Category Archives: Psychology

by | November 21, 2017 · 12:01 AM

PUA/Game: Life Is a Shit Test

You’ve seen one woman, you’ve seen them all. AWALT. No doubt that world over. Surely it’s in the chromosomes somewhere. Of course they are not all alike in all ways and many differ greatly, but if you have known enough females in life, you keep seeing the same patterns over and over. So in some ways, they are all the same. But so are us men.

Females make us insane, but I don’t think God screwed up when he made them.

Females are like a test. Think of them like high school, the SAT, getting through college, getting a Masters Degree, landing a good job, scoring some tough achievement in life.  That’s what a good woman is like. She’s a tough nut to crack, but it’s not supposed to be easy. You want universities to have hardass standards for advanced degrees, right? Well then you should want hot women to have hardass standards for us men. They pick the best and weed out the rest, just like with all the other examinations/degrees/shit tests/competitive clusterfucks in life. Life’s an odd’s game. Some win, some lose. Even in socialism or Communism, you never get rid of the competition. No matter how much you even everything else out, women will still winnow out the best men. There is no sexual socialism and there will never be any.

So life is an IQ test, but it is many other things too.

First, foremost, and forever:

Life is a shit test.

Once you get that, you’re redpilled for life no matter your economics or politics or anything.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Philosophy, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman

by | November 20, 2017 · 5:57 PM

PUA/Game: The Honeybees

I saw her a year later with some of her teenage girlfriends at carnival and I had to admit she was nice enough. We both sort of smoked a peace pipe. I went over to her booth and bought something from her. She was 17 years old, sitting at a desk with two of her friends at the carnival.  She saw me long before I saw her. Those eyes like daggers, but soft, more inquisitorial and penetrating than menacing. The love had still not faded. Perhaps it never would. I was 21, at the carnival with my friend MJ.

I went over She must have told her friends, “Hey I fucked that hot guy,” because as I left I saw three teenage girls heads all buzzing together making those honeybee sounds they do when they talk about boys, men and sex. I call them the honeybees. Bzzz bzzz bzzz. By the way, when you move on a girl and you see her and her friends to the honeybee maneuver, take note of that. Those heads buzzing together are saying, “Who was that hot guy?” If you dated a female and you see her later and her friends start doing the honeybee maneuver, take note of that too.

Those heads buzzing together are saying, “You messed with that hot guy?  What happened? Was he any good? Tell us all the gruesome details. And if the girl you interacted with looks proud even if you just dumped her ass, take note of that too. She’s saying, “Yeah he’s hot as Hell and we had a hot sexual time, but he’s as bastard and an asshole.” Maybe. She’s also sort of bragging about you. You tell if you look at her face. It has that proud look on it, see?

I have mostly seen the honeybees in girls and young women aged 17-20, but I assume you can see them at all ages, assuming the Woman hasn’t completely killed of the Girl yet.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Girls, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Women

by | November 20, 2017 · 5:48 PM

PUA/Game: Freud’s Eternal Question: The Hamster Wheel, Strong Emotionality, Female Self-Delusion – Self-Annihilation Drive, and Feminism

If you start to figure out females, pat yourself on the back. You’re better than 75% of both men and women in that regard. Even Freud could not figure out these endlessly baffling, complex and mystifying creatures.

What does a woman want?

– Sigmund Freud, father of modern psychology.

And yes, the fact that females don’t even understand females is seriously pathetic. Misogynists take note. Here’s one more weapon for your arsenal!

But it’s probably not as bad. Most people are not as evil as their enemies say they are, and the MGTOW’s and redpillers overestimate their opponent, a natural human tendency. Remember the Missile Gap? Remember the SALT Talks? North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela are current cases. It must be a natural human tendency:

  • Always grotesquely exaggerate the danger and evil of your opponent.

So the charge like so many misogynist beefs is probably false. Actually women probably really do understand women, if they have any sense anyway. No wait. Well, anyways. Moving right along.

