Tolerance & Slow Motion Poisoning

In response to my Turkey Day post in which I resolved to avoid partially hydrogenated tainted food at my family's celebration feast, finndistan guy made a point for which I myself have contemplated as well:

About your memories on hydrogenated oily poisons.

First memory: Three years ago got bronchitis related to dust allergy and my laziness. did not go away for two weeks so I went to the doc. Got some antibiotics; and even if the bronchitis went away after a ten day regimen, those ten days were pure suffering. Talk about bloody diarrhea and such.

Second memory, a recent one.

I am lazy with dusting the house, so there was dust in the house, but I had no problem, zilch. Then one sunday; after a saturday party at a friend's, including little alcohol, and lots of "healthy vegan food" like whipped cream from oat milk, and milkless butter (took some questioning to get the words margarine out); I went to eat at a local ethnic diner. Lots of food. Almost binged.

The system did not recover from this assault, and for a week I was down, until few days ago; then I got a sore throat.

Realizing what is happening, I cleaned the house, but the throat turned into similar symptoms as the bronchitis three years ago.

I will not take any antibiotic I said to myself.

Since the binge, I had been eating clean, so there was not much to do there,

Took off from work, popped 15.000 ius of vit d every meal (2-3 meal per day), slept 12 hours, ate only food that I made (now am thinking of 100% my way (except the weekend alcohol) till christmas);

The same symptoms that took me ten days to clear three years ago, that took another friend two weeks, another three months (yea, this one is a grain lover); took two nights of 12 hours of sleep with enough tea and vit d, coconut oil, good butter and no processed crap.

The lungs went to crap on wednesday morning, now it is friday afternoon, and I have them running at 95%.

Definitely a placebo effect. Both on the negative effects of the vegan/processed stuff, and the positive effects on what i did to cure.

Placebo, yea.

I have distinct recollections of my health and well being prior to discovering the Weston A Price Foundation and the Paleo blogosphere and figuring out unconventional, anti-establishment truths regarding diet, health and nutrition.

I frequently lament to myself, "If I had known then, what I know now..."

From my mid-20's to my early 30's I thought I knew what eating healthy was, and I thought I knew what foods I should avoid. Yet I was overweight, had frequent allergy attacks, caught every cold and flu bug that I happened to come into contact with, and always took a really long time to recover. I frequently had chest colds turn into bronchitis and occasionally turn into walking pneumonia.

I also suffered from chronic asthma. I could not live without daily doses of asthma control medicine. I've had asthma since I was a young child, so I've always lived with it. I've become used to frequent attacks, and always carrying a rescue inhaler with me 24/7.

I used to also get an asthma attack every single time I exercised. Every single time. Usually withing 5 to 10 minutes of commencing some sort of physical activity or recreation, I would inevitably feel the tightness in my chest and immediately have to stop whatever I was doing and take a few puffs of my meds, hack out a few coughs and finally feel good enough to resume whatever I was doing.

My entire life, I was told by my HMO GP Doctor to avoid dairy, that my asthma was most likely related to milk allergy.

In hindsight, I now realize the truth is that I ate a grain heavy diet ('heart healthy whole grains!'), and the primary source of fat was Omega 6 rich vegetable/grain and legume oils. Margarine, low-fat/non-fat food products, and cooked with Canola, Soy and Olive oils.

Also ate a lot of commercial peanut butter brands, most made with partially hydrogenated oils.

When I first read the good folks at the WAPF article Know Your Fats, it was the first time I ever came across this piece of knowledge:

Saturated fats play many important roles in the body chemistry. They strengthen the immune system and are involved in inter-cellular communication, which means they protect us against cancer. They help the receptors on our cell membranes work properly, including receptors for insulin, thereby protecting us against diabetes. The lungs cannot function without saturated fats, which is why children given butter and full-fat milk have much less asthma than children given reduced-fat milk and margarine. Saturated fats are also involved in kidney function and hormone production.

My first thought here was "well fuck me." Then I kept reading:

The crux of Dr. Price's research has to do with what he called the "fat-soluble activators," vitamins found in the fats and organ meats of grass-fed animals and in certain seafoods, such as fish eggs, shellfish, oily fish and fish liver oil. The three fat-soluble activators are vitamin A, vitamin D and a nutrient he referred to as Activator X, now considered to be vitamin K2, the animal form of vitamin K. In traditional diets, levels of these key nutrients were about ten times higher than levels in diets based on the foods of modern commerce, containing sugar, white flour and vegetable oil. Dr. Price referred to these vitamins as activators because they serve as the catalysts for mineral absorption. Without them, minerals cannot by used by the body, no matter how plentiful they may be in the diet.

An honest assessment of my overall dietary patterns brought me to the point of realization: while I didn't oft eat white flour, I ate plenty of whole grain flour and bread based products like pasta. I also ate a lot of sugar, and yes, all the oils I was eating where largely the so-called "healthy" vegetable oils. I was following the mainstream advice to avoid saturated fats, minimize your animal foods consumption, and that a plant based diet was optimal for human physical health. This WAPF stuff was the very antithesis to everything I thought I knew.

And yet it also jibed with my personal studies regarding Hawaiian history and culture. I've read numerous history books, oral traditions, and observations made by Europeans who first came to Hawaii. They were full of references to tall, muscular, very fit, healthy looking people. And they ate plenty of animal foods - fish and all other sorts of seafood, dog, chicken and pig.

This is why I investigated further into the WAPF...and eventually coming to the Paleo Blogosphere, and began a massive turnaround in my diet, health and well-being.

I've been basically eating a nutrient-dense, traditional-based diet while doing my best to avoid neolithic agents of disease for close to 5 years now. The transformation in my health has been dramatic.

While I still have asthma (I will probably always have it), it has nowhere near the same effects on my life like it used to. I no longer carry a rescue inhaler wherever I go, and it took me 10 months this past year before I had to refill my prescriptions...prescriptions for which I used to have to refill every single month, 12 times a year at a minimum.

This was not a placebo effect. It can't be. The difference between then and now is just too dramatic.

This was discovering the difference between a diet rich in inflammatory-promoting foods, and anti-inflammatory foods. As I've frequently stated in the past, I basically follow Mark Sisson's 80/20 paradigm. In other words, the occasional indulgence of junk food for things like special occasions.

For the most part, that's been my occasional dessert after dinner indulgence. I've never noticed any problems or residual effects when I have done this. But even in these cases, the primary NAD I'm indulging in is sugar. Even on my "cheats" I try to avoid partially hydrogenated oils. (I really do miss the local Hawaii favorite, the Malasada - A type of doughnut in which Portuguese sweet bread batter is deep fried and coated in sugar).

But there have been a few times where I did...like eating deep fried appetizers at a restaurant or party. I began to notice whenever I did this, I'd start to get asthma attacks within an hour or so.

Onion rings, french fries, or deep fried chicken (chicken katsu), doughnuts, all the stuff fried in partially hydrogenated oils (which is to say 99% of you eat anything deep fried from a restaurant), I always get asthma attacks within an hour or so, and sometimes multiple attacks over the course of the next 24 - 48 hours. But I never really paid much notice, as over the past few years in which I indulged on such occasions, were really few and far between.

But last year, I simply threw all caution to the wind and just pigged out at my family's partially hydrogenated Thanksgiving. I ate bread, dinner rolls, salad dishes containing mayo (soybean oil), loads of gravy (made with partially hydrogenated oil and wheat flour), and various desserts for which I know the crusts contained the crap too. Up to that point, having eaten "clean" for up to 3 years prior, it was quite the Omega 6/Hydrogenated oil indulgence.

I spent days with constantly recurring asthma and allergy attacks - which was how my life used to be on a daily basis when I ate the SAD. I had forgotten just how miserable I really was when I ate the neolithic agents of disease on a daily basis.

Is this nothing more than a placebo effect?

From my recollection, my attitude at the time was "I eat so good now, I'm doing so much better, this one time holiday gluttony won't affect me much! This is my cheat day, I'm with my family, let's just eat it all up and enjoy this without any worries."

