Eat More Mercury

MMMM....look at all that tasty mercury!

Another installment in a series: Red Pill Reality Dispelling Blue Pill Delusions

Don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Hawaii, we are constantly advised by our mass media to limit eating fish because of the trace amount of mercury found in many open ocean species. Since we are an island state, surrounded by water, and the Pakipika (Pacific Ocean) is home to some very tasty and nutritious fish; and since fish consumption is a long time cultural tradition amongst the many different races that now call this place home; these endless warnings of mercury poisoning from eating too much fish have always seemed rather ludicrous to me. This was long before gaining a deeper understanding of just how influential the deception and propaganda our mass media doles out as  "public service announcements" has pervaded conventional wisdom.

It's also part of all nutritional guidelines and literature from our Health Care cartel members....especially the advice doled out to pregnant women. I remember sitting in on one of my wife's pre-natal checkups, waiting for the OB/GYN to come in for the appointment, and I was reading over the pamphlets on prenatal nutrition. One thing that really stuck out in my mind was the admonishment: DON'T EAT MORE THAN ONE SERVING OF FISH A WEEK TO AVOID MERCURY EXPOSURE TO YOUR INFANT.

Damn. I must of missed the epidemic of babies born with mercury poisoning in Hawaii...or all the folks dropping dead from all that mercury poisoning.

One website, The National Resources Defense Council, goes so far as to publish an "Eating Tuna Safely Chart" based on your weight.

Sounds like every other natural human behavior we are told must be PRACTICED SAFELY.

Safe Sex. Safe Sun Exposure. Safe Driving. Now we have Tuna Safety.

Safe to say, the State of Hawaii is certainly one of the worst offenders of practicing "Tuna Safety!"

I just ate a half pound of Inamona poke (raw yellowfin tuna with ogo seaweed and roast kukui nut garnish) and some poi for dinner the other day. Uh oh...am I in mortal danger of mercury poisoning since I do that kind of meal more than once a week?

Another website, Medical News Today, offers this dire warning:  

Children should be consuming considerably less canned tuna, otherwise their risk of serious mercury poisoning could become a public health issue in years to come, the Mercury Policy Project explained in a report issued yesterday.

The authors added that albacore tuna should never be given to children.

What? I know kids in the neighborhood where I grew up, who used to eat canned tuna fish sandwiches nearly every day. I don't recall ever hearing about any cases of mercury poisoning...like, ever.

I know of pregnant women who ate raw fish, sushi and cooked fish on a near daily basis. Never heard of any of their babies having mercury poisoning either.

Seriously, if eating open ocean fish more than once a week lead to mercury poisoning, half the population in  the State of Hawaii would be keeled over, dead or dying from mercury poisoning. We love our fish.

Sushi. Sashimi. Poke. Deep fried. Baked. Poached. Grilled. Fish Soup. Dried. Jerked. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that we have a lot of people in Hawaii that eat Fish more than 5 times a week, let alone more than once a week. 

So what gives? Apparently paleo blogger Chris Kresser found some research that explains both the mercury content of fish and why all us fish eating lovers the world over are actually not dying of mercury poisoning despite all of the dire warnings of our mass media. Yes, fish do contain detectable levels of methylmercury...but they also have selenium:

- Selenium protects against mercury toxicity, and 16 of the 25 highest dietary sources of selenium are ocean fish.

- If a fish contains higher levels of selenium than mercury, it is safe to eat.

- Most species of commonly eaten fish in the U.S. have more selenium than mercury.

- Fish are not significant sources of PCBs and dioxins when compared to meat, dairy or vegetables.

- The benefits of eating fish regularly far outweigh the potential risks, which are negligible
Pregnant mothers and young children should eat 2-3 servings of oily ocean fish each week

Here's a link to the PDF document Kresser cites: Dietary and tissue selenium in relation to methylmercury toxicity:

This study finds that measuring methylmercury exposure is not sufficient to provide accurate and precise information regarding potential risks unless selenium intakes are factored into the evaluation. Blood Hg:Se {methylmercury : selenium} ratios appear to provide more interpretable and physiologically meaningful indications of risks from methylmercury exposure than blood mercury alone. Consideration of mercury–selenium relationships in diet and tissues of exposed individuals will clarify risk:benefit relationships associated with fish consumption.