Women probably understand women as they understand so many things, but women spend most of their lives blinding themselves to cruel reality because it doesn’t line up with their fairy tale dream of what life is. These self-delusions that women are constantly spinning as, frankly, a defense mechanism, are what is known as the hamster wheels.

So women are not really stupid. More that they are in general self-deluded. The delusions or hamster wheels were created typically by emotions, and women are extremely emotional. So the wild emotions are like your pet rat on the wheel. They’re the fuel that powers the hamstering.

The strong emotions created the delusions (as a defense mechanism) because the truth about life is so awful that many women find it horrific, and they just can’t handle it. Really none of us can handle life (men mostly just fake it), but men are much more like to say, “If life gives you a shit sandwich, eat it whole!” Women shrink back remarks like that, being the Tender Sex. And with their natural tendency towards depression and even annihilation, worldviews like that rapidly tumble them into depression that often becomes suicidal. Almost all women will become suicidal at some point in their lives. Suicidality is nearly a feature of the feminine. I have had enough girlfriends to where I almost wonder if it as an actual drive towards self-annihilation.

On the other hand, we males are born with a drive to annihilate others, so maybe the born suiciders level out the born homiciders and somehow harmony is created.

The takeaway point here is that all the female hamstering and self-delusion is a defense mechanism, probably against depression and suicide. One can hardly fault women for creating defense mechanisms against such things, and there’s an excellent argument that such defenses are necessary.

So they make up the fake reality and call it real. In general, most women cannot tease apart the fake reality from the real reality in all cases, but the best women can tease it apart in 80-90% of cases. These are the women you want in your lives. The more wild hamstering and self-bullshitting with no capacity for reflection at all, and the more problems you are going to have with that women, in my opinion. You will have problems with her if you choose to live in actual reality while she chooses her hamster world.

That’s a recipe for endless fights and outrages. She probably also thinks you are a scum or you’re evil. Women look at men who see life as it is and say, “Wow! Look at how that man thinks! He’s scum! He’s so evil!” This is because in our world people who do not buy the pretty lies about life (usually created by women) are regarded as evil. This is because in the reality of the Hamstering World, the way it is set up is that anyone who refuses to see the reality of Hamster World is simply evil. Hamster World is a nice place full of lots of pretty little lies. Anyone who refuses the reality of this beautiful world in favor of a worldview which is much more evil (even if it is grounded in reality) is seen as having an evil worldview.

People with evil worldviews are bad people. Assholes, bastards, pigs, wankers, creeps. We’ve all been called them all. Being called those names is the price you pay for being a man who sees the world as it is really is – a shitty, lousy, down and dirty rat race dog eat dog jungle full of dangerous apex predators of both sexes. Notice I said of both sexes. This is important. Women call us predators, but all humans are predators. More importantly, all men are predators due to their male imperative. However there is also a female imperative that makes women just as predatory as men. Both sexes are preying on each other. Our prey is our needs. This goes for both sexes. Dog eat dog, and eat or be eaten. I choose to eat, thank you very much.

We see Hamster World in women’s politics first and foremost, such as feminism. Feminism is simply the worldview of women, which is largely constructed of self-delusions created to make the world seem like it is the world women want to live in instead of being the pretty damn lousy world that women really do live in. This is why feminism is so nuts and irrational. It’s also why it is as devious and conspiratorial as the Protocols. Feminism is a philosophy with a based on massive self delusions about how the world works, so it literally cannot be rational, and the psychological drives pushing the Hamstering logic make it crafty, conniving, devious, deeply unfair, and somewhat wicked.

2 Comments

Filed under Depression, Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Mood Disorders, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

by | November 20, 2017 · 5:19 PM

There’s a Little Bit of Woman in Every Girl

And vice versa.

I get called pedophile all the time for saying this, but it’s just true. If stating facts makes me a pedophile, I guess I must be a pedophile then. Shrug. Really it’s not pedophilia. It just means you understand females pretty well. Notice I said females. Because when you say women, you miss part of the equation.

There’s a little bit of woman in every girl. And there’s a little bit of girl in every woman that’s still alive. The ones that killed their Girl are technically alive, but they’re as good as dead.