Prior to that, the occasional indulgence like a few fries or onion rings or a piece of fried chicken may have caused me to have a small asthma attack, so no biggie, I'll just dose up on the meds and go back to eating good again.

So now I'm left having similar thoughts as finndistan guy. Am I having a placebo over-reaction? Or is it that when I used to consume these oils and other neolithic agents of disease regularly, did I have some sort of tolerance to the continual ingestion of inflammatory food products? Did largely removing this poison from my diet make me that much more sensitive to it when I actually do "cheat" and eat it again?

Of course, prior to changing my diet, I basically had to use asthma medication every several hours, both night and day, 24/7/365. I used to always double check to see if my inhaler was in easy reach whenever I went to bed so I could simply reach out and grab it for use when I would invariably wake up in the middle of the night with another asthma attack...usually several times, every night. So maybe I always had that same reaction to these oils, but simply managed my reactions to it by a constant dose of medications?

Now I'm not trying to make the case that my asthma is solely linked to the food I eat. I think it's more complex than that. I now believe my asthma is related to my immune system response to environmental allergen exposure (I'm hyper-allergic to dust mite allergens which are plentiful in Hawaii)...but my diet also affects my immune systems ability to deal with allergen exposure as well.

In other words, when I eat pro-inflammatory foods, my immune system becomes more susceptible to reacting to allergens, making it more likely I'll experience the bronchial tube spasms of an asthma attack.

For my own experience, the vast improvement in my asthma and allergy condition is the ultimate proof I need to validate the principles of the paleo-type diet. This is why I get annoyed when clueless people call the paleo diet a "fad."

There's so much more to your diet than simply your weight.

Ah, what the hell. Maybe I really am just a loon, and it's all just a placebo effect.

Thanks

I've been away from blogging for a bit because things for myself have taken a turn for the worse on the economic front. My company has gone out of business and myself and all of my colleagues have been laid off. My occasional foray into blue collar side work to supplement the income has now become my only option to keep the roof over our heads and food in our mouths. I've been working long hours doing hard work, and still sticking to my martial arts training regimen in the evenings. I've been too tired to blog.

That being said, it's Thanksgiving, and I'm grateful that I've still got the opportunity to work. Since the hard times began over 3 years ago, I swore I'd do all I can to avoid going on the dole and signing up for food stamps and other welfare programs I am morally and principally opposed to. I will do whatever it takes to stick to my principle of independence.



Deansdale requested I and a few other bloggers write a piece about "The top 10 things you can do to improve your marriage." I take it this question is based on providing advice for men already married, so things like "carefully pick the right woman" doesn't apply, since you've already made your choice.

I'll do this David Letterman style and countdown from 10 to 1:

10) Read Roissy's entire archives. All of it.

9) Read Athol Kay's blog archives and buy his book.

8) Now that you've read these works, take a hard and honest look at your situation. Face the ugly truth about your issues. Are you an AMC? You can't fix your problems if you don't even recognize what they really are in the first place.

7) Live your life so that you can be 100% honest at all times. This does not mean you have to tell her everything you are thinking or feeling at all times. Discretion and circumspection are the keys to being honest while keeping the peace. Live so that you do not have to ever lie out of fear of upsetting her, or lying to yourself with rationalizations so that you justify behaviors you may do that will hurt or destroy your marriage. When it comes to marriage, honesty is the best policy.

6) Understand the concept of FRAME. Avoid playing into her frame. This is especially important if she ever issues you an ultimatum of any sort. The minute you take her ultimatum at face value and make a choice, you've submitted to her frame and you've lost either way.

5) Learn to recognize when she's "shit testing you" or "fitness testing you."

4) If you've fallen into a pattern of begging her for sex STOP THIS IMMEDIATELY. COLD TURKEY. NEVER, EVER BEG FOR SEXUAL RELATIONS FROM YOUR WIFE, EVER AGAIN.

3) Their are two sorts of relationship patterns men develop with their wives over time, especially if you have children together - a woman's basic nature to act as a mother will begin to apply to you. She will begin to act like a motherly authority to you. You have to be aware of this dynamic and shut it down as soon as she starts to treat you like you're one of her children. Remember this saying, "You are not MY Mother. I have one already. You are my wife."

2) Learn to say No when you have good reason to. Make it stick in the face of resistance and emotional outpouring of anger, sadness and/or tears.

And finally, the number one thing you can do to improve your marriage:

1)Realize that the only person you can change is YOURSELF. You can't change her. You can only change your behaviors, your patterns and your routines and hopefully see if she responds favorably to the changes you effect in yourself.



Finally, for this year, I resolve to avoid any and all partially hydrogenated feed products at my family's Turkey feast. I'll probably indulge in some sugary dessert, but the memory of how shitty I felt for several days last year after eating all the grains and partially-hydrogenated crap should be enough to help me resist temptation.

Happy Thanksgiving to all who read this.

Bureaugamy

The word for today is "Bureaugamy."

You won't find this word in any dictionary. I picked up a couple of weeks ago from some commenter at some manosphere website. I've since forgotten who wrote it where (if someone points it out here, I'll edit this post and attribute it to it's orginator -- I think it may have been Zed over at Dalrocks...I'm not sure.)

The word is used to describe the modern cultural practice in which a women essentially mates with the State welfare bureaucracy to provide for her children, since she does not have a man fulfilling the role of provider for her offspring.

Great word. What else is there to say about it?

Until now, not much else...which is why I didn't bother trying to write about it after I'd already forgotten who I first heard it from in the first place.

But an article over at LewRockwell.com that I was reading with my morning coffee, made the word come to my mind once again. The article dealt with the result of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit against the TSA for violating his Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizure. The article made a salient point that helps to clarify the big picture of the how and why we are going through so much cultural upheaval, economic distress and an ever expanding leviathan police state - and it's certainly related to the concept of Bureaugamy.

Becky Akers writes in Ventura's Venture Against the TSA:

He called it the "The Fascist States of America" and thrilled patriots everywhere when he promised, "I will never stand for a national anthem again. I will turn my back and I will raise a fist" after "a U.S. District Judge dismissed [his] lawsuit against full-body scanners at airports" on a technicality.

In that suit, "Governor Jesse Ventura, a/k/a James G. Janos … [sought] a declaration that the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and DHS [Department of Homeland Security, the TSA’s über-bureaucracy] have violated Ventura’s Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to airport security searches."

Mr. Ventura added, "It’s really sad … [The judge] claimed her court didn’t have jurisdiction. But this is a constitutional question…"

Actually, it isn’t – at least to Our Rulers. And not just because they’re evil tyrants who spit on the Constitution. They are and they do, but what Mr. Ventura bumped up against is monstrously worse, something far more dangerous, entrenched, and systemic. Yet it remains so incognito and unsuspected that our hero might want to investigate it for his series, "Conspiracy Theory," on TruTV.

The culprit is a totalitarian nightmare known as "administrative law." And when we victims assume the Constitution reigns supreme, Our Rulers laugh: they legally (even if unconstitutionally) replaced it about a century ago with administrative law.

You’re undoubtedly more familiar with "administrative law" by its acronyms: IRS, BATF, DHS, DEA, SEC, FDA, FCC, FAA, TSA…in other words, bureaucrats.

Light bulb moment! This Judges rejection of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit ripped back the curtain to reveal the beast behind it, pulling the levers of the machine that has ripped the Constitution to shreds and became the primary impetus in forging our Brave New World Order dystopia.

The bureaucracy of "administrative law" is the actual law of the land! By invoking administrative law, the Government has effected an end run around Constitutional law. This is why we are all in some way or another, in a bureaugamous relationship with our Government, whether we want to be or not.

Still not sure how this works?

Aker's explains:

..."administrative law contains all the statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations that govern [bureaucracies]. It is the body of law created by administrative agencies to implement their powers and duties in the form of rules, regulations, orders, and decisions," says West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Astounding, isn’t it? Agencies write the laws that empower them to write laws. They set the rules of the game they play against us, enforce those rules, and judge us when we violate them in "administrative hearings." Meanwhile, a single agency in a day can churn out more laws – euphemized as "regulations" – than Congress can all year.

