Thursday, November 12, 2009

Female-centric societal ills: Litigation

Recently, some comments made on a Spearhead article talk about how women, by being litigious by nature, will overpower men when the government is strong enough and willing to do so in their favor. This got me thinking, and suddenly a light bulb went off. The US is known for having a very litigious society, and I always knew it myself and despised it, but the reason why the society was so litigious eluded me. It seemed to miff other people too, who would tend to just say there was a "litigious culture" and a "greed mentality." This is funny, I think. When people are unsure of why something is bad, they jump to some bogeyman like "capitalism" or "greed" to explain the societal ill, without digging deeper down. I think it's intellectual laziness, really.

What really seems to be happening is that a culture taken over by women is a litigious culture. That's why so much of our economy is being consumed in legal costs and why we have to have so many retarded warnings on things.

You'll note the female tendency to defer to a stronger power, and use extreme language when they feel their inner mental sanctum is threatened. It's like they're a step away from suing you for your every last penny if you transgress them. This is also explains why the divorce courts have become so viciously anti-male. The litigious culture created them in their current incarnation, and of course they'll side with women.

Women also have a natural tendency for evasiveness, two-facedness and conniving, backstabbing behavior. It's built into their genes as a result of being physically weaker as a protection mechanism, so it can be a good thing, but uncontrolled (as in the current society) it can really get out of hand and do a lot of damage.

This probably explains why women pursue law school so much versus other professional professions, aside from nursing. In a way, the professional schools of nursing and law exploit natural female behavior. Nursing exploits the good side of female behavior, while law exploits the bad side. I'd never want to be a defendant against a woman lawyer.

So, a female-centric culture, large amounts of women entering law school, the female tendency to create rules and laws to constrain people, and threaten people with a greater power when they feel "transgressed" is what has resulted in the legal monstrosity we see today. It's literally eating the society alive.

At this point I wonder how much other stuff people blame on capitalism that's really just creeping cultural Marxism rearing its ugly head, successfully pointing the fingers away from itself. This country's gonna implode if people don't wake up to what is really going on.

Monday, October 19, 2009

The rise (and inevitable fall) of feminism

This piece focuses on British society, but it's pretty much the same in any feminist country. I've been to several feminist countries and all seem to be suffering from decay as the result of their welfare state coffers gradually being diminished to nothing by all the entitlement mania. I agree with the author that this state of affairs can't last forever. What will happen when no one wants to buy any more government bonds, and the gravy train runs out? The creditors will want to collect, that's what. The outcome of that could be ugly, especially if the men who end up drafted would rather not fight, as they have nothing to fight for.

Feminists and their powerful male allies seem to have failed to have taken one thing into account; when someone is made redundant, they don't work any more. And us men have been declared redundant.

This is what is happening in British Society and, no doubt, in other Feminist infected nations. In Britain there are millions of young men who don't work, who aren't in full-time education, who do fuck all, who basically don't have any interest or motive in contributing to society. And who can blame them? They've been declared redundant. They're not needed. Or, rather, they are needed, but only as wage-slaves to be taxed and, from time to time, as cannon-fodder to be fed to enemy cannons whilst the elite and their ho's relax. And even many guys (like me) who do work only work the bare minimum, avoid marriage and other traps to transfer what wealth we have to women, and who plot to emigrate. Or just vent our spleens on blogs.

In Britain, a single woman can nip to a sperm clinic, get a sample, get pregnant and then get on welfare, the idea of a father - or a step-father, or any man whatsoever - being part of a family now officially a 'sexist' idea and one to be rejected. In the workplace, women get priority in promotions and then get to all but choose their hours (usually very few) if/when they have kids. And if a guy works, he'll be taxed to buggery to pay for hordes of single mothers, effectively forcing him to pay for other men's offspring.

"Why bother?", sayeth us men in our almighty multitude. "Fuck this," we add.

If there's a war, many men won't fight to save this country. I fucking won't. Why bother? Most of us men don't have any attachment or any investment in what this country has become. Given that you'll never hear a feminist cry for 'equality' when it comes to the draft, why the fuck would any man be willing to get his head blown off to protect some whining, ungrateful, abortion-happy women and the powerful men, all safe at home? Fuck that. We might as well join the invaders and wreck some stuff for laughs.

The gravy train of feminism won't last long. What women call 'independence' requires a hell of a lot of funding; the single-mothers on benefits, the working mothers who barely work at all and consume taxes with their 'free' daycare, the Women's Shelters, the NHS-funded abortions for slags who can't keep their legs shut, the Ministry of Bloody Women, the endless non-jobs in the female-dominated all needs paying for through taxes. Taxes predominantly paid for by men, who increasingly shrink from the work-force thinking; 'Why bother?'

Monday, October 12, 2009

Purging Indoctrination

Over the past few months I've been noticing something about how attractive women appear. Maybe it's the internalization of an MGTOW belief set, but something has definitely changed. Oh, not in that way, they definitely turn me on, but a lot of the fantasy beliefs I used to have about women have been shattered. It's good in the sense that I crave affection a lot less, which is necessary when not being in a position to receive it, I think. Of course, the downside is occasional anger and deep-seated mistrust of various womens' motives, especially certain types of women.

I find myself paying attention to their negative attributes more, like how they talk, how they walk around, etc. Little imperfections here and there in the body, etc. Stuff that I used to overlook or try to cover up. What's going on I think is the "de-Disneyification" of my view of women. Disney movies had a horrible influence on me, as did media, society, and women of all stripes. No one told me that this was not real, that women are not this amazing all around.

Yesterday, I came across a post by a woman about how her boyfriend was so great, how no one could finish her sentences the way he could, how he brightened her an almost Shakespearean way. It then hit me that this is what I used to crave in relationships, and why I became suicidally depressed due to being "deprived" of it. Now teenage emotions tend to be uncontrolled, but this notion of relationship fairy-tale land didn't really go away until it was nearly beaten out of me by cruel rejection after cruel rejection, being made fun of by women behind my back and being burned by women I thought I could trust.

The thing is, there's something insidious about it. It's like I was deliberately kept in the dark about the reality of relationships, with people making them seem like nirvana, especially women. And it's weird in the sense that people will tell you that relationships aren't all that, but it's almost a backhanded way of saying that they ARE all that. It's like "neener-neener, you can't have this, but don't worry it's not that great anyway... It's better than your situation, though, LOSER! We won't say that of course."

There are many people out there with vested interests in keeping men deluded as all hell about this. Keeping men craving that golden goose until they realize they bought a dead duck. Sickening, really. That's why things like MGTOW and the Roissysphere are so important, in attacking and debunking these "pretty lies" as much as humanly possible. These lies are outright evil, and can do nothing but destroy men.

The debunking of these lies is a great relief. It's like a burden has been lifted from you. In fact, it feels a lot like this:

I think this image is iconic and representative of the MGTOW movement.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Ladies, what's so hard about it?

What's so hard about finding a decent, stable, dependable guy in your 20s, marrying him, and keeping him for life? Why this need to have it all, which ends in having nothing? Don't you women see, your looks don't last forever. It's much harder for a guy to get turned on by you when you're 30, 40, etc. Aging is an irreversible process. Ever thought that if you get a stable guy who maybe doesn't have to so many options to commit while young and attractive, you'll form strong emotional bonds with him that will outlive your decline in attractiveness?

That supply of desirable men is not going to keep on going forever. It simply won't. Get a guy who is nice and stable now, instead of trying to get one years down the road when you HAVE to pick one because none of the desirable guys want you. Better choices can be made when options are abundant as opposed to nonexistent. Take advantage of that and don't go after guys who you know have tons of options themselves i.e. have a high likelihood of running off and leaving you hanging (in more ways than one). I'm just saying.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Behaviors to watch out for in women, part 2

A thread on the MGTOW boards discusses a classic case of cognitive dissonance in a woman who has cheated on her boyfriend, become impregnated with another man's child, and is now asking Yahoo Answers if she should not tell her boyfriend about it. There's several nuggets in here - rationalization of infidelity, the desire to cover up the truth (further cheating in my book), and horrid and ridiculous advice from responders as a microcosmic example of current society. Most important is the disparity in message between those who have a head screwed up by society and those with a clear moral compass. Messed up message: (skank alert skank alert) "True love forgives." Head-screwed-on-right message: True love doesn't cheat! In fact, on numerous levels, cheating is a red flag - infidelity means the 'boyfriend' isn't seen as worthy mating material for whatever reason. If there's true love, it's certainly not coming from her side.

Bottom line - once a woman's heart is somewhere else, it's somewhere else, and "forgiving" her transgressions will just end up with you raising her alpha spawn.

The cynically excellent MGTOWers suggest that this woman was intentionally trying to do just that, keep her boyfriend oblivious until it is too late. Given the moral character of this woman (she's unsure if lying about CHEATING is a bad thing) it's not too far of a stretch. And the morally relativistic "answers" given show that society is more than willing to back up this twisted logic.

Thankfully, some of the answers contained sense, and the woman begrudgingly chose one (shown by her rating) as the best answer. Reality is clearly a tough pill for her to swallow, but she has to swallow it - for now. I don't trust her. She was essentially shamed into (tentatively) doing the right thing; it's certainly not her sense of conscience that did it. Given the opportunity, she would probably do something like this again, in another arena - if she thinks she can get away with it. My advice: Stay far away from any woman who shows signs of being like this.

Behaviors to watch out for in women, part 1

Chuck of "Gucci Little Piggy" has a really good post on one very widespread method that modern women use to express unwarranted dissatisfaction. And they get away with it, looking like victims in the process. "Weasel words" - engineered language designed to provoke a desired response - describe the phenomenon perfectly. I've been at the receiving end of this numerous times in my interactions with women. It was like they would use this evasive language to describe stuff that upset them, shifting blame away from them and condemning those they felt were at fault.

Personally, I think it's pathetic behavior. Guys inclined to see women as "poor oppressed womyn" will empathize with them when they employ this language, but me? It makes me scorn them. I have less and less patience for women who employ this tactic. In fact, I think it should be an automatic credibility reducer in any man's eyes. My advice: Don't let a woman ensnare you in vague emotional traps of sympathy! Keep a clear head free of female emotional manipulation at all times.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Game en masse: The proper route?

On many men's blogs right now there seems to be quite a discussion of Game - the art of behaving in a way that is attractive to women sexually. It is said that Game is the only way out for men in today's society, if they don't want to be locked out of the dating game completely. I mostly agree with this assertion. If a man doesn't want to become permanently celibate or the slave of some domineering woman, he must use Game in order to attract even modestly attractive women. In today's society, women are taught early on that they should go for only the best men, and this goes hand in hand with their biological hypergamous nature. Men oblivious to this fact are sexually invisible.

A lot of the debate on Game seems to center around whether it is ethical or not, often from a Christian conservative perspective. You can see that quite a lot of religious MRA's and MGTOWers are worried that a mass employment of Game will result in a morally degenerate death spiral. This sentiment is expressed even more so in the conservative media, but they have discredited themselves so I will not try to argue with them. I think this whole discussion of whether Game is moral or not misses the point - when someone is fighting for food, they don't ponder the philosophical ethicism of killing an animal. They simply can't afford to. Those of more ascetic persuasion will deprive themselves longer, but eventually they'll snap too.