Until you can see the woman in the girl and the girl in the woman, you will never really understand females. The fact that so many women fly into wild outrages when I say this proves something that I have been saying for years now: Even women don’t understand women!

4 Comments

Filed under Girls, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Psychology, Women

by | November 20, 2017 · 5:17 PM

A Hypothesis for the “Unifying Theory”

After I spent five decades or so on Earth, I started to notice a curious thing. Humans, life, nature, maybe everything, seems to strive towards balance. You get +2 on one side of the divide, and what to you do, some other process pops up to counter it with just about -2 on the other side of the divide. The greater the extremes, the  more radical measures are implemented to keep them in place. You get +200 on one side of the divide and at first, life is confused. It tries different ways to counteract it, -2, -25, -50, but none of this really works. Somehow life or the mind figures out that the only way to counteract a +200 is with a -200.

+2 + -2 = 0

+200 + -200 = 0

I kept seeing this over and over and it made me wonder.  What’s so great  about zero. We non-mathematicians in Late Capitalism regard zero with disdain. Why would anyone try for that. At worst it’s awful and at best it’s just middling to mediocre. You ever see someone jumping up and down yelling, “I’m a zero!” Of course not. So why the constant drive towards zero? I am thinking maybe the zero is an illusion. It’s not really zero. Maybe it’s stasis or harmony or peace and end to oppositions or something of that nature. The opposing forces have canceled each other out,  and now we can kick back and enjoy, or deal, or whatever.

This “strive towards balance” which I still do not understand, seems to be the goal of most human psychological mechanisms and interactions with other humans.  We’re all trying for the zero, the sweet spot. Not too much and not too little. Just right. Call it harmony. This drive in humans is so strong and seems to be so strongly reflected in actual natural processes themselves (the balance of nature) that one wonders if there is any universal drive or theory driving at least all living things: it is simply the drive for some sort of harmony or balance.

And this interminable and unstoppable and seemingly rooted in the universe incessant and insistent drive for harmony or balance may itself be the closest thing to what to the Holy Grail of the Physicists:

The Unifying Theory

I would add that this physicists’ holy grail, the  “unifying theory” is also what drives all religion, philosophy, and art. I once characterized the goals of all human scholarly and artistic endeavors in all of the sciences, social and physical and all of the arts, as:

The Search for the Perfect Relationship 

And I am thinking just now that the Search for the Perfect Relationship and the Unifying  Theory have some relationship to each other. Either they are the same thing or the one is the search for the other, or the quest is the goal and vice versa. A lot more thinking to do on that one.

Over and out. Over and over and out.

9 Comments

Filed under Philosophy, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Science

by | November 20, 2017 · 4:38 PM

Game/PUA: Brains – IQ – Creativity – Artistry – Genius or the “Brains Coefficient” As an “Additive Factor” in Game

Sure, life is an IQ test. Linda Gottfredson has proved this many times. She even has some papers on this topic. It’s a well validated scientific hypothesis and passes the common sense smell test once you throw the PC room freshener out the window.

Yes, life is an IQ test, but IQ won’t get you laid.

Well, wait, it might. My IQ actually gets me laid or at least nowadays it does, and it has for some time now, but maybe only since I was ~40. It really picked up in my late 40’s. Older women actually get turned on by smart guys, assuming they have some other things going for them (see below).

I don’t want to credit IQ too much. In a nod to the social constructionist IQ haters, maybe it is “the brain that I have created via decades of hard work via the use of this IQ tool” that gets me laid. I’m also creative, and women love to fuck artists. And the best writers are artists, especially if you write in a literary, poetic or “beautiful” way. If she falls in love with your prose, she’s yours, for now anyway. She may acquire your bed and maybe even a ring later on.

  1. Romantic love makes women horny.
  2. Artists make women feel romantic.
  3. Feeling romantic causes love.
  4. Cycle back to step one.

You do the math. It’s not hard. A 5th grader could figure out a basic equation like that.