Do you get it now?

This is precisely how so many citizens Constitutional rights are regularly ignored and blatantly violated by the various Bureaucratic Agencies who truly rule our land with an iron fist and unreasonable and unflinching cruelty.

The bureaucratic agencies under "administrative law" jurisdiction are the literal tentacles of the leviathan police state deliberately violating our rights and our freedoms and turning the USA from the land of the free and home of the brave, into the land of the fee and home of the slaves.

So where do these agencies derive their powers from? Most of these bureaucracies have their powers delegated to them by Congress. And therein lies the rub: Congress is specifically prohibited from delegating it's powers to a third party entity.

US Constitution, Article 1, sec. 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

How to get around this Constitutional restriction? Easy, set up a Bureaucratic agency, who than makes and enforces regulations instead of legislating laws. The names are changed, but in practice they are the same. In fact, regulations now carry more weight than most laws passed the old Constitutional way via legislative deliberation!

The rejection of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit claiming the TSA violated his Constitutional rights clearly shows we the sheeple where the true power is being wielded in this country. The precedence is set.

Administrative Law of the Bureaucratic Agencies trumps the Constitutional Law of the individual citizenry.

Aker's concludes:

What would have happened had the court heard Mr. Ventura’s case? The same thing that has happened in other, similar ones: it would have ruled in the TSA’s favor, implicitly relying on Congress’ delegation of power it never had – power that is virtually limitless under the administrative regime. The TSA can do as it pleases, providing it asserts such criminality helps it carry out Congress’ mandate to "protect" transportation – and its perverts take care to constantly prattle just that preposterous justification.

So long as we sue the TSA – or any bureaucracy – for violating our Constitutional freedoms, courts will rule against us and smirk while they do. The remedy for administrative law’s totalitarianism lies in abolishing bureaucracies, not pleading with Our Rulers to defend us from them, pretty please.

There you have it. Bureaucratic violations of Constitutional rights are based on the stated agency's justifications for some form of so-called safety and security on some person or entities behalf. This holds true across the entire spectrum of bureaucracy and the administrative regime that truly rules the country.


If bureaugamy is the marriage of citizen to the bureaucratic state (like the single mother relying on the State to redistribute taxes to provide for her Fatherless household), than what we really have is an arranged marriage shotgun wedding. We had no choice, and we had to say "I do" with the business end of a firearm wielded by a uniformed representative of the Bureaucratic State at our back.

If only we could use divorce to destroy the institution of Bureaugamy as surely as the Bureaucrats used it to destroy the institution of Monogamy.

False Prophets & Teachers

Matt 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

I'm not a member of any Christian church's denomination.

I don't attend a church service.

But I have read the Bible (KJV) multiple times. While I'm certainly not a biblical scholar, I do believe I understand the overarching morality and guidelines the Bible seeks to impart on believers.

Dalrock has been on a tear lately in going after Christians who teach subversive, false doctrines that appear on the surface to be "Christianity."

As someone who doesn't have a dog in the denomination-competition hunt (who's got the true doctrine, who's worshipping traditions are true to God's command, etc.), my interpretation of the Bible is based solely on my own quest to understand truth.

I haven't stepped into a church and listened to a sermon in over 16 years - save for the occasional wedding, baptism or funeral of a family member or friend I've had to attend.

Yet Biblical principles are the foundation of my moral belief. The Golden Rule, the 10 commandments and all that. I guess part of my brainwashing I endured for the first 14 years of my life did have some positive influence on me.

Many writers and commenters in the anti-establishment/politically incorrect sphere of teh interwebz oft note how feminized many Christian church's have become. That was the case of the church I grew up in, where men are demonized and women lionized on their pedestals of spiritual purity and moral superiority. Where the men commonly talked about their wives and referred to them as "their better halves."

This state of affairs is precisely why men have been driven from the church. It's why I left as soon as I was a teenager tired of being shamed and branded with the scarlet M in my particular sect I was born into.

But something happened to me today that gave me another epiphany. While driving and listening to my ipod (more specifically, the new Chickenfoot album...kickass!), when the album finished, and I didn't choose a new album to listen to, my ipod automatically shut off. The radio transmitter I use to listen to music on the car radio shut off, and I discovered that the frequency I was using now picked up the local Christian talk radio channel.

And apparently I tuned in right in the middle of some evangelical mangina blowhard raising holy hell from his broadcast pulpit, exhorting husbands for their failures in leadership and not taking care of their wives is the root of so many marital problems. It contained all of the stereotypes regularly pointed out in the manosphere regarding the feminization of the modern church.

I tuned in right as he began to discuss Ephesians 5:22 and how it doesn't mean what men "thinks it means." He then went on to explain what the verse means: that men and women in marriage are to be in mutual submission to each other.

In my opinion, there is a key point of discernment in understanding which preachers and pastors are teaching the false doctrine of Feminism disguised as Christianity - any preacher or pastor that seeks to soften, change or redefine the verse of Ephesians 5:22 to mean something other than what was plainly written: Wives sumbit to your husbands as unto the Lord so as to shame men and appeal to women, is a false teacher.

My understanding of the core message of the Bible, is that Traditional Christianity is a cultural program, designed to build strong families to form a strong society. A code of morality to build a community bound by faith and adherence to the same principles. It is Patriarchal to it's core.

In my view, Ephesians plainly lays out the hierarchy of leadership in marriage and in the home. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, and husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

This authoritative sounding preacher, than made the case that this meant a husband and wife were to have mutual submission to each other, and not that the husband is the leader. He basically equated the command to love their wives, as just another way of saying husbands and wives are to submit to each other.

But than, this is what I get for reading the Bible and thinking for myself, rather than rely on someone else to interpret it for me.

He than went on a tirade reiterating repeatedly about how men are responsible for the sad state of marriage in the modern day, as they don't pay enough attention to their wives, and that by exerting any sort of authority makes him an unjust, domineering tyrant and that he's not loving his wife, like Christ loved the church.

This kind of sermon is female rationalization hamster superfood. No wonder the kind of Churches that preach this crap are full of women without nary a man in sight.

In practice, mutual submission doesn't work. You end up with a submission deadlock. Couple this with the modern Christian's warped view of the intrinsic virtue of the female simply for being born with a vagina, way up on her pedestal, and what do you have when husband and wife are practicing "mutual submission?"

You end up with a female-headed household.

This is not traditional, Patriarchal-based Christianity. It is the abomination and corruption that has driven men away from the many denominations that ascribe to this anti-Patriarchal shibboleths in droves.

This man, preaching from his pulpit and having a national broadcast by a syndicated radio network, was subtly and subversively distorting the Bible to shame men into becoming beholden to their wives authority, as well as the sole reason marriages are foundering in today's church. According to this broadcaster, anything less than mutual submission would mean he was being a domineering tyrant and not loving his wife like Christ loved the church.

Immediately following the sermon, a commercial came on, urging listeners to buy DVD's of the sermon just broadcast. It also included "kits" including visuals and supplemental materials for Pastors, Reverends and other Christian leaders to help SPREAD THE WORD.

Immediately after the sales pitch, another sermon began by some other sanctimonious holy roller, who began preaching on how anyone should feel guilty for not paying tithing to the church.

It brought to mind one of my favorite old school Metallica songs, Leper Messiah:

Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet...make your contributions and get the better seat!

I turned off the radio in disgust.

When I got to work, I googled the name of the evangelist's radio program and found his website.

The website is shallow, littered with feel good phrases of psuedo-spirituality. It was just a showcase for all of it's content - TV, Radio and Magazine articles, that were all "subscriptions" that required fees (accepting all major credit cards) to access. In addition to mulitiple links to become a subscriber, it also had "donate to the ministry" buttons all over the place.

SPREAD THE WORD.

Here's the problem as I see it. Mass media broadcasting evangelists seem far more concerned with raising donations, selling books and DVDs and pimping for speaking fees and guest appearances at Churches than they are in actually preaching Biblical TRUTH.