The fact is, female companionship is a biological need in men that cannot just be willed away by thoughts or moralistic idealism. Doubtless the need for it has been greatly exaggerated by the current culture, and this is what MGTOW is good at reducing, but the base biological need still exists. Game is a solution to a mounting problem. Have the conservatives come up with a better methodology that conforms to their moral standards? Many of them seem to be falling in the "conservative trap" of criticizing a new trend that they see as negative but not really offering a workable alternative. And telling men that "God says some men will remain single in life, that's just the way it is" is not a workable alternative. The men receiving such proclamations will go the David Deangelo route, or perhaps one even more pathological. He will certainly not go on a BETTER path.

This is not to say that worries about Game are unfounded. It can be used in a very immoral manner, to sexually conquer a large amount of women and leave them hanging. The female recepients of such immoral Game accumulate longer and longer strings of baggage until they're finally wailing about the lack of "good men" in some feminist magazine at age 35. At that point they have a 50/50 chance of picking up some equally desperate beta/omega man who has never before been blessed with female attention in his life and most likely doesn't know Game, or is one of the conservatives who thinks it's "immoral," and now ironically has to settle with a formerly promiscous woman (who may still end up cheating on him).

There are two main problems I see with a Game-centric society from the male perspective: Men who cannot employ it will be left in the dust, and it appeases the current fairly unreasonable level of reptilian female sexual desires. Both are equally troubling. What will become of all the men with, say, Asperger's Syndrome or generalized social handicaps? What about men who just aren't that good at "Game?" Will they simply be thrown under the bus of the new paradigm? I left a comment on Novaseeker's expressing this concern, and one of the responders told me that they'll simply be run over. I certainly hope he or she is wrong and my worries are

unfounded. As for the second point, I worry that a mass employment of Game will simply appease female sexual desires even more. Women like being in a fantasy world, and being Gamed keeps them in it longer. What about when everyone employs this? Will it simply escalate female hypergamy to ridiculous levels? I can see many more than the obviously socially handicapped guys being thrown under the bus if this occurs.

I've spoken with several people about this, and they all seem to agree that Game is the only way out, and there is no serious alternative in today's dating culture. They do worry about the excesses though. As one said, teaching a guy Game with no moral guidelines is like giving a guy a gun and $15,000 and telling him to do whatever he wants, with no bounds on behavior. Some guys will use the gun and money responsibly, but most will rob people at gunpoint and spend all the money on weed and booze. That's the reason why today's dating market is so messed up.

So while people who oppose Game from a chivalric point of view are simply dinosaurs, and those who oppose it from an ascetic-religious point of view are unrealistic, opposition to it is understandable. In order for Game to work it must have some sort of moral framework built around it, to prevent people from abusing it, much like teaching people fiscal responsibility instead of having them end up blowing all their money on powerball.

The moral framework that is built must be in tune with modern realities, and thus sustainable. This does not entail compromising on key moral issues, but it cannot be locked into a Victorian ethics framework. The clock only goes in one direction; there is no going back to "the good old days." I believe it is possible to teach men Game while adhering to moral principles. This includes not overly appeasing women or stroking their ego too much. Of course, this is the key area where such a neo-Game ideology can fail: Feminism's toxic effects on women and men could make a neo-Game culture unravel into even more hedonism than we have today. There's armies of manginas and bootlickers out there who will use "traitor Game" to sell out to women, and make things harder and harder for guys. Still others will revel in the power.

Also, it has been joked that feminism was the biggest shit test ever, and men collectively failed it, and it's been downhill since then. This is why I have doubts about neo-Game as far as its ability to heal society. Ultimately, women must change, or this will just cause a bull market in hypergamy, regardless of the restrictions placed on male behavior.

At this point, it's every man for himself, and the guys who aren't gettin' laid and ain't happy about it need to do something to avoid irrelevancy. Until a neo-Game paradigm permeates society, they need to learn Game, while still maintaining a moral compass. Those who can't engage in it? Well, we need to get them off the street and out of the way of the bus...


I will publish more on this blog in the time to come. In the meantime, check my youtube videos.