Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

The blog is moving

2010-01-20T08:39:00.002-05:00

The blog is moving. From now on it will be at http://www.antifeministtech.info. From now on go there. Be sure to update your RSS readers and blogrolls.

The Spearhead: Boy’s Science Project Mistaken for Bomb, Boy Remanded for “Counseling”

2010-01-18T19:54:00.002-05:00

(My latest post at the Spearhead is up. As always comments are disabled here. Comment about this post at the Spearhead.)

The San Diego Union Tribune reports that an 11 year old boy's personal science project was mistaken for a bomb. An 11 year old boy who attends Millennial Tech Magnet Middle School in San Diego was working on a personal science project to build some type of motion detector. He made the mistake of bringing it to his school. A vice principal at Millennial Tech saw the boy showing the device to other students at the school, and believing it was a bomb, IED, or some other type of harmful device put the school under lockdown and brought in the San Diego Police. Later the school was evacuated, and the device was scanned and determined to be harmless. The boy's house and garage was checked by fire officials to make sure there was nothing harmful or explosive. Obviously, there wasn't. While there will be no prosecutions (since no actual laws were violated), authorities are still "recommending" that both the boy and the parents "get counseling" because the boy supposedly violated some school policy.

One aspect of female supremacism is prosecuting a war on boys. This case is a stellar example of that. It's safe to say that if an 11 year old girl brought a personal science project to school, it would be held as proof of "female empowerment". However, since a boy did it, the police were called in, his house was searched for chemicals and explosive materials, and he (along with his parents) was remanded for "counseling" since they couldn't find anything.

It's even worse than it seems, because this is a tech magnet school. By definition a tech magnet school will have students who are interested in technology, engineering, and science. Trying to build electronic devices such a motion detector, as this boy did, should be considered typical - and even praiseworthy - for a student in such a school. Instead, any outside interest in science, engineering, and technology by boys is quashed by school authorities. If you wonder why the scientific, technological, and engineering fields are moving to Asia, just consider that what female supremacism is doing to boys is a huge part of it. Of course, with the export of feminism, Asia's leadership in science, engineering, and technology will be short-lived, because boys will likely be treated with the same distrust and hatred in Asia as they are here in the near future.

Avatar: Biology still isn't magic

2010-01-14T08:23:00.048-05:00

I wrote a comment to the Spearhead post on the movie, Avatar:

While Avatar is leftist propaganda for all the reasons described in this post, its worse than that. There is no way the Navi could have naturally evolved on Pandora and not be in the worst kind of poverty that we have ever seen. Their lives would be nasty, brutish, and short. Imagine the real life of a cave man or observe the poorest places in the world to get an idea of what their lives would be really like.

At one point the main character says that humans have nothing to offer the Navi. That's right because the Navi are luddites who would rather remain completely ignorant of everything around them pretending its one step above pure magic. The Navi have no interest in not just technology, but knowledge and civilization. Of course, given how primitive the Navi are, all the humans on Pandora would have to do is wait until a famine or a plague and then they would have things the Navi want.

Or imagine if something worse happens like an asteroid falling on Pandora taking out enough of Ewa to shut it down. Then what will the Navi do? It's not like they could fix anything because they treat it as one step above magic. The Navi are completely dependent on Ewa for everything. This will get them sooner or later. One disaster is all it will take.

We hear this all the time that the poorest people in the world (or the Navi) are better off because they live a "simpler life" and "closer to nature". It's all bunk whether its in a technologically advanced movie or not. Really, Avatar is slap in the face of anyone who has ever worked to make their lives and the lives of other people better.

I was thinking about this, and Avatar hits on something that I have said before. Biology is not magic. The Navi treat their ability to link to animals and trees on Pandora as being "connected" to Ewa. Such a thing would be all but impossible evolve naturally which means someone designed it. The Navi are afraid of understanding how anything on Pandora actually works. In other words they think biology is magic. In reality Ewa is probably just a computer system for regulating Pandora. It's a BioGeoComputer, a computer that spans a planet (or a moon in this case) using biotech, but it's a computer none the less.

Treating biology as magic is fundamentally female supremacist. To believe that idea is to believe that women and women alone have some sort of mystical power of life (because women give birth to babies). Thus the person that believes biology is magic believes that women are fertility goddesses. Biology can be observed, experimented on, and replicated like everything else in the universe. There is nothing special about biology. When you understand how biology works, you understand that women aren't doing anything special in creating life. It may not be obvious, but knowing such things helps to depedestalize women.

Going back to the movie Avatar, the Navi fundamentally have female ideals because they don't want knowledge. Feminists and other female supremacists don't want men to have knowledge for similar reasons. Whether its game or just being able to compare notes on how women are acting, knowledge is power. This is the reality that stands in stark contrast to all of the ideas that the Avatar movie promotes.

Slut Spill in California

2010-01-11T08:21:00.010-05:00

I found this new video from The Onion about a highly concentrated slut spill in California:

If this could happen near me, I think its time to invest in a biohazard suit.

The Beginning of Ramping up the False Rape Industry to Combat Game?

2010-01-10T14:47:00.000-05:00

My latest post at The Spearhead is up. As with all of my Spearhead posts, comment on the post over at The Spearhead.

At some point feminists (and other female supremacists) are going to develop new tactics to combat game. The Fifth Horseman has said that ramping up the false rape industry is one possibility. Based on a couple of things I have recently come across, this looks like it could happen.

The first is related to the Duke Lacrosse case. A few months ago, Duke University revised their “sexual misconduct” policy. While the Duke Lacrosse case was one reason this was done, another was that the reported cases of “sexual misconduct” at Duke had declined slightly. Ada Gregory, director of the Women’s Center at Duke University, had an absurd explanation for this fact saying, “The higher IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are ... imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the crop.” In other words, because Duke has intelligent men attending, they can get away with rape (and other “sexual misconduct”) because they use their intelligence to convince the women they raped that they weren’t really raped at all. Effectively, Gregory is claiming that when it comes to intelligent men, most women won’t be able to determine that they were really raped because intelligent men can “trick” women into believing that they weren’t raped.

The new “sexual misconduct” policy also informs the Women’s Center at Duke of any “sexual misconduct” allegation and the Women’s Center is involved at every step of the process. The policy also contains language about how “real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.” Effectively, Duke’s new policy claims that rape can’t be determined by the alleged victim, but by third parties (such as the ideologically driven “Women’s Center”).

What does this have to do with game? These ideas can be used to ramp up the false rape industry to combat game. One thing I have heard from some people is that a false rape charge can’t happen when you use game, because good enough game will protect you. While this is debatable (and I don’t think there is any guarantee of this), let’s assume it is true. The problem becomes that this is no longer about a man and a woman. As the Duke “sexual misconduct” policy says, third parties (which we can assume are anti-male) will get involved. This is the key, because instead of dealing with a single woman, you’re dealing with an entrenched feminist bureaucracy so feminists won’t have to worry about minor problems such as women believing they consented to sex. Feminists will claim that using game implies a certain level of intelligence that allows a man with game to convince a woman sex was consensual. This will lead feminists to claim that using game is rape. In addition, feminists can also claim that game creates a “real or perceived power differential” which means that a man with game raped a woman even though he had no intention to do so.

Recently, Obsidian wrote a post concerning Denise Romano and her views of game. This led to her spamming The Spearhead, Obsidian’s blog, Ferdinand’s blog, and others with a comment about rape. Spam is the correct word to describe what Denise Romano did since her comments had nothing to do with the issues being discussed, and in the case of Ferdinand’s blog her comment was added to a post about his blog’s comment policy, making it true spam in every sense of the word. What Denise Romano is most likely trying to do is imply that men with game are effectively rapists. While we all know that’s a crock, this is the beginning of using the false rape industry to combat game. We have nothing to worry about from Denise Romano since she is doing it so poorly, but other feminists in the future may do it better.

Proof that the Republican Party is less than useless

2010-01-07T08:23:00.043-05:00

Those of you familiar with me know that I have long said that the only difference between feminists and "anti-feminist" women is their positions on abortion (and now gay marriage). Women who claim to be against feminism have no problem with 99% of the feminist agenda.

If you don't believe me, I have absolute proof now in this article from Pajamas Media about how Obama's policies are damaging women the most. Yes, this was written by nine Republican female Congressional representatives. Here is the ultimate piece of BS from these nine Republican women:

Since the president took office on January 20, about one million women have lost their jobs and today the unemployment rate among women is at the highest level in over 25 years.

Given that 80% of job losses have been men (hence the mancession) this means that that four million men have lost their jobs since Obama has been President. What are these Republican women, these stooges of patriarchy (since they're Republicans), doing about that? That's right, a lot of NOTHING.

Farther down the article is some babble about mammograms not happening due to Obama's attempt at taking over healthcare. They seem to be implying that men somehow benefit from a government takeover of healthcare. Actually, they probably agree with Susan Walsh that men aren't supposed to go to the doctor (since there is a more important woman that needs to see the doctor) unless he is slaving away for a woman.

At the very least there are plenty of comments to this article that get it. Here is a really good one:

And I’d bet not one of these genius “congresswomyn” understands why people are so angry with the nitwit Republican Party.

This is why no man with any testosterone at all will ever vote for a feminist candidate. Feminists will NOT represent all of the people, just their favored half. They only care about pitting women against men.

The modern American woman is the most pampered, over-privileged, spoiled class of people in human history and yet the confrontational grasping, scheming and bitching never ends.

I'm sure these Republican "congresswomyn" will tell you over and over how they are "against feminist". Yet, they clearly have no problem with 99% of the feminist agenda or the feminist style of doing things.

MTV's Jersey Shore: Did MTV setup Vinny to be kicked off?

2010-01-05T08:40:00.048-05:00

If you have been reading this blog or other blogs in this part of the internet, then you already know about MTV's Jersey Shore reality series. Since the last time I wrote a post about it, they showed the episode where a guy punches out "Snooki". Of course, the decided to black out the actual punch for some reason that just proves MTV has their heads up their asses. If you want to see the punch that MTV wouldn't show you, its in the middle of the video below:

The police were on the scene immediately and arrested the guy. Of course, MTV had to put up a PSA about domestic violence at the end of the episode even though NO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACTUALLY OCCURED since Snooki didn't know the guy. Plus, Snooki did something really stupid by getting in the drunk guys face and bitching about how he was taking their drinks.

In the next episode we find out, that The Situation was buying the puncher and his friends drinks in some attempt to diffuse any situation that might arise. It didn't work obviously. Of course, that means that Snooki shouldn't have gotten in that guy's face since The Situation had covered their drinks. After the punch, the guy was arrested, but Ronnie, Pauly, and Vinny wanted to find the puncher's friends and beat them up. They also bitched about The Situation for not going along with this during the episode and during the bonus clips. The Situation was the only one with enough sense to think that attacking random guys was a bad idea.

On top of all this we see J-Woww (the extra w is for extra whoring around) attack some girl for calling either her or Snooki fat. MTV didn't edit that out at all. I guess MTV thinks violence is all right only when women do it. MTV does seem to be consistent on this point because in their Teen Mom series one of the teen moms actually attacks her boyfriend/fiance & father of her child in what would actually be called domestic violence. Nothing was edited out and MTV didn't run a PSA about domestic violence after that show.

Nothing MTV does surprises me. Over at MarkyMark's blog he was talking about another part of this episode, and I realized something interesting. One of the guys, Vinny, we have hardly seen until this episode. We saw him in the introduction, but between then and now we only saw him when he got pink eye. Vinny even though he's the youngest is also the most mature of all the housemates and possibly the smartest. Chances are we haven't seen much of him because he realizes that he's being filmed so he doesn't do anything stupid that will be broadcast across the world and recorded for eternity.

In this episode, we see Vinny hook up with a cougar. Later Vinny finds out that the cougar was the girlfriend of their landlord/boss for the summer. We haven't seen the aftermath of this yet (and won't until the next episode), but it looks like Vinny is going to have to leave.

I have a theory about what happened that I initially posted a MarkyMark's blog. I think that MTV may have setup Vinny to get kicked off the show. When Vinny is talking about how the cougar is Danny's (the landord/boss) girlfriend, he's right there so how did he not know what his girlfriend was doing? If you watch the episode, the whole thing seems very bizarre, and MTV has a motive for wanting to get rid of Vinny since Vinny doesn't generate any drama for them. MarkyMark pointed out how someone who claimed to live in Seaside Heights, NJ (where the show is filmed) said that Danny (the landlord/boss) doesn't actually work for or own the T-shirt shop the housemates are working at but is actually an employee of Viacom (MTV's parent corporation). That makes everything that happened very suspicious. Why is the girlfriend of a Viacom employee going cougar to go after one of the housemates on this show? We'll see what happens to Vinny on the next episode, but I think Vinny was setup by MTV to be kicked off the show.

Christmas Traditions

2009-12-29T08:23:00.027-05:00

Christmas is filled with traditions. We're all familiar with the regular traditions, but there are lesser known ones such as the viewing of National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation with Chevy Chase. I love the squirrel scene:

There are other Christmas traditions as well. I don't experience this every year, but there is the tradition of one or more people my parents' age (not my parents, that's a different story) asking if I have a girlfriend. I love how telling them I don't have a girlfriend. It makes them squirm because they can't deal with the idea of a MGHOW instead of following the standard life script (tm). (Plus, I'm not going to tell them about how I had two girlfriends at the same time.) Women my parents age are especially mortified at the idea that I'm single because it means no woman is able to sink her claws into my money (and they have no idea what the real extent of my assets are). Why shouldn't they be pissed at the fact that I'm living in paradise?

Since I travel to my original undisclosed location for Christmas, there is also the tradition of seeing (or hearing about) friends and acquaintances I wouldn't see/hear about otherwise. Sometimes that leads to finding out about a story like which I'm going to tell you about.

I heard about someone I really don't know that well. This guy is around 10 years younger than me give or take so we were never friends or anything like that. He's in college now, and I heard about his girlfriend that his parents don't like. And with good reason because she's a bitch. I also figured out that's this girl is a big time feminist. She is majoring in womens' studies. I'm not kidding. She plans on going into some type of social work. In other words, she will be in some sort of feminist bureaucracy and be a feminist problem generator. Of course, she doesn't know how to cook either. This guy is (or at least was) really into her. He did everything for her from cooking to cleaning to whatever. She never reciprocated obviously. Her behavior was so odious that his (somewhat leftist) parents noticed. Of course, they didn't make the connection between her behavior and feminism.

This guy was actually thinking he was going to have a future with this girl. Fortunately, it sounds like his dad convinced him out of it. However, that was only due to his dad making him realize just how much things would suck with this girl since she wouldn't be able to contribute to a marriage/household financially (which is a big deal since a job in his current major doesn't pay a large salary) and wouldn't be willing to contribute non-financially. (Remember that knowing basic life skills like cooking are oppressive to women.) That probably solved the problem of the current girlfriend, but it doesn't solve anything longer term since he probably will end up with another woman that's just as bad. Of course, his parents aren't telling him the truth about women which isn't surprising since I'm certain that they don't know the truth about women either. (I really don't know the guy well enough to get involved in any way.)

It's just another example of a guy overvaluing a vagina.

A response to Susan Walsh

2009-12-27T09:23:00.111-05:00

I have been busy for a few days so I haven't had a chance to respond to this comment from Susan Walsh.

I called you a dick because you called me a shitty mother.

I don't know if you are a shitty mother in general. I will assume you are not without evidence to the contrary. However, you are a shitty mother when it comes to teaching your son about male-female interaction. Nearly all mothers are shitty when it comes to telling their sons about the reality of women (and that includes my mother too) so you are hardly unique.

This is really just one aspect of the problem of female solipsism.

I also noticed you avoided talking about your comment about how I'm only capable of relating to women as "cum dumpsters". If I only relate to women as "cum dumpsters" as you say, Susan, then I was only able to do anything with women by relating to them only as "cum dumpsters".

ED is a real problem among young men and it is growing.

Then quit whining when men take this problem seriously and go see a doctor about it.

As I stated on my blog, when one watches a lot of porn, those arousal patterns become entrenched in the brain. When men or women then find themselves in regular, normal, non-porn scenarios, they find that arousal eludes them.

I'm not sure what "a lot" of porn is, but if this is the case why didn't I have this problem when I lost my virginity recently? I don't know if I watched "a lot" of porn or not. Regardless, I wasn't doing any "porn scenarios" with either woman I was with.

Besides what is the definition of "porn" here? A quick search of the internet can find all different types of porn, many of which have some type of normal looking (i.e. not David Alexander bait) women.

Men aged 18-25 represent the fastest-growing group being prescribed Viagra

Is this because they actually need viagra or because because we're pill happy in the US? Given that this is the same age group with the biggest problem of heavy drinking and binge drinking it stands to reason that is a bigger part of the problem rather that "real ED". It's not even like they have to stop drinking, but it's easier to push a pill.

The reason I stated that men should stop wasting doctor's time is that they are frequently loathe to admit how much porn they watch

It rarely matters so its irrelevant. Besides what are these guys supposed to do if they aren't getting laid? They're horny, and they need to do something about it. Porn ends up being the answer unless they discover game.

Hurling the "shaming language" accusation won't cut it

There's a reason the catalog of anti-male shaming tactics exists. It's because we hear the same things over and over again from women on these issues. Susan, you almost could have copied and pasted some of the things you said from that list.

I'm also not sure why you keep denigrating my education - I never sought to use my degree in any other way than to explain on my own blog that I refer to my business background in the way I solve relationship problems. It's you in the Game community who keep calling attention to my Wharton MBA. In insisting that I earned it only through affirmative action, what do you hope to accomplish? Why would you even say that? How do you know?

First, you brought up your degree and made a claim that it's relevant. Thus it brings up the question if you actually earned your degree. Since affirmative action means lower standards for women and non-Asian minorities (as well as kicking out a deserving applicant using the guns of the state), this is a real question. At the time you attended Wharton there were hardly any women going after MBAs but an affirmative action program which means they were desperate for women. Thus any woman could have gotten in and gotten an MBA from them. I have no idea what your transcript was at Wharton, but anyone who could have benefited from affirmative action is suspect of having not met the actual standard of earning whatever they claimed to earn. Because of affirmative action, there is a good chance you never actually met the standard to earn a Wharton MBA particularly given the gender ratio of the Wharton MBA program at the time you attended. Thus your MBA is suspect at best and any talk about your "business background" is also suspect at best since you may have benefited from affirmative action there as well.

I do want men to be healthy. I want them to be fit for relationships, because that is what my own readers are looking for.

And here it comes. An anon covered this as well. If you look up female supremacism in the dictionary, this excerpt will be there as an example. Here we have a primary example of how women believe that men are supposed to be slaves for women. Susan is saying that men are only supposed to be healthy because women want it.

I'm much harder on the women than the men

Given that so heavily skewed pro-female now, you would have to be about ten thousand times harder on women than you are now for that to be meaningful.

What is the real female problem with porn? MarkyMark has already pointed that out: It exposes the slut lifestyle. Many women are afraid about the truth about women getting out whether its due to porn or game or something else. After understanding the truth about women, men will start going their own way (whether its using game to get laid occasionally, ghosting, etc. does not matter) and not be under the thumb of a woman.

All this talk about the problems supposedly caused by porn remind me of all the people who talk about the problems supposedly caused by video games. When it comes to video games, it was all shown to be bunk, and it will be the same with porn. What both of these have in common is that men (and boys in the case of video games) enjoy them. This is nothing more than another attack on a predominantly male activity. It's also safe to say that there is some fear of male sexuality on the part of women here.

Another thing going on is that women are afraid of the competition from porn. Of course, in the future with virtual reality sex and later sex bots, this "problem" will only get worse for women. That's what happens in an economic bubble when women keep raising the price of sex and offering less and less.

Even more shaming language from Susan Walsh

2009-12-19T19:16:00.001-05:00

Susan Walsh, the same woman who called me a "dick" and said that I'm incapable of relating to women as anything other than "cum dumpsters", continues on with shaming language. Let's take a look at what she says here:

Oh boy, is there ever a population of bitter and angry males! I hate to even refer one person to it, but take a look at Roissy in DC. It's a blog about Game, mens' rights, and hatred of feminism and women in general. He gets hundreds of comments on every post, and he's spawned many blogs among his followers. It's scary stuff.

Let's count the types of shaming language in this paragraph. There's code red (bitter and angry), code orange (scary), and code black (hatred of women in general). There's also a possible code brown in that Roissy's blog is popular and Susan Walsh alludes to this meaning that there is horde of roissyite men ready to oppress women when the time is right. There's a reason why the catalog of anti-male shaming language exists. Susan Walsh has said nothing new. We have seen this a billion times before with practically the exact same wording proving that Susan Walsh and others like her are full of crap.

This is semi-OT, but in the associated post, Susan Walsh makes the absurd claim that porn is causing erectile dysfunction in guys in college. It's not like there would be a more reasonable cause such as binge drinking or heavy drinking in general. Personally, as someone who has looked a porn a fair amount, I had no trouble when it came to sex with Kristen and Rachel so I'm certain drinking (and drugs in some cases) is too blame not porn. That doesn't fit Susan Walsh's attack on men.

We need to add a color to the catalog of anti-male shaming tactics for watching/looking at porn.

On top of that Susan Walsh complains about college men going to doctors about ED. Apparently, she doesn't want men taking care of their health saying, "Stop wasting doctors’ time when they’re trying to deal with swine flu!". As we all know there's a massive swine flu epidemic going on...guess not. It's really just a veiled way of saying that men aren't important enough to actually go see the doctor unless he's slaving away for a woman. Also, what is Susan Walsh's motivation for taking away the only sexual outlet for many men not getting any? I am forced to conclude that she is protecting the pussy cartel. Susan Walsh's head will probably explode when virtual reality sex and later sexbots arrive on the scene. Her affirmative action MBA has not prepared her for the introduction of such technologies.

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm out to relate to women as only "cum dumpsters".

If you're going to the Jersey Shore, be sure to wear a hazmat suit

2009-12-18T08:06:00.066-05:00

There's a song that starts out with, "If you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair." I would like to see a Jersey Shore version that would have the lyric, "If you're going to the Jersey Shore, be sure to wear a hazmat suit." If you have been hanging around this part of the internet, you are probably already familiar with MTV's new Jersey Shore reality TV series (which you can watch online from that link) since it has been covered by both MarkyMark and FB. It's about four "guidos" and four three "guidettes" living in a house for the summer in Seaside Heights, NJ on the New Jersey coast. I feel like I should wear a hazmat suit when I watch it since I'm worried that some STD or chemicals will come through the TV. Currently, I just hold on to my zucchini for dear life while watching it since I'm worried it will fall off since I'm not wearing a hazmat suit.

All the guidos and guidettes are total jerk offs. They have moronic nicknames like "the situation", "j-woww" (yes that many w's), and "jolie" (because her name is Angelina). They are all orange because they spend massive amounts of time in tanning booths to get skin cancer. One of them actually owns a tanning booth. Nicole (whose nickname is "Snooki" which keeps getting messed up by the other housemates as snickers, etc.) got drunk and made a total ass of herself on the first day. She then goes though this whole drama about whether she should leave or not and decides to stay.

On the other hand Angelina did leave after a week. She started out using garbage bags to bring her stuff into the house instead of suitcases. Throughout the week she was there she cockblocks the guys and calls all the chicks they bring back skanks and whores. They were skanks and whores, but how were they any different than Angelina? She also refers to herself as the "Kim Kardashian of Staten Island". As part of staying in the house, all of the housemates have to work for their landlord at his t-shirt shop. Angelina has trouble with this and complains about having to work eight hours a day like everyone else and the job in general. She has a job working a bartender once a week where she does "great things". (Her quote.) She then breaks up with her boyfriend (who we later found out was married) and tries to fake being sick to not work at the t-shirt shop. After being a jack ass, the boss/landlord decides to fire her which means she can't be on the show. "The situation" was also claiming that he and Angelina had hooked up sometime before the show was filmed. Angelina kept denying this to the point where "the situation" said that he met Angelina's mother. On the after show for episode 3 (you have to make sure to watch all the after shows, bonus clips, etc.), she finally admits that they hooked up.

There's Pauly (nickname is DJ Pauly D) who we find out has a pierced dick. What more can I say than that?

There's also Mike who goes by "the situation". He calls himself that because of his 6 pack which he says is a "situation" for women. He tries to go after Sammi, one of the other housemates, which works for the first day or so, but she decides she's interested in Ronnie, another housemate, instead. "The situation" can't handle that and doesn't have any game for dealing with such a conundrum.

We see Mike and Pauly pick up a lot of chicks and bring them back to the house. Of course, there the kind of chicks you would not want to be near without a hazmat suit. A few of the other housmates say pretty much the same thing. They even run into a situation where they have two sets of girls and they are trying to manage the situation. (Unlike certain people they have no experience managing multiple women.) All of the housemates are walking petri dishes of STDs, but Mike and Pauly take it to a new level. These two guys should call themselves "the garbage men" because that's the type of women they go after. They would think they're superior to someone like myself who lost their virginity at 31, but they're full of crap. Kristen and Rachel are so far superior to the parade of skanky sluts that they were with.

There's also Vinny who doesn't seem to get a lot of airtime. If you watch the video at the last link, they talk about how he has standards which doesn't make for good TV. Of course, he's in Seaside Heights, NJ, how high are his standards really? We do see him get pinkeye. Also, in the first episode he had these massive stains in the armpits of the shirt he was wearing. This was when he was talking about what happened. In other words why didn't anyone say that this should be refilmed and have him change his shirt?

To add to all that, watch this youtube video:

I have barely scratched the surface of all of the BS these people said and did. You have to watch it. I haven't even included things like when they put charcoal into a gas grill and nearly burnt down the house. (There's also the infamous clip of Nicole getting punched out, but I waiting to talk about that for several reasons.)

If you don't believe that this show has any basis in reality, watch this youtube video:

I'm thinking next summer of taking a small trip to the Jersey Shore to see the reality of the guido/guidette. I will be doing so wearing a hazmat suit. Who knows what diseases I could encounter there? While I would be avoiding sex like the plague while there, I do have to worry about STDs mutating into something airbone because of the filthy and disgusting nature of the place. Also, I am certain the place is at the top of the list of the EPA's superfund sites. For that matter it's probably a superduperfund site since the place is clearly so polluted. It's not just the diseases. It's the chemicals too. Guidos use so much hair gel, body sprays, etc. that there is no way that place isn't filled with chemical pollution especially since it takes them 20 minutes to do their hair. It's like the whole area is skanky not just the men and the women.

If you decide to visit the Jersey Shore next summer, I might be there at the same time. I will be easily identified because I will be the one wearing the hazmat suit. Stop by and say hi.

Spearhead Article: Male unemployment and crumbling infrastructure

2009-12-16T08:19:00.011-05:00

This Spearhead article should be up sometime today. As with all my Spearhead articles comment at The Spearhead.

By now you have already heard about the "mancession", and you know that men are disproportionately losing their jobs compared to women in this recession. Since the official unemployment rate in the US is already in the double digits, President Obama did the only thing he knows how to do, talk, by holding a jobs summit. All that came out of the jobs summit was undeniable proof that all the attendees at the summit should probably be unemployed.

Originally, the "stimulus" (which was supposed to keep the official unemployment rate well below its current level) was supposed to be spent on infrastructure. The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007 and the DC Metro crash earlier this year in June (which was also covered by our own Roissy on his personal blog) showed that spending on maintaining current and building new infrastructure has been insufficient for a long time. The stimulus would have been a good opportunity to begin to correct this massive error as solid infrastructure is necessary for long term economic growth (not to mention safety), but womens' (such as NOW) groups objected. They called the original stimulus "burly", "macho", and "sexist" demanding that the stimulus be spent on women. This was despite the fact that millions of men were losing their jobs, and education and health care added jobs primarily benefiting women. NOW and the other womens' groups were successful with the stimulus was skewed towards education and health care leaving infrastructure in the same dangerous state it was before. In addition the gap between male and female unemployment is the largest in the history of unemployment data going back to 1948 when such data began.

This "women oriented stimulus" along with other things has caused the federal deficit for this year to surpass 1.8 trillion dollars, far beyond the deficit of any previous year. This causes more men to be unemployed since this massive federal debt is sucking capital out of the private sector which destroys jobs. Literally, there is no capital for new business creation and business expansion that would create jobs. Given all of the other factors here, effectively the stimulus and other ballooning government spending is causing millions and millions of more men to be unemployed. At least if the stimulus was spent on infrastructure jobs doing badly needed work would be created that would have provided a solid foundation for long term economic growth. Instead we have infrastructure that continues to crumble plus more and more men losing their jobs.

Since government policy is now driving the problems of male unemployment and crumbling infrastructure, only a significant change in government policy will solve these problems. Until then millions more men will become unemployed and there will be more bridges collapsing, metro crashes, electrical grid failures, and other disasters that should never have happened.

The Experiment: I'm not the Tiger Woods of the Roissysphere

2009-12-13T01:49:00.001-05:00

I know there are something like 18 women claiming to be Tiger Woods's mistresses. (Ironically, there are 18 holes in golf.) In reality he probably only had 2 or 3. This makes him more comparable to what I have been doing by having two girlfriends at the same time. (Tiger maybe had six mistresses or maybe 5 if his wife counts adding up to six. You can figure out the really bad joke from that.)

When I started this experiment I assumed that I needed to keep my options open. I never thought I would be at the point where I would effectively have two girlfriends. I was thinking that it was going to take a lot more work for me to find even one woman to have sex with me. As a result at every step I didn't pick one. Even when things got to this point I couldn't give one up even though I knew I had to do it.

I hated what I was doing. From a practical perspective, it was a headache managing two women like that. It took up so much time. I had to remember not to say the other's name when with either one of them. Beyond that I hated what I become from a moral/ethical perspective too. I knew I had to do something about this, but I kept finding ways to not do it.

Well, I finally did it. Since I couldn't pick one, I picked none. I ended it with both of them. Needless to say it wasn't fun. I really don't want to go into details, but I did manage to avoid "running over myself with my own car".

It's all over with Kristen and Rachel. I'm not going to end the experiment yet, but I am going to take a break from it for two months. In other words I want to get past Christmas, New Years, and Valentines Day before I try again. I have learned some lessons from this which will help me the next time. Next time I want to see if I can do a bit better. Kristen and Rachel weren't bad by any means. Considering how bad lots of women are (just watch that Jersey Shore series on MTV for some proof) I was doing pretty good even with them. Regardless, I want to see if I can do better. That should also help with falling into another situation where I'm nailing two women.

The experiment will continue on February 15th.

Haters: Susan Walsh and Hate Mail

2009-12-11T17:19:00.001-05:00

I have some haters to talk about.

First is Susan Walsh who you might know from Hooking Up Smart. She called me a dick (which has become a reoccurring theme), and said that I'm incapable of relating to women as more than "cum dumpsters". This had me laughing. You guys have read my posts on this. You can determine for yourself if I only relate to women as "cum dumpsters". What's really funny about what Susan Walsh said is that if she's correct, then the reason why I have been able to get women now is because I only relate to women as "cum dumpsters" now. I suspect this isn't what Susan Walsh wanted to say.

Second is a piece of hate email from "Catherine". Read it below:

You deserve an award for douchebag goodness. You are the biggest douchebag ever. You ain't going to get me on me saying you have a small penis. I know your penis isn't small. I know you're tall & good looking & very smart & very well endowed. I once had a boyfriend exactly like you that was all of that. He was so well endowed like 10 inches endowed. He screwed me with his giant endowment hurting me. I can see you so clearly. You love hurting women during sex. You guys promote large penis propaganda. I thought the pain was pleasure until a lesbian told me the truth.

With your large penis lies you will always have a stream of cum dumpster servant girls. Feminists like me are going to stop you well endowed guys pleasure-pain rape of women. Real men date feminists.

I really enjoyed reading this piece of hate email. It deserves an award for creativity. It's easy to tell me I have a small zucchini. It's harder to turn having a large zucchini into an insult but "Catherine" did. For all of my haters out there, this is the new gold standard you must aspire to.

I deserve an award for "douchebag goodness"??? Clearly "Catherine" has never seen any of that new Jersey Shore series. There's no way I can be more of a douchebag than any guido or guidette. I never given myself a nickname ever much less one like "the situation". (Yes, that's an actual nickname that one of the guidos gave himself.)

Not only am I a "charter member" of the Illuminati and a reptile alien, I'm also part of some sort of conspiracy of men with large zucchinis. This is a conspiracy so successful that we all "pleasure-pain rape" women with our large dicks, and they believe they like it. I don't know if this is the strangest thing I have ever heard, but its close. That reminds me. I have a meeting of the large dick conspiracy this weekend where we will once again measure our large dicks and discuss new ways to "pleasure-pain rape" women.

And "cum dumpster servant girls"??? Why are the terms "cum dumpster" and "douchebag" coming up this much? Both of those are terms Susan Walsh uses plenty. I doubt she wrote the hate email from "Catherine" because why would she, but it does seem like an odd coincidence.

If you will excuse me, I'm seeing my "cum dumpster servant girls" soon, and I want to get ready to "pleasure-pain rape" them with my 10 inch zucchini and make them think they like it.

From Tiger Woods to Phil Hartman

2009-12-11T12:46:00.002-05:00

What happened to Tiger Woods isn't being taken seriously by most of our society. This is no surprise. One example of this was a skit from the most recent episode of Saturday Night Live. (The skit can be viewed on Hulu, which may not work if you are outside the US, or on Youtube.)

The only reaction to this video has been how it was in "poor taste" because Rhianna was the musical guest for that episode. However, the sketch itself is very interesting for what it tells us about the societal view of female on male domestic violence. In the skit Elin is set off by very small things such as Tiger Woods's cell phone ringing. Plus, we are supposed to accept explanations for what is happening to Tiger Woods that are more and more impossible such as Tiger Woods falling down a flight of stairs and throwing himself through a window to Tiger Woods driving a car that he ran himself over with, etc. There is also a throwaway line about not blaming Cadillac for what happened with the car. Since female on male domestic violence isn't taken seriously someone else has to be blamed no matter how absurd, Tiger Woods, General Motors, etc. Throughout the skit Tiger Woods makes comments about how strong Elin is because she must be for any type of domestic violence to happen supposedly. This is not the case.

One reason that domestic violence against men is not taken seriously is that men on average are stronger than women. This has many problems. The most obvious is men being afraid to defend themselves against women because since they will be thrown in prison regardless of the actual circumstances. The advantage of strength can be nullified. One quick way of doing that is to pull out a gun. No matter how strong a man is, he isn't going to stop a bullet. Knowledge of martial arts is another way. Recently, there was the story of a "Mr. Zhang" in China who was constantly battered by his wife. She battered "Mr. Zhang" using Kung Fu, the martial art that she had practiced since she was a child. Domestic violence against men isn't taken seriously in China either. "Mr. Zhang" was only able to get a contract stating that his wife would only batter him once a week. This contract was enforced by his in laws. Such a thing is absurd (but what can be expected from a woman who says that "she can't help herself") and shouldn't be necessary. I'm not familiar with the Chinese legal code, but I'm certain assault and battery is illegal in China. Thus, this proves that domestic violence against men is treated in a similar way there as it is in the West.

Another good example is Carolyn Brown of Louisiana who poured boiling grits on her boyfriend while he was sleeping. As he was asleep his strength advantage was nullified. There are other examples too such as Lorena Bobbit's attack on her husband.

All the men I have talked about so far have one thing in common. They are still alive. Phil Hartman wasn't so lucky. You may remember Phil Hartman from TV shows such as Saturday Night Live and Newsradio and movies such as Three Amigos. Hartman had many problems from the behavior of his third wife, Brynn. She had been addicted to drugs and in and out of rehab several times. Brynn was known for having trouble controlling her anger and losing her temper to gain attention. This came to a head in 1998 when Brynn, intoxicated and having recently taken cocaine, committed an act of domestic violence murdering Phil Hartman. With all of these problems why didn't Phil Hartman leave? Only Phil Hartman knows that, but some possibilities are that despite the fact that Brynn had major substance abuse problems a divorce court would have sided with her in distribution of assets. Even if that was the case, wouldn't that have been worth it for Phil Hartman? He would recover. Probably, except that they had two children. Given that women typically receive custody of children in divorce unless they're eating the children, the children would have been stuck with Brynn and all of her problems. Phil Hartman wouldn't have been there to protect his children. I would not be surprised if this is the reason that Phil Hartman never divorced Brynn leading to his tragic death.

These men I have written about are all well known. Many men are suffering in silence as victims of domestic violence. It is now known that women commit 50% of domestic violence. Given that men aren't likely to report women committing domestic violence against them, its safe to say that women commit more domestic violence than is reported. This is a real issue for millions of men including several famous men.

(Comments are disabled for this post. As with all Spearhead posts, comment at the Spearhead.)

An encore performance by Mrs. Potato Dick

2009-12-08T23:04:00.005-05:00

The title of this post is probably the title you would think would be on the top of the list of blog post titles I would never use. This will be explained shortly.

Saturday Night Live can have its ups and downs. Sometimes they're funny. Other times not so much. Sometimes they do a fairly good job, like with this skit where Kathie Lee Gifford gets beat up by the Black Eyed Peas. It's complete with that week's host, January Jones who you might know from this post, not knowing which camera was recording (to the point that her lack of knowing was recorded). (Unfortunately I can only find the Hulu upload and not a youtube upload):

Sometimes SNL really outdoes themselves with this skit called "Underground Festival". With this you will understand the title of this post. (Again I can't get a youtube upload. Only a Hulu one which might not work for those of you outside the US.)

This is actually a parody of the infomercial for the 2009 Gathering of the Juggalos. Be sure to watch the entire video to understand just how close a parody SNL did. (Might be a bit NSFW):

I don't know about anybody else, but I really want to see Gunt and Mrs. Potato Dick and get my free pitchfork.

The Experiment: Maybe I should dump them both

2009-12-06T10:12:00.052-05:00

There are many reasons I don't like having what is essentially two girlfriends. The moral issues are a big reason. The various practical reasons are also big. So far I have managed to make everything work. I have been lucky that I haven't gotten calls from one when I'm with the other. I have managed not to say the other's name when I'm with them.

The fact is I never expected this to happen. I never thought that I would have two women interested in me at the same time. After I first met them, I didn't pick one because I assumed that something would cause me to lose one or both so I didn't want to lose both. I thought getting as far as I did would be more difficult and take longer so by definition there would be only one woman at a time (assuming I could have even pulled that off).

I don't know which one I should dump. This weekend I have been thinking maybe I should just dump both. Not only is it an easy solution to the problem, but I having a real problem knowing that both Kristen and Rachel are lying to me. They are both lying a lot and insulting my intelligence by doing it.

Before going on I recommend everyone read this blog entry at The Better Beta about women lying since I am experiencing the same thing because this is commonplace. Some of the things Kristen and Rachel have lied to me about are:

How many guys they have been with. Both of them have told me things along the lines of "I have been with very few guys." Kristen is 35 years old. She has easily been with 2 gazillion guys. Rachel is only 28 so probably 1.5 gazillion. Both of them said this as reasons that they did not need STD testing. Both of them claimed that clearly I have been with way more women then they have been with men because I was pushing for STD testing.
This is the best sex of my life. Remember Kristen and Rachel aren't just saying that the sex is good. They are saying its the BEST they ever had. Both of them have been with gazillions of guys, and I, the guy who was a virgin three weeks ago, beat them all out by a wide margin. (Of course, they don't know I was a virgin a few weeks ago.) Kristen has told me she hopes the sex doesn't get any better because if it did she's worried that she would pass out from all the pleasure. Rachel told me that she has orgasmed each and every time we have had sex. Usually it takes her a while for that to happen, and it isn't consistent even then. Somehow my superior fucking has given her orgasms always each and every time. Both of them have done things that lend credence to what they say such has cooking me breakfast the morning after, but it doesn't change how unbelievable it all is. If I'm with Kristen and/or Rachel long enough I expect they will start telling me that they have multiple orgasms when I touch their shoulder.
I have never moved this fast with a guy before. This is more Kristen than Rachel somewhat. Remember that Kristen threw herself at me on our "first date". Kristen explained this later as that she has never wanted sex as much as she has wanted it with me. As a result she couldn't "control herself". Both of them said that waiting for their STD results to come back was "torture". From my experience, there isn't anything about me that should make a woman want me that much.
I'm willing to do things with you that I'm not willing to do with any other man. I guess my masculinity is so extreme again that Kristen and Rachel are willing to do things with me that they never would under any other circumstances. Yeah right.

What really gets me isn't the lies as much as how outlandish and unbelievable they are. I might have trouble believing that my first time at sex is really good, but its at least believable compared to the nonsense I'm being fed. I wish that Kristen and Rachel wouldn't insult my intelligence like that. I should dump them both for this, but as The Better Beta points out this behavior is common in women.

Aoefe and Bhetti at GirlGame wrote a story involving me

2009-12-03T23:58:00.000-05:00

In my blogging career, I have done lots of things in a short time. I got Brent Spiner (Cmdr. Data from Star Trek: TNG) to call me an asshat. I got hundreds of women to say almost in unison that I had a small dick. I have even gotten hate mail claiming that I'm a reptilian alien and a member of the Illuminati/NWO at the highest echelon.

Now Aoefe and Bhetti of the GirlGame blog have written a story that involves me a bit. I have to admit that the way that they wrote about me has me scratching my head a bit. Hopefully, they will explain. Regardless, go read it.

Various Responses

2009-11-30T08:17:00.054-05:00

I was away or otherwise busy a lot of last week so rather than respond to several comments in their respective threads which may be semi-buried now, I am doing so now. (All of them are from the Where are the angels coming down from Heaven post.)

Chic Noir wrote:

go ahead sweet draws. if she made you breakfast you must've done it pretty darn good. I hate to hear what you'll have women doing after you've done the deed 20+ times.

After 20 or more times, will I get eggs benedict or something equivalent? In all seriousness, I'm not sure how I could have been that good. My main concern beforehand was figuring out not to be fumbling around looking like I had never seen a naked woman before.

Chic Noir wrote:

There is a small part of me that cries for your lost purity thought. I liked that sweet innocence.

Kathy wrote:

Me too Chic.

My question to this is: what innocence? Even before I had sex I looked at enough porn that the idea I had any "innocence" in me was a joke. For the rest of my response it's time to include what Indomitable Thoughts wrote:

It's interesting how women see virgins as "cute" and "innocent" (unfuckable) until they've done the deed, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The most important word there is: unfuckable. Sure, I have had these women and others talk about how great it was that I was "innocent", but what that really means is unfuckable. Obviously, I'm not unfuckable, but it does represent the real problem which is that these women thought I should maintain some form of "purity" (i.e. never have sex) for the rest of my life. Sure they would say something like i should wait for "love" or "someone special", but let's face reality. Such a woman doesn't exist. Thanks to our current culture that is the reality on the ground.

If you think what I'm doing is a bad idea, then I'm willing to have that conversation with you provided you understand reality. It's either something similar to what I'm doing or never having sex (again) for the rest of my life. If you're willing to discuss it in those terms (the terms of the reality on the ground) then I will have that conversation with you.

Bhetti wrote:

I don't think he feels much different. (Except a little happier and curious, with all these new little things to explore.) He said he's not going to turn into a pickup artist.

Come on, guys. The man's too much an adult for being sweetly innocent. Barring waiting for marriage (which is an insane option for Mr. Tech and he doesn't seem to regard 'purity' as 'virginity'), it's great he allowed himself to explore the pleasure and pains of enjoying a woman. The impression I get was the only reason he didn't was because he couldn't be bothered after difficulty before: it seemed too much trouble for what it was worth. All this exploration can only be a good thing for him, getting him first hand and intimate experience with a woman.

I'm seeing him have long-term girlfriends for the forseeable future, but not much commitment since he likes being independent and definitely doesn't like the idea of a woman having power over him.

Bhetti, have you found some way to telepathically link to my brain? You understand what is going on with me.

I'm not going to turn into a PUA (pickup artist). I don't have the temperament for that nor the ability. In other words it's simply impossible.

You're right that I couldn't be bothered because of difficulty before. It was like banging my head against the wall. We all know the best part of banging your head against the wall: WHEN YOU STOP. So I stopped. Even as easy as things are now, I am still not sure that this isn't more trouble than its worth. I probably will have "long term girlfriends" (in quotes because I'm not sure that this is the best way to describe this) for the foreseeable future, but it does have an end date. Those of you familiar with The Fifth Horseman know he has pointed out with increasing numbers of men learning game that feminists will do something to combat it such as scaling up the false rape industry. I have no idea if it will be that or something else, but it is coming. I will not be caught in it whatever it ends up being.

Bhetti, you're also right that I really don't like women having power over me. That's why I won't be getting married ever (or at least until there are massive socio-legal changes in this area). All of you I have talked about denying women their power, plenty. As a result nothing I do in this area has a real long term future. It's hopping from woman to woman. This also makes me wonder if its worth it, but for now I continue.

Chic Noir wrote:

Why are you already thinking about the next woman you're going to be with??? I been at it for 4 years and I only have two so are you batting for 2 in 2 weeks.

Don't get yourself a bad reputation youngman.

What is with this "young man" nonsense? I'm 9 years older than you. Actually, it was 2 in 1 week, but I'm not counting. You're 22. I'm 31. There's a difference.

Elusive Wapiti wrote:

As a brother who encourages others to lead upright lives, I see this event as something less than ideal. I wouldn't presume to lecture or preach uninvited here, in this forum in which I am a guest. Rather, I am simply expressing an overall sense of sadness as I read this account.

I am glad however at seeing the notion debunked that a man having sex with a woman is the end-all, be-all and/or definer of masculinity. It is hardly that, no matter what the Code Pink-shaming fembots say (Tally is probably correct that, having lost the ability to impugn your masculinity by mocking your virginity, they'll probably accuse you of having a short pitot tube or low manifold pressure--euphemisms for having a small dick--next).

Yes, this isn't ideal. But what is in this area? It's an imperfect solution for an imperfect fucked up world.

Clearly, I have shown that sex with a woman is meaningless a definer of manhood. Anytime anyone wants proof that such ideas are nonsense all they have to do is point to this series of blog posts.

I already get accused of having a small dick. Nothing new there.

I saved the best for last.

Anonymous wrote:

I think the better part of this experiment is finding out that women aren't as elusive as you originally thought. Maybe you and your bros can do without sexbots and women slaggin' blogs after all.

This has me ROTFLAMO for hours. Before I respond further let me add what Monad wrote in response:

Oh...the shaming language of it all!

Yes PM/AFT, all our blogs, websites and forums are just slaggin' the bytches off coz we havent managed to put our shlongs in one of those elusive wet holes.

Well mate, since you got a shag you have absolutely no reason to take issue with women anymore...you can now close your blog.

I guess so. I'm closing the blog now that I have gotten laid....Just kidding.

This experience has not changed my mind on ANYTHING. I'm still against getting married because given the current social and legal climate, it is like putting your dick into a meat grinder. I still believe that sex bots, VR sex, artificial wombs, and the rest are important pieces of technology that need to be developed as soon as possible to help liberate men. I believe in this as much now as when I was a virgin.

The Experiment: I refused to go to that new Twlight movie

2009-11-28T12:33:00.021-05:00

Before I get into the rest of this, I know this was Thanksgiving week, but I didn't get that raise to $250,000 a year I was expecting from my job now that I have gotten laid. I guess there really is no connection between success in other areas of life and sexual/relationship success.

I got back from travelling for Thanksgiving yesterday and got together with Rachel. We had sex. There isn't a lot to say about it since all of the first time stuff I told you about in my last post doesn't apply here. Again, I must have done at least a halfway decent job since Rachel seemed pretty happy. I still don't have a good feel yet for how sexually aggressive I should be.

This morning Rachel started talking about how she hadn't seen the new Twilight movie yet, and "we should go". (Why does a 28 year old woman want to see that movie?) Obviously, I refused very strongly. This precipitated something of an argument for a minute leading Rachel to say something I won't repeat exactly, but it was along the lines of, "PMAFT, why do you have to be such a big dick?" That was it for me. Rachel was out of here. As I was pushing her out the door, Rachel was like, "I'm sorry!!!! I'm sorry!!!!", but that didn't stop me.

I have been juggling two women for the last two weeks, and I don't like it. I was looking for a reason to dump one of them, and this was as good as any. I just got a text message from Rachel apologizing again and begging me to take her back. I'm not inclined to take Rachel back since I don't want to juggle two women, but if anyone else has any other ideas, I'm listening.

The Experiment: Where are the angels coming down from Heaven?

2009-11-22T11:37:00.050-05:00

Depending on your perspective this will either be good news, bad news, or you don't care. Kristen's STD results came back, and yes I actually saw them. And she is STD free so you know what that means. She was really ready to go. Everything from the way Kristen dressed to what she said and did was screaming take me now.

I have to admit I was nervous. Some of you know I did some "research" on a few things and that did help. While it didn't make me an expert, it did prevent me from getting lost and looking like I had never done this before. Kristen suspects nothing. I was worried about not being able to get it up and things like that. I was able to relax. We had dinner beforehand, and I did drink some wine so took the edge off. (I also made sure not to drink too much so I didn't end up with "whiskey dick".)

It was fun of course, and there were some new experiences for me. Some of them were pretty mundane. For instance, I have been sleeping in a bed big enough for two people for many, many years, but I always slept in the middle. This is the first time I slept on one side of a bed that size. It may seem silly and mundane to you, but its was new to me.

I was expecting some angels to come down from Heaven after this, but that didn't happen from the way many people claim getting laid is so important to being taken seriously. The mysteries of the universe weren't revealed to me. It wouldn't have to have been all of them, just a few would have been enough. We will see tomorrow if I get a raise at work. Lots of people claim that virginity loss is required to have real, high paying jobs. Given that I was pulling down a massive salary before losing my virginity, I'm expecting that tomorrow I will start earning a salary of at least $250,000 a year. (Given my current salary, it has to be raised to at least a quarter of a million dollars for those guys to be right.) If this doesn't happen tomorrow, then you guys can make it correct by sending me money. Since this is a one time payment, all you guys who believe that financial success and sexual/relationship success are tied together, must send me at least half a million dollars ($500,000) total between all of you before I will admit you're right.

One thing this experiment has shown me so far is that there was no "improvement" involved. I have read plenty from people who claim that going from not getting laid to getting laid means that you have "improved" yourself in some nebulous way. It's nebulous since self improvement in all other cases is clearly objective. Regardless, I didn't change myself in this experiment. I didn't "improve" myself in any way.

Kristen made me breakfast this morning, and when I say made breakfast I mean actually made breakfast (specifically omelettes). I take this to mean I must have done at least a halfway decent job in nailing her since I would assume that women don't make breakfast for guys who failed to satisfy them in bed the previous night.

Even now after having sex, there is still a great deal I'm still feeling out and getting comfortable with. I don't have a good grasp of just how sexually aggressive I should be. There is a lot to be said for turning a woman's expectations that you will be sexually aggressive as soon as possible on its ear and making her beg for it instead. Sofia at GirlGame said that being chased sexually gives women a position of power. It seems like a good idea to deny that power.

I still amazed at how easy so much of this was. Of course, the idea that this would be like getting blood from a stone has not left my mind yet, so compared to that anything is "easy". I am also noticing something along the lines of all I have to do is tell Kristen (or Rachel) that I want something and they deliver. Is that part of being dominant and them being submissive? I really don't know (yet). Like I said, I still feeling my way around so much of this.

I know many of my haters are really pissed now since they can't call me a loser virgin anymore. I expect some invention from them to come up with ideas to work around this problem. I look forward to reading the nonsense they come up with.

Spearhead Article: The Light of Truth of Paternity Testing

2009-11-22T08:25:00.001-05:00

Recently, the New York Times had an article on paternity testing which has already been commented on by our own Roissy and Female Masculinist on their respective personal blogs. The men in the NYT article are all the victims of fraud. In any other context, the legal system would consider this a case of outright fraud. What this means is that the simple technology of paternity testing has acted as the light of truth exposing the entire family law system from lawyers to judges as corrupt and supremely dishonest.

The other area where paternity testing has shown the light of truth is with female behavior. Before paternity testing the only way a man would know for certain if his wife/girlfriend had committed paternity fraud against him was if he was away from his wife/girlfriend for an extended period of time when conception would have taken place. Now, it's possible for men to know the truth both individually and globally. Depending on who you ask the cuckoldry rate is somewhere between 1% and 30% with 10% being a commonly cited number. Without mandatory paternity testing it's impossible to know the exact percentage. However, the exact percentage doesn't matter so much since paternity testing has shown that paternity fraud does happen enough that every man should be concerned about whether his kids really are his kids.

Before paternity testing women and male white knights would claim that "women would never lie about paternity". Since paternity testing has proven this to be a myth, they have moved to "biological/genetic connections don't matter" and shaming language. Take this quote from Carol McCarthy, an officer of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

“Having been involved in cases like these, I think the answer to ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband. My own biases are going into this because I’m adopted, so I’m real into ‘your parents are the people who raise you.’ I couldn’t care less who my biological parents are.

First, take notice of the shaming language. Beyond that this quote is incredibly self serving. I would bet serious money that if McCarthy had a medical problem that was inherited or otherwise required family medical history she would change her tune really quick. And what about all of those adopted children who go searching for their biological parents? According to her that shouldn't happen. It's all just more proof that McCarthy is claiming that fatherhood doesn't matter and engaging in anti-male shaming language.

If a genetic connection doesn't matter for fatherhood that why does it matter for motherhood? The article points out that hospitals go to great lengths to make sure that the baby a mother gave birth to is the baby she leaves with including footprints, matching ID bands, guarded nurseries, surveillance cameras, etc. If genetics does not matter then why doesn't the government take all babies after they are born and randomly reassign them to parents? It's because genetics does matter. Every other position is self serving shaming language, and paternity testing has exposed this.

Mandatory paternity testing will probably not happen in the future since women and male white knights will oppose it. However, that does not matter since the most significant change from the creating of paternity testing is the knowledge men now have that cuckolding is a serious problem. Men are now aware of the need to make sure that his kids are really his, and nothing is going to put that genie back into the bottle.

(As with all spearhead posts, comments are disabled so comment at The Spearhead.)

There's another name for this: Hell

2009-11-16T20:32:00.008-05:00

There was this sketch on Saturday Night Live about life in the 50s. Watch it below. (I added the youtube upload as well as the hulu one so you should be able to see at least one.)

There's an alternate name for this situation. It's called Hell. While this is from Saturday Night Live and is humorous, this isn't that far from what the socons want for all of us. Sure the wife looks miserable, but that's part of the joke. Look at how the husband is miserable too. It's a lot more subtle, but you can see it there.

My colleague, zed, over at The Spearhead has pointed despite all of the problems caused by feminism, the fact is that feminism by accident freed men. This is because feminism removed all of the societal requirements placed on men. This is also why men are happier than women now. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. Do you want to go back to this version of Hell in the video? Of course not.

Fembot Bingo!

2009-11-15T21:10:00.002-05:00

If you're reading this blog then you're familiar with shaming language. Quite possibly, I have more experience being the recipient of shaming language than any other man on the planet. There is the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics. I found a new variant of it, Fembot Bingo:

This covers a great deal of shaming language. To personalize it for me, you have to add "is a reptilian alien", "is a member of the Illuminati", etc.

Just Another Day In Paradise

2009-11-13T19:48:00.000-05:00

There is this Middle Eastern place for lunch half a block away from my office that I occasionally go to. I have been there enough times that the owner recognizes me as a semi-regular customer. I went there for lunch today and the owner was behind the counter. There was the usual hi, how are you. For his side of the how are you he said something interesting, "You know. Just another day in paradise."

This got me thinking. I get made fun of and/or attacked by plenty of people online for being a virgin and for GMOW. If I told anyone IRL about this aspect of my life the same thing would happen IRL. The fact is that my life is better than theirs to the point that compared to their lives, I'm living in paradise. This is true of my life compared to most people's lives in general.

The biggest reason is that because I'm a MGHOW I'm free. I look at all of my married (male) coworkers, friends, acquaintances, business associates, etc. and unless they just got married three months ago, they are slowly becoming more and more miserable. This is not surprising since they are trapped. Several of my coworkers got together to take this automotive repair class. That's sensible enough because if you're willing to spend the time it can save you a lot of money. But the real unspoken reason is that these guys have been semi-exiled from their own homes in a way. They are looking for a way to spend time in their garages away from the rest of their house and family. They are the ones working to pay the mortgages on these houses, and they have been exiled from most of their property!

Then you have the divorced guys. If you're reading this blog, then you don't need me to go into detail about the devastation that happens to men during divorce. I do have some interesting stories like with this one guy I know who got married at the top of the housing bubble. Since he got married, he "had" (as in his wife made him using shaming language who was probably helped by a realtor named Suzanne) to buy a house. Given the insanity of house prices at the time, he ended up buying a house that is about a far away from DC as you can get while still being considered in the "greater DC area". They got divorced a while back and he got stuck with the house. He has been trying to sell it with no luck. For now he is stuck with a hugely long commute each way to work with lots of traffic. That is pretty telling.

The unmarried guys are the best off, but too many of them think they "need" a woman. All this means is that these guys are easily manipulated by women. (Even game won't protect you from this idea as we can give examples of guys who know game, but still place way too much importance on women.) I do my best to convince these guys otherwise, but a lot of them are willing to go into the slaughterhouse.

I'm free, and these guys aren't. I'm able to go where I want, do what I want, and not make stupid financial decisions due to female shaming language. This permeates to all aspects of my life whether its being more financially secure than them or being happier since I don't have a harpy sucking the life out of me. Compared to most people, I am living in paradise.

If you think I'm being asinine about this, the read this post about the marriage timetable from The Better Beta and reconsider your view.

Death of the West? - Using Historical Models

2009-11-12T01:25:00.002-05:00

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the death of Western Civilization. You can read what Dennis Mangan, OneSTDV, Prime (twice), and Ferdinand Bardamu had to say about it. I was going to weigh in on this, but then I realized that this was going to take several posts, so I decided to start a series of posts about this subject. They will all have the "death of the west?" label on them, and I will write them as I have time interspersed with all my other posts.

You will notice that I have death of the west followed by a question mark. That's because I'm asking the questions is Western Civilization really dying, and if so is there any way of turning it around. While there are a lot of problems that do have the potential to bring down Western Civilization, there is also a lot of sensationalism, defeatism, misunderstandings and half truths involved. While I do have my own guesses about the answers this is a journey I am on with you so I don't know where it will lead. I'm going to try my best to do this using reason and not defeatism and sensationalism. Get all of your "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" out of your system before you continue reading.

Let's take a look at historical models. When talking about the death of the West usually, some type of historical model is invoked. A common one is the fall of Rome. That makes sense. There are plenty of parallels between the modern world and the decline and fall of Rome that anyone can come up with. However, it is not a one to one mapping. There is no way it could be. Technology is one huge difference (and this will be the subject of subsequent death of the west? posts). There are others. In other words, there are limits to the use of the Fall of Rome as a historical model (as would be true with any other historical model). That doesn't mean the Fall of Rome is completely useless. We just have to recognize that there are limits.

Another problem is not fully understanding a historical model. Take the Fall of Rome again. When people talk about the Fall of Rome what they are really referring to (usually) is the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire lasted for another thousand years. Aspects like that could be important in using a historical model like the Fall of Rome because it tells us different things.

The historical models that could help us may not be well known. The reason why the Fall of Rome model gets used a lot is because its something we are all familiar with. It may or may not be the best model. Other models might also provide useful knowledge. Take the fall of the Sassanid dynasty of Iran, the last pre-Islamic dynasty of Iran. The Sassanids had fought several wars against the Byzantines which depleted their treasury leading to high taxes and subsequent rebellions over those high taxes. They had also expanded their empire into several client states which weakened the empire. There was infighting among the dynasty which led to a woman taking over as empress for two years who some historians have described as a feminist. All of this made the Sassanid empire weak enough to fall to invading Muslims. Sound familiar? Like with all historical models appropriate skepticism must be applied, but this is one model to consider.

Sometimes historical models can be stretched to the point where they make no sense. One model that comes up in this context (or specifically the fall of the United States) is the collapse of the Soviet Union. While there are a few (and only a few) aspects that are comparable, the fact of the matter is that the collapse of the Soviet Union is not a useful model. You may remember that Russian KGB analyst that claimed that the US will break up in 2010 as shown on the map below.

This is an example of how applying the collapse of the Soviet Union to the US in nothing short of lunacy. It would take me days to document all the ways this guy is wrong so here is a few. You have the basic things problems such as why the US would break up on state lines as opposed to natural borders. The republics of the USSR had more natural borders. Why would Arizona and SoCal end up as part of the Chinese controlled state given the Hispanic population there? The deep south will fight to the death rather than become a part of Mexico. South Carolina will never join up with the EU. The "Central North American" republic can't exist as a part of Canada or as a client state since in either case that would mean Canada would effectively cease to be Canada. The list goes on and on.

Even if you think this makes sense and all that is needed is some adjustments of the borders, you're wrong. The reason why is because this is not about the breakup of the US. It's shoehorning the breakup of the Soviet Union in North America and is based on Russian fears of being absorbed by their neighbors. It fails a real analysis of the United States so no matter what you try, it isn't salvageable.

I used this example because I wanted to show you just how far historical models can be taken out of their original context. This gives us no useful knowledge. The only reason you heard about this Russian KGB guy and his so called analysis is because of sensationalism. Who wouldn't want to get a bunch of web hits by talking about how the US is about to breakup? A lot of people enjoyed reading this since it allowed them to run around screaming, "OMG THE US IS ABOUT TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

When we anaylize the possible death of the west, we need to do in a sober and reasoned fashion. Sensationalism, hysteria, and drunk Russians will not help us. That is what you need to take away from this post more than anything else.

A giant Capt. Picard facepalm is called for

2009-11-09T21:09:00.002-05:00

What I'm about to talk about required the Capt. Picard double facepalm. I'm going to try my best not to bite all of your heads off.

Only some of this will apply to you. I'm trying to respond to a bunch of people at once without using names.

Many of you have been following my experiment and commenting on it here and elsewhere. I'm really surprised by how much push back I'm getting on it. Is the world going to end if I have sex? Am I the one who causes all that destruction in 2012? Did the Mayans in their 2012 end of the world prophecies (which don't exist) say that a male virgin would appear who would be told he has a small dick by crazy women responding to a science fiction article and that for the world to live he must not have sex at all costs? (If that's the case send me the evidence. If it checks out, I won't have sex ever. I'm willing to do that for the world.)

Getting back to the point, I'm getting a lot of "DON'T DO IT" for various quarters. Whether I am supposedly "selling myself short" or that I should "wait for love and not lose it with a skank" or that the whole thing will "confuse me", etc. it's all the same. Without some practical knowledge, this is just saying "never have sex in your life". If that is what you want to say then SAY IT. Anything like that is not helpful since what are "better" women and how do I reasonably find them? Don't say church. I will take you to lots of Catholic churches and point out all of the unmarried couples having sex. I can do the same with other conservative churches such as the Southern Baptists too. What you are really saying is that I should convert to some ultra-conservative faith and marry an 18 year old. That wouldn't happen since despite being fairly conservative myself I would look like a progressive radical hippie, and they would think something is wrong with me for being 31 and never married.

Just because a woman is politically conservative does not mean that she is sexually conservative so don't tell me that either. Several years ago I read an article about documenting this, but I can't find it now. I have direct experience with this scenario. Kristen, one of the women I'm seeing, is a fairly hardcore conservative woman. Since you're reading my blog you know that it didn't stop her from wanting to have sex right away.

Frankly, I find this lecturing on sexual morality (whether its waiting for marriage or love) to be hypocritical from most of you. There are some who can legitimately do that like Hestia, but most of you are in no position to do so. You're not so pure. There's no reason why I and I alone should be some paragon of "purity".

As for being worried about STDs being "unhealthy", shouldn't I take my health seriously? If I tried to find any virginal women, they would be way too young. Unfortunately, this is the reality on the ground. What you are saying is that I should never have sex. If you want to say that, then JUST SAY IT.

Many of you are worried that I will expose your pretty lies if I continue this experiment especially if I have sex. You might get lucky, but probably not. I'm on to your attempts to stop it. Chances are I will discover that there is no difference between being a virgin and not, that virgins know as much as non-virgins, that losing your virginity doesn't make your more successful, etc. I can tell when this is your real motive.

And for those of you trying to build some tortured explanation why I'm unique so you can continue to believe your pretty lies, it will be a lot easier to admit you're wrong.

That being said if you have something meaningful to say I'm willing to listen. Just remember that platitudes aren't helpful, and I can analyze your motives. Also remember I'm dealing with the reality on the ground. If you want to say that I shouldn't have sex ever, I won't be insulted. I just ask that you give some reasoning (that doesn't have me questioning your motives) and most importantly SAY IT DIRECTLY.

The Experiment: A woman admits she's wrong

2009-11-08T09:52:00.023-05:00

Here's an update on the experiment. I saw both Rachel and Kristen again. There isn't much interesting to say about Rachel except that things went well with her. One thing that I have noticed about her is that she definitely does have an overinflated ego which is pretty typical for women. This is also a hazard of where I live, the greater DC area. There are lots of people with an overinflated sense of their own importance because they have an insignificant job in the Federal Bureau of Uselessness or the Department of Sucking Money into a Black Hole. This is Rachel's exact problem. As annoying as this is, I am going to continue with her since positive data is more useful than negative data.

Things with Kristen also went well at least up until a certain point. I suspected before that she would be willing to spread her legs really quickly. I ended up confirming that. No, I didn't have sex with her. We were having this heavy makeout session that was about to lead there. Since I'm not going to stick my zucchini in a petri dish even with a condom, I put a stop to where things were going since Kristen didn't have recent STD test results. She didn't like that very much. It made her mad, and she started going on about how she had been with only a tiny number of guys. (We all know what that really means.) At this point I was ready to kick her to the curb since I don't need crap from a woman. Then Kristen decided to apologize to the point of saying, "You're right. I was wrong." I'm sure there's a lot of guys reading this, not to mention tens of millions of men out there not reading this who have not experienced a woman saying that she was wrong. Many of you are probably in shock. At any rate I'm going to continue things with Kristen because like with Rachel positive data is more useful than negative data. It also means as soon as Kristen's STD results come back that she is going to want sex so I will have to be ready for that.

Finally, an original hater

2009-11-04T22:44:00.003-05:00

The group of people who hate me is ever growing. If you want my head then you need to get to the back of the line which is somewhere beyond Brent Spiner and John Scalzi. One thing all of my haters have in common is a lack of originality. It's always the same. They say that I have a small penis, that I'm morbidly obese, that I'm a loser virgin, that my dad beat my mom (don't ask me to explain this one because I can't figure it out), that I'm gay, etc. My science fiction article at the Spearhead is still getting the occasional comment such as this one by "jody". It's basically a long winded way of saying I'm a loser because I'm a virgin. (Since there's a strong possibility I might lose my virginity in the next few weeks, I bet her head will explode when that happens.) So far the most original insult I have received was from Brent Spiner who called me an asshat....At least until today.

Surprisingly, I don't receive that much hate e-mail. My e-mail address is easy enough to find. I give you directions to find it. Plus, you can send me e-mail through the Spearhead website. I guess only a few special people care enough to do that.

Today, I just received this piece of hate e-mail from "Alex":

Look motherfucker. I aint standing for it. We aint falling for your little trick to get us killed at our own fuckin waco. I'm on to you and your little psy ops operation to get rid of us who know the truth about you. Yes I'm on to you charter member of the Illuminati aka mr. reptile alien. I said it reptile alien. You are a fuckin reptile alien. I am on to you lizard and I aint standing for it. I know the spearhead is one of your psy ops operations to piss us little humans off. I aint standing for it. Humans treat our ladies with respect.

I am a proud reptilian resistor. I aint standing for it. You Bush Cheney Obama Clinton and the rest of you reptile aliens GET THE FUCK OFF MY PLANET. I know you are gong to disappear me soon or poison my medication or eat me. Fuck it. I aint standing for it anymore even if you fuckin snuff me out.

I aint standing for it. Come and get me you fuckin reptile.

I did not edit anything except paragraph formatting. I guess he "ain't standing for it" whatever "it" is. I shouldn't be surprised by this with the V remake starting yesterday. (For those of you who don't know it involves reptile aliens posing as humans.) As nuts as this is, its refreshing for its originality. Here is my response to "Alex":

First, if you keep your mom off the streets, I will stop fucking her. Second, why is it you conspiracy theorists and related nuts are always on medication? Take a look at Part 2 from the Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode about alien abductions. (I recommend watching the whole thing.) Go to 8:36 on the video below where Penn & Teller are talking to an alien abduction support group who all admit to taking medication. (Yes, I know they are "conspiracy theorists" but its close enough and I'm sure they believe in some aliens are working with the government conspiracies.)

All right, I'll come clean since "Alex" figured me out. I'm a reptilian alien and a "charter" member of the Illuminati. That's right. I'm one of the guys who runs everything on your planet. I hang with other reptile aliens like GWB and the rest of the Bushes, Dick Cheney, the Clintons, and President Obama. This blog and the Spearhead are massive "psy ops operations" that I created. (They're not just "psy ops"/"psychological operations". They're "psychological operations operations". That's how big they are.) The founder of the Spearhead, Welmer, is a front human that I completely control. The other authors are just people who I have "convinced" to write about game and men's rights. The "psy ops operation" is an experiment to see what happens when you widely disseminate game and men's rights ideas into the human population. Because I'm a reptilian alien, the experiment I talk about on this blog is not about finding out if I can pick up women. It's about finding candidates for hybrid experiments involving direct impregnation from myself. (My fellow reptilians will abduct the babies soon after they're born so I won't have to worry about child support.) If you wonder why I refer to my genitalia as my "zucchini" a lot its because with green scales, it does look a lot like a zucchini. And despite what you have heard we do not eat humans. You guys taste horrible. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to recharge my multi-orifice probes. I'm going to be abducting a human tonight.

For those of you too dense to figure it out and lacking a sense of humor, the above paragraph IS A JOKE. Even after stating that directly, I'm sure I'm now the one and only subject of Alex Jones's next DVD.

Seriously, I found this piece of hate e-mail very amusing. I really did appreciate its originality. It was a refreshing change being told I have a small dick and morbidly obese and gay and a virgin loser.

The Experiment: Some success over the weekend

2009-11-02T23:23:00.000-05:00

Here is what you guys have been waiting for, a report of what happened over the weekend.

I went to a Halloween Party over the weekend which is something I usually hate, but I went because this experiment isn't going to happen without doing everything I can to meet women. It was very worthwhile because I hit it off with two women. I'm going to call them Kristen and Rachel (not their real names). Kristen is older than me, and I think she's about 36. For those of you who watch Saturday Night Live she kind of looked like Kristen Wiig, which is why I chose the name for her. Rachel is a bit younger than me. I think she's about 28. She reminded me of a girl named Rachel I knew in high school so that's why I chose that name. (The party was big enough that I don't think that Kristen and Rachel knew about each other.)

I have to say things were just way too easy. Initially, it felt like my brain was on overdrive trying to deal with them and other women. All you guys reading this know, I don't have much experience in the way of picking up women. Once I started doing it, it just became so easy. Frankly, I was expecting to have to climb a mountain for each step. (Maybe it wasn't that easy, but it just felt that way since I was expecting it to be hugely difficult.) I had women laughing at stupid jokes I made. It was unbelievable. It was like they we're programmed to respond favorably to me. Kristen and Rachel were both responding to me pretty directly (in flirting terms). For instance, Kristen kept touching my chest and shoulder. It wasn't much of anything, but I was shocked that decent looking women actually wanted to touch me.

Still, this was all too easy. Have I just developed enough effective masculinity and/or absorbed enough game and/or become dominant enough? I guess the answer must be yes. I'm successful in the rest of my life, and people who know me IRL associate me with being successful with women. I figure I must have been this way for a while since I have been successful in the rest of my life for quite a few years.

I'm going to be seeing both Kristen and Rachel later this week (not at the same time obviously). I really don't want to be juggling two women, but I don't want to drop one either. Things might not work out with one so I don't want to lose the other.

The next thing on my mind is sex. With Rachel, I'm sure the three date rule applies. With Kristen I think she may want to move even faster. She is a bit older than me, and I suspect that she is looking to get laid more than anything else. I may have been able to nail Kristen Saturday night, but I didn't even try that since I was not prepared for sex either mentally or in a practical sense. (There might be some pumaish aspects going on with Kristen. A puma is like a cougar, but with less of an age difference.) I'm going to do some "research" so I'm prepared if and when anything happens. It's not going to make me a virtuoso at sex, but at least I should look like I know what I'm doing. I am going to demand that Kristen and/or Rachel get STD tests if things get that far. I'm sure I will have to get one too. This will buy me a bit of time so I'm better prepared, but more importantly, I don't want to stick my zucchini in a petri dish.

I will keep you guys posted. As always, suggestions and comments are welcome.

On Conspiracy Theories

2009-11-01T10:31:00.108-05:00

(I know all of you out there are waiting for how things went last night with my experiment. I will get to that in my next post when I get enough time. I want to get this post out while its still relevant.)

There has been a lot of talk about conspiracy theories as of late of the Illuminati/NWO kind and related conspiracy theories such as alternate theories about what happened on 9/11. This video from The Onion has a debate between a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and a representative from Al Queda:

I also recommend the Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode where Penn & Teller take on 9/11, JFK conspiracy, and moon landing conspiracy theories. They also talk to a professor of political science on why people believe conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, the whole episode isn't online, but you can watch the first part which deals with 9/11 conspiracy theories and the part where Penn & Teller debunk some of the myths of the JFK assassination. If you can catch the whole episode on Showtime, I strongly recommend watching it.

The real reason I wrote this post was to talk about Illuminati/NWO conspiracy theories. There are many variants, but they all go something like this. There is a multi-generational conspiracy to depopulate and enslave the world consisting of various corporate and government elites. This usually involves groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, Skull and Bones, etc. Somehow they can run a conspiracy over generations (in some versions centuries or even thousands of years) without failure, but still accidentally leave clues for conspiracy theorists to pick up on. This has quite a few problems:

Why would the Illuminati/NWO leave clues when they didn't have to? There are claims that the pyramid on the US one dollar bill is a Illuminati/NWO symbol with the words in Latin, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" means, "new world older". If you're running a secret society, this violates rule 1 of running a secret society, don't tell everyone about it. Why put that on money? Nothing is gained by doing such a thing. (As an aside the the correct translation from Latin for Novus Ordo Seclorum is, "new order of the ages" as in the beginning of the new American age.)
How can the Illuminati/NWO maintain a multi-generational conspiracy particularly one running for hundreds or thousands of years? If everyone involved is so power hungry they should be constantly stabbing each other in the back. There should be factions fighting it out with each other. Why? Because it's basic human nature. Everyone involved is going to want to get a leg up and this means that the multi-generational plan will fall apart.
Conspiracy theories of the Illuminati/NWO kind violate Occam's Razor. Usually, conspiracy theories are not the simplest explanation for anything especially considering human nature. What's more likely 9/11 was a planned conspiracy or a lot of people got caught with their pants down and proceeded to cover their asses?
How do you conspiracy theorists know that the conspiracy theories you believe in are the correct ones? How do you know it isn't disinformation? For example, a lot of conspiracy theorists get their info from Alex Jones. How do they know that Alex Jones isn't feeding them disinformation either as a patsy or because he's part of the conspiracy? It stands to reason that if Alex Jones (or anyone else) was close to finding anything he would not be murdered but discredited by being caught in a fake child porn or pedophilia sting.
If the Illuminati/NWO exists then why hasn't anyone done anything about it other than write web pages and sell DVDs? For example, Alex Jones knows where these guys meet. Why hasn't him or anyone else taken some RADICAL DIRECT ACTION against them? If they're meeting in a hotel, then bomb the hotel. A single truck bomb will do it. Why doesn't at least one conspiracy theorist do something that would actually damage the Illuminati/NWO potentially knocking them out permanently?
Similarly, why hasn't any conspiracy theorist tried to infiltrate the Illuminati/NWO? Before someone whines about how difficult this would be, you can start with getting into the CFR. Here is the CFR's webpage about how to become a member. Becoming a member of the CFR is not that hard. I know there will be some whining about how the membership process requires recommendations. Then DO SOME WORK, and meet members of the CFR. CFR membership is not a secret. This is very doable so why isn't anyone performing this strategy? (If I ever have the time I should see how fast I could join the CFR.)

I know a bunch of responses to this post will involve quotes from the Matrix about how I have to take the red pill, that I need to "open my mind", that it's "obvious" and other nonsense. If the existence of the Illuminati/NWO is really "obvious" then you will have no trouble providing ACTUAL EVIDENCE of it. (I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.)

Something that is really problematic about Illuminati/NWO conspiracy theories with respect to feminism is that it completely lets women off the hook for what they have done. If the Illuminati/NWO really exist and really wanted feminism, they could never have done it without women being WILLING participants. Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. They just provide cover for women to avoid taking responsibility for their behavior.

I'm sure this post will cause a few conspiracy theorists to write about how I'm really a part of the Illuminati/NWO (especially given what I do for a living). I look forward to reading some incredibly imaginative writing and laughing at it.

The Experiment: Sooner or later tortured logic will arrive

2009-10-31T07:41:00.024-04:00

The primary goal of my experiment is to see whether or not I'm attractive to women. In other words, it's to test what most people believe about me who I haven't told that I'm a virgin. However, this experiment will have a side benefit. There are three ideas that I have fought:

The idea that a (male) virgin past a certain age (18, 22, etc.) is a complete loser at every aspect of life.
The idea that sex with a woman (or a relationship with a woman) yields some sort of knowledge about life.
The idea that going after women will always lead to generalized improvement in a guy's life.

(All of these ideas are connected with each other.) Assuming that I really am attractive to women and this experiment goes the way I think it will go, I am going to be dropping a nuclear bomb on these ideas in proving them wrong.

These arguments are extremely problematic as the proponents of them seek ways for them to not be testable. Otherwise, they have to deal with cases like myself who are successful in many other aspects of life. I can't exist according to them so they invent nebulous ideas about what being with women does to a guy. In other words, they are based on what is essentially mysticism instead of reason and verifiable experiments.

Assuming I don't crash and burn in this experiment and that I'm correct about my beliefs, all three ideas will be proved wrong. In this experiment I'm doing it as I am right now (since I'm testing whether I'm successful with women as I am right now, not after some nebulous improvement). This means that idea 3 will be on the chopping block if I'm successful. I will be able to tell you if I gain any meaningful knowledge as a result. If I am correct, then I will be able to prove idea 2 wrong as well. My current existence already disproves idea 1.

Since people who believe in the three ideas I listed will want to hold on to them for dear life rather than admit they were wrong in the face of experimental evidence, I am certain we will see some tortured logic to explain me away such as:

That I'm lying about what happened or that I was lying about being a virgin before the experiment. (This doesn't qualify as tortured logic, but I included it for completeness.)
That in some strange conceptual way I haven't truly been a virgin for years so my results don't mean anything
That in some strange conceptual way I am still a virgin after having sex so my results don't mean anything
That I'm capable of thinking in usual ways so that I already gained any knowledge that I would have had from the experiment long before it
That I'm not capable of learning whatever I was supposed to learn from the experience due to some reason that's otherwise obviously absurd (such as me having Aspergers syndrome)
Some other reason that I'm a unique anomaly that I can't come up with right now.

I'm willing to listen to alternate explanations of whatever my experiences end up being, but your explanations better be on solid ground. Anything that is essentially based of the idea that women can mystically impart something to me is not only silly, but fails because it assumes that women are the arbiter of whatever will be happening to me as opposed to reason and scientific testing (as much as can be had under the circumstances).

The fact is that as this experiment goes on, there will be people who will torture logic to create convoluted other explanations of what is happening to me. Remember, you heard it here first.

The experiment continues tonight. I'm going to a Halloween party where I should be able to meet some women. Expect a post about it in the next few days.

Spearhead Article: T.J. Rodgers and the nun episode

2009-10-28T22:19:00.001-04:00

As we fight feminists and other female supremacists, it’s important to remember those who have taken them on and their fellow travelers before us successfully, even if it was only over a small specific issue. T.J. Rodgers is one such man.

Who is T.J. Rodgers? Rodgers is the founder, CEO, President, and a director of Cypress Semiconductor, a company in Silicon Valley. He is a graduate of Dartmouth and Stanford. Rodgers is also known in the political arena for being libertarian minded, to the point of being an advocate for killing all subsidies for business including those that would benefit him, and an ardent defender of capitalism. You can find a biography here, and his essays on various issues here. Rodgers has taken on people such as Jesse Jackson.

One of the things that T.J. Rodgers is known for is what has been called the “nun episode”. Back in 1996, Rodgers received a letter from Sister Doris Gormley, the Director of Corporate Social Responsibility of the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, an order of approximatively 1000 nuns. The order had investments of stock in various companies which included Cypress Semiconductor. As a shareholder Sister Gormley sent all of these companies a form letter demanding that women and minorities be included in the respective companies’ boards of directors. Rodgers responded by writing a letter to Sister Gormley pointing out why her demands (according to Rodgers) were immoral. Pointing out that the board of directors of Cypress Semiconductor was a not a ceremonial watchdog, but a critical management function, Rodgers explained that the requirements for being on the board of directors involved experience as a CEO of an important technology company, direct expertise in the semiconductor business based on education and management experience, and/or direct experience in the management of a company that buys from the semiconductor industry. He also said that this usually meant a man with graduate level education who is around 50 years old. As of 1996 this meant that their current set of candidates for the board of directors were in graduate school in the 70’s, during which engineering was an almost exclusively male discipline. Because of this, Rodgers said, “a ‘woman’s view’ on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO.”

Rodgers continued the letter with a philosophical and pragmatic defense of his position explaining why he believed the Sister Gormley’s position was immoral. Rodgers also pointed out that there is no requirement in Christianity for “diverse” corporate boards, and that Sister Gormley’s position was based on political correctness rather than the Christian religion (be sure to read Rodgers’ excellent letter).

Rodgers sent a copy of his letter to all Cypress Semiconductor shareholders. This led to a full page article in the Wall Street Journal, and a debate between Rodgers and Sister Gormley at Stanford. The response to Rodgers was overwhelmingly positive. Ninety percent of the letters he received supported him. The only unified group that disapproved were other nuns.

When the Cypress Semiconductor stock that the order owned was sold, the nun episode quietly blew over, and T. J. Rodgers’ successful career continued unharmed.

(As with all of my Spearhead articles comments are disabled. Please comment at the spearhead.)

The Experiment: Not an auspicious begining

2009-10-24T20:20:00.000-04:00

I was debating whether to even write this post because what happened to me last night was a bit strange, and it didn't produce a lot of useful data. I figure that all of you reading this blog will appreciate my honesty even though I'm going to leave some details out mainly for brevity but also for less embarrassment on my part.

Last night there was a get together for one of the guys at my office. It was his last day here, and he's an all around good and well liked guy. This going away party was at a bar. It's really half a bar and half a restaurant. It's located in an exurb that I hate (and I hate exurbs in general). (In case you're wondering, I like suburbs just fine. Exurbs are a different story.) This particular exurb is filled with money (to a point), and it's a place where for the most part people go right before or after they get married in preparation for having 2.08 kids, particularly if they're drones leading the standard upper middle class/lower upper class drone life. Needless to say, all of this money can't buy intelligence or common sense. Plenty of divorce happens in this exurb so on the bar side of this place the clientèle is made up of plenty of divorced women and men. Most of the divorced women fall into the category of trying to snag a man before they completely lose their looks (and everything else).

I was at the party for the guy that was leaving. I went back to the bar a couple of times to get refills on what I was drinking, and in the midst of this I managed to pick up a woman at the bar accidentally. (She wasn't a coworker.) I'm going to call her Amanda in this post (not her real name). I'm going to skip some details here for brevity, just to say that I knew even at that point something was wrong. I wasn't sure what exactly, but it was kind of like the sudden ominous music playing nationwide from this video from The Onion:

Since I'm collecting data for this experiment, I decided to go on even with the ominous music in the background.

As everything went on, it felt way too easy. I should point out here that I have never had this type of experience before. I couldn't tell if it was just because I was in the successful with women category and ignored it before or if there was something sinister going on, or both or some other reason. (Amanda wasn't drunk if you're wondering about that.) There was also the possibility that because she was simply desperate or trying very poorly to play cougar (even though I believe I'm too old to be cougar bait at 31). (I think Amanda was 40 or in her late 30's.) Throughout all of this I'm thinking why me instead of anyone else? There are plenty of possible answers such as Amanda is trying to relive being 30 years old (why?), but the Onion style ominous music is in the background.

One thing leads to another, and it seemed like I had the opportunity to nail Amanda. I decided to pass. The ominous music was getting louder. I went to the parking lot to go to my car, but Amanda followed me. She then proceeded to use all manner of shaming language on me for not going home with her, small dick, was I gay, etc. You know the drill. Fortunately, there was no one around to hear this. In Amanda's voluminous verbal diarrhea, she said blurted out something about having a STD. I don't know if Amanda was saying that she didn't have one or that she let it slip that she did. Having an STD would explain the metaphorical ominous music. Either way, I wasn't going to take a chance. Even if Amanda didn't have a STD, she probably had so many dicks inside her in her life that I was better off. If nothing else, my zucchini would have gotten lost in there.

Eventually this ended, and I made sure to not use a direct route to my car just in case Amanda was watching. I know some of this story might not make sense, but I really don't want to go into most of the details I left out.

What did I learn from this? Not very much. This wasn't planned on my part of course. I was planning on going to a going away party for one of my coworkers and that was it. Besides all of the obvious problems with picking up a STD ridden chick, this place would not be a place I would go to pick up women. All I can say for certain is that I'm not completely repulsive to women, and I'm probably better off than that. More data and more testing is needed.

However, it does bring up some interesting side ideas. Game is not a suicide pact (and neither is this experiment). I'm sure there are a lot of PUAs who are laughing at me right now and making fun of me for not getting laid even with the high probability of this woman having a STD. I don't care. I used my brain and made the right choice, the smart choice. If she had an STD it was probably one of the non-deadly ones, but many of those are very painful. I'm better off with my health.

The experiment will continue as opportunities present themselves or as I can create them. Next time, I'm hoping it involves women closer to my own age.

The experiment is a go

2009-10-20T08:42:00.000-04:00

I would like to thank who responded to my last post. Since everyone responded that I should try this experiment, I'm going to do it. I have created a label called the experiment which will have all my posts about this.

I will try to keep up with regular posts about my progress, but like with all blogging it might occasionally fall to the wayside.

Always feel free to send me suggestions about what I should be doing/testing.

Should I try this experiment?

2009-10-18T14:58:00.001-04:00

I was reading this comment at The Spearhead (in reference to my most recent post there) which says:

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

Those of you who have read enough of my blog and writings elsewhere know that this isn't the case for me. (Yes, I know he says guys "like" me so I don't know if he's saying that he thinks I get lots of chicks or that guys "like me" do.) Regardless, it got me thinking. A long time ago I realized after banging my head against the wall one too many times in dealing with women that they aren't worth it. At that point I stopped bothering. That was several years ago.

I only say that I'm a virgin when there's complete anonymity. I don't tell anyone in real life so no one knows. IRL lots of people think I do well with women. I have never really cared to think why this is until now. I have made sure that I have never been in absurd 40 year old virgin style situations which isn't difficult to do.

Lots of people believe that being a virgin beyond age X (where X could be 18, 22, etc.) means you're a total loser at life, either unemployed or working a minimum wage job, living in your parents basement. I am living proof that this is not the case since I'm the opposite of all those things. While I know this fact, lots of people believe otherwise. In other words, since I don't announce the fact that I'm a virgin IRL, everything else someone knows about me IRL (since they most likely believe the myth about virgins) would lead them to believe I'm incredibly successful with women since I'm incredibly successful in the rest of my life.

So much of game is really effective masculinity. Even long before I even heard of game I was practicing effective masculinity in my life. This is one of the reasons why I have been so successful in other areas of my life (i.e. my career). This is another reason why people IRL would assume I'm successful with women. Lots of guys nowadays do not demonstrate effective masculinity, and I could tell you lots of examples of this. If you're reading this blog, you probably can too from your own life.

This has made me curious. Am I really a guy who is incredibly successful with women now who just doesn't know it because I don't care? I'm undecided about running an experiment about this. There's a reason why I get associated with being successful with women as long as I don't tell anyone the truth about this. I'm curious, but at the same time why should I care? Plus, if I do engage in this experiment, it feels like I'm selling out in the sense that I might be trying to prove all those morons who think I'm a loser, morbidly obese, and have a small dick (like all those hyperemotional girls who responded to my last post at The Spearhead) wrong. As a MGHOW I don't worry about what they think and laugh at them.

I'm writing this blog entry in order to solicit some ideas from you, my readers. First, should I try this experiment? I'm interested in your reasons why I should or should not. Second, I'm also interested in ideas about what the scope of this experiment should be. For instance, picking up drunk women in bars does not actually test what I'm trying to test. This experiment will also have to involve multiple women (not at the same time) since success or failure with one woman might just be a fluke. How much LTR game will have to be involved? I'm really interested in what others have to say about all these things too.

If you have an opinion on any of this respond in a comment or send me an email.

Reality TV you will never see

2009-10-11T20:59:00.000-04:00

I was reading a thread over at the MGTOW forums where someone brought up a reality TV show called, More To Love. Happyghost had some interesting things to say about it, plus an idea for another reality TV show that would be the opposite of more to love. Here is what he said (proving how only women can watch reality TV):

I looked up "More to Love" on Wikipedia. Quote:

"[Luke, a single man] trying to find love among twenty plus size women. The first episode featured Luke giving a promise ring to each of the 20 ladies, with the promise he would not judge them by their size."

I'll bet the show's biggest sponsor is a kitty litter company. They're thinking long-term, you know? Smart!

And it gets better:

I also want to see the reverse show, called "Less to Love":

"[Luketta, a single woman] trying to find love among twenty uneducated, jobless, broke men with small penises. The first episode featured Luketta giving a promise ring to each of the 20 men, with the promise she would not judge them by their total lack of money and future earning potential or their small penises."

Done laughing yet? I didn't think so. Go ahead, I'll wait.

...

.......

...........

Done laughing now? No? Okay, carry on... I realize it may take several hours to stop....

"Less to love" will never be made of course since women won't watch it (and no guy will want to be one of the "small penis" guys). Another version you won't see will be where an uneducated, jobless, and broke man with a small penis gets to choose among 20 models.

None of this would be watchable, but conceptually, it's funny.

The War on Science Fiction and Marvin Minsky

2009-10-09T07:49:00.005-04:00

My latest post at The Spearhead is up. It's a rework of some of my posts on science fiction for The Spearhead. Go read it.

(Note: Comments are disabled for this post. Comment at the Spearhead.)

Feminism is a subset of female supremacism

2009-10-04T12:52:00.001-04:00

My first post, Feminism is a subset of female supremacism, at The Spearhead is up. I have copied it below, but I have disabled comments for this post here. Please comment over at The Spearhead.

Those of you familiar with my blog and my comments on other blogs know that I have said that arguments between feminist women and ”anti-feminist” women are really just arguments about how to best extract money and other resources from men. Read or listen to an argument between feminist and “anti-feminist” women. The subjects they will argue about will have little to do with anything that is happening to men. Abortion will be top subject as well other subjects are irrelevant to what is happening to men such as arguments about wearing skirts vs. pants, debates about premarital sex, orquiverfull drivel. What you will not hear is anything that has to do with what feminism is doing to men such as the false rape industry, the absurd body of sexual harassment law, how men need to learn game or otherwise be shut out of the sexual/relationships market, the current divorce system, children taken away from their fathers and other issues of fathers’ rights, etc. In fact, the entire argument from “anti-feminist” women will avoid anything that is happening to men which effectively means “anti-feminist” women have no problem with 99% of the feminist agenda.

Feminism is really just left wing female supremacism. This means that there are other forms of female supremacism out there such as conservative female supremacism which is what “anti-feminist” women really are. This has also been called lifeboat feminism as what this tries to do is combine elements of feminism and chivalry wherever its best for women creating a mutant hybrid that always benefits women. Hawaiian Libertarian wrote on his blog about a good example of this, the Network of Enlightened Women. If you look at their educate page, you get choice statements like:

By women’s view of empowerment being linked to sexual promiscuity we in fact undermine the very foundations of femininity. This promiscuity devalues women by men seeing them as something that can be used for their own ends and women accepting this status as the tools of men.
Feminists threw away the moral superiority of women, a beautiful counteraction to the physical superiority of men. There is an obvious void in what we call the feminist movement today and a need for a new movement that can do justice not only to the similarities between the sexes but also to the differences.
To promote the Showcase, the NeW chapter at ASU has created a short video asking students four questions: What is a gentleman? What are the characteristics of a gentleman? Are there gentlemen at ASU? Are gentlemen an endangered species?
Student answers range from the serious to the comical. For example, some student responses to the question “What is a gentleman?” include, “just a man that has manners I guess,” “well, we don’t know. We haven’t ever seen one before,” “someone who opens doors, is chivalrous, and a nice guy,” “a gentlemen is a person that likes to do nice things and doesn’t really ask for anything in return” and “someone who is nice and courteous and is always looking out for other people before themselves.”

Remember these aren’t feminists. They’re conservative women. What this proves is that these women despite being “anti-feminist” are just as female supremacist as their feminist counterparts. They just disagree on how to enforce female supremacy.

If you take a look at their entire website you will find nothing about issues that feminism has caused that involve men such as the false rape industry, divorce, etc. It’s all (premarital) sex, abortion, etc. More importantly, there is plenty of shaming language used against men and general blame of men. This shouldn’t be surprising as, for example, divorce is just as common when married to conservative women as not and in the Christian church. They are just as for divorce as feminist women are. They also engage in shaming language against men who practice good judgement in choosing not to get married.

You will also notice the blame put on men for everything, blame that men aren’t being “gentlemen”, blaming men for promiscuity, etc. It’s even to the point where conservative female supremacists blame men for “letting” feminism happen. Men are even being blamed for abortion because it supposedly benefits men:

Let’s get real. Abortion is not good for women; anyone who has had one can attest to that.
Abortion and contraception have been good only for irresponsible males. They now can have sex without fear of the consequences.
In the meantime, women continue to take hormones every day, for years and years, which (despite denials from people with an agenda) does increase their chances of getting breast cancer.
If we use a little common sense, we understand why breast cancer is at epidemic levels.
Whether a woman has an abortion or uses contraception, it is she who bears the physical and psychological burden.
Have we really come a long way? Abortion has enabled men to use our bodies without having to look back and feel any guilt.
Let’s wake up and stop letting men convince us that they really care about us and our right to make choices.

Here we have an example of a conservative female supremacist blaming men for abortion because men are “forcing” women to be in a position where they have to choose abortion (along with “real man” shaming language). In addition, she blames men for an increase in breast cancer rates. There is also plenty of generalized blame against men for when sex happens, as if women have no sex drive whatsoever. (In fact, if you ask a conservative female supremacist about the false rape industry, all they will say about it is that men shouldn’t be having premarital sex, i.e. its their fault, even though a man doesn’t actually have to have sex with a woman to be a victim of the false rape industry. We have seen this in the Duke Lacrosse case and at the University of Maryland where women picked random male names out of a university phone book, putting those names on flyers they passed out saying the men were “potential rapists”.) With all of the ways conservative female supremacists try to blame men for sex, how far away are they from “all heterosexual sex is rape”, really? We shouldn’t be surprised by such a similarity since both feminism and conservative female supremacism are both female supremacist ideologies.

It’s important to know about conservative female supremacism because there are a lot of women who will claim they’re on the side of men because they’re “not a feminist”. Simply “not being a feminist” does not make a woman an ally of men. All it means is that instead of using the state to extract money and other resources from men, they believe marriage is the best way of doing this. They are stepping up their blame and shaming language because many of them are worried that feminists are in the process of destroying their gravy train of taking money and other resources from men. They are right to be worried about that. With the development of game, even if a man doesn’t use game he still understands the real nature of women, and this includes conservative female supremacists.

Of course, there are plenty of men who support and otherwise facilitate conservative female supremacism, but that is a separate topic I will address in a future post.

The "victim card" is not an issue in the men's rights movement

2009-09-25T08:04:00.014-04:00

Something you will hear occasionally is that the men's rights movement will never take off because it requires playing the "victim card" making men look weak and stopping the MRM in its tracks. The Overcoming Bias blog reporting about a post from Thursday's blog repeated this. This is wrong, and a comment on that blog entry explains why:

There’s a non-sequitur hiding in that ellipsis, but the first three sentences, divorced from the comments about ability to get laid, really are generally true.

Notice that economic and political movements which have aimed at shifting the balance of power/wealth to masses of men from elites have generally had aggressive, rather than supplicatory, rhetoric.

There is no need for the MRM to use the "victim card" at all. The MRM has other options (including but not limited to aggressive rhetoric) so this is not a problem. Sure the "victim card" won't work, but that's fine we're not women. We have better options at our disposal.

The Spearhead

2009-09-23T00:53:00.003-04:00

For those of you who follow Welmer's blog, you know that he was working on a new online magazine style blog dealing with various issues men deal with. It's here, and it's called The Spearhead. Contributors include some of the most respected members of the MRA and MGTOW communities, Welmer, Novaseeker, Whiskey, Prime, Elusive Wapiti, and Ferdinand Bardamu.

New ideas in expating

2009-09-21T08:49:00.051-04:00

I have never been a huge proponent of expating. I certainly understand why any man might expat. At some point I may do it myself. The problem I have with expating is that women are the same everywhere. A lot of guys who expat do so just to find a woman. As we all know you can't bring a woman back to the US at all since she can and most likely will absorb feminist tendencies. Even if you never come back to the US, feminism is still out there to influence women due to American (and European) global media.

On the other hand if you're expating because you're worried that the US is going to turn full totalitarian soon, that is more understandable and makes sense for expating. One of the things I have never liked about expating is how the main options for it are third world countries. If the US is about to turn totalitarian then it really doesn't matter since getting out is the main priority.

However, there are new ideas in expating that solve (or at least lessen) some of issues in expating. There's an idea that a man who goes by the name, spocksdisciple, came up with called "inpating" in which rather than going to another country, a man moves to a low population rural area. He describes it here with some additional thoughts on expating in general. Here is what inpating is in his own words:

An alternative rarely discussed to expating is "inpating" otherwise called "Siberian" exile, I've thought about this as well, it's a bit easier as you're not actually leaving the country, you're just leaving the antfarms called cities behind(where most femnazis and manginas are at). My own plan is to move to the Yukon territories(or Alaska if you're American) and a small town or city, this option is more for true MGTOWs and men who have left the need for women and regular sex behind them. Many men won't be able to follow this path because of a lack of appropriate skills, motivation and self discipline. Some call it "hermiting" I call it ultimate freedom, anyone who's ever been backpacking or lived in remote areas for extended periods of time will know what I'm talking about, nobody around to judge you or to make rules for you or shame you, also nobody around to care what happens to you. Freedom is a two edged sword...this is a test of what you're really made of as a man and as a human being.

"Inpating" is an idea that can work for a man right now. Spocksdisciple suggests Alaska which is good for inpating, but even North Dakota or Montana might be good enough. Depending on what a man wishes to do, "inpating" can be a good alternative to expating.

Another idea that might come online in the future is "charter cities" (i.e. Hong Kongs). If you look at the charter cities website, the founder of the idea was looking for a way improving the third world through the use of importing the laws and practices of first world countries. Whether that idea would work is beside the point. Charter cities would allow an real easy to access alternative since there would be some partnership between a third country and a first world country. A charter city has the best of both worlds, of expating to a third world country while still retaining first world standards of living. The most likely locations for charter cities are in Asia where many of the good expat destinations already are. The charter cities blog is good for finding out more about the concept.

Another possible future idea is seasteading, homesteading on the high seas. Seasteading is a concept created by Patri Friedman, the grandson of Milton Friedman. Since seasteads are on the high seas, they are outside any zone that any current country can claim. This makes seasteads truly independent states. Friedman has developed an incremental plan for seasteading so the initial stages all can be done with currently existing technology so its much more realistic than you might think. More can be found out about seasteading at its website.

Out of these ideas, inpating is the only idea available now. However, we might see some charter cities in the future and most likely will see seasteading in the future since Friedman has a real plan to make seasteading a reality.

God doesn't want you to get married

2009-09-17T23:50:00.001-04:00

(Disclaimer: I can't speak to what God's plan is for your particular life. However, this is true for most men.)

That's right. God doesn't want you to get married. You have probably heard a lot of people say such as the Marriage Mandate Movement (such as Debbie Maken and Boundless Brainless) say that God demands you get married. This is false. Anakin on his blog as well as many others have shown why the marriage mandate concept is false. Anakin rightfully points out that God leaves the choice to get married up to us. After all, this isn't Islam where everything is halal or haram.

When we're married, God wants us to have a marriage defined by His principles, not necessarily the Church's principles and definitely not current society's principles or worse yet feminist principles. What do God's principles for marriage include? (I'm only going to speak to those principles which are relevant to this blog entry.) Let's take a much quoted passage of the Bible, Ephesians 5:22-25:

Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her

Notice the command for women to submit to their husbands. This is one of the things that God wants in a marriage, and He has to tell women to do this. While, this passage says that men lead their wives, notice how God doesn't put in a command to men to lead (instead its a command for men to love their wives). This is very important. Why does God tell give a command to women to submit but not to men to lead? Because, it's unnecessary and because women must first choose to submit before any male leadership can take place. Men don't have the option of firing their wives if they don't submit so men can not be held responsible when women refuse to submit. This is what God says. Notice how its in direct opposition to both feminists AND socons (social conservatives) who claim that men are the source of all problems. Church leaders (and this includes the leaders of most Churches across all Christian denominations because this attitude is so pervasive) who claim that divorce, adultery, and other marital problems are all the fault of men "failing to show enough leadership" are directly contradicting God. Nearly all Church leaders have failed in their responibility to teach Biblical principles because of this.

Let's take a look at another passage of the Bible, 2 Corinthians 14:

Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers. For what partnership do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?

This passage is usually taken to have to do with Christians getting married to non-Christians (or non-Christians with different enough morals). (Debating on how far this passage goes with non-Christians is beyond the scope of this blog entry.) However, this passage also can apply within the Church. Just because someone is sitting in a pew doesn't mean they are really a believer or that you can't be unequally yoked with them. Since all but a handful of Christian women don't believe in submitting to their husbands or future husbands, a marriage to most any Christian woman means that a Christian man will be unequally yoked to her.

This is why God doesn't want Christian men to get married. There simply aren't enough women out there who will be part of a marriage based on Biblical principles. You could end up being one of the lucky ones who does meet a woman who is willing to be part of a marriage based on Biblical principles. (That's why I added my disclaimer at the beginning.) However, this is highly unlikely so you are most likely in the horde of men who God doesn't want getting married.

Dump her sorry ass and GYOW

2009-09-14T21:17:00.000-04:00

I found this story about some guy whose girlfriend wants to try scat vis the MGTOW forums. (For those of you who don't know what scat is, it's explained in the quote below.) Here's what the guy said:

Recently, my girlfriend of two months came up to me with a request for something foul. She wants me to try scat with her. Before I continue, let me say something. If you don't know what scat is then trust me when I say that you don't want to find out. Take my advice and don't read this thread. When my girlfriend explained to me what scat is, I threw up right away, and I've been shaking ever since. So, believe me when I say that you don't want to know what it is. If you aren't planning on taking that advice, then know that you're following at your own risk.

My girlfriend wants to poop in my mouth and have me eat it and swallow it. That's what scat is. It's the most horrific thing I've heard of, and my girlfriend wants to try it on me this saturday. She wants me to fulfill her desire. And I agreed to do it. She told me that if I'm not willing to do this for her, then I'm not a real boyfriend, that I don't love her, and that we should break up. And, well... I love her. And when you love someone, you do these kinds of things for them. My girlfriend has been stuffing her face full of everything from bean burritos to chili, with plenty of laxatives thrown in for good measure. She wants to pull out the biggest crap of her life, just for me. I don't think there's any backing out at this point. Come this Saturday, my girlfriend wants to execute the greatest display of control and female empowerment on me that she possibly can by using me as a toilet. And there's nothing that I can do about it now because I love her and I don't want to disappoint. I'm just so terrified that I need help and some people to talk to.

This may not be a real situation, but it's good for the points I wish to make. First of all this guys is a spineless wimp like plenty of other guys. Also, take note of the standard shaming language used, how he is not a "real boyfriend" if he doesn't do this. Notice how he feels that he has no options. He has two very good options. The first is simply refusing. The second is:

DUMPING HER SORRY ASS

This guy doesn't need her, but he's hasn't freed himself of decades of pro-female programming to be able to do this. If he discovered MGTOW, he would be able to do what he should do.

This is an extreme example, but most guys have this problem. Most guys are easily manipulated and controlled by their girlfriends/wives (or women in general) because of sex (or the promise of sex) and general pro-female programming that makes them think they "need a relationship". Various MGTOW are either single, in relationships, married, ghosting, etc. What all MGTOW have in common is that they won't become a "toilet" for some woman. Being a man who knows that he doesn't need a relationship is critical to GYOW.

There's also a lot of other things that can be said about this scat story, but just reading the full post says it better than I ever could. There's also some interesting metaphors you could make for the current state of male-female relationships.

Also related to this is a post by Dr. Helen about how men lie to women. Dr. Helen calls these lies that men say to women self preservation, not lying, and there is a lot of truth to it. For a married man who can have his life destroyed or worse by divorce, it is self preservation. Again we have the same problem. Men have been programmed to think that they must have a relationship so they engage in this "self preservation" to protect themselves. While married men are stuck, if you aren't a married man a better option is to GYOW and

DUMP HER SORRY ASS

Men need to learn that they don't need women, end of story.

The Alliance Part 9: Fighting wars to liberate Muslim women is pointless

2009-09-12T01:45:00.000-04:00

Since 9/11 one thing we have heard Bush and others say is that we had to go to war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (or more accurately had to stay there) was to "liberate Muslim women". It's right up there in stupidity with trying to create a democracy in the Muslim world as a reason why we have to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I supported getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam (and still do), the fact of the matter is that the US shouldn't be in the business of democracy building in the Muslim world (at least not without some form of de-Islamification) or trying to liberate Muslim women.

The Shah of Iran came the closest to creating a modern state in a Muslim country. (Whether it would end up democratic by any standard is a debate that is irrelevant for the purposes of this blog entry.) Since Iran retains a great deal of its pre-Islamic Persian heritage (something that is not Islamic), the Shah had a better shot than anyone, anywhere in the Muslim world of doing this, yet he failed spectalularly. One of the reasons why he failed was opposition by women.

Most analysis of the Shah and what he tried to do says that he was on the side of women's rights. The Shah claimed so himself similar to how Bush and other Neocons claim to be fighting to liberate Islamic women. While what the Shah was doing did technically increase women's political freedom, this doesn't tell the whole story. The Shah vs. Khomeni with respect to women is framed as women's rights vs. patriarchy. This is not correct because Islam is not patriarchal in the sense that we in the West think of patriarchy (i.e. monogamy, etc.) Islam is institutionalized hypergamy through limited polygamy. In Islam a man can have up to four wives. (In some places Muslim men can have even more wives.) This means that it is possible that up to 75% of men could never get a wife under Islam (assuming a male to female ratio of close to 1:1). Whiskey points out that 12% of Muslim marriages are polygamous while in Saudi Arabia its as high as 30%. This allows women to share an "alpha" male and explains why so many Iranian women were opposed to the Shah's banning of the chador. Intentionally or unintentionally the Shah's plans to make a modern state were on the path of taking on the institutionalized hypergamy through limited polygamy of Islam one way or another. This would mean that women would lose the ability to share "alpha" men that Islam granted them. (This is in addition to the fact that the chador like the burka denigrates men.)

Even knowing this why were Iranian women so against the Shah because wasn't he granting them increased political freedom? The Shah was doing that, but outside of a handful of women, women aren't interested in political freedom. I was reading another MRA blog recently and someone pointed out how once the government/elites were done taking all freedom away from men, they would start taking away the freedom of women. Someone else correctly pointed out that women aren't going to notice or care that the government/elites are taking away their freedom. Whether its in Iran or the West, outside of a handful of women, women aren't interested in freedom.

This gets us to why wars to "liberate Muslim women" and create democratic states in the Muslim world are pointless. Muslim women like other women aren't going to care that you are fighting a war for their political freedom since they aren't interested. Take these women plus the men who aren't interested in freedom due to Islam and there is no way a free and democratic state could ever be created in the Muslim world (without de-Islamifying the country to create enough men who are interested in political freedom).

The Alliance Part 8: Van Jones and Kardashev

2009-09-08T23:16:00.000-04:00

By now you have all heard of Van Jones and his resignation as "Green Jobs Czar" for Obama. I'm not going to rehash that. Others have covered it in detail from the fact that he's an admitted communist to a supporter of cop killer, Mumia Abu Jamal, to a 9/11 truther. While this seems like its a small victory, it really means a great deal moving forward.

Van Jones was part of what has been called to the blue-green alliance, really the blue collar-green alliance, an attempt to put together big labor with environmentalists. For Van Jones that only means politically correct labor since he has talked about "making places like West Oakland the center of the green economy" and "creating a pipeline from prisons to the green economy". This is not to create green (or any other kind of) energy, but along with cap and trade tax to make a government controlled cartel over energy.

There is an energy revolution coming, but guys like Van Jones want to strangle it before it begins. For example, Obama cut funding to tidal energy research when its on the verge of becoming a usable form of energy generation (particularly in the Pacific Northwest). In the 90s, Clinton cut the funding down to nothing for the Integral Fast Reactor, nuclear reactor technology that would have greatly reduced the problem of nuclear waste. If Clinton and Obama really are interested in creating green energy, then why did they cut funding to two things that would have done just that? The answer is that they aren't interested in green energy but making everyone more impoverished by increasing the price of energy, making people more dependent on government. New energy technologies would also primarily benefit (white and Asian) men since they would get the jobs from these technologies. As we now know from Van Jones, this is unacceptable to him and guys like Clinton and Obama.

Where does Kardashev come into this? Kardashev was a Russian astronomer who created a scale for classifying the technological development of extraterrestial civilizations based on their energy usage. This scale is highly speculative so its usefulness for more than writing science fiction and other speculation is limited. However, it does tell us one important thing. A technologically expanding civilization (such as ours) is going to increase its energy usage over time. (Only a collapse of said civilization can change this. Even depressions end eventually.) No amount of conservation or efficiency will change this fact.

Guys like Van Jones, Clinton, and Obama have to strangle technological development to force people to be dependent on government. This means strangling development in energy technologies since without energy technological development is slowed or stalled. This is also very anti-male as (white and Asian) men are the leading developers of new technologies. This is why Van Jones has to try to force government controlled "green energy" using (former) prisoners and other politically correct groups because otherwise it would benefit (white and Asian) men.

The importance of the Catalog of Anti-male Shaming Tactics

2009-09-06T01:17:00.000-04:00

Defining Manhood has put the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Language into video form which can be found at his youtube channel.
Part 1:

Part 2:

There are many reasons why the Catalog of Anti-male Shaming Tactics is important:

It shows us that when feminists, other women and their enablers argue against MRA and MGTOW that they aren't arguing against what we have actually said. They are arguing against straw men, but the catalog shows that their straw men are on fire.
It shows us that they aren't saying anything new. Their so called arguments are effectively copy and paste, not to mention incredibly predictable.
It shows us that they never have a reasoned argument against us.
It shows us that their so called arguments aren't logically consistent. Notice how many shaming tactics involve one or more logical fallacies.
Since their arguments are copy and paste, the catalog provides us with ammunition to use against them when needed because we can have ready made responses pointing out all the places where they are wrong.
Since shaming tactics are designed to avoid the issue being discussed and elicit an emotional response, the catalog allows us to respond in a reasoned manner that allows us to refocus on whatever issue was being discussed immediately afterwards.
The Catalog allows us to identify women (or men) who hate/are against men even if they claim to not be feminists. There is no reason to use a shaming tactic against a man unless the person using it is afraid the man is right about whatever issue is being discussed. (For example, manginas in the Christian Church use shaming language against unmarried men.) The use of shaming tactics tells us a lot about the person using it.
When a shaming tactic is used we know we have won the argument.

The Catalog of Anti-male shaming tactics is a valuable tool that all MRA and MGTOW should be familiar with. Feminists, other women, and their enablers who know about it hate it a great deal which proves its value.

The Alliance Part 7: Going Topless, the Hijab and "Visual Rape"

2009-09-01T00:36:00.000-04:00

I found this story from the Libertarian Republican blog about how Muslims are forcing the end of topless sunbathing in places that have a long tradition of topless sunbathing. (Of course if Christians or members of any other religion tried this we would hear about how right wing religious nazis are trying to take away freedom instead of falling in line like was done for the Muslims, but that's beside the point.) Feminists have no problem with this either which is another example of the intersection between Islam and feminism. After all feminists do want to prevent the "male gaze" and its associated "visual rape".

The intersection of feminism and Islam goes well beyond getting rid of topless sunbathing. I have said before that the burka and sexual harassment laws are effectively the same. Take some of what Islam has to say about women and the hijab:

When you go out, you always make sure that your house’s door is closed and so are the windows. This preventive measures are to avoid letting thieves in. Many times you have heard ‘Do not invite thieves by leaving your window open’ of if you are going to park your car on the street ‘Do not encourage thieves by leaving your valuables insight in your car’ as this will most certainly attract thieves to your car, and the outcome of that is always not something you wish to deal with as it involves a loss in property and a loss in wealth and a shake to your emotions and nerves.

Such is the case with men! Women have to protect themselves so that men do not steal their bodies or their mind or their sharaf (Honour).

Women wear hijab because, as my father said, hijab is a shield (for French speaking sisters he said “carapace”). I said “yes”, then he said “a shield from men” and I said that this is exactly the reason behind the hijab.

This is really a long winded way for Muslims to say "all men are rapists". This also says that women are more important than men and that men are disposable, both of which feminists believe. There are even better versions of this such as this excerpt from this link:

For still other women, however, such as the Egyptian thinker Safinaz Kazim, the hijab is to be reconstrued as a quasi-feminist statement. A woman who exposes her charms in public is vulnerable to what might be described as ‘visual theft’, so that men unknown to her can enjoy her visually without her consent. By covering herself, she regains her ability to present herself as a physical being only to her family and sorority. This view of hijab, as a kind of moral raincoat particularly useful under the inclement climate of modernity, allows a vision of Islamic woman as liberated, not from tradition and meaning, but from ostentation and from subjection to random visual rape by men.

Here we have use of the term "visual rape" just like a feminist. What this shows is that both Islam and feminism regard men as evil beings intent on sexually defiling "pure" women. Also, both feminism and Islam are about making it so men can't look at women and mind control. Both groups are trying to force men to turn their "gaze" away from women and not have certain thoughts in this case sexual thoughts. Muslims do it through the burka and the hijab. Feminists use sexual harassment laws and regulations.

This not only comes from Islam. Take what Naomi Wolf, a well known feminist, had to say about the burka:

Indeed, many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualising Western gaze. Many women said something like this: "When I wear Western clothes, men stare at me, objectify me, or I am always measuring myself against the standards of models in magazines, which are hard to live up to - and even harder as you get older, not to mention how tiring it can be to be on display all the time.

Take out the references to Allah and everything the Muslims said about men, the hijab, and the burka sounds just like feminists such as Naomi Wolf. It's really that simple.

Proof that game has real practical problems

2009-08-29T12:36:00.001-04:00

Ever since game became a major topic of discussion, I have been pointing out the various practical problems with game. The proponents of game act as if none of these problems exist. I found this video via MarkyMark's blog that proves that these problems are real:

The upshot is a guy put some type of horseradish sauce in a condom, and discovered that a woman this guy was nailing was trying to get pregnant from a used condom. Had this woman been successful, this guy would have been stuck with 18 or more years of child support. Luckily, he followed Tom Leykis's advice so he is only being sued for $15,000. Chances are that suit will be thrown out of court.

What this shows is that these problems are real. Game does not protect you from a woman who is trying to get pregnant from pulling your used condoms from the trash. In fact, a lot of the proponents of game are not as smart as the guy who called into Tom Leykis. This guy realized that there was a potential problem.

It's also worth pointing out (as Tom Leykis pointed out), that the NBA is warning its players about this sort of thing. Game will not protect you from this, period.

The Alliance Part 6: Blowback and feminism are both wrong

2009-08-26T23:50:00.001-04:00

Josh Xiong's blog had an interesting piece of why the idea that "blowback" is a source for terrorism is wrong. He cites the examples of Japan (the US dropped a nuclear bomb on them), Cambodia, and Vietnam. If "blowback" was really happening then why don't we see terrorists from Cambodia and Vietnam? Someone else brought up the example of Latin America and how we don't see Latin American suicide bombers. I wrote up an example about Laos. Given that its the most bombed country in history mainly due to US bombing during the Vietnam War and the fact that the US wasn't even at war with Laos at the time, not to mention the massive problem with unexploded ordinance that persists to this day and will for centuries over there, we should be seeing massive waves of Laotian suicide bombers if "blowback" was real.

The justification for the idea of "blowback" is something the US or the West did in the past to somebody. In many cases it didn't happen like the advocates of "blowback" describe, or the issues are more complicated than they are willing to admit. Notice the similarities to this idea and to feminists (and other women) who claim that feminism was the result of men oppressing women or some other nonsense. Or better yet compare "blowback" to the idea that men deserve to be oppressed now since women were supposedly oppressed a long time ago.

In both cases, the historical knowledge of the advocates of these positions is on shaky ground. In both cases, its justifications for bad if not psychotic behavior. Its worse with the feminists since they are outright lying most of the time and are using logical fallacies of the apex fallacy and the frontman fallacy. The idea that women were ever oppressed is an outright myth. At least the "blowback" advocates have some historical basis for their claims unlike the feminists. Regardless, its also about the justification of bad behavior in the present not about actual history.

The tip of the iceberg on anti-aging technology

2009-08-24T23:58:00.000-04:00

I have already talked about why anti-aging technology is important, but now it has entered the mainstream enough to be covered by the New York Times. The article is a good summary on what is going on now with anti-aging technology. What the article covers the most are drugs that mimic what is known as "calorie restriction" which is believed can slow the aging process.

There's an incredible amount of potential in anti-aging technology well beyond what these drugs can do. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Biology is neither magic nor immutable

2009-08-22T22:31:00.002-04:00

On various blogs there has been an explosion of discussion about "game". Some have said game is anti-Christian. Other's have said that it can be used to get and maintain a marriage. And that is just one of the many topics of game that are being discussed.

Those of you who have read my comments know that while I have nothing against game (and think that it can be used by Christian men as long as they use it in a moral manner), I don't see a whole lot of value in using game. My issues with game aren't moral, but practical. Game will not protect you against STDs. (No one claims that it does, but do you really want to be having sex with some STD infested skank. Looking for women in church does not protect you against this either regardless of whether you are using game or not.) Game will not protect you against divorce, false rape charges, sexual harassment charges, etc. The proponents of game will claim that these aren't problems, and that game itself will mean that a woman won't do any of this to you, but let's face it. It's bunk. Vigorous assertion will not protect you.

Game also has the problem of carrying the assumption that getting laid (or getting married for those with that moral position) is the most important thing in the world. The practitioner of game is desperate for female approval just like the apocryphal "nice guy". A practitioner of game can still be ruled by a woman easily and be manipulated by women through the use of shaming language. This is related to the fact that use many proponents of game use shaming language against men who do not use game. Shaming language is used to paper over the fact that game has its own problems. This is why MGTOW is superior to game. By going his own way, a man is in control of his own life.

Beyond all that, I have noticed that game carries an implicit wrong assumption, namely that biology is immutable and some sort of magic. The fact is women are NOT fertility goddesses. On various blogs proponents of game have claimed that since this is the way women are, men just have to deal with it, and men's only option is game based on concepts of evolutionary psychology. (It's important to remember here that a reasonable man adapts himself to the world, but the unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself so all progress depends on the unreasonable man.) Clearly, female behavior must have a basis in some combination of biology and psychology or otherwise having no fault divorce laws, sexual harassment laws, etc. wouldn't matter since women wouldn't used them. The fact of the matter is all of this is changeable. We need not be victims to evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology and biology are not magic. If biology is causing a problem as it is with the way female behavior currently is, then let's fix the biology. In the long term we can use technologies such as genetic engineering and gene therapy to do this. Granted, both of these technologies are in their infancy, and it will be a long time before we can do this. In the future genetic engineering will be used for everything else, so its perfectly reasonable as a solution to this problem too.

Women can't stop using shaming language

2009-08-19T21:13:00.003-04:00

There's a reason why the catalog of anti-male shaming tactics exists. It's because women and manginas use say the same things over and over again in an attempt to shame men. It's repetitive to the point where the catalog doesn't have to have that many examples since women and manginas could just copy and paste these statements over and over again. (For that matter a script on a server somewhere could do this.)

I have read two examples recently on Anakin's blog (search for "vysota") and on FB's blog (search for "sparky"). Anyone will notice how repetitive the shaming language is and how both "vysota" and "sparky" avoid answering direct questions. This is very typical of how women use shaming language. And women use shaming language everywhere.

It's funny watching women and manginas use shaming language over and over again given how counterproductive it is. None of the men on either of these blogs are going to change their mind based on shaming language. Plus, it just drives men into MRA and MGTOW ways of thinking (even if they never learn what MRA or MGTOW is). It also convinces men that the woman using shaming language is nothing but a man hating harpy. And their threats of how "we won't get a girlfriend/laid" is totally pointless. (Lots of men are thinking, "Women still aren't going to have sex with me? What else is new?")

On top of that women use shaming language everywhere. I see it all the time. I see wives using it against their husbands which single men see. Let me tell you it's convincing men to not get married or even have relationships with women. Why should single men do that to themselves? For that matter, why do women get married to men in the first place? Shaming language is not how you treat someone you claim to love.

Women just can't figure out when to cut their losses. This is case where rethinking their strategy would work for women, but instead like with so many things women and manginas are doing they aren't just doubling down, but quadrupling down and going for broke. I can't tell if women are trying to get men to punch them out (so that they can have men who aren't slaves to women arrested) or if its just another example of women being insane. It could be and probably is both.

There are women out there who think they are good women, but are using shaming language. Thus they aren't good women despite their beliefs.

What this means is that women hate men so much that they refuse to do what is in their best interest (stopping the use of shaming language).

Alpha defined by male & Alpha defined by female

2009-08-17T21:50:00.007-04:00

One of the problems with the whole "alpha" and "beta" concepts is that everyone has different definitions of those ideas. In addition there is a difference between how "alpha" is defined by men and by women. This comment from In Mala Fide explains it:

Mark, I dont know how far the alpha terminology goes, as there are different ways of describing it.

i have two descriptions;:

Alpha defined by male

and

Alpha defined by female

In the absence of social economic support, birth control etc, these two definitions coincide.

and these are the men you see in the pictures of the previous centuries.

Leaders of men, honorable men, who were also wanted by women.

Yes, you had cads also, but life was more difficult for them.

And these leaders of men may have had harems also.

Today, the alpha definition by male still stands: leader, honor, etc

The alpha definition by female has changed (maybe not even reverted to natural, as birth control is not natural, so we dont exactly know what the natural tendencies are when women are restricted by the risk of pregnancy) so that alpha means “socially dominant”, or simply “wanted by other women”.

These two different defitinions can create a problem when one is trying to define alpha.

Alpha as defined by how many women one can bed definitely fits the female definition.

Women are the same everywhere and always have been

2009-08-16T10:51:00.001-04:00

I have never really liked the whole idea of expating. It stems from the idea that if a man just gets out of America (or North America or the West), he will find lots of good women. Some guys who have expated or want to expat even go as far as saying going to Europe is a good idea which is ludicrous. (However, if a man believes that the country he is in is about to become outright socialist and exapts, that I understand because in that case there is a tangible problem that is solved on the personal level by going elsewhere.)

Women are the same everywhere. There may be more restrictions on their behavior in other places but its only a matter of time before that falls apart. (Even Muslim countries are feminist in a peculiar way since burkas and sexual harassment lawsuits are similar.) On top of that women have always been the same. There is plenty of proof of this, but the latest comes from MarkyMark's blog:

"Tie yourself up with a woman, and like a chained convict, you lose all freedom . . . If you only know what women in general are! Egotism, vanity, silliness, triviality in everything. That's what women are when they show themselves as they really are...No, don't marry, my dear friend. Don't marry!"
--- Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"

"Women are generally stupid, but the devil lends her brains when she works for him. Then she accomplishes miracles of thinking, farsightedness, constancy, in order to do something nasty."
--- Leo Tolstoy 1898

Leo Tolstoy lived in the 1800s before modern feminism in Russia. Yet, the problems he describes with women are the same that we have now. The only real difference is that women now have the weapon of government to use against men. This means that even if the weapon of government is taken away from women, it doesn't mean men are safe. It also means that expating to find a non-American or non-Western woman doesn't work either.

Women (other than a small few who get it) are the same everywhere and always have been.

George Soldini

2009-08-13T00:05:00.000-04:00

I have been out of town so I haven't had the chance to cover the recent Pittsburgh shootings. Others have already covered it. However there are two things I have noticed that bear mentioning:

Lots of money does not mean a man will be invested in society. If you check out the blogs I linked to, an idea that comes up a lot wrt Soldini is how men are increasingly not invested in society. In Soldini's case this is despite having a very high paying job and a net worth of $250,000. In other words, men you would expect to be invested if not highly invested in society are not. I can say that is true of myself as well. While I'm not going to reveal my net worth here, I also have a high paying job and have saved/invested plenty of money. Has it made me invested in society? Absolutely not because this is the ultimate case of, "no good deed goes unpunished".
Soldini hadn't had a girlfriend for about 25 years. There is no reason why this makes sense on the surface (so we need to dig deeper). I already covered his money. Take a look at what he looks like. Before he cracked he probably was a decent enough guy. Plenty of women should have wanted him since he had plenty going for him even compared to most men. Those of you who have read enough of my writings know that I'm 31 and that I have never had a girlfriend and never had any women interested in me. Since I started posting under this account, I have gotten lots of emails from men in the same and similar situations. (Even before that I had talked to plenty of men in similar situations as well.) There are two types of situation I have encountered. The first is like me, never had a girlfriend ever in their lives. The second is they had a girlfriend/sex several years ago but not now. That story typically goes something like this: When they were poor(er), they had no trouble finding women who were interested in them. However, now that they make $70K, $80K, $90K, or more they can't find any women interested in them to save their souls. On the surface this makes no sense. There are theories, but the fact is this is a real phenomenon and it seems like this describes Soldini.

We will see more of this type of thing in the future. As more men realize that all of the work they have done is meaningless because the social contract between men and women is broken, a few will crack. I also anticipate this will lead to more demonization of upper-middle class and lower-upper class men. Most men in this situation aren't going to crack, but they are going to be angry and want to do something about it. Think about this. If a bunch of men like Soldini who had lots of money got together imagine what they could accomplish.

MGTOW is similar to the internet

2009-08-08T17:32:00.004-04:00

The internet was designed to be a network that would work after a nuclear war. To achieve such a network, it was designed to be completely decentralized and route around any damage. More on this in a second.

One of the problems of trying to promote the cause of men's rights is women who would just shout that all MRAs are just misogynists. They don't bother with justification, evidence, or logic, but it works due to female herd mentality. Even many women who claim to be on our side will just go on to MRA and MGTOW blogs and claim that we're all misogynists under the guise of "helping us" and/or "making our "arguments more convincing".

How do we get around this? By going our own way, the MGTOW concept. MGTOW works the same way the internet does. It's completely decentralized. Most men who are GTOW will never hear of the MGTOW concept. They will just do it. It also routes around the damage women cause with their misogyny shtick. It other words MGTOW works for the same reasons the internet works.

Marvin Minsky and Science Fiction

2009-08-05T19:12:00.002-04:00

Marvin Minsky, a leading AI researcher at MIT, once said about the difference between general fiction and science fiction, "General fiction is pretty much about ways that people get into problems and screw their lives up. Science fiction is about everything else." and "But aside from the science fiction, I find it tedious to read any ordinary writing at all. It all seems so conventional and repetitive." This is important when looking at what is happening to science fiction on television.

Recently, Whiskey wrote about how "Syfy" is adding several gay characters to various shows. This isn't as bad as what is coming out of Britain. There's a spin off of Doctor Who called Torchwood. In Torchwood pretty much all the main characters have had at least some type of homosexual experience on the show. Two of the main characters have an ongoing homosexual relationship. One of the characters, Capt. Jack Harkness, isn't even just gay or bisexual. If you do a search on that character you can find the writers talking about how he's "omnisexual". Basically, he's willing to have sex with anything, men, women, aliens, etc. The creator of Torchwood, Russell Davies, has even admitted to having an agenda by saying that by the 51st century (where the character is from) everybody will be omnisexual. It's worth noting that Torchwood is what Russell Davies wanted to do with Doctor Who, but the BBC put a stop to it (because Doctor Who was traditionally a "kids' show").

Torchwood is basically slash fiction on TV. What slash fiction is when someone takes a TV show or a movie and writes some "fan fiction" and adds homosexual relationships. Slash fiction started when the original Star Trek series was first on TV. Women (since slash fiction is primarily written by women) started writing Kirk/Spock stories (notice the slash there) where Kirk and Spock had a homosexual relationship. If you have seen even one episode of Star Trek you know this is completely absurd.

All of this is basically a war against real science fiction. What these women and gays are doing is trying to turn science fiction into general fiction. Remember what Minsky said, General fiction is pretty much about ways that people get into problems and screw their lives up. Science fiction is about everything else." In other words, lots of general fiction on TV is nothing but pointless relationship drama. Science fiction is about everything else such as (straight) men doing things, inventing things, building things. With slash fiction and the introduction of gay characters on science fiction shows, these people are trying to convert science fiction into more of the homogeneous mass of relationship drama. This is in addition to the obvious agendas to normalize all sorts of deviant behavior.

What these people are doing are even more dangerous than that. We all know about men who as boys were inspired by science fiction to go out an invent things and develop technology. Science fiction inspired these men to advance civilization. This attempt to convert science fiction into general fiction is effectively a war on the advancement of civilization.

The governator terminates DV funding

2009-08-02T12:24:00.003-04:00

"Hasta la vista, Baby"

Glenn Sacks is reporting that Gov. Schwarzenegger is terminating California state DV funding. The usual suspects are all in a bother about it.

Sacks also brought up an interesting point about this:

But consider this: whatever the motivations behind the governor’s decision, remember that he’s a politician and, whatever else may be true, he considers it politically safe to cut 100% of state funding for DV shelters. The article missed it, but THAT’S news.

That is news. Feminism only exists because of government support. Finally, we might be seeing the end of that support. It will be a long road to completely eliminate government support of feminism, but this could be the beginning.

Triangulation and moral equivalence

2009-07-29T23:25:00.003-04:00

Two tactics that get used against the MRM and MGTOW are triangulation (which Bill Clinton is famous for) and moral equivalence. Triangulation is when someone presents their views above left or right sides of the political spectrum (since its used usually in politics). This is also can and has been used by someone who is trying to discredit the MRM and MGTOW. A person doing that will claim that the MRM and MGTOW hate women just like the feminists hate men and thus claim themselves to be "above" it all. Someone who engages in this tactic is also engaging in moral equivalence because they are also claiming that both sides are equally guilty of bad behavior. Both of these claims are total lies.

What feminists have done over the last 40 years is declare total war against men. Feminists have taken control of various arms of government such as the judiciary, public schools, etc. to oppress men. Given the socialist nature of feminism this is natural for them. For the last 40 years feminists have allowed women to make false rape accusations, to divorce on a whim and take everything a man has, to take his children away, to make false sexual harassment accusations, etc. This list of ways that feminists have allowed women to use government power to oppress men goes on and on.

There is no equivalent among the MRM and MGTOW. In fact the very nature of MGTOW precludes this since its men GOING THEIR OWN WAY. There are people who will claim that men will do the same things women are doing now once feminism is overthrown. That is false because of the libertarian nature of the MRM and MGTOW. (Not all members of the MRM and MGTOW are libertarians but there is a general consensus that government is too powerful and large. There are very few socialists in the MRM and probably none GTOW. Nearly all would agree with the view that if nothing else libertarianism is a vector, as in we need to move in the direction of less government.) Knowing this how are men going to do the same things women are doing to men now? It's impossible because there won't be big powerful government.

Therefore the purpose of using triangulation and moral equivalence is just to bring down the MRM and MGTOW to the level of the feminists. The difference between feminism and the MRM/MGTOW is so stark that lies like this have to be used because the MRM and MGTOW are clearly morally and ethically superior since the MRM and MGTOW don't believe in big powerful government.

The Perfect World

2009-07-27T22:25:00.004-04:00

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot asked me:

I understand why you think the best way to live in this world is MGHOW, but I am curious about how you picture a perfect world. How would women behave? What would be the roles of men and women? Would government intervene in or regulate what women are allowed to do? I would love to see a post from you regarding this.

All right, but this has the caveat the perfect world will never exist.

The short answer is that women would act in such a way that they supported civilization not attacking and threatening civilization like they do now. Women's behavior isn't just outrageous or noxious. It threatens to destroy what has been built by men over the last 6000 years. Even being neutral so that women didn't advance but didn't threaten civilization would be an improvement.

I'm not really that concerned about what the roles of women should be. The reason why their roles were controlled by culture/society was because it was understood the damage that they could do to civilization. However, as we see now that isn't sustainable. Think about how many centuries of civilizational advancement were lost because women destroyed various historical civilizations.

Similarly, government regulation of women doesn't matter to me that much either for the same reason. It could possibly work, but it isn't sustainable either (besides having its own problems). Civilization is made up of people and when 50% are effectively against civilization the rest are constantly going to be involved in a rear guard action to keep civilization from collapsing. This is much of the history of the last 6000 years.

Barring any real options to get women to stop trying to destroy civilization (since the perfect world doesn't exist), we have to take away their power to do so. That's where technology comes in. Through technology we can remove women's power to destroy civilization. Women can go back to the caves if they so wish and the rest of us can continue to develop civilization unimpeded. This also means the use of idea of MGTOW to protect ourselves from women.

The triangle of blaming men for what women do

2009-07-24T17:20:00.002-04:00

MarkyMark on his blog has a story from fuckedcompany.com about the hell one man is going through being married to a woman. You can follow the link to read all the details. The upshot is this man got married, and his life is a living hell now thanks to the behavior of his wife.

In reading the comments to this post on MM's blog it's amazing the lengths people will go even anti-feminist men will go to absolve women of their behavior. It's a triangle as I mentioned in the title because there are 3 angles in which men are being blamed for the behavior of women:

The female angle of the guy must have "done something" to piss his wife off. This is the point of view in the first comment on MM's blog to this story by "Kimberly". (She's tries to backpedal on this later, but it's still somehow the "man's fault".) It's clear that the woman is responsible for her own behavior, but someone this guy had "done something" to piss his wife off despite the fact that if a man acted the same way he would be considered psychotic.
The pseudo-alpha (I say pseudo-alpha since as I have pointed out most supposed alphas aren't really alphas) angle said by "Keoni Galt" of that the guy needs to "man up". (Yes, this is borderline shaming language.) In this case, it's because the guy isn't dominating his wife enough. Again, the wife is acting psychotic. Why should a man have to act a certain way just so his wife acts like a NORMAL HUMAN BEING? (Before anybody points out how this worked for Keoni Galt remember there was a 50/50 chance he would be sitting in jail now because his wife felt "threatened". Think about that.) Beyond that I know that I like many other men like to relax occasionally, and you can never relax with this option because then it will fail.
The male feminist angle which really isn't represented in the comments is sort of hit on by the guy having the problem (offering to do the dishes and the like). The male feminist will claim that its the man's fault because he didn't understand what his wife was going through or some other nonsense. The male feminist will also claim things like how the man needs to wash the dishes to show that he isn't part of the patriarchy oppressing her or some other crap. As we can see from the story that doesn't work. (This also could be called the beta or herb angle.)

What all of these things have in common is that the man is blamed for his wife's behavior which in original story is clearly psychotic. These three angles create a triangle that surround and trap the man. The man can try to solve this problem by assuming that one of the three angles is correct in defining the problem and trying to solve that problem. However, whatever angle the man picks it will not work. Even if he tries another side of the triangle it still won't work.

On top of all this by picking one side of this triangle, the man is not picking the other two. Why is this important? Because they all can say that the man is still wrong even if he picks one of the supposed problems to solve. In other words, the man is running around and around while his wife is acting all psychotic. It allows all three sides of the triangle to blame him for his wife's behavior almost forever since by definition according to two thirds of the triangle the man is always wrong.

What is the key to breaking out of this triangle? It's going your own way, namely MGTOW. What happened was this man let himself get into a position where what was happening in his life was defined by insane people (i.e. his wife) and people who are trying to prop up women to their own benefit (women, pseudo-alphas, and male feminists/herbs). The entire point of this triangle is to trap a man. If all a man sees are the sides of a triangle, he can't escape from it. The MGTOW concept gives men a way out of this trap.

A MGHOW will still get blamed by women, pseudo-alphas, and male feminists because its in their interest to do so. However, a MGHOW will not be trapped in the hell that the guy from the original story is in. A MGHOW is able to live his life the way he wants.

Two reasons why all men should oppose socialist health care

2009-07-22T23:02:00.004-04:00

Here are two reasons why all men should oppose socialist health care:

1. From Whiskey:

The problem with rationing health care is that it creates permanent winners and losers, with the losers having no investment in society, because society has no investment in them.

Already buried in the bill is a demand for quotas for doctors to be so many Blacks, Hispanics, etc. Affirmative Action Doctors. Because it provides raw patronage results.

The political alliance in the Western world is Women, non-Whites/Muslims (depending on nation) against Straight White Men. Aimed at maximizing spoils politics by minimizing whatever Straight White Men get in spoils and such.

Already Obamacare folks are talking about how older people have a "duty to die" (a recurrent theme among Dems, dating back to the former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm). Mandating meetings between those post 65 and "experts" on "dying with dignity."

There's also demands for special access to women and non-Whites for health care.

2. If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in

Britain

. In the

United States

, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Any man who lives long enough will get prostate cancer so this is very important men.

Socialist health care is bad news for men everywhere.

Artificial wombs reach Glenn Sacks' blog

2009-07-21T20:24:00.005-04:00

Glenn Sacks recently has this post on his blog about the recent "controversy" about artificial sperm. He's got few good links about the current research in this area. Glenn also makes two very important points:

While men aren't going to be made redunant anytime soon, this proves that most women are igornant.
Men created civilization and created everything in civilization. Women have done nothing. Here's the direct quote from Glenn on this point, "The fact is that practically every single thing that we call progress, everything that makes life good - from art to science to technology to medicine to spirituality - has been invented, created, discovered, made or imagined by men."

40 Years Ago and the Interplanetary Internet

2009-07-20T16:17:00.004-04:00

Forty years ago today men did something that has never been done before. Men landed on the moon. This was an achievement unparalleled in history. Before we were limited to just one planet. Even with the lack of manned space missions beyond Earth orbit, even now we have built the basis for civilization that extends to other planets. This is an example of one of the things men do, men push the limits of our frontiers.

As soon as Armstrong walked on the moon, all of the chattering classes (i.e. men who don't produce anything and women) started talking nonsense about "imperialism in space" and other garbage. Why? Because they produce nothing. All of the men involved in the moon landing from Armstrong to all the engineers who worked on the spacecraft participated in moving civilization forward. These men accomplished an amazing feat.

Many predicted we would have cities on the moon right now. There are a couple of reasons we don't. One is that when predicting the future a common mistake is the overestimate where we will be in the short term and underestimate where we will be in the long term. However, the other reason is the result of feminism (and socialism in general). Money spent on space, on moving civilization forward, is money that isn't spent on the black hole of women. Take a look at the example of Walter Mondale. He wanted to get rid of the space program in its entirety. While having cities on the moon by now is overestimating big time we should be farther ahead in space then where we are now.

However, this has not stopped men. A spaceport for private space flight is being built in New Mexico. The first permanent node of the Interplanetary Internet is being launched. Men continue to push forward in space.

The fact that There is an MRM justifies its need

2009-07-19T00:03:00.005-04:00

I found this video from Amateur Strategist's website pointing out how the fact that the MRM (Mens Rights Movement) exists proves that feminism isn't about equality. Enjoy.

Is this the begining of men taking over parenting?

2009-07-17T20:13:00.004-04:00

A while back I talked about how men had taken over cooking and other domestic tasks because women felt doing things like cooking was sexist. I pondered if this would lead to men taking over raising kids entirely using artificial wombs as the end result to have said kids. Amy brought up an interesting observation of how at her local park that it was mainly fathers and grandparents who brought their kids there. The few mothers who brought their kids generally ignored their kids unlike the fathers and grandparents.

Novaseeker just had a post on his blog about the new trend of mothers who give up custody of their kids. I would like to see more than one article about this before saying that its really a trend, but it does fit. Women have been progressively giving up domestic related tasks so can parenting really be that far behind? We'll see what happens.

Comments are working again

2009-07-13T23:57:00.001-04:00

I fixed the problem with comments so everyone should be able to write and submit comments now.

Women are the problem

2009-07-12T13:43:00.004-04:00

So often when feminism is discussed too many men try to pin feminism not on the actions of women, but on lesbians, the Rockefellers, Jews, Zionists, Communists, the New World Order, Americans, etc. None of them matter. In some cases such as Jews/Zionists, they had nothing to do with anything. Those guys aren't interested in men's rights, but antisemitism. While Comintern (the Communist International) was definitely involved in the creation of feminism, the Rockefellers may have had some involvement, and lesbians are a driver of feminism, the fact of the matter is that without the support of most women none of these groups could have gotten anything done. (As an aside, if you really think the Rockefellers/NWO is the real problem then why haven't you solved it with some radical direct action against them? Alex Jones tells you where they meet so you have no excuse.) Comintern is dead. Lesbians and the Rockefellers are too few to be of any consequence. The NWO (even if it really exists which it may not) doesn't have magical powers. The fact is that without the average woman nothing wrt feminism could have happened.

Anakin Niceguy @ Biblical Manhood has an extended rant about this subject. I recommend everyone read that first before continuing to read this entry if you haven't already read it. Here is the last paragraph from that rant:

In short, if nothing changes, then women are going to destroy this society. It's going to be a classic case of the Tragedy of Commons. You don't like me talking about women? Too bad. There's going to be little or no real progress for men and women until women get their act together and rethink their behavior. We can blame the government, the liberals, the New World Order, technology, chivalrous men, genes, or whatever, but here's the indisputable truth: A critical mass of women are primarily responsible for the mess that has come about. Someone needs to point this out. When women constantly belittle, demean, and marginalize men at every turn, someone needs to say something. When women try to have their "eekwalitee" cake and eat it too, giving men the shaft in the process, someone needs to say something. Otherwise, the whole mess is going to explode in the face of women, and they will have no one to cry to.

Even women who claim to be against feminism engage in the behavior that Anakin is talking about. We now have a generation of men (which includes myself) who have experienced almost nothing but this behavior from women. I know many women will shriek that they aren't feminists, but they stood by and did nothing while this has happened to men. Remember, silence is consent, especially if you (as a woman) benefit from women engaging in this behavior even if you technically don't engage in it yourself.

Some women have responded to these facts by pointing out reams of blog entries that they are against feminism. In nearly all of these cases there was one of two things going on. All of the talk against feminism was women talking about the evils of abortion and/or premarital sex. Neither of that actually helps men in any way. It doesn't deal with things such as men losing over 80% of the jobs during this recession, paternity fraud, false rape charges, false sexual harassment charges, anti-male divorce courts, cultural attitudes towards men, female behavior towards men etc. Being against abortion and/or premarital sex does not prove you believe men are human beings. It just shows that some women have a minor disagreement with feminists. In the case of premarital sex feminists have nothing to do with that. Premarital sex was going on for a long time before feminism. Remember, silence is consent so if you as a woman are silent about 99% of the feminist program (that has nothing to do with abortion and premarital sex) then it is assumed you consent to that 99% of the feminist program.

The other thing going on is women who claim to be against feminism who spend all of their time debating men on MRA/MGTOW blogs and forums about how they are misogynists. If you are a woman who is really against feminism, why are you so worried about this? Saying that the way to convince women is not to appear misogynist is not an answer because most women will accuse us of being misogynist regardless of what we say. I could post gibberish on this blog and I would still be accused of being a misogynist. If you really are an anti-feminist woman then you shouldn't be arguing with men on MRA/MGTOW blogs for any reason. You as an anti-feminist woman should be arguing with women trying to convince women of the error of their ways.

I know some people will claim that I'm creating an "impossible" standard for women since I could always claim that any particular anti-feminist woman doesn't meet it. If you look at my blogroll to the right, you will see two blogs by WOMEN who get it, Dr. Helen Smith's blog and Amy @ Clothesline Alley. These are women who understand what women are doing to men.

People wonder why I spend so much time talking about how technologies like sex bots, artificial wombs, etc. will liberate men. That's because there are so few women who get it. Even women who claim to be anti-feminist are part of the problem as I have shown. I don't see this changing much in the future and as Anakin puts it women are going to destroy this society. The only other option for change is technology.

The Alliance Part 5: Honduras and Venezeula

2009-07-11T20:41:00.003-04:00

Recently, I found this Newsweek article about how any Venezuelan with a brain and the means has been leaving because of Chavez (via Tom Barnett). It's the same as whenever the Alliance takes over a country. How many Iranians are the US or Canada or elsewhere because they fled the Islamic Revolution? Answer: Many. As the article points out the same thing is happening in Chavezist states like Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. It's so bad that one third of all Bolivians under 30 are planning on emigrating. (That's almost triple the amount ten years ago.) That's a damming statistic.

Honduras has chosen a different path. This link explains what really happened. Instead of having tens of thousands of their best people leave, the Honduran army did the right and legal thing under Honduran law, get rid of Zelaya. Democracy is only important as it serves freedom and the rule of law. When democracy comes into conflict with those things, freedom and the rule of law must be put first. That's what the Honduran army did.

It's no surprise that Obama is yammering on about letting Zelaya back into Honduras. Like the rest of the Alliance, Obama is against freedom and the rule of law. Obama wants the ability to rewrite contracts like which has been done with GM and Chrysler just like Chavez does in Venezuela. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. All of the Alliance hates freedom and the rule of law. This is why in pro-feminist divorce courts basic Constitutional guarantees such as the idea of innocent until proven guilty do not exist.

The Death of the Sci-Fi Channel

2009-07-08T20:35:00.006-04:00

Recently the Sci-Fi channel, a cable channel that used to be about showing science fiction and related programming changed its name to the Syfy channel. The Sci-Fi channel has been dying for a long time. Now, it is offically dead. This name change represents that the channel is no longer about science fiction in any way, shape, or form. However, the Sci-Fi channel has been dying for a long time. The death of the Sci-Fi channel started in 1998 when Bonnie Hammer took over the channel and decided that "more female viewers were needed". Of course, there couldn't be a cable channel that men would be interested in watching. Women can't have that. It took eleven years, but the Sci-Fi channel is now dead due to what is essentially an anti-male crusade.

The Sci-Fi channel used to show good science fiction shows such as Farscape, but they killed it. The channel's remake of Flash Gordon failed because many viewers tuned out after the pilot since nothing science fiction was happening for most of the pilot.

The "reimagined" (more like redelusioned) Battlestar Galactica was incredibly anti-male. (You can read the link for many examples.) Dirk Benedict who played Starbuck in the original BSG series (yes there was an original BSG series in the 70s) also had a lot to say about the poltically correct [also anti-male by definition] bullshit of the new BSG. Beyond that here is the biggest example of politcally correct/anti-male BS from the new BSG. In the original series from the 70s, the Cylons were created by reptilian aliens NOT humans. The mechanical Cylons commited genocide against their reptilian creators and then proceded to attack other aliens and destroy them. One of these species of aliens, the Hasari, asked for help against the Cylons after the Cylons invaded their territory. Humans responded to their call for help which started the Cylon-Human war. In the new BSG the backstory was completely different, and its the result of women catering to women. The backstory from the original BSG was too pro-male since it shows the war is sometimes necessary.

It actually gets better if you watch all of the episodes of the original series. At one point the humans fighting the Cylons come across another previously unknown human colony. This colony is divided between two states who are at war, the Western Nationalists who are free and democratic and the Eastern Alliance which is run by some form of totalitarianism. The president of the Western Nationalists negotiates a peace with the Eastern Alliance, but the Eastern Alliance just used the "peace" as a cover to attack the Western Nationalists. Again, this was too pro-male for the then heads of the Sci-Fi channel. (As an aside Islam has a word for using peace treaties to regroup and attack like this. It's called "hudna". This tatic was also a favorite of the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) before they were destroyed earlier this year.)

R.I.P. Sci-Fi channel.

The Problem with Greek Letters

2009-07-06T20:32:00.005-04:00

Get into any discussion about men and getting laid and/or reproduction in many cases the terms, alpha and beta will come up. I have used these terms (and will continue to do so in the future), but have never felt really comfortable with them since I don't feel that they describe what is going on with male/female relations. A comment over at Welmer's described my issues with the alpha and beta concepts:

There are a few *real* alpha males out there, but they are childless playas’ who make good money that can endlessly lead women on and pump and dump them.
To be a real ALPHA male with our legal system the way it is, a guy has to have a good job or business making lots of money, and then would have to have a surrogate mom give him a few kids that were his ALONE, and then he could play the field with a vengance———telling women lies until old age pumping and dumping them while getting to raise HIS kids the way he sees fit. That guy would NOT be in submission to the matriarchy the leftists wish to impose. There probably aren’t 500 of such men out there in the U.S. tonight though, but it could be done.

This comment shows the problems with most guys who are described as and/or claim to be alphas. Getting laid by a lot of different women in the end isn't that alpha if the guy in question never reproduces with any of them. In the end most "alphas" will only reproduce with one woman, and many "alphas" with none. After their dead since their DNA was never passed on or only with one woman how were they really "alpha" at all? They weren't.

Or take this scenario. You have a married powerful businessman with kids from his wife screwing his secretary. Let's say that the secretary got knocked up and is raising the kid as a single mom or convinced her husband (if she's married) that the kid is his. Sounds like the businessman is an alpha, right? Not necessarily. For that to be the case, the wife would not have to be screwing around. How does the businessman know that his wife isn't screwing the pool boy? And by extension that all of the kids he has with his wife are really is? He doesn't so he really isn't an alpha.

At some point this scenario could get worse if the businessman's wife divorces him. He could be paying child support for kids that aren't his. That's not alpha.

The comment above describes the only way to truly be alpha in Western countries. In the future you can add in artificial wombs which ironically allow more men to be true alphas in that all their kids would be theirs, and they could play the field "with a vengeance" (if they so desired). In other words there are very few true alphas in the West currently. The comment says there is less than 500 true alphas. That sounds about right.

When men want to do something they go out and do it

2009-07-05T23:11:00.005-04:00

I'm constantly amazed by how whenever a woman wants to do something, anything she can't do it without her hand being held and getting approval from everyone in the universe. This goes as far as going to the restroom. Seriously, women, why can't you go to the restroom by yourselves?

Men when they want to do something just go do it. We don't worry about getting approval from everyone around us. What inspired this post was a comment MarkyMark made at his blog:

You know what's funny? I saw an online article (msn.com?) about how women were a minority in the blogosphere, and the implied thesis was that men were freezing them out and all that jazz. I was like WTF?! Starting a blog is no more difficult than opening an e-mail account, for cryin' out loud!

When I started this blog, I didn't seek approval from anyone; I didn't do focus groups, take polls, or anything else. I just went ahead and did it back in September of 2006.

When I started this, it was my intent to address men's issues from a unique perspective; it was my intent to cover things that others weren't already doing; and it was my intent to cover them in a WAY that no one else was. Back when I started, Eternal Bachelor was king; he covered men's issues in depth, so finding something he hadn't already done was challenging. That, and I didn't know my way around Blogger too well. Hence, I didn't post much in the beginning. As circumstances changed and as I've gotten more comfortable with Blogger, I've posted more. But, I never sought anyone's "approval" to do this. I just up & did it.

The Alliance Part 4: Fighting the Alliance isn't about supporting the Republican Party

2009-07-05T14:10:00.003-04:00

In the US the political party most associated with the Alliance is the Democrat Party. Naturally, when many men start looking for a political party to fight the Alliance (or one its groups such as feminism), they start with the Republican Party. However, any man with a brain will realize that the Republican Party doesn't represent men despite the fact that representing men will guarantee a permanent majority for the next 50 years. The only reason the Republican Party has been as successful as it has until now can be best described by this part of a comment from the Power Line blog:

I'm a former academic who spent most of his life more-or-less non-political and voted Democratic because that's what academics did. In my later years I discovered that, as a "heterosexual white male" (i.e., nothing more than the markers which identified me with a specific political interest group), the Democratic party was my enemy. So I've been voting Republican for the last 15 years.

None of which makes me a "conservative' if by that label one refers to a specific set of political dogmas, and consequently nothing has me turning the page faster than a bunch of conservatives arguing over what constitutes the true ("true") conservative doctrine.

What I am, in fact is an anti-liberal, and there's a lot of us out there. We don't particularly want Republicans in positions of political power, but we certainly don't want liberals there. And if voting Republican will assure that, then so be it.

Men build things and invent things

2009-06-27T18:21:00.002-04:00

One of the things that men do is build things. This can be anything from building cars, to houses, to software, even new inventions. This is something that for the most part women don't do.

Carlos Owens an army mechanic is Wasilla, AK (yes, that Wasilla) has built his own mecha which is a giant robot that mimics the movements of its human pilot. Here's a pic of it below:

Owens has been working on mechas for the last four years in his garage. He sees the obvious uses for mechas in construction and the military, but they will probably first be used in entertainment, namely demolition derby battles.

Carlos Owens is very similar to the Wright brothers and the guys in Silicon Valley who created the computer revolution from their garages. The Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics from Ohio. In Silicon Valley, men worked in their garages inventing a whole new industry.

I know lots of people, particularly women, would say that Carlos Owens is just obsessed with science fiction because he is working on building mechas. The fact of the matter is that its men like Carlos Owens who move humanity forward. Countless numbers of men were inspired by Star Trek and proceeded to develop careers creating technology as adults.

Imagine what must have happened right before fire was invented. The rest of the cavemen especially the cavewomen probably told the guy who invented a way to start fire that he was obsessed with science fiction and that a way to start fire wouldn't be invented for hundreds of years if at all. Since that caveman invented a way to start fire, over and over again people tell men who invent things they are obsessed with science fiction despite being proven wrong again and again.

Advertising: Suzanne Researched This vs. Asus

2009-06-23T00:40:00.005-04:00

Both Welmer and Whiskey have been talking about advertising recently. We all know advertising is very anti-male. Whiskey provides some examples. To me the ultimate example is the infamous "Suzanne Researched This" commercial from Century 21 in 2006:

Which of course has been parodied:

What we have he is an example of how advertisers are targeting women and think that they can completely ignore men and belittle them. In theory, this violates the rules of good advertising since you don't want to antagonize any potential customers. However, they like almost every other advertiser is only advertising to women since they figure women will extract money from men. (As an aside this is how the housing bubble happened. The housing bubble was primarily a female caused economic bubble. After all the guy in the commercial knows the house wasn't worth what they were going to pay in 2006, but the wife "loves" that house unlike her husband. If that commercial happened in reality they would be foreclosed on soon. More on this in a subsequent blog entry.)

Since so many companies are in the business of selling junk to women paid for by men, what does a company that sells to men look like as far as its advertising. It's a bit difficult to find such examples. Even beer doesn't qualify, but I found one.

The company is called Asus. They're a manufacturer of various computer parts, motherboards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Among guys like me who build their own computers, Asus is known for high reliability and high performance hardware. The computer I'm typing this on is filled with Asus parts. Needless to say its clear their customer base is pretty much male. How much advertising does Asus do? Little to none. Instead the money spent on advertising is spent on engineering.

Thus we are forced to conclude that advertising is primarily about getting women to buy junk with male money since companies that have a primarily male customer base know advertising is pointless.

Making a True Father's Day

2009-06-21T15:12:00.008-04:00

Today is Father's Day in the United States. That means we can expect the usual shaming language from politicians like Obama and Biden and in sermons across all churches where men will be told that they aren't grown up until they become fathers such as how Boundless Brainless claims. Of course, you will hear nothing about how women use divorce courts to throw out fathers or how women make false claims of child abuse to throw out fathers. Instead lots of shaming language will be used against responsible men who make logical decisions to avoid divorce courts, false allegations of abuse, and perhaps women in general. Many fathers on Father's Day are unable to see or talk to their kids.

I am certain many of these responsible men would like to become fathers, but don't because its too dangerous. This is why I have talked about artificial wombs. With no mother involved the father can't lose his kids. However, artificial wombs don't exist yet, or do they?

I recently discovered that they do in a way. This comment on Novaseeker's blog talked about the Rotunda Clinic in India. What the Rotunda Clinic in India will do if you pay them a little less than $10,000 is take a man's sperm, put it together with an egg donor and surrogate mother in India to make a man a baby that is his. There's a video on their website about a gay couple who did just that. It's safe to say that the egg donor and surrogate mother being in India won't be able to access the American legal system so for a man, the baby is completely and totally his. Since the Rotunda Clinic will do this as long as you pay them, a man on his own could do this. If you want you can use an artificial womb today.

Imagine Father's Days when you never have to worry about losing your kids. This is why artificial wombs will be used by men who want kids in this way. Already men are raising their kids more. This is a natural progression.

Mos Eisley, New Mexico

2009-06-21T14:51:00.005-04:00

One of the things that men do is push the limits of our frontiers. On Friday this was evidenced by the beginning of the construction of Spaceport America in Upham, NM. This is where Richard Branson, the billionaire who own the Virgin conglomerate, is planning on running his Virgin Galactic business which exists to run flights into space.

Lots of people think this sort of thing is a waste. It's not. In fact it's vital. Outside of Antarctica and the oceans (and even in that case its the deep oceans) every spot on Earth is claimed by some government. In addition governments have been getting more and more socialist over time. In the past the United States acted as an escape valve that prevented things from becoming too bad. However, this could change with Obama as President. There's a good chance that Obama will fail with the economy the way it is, but even then what about the next Obama. We can't depend on the US as the only escape valve for freedom forever. Thus we need more escape valves and that will be in space, the deep oceans, and maybe even Antarctica.

Most of you know that the title of this post comes from Star Wars. Anytime I hear this spaceport talked about multiple someones say that it should be called Mos Eisley. Given that its in the desert it makes sense. Maybe I should buy some land in Upham, NM to start a cantina.

The Alliance Part 3: The Iranian Revolution of 1979 Model

2009-06-18T23:33:00.008-04:00

Please read Part 1 & Part 2 of the Alliance series.

It's strangely appropriate that I write this entry as there is currently an uprising in Iran.

When the Iranian Revolution happened in 1979 it didn't have to do with the people of Iran rising up against the Shah. It was an Alliance operation, possibly the first true Alliance operation. While Khomeini was in exile, he made alliances with socialists. (Khomeini was in exile in France after all.) This included the Communist Tudeh party of Iran. And by making alliances with socialists, Khomeini by definition made alliances with feminists. Foucault, a French socialist, called Khomeini "a kind of mystic saint" and welcomed "Islamic government" as a new form of "political spirituality" that could inspire Western radicals to combat capitalist hegemony.

This was true in Iran itself as well. In 1979 in Iran, women marched in chadors to protest the Shah. (The Shah had made the chador illegal.) The chador is similar to a burka. Remember what I said about burkas being similar to sexual harrasment law suits. The same applies to the chador.

The links go even deeper than that. This video goes into more:

To this day there is no feminist opposition to Islam even though it seems logical. That's because both feminism and Islam are part of the Alliance. It's important to remember that the Alliance is not a coherent entity. The Alliance exists simply for the purpose of trying to make the consitutent groups stronger than they would be by themselves. Many parts of the Alliance only have their enemies in common, such as straight white men. In the case of the Iranian Revolution, this enemy was the Shah.

What happens when the Alliances' enemies such as straight white men are defeated? Various parts of the Alliance will then turn on each other. This is what happened in Iran. As soon as the Shah was gone Khomeini turned on his allies since he no longer needed them. (It could have ended up going the opposite way since every part of the Alliance is eagerly waiting for the day they can turn on the other parts of the Alliance and take over.) Of course, the rest of the Alliance has not learned this lesson. If the Alliance were to truly win, then Islam would most likely end up the winner since Islam has numbers on its side.

What this means is that the future will like Iran under the Islamic Republic if the Alliance is victorius. Many Iranian-Americans like to say about the Islamic Republic, "they promised us Heaven, but delivered Hell." It's the same for the rest of the Alliance. They promise Heaven, but will deliver Hell if they win.

Men do what needs to be done

2009-06-13T22:31:00.005-04:00

Men do all of the work that needs to be done. When there's a dirty, dangerous, or otherwise disgusting job that needs doing women are nowhere to be found. Glenn Sacks brings us the latest example, sulfur mining in Indonesia. Take a look at this photo:

It's a photo of men engaging in sulfur mining on the edge of a volcanic lake. Potential hazards include eating away at fingers and teeth and wheezing and burning eyes due the fumes. These men have to haul 165 pound loads for 800 meters (about half a mile) up a 50 degree incline. However, this is work that needs to be done so men do it.

In contrast, we have women in climate controlled offices complaining that they are "working too hard". Women have no idea what real work is.

In a similar example I was thinking about how women my age for the most part don't know how to cook. They consider it some sort of imposition of sexism probably. On the other hand, every man I know (under 55 or so) knows how to cook. In many cases we can cook very well. With cooking we have example of work that needs to be done (since we need to eat and most of us can't afford constantly going to restaurants) but since (younger) women refuse to do it, men have taken it over. This would have been unheard of a few decades ago. No one would have thought it would have happened because cooking is "women's' work". Men didn't care about that. We men saw a job that wasn't being done and needed doing so we just started doing it.

I get asked plenty about why a man would use artificial wombs to have kids. I have already gone through several reasons, but another is how women are falling down on the job raising kids. Throwing fathers out is the biggest example, but there are many ways in which women are falling down on this job. Once artificial wombs become a reality how long will it be before men just start having kids without women because after all like with cooking women are falling down on the job.

This also brings up the question again, what will men want with women at that point. Many men are already convinced that women bring nothing to a relationship or marriage. With artificial wombs (and sex bots) its really going to look like women add nothing to men's lives.

The Alliance Part 2: Feminism, the KKK, and the BNP

2009-06-12T23:11:00.005-04:00

Please read Part 1 of the Alliance series.

Groups like the Klu Klux Klan and political parties like the British National Party are referred to as "right wing" groups and parties. This is not the case. In fact, they fit in well with the Alliance.

Recently, there was a shooting at the Holocaust Museum in DC. JihadWatch has documented some facts about the shooting and related issues which are relevant.

From the second link:

1. The shooting at the Holocaust Museum yesterday demonstrates yet again that, contrary to the imaginings of libelbloggers, real white supremacist neo-Nazis are not pro-Israel, but rather hate Jews (as well as Christianity).

2. The Aryan Nations has stated: "Islam is our ally, and the 1500 cults all claiming to be 'Christian' are our opposition." (It's important to remember that real Neo-Nazis and the like are not Christian nor do they claim to be Christian. They are Pagan revivalists.)

3. White supremacist David Duke has traveled to Syria to express his support for the jihad against Israel. (Another fact about David Duke: Several years ago David Duke tried running for office as a Republican. He failed. Before that he tried running as a Democrat twice. He did better as a Democrat.)

The reasons why these facts are important is that the politics of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc. is SOCIALIST but with racism. Even the term Nazi tell us this since it is short for National SOCIALISM. For all intents are purposes anti-semitism now is all leftist.

In Europe the situation is similar. Much has been made about the "right wing" victory in the recent European elections. While real right wing parties such as the UK Independence Party won seats, many of the victorius parties were not right wing, they were simply racist socialists such as the British National Party and various anti-Gypsy Eastern European socialists. To use the example of the BNP, as they put it, "We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens." The BNP has also said that they would make the British NHS a "first world wonder". In other words its clear from this and their other policy positions which you can read about that they are socialists. I even once heard the BNP described as Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright for white British people. It's an apt comparison. (And to show more similarities Wright claims that Jews won't let him speak to Obama.)

What does this have to do with feminism? For that I am going to go to Whiskey who wrote on the Belmont Club (both blogs I highly recommend) here:

I’m not convinced that the Left is out of the mainstream. Certainly it’s policies of mass immigration, destruction of the middle class, heavy government spending, find a lot of supporters.

At least in the short term, certain groups win. A lot. From the Left. Chief among them, women. Who benefit from social spending, which both props up single motherhood (no messy personal choices) AND female employment (most government social workers and education workers and health workers are women). Indeed the desire for preferences makes female workers advantaged and outside competition with White Male peers....

The long run DOES happen, however, and it seems that the long-run costs have come due: personal safety a crisis point even for women in fashionable areas, lack of ability to pay for increased female-centric government employment, Muslim political figures threatening the spoils politics by taking more than their “fair share” of the goodies.

I believe Leftism in the West was built on nothing more complicated than gender based spoils politics, in explicit alliances against the out of the native White male (who lacked family connections). Leftism going out of favor is nothing more complicated than previously junior partners (mostly the Muslims) taking most of the pie away from White Women.

White women retain their innate hostility towards native White men, AND the system (free market capitalism) that rewards high risk preferences (among White men). No one in Europe who is White and Female is likely to have a strong appetite for free market risk, since the winners will be mostly White Men, not White Women.

The BNP and parties LIKE IT that combine socialist risk-leveling, AND Nationalism (benefiting White Women) seem poised to pick up the most votes in long-term trends.

IF Leftist internationalism is failing, it’s failing because it’s core, White Women, are getting shafted in the spoils divisions.

While I would like to see some hard numbers documenting these ideas, it does explain the rise of the BNP and other faux-right political parties and how its connects to feminism. One of the problems with the Alliance is that the weaker links such as the feminism-Islam link are subject to stress. In the end everyone in the Alliance is in the Alliance because its their only way to power, but as soon as they really get it or think one of the other parts will, they will stab the other members in the back. (I will go into this in more detail in Part 3: The Iranian Revolution Model.)

Connections between the faux-right and feminism also exist as far behavior is concerned. On Dr. Helen's blog if you scroll down to the end of the comments on this story, there's a guy, "Pablo" who claimed to see one of his female employees crying and punched out some customer that supposedly caused her to cry. While this "Pablo" is most likely a troll and the story, fake, (after all there would be criminal charges and law suits against "Pablo" if this story really happened), there are hotheads who would do such a thing so it has happened many times somewhere. How is this different than when the KKK would beat up or murder a black guy if a white woman said that he even just looked at her funny? It isn't. If you think about it, it reads nearly exactly the same.

What we have seen here is that racist socialism is not really opposed to feminism at all.

The Alliance Part 1: What is the Alliance?

2009-06-09T22:29:00.013-04:00

Feminism is allied with various other movements. As we know feminism is marxist by nature and will naturally ally itself with socialism/communism and (dark green) environmentalism. This is well known. On the other side, it would seem logical to most people that feminism would be against Islam, yet this is not the case. Ask a feminist about the treatment of women in Islamic countries, you will get some BS answer about how its a different culture or its the result of racism. Any person with a brain can tell you that such ideas are BS. The question is why aren't feminism and Islam at war with each other. In fact Islam and feminism are allied with each other. Not only that but feminism and Islam are allied with several other anti-freedom and anti-civilization movements.

I will be writing several posts about this subject over time detailing various aspects of what I call "The Alliance". This first post will be an introduction. I know many of you will have questions about this so feel free to reply or email them to me. Chances are most of your questions will be answered in subsequent parts in this series.

With that, what is the Alliance? The Alliance is made up of several types of groups which I will list here:

Feminism (pink) - NOW, various women's groups

Islam (black) - Al Queda, Hizballah, Hamas, Council on American Islamic Relations, etc.

Dark Green Environmentalists (green) - ELF/ALF groups

Socialists/Communists (red) - various socialist and communists political parties, so called "anti-fascist" groups

Fascists and "right wing" racists (brown) - KKK, BNP, Jean Marie Le Pen, Neo-Nazis (note: I put right wing in quotes because groups like the KKK and the British National Party aren't really right wing, but are called that)

I gave a color to each group since its commonplace to hear about the red-green alliance (the alliance between socialism/communism and environmentalism). Essentially, the Alliance is the red-green-black-brown-pink alliance.

I know some of you reading this will think I'm crazy. After all the KKK and feminists don't really seem to get along after all. Yes, its true that the brown-pink parts of the Alliance would be far away from each other if a drawing of the links of these groups was done. However, I will be addressing that in a subsequent part in this series. A short answer for now is that the link between them is Islam.

After 9/11 I read several articles about increasing interaction between Islamic terrorists, the KKK and similar groups and ELF/ALF groups. The links between the ALF/ELF groups are more about convenience than anything else. When it comes to the KKK and Islamic terrorists they aren't that much different. Billy Roper, a leader among American white supremacists said the day after 9/11, "Anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to kill Jews is alright by me... The enemy of our enemy is, for now at least, our friend." In Europe there are similar alliances between white racists and Islamic terrorists. The common denominator is anti-semitism as you can see here:

Other links in the alliance are self evident such as the link between feminists, socialists/communists, and environmentalists are self evident. The fact that there are such schools of thought as eco-feminism are a testament to this.

However, its the link between feminism and Islam that is the most interesting. It is the glue that holds the entire alliance together. This link is based on multiculturalism and simple convenience (they have the same enemies, namely straight Western men). Regardless of the reason we know its real. This is why feminists protested the American invasion of Afghanistan despite the fact that it would and did improve the status of women in Afghanistan. This is why homosexuals protest for Palestinian statehood despite the fact that if any of these homosexuals were in Palestine or any other Islamic country they would be executed on the spot.

The link between feminism and Islam goes deeper. I have asked the question in the past, "What is the difference between burkas and sexual harassment suits?" On its face its an absurd question, but not if you think about it. What is the net effect of sexual harassment laws, policies, and suits? To make men avert their eyes and not look at women (or at least the men a particular woman doesn't find attractive). What does the burka do? It prevents men from looking at women. They are almost the same!

Why are any of these groups allied at all? It's because they have some sort of problem with current technological civilization. Jihadists hate technology because it undermines their ability to keep other Muslims in line and because they want to keep their 7th century world intact. (Dark green) Environmentalists hate technology because they worship the environment. Socialists and communists hate technology because its empowers individuals and thus its too libertarian for them. Fascists hate technology for a similar reason. Feminists hate technology because it (for the most part) empowers men. After all this is why feminists refer to Newton's Principia Mathematica as a rape manual.

This is why this blog exists. It's because technology will continue to liberate men now and in the future. Things like sex bots and artificial wombs may seem like fantasies now, but so would DNA testing 50 years ago.

In subsequent posts in this series I will write about specific topics relating to the Alliance such as how strong the links in the Alliance are, various examples of the alliance in action, and the Alliance's coming total defeat.

Anti-aging Technology

2009-06-06T22:41:00.003-04:00

When myself and many other men are told we should get married or even just find a girlfriend, we rightfully demand a good reason. Many men have either decided women aren't worth the trouble of dealing with potential of everything from false rape charges to corrupt family courts or have been ignored by women and eventually come to the conclusion that they are better off. Usually, we get some sort of dangerous misinterpretation of the Bible or some type of shaming language. However, some people will try to come up with something resembling an actual reason. Personally, the only thing that anyone has been able to come up with, "What happens when you are old?" Essentially what they are referring to is being stuck in a nursing home with no family whatsoever while being frail due to old age. Really, what they're talking about is having kids more than finding a wife or a girlfriend, but since we don't have artifical wombs yet a woman has to be involved somewhere.

The problem is that there are men who will be swayed by this reasoning. The thought of being 85 with no family whatsoever (since many of us are only children now) stuck in a nursing home dealing with some sort of demetia is scary. This reasoning does have the obvious problems of whether your kids will want anything to do with you when they are adults and/or that you don't end up divorced in the process. In fact with a divorce you could end up in the worst of all possible situations of being alone when old but without the money you could have saved if you stayed single. Regardless, this is a mental logjam for many men. Once again, technology provides us the solution.

The solution is anti-aging technology. When I speak of anti-aging technology I'm not talking about snake oil or those stupid creams and make ups that claim to make you look younger. I'm talking about bioengineering technologies involving such technologies as genetic engineering and possibly nanotechnology to make your body younger than its chronological age. Imagine being 80, but having the body of a 25 year old or being 280 with the body of a 25 year old.

Anti-aging technology is now being worked on very seriously. Most of the current work is centered around Dr. Aubrey De Grey, a biomedical gerontologist based in Cambridge (England) who came up with an idea he called SENS, Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence which is associated with the Methuselah Foundation, a foundation for funding anti-aging research. (Note: I am not associated with either the SENS Foundation or the Methuselah Foundation). Dr. De Grey believes that he has found all of the causes of aging and that through research ways of reversing the damage resulting from those causes. Time will tell if SENS will produce the first generation of anti-aging technology. It may or may not, but it has been realized that anti-aging technology can be produced and that we aren't that far away from making it real.

Direct Neural Interfaces

2009-05-30T21:20:00.004-04:00

When technology is discussed in terms of how it will free men, the two technologies that come up the most are sex bots and artificial wombs. This is to be expected as so many of the problems women cause men to have are tied up in dating, relationships, and having kids (i.e. divorce and corrupt family courts). However, women cause problems to men outside of these areas.

Take schools for instance. They are run by women and feminist men. Their employees are mainly women. It's no surprise that natural boy behavior is called ADD (attention deficit disorder), ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), or Asperger's syndrome by female teachers who refuse to understand boys. If you talk to parents of boys in your community, you will hear plenty of stories of female teachers who will claim that their son has one of these diseases and will refuse to teach them unless they are medicated.

Before anyone gets on me about claiming ADD, ADHD, and Asperger's syndrome aren't real, I'm not claiming that. They are real, but over diagnosed. Lazy female teachers are motivated to medicate your sons rather than become a better educator. In the case of Asperger's syndrome, most people don't fully comprehend how its a continuum disorder. It's not like being pregnant which a woman is or isn't. Asperger's is in the middle of a continuum between what is known as being neurotypical on one end and full blown autism on the other. As a result its possible to be a little bit Aspergers or autistic and not notice any real problems. As a result of how nebulous this can be, a female teacher can claim a boy is Aspergers, but the only real problem is that he isn't interested in American Idol.

The source of this problem is public schools. When most people think of education, they think of something along the lines of kids receiving the knowledge of previous generations in such subjects as history, math, English, and science. This is not the case. While some knowledge is taught, the fact is public schools are nothing but vehicles for propaganda. This has been true since the beginning of public schools. Horace Mann who is responsible for the creation of modern public education in America had two goals, create obedient factory workers (since Americans were independent thinkers at the time) and make Catholic immigrant's kids Protestants. In other words Horace Mann was not interested educating anyone, but propaganda. Now, public schools are controlled by other interests which include feminists (hence why public schools are hostile to boys) and other leftist interests.

Private schools may or may not be any better. Schools the use the Sudbury Model are most likely very good. However, even schools such as Catholic schools where you would expect to find no feminism whatsoever have plenty of feminism in them. I went to Catholic schools and while its clear that I received a superior education to a public school (which isn't that much of an accomplishment), its was still run by feminists. The teachers went to all of the same education colleges as public school teachers. They were still primarily female and did not understand boys. Ironically, some of the worst feminists were nuns.

If you have a boy, and you want to make sure he receives a true education, you probably have to homeschool. Detractors of homeschooling will claim that your kid won't receive "social skills". However what are "social skills" really? Mindless conformity, getting their lunch money stolen, being bombarded with feminist propaganda, and if the teacher is really lazy being drugged. If you're worried about your homeschooled kid not getting "social skills" you can steal their lunch money and give them placebos instead of real drugs.

As great homeschooling is, it has its limits. Technology will provide us a solution to these problems, namely the direct neural interface. What is a direct neural interface? It's a interface directly between a computer and the brain. If you have seen the Matrix, what they were using were direct neural interfaces (although I doubt it will work like that). What direct neural interfaces will allow is accelerated learning since knowledge can be directly downloaded into the brain. No longer will teachers be needed who may be motivated to instill propaganda rather than educate. Since education will be so direct, anyone will be able to learn whatever subject they wish. For men this will mean complete freedom from feminist schools and colleges.

Sex bots and artifical wombs

2009-05-26T20:15:00.004-04:00

The two most important technologies for male liberation that haven't been invented yet are sex bots and artifical wombs.

Sex bots are robots that are designed to look like women (or men) for the purposes of sex. The benefit for men is obvious. How much time do men spend thinking about sex, trying to get sex (and failing most of the time if they aren't an "alpha"), etc.? If you're not an "alpha", then you are a man who has gone through a lot of humiliation to get sex and/or relationships. A sex bot is an easy way to relive this need.

Artifical wombs are only relevant if you have a desire for kids. Many men do. Combined with genetic engineering, cloning, and other technologies, artifical wombs allow men to have children without women.

The real power of sex bots and artifical wombs is when they both exist. If only sex bots exist then a man who wants kids will still have to get involved with a woman. If only artifical wombs exist men who want sex will still have to go to women. The real benefit to men will happen when both of these technologies exist.

I know someone will bring up the issue of cost. All technologies get cheaper over time. Also, think about how much a divorce, false abuse charges, and child support for a child that isn't yours cost.

Or think about it in these terms, if the Duke Lacrosse 3 had sex bots they wouldn't have ordered a stripper and never been put through the hell they experienced.

About this blog

2009-05-25T18:09:00.003-04:00

I started this blog because I haven't seen any men's' rights/pro-male blogs that were discussing the importance of technology for liberating men and rolling back feminism. This blog will discuss men's' rights issues & men's' issues in general, but will emphasize how technology will help the struggle against feminism.