This is the worship of Mammon. Worst of all, they've commercially packaged the materials that subvert Biblical truths and promulgate false doctrines to sell it to Pastors, Evangelists, Reverends and any other leader that listens to Corporate Christian radio and lets these lying liars lead them astray so they in turn can lead their own congregations astray.

I think this is one way in which feminism was able to weasel it's way into the doctrine of many corrupted Christian denominations. Feminism sells well, because it tells many women the lies they want to hear. Women who otherwise believe they are good Christians, and that submitting to their husbands has nothing to do with being a good Christian. And these women rule their homes and seethe in contempt for their beta-ized husbands and their "mutual submission."

In my humble opinion, if you ever hear any Preacher, Pastor or any other proclaimed Biblical authority make the case that Ephesians 5:22 does not mean Men are not the authority in the home, you are listening to the false doctrine of a church dedicated to the worship of Feminism and of Mammon, and not God THE FATHER.

Verisimilitude

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it, 'cause I got no reason to lie..."

- lyric from the Black Sabbath song, The Thrill of it All

The word for today is Verisimilitude.

In a recent discussion I was in with The Bombastic Bardamu , he made a point that resonated with me regarding blogging:

Verisimilitude and ethos are nearly impossible to fake. Indeed, verisimilitude is practically the coin of the realm in the blogosphere - without knowing who each other are, we have to judge each other based on the truthfulness (intentional and/or inadvertent) in each other's writing...

...indeed, the best writers in the manosphere - has this verisimilitude.

I agree, not only is it the coin of the realm...it is the defining trait of any blogger in any sphere of teh interwebz. As I wrote in A Salute to Conventional Wisdom:

I learned far more about the world as it really is, and about myself and my place in the real world, from the influences and insights gained from blogs, message boards and websites that inspired true introspection and productive ruminations…than I ever did watching tell-a-vision, the movies, or from the approximately 13 wasted years I spent in the State of Hawaii’s institutionalized public schooling system.

I discovered that everything I thought was real and true, were nothing but lies, misconceptions, misdirections and misinformation designed precisely to capitalize on, and exploit my health and my productive capacity, all for the benefit of the system…at the expense of my mental, spiritual and physical well-being.

It was never a case of simply falling for any old story found anywhere on the world wide web. Like everything else in so-called civilization, it’s full of bullshit and lies as well.

But the difference is, you can actually read something that may sound crazy on the internet…

…but ruminate on it…and observe various manifestations of those ideas in real life…or even experiment on yourself…

…and eventually discern which virtual tirades, manifestos, declarations or diatribes are justifiable and based on truths…and which ones are crackpot lunacies and monomaniacal mental disorders vomiting their mental wastes into the virtual ether.

There is nothing more convincing than experiences and anecdotes from anonymous authors who may be writing thousands of miles away from wherever you are logged on…who can describe behaviors, results or phenomena exactly the way you perceive or experience these things too. Similarities in human experiences that cut across cultural, socio-economic and religious differences are compelling anecdotes that can override the powerful influence and the illusory authority of so-called conventional wisdom.

Verisimilitude is the defining factor in determining the veracity of any particular writer's advice or observations that run counter to the conventional wisdom.

Before becoming an avid blog reader, I was an avid mass media consumer.

I used to read a variety of newspapers, magazines, and watch a lot of television "News" and "Journalist Investigation" type shows. I used to think I knew a lot about a whole range of topics. I did not realize just how much of what I thought I knew was nothing more than literal Mass Media PROGRAMMING.

When I first began reading anti-establishment blogs and alternative media articles, I often encountered a writer saying "everything you think you know is simply what has been told to you by those who control the mass media narrative." I used to have a knee jerk, defensive attitude towards that observation: "Whatever...I think for myself!"

Except that up until I discovered the vibrant underground of politically incorrect blogging (on a whole host of topics), my thoughts were completely influenced by the TV and all of the reinforcement of the mainstream narratives from the mainstream print media.

Thanks to the verisimilitude of many excellent bloggers, I've discovered just how extensive and pervasive this programming was. I now recognize so many lies and deceptions the moment I see them...on TV, in the movies, in advertising and in print.

Lies. Everywhere you look in our Brave New World Order.

It's why I no longer read newspapers, nor watch any kind of news shows or any other sort of TV programming that's supposedly "FACT BASED REPORTING."

Thanks to the verisimilitude of people who blog, I've embraced a radical, anti-establishment lifestyle.

By eschewing commodity crops and advocating the consumption of grass-fed meat, pastured eggs, and local produce, we are making several very, very powerful enemies.

The medical and nutritional establishments hate paleo, because we’re exposing the fact that they’ve been wrong for decades and have killed millions of people with their bad advice.

The agribusinesses and industrial food processors hate paleo, because we’re hurting their business by not buying their highly profitable grain - and soy-based products.

The mainstream media hates paleo, because they profit handsomely from advertising those grain- and soy-based products.

The government hates paleo, because they’re the enforcement arm of big agribusinesses, industrial food processors, and mainstream media—and because their subsidy programs create mountains of surplus grain that must be consumed somehow.

Is anyone surprised that a government which spends billions of dollars subsidizing the production of corn, soy, and wheat, would issue nutritional recommendations emphasizing the consumption of corn, soy, and wheat?

And this is why, despite all their rhetoric, the vegans end up on the same team as Monsanto and Pepsico: their interests are aligned. - J. Stanton

I used to minimize my consumption of animal foods, and try to avoid saturated fats as much as possible. And I kept steadily gaining weight and trending towards obesity in my late 20's and early 30's. Thanks to the verisimilitude of bloggers in the "paleosphere", I now eat a diet heavy in animal protein and saturated fat. I avoid processed convenience and fast foods, and I've lost all that excess weight and find myself trim and in better shape at 38 years old, than when I was 28 years old.

I use salt at nearly every meal. I eat eat fried foods all the time too. The difference is I use naturally derived, minimally processed sea salt and I deep fry with coconut oil and pan fry with saved bacon grease and lots of butter. According to mass media conventional "wisdom," I'm supposed to be fat and suffering from high blood pressure. My latest blood pressure measurement from a couple of days ago? 116/72. I've been eating like this for years now.

Verisimilitude. The mass media narrative doesn't have it. The problem is that it is so pervasive, and broadcast through so many various mediums that reinforce each other, that it induces the illusion of verisimilitude. It took extreme cognitive dissonance to finally face the ugly truths after a lifetime of being steeped in the pretty lies of mass media programming. In other words, after years of eating non-fat dairy, vegetarian meat substitute products, non-dairy creamers, non-fat/non-stick cooking sprays, and a daily diet of whole-grain products and 'cholesterol free' spreads, I hit the point where I could no longer close the top button of my pants because my belly was sticking out. BUT I'M EATING HEALTHY?!?!??!?! WTF?!?!? So I logged on to the internet and began googling diet and weight loss, and eventually discovered the Weston A. Price Foundation...which eventually lead me to the Paleo Blogosphere.

Other ways in which the verisimilitude of certain writers in the blogosphere have influenced my life:

~ I avoid fluoridated water and use fluoride-free toothpaste.

~ I avoid using sunscreen, and sunbathe at every possible opportunity during the window of time for which conventional wisdom deems most dangerous - 11:00am to 3:00pm.

~ I occasionally smoke tobacco.

~ I eat as much red meat as I can afford.

~ I quit chronic-cardio exercise in an attempt to control my weight, and focus solely on weight lifting and high-intensity/interval training exercise.

Oh, and of course, thanks to the verisimilitude of guys like John Ross and other anonymous bloggers, I figured out my former attitudes and beliefs about gender and relationships were a recipe for failure. I didn't even grasp how I put the female gender on a pedestal and followed the mass media's emasculation program.

Verisimilitude.

Recognize it when you see it. It just might change your life.

To Love, Honor & Vacuum...unless he looks at teh Pr0n!