Perhaps this explains why I live in a culture in which ocean fish is ubiquitous and eaten almost daily...yet we don't have an epidemic of mercury poisoning rapidly depopulating our islands?

Apparently, if you're like millions of other fish lovers out there, the only thing you should really concern yourself with, is if the fish you are eating has a higher level of selenium than methylmercury. Here's a chart showing various species of fish and their Hg:Se ratios:

Click to Enlarge

Just like everything else regarding diet and nutrition in the media, mercury poisoning from too much fish consumption appears to be yet another lie designed to get we the sheeple to avoid eating healthy and nutritious foods and living lifestyles that keep us from attaining optimal health and fitness.

After all, the more nutritionally deficient you are, the more medical bills you'll likely rack up for the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance industry cartel's profit...and the only true expense is your own health and quality of life should you decide to heed their "advice" and "guidelines."

The "system" is a literal vampire, a parasite feeding off of your life, profiting off your perpetual misery until you expire and can no longer require "maintenance."

Thanks to ObamaRomney Care, it's now UNIVERSAL. Don't forget to vote!

Don't eat Fish. Stay out of the Sun. Don't eat Salt. Don't ever use any kind of tobacco, EVER. Count your calories. Don't eat red meat. Don't eat meat. Don't eat fat. Fluoridate your water. Eat more grain. Eat a plant based diet. Don't worry, we have a pill for that....and your co-pay is only $15.

The pervasiveness of these memes, and the multitude of sources and media that it uses to percolate and propagate it's programming into the mass consciousness of we the sheeple is ubiquitous, insidious and devious. It's purpose, to enslave us and suck us dry until we are dead.

So forget yet another popular misformed disinformation campaign designed and promoted by our benevolent and caring Government/Corporate/Non-Profit/Foundation junta and their owned feedlot managers, and enjoy more of that healthy and nutritious, mercury-enhanced fish.

The healthier you are, the less time, money, pain and suffering they are able to extract from you over your lifetime by "caring" for your health.

Coming to Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now take solipsism.

Imnobody at Dalrock's commented:

According to Merriam Webster:

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

: extreme egocentrism

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Now and Then: Feminism in 1970

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

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

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

Some excerpts from Against Women's Lib: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rothbard's next point is another good one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not anymore .

Balanced Bullshit

It's the new national pastime. Fuck baseball. Its consumption. The only true lasting American value that's left. 

Buying things. 

Buying things. 

People spending money they don't have on things they don't need. 

Money they don't have, on things they don't need. 

- George Carlin

That is one of my favorite quotes from the late, great stand up philosopher. Most people refer to him as a comedian. In his earlier days, he most certainly was one. But towards the end of his life, his routine was no longer funny. At least I stopped laughing when he started ranting about the ugly truths of our Brave New World Order.

From the macro level to the micro level, George summed up our National Past time quite correctly.  

From a quick Googoliath search:

US Federal Government Tax Revenue for Fiscal Year 2011 - $2.3 trillion

US Federal Government Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2011 - $3.6 trillion

To be more precise...

The enacted 2011 budget called for $2.314 trillion in receipts and $3.630 trillion in outlays, according to the September 1, 2011 Mid-Session Review.

How exactly was this $3.630 trillion ($1.316 trillion of which is money we don't have, and most certainly most of it spent on things we don't need,) spent? According to Winston over at the WikiMinistry of Truth:

24% or $835 billion to fund entitlement payments for the Medicare & Medicaid pyramid scheme;

20% or $725 billion to fund entitlement payments for the Social Security pyramid scheme;

19% or $700 billion to pay off the Military Industrial Complex to continually wage fiat wars on foreign shores;

19% or $646 billion on "non-defense discretionary" aka Government payoffs to corporate campaign contributors not a part of the military industrial complex - like Big Ag, Big Oil, and all the other "Big" entities;


12% or $465 billion on "Other" aka all the other government entities, programs and bureaucracies that rely on Federal Government outlays to exist;

and finally, 6% or $227 Billion on Interest.

Interest....on what? Why the national debt, of course. We the sheeple must pay interest to the foreign T-Bill "investors." We also have to pay interest to the Federal Reserve Usury Serfdom Cartel for their invaluable fiat money creation services.

This last category is key when you consider the dialogue being recited by the actors in our current episode of the long running dramatic series American Democracy.

Both sides have their version of "balancing the budget."

Both Jackasses and Pachyderms (henceforth to now be referred to as Jackyderms) will debate it as if it were the real solution to all our woes. They hold it up as the holy grail of maintaining the MANDATORY status quo of butter and guns aka our welfare/warfare system. This idea is what they endlessly debate on calling it "Balancing the Budget." Whether it's on a State, County or Federal Government level, all of our lying liars (politicians) pay lip service to this ideal.

The Pachyderms call for an amendment to the US Constitution that requires the Government to "balance" the budget. They claim we need to amend the Constitution and then cut taxes to balance the budget.

The Jackasses say no amendment is necessary, we just need to play with the numbers, cut defense spending and raise taxes and the budget can then be "balanced."

But the Jackyderms are all ignoring the real problem - whether we "balance" the budget or not, we are still in tremendous, ever escalating and exponentially expanding debt to foreign creditors and the the Federal Reserve Usury Serfdom Cartel (who create the fiat currency to fund the Governments deficit spending by selling T-bills to foreign creditors like China).

Balanced budget or not, the fundamental root of the problem never gets addressed - our system as set up and running since 1913, is based on the fact that all money spent by the Federal Government is debt-based and loaded with usurious interest that requires servicing in perpetuity....i.e. the debt never, ever gets paid off.

If the proposed budget is in the black (more tax receipts than budgeted outlays, as it was under Jackass Billy Bob), than the Government simply spends this surplus, sooner or later, rather than try and pay off the principle of the national debt.

If the proposed budget is in the red (as it's been since Pachyderm Dubya took office), than the Government simply keeps voting to raise the "debt ceiling." (And make no mistake, the Jackyderms always vote to raise that ceiling.)

In either case, the root cause of our debt never gets addressed...i.e. every single dollar that gets created by the Federal Reserve system is based on debt, and we the sheeple are stuck with the bill to service that debt.

Servicing the debt....this the lynchpin of our enslavement as a people.

Our system is designed on purpose to keep we the sheeple debt enslaved for perpetuity.

Balanced or not, our budget NEVER gets around to actually paying off the debt. A balanced budget will still be focused on servicing our ever-escalating debt, not actually paying it off.

The Jackasses claim MORE BUTTER, LESS GUNS will balance the budget.

The Pachyderms claim LESS BUTTER, MORE GUNS will balance the budget.

Balanced or not, the debt remains, and the debt continues to grow via interest and the continual borrowing required to keep the whole system going.

The Jackyderms never really propose the only true solution...the only one that could ever really work in the long run:

Stop buying things we don't need, with money we don't have.

The Zeta Point

Seems like this shit will never end.

Roosh writes this, and Paul Elam responds.

Two standard bearers of differing factions in the same general reactionary/anti-misandry/anti-feminist culture movement, disagreeing on varying different points of view. Each one presenting what they believe to be their particular version of THE TRUTH.

Both are right...in their own way and from their personal point of view.

Both have their share of supporters, fans and sycophants eager to voice their support and affirmations for their chosen champions point of view.

*yawn*

 

I'm an avid reader and supporter of both men and there blogs and/or forum, and both spheres they appear to represent. It essentially boils down to the pro-game vs. anti-game camps of the general anti-feminist reaction to mainstream, socially engineered, mass media disseminated and narrated culture.

Can we all just get back to focusing on the real enemy of this so-called "movement?"

Roosh vs. Elam....whose side do I take here?

I'll take Dan Moore's...aka Factory, replying to Elam's farewell to the "manosphere" -

We go around and around like this because the ‘answer’ doesn’t lie in any one camp. The center of gravity the various groups cannot escape is what I call the Zeta Point.

The point of balance between the need for female approval, and enough self worth to walk away from disrespect.

Between the need to maintain some form of civilization, and the strength to throw the parts that are destructive on the trash heap.

Between love for women as counterparts, and the reality they have become competitors.

MRAs can teach others valuable lessons. But it’s imperative we remember that others have just as many lessons, that are just as important, to teach us.

Yes. All of us in this anti-feminist/anti-misandrist counter-culture here in the hinterlands of teh interwebz are focused on some facet of MRA - Men's Rights Awareness. You cannot have meaningful, personal activism, without awareness...aka a clear understanding of truth.

As I wrote back when Frost and Elam had first agreed to have their game/anti-game debate at In Mala Fide:

I don't think anything good is going to come from the pending debate between Frost and Elam. It's just going to further fracture the manosphere.

But that's ok.

There's no "winning" here.

What it will do, is provide clarity, so the onlookers can decide which "side" here offers them the viewpoint to improve their own lives and their own struggles.

 

Dan Moore goes on to clarify the point further:

I am a proponent of Game Theory, and believe a huge swath of the MRM could use an awful lot of education on women and their behaviour.

And why things went the way they did in their own lives.

The real value in Game theory is not in becoming a PUA (although, as I have said many times, the ‘starved for affection folks’ are the ones easily manipulated into selling men out wholesale), it is in understanding the basic drives in all of us, and how those drives tend to make us act.

Basically, Game theory picks up where the politically correct Masters and Johnson crowd feared to tread. Game theory utterly destroys many of the cultural myths indoctrinated into our society nearly from birth.

And anyone who has ever paid attention to the theory knows exactly how hard it is to penetrate the initial resistance to the ideas, as well as the sick feeling when Game is proven right.

And the even sicker feeling when you see all the spots you fucked up in previous encounters.

Oh so painfully clearly.

Oh so clearly. FML.

Game is an essential component of the Red Pill, and in many cases is more then enough counter-cultural medicine to do the job.

In the early 00's, the MRA online movement was essentially a small group of male bloggers, most who've been screwed over by women, feminism, and/or our Brave New World Order's family court system. The convergence of the MRA bloggers and the Game Advocacy movement over at the comment section of Roissy in D.C.'s blog several years ago was the essential turning point. It melded the truth of the corruption of the system, with the truth of the basic biological nature of male/female attraction....and it spawned what we now call THE MANOSPHERE.

We had a small period of time in which we had a unique harmonic convergence of ideas that coalesced into a new, broader understanding of the the things we've all experienced in our present socially engineered dystopia. Then, like any group of men, the need to jockey for status amongst the hierarchy causes divisions, and we divide and conquer ourselves.

This is why their can be no "movement." There is only recognizing TRUTH and using that to guide your own personal life decisions. Find your personal Zeta point....it is there that you find that elusive balance...the path to a meaningful, satisfying life.

Life is a gamble..completely unpredictable. You could die getting hit by a car while crossing the street tomorrow. You could die in your sleep tonight in a completely random house fire started by an errant spark from your light socket igniting nearby curtains. (yes, this almost happened to me....). We all have choices to make. We must weigh our odds, make our judgements, and then decide on a course of action. Having the clarity of truth will certainly have a profound and meaningful effect in making such choices. You may very well meet a young woman who is all that and worth sacrifice and risk to get married to and have children with. Or she may be a manipulative slut looking for an easy provider to blind with her sexuality long enough to lock him into divorce chilimony servitude.

 The important thing here is that any man facing such a choice, be able to recognize the realities of his personal situation, and make the best choices based on the most facts available to him at that time. Which is why both facets of OUR "manosphere" are important. They are largely focused on their areas of primary concern, each serving as a valuable resource in gaining understanding of the big picture.

This is all any of us can hope to achieve.

There is no candidate running for office that you can vote for to advance the idea of "men's rights."

There is no political party you can join, no "tea party" rally you can attend or no organization or cause that you can donate your money to that is going to make a damn bit of difference in our current state of affairs.

There is no possibility of working within our current system to "fix" what's wrong.

That's because there's nothing to fix.

From the view of those who have implemented the system and constructed our current situation, this shit is going off exactly as planned.

The people who wield the power in our society have deliberately shaped it to emasculate the males, de-feminize the females, sow relationship dysfunction and alienate children from their parents so as to make them more malleable and exploitable human resources.

They effected their social engineering program precisely through the creation of "movements." You think getting a bunch of men and women (who thanklessly support them) together to try and effect change in this system is ever going to accomplish anything meaningful?

Not happening.

No matter who is right or who is wrong, the only correct answer here is MGTOW.

Go your own way. Find the truth and make your life-changing decisions cognizant of it so you are properly prepared to face the consequences of whatever path you may choose.

You wanna be a PUA? Good luck Brother, I wish you the best!

You wanna be an MRM advocate and start up a movement that lobbies to overturn the officially sanctioned misandry of our current society? Amen! Good luck Brother, I wish you the best!

I really don't see any point to be gained in focusing on the differences in outlook between the two camps.

Whatever works for YOU is the only thing anyone should be primarily concerned with.