Actually I would say that while my brain does get me laid, it does so late in life. It did not so much earlier in life. Sure I was smart as Hell earlier in life, but I spent most of my life imitating a stoned out, half retarded surfer as that was what got you chicks on the beach. As a young man, I spent a lot of time pretending I was stupid. I remember a sibling even criticized me for that. I shrugged my shoulders. I was trying to get laid. I wasn’t trying to win the Nobel Prize. Priorities, men, priorities!

As you get older, you run into smart women (and even girls) who actually want to fuck your brain. She will be fucking your body of course like everyone does, but she’s really fucking your brain. I have actually had women tell me this. As in more than one. They actually said, “I want to fuck your brain.” And they didn’t even know each other. Maybe there’s something to Jung after all.

She may confuse your brain with your body if your Game is good enough. I have run into this lately and it is a form of false signaling where a hot brain is serving as a “falses marker” for a hot body, but like all spells and forms of magic, that can’t last. I’d give it 6 weeks – 3 months. I have been running into this lately with young women.

My brain + probably my Game somehow casts a spell on them to where they confuse a sexy brain with a sexy body. Alas, I no longer look sexy. I am being attacked by an advanced artillery weapon called Time. I swear it’s better than Saddam’s Supergun. The last few years they’re not even shooting shells anymore. They feel more like Scud missiles. Over the next couple of decades, I assume I will start getting hit by even more advanced weaponry, even tactical nukes. They shoot the damn nukes at you for ten years, and then it’s nuclear winter, and you drop. And they have the audacity to call that shit “golden years”! Golden years my ass!

I may still have some good looks. Women my age say I look fantastic. I have 45 years of Game under my belt, so that’s got to count for something. And lately I have been either acquiring or faking some minor fame and status. Power is a cruel joke. Money is an afterthought. But you don’t need them anyway. You don’t need all four factors below and Factors 1-4 tend to bleed together anyway in endless circling arguments and cycles like vines of ivy. At some point, it’s hard to tease them apart or even say what’s what. I would call all of 1-4 something like “Macro Status Factor.” Face it, all 1-4 bleeds into this beast called Status.

I would say that yes, brains can get you laid if they are combined with Looks and Game. Brains then would be an “additive factor.” And it would help if your brains tended more towards the creative side as opposed to some dry number cruncher because artistic genius makes women’s bellies tingle. Also the Brains would probably have to be combined with Looks + Game both. Either one alone won’t cut it. Looks + Brains doesn’t seem like it will cut it. Game + Brains doesn’t seem like it will do much good either. But I could be wrong. YMMV.

So Brains/Artistic Talent/Creative Genius alone? Not really.

But Brains/Artistic Talent/Creative Genius as additive factor? I would say so.

We know full well that you need:

  1. Money
  2. Fame
  3. Power
  4. Status
  5. Looks
  6. Game

to get women.

Barring the first four, you absolutely you need 5 and 6. Either 5 or 6 alone don’t really cut it. And if you obviously have only 5 and 6, any scrapings of 1-4 you can get are great. You can even fake it.

Additive factor(s):

  1. “Brains factor”

Into this brains factor goes the whole mess called IQ, your “created mind”, artistry, creativity, genius.

And speaking of things marrying into each other, this Brains Factor, if cultivated well enough, can indeed form a part of your Game in a sense.

3 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Intelligence, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Writing

by | November 20, 2017 · 4:07 PM

PUA/Game: Fake, Transitory or “Synthetic” Alphas and Game Theory

There are a lot of guys around LA faking fame and status on Instagram right now. I don’t know what they do. Ride skateboards, play in bands, rap, who knows. But for money, they don’t do shit. None of them have a nickel. They just pretend they do. They have made a brand for themselves, but it’s fake. It’s like the emperor’s new clothes. There’s really nothing there. The brand is all illusion, farce, charade, even fraud in a sense. They are getting women like crazy. It’s all a big scam.

They aren’t really Alphas. Instead they are like creatures in the animal world who mock some marking for evolutionary benefit. The critter looks like poison or a branch or whatever. There are many snakes that have evolved to look very much like rattlesnakes. Sort of like wannabe gangbangers, these serpentine critters look just dangerous enough to keep a lot of predators at bay.