Dalrock is continuing his one man Jihad against frivolous divorce, and his latest action is to warn Men seeking wives to pay careful attention and not assume that just because a potential wife is a Christian, she would be less likely to divorce you in the future.

He issues this warning in a post entitled Warn men: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce.

This issue is so important I’m asking my readers and other bloggers to do whatever they can to help spread the word and protect men and their future children. Any blogger who wishes to is free to repost this entry in part or its entirety on their own blog with a link back to this page. Literally millions of men are at risk here, and we can help them understand the reality they face.

Happy to help, D.

I'll excerpt and comment on the most salient points here, but you really should click over and read the whole thing.

One of the more dangerous assumptions I see men making is that if they marry a Christian woman they will be somehow shielded from the epidemic of divorce. I’ve stated in the past that most churches talk like Christ but act like Oprah on the issue of divorce.

For men looking for a church to attend, this would be a good measuring stick on whether or not any particular church would be worth your time and investment in joining. If you get the vague sense that sermons resemble the emotive, feel-good environment of the Oprah show or any other female coffee klatch type of show like the View, get thee to a different church!

In my post Promiscuity is good, so long as it is done on the woman’s terms I pointed out that there is no backing for the popular belief that the female preferred form of promiscuity (serial monogamy/ serial polyandry) is more moral than the male preferred form of promiscuity. I used the example of Christians arguing that the wife in Fireproof was justified in her attempt to swing from marriage to marriage:

This is similar to the argument by the Christian women that the wife in Fireproof wasn’t being whorish because she planned on divorcing her husband and marrying the other man she was after before having sex with him.

Sheila Gregoire is one of the Christian women I had in mind when I made that statement, and she noticed the post and defended her position:

"But I just want to clarify: I do believe that she had grounds for divorce because of his pornography addiction....

...And so in the movie Fireproof, she was in a relationship where divorce was permitted, and she was planning on divorcing, and planning on remarrying. Thus, I wouldn’t say that’s whorish. He’s the one who cheated."

Viewing teh Pr0n is now the exact same thing as cheating? Dalrock got it exactly right when notes:

The fundamental problem is that Christian women are being given get out of marriage free cards while Christian men are being told man up and marry these Christian women. This selective moral softness from Christians combines with our legal system which rewards women who commit divorce theft and creates millions of fatherless children. Your husband looked at porn? Dump him and find another man! Keep in mind this isn’t some corner case example I’ve made up. This is from the movie Christians profess shows their views on marriage.

Moreover, Sheila isn’t just another commenter on the internet, she is a respected author and speaker on the topic of marriage for Christian women. All men need to understand this; if your wife decides to divorce you for another man, there will be well respected Christians lining up to justify her decision and place all of the blame on you. If that means conflating viewing pornography with actual adultery, so be it. This is true even in cases where the wife was withholding sex in an effort to control the husband.

She even excuses the wife lining up the other man while still married!

I've visited Sheila's blog before, To Love, Honor & Vacuum, and I've also seen her comment at various blogs like Terri's and Alte's. I never found anything she commented on to be so objectionable...

...until now.

As Dalrock implores...spread the word.

On second thought, a thought just popped in my head. Sheila is a feminist....the worst kind. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

She appears to be "pro-marriage" but she's spreading marriage and family destroying memes amongst the very people who are supposed to be the last vanguard of the bedrock of Christian-based civilization.

Think I'm making an overblown charge?

Let's take the title of her blog - To Love, Honor & Vacuum.

On the surface it appears to be a call for Christian women to be better housewives. But exactly what is that title really imply? It's a distortion of the common Christian marriage vow a wife makes at the altar - Love, Honor and OBEY.

Whether it was deliberate or subconscious, I still think it's a subversive meme that aims at one of the Bible's direct, unambiguous tenets regarding the institution of marriage...wives, submit to your husbands.

Just as the newly married, "modern" Princess of England had the word's OBEY taken out of her Anglican Church vows -- just like her adulterous, scandalous, deceased mother-in-law did -- this "pro-marriage" Christian has replaced the vow of wifely obedience to her husband with a trivial domestic household chore using a modern appliance.

The problem is not Pro-marriage Christian women. It's pro-Divorce justifications couched in the veneer of pro-Marriage Christianity.

Got Game?

Well, it looks like the "Great Game Debate" has wrapped up over at A Voice for Men. Rather than weigh in on the various points and counter-points made, and throw in my own opinion on who I think "won," I think I'll take a different approach, and go over my initial introduction to "GAME" on teh interwebz.

Fair Warning - this one's gonna be long.

My entire support of this thing referred to as "game" has never been about "teaching guys to get laid" or how to "pick up chicks." I support the continuous, ongoing discussions of this topic, because it does help many men open their eyes to the realities of how the human mating game works.

Before the advent of our current Brave New World Order, much of what is considered "GAME" was simply advice older men gave to younger men who reached the age where they found themselves suddenly attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Thanks to a generation shaped by sexual revolution, re-defined gender roles, and the pervasive influence of a mass media culture, many males are left clueless about how women think, how women's sexuality works, and even what masculinity is.

For some, discovering these online discussions in forums and blogs regarding "Game," they usually have a moment of clarity. The proverbial light bulb that goes off. Understanding and awareness dawn on the formerly befuddled mind.

Suddenly, given the insights gained from studying this theory, many men realize how and why events and relationships in their pasts turned out the way they did, where they went right, and in most importantly, where they went wrong.

One of the first online sources that I encountered Game theory, was the articles written by an author and shooting instructor by the name of John Ross. I found his online archives (that covered a whole range of topics) about the same time I found several obscure "PUA" blogs that discussed this thing called Game. I immediately saw the connection of what Ross was discussing in his articles and what the PUA bloggers like "The Reality Method" were talking about. This was around 2007, a good year before I ever even heard of Roissy in D.C.

Ross was never a self-proclaimed "guru" or "pickup artist." Just a real guy, who had a Father who steered him in the right direction when he was a teen. He was essentially a "natural." In none of his writings did he write the word "game" or "pickup artist" or any of the other lingo many of us are all familiar with now. But everything he wrote about was describing the use of "Game theory" applied in real life.

His first article in which he addressed the topic, was based on some advice he was trying to give to a young man in an online forum for gun shooting enthusiasts. The young man had met an attractive girl he wanted to ask her out on a date to take her the shooting range, and he was asking for advice from the forum members on how to go about it. Ross weighed in with his advice, playing the role of advice columnist, in a piece entitled: Women, Teasing, Tests, One-itis, and Hope

Keep in mind, he wrote this in 2003.

If this really is "the girl of your dreams" I have a few suggestions that don't have to do with what guns to bring, as others have given you good input on that score.

1. Maintain an air of quiet competence. People in general dislike motormouthed know-it-alls but are impressed when they see knowledge and skill at work. This is doubly true when the activity in question has the potential for danger if safety concerns are ignored.

Explain, don't lecture, and early on say something like "If I see you doing something dangerous I'm going to stop you immediately. You probably won't, but I'm telling you this now so you won't get upset if I raise my voice. I don't much care about your marksmanship today but I care a great deal about safe gun handling."

Inner game. Confidence. Dominance. Taking the lead. Demonstrating Higher Value.

2. Do not fawn over her. Pretty girls get this so much they lose all interest in the guys who kiss up to them. New mindset: You are LETTING HER join you in something exciting. I hope the invitation was "I'm going shooting this weekend--it's going to be perfect weather and there's a great range I use. If you'd like to join me I'll pick you up at 8:30, if you've got something to wear that you won't cry about if it gets a little dirt on it" (said with a grin.)

The concept of establishing frame. YOUR frame. Note his advice using a "neg," said with a grin. Cocky humor showing confidence and putting her in the position to qualify herself to you - if she's interested, she'll want to let you know that she's not like all the other girls that would "cry" if they got their clothes dirty.

When she said "yes," I hope you added "I'm assuming you're not one of those flaky women who thinks 8:30 means 'sometime before noon.' I intend to be at the range by 9:00."

