems to provide endless fodder for blogosphere discussions. I just spent an inordinate amount of time writing a response to this thread over at Hooking Up Smart, after reading the comments in which a slew of female commenters weighed in with their opinions on Roissy and his blog. At first I was just going to comment, but than realized the length of it was as long as a typical post here...so if I'm gonna put that kind of effort into writing something, may as well post it here as well.

- Heh...seems like Susan's blog swallowed my comment. Glad I copied & pasted it here before I hit the submit button over there.

---

---

Very interesting thread. The differences in male and female perspectives on Roissy and his insights is amusing and makes for compelling reading.

But two particular comments made me decide to log on and put in my own $.02 on this discussion:

That’s BS. Men get bored of the sweet, feminine, hot girls with minimal drama or say “this is going to fast for me” or they say “I know myself. I don’t want to hurt you. We are not meant for each other.” Then you see them chasing dominant, strong bitches, who emotionally torture them and then screw them over something."

When men dump women, your typical, self-absorbed and narcissistic woman will engage her rationalization hamster to explain to herself why he left without having to face the truth of her own role in ending the relationship. While she may think to herself that she was a "sweet, feminine, hot girl with minimal drama," the man's perspective most certainly disagrees on at least one, some or all of those assessments. That's why he left.

You also fail to understand that the weighting of importance between these traits. For most men, the hot girl part is the most important trait (the biological hard wiring to try and mate with the genetically superior specimens). If you really are a sweet, feminine, minimal-drama woman, and he left you for a bitchy, demanding, high maintenance woman, it's a safe bet that your "hot girl" rating is lower than the bitch's hot girl rating, from his point of view.

He didn't leave you to chase the bitch because she's "more exciting and challenging." It's because she's hotter than you and he's willing to pay the price in dealing with that negative drama to access what he perceives as her higher sex appeal.

He wasn't bored by your sweet, feminine, low-maintenance charm. He was most likely bored with your sex appeal.

But I will concede that you are not entirely wrong. There most certainly are men who, as one of you ladies put it:

"...addicted to the highs and lows of constant relationship drama as the women. If things are too calm, too nice, too stable, they crave more and will create instability if they have to."

Not all men are like that.

But do you know where the kind of men who are like that come from?

They come from the homes of their never-married or divorced mothers that bring an endless amount of drama into their son's lives.
These are the men who grew up in a home where they watched their mothers bring home an assortment of violent and abusive men to give her the drama she needs.
These are the men who were used as weapons when they were boys in custody battles by their vindictive divorcee mothers.

These are the men who never learn to control their emotions and temper. They had no masculine role models to learn from on how to channel their natural male aggression into productive outlets. They learned to let their emotions be the primary influence on their behavior.

These are the men who were alienated from their Fathers. They are the male manifestations of their primary role models in life...their single mothers. See Myth of the Ghetto Alpha Male.

Pointing to such damaged men as proof that the female psyche's need for drama is invalid or that "doesn't apply to me," is missing the forest for the trees.
Women need social drama, which is why all women gossip. Gossip in and of itself is not good or bad. "Good" women gossip too, they just do not gossip with malicious intent.

The discussion of Roissy on this thread regarding his personal life, and speculations on how truthful he is about his success with women and his ability or inability to have a meaningful, "REAL" LTR, and the entire farcical episode with "lady" Raine "outing him" is just another manifestation of this female need for gossip and social drama. It is irrelevant in terms of why Roissy and his blog are still relevant and influential to men all over the world.

You ladies think that understanding the personal details of his life gives you insight into whether any particular advice or observation he writes about is invalid or not. This is why most of you fail to comprehend the "big picture" with regards to why his blog has struck such a chord with so many men.

Men who "get it", on the other hand, read what he writes, and can immediately recognize the underlying truths of his hyperbole because they recognize those truths and how they apply to their own life experiences with women. We men don't have the rationalization hamster obscuring our critical self analysis.
Hindsight is not always 20/20. You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't understand why you made them.

When Roissy writes something with regards to the darker aspects of the female id, men experience that "AHA!" moment of clarity and suddenly understand why things happened to them in their own past experiences with women.

Pick any thread in the Chateau's archives dealing with the topic of women, and you can find numerous testimonials of men who gained insight into their own past relationship successes and failures because of a particular point or view expressed by Roissy. His insights explained things to them that they formerly failed to comprehend.

This is why you have plenty of men who have a much different outlook on morality, still giving Roissy his just due and blogroll linkage despite religious and/or moral objections to the PUA lifestyle Roissy espouses.
Men like Vox Day, the Social Pathologist, Dalrock, Ulysses, Eumaios, Athol,.Mormon Man ..none of whom are Players participating in the great gangbang of our current liberalized, secular, feminist-driven culture...men who are self-described dedicated,faithful Fathers and husbands. Nevertheless, each in their own way "get" the point of Roissy and the truths he espouses and how it applies in some way to their own relationships with their wives and their own awareness of their own masculinity and the role it plays in their relationships.

The reason why 99% of the women who read Roissy just don't get it, is because most of you ladies read his observations of the darker aspects of the female id and you immediately kick the hamster into gear to justify how his observations don't apply to yourself.

You can't help it.

As a woman, you are hardwired to believe you are a special, unique snowflake. This is why we men who understand the big picture, are amused whenever a woman weighs in with her own variation of NAWALT.

The only difference between a woman that seeks out relationships with abusive men and those that don't, is how she's channeled her darker aspects of the female sexual id into either positive or negative outlets. If you are a woman who is not in an abusive relationship, you've found a man who feeds your base, visceral desires in a positive manner. This is why you mistakenly believe that NAWALT, especially your own unique, special self.

For instance, Susan seems to be most offended by Roissy's observation that the threat of masculine physical violence is a sexual turn-on for women. You completely missed the disclaimer he wrote along with that post saying that for many women, you do not have to physically assault her, but imply that it is possible, and that presence of controlled, masculine aggression will inspire attraction in her.

Whether women admit this to themselves or not doesn't make it untrue.

This attraction to masculine aggression is the main driver of passionate make up sex. There is no hot and heavy makeup sex if the conflict was resolved by the man profusely apologizing and begging and pleading with her for forgiveness while she's raging in anger. That just turns her anger into bitter contempt and disgust.
It is only when her anger is either matched and overpowered by his own angry response -- or he maintains a stoic, calm and detached indifference to her emotional outburst -- that makes her attraction kicks into high gear...even if she feels justified in her anger.  On the instinctual level, whether she is logically right or wrong in her argument, at some level it is still a shit test.

His demonstration of having a spine in the face of her emotional aggression, satisfies her primal desire to mate with a man who would stand up for her and their offspring in the face of external sources of aggression. Women are attracted to the male capacity for violence and aggression. Just because you may not be attracted to, and in a relationship with, an abusive thug that beats you, doesn't mean there is an aspect of your sexual nature that is not attracted to male aggression. You're just attracted to the kind of man that learned how to channel it into a positive outlet. That doesn't mean your a different kind of women. That just means you were, most likely raised in an healthy, "normal" environment where you learned to be attracted to the qualities that made your mom attracted to your dad.

While it's true that this comment is attempting to make the point that "not all men are like that," while "all women are like that," that just highlights the fact that gender differences are real.

Women need drama and they are attracted to men who have masculine aggression.

Men need hot women, preferably women who channel that need for drama into positive outlets...but if she's hot enough, we'll tolerate the negative drama up to a certain point before we decide it's no longer worth the trade off.

When You Take the Red Pill, You See Things Oh So Clearly

I DVR a few tv shows I like to watch, and get around to it at my leisure. So yesterday I ended up watching last weeks American Idol episodes. So far, I've been pleasantly surprised with the two new judges and the chemistry they have with Randy Jackson...while no one can ever replace Simon Cowell, I've always been an Aerosmith fan and Steven Tyler has been fun. Jennifer Lopez has always been pleasant eye candy to behold and I'm enjoying no longer having to endure the patronizing and drugged out Paula Abdul, the "by the way, did you hear I'm a lesbian" Ellen Degeneres or mouthy "empowered" Kara Deogardia.

When idol announced the departure of Simon Cowell, I thought that was it for me, I would no longer watch the show. Kudos to the producers, the new panel seems to look like it's gonna work out.

Anyways, back to my point - last week, one of the auditions included a dual audition between two ex-lovers, a guy and a girl, who despite being broken up, still perform a music act together as a duet.

Here's the audition of Chelsee Oaks and Rob Bolin...it's almost painful to watch, and you feel for Rob Bolin. He's got a wicked case of blue pill oneitis, and Chelsee offers us a glimpse into her furiously sprinting rationalization hamster...



"We have something together...but, we tried, and we tried and it just didn't work out."

Translation: "We have AMAZING chemistry singing together. I LOVE what we have...musically. But he's SO beta, and he's got me on such a high pedestal, he's absolutely killed ALL 'gina tingles I first had for him. As a singer and musical partner, I love him...but I cannot STAND his supplicating beta-tude!"

And of course...the boyfriend waiting for her outside? The way he looks at Rob Bolin, you can almost hear his thoughts: "you're such a chump!"

Perhaps someone will point this poor, lovestruck sap to the Chateau. He needs the red pill...bad.

True Self-Esteem

Many folks in the Manosphere talk about "fake it until you make it" with regards to building up confidence and approaching women. The point of this advice is to try and generate a positive feedback loop for which the struggling male discovers that women are attracted to confidence and resolve in a man, and while he may be faking it at first, the success he experiences while faking that confidence and bravado should boost his REAL confidence so that eventually he is no longer faking it.

That is because the true path to self-esteem for males is to struggle with adversity and overcome it through persistence and perseverance. It is the realization that you've triumphed through the force of your will. The experience gained from this process is what real self-seteem is founded on. This truth is one of the principles that is deliberately distorted by mass media culture - that self-esteem is the result of shielding children from negative experiences, protecting them from harsh criticism and avoiding any possibility of failure. We don't want to hurt their feelings...because hurt feelings is evidence of a low self-esteem. This philosophy that seems to be at the heart of our culture's principle in raising the next generation. It is one of the reasons why we are a declining civilization.

This false definition of self-esteem is at it's core, a dishonest philosophy...and an enfeebling one at that. This is one of the reasons why we have what is now commonly referred to as an "extended adolescence." Shielded from the consequences of failure, one never learns from that failure, so they never improve.

True self esteem is an honest existence. It's the realization that you can and did overcome adversity and struggle to accomplish something. I take pride in attaining my black belt in martial arts, although I am very circumspect and humble about it, I never talk about it or use it as a means of describing myself to people who do not know me. (It is only in the anonymity of the internet would I write something like this.) That is because I went through years and years of extensive, grinding and sometimes very painful training to achieve that rank. I've been knocked out cold, and I've knocked out others. I've had broken bones and an endless amount of bruises. The self esteem I built up from that is founded on honesty. I know what I went through to achieve that rank.

I've met guys who got their black belts from a "McDojo." They spent hundreds of dollars and a short period of time to be "awarded" the rank. It is a mark of false self-esteem. It is the seeking of status that is not really earned. When you see a McDojo black belt recipient "move" they don't move like a person who has gone through the extensive training required to attain that rank in an honest dojo. Any true black belt can recognize immediately whether or not a person has a real black belt versus a McDojo rank. Fraudulent self-esteem is easily recognized by those who attained it authentically.

Self esteem comes from truly learning about yourself through testing yourself and pushing your personal limitations as much as you can. This process of building up a real self-esteem is the basis for the type of advice given by Shark over at Solve my Girl Problems, when he advises men to "kick it up a notch":

I don’t care what you do for a living, what fetishes you have, what dreams you dream, or what hobbies you uptake to pass time.

If you are a professional male dancer trying to make your way to the Russian Royal Ballet, kick it up a notch.

If you spend your day playing Call of Duty and yearn to get a contract with MLG, kick it up a notch.

If you work at retail and have aspirations to become manager, kick it up a notch.

If you compete in Origami tournaments and spend your day making paper airplanes, kick it up a notch.

If you want a torn physique, kick it up a notch

If you’re on your high school basketball team and want to make it to the NBA, kick it up a notch.

If you’re a pre-med student in college who dreams of becoming a successful doctor one day, kick it up a notch.

If you have a 9-5 desk job but have been thinking for a long time about starting your own business, kick it up a notch.

If you smoke weed all day and aspire to achieve a level of euphoria few organisms have ever achieved, kick it up a notch

Move mountains, shake the earth, point your toes.

You want self-esteem? Find some goal that involves some sort of struggle. Apply yourself with persistence. When you experience difficulties or set backs, don't quit...

...kick it up a notch.

POST SCRIPT - Commenter Greg asked a question in the last thread regarding honesty and the "fake it til you make it" advice.

Greg: I have been struggling with this issue for some time now. On the one hand, I find I am most confident, centered, and strong, when I am unapologetic about myself, do not fake myself, and am honest about my intentions, desires, and actions.

On the other hand, doesn't game say specifically that you have to "fake it till u make it"? Isn't that dishonest? Doesn't roissy repeatedly say you should not "be yourself" but fake yourself in ways he says will earn "respect" from women?

Isn't this a contradiction or a paradox? This seems to be a central paradox of game - that in order to win respect you need to be yourself, but game tells u that to win respect you have to act in specific ways that may not reflect your true beliefs/desires/intentions and thus be dishonest.


Is it dishonest to fake confidence and self-assurance? I don't think so. For many, many men, approaching and talking to beautiful women is very intimidating. The fear of rejection can be so palpable, it overrides your normal state of confidence and causes you to be crippled with self-awareness.

"Faking" the confidence, and seeing how women respond to it, is exactly what is needed to begin building up real confidence. It's all about starting a positive feedback loop. Remember that probably 80% of Game deals with getting men to actually build up the courage to approach women in the first place. If the man doesn't approach, there is no game to play. The biggest obstacle to men approaching women is the man's own self-doubt and fears of rejection holding back. Acting like you don't have those fears and self-doubts is probably the only way to eventually overcoming them.

You may feel dishonest by faking confidence you don't really have...but it's not the same as using lies to avoid uncomfortable situations.