These guys on Instagram are doing something similar.

Imagine if animals had “Alpha” markings that attracted females. Maybe only 20% of the species really have the “Alpha” trait. But 50% of the species developed the “Alpha” markings. 40% of them are the real Alphas and the rest are Beta critters who put on Alpha wings to fake the females into mating with a fake Alpha.

Now I am not saying these Instagram guys are fake Alphas. They’re just guys running another form of Game at the end of the day. But their Game is not sustainable, so this makes me  doubt that they are natural Alphas. Once that fake fame fountain dries up, and it will, they will be left holding the bag.

There are Natural or Pure Alphas. And I am convinced that many more are the more “synthetic” varieties. Not that the difference matters a lot. At the end of the day, it’s how well you do that counts, not how you did it. You can’t compromise success.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships

by | November 16, 2017 · 5:25 PM

Opinion: The Alt Left Should Be Neither Feminist Nor for Men’s Rights. It Should Be for Good Relationships between the Sexes

Great piece by Ryan England. Personally, I feel things are far, far, far too gone for this and this sort of pacifism is just not going to work. England is calling for unilateral disarmament on the part of the men and then sending us unarmed men in to negotiate with savage, ISIS-like terrorists (the feminists). That’s not going to work. It’s like bringing a knife to a gunfight. It would be great if this would be enough but I am afraid that things are far too gone for that now and the only thing left is the more extreme measures. Hey, the feminists started it. They started shooting at us men. You want a war, baby? Bring it on!

Beyond Feminist vs. MRA

OPINION: THE ALT-LEFT SHOULD BE NEITHER FEMINIST NOR FOR MEN’S RIGHTS. IT SHOULD BE FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SEXES.

It’s a familiar story for anyone who’s been online for any length of time. A discussion starts over a gender or feminism-related topic.  There’ve been plenty of these lately since the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal broke in Hollywood and the metoo hashtag campaign, so there’s no shortage of examples to choose from. There’s nothing unique about these conversations, however. They’ve been taking place on social media since Facebook and Twitter first launched and were commonplace on bulletin boards long before anyone knew what a comments section was. The basic conversation hasn’t changed much in the decades since Al Gore invented the internet. A typical conversation will go something like this.

Feminist: Men rape and harass women. That’s why men suck and women should reject them.

MRA: But not all men. But not me. That should give me an advantage in the mating game with women, should it not?

Feminist: But only men. Plus patriarchy, power, privilege, rape culture, etc. Not so fast, buster!  You’re part of the segment of the population that does the most rape and who benefits from rape and are therefore not so innocent as you’d like to believe. And therefore suck no less and are no less deserving of rejection.

MRA: But what about false accusations? What about women who sexually assault men? This nullifies the advantage you claimed in your previous statement. Therefore, women should more readily accept and sleep with us. I mean me!

It’s never long before a conversation like this breaks down, and school yard level copypasta insults break out. “Boo hoo! Eh poor menz!” “Enjoy your cats!” So on and so on. It’ll inevitably come down to one or both sides being ugly, living in their parent’s basements, and being unable to get laid. This is due to the fact that the surface conversation is never nearly as important as the subtext that continually underlies conflicts over gender theory and its real world implications.

The unstated but nonetheless omnipresent axioms that are revealed when any kind of deconstructive analysis is applied to such discussions are that male power is expressed through sexual conquest of the female, and that female power is expressed through sexual rejection of the male. All else is ancillary. Which is largely why pro and anti feminists talk past one another and at one another far, far more than with one another. The legitimate issues raised by either side fall by the wayside because they’re obviously being weaponized to one or the other of those two ultimate effects.

The real purpose for bringing up rape, harassment, divorce, child support, or any other issue, at least in online discussion, is to lower the value of one gender relative to the other for the ultimate purpose of making sex either easier (in favor of men) or harder (in favor of women) to attain.