More dominance. Reinforcing his frame. Showing leadership, and letting her know he has standards.

3. Pack up and quit shooting while she's still having a good time. Do not wait until her shoulder or hand hurts or she's tired.

4. After shooting, do not make plans right away to do something else next weekend, no matter how well you think things went. I cannot stress this strongly enough: DO NOT SELL TOO FAR IN ADVANCE. Not even if she rips your clothes off on the ride home. End your first date with her while she's still wanting more, and don't be too eager to plan the next one. This holds for future dates as well. And don't think of them as "dates," think of them as "I'm doing this and I'll let you join me if you behave." New mindset: Welcome to MY world.

Is this being "manipulative" or "putting up a false front" or "supplicating" and being a "pussy beggar?" Nope. All of this advice from Ross essentially boils down to a man developing skills and confidence - aka "inner game." None of this advice is based on trying to be something that your not to manipulate a woman into dropping her panties because you pulled a fast one on her. It's about displaying masculine confidence, assurance and social dominance.

5. Be prepared for a test. (Men call this a "shit test," which is a more accurate term, but from now on I’ll avoid the vulgarism for the sake of Internet decorum.) You may get such a test before you pick her up for the date, a phone call at the last minute telling you her best friend just broke up with her boyfriend and needs consoling, so she has to cancel. It may be an attempt to get you to do something different than what you planned. Do not accept this. Call her on any attempt to change plans. Make it clear such behavior is unacceptable. Be ready to say "Next."

Man. Too bad John Ross has a day job as a shooting instructor. He could make a fortune holding workshops or selling DVD's to gullible, hapless guys desperate to get laid.

Pretty girls have a different reality than you or I have. Their reality is that men almost always do whatever they demand. Believe it or not, the women are tired of this. The "test" is a way to cull out the mediocre males and find the ones with backbone. It's instinctive for women, because it works so immediately and so well. When you pass one test, you will get another, sometimes right away, sometimes later. This usually goes on as long as you remain involved with a woman, but as you keep passing her tests, they become less and less frequent. Be aware of this, and act accordingly.

This was the very first time I ever heard of this thing called a "shit test." Yet, as soon as I read this, I had that "light bulb" moment. I immediately recognized how this applied to my past interactions (and failures with women in relationships).

6. Whenever you find yourself wondering what to say or how to act, and wanting to avoid screwing up because you think this girl is THE ONE, imagine how you would treat the hottest babe in your zip code--who happens to be your little sister. You'd tease your little sister, right? You'd laugh at her and call her on it every time she tried to get YOU to behave the same way she gets all the other guys to worship her and do her bidding. When she was acting exceptionally princess-like, you'd tell her of your surprise that she'd wear such a tight skirt when it made her ass look so fat, or a hairstyle that made her ears stick out. Then you’d tell her you liked the way her nose wrinkled up when she got mad, and would she bring you a soda from the kitchen? If you don't think this works, you've never tried it.

More advice on how to neg. Note: No mention of wearing amulets, feather boas or eye liner.

7. Don't get "one-itis." Talk to EVERY girl that catches your eye. Tease them. Let others come shooting with you on other weekends (if they promise to behave.) Pretty girls have lots of options--it just happens. You can have lots of options, too, but it won't just happen. You'll have to see to that yourself.

The final advice - you have to take responsibility for yourself and maintain your state of calm, cool and confident masculinity, and not put a pretty woman up on a pedestal for worship...but tease her and treat her like your kid sister.

I found this stuff fascinating. At that point, in 2007, I had already been "MRA" blogging for a bit, and had fully immersed myself into the subject matter of the divorce industry; the travesty of single mother households and a welfare system that subsidized it; why feminists are sluts and ball busters; the rampant misandry of our system and culture; and all that other MRA topics we are all familiar with.

The MRA blogosphere was my first "Red pill."

Finding John Ross and a few PUA blogs were the next "red pill" I took.

Ross' follow up column to that initial advice gave me another "AHA!" moment of clarity, and it marked the moment where I first began to analyze my own life and my own relationship with my wife and began my personal transformation I eventually related in all those comments at Roissy's blog in 2009.

From Understanding Women & "The Rules" For Men

Judging from my email traffic, a lot of you are absolutely clueless when it comes to dealing with your wives, girlfriends, and women in general. I get more praise for the 7/7/03 column than all the other ones put together, and "Give us more!" is a common refrain. Okay, here goes. It's Women 101 at John Ross University and class is now in session.

Who knew he could've charged these men thousands of dollars by holding a seminar or selling them a DVD set...wait, did we even have DVD's in 2003? I don't remember....

Anyhow, his follow up article is so good, I'm reposting it in it's entirety:

1. Women process (and act on) information completely differently than men. Never forget this. Stop thinking of women as screwed-up men and start realizing that their minds were built from an entirely different blueprint.

Just as a hawk can discern details at distances that a man needs a ten-power scope to see, a woman is many times more capable than a man at reading the emotions of other women. (Women may be equally capable at reading men's emotions, but have never seen a need to.) Walk into a large party with a woman. You, the man, will see a bunch of people in a room, talking in groups of two to five. You'll see where the food and bar is, and notice any exceptionally attractive women in the room. That's it. Your companion, however, will be able to tell you which woman is angry, which one is lonely, which is happy, which is upset, which ones feel self-conscious, which ones are jealous, and (probably) which ones are having affairs and with which men. Your female companion will be able to accurately tell you these things within ten seconds of entering the room.

This ability comes at a price: Women are many times more sensitive than men to emotional pain. Imagine a man whose skin was so sensitive that ordinary contact was painful. Whenever someone shook his hand in greeting or clapped him on the shoulder in congratulations, it would feel to him as if boiling water were being thrown on his flesh. Now turn that disparity in physical sensitivity into emotional sensitivity and you'll get a good picture of a fundamental difference between men and women.

Men seldom if ever need to know what a group of other women is thinking, so they usually experience a woman's heightened sensitivity from the negative perspective. They hurt their wives' feelings without realizing it (just like the handshake in the above hypothetical) and then are baffled when their women are upset with them, often for days or weeks at a time, for seemingly no reason. (I'll discuss what to do about this later. Keep reading.)

2. Men and women have very different definitions of integrity. Men have integrity to their word, but because of the heightened sensitivity as explained above, women have integrity to their feelings.

Women base their actions on how they feel at the time. This means that if something no longer "feels" right, they won't do it, period. It infuriates most men when a woman "flakes" on them. ("Flaking" is the term that men who study this sort of thing use to describe when a woman who has eagerly made plans with them doesn't show up, or calls at the last minute to cancel because her girlfriend needs consoling etc. Roughly speaking, a woman's tendency to flake is proportional to her options and inversely proportional to her age, although I did meet one 38-year-old single mother of two with this habit.) Understand that the need to be true to one's feelings is an extremely powerful force with women. Look at the dominant theme in all romance novels: The woman is "swept away" by emotions too powerful to be denied, and has an affair when everyone knows she shouldn't. Another example is the adage "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Even the former First Lady (according to the Secret Service) regularly threw things (lamps, etc.) at her husband when angry. Can you imagine a man doing this, instead of saying "Next"? The idea is ludicrous.

If you're a man, you probably do what you've agreed to do (help someone move, etc.) because you said you would. However, you wouldn't go through with your plans to help your acquaintance move if it had suddenly become a felony with a mandatory 10-year prison sentence to do so, would you? Of course not. Ten years in prison trumps a promise to move furniture. Well, that is the kind of aversion that women have to doing things that no longer "feel" right. Later I'll explain how to make this "integrity to feelings" work to your benefit.

3. Most women are much more rational than most men at the initial meeting. For all of men's complaints about "screwed-up 'chick logic'," it is men who unconsciously fall into a very irrational pattern of behavior when they first meet a new woman that interests them.

Upon meeting an attractive and perhaps interesting woman for the first time, most men behave as if they are thinking about...wait for it...marriage! Hollywood has bombarded us with "love at first sight" stories, but what kind of message does it really send to a woman you've just met that you've already decided she's the one? It screams pathetic loser who couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful of pardons. "One-itis" is the absolute death knell to any person's chance with someone new. Women know this. Men, as a rule, don't.

There's an old saying that "To meet her handsome prince, a girl has to kiss a lot of frogs." Given that few American women age well or are financially self-sufficient, this adage is much more appropriate for men aspiring to marriage than it is for women.

4. What women say they want and what they actually do want are two different things. Men need to be keenly aware of this and act accordingly. The crap that women claim they want in the personals ads is exactly the kind of thing that would have the same women running for the nearest exit out of boredom if the men actually provided it.

Women want to feel attraction for someone, and attraction doesn't come from finding a man who is sensitive, or caring, or likes long walks on the beach, cats, and candlelight dinners, has a college education or a good job. Attraction isn't a choice. Attraction comes from that little shiver of anticipation of not knowing what's coming next, of not being able to pigeonhole the man she's with into any one category, of being just a little bit off-balance and not in total control.

5. Women read things into men's actions that aren't there. Accept that, and make it work for you, if possible. This phenomenon probably comes from women's heightened emotional sensitivity. It may also come from the need many women have for drama (and for some women, chaos) in their lives.

What the above things mean for you, and how to stop screwing up like you've been doing:

Dealing with a woman's heightened sensitivity: When a woman complains about a problem in her life (she will see it as "sharing," not complaining), never offer a solution to the problem. She doesn't want to fix it, she wants to relive it, over and over. Show sympathy but suggest that only another woman could truly understand what she's going through. This acknowledges women's superior emotional capacity. Depending on how you say it, it may send another unspoken message if the complaining was a test (and it probably was): You're trying my patience here. I don't fall for that BS. Watch it.

Integrity to feelings: If you can keep a woman in the state of feeling excited, anxious, off-balance, and emotional when she's around you, you can pretty much lead her wherever you want. An extreme example of this is the group of attractive young women who did anything they were told by a homely little runt of a man named Charles Manson. I'm not advising that you turn into a sociopath, but it's kind of fun getting the girl you met this afternoon to slip off her thong during dinner and hand it to you. Learning how to keep a woman's emotional state at the desired level takes a lot of practice and experimenting (which is fun) and can't be described in a one-page column, but here's a start: Women are attracted to Mystery, Uncertainty (not the same thing), Confidence and Arrogance when combined with humor, and believe it or not, Indifference. Observe the desirable women you know that are obsessed with their boyfriends and you will see that the boyfriends invariably exhibit these qualities, irrespective of whether they are decent guys or total jerks.

Gifts: Gifts can be good at eliciting emotions and even smoothing the rough spots, but don't make the mistake of giving the wrong kind. You'll go broke and not accomplish what you intended. Since women's emotions are so powerful, realize that all gifts to women have a soothing effect and "goodwill time frame" that is proportional to the emotion evoked. This has nothing to do with the value or utility of the gift, believe me. Whether you're in the early stages of a relationship or have been married ten years, never give expensive gifts, agree to extensive home remodeling that you don't particularly want, expensive trips, etc. in the hope that it will improve her feelings for you. If you do, you'll be paying for the expenditure long after your girlfriend or wife has stopped smiling at you for what you did. Instead, give little nothing gifts like a funny card, or a stuffed animal holding flowers, and say "I was thinking of you today." Do this at unexpected times. A week later (or maybe even the next day), the $12 stuffed Dalmatian with the heart-shaped spots will be forgotten, and your woman's attitude will probably (and understandably) be "What have you done for me lately?" But guess what? The same thing will happen a week after you agree to pay for her eight-year-old's private school tuition, which is a $120,000 tab over ten years. You do the math. The exception to this rule is if you decide to give an expensive, useful gift to a woman who needs it and who has been exceptionally good to you already. Few men do this. Men usually give presents, take women to expensive restaurants, etc. in the hope that the recipient will be grateful. THIS DOES NOT WORK. Expensive gifts should always be unexpected rewards. They should never be attempted inducements.

Testing: Reread my 7/7 column's comments on tests. Remember that testing will continue until one of you dies. Even if you break up, she will probably test you if an opportunity presents itself. Plan for this accordingly.

Flaking: The younger and hotter the girl, the greater the chance she will flake. Hotties and flaking are like alcoholics and drinking: If they can, they probably will. The only way to completely prevent an alcoholic from drinking or a hottie from flaking it is to create an environment where it cannot occur, like sending the alcoholic to live in the Saudi desert. To prevent flaking, only offer an activity if it is something you can do right now. Get her to do something fun and exciting with you right at that moment. If she demurs, end the conversation as quickly as possible and eject--don't coerce. When she stops you from leaving and says to call her so you can make plans, don't believe her, and call her on it. Tell her you like talking to live people, not voicemail. Tell her that maybe you'll offer something else if you run into her again. Unspoken message: Seize the day.

What if you absolutely have to plan a "date" in advance with someone you suspect may flake on you? When you make the plans, give the girl something specific to do, like to be sure she's wearing a silk scarf around her waist when you pick her up. Don't tell her why, but make sure she realizes that she has to do it, or you'll turn around and leave if she opens the door and isn't wearing the scarf. She will spend all her time before the date wondering about this, selecting the perfect scarf, etc. She'll be caught up in the mystery, drama, and anticipation (women love these things) and she won't be thinking that "going on this date doesn't feel right anymore."

Initial meetings: Follow the three second rule. You've got three seconds from the time you first notice a desirable woman to the time you say something to her. If you take longer than that, cross her off the list and move on, because she's crossed you off her list of possibles. Never work up your courage to talk to a girl that you've been looking at across the room for ten minutes. Women hate this. And for God's sake, never use some service to track down the girl you lusted after in high school or college. This is called stalking, and unless you graduated within the past 6 months, chances are she now looks nothing like the goddess you worshipped from afar. There are better women who don't have any bad preconceptions about you as close as the nearest Starbucks, Borders, Safeway, or QuikTrip. Unless you live in a remote area, pretty girls are everywhere. Always operate from a theory of abundance. There are more available women in your area than you could ever meet, but they're not going to come looking for you. Get out and chat up as many of them as possible. Most will turn out to be frogs. Expect it. (And realize your high school dream girl that you were thinking about tracking down is probably a frog.) You won't find a princess by convincing yourself that the one girl you've met in the last month is one. Meeting and dating lots of women gives you a much more accurate perspective and has the added benefit of making you more attractive to women, not less.

Dating multiple women: If you don't want a woman to think of herself as your one and only girlfriend, don't do things that would make her think that way. Don't call her every day. Don't see her three or four times a week. Be up front, and say "I think too many people get into exclusive relationships far too quickly, and it's not healthy. I wouldn't even consider having an exclusive relationship with someone I'd known less than six months." Most people, and women are no exception, will accept most anything if it is not a surprise. Don't lie and sneak around. If you see other women and she has a problem with this when she's only recently met you, she is NOT the one. Next.

Enjoy women for what they are, and don't imagine them to be something they aren't. It may sound harsh or negative, but real women are seldom like what we see in movies written by male screenwriters or read about in novels written by male authors. The cute waitress where you eat lunch may visually remind you of Meg Ryan (or whoever) in the movie where she played a waitress, but don't for one second imagine the real-life waitress to be as intelligent or interesting as the writers who gave Meg her lines. Flirt with the waitress and let her presence make your lunch more pleasant, but don't start going there every day and turn her into some fantasy of yours ("One-itis"). At best, you'll waste a bunch of better opportunities mooning around her at lunchtime, while she smiles at you but otherwise blows you off. At worst, she'll eventually accept your advances, and (since you were fixated on only her and had no other women to compare her to) you'll end up married before you figure out that aside from being nice to look at (for now), there isn't much else you really enjoy about her.

Don't be ordinary. Talk about your job, school, hobbies, etc? Forget it! If she launches into the same old questions, accuse her of husband-hunting, and tell her you're not ready for that. Be teasing and mysterious. Never give a straight answer unless it's "No." Women will complain that they "can never figure you out and it's driving them crazy." This is evidence that you are doing the right things.

Spank her. Spank her bottom lightly when she does something you don't like. Spank her harder when she does something good. I discovered this years ago and the worst results I've ever gotten were neutral. The best were volcanic. (I don't do this unless I know at least her first name, but that's just me--it's probably not necessary.)

When in doubt, tease. Keep the "Bratty Sister Frame" firmly in your mind (see 7/7 column). Call her on her girl-like behavior. If she mentions modeling, say, "Oh, you mean like a hand model?" Tell her that her long fingers remind you of E.T. If she's cute but her clothes are odd-looking to your eye, ask her if she got dressed in the dark. You get the idea.

Sex in long term relationships: If a good long-term sex life with one woman is important to you, never get into a committed relationship (such as marriage) with a slender woman unless she is genetically slender. 200-lb. women who have always been heavy are usually comfortable with themselves and have good sex drives. Former 125-lb. hotties that gain 75 pounds after saying "I do" often lose all interest in sex and are a very bad bet for the long haul. I know dozens of men who found this out the hard way. Conversely, no man I know with a fat partner who has always been fat (I actually prefer the word "plush") is dissatisfied with his wife or girlfriend's level of desire. The old admonition about taking a long look at the mother before proposing is sound advice.

If you want to marry a rich girl: Rich women are no different than other women in that they are turned on by a man's passion for his work. Keep in mind that not just any kind of work qualifies. Women are attracted to artists, especially musicians. Rock stars don't get just high school groupies, they get rich actresses like Pamela Anderson and rich supermodels like Rachel Hunter and Paulina Porizkova. Singers in local bands do equally well on a smaller level. Women (including rich ones) go for other passionate artists such as actors, dancers, painters, and sculptors.* If you are a passionate artist, you're a good bet to snag a rich girl, who will likely be happy to support you and your passion. If you go this route, keep the rich girl interested by pursuing your passion WITHOUT going through all her money! Live comfortably but don't start to believe your own bullshit, getting her to fund your big (and inevitably money-losing) dreams of grandeur. NEVER let her dip into principal. If you do, be prepared to be thrown out on your ear. Any successful investment professional can tell you horror stories about rich women clients with artist husbands who cooked the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Maybe this will hold you clueless guys for a while. More later.

Man, he wrote this in 2003. As far as I can tell from reading all of his other articles, Ross didn't attend PUA seminars, buy Mystery's book or subscribe to David DeAngelo's newsletter. Yet every last piece of advice he gives here jibes with most of what we commonly call "Game Theory." Note: no mention of the words hypergamy or social dominance or manipulation. It's just straight up advice, the kind that used to be transmitted from older males to younger males.

As I later found out, Ross got his game advice the old fashioned way: from his Father.

I talked to Dad about how this girl made me feel when I looked at her. He smiled knowingly.

"Son, she probably won't look that way for long. She might, but don’t count on it. Enjoy looking at her for now. But here's some advice: If you want to do more than just look at her, then don't ever talk about her good looks or tell her she's beautiful."

"Why not?"

"Because everyone else is always doing that, and it gets old. Girls want a challenge, just like boys do. They don’t want the same old compliments, they want a challenge."

"I don't understand."

"When you play shortstop, do you want the boys on the other team to all strike out every time? No, that would be boring. You want them to hit the ball to you, so you can throw them out at first base. Maybe you'll bobble the ball, and the batter will get on base, but you want the chance to make a good play, right? If you tell a pretty girl she's pretty, you're not hitting the ball to her. You're not giving her any challenge at all. You aren't in the game. Get in the game. Hit the ball to her. Give her a challenge."

"How do I do that?" Dad grinned at me when he heard this.

"Tease her about something. Say something about her that makes her jaw drop, and then act a little surprised at her reaction. But always be calm. Don't ever be mean, but give her brain a little tweak, see how she reacts, and then do it again. You're good at thinking on your feet. When a fellow sees a girl he likes, he plays with her, only not with a bat and a baseball glove, but with words and body language and facial expressions. Do that with this Jenny girl. And never back down, no matter what happens. Never break eye contact with her while the two of you are talking—let her be the one to look away. Think about it." He saw my face register some comprehension, and he added another thought. "Don't worry so much about her. Make sure you have fun. Figure out a way to tease her. And have fun."

Many critics of "game" call "negs" and "cocky/funny banter" as manipulative, wrong, evil, dishonest, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Many people who seem to understand and support game are often troubled about using the term "GAME" itself, making it sound un-serious, or trivial, or whatever other criticisms they may use because they really just don't get what it's all about.

It IS a Game.

Like any other game, if you know the rules, know how it's played, and you can discern the many variations and permutations that can arise during the course of the game, you will certainly enjoy playing the game. Even if you end up losing, a well played game can be enjoyed despite coming up short.

Unfortunately, some people simply can't grasp the strategies and tactics, they never understand the subtle nuances of the action, and they simply write it all off as a waste of time. Others try to play, but don't have the patience or self-awareness or humility necessary to learn from initial failure. Game is not for everyone.

But the entire point of blogging, talking, discussing and writing about it, is to at least make some men wake up to something they never even considered in the first place - that there is actually even a Game going on at all.

It's a game called the human mating dance.

Nobody said you HAVE to play.

You are perfectly within your rights to take your balls and go home.

Quiplinks IV: The Evil Patriarchy Edition

Bronan:

"The Vikings had shit figured out. Basically they got wrecked on mead, fought everybody, raped and pillaged, and when they died, they got to do it all again in Valhalla. Now that’s the sort of party religion I can get behind."

Roissy:

"Some may ask why I so confidently assert that the female rationalization hamster is stronger and speedier than the male rationalization hamster. The answer is simple."

MikeCF:

MY NAME IS BARACK OBAMA, AND I AM THE 1%.

Dagonet:

"When your eyes are opened to certain truths– that all interactions are value transactions, that our relative status is embedded into every conversation, that every woman’s subconscious is constantly analyzing relative value, status, and social position– you learn to operate from a place of greater influence."


Dalrock:

"I think the core problem is that modern Christians are so incredibly bereft of wisdom when it comes to issues of love and marriage."


Danger & Play:

"I’ve long noted that the biggest haters of game are not women."

Donlak:

"If you don’t understand one of the fundamentals of keeping women happy, that is keeping mystery, than you’re doomed to getting dumped or cheated on. If you aren’t creating some mystery, she’ll get it from somewhere else."

Flyfreshandyoung:

"It really is pretty amazing how much different all of your social interactions become once you lose this imagined need to conform to shaming dynamics and social pressure to behave in approved ways."

Frost:

"Women’s sexual liberation has turned the sexual marketplace into a winner-take-all jungle, and we have been dropped into this quagmire dick-first."

G.L. Piggy (Chuck):

"In past decades the U.S. borrowed from its future prosperity. The future is now."

Gmac:

"Men should strive to become better men through self-improvement and self-discovery… not with a $2,000 mortgage, 2.5 kids, a cubicle 9-to-5 job, and a miserable marriage."

Ferdinand:

"The only thing more pathetic than white knighting for a woman who won’t sleep with you is white knighting for a plutocrat you don’t work for, who actively holds you in contempt."

Johnny Milfquest:

"Common criminals, after all, are not bailed out in the way that corporate criminals are."

Roosh:

"Man is being turned into obsessive-compulsive victims who are nothing more than glorified pushers of smartphone buttons, unable to live without the constant distraction of beeps, noises, and moving images."

Simon Rierdon:

"In order not to get swallowed up by the system, you have to learn to Game it."


Chad Daring:

"The 1% do not make six-figures a year, they dont make seven-figures a year. The 1% is a group so far past us that they do not measure their wealth the way we do."

Badger:

"Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get away from people for a few minutes."

The Private Man:

"The unintended consequence of independence is loneliness."


Rollo Tomassi:

The great and powerful Oz that was feminization is finally having the curtain pulled back on it.

Virgle Kent:

"Every man does it his own way through trial and error and in his own time."