There’s just one problem with this paradigm, however. It doesn’t work. It’s not making anyone happy. It’s based in a glaringly flawed assessment of human nature and is much more rooted in ego than in reason or human empathy. Men were not rejected into sympathizing with women’s concerns. They go their own way instead, doubtlessly with the intent of bringing those pesky, uppity women to heel. No dice: women are angrier now than ever. Who’d have guessed? The result is that heterosexual activity has been driven into a kind of moral black market wherein most people actually do it at some point or another but also have to conceal it, rationalize it, or engage in it under some kind of false pretenses much of the time to avoid social censure. No wonder bad behavior abounds.

It’s time to smarten up, people. Get out of the grade school mentality. Let’s at least try and hit puberty, okay internet? Human nature is not especially complicated. We tend to simmer down when we feel that our concerns are being heard and taken somewhat seriously, even if disagreed with in some ways. The natural response of people when faced with a lecturing, condescending tone is to get defensive, not to open one’s heart or mind. This is true however legitimate the surface grievance actually is or is not. Which isn’t to say you accept bullshit uncontested. Rather, let your assessment of what’s bullshit and what isn’t depend on honest appraisal, which you can’t get without listening and understanding.

Whatever your claim to victimhood past or present, however poorly you were treated as a child or in your past relationships, other people, even the opposite sex, will not accept your shitty and abusive behavior. Not indefinitely at any rate. However much you feel entitled to it. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is something we feel instinctively if not intellectually. It stops mattering who started it or who inflicted or suffered the greater suffering after a point. Neither women nor men will accept the other’s claim to morally superior status based on previous victimhood and grievance even if real.

It is easy to say that we should set our fragile egos aside and listen seriously to the other side when they lay out their grievances and issues. This is true. But when the other side does not expect this of themselves, even the most legitimate gripe becomes tainted by the ultimately self-serving purpose to which it is put. The kinds of behavior displayed by feminists and MRAs alike in most internet discussions between the two would be emotionally abusive were they done in real life, and increasingly these kinds of relationship dynamics are spilling out of cyberspace and into the real world. It is no wonder that growing numbers of people, especially the young, are eschewing relationships with the opposite sex all together and claiming to be happier doing so.

And that’s fine for some individuals. If you’re happier going it alone, and I think some people are naturally disposed this way, have at it.

But that’ll be a disaster for society as a whole. Fewer lasting successful marriages and long term relationships (LTR’s) are poised to cause all kinds of problems down the road. Demographic and economic dependency ratios are bound to get worse, and socially destabilizing levels of mass immigration will need to be employed to compensate for falling birth rates. Frustrated romantic and sexual drives will find expression in other usually more antisocial ways from mounting political or religious extremism to mental health problems and increased cynicism.

Even many, though not all, of those who claim to be happier being single are not so much once you scratch the surface. A certain regret often though not always presents itself. And why not? Humans were not hardwired to live alone and not pass on their genes to future generations. A society losing its capacity for love and empathy is not one we should aspire to be a part of.

So here’s a proposal. The Alt-Left should be neither feminist nor MRA. Not exclusively. We should be instead for healthy and good relationship dynamics, be they platonic, romantic, or erotic. We should listen to the concerns of both sides and sort the valid and legitimate grievances from the entitled whining and vapid boasting. It should not be a concern of the Alt-Left which of the two has the more legitimate grievances and is therefore more deserving. Ten years and God knows how many flame wars into the social media age later, we should know by now that ideological partisanship and competitive victimhood isn’t actually helping anybody. It’s driving a spiral of mutual frustration that is causing increased polarization and extremism.

Even if one gender really does have it worse than the other by a wide margin, our approach should be one of mutual listening and empathy, not one of grievance and vengeance. This is not to say that we can’t prioritize some issues over others or that wrongdoers can’t be called out and exposed to such sanction and censure as their actions warrant. But it should never be an ego stroking exercise. Even if you’ve had it worse or your sex or gender has been on the receiving end of injustice, the world doesn’t owe you anything, whatever you may think. Success, be it alone or in partnership, derives from responsibility, not entitlement.

So if you’re single or attached, male or female, here are some things you can do vis-a-vis the opposite sex to improve the situation. And in case you are wondering, this is over twenty years of relationship success (I’ve been with my present wife since 1995) and a decade of every mistake imaginable leading up to it, talking. There’s much I learned the hard way:

  • Listen. Nothing is more effective at defusing anger.
  • Do not stereotype the opposite sex unironically or for non-comedic purposes.
  • Stop with the vain, stupid games. Crushing some young man or woman’s confidence in him/herself won’t bring down the patriarchy or gynocentrism, and it doesn’t make you strong or independent. It makes you an asshole, be you male or female.
  • Do not participate in discussions that tend to descend into pissing contests of competitive victimhood, and clearly state this. Ask instead, “What do you want?”  That’s a powerful question that can very effectively shut down entitled whiners with weaponized grievances.
  • You are owed nothing. Approach all relationships with the opposite sex or with anyone with that in mind. This is not to say that you should tolerate shit and abuse. Don’t. But don’t expect to be put on a pedestal either.
  • Do not have as an expectation for an ideal partner a trait you do not have or can not match. Half of our problems stem from 6’s thinking they’re actually good matches for 10’s, so to speak. Do not expect a prince if you’re not a princess or vice versa. And assess yourself honestly to save a lot of trouble.
  • Live a good life outside of a relationship context. This signifies that you will not be dead weight but instead a net asset in other people’s lives. No one wants a needy dependent.
  • Trust must come before any kind of relationship intimacy, be it physical or emotional. Always. Take it upon yourself to earn rather than demand trust. Decide at what point your efforts are in vain and when to move on.
  • Do not expect from a relationship partner anything that you can do for yourself.  Relationship success thrives best when free of contrived obligations and expectations. Otherwise resentments creep in and do damage.
  • Do not be afraid to point out the elements and their underlying axioms (see above for examples) in gendered discussions but do so only if the person you’re discussing things with becomes obstinate, obtuse, or clearly hostile. The underlying pettiness and stupidity become readily apparent when brought to light.
  • Likewise, if need be, remind people that two wrongs don’t make a right. Plus, no man was ever rejected, nagged, scolded or castrated into liking and respecting women. No woman was ever convinced by rational argument or else likewise rejected, scolded or shamed into liking men. People don’t work that way. Don’t hesitate to point this out.
  • Make your disdain for passive-aggressiveness clear, if need be.
  • If people insist on dominating conversations with socially destabilizing displays of rudeness, sarcasm or hostility, do not be afraid to call them out on it and exclude them from further social activities. If you moderate or administer an online or social media space, you have a special responsibility here. Trolls thrive on the emotionally destabilizing effect that their refusal to be decent and reasonable people has. Do not tolerate it, and ban them at once.
  • Admit that the opposite sex doesn’t always have it easy.  Try to replace resentment with walking in the other man or woman’s shoes, as the case may be. This isn’t to say it’s equally bad on both sides, all the time. Occasionally people will need to be told to stop whining.
  • Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to clumsiness or ignorance without evidence. This is especially true with flirtation, flattery, or the like.

And above all …

  • Get the f**k off the Internet every once and awhile. Yeah, I know. It’s hard. But there are numerous dynamics that contribute to the Internet being a relatively uncivil place where your faith in humanity can easily go to die. Meet people in the real world from time to time. They’re usually (though not always) not what they appear to be when seen as just a social media profile.

So that in mind, get out there and see the world, dear reader!

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Left, Man World, Masculinism, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

by | November 14, 2017 · 12:18 AM

Alt Left: “Why I am Not an MRA”

I continue to say that Ryan England is one of our finest Alt Left thinkers. I say that in part because I agree with him so much. I would put him up there with Brandon Adamson, who I also agree with a lot. And both Brandon and Ryan are two of the finest writers, as in prose stylists, in our movement.

I have reputation for being so radical and nuts that I am almost persona non grata in this movement. I know that posts linking to me have been removed from the Alternative Left that Ryan started. Apparently I am “raciss” or something. It takes almost nothing to get called that anymore. Just be a bit honest, and you’re done. I also have a reputation, via Lord Keynes, for being an extremist on the Cultural Left.

It is said that I have some extreme positions on the SJW Left. He is also rather astonished at how socially conservative I am. But I am not a social conservative at all. My views are Democratic Party’s Official Platform 1995. That these views are now seen as just as socially conservative as Roy Moore is quite astonishing, but it shows just how fast the runaway clown car train called the Cultural Left Freakshow has gone in just ~20 years. And indeed I am not just a conservative. I am also a reactionary. I want to roll back the clock – to Democratic Party 1995. That this is considered Troglodytism is one again a symptom of the disease.

Part of the controversy was that I supported Antifa. That makes you almost persona non grata on the Alt Left. It was said that I had moved to the extreme Left. That’s hardly possible as I have always been there. I was on the mailing list for the Weathermen for Chrissakes. After that, I was buying guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. And I haven’t budged since.

The funny thing is that despite my supposed extremism, I find myself agreeing with Ryan England (who is actually himself quite a radical Left type on the Alt Left) a very good part of the time. This post could have been written by me, but I am not eloquent or disciplined enough to have done so, so Ryan had to do it. If you want to know where I stand on the issue of feminism, etc. (I am supposedly an MRA radical) just read this post. I am as MRA as Ryan is. That our mild views are now MRA shows just again just how insane the “normal” has gotten now. Yep, you read that right. Crazy is the new normal. Sane is new bigotry and reaction.

Not going to say much more about this except that I hope it spurs some comments. Like Ryan, I am also a feminist. I came out of the feminist movement back when it meant something. Once again the crazy train left me stranded at the station holding flowers and jilted once again. I still support liberal feminism, sex positive feminism (though if Jezebel is the definition, I have my worries) and equity feminism. I think Ryan might want to identify as a masculinist or Men’s Liberationist. These are the left wings of the MRA movement to the extent that they exist at all. One can be both a masculinist and a feminist and the demands of basic equality nearly mandate it.

I have scarcely seen an article that lays out the poison of modern feminism so eloquently and accurately. Once again, his words are mine. My principal beef with feminism is outlined here by my alter ego, Ryan.

Read and enjoy.

Why I am not an MRA

By Ryan England

Feminism 101

Doesn’t it want to make you swoon?

 

I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but I don’t care much for the men’s rights movement. I do think they make good points – I’ve read Warren Farrell for example and found his work quite profound. In fact, it really takes a wrecking ball to this idea that men have conspired to make the world a wonderful place at the expense of women. You can’t reasonably believe that after reading Farrell’s works.

Why I don’t really relate to the MRM is rooted in my overarching distrust of identity politics. I do think that there’s all kinds of room to criticize the excesses of feminism, and some points made by the MRM are valuable in that regard.  Decades of ideological protectionism has produced a very real feminist echo chamber with next to no external checks on its claims.  The MRM can by helpful in remedying that.  The MRM also brings our attention to real issues that men are confronted with.  Glaring disadvantage (to varying degrees depending on jurisdiction) in divorce settlements and child custody arrangements being the most obvious example.

The feminist demonization of male heterosexuality; this presumption underlying much of feminist theory that male sexual attraction towards women is somehow demeaning and objectifying of women is something else that needs to be challenged and the present taboo against disagreeing with feminism desperately needs to be broken here.  The MRM can help in that regard.  The equation of compliments and polite civil greetings on part of men towards women with harassment, objectification or even oppression, commonly seen on social media, is a manifestation of this.  If taken at all seriously, especially in any kind of public policy context, this kind of thinking could effectively close the door on prospects for male-female encounters of all but the most institutional kind.

The ever expanding definition of rape, and the ever narrowing definitions of consent, and the increasingly onerous requirements for obtaining legal consent – an express verbal “yes” given for every touch, kiss or caress, and even that be nullified if there’s any alcohol or mental illness or any factor that could in the slightest call into question the strict legal capacity to give consent, constitute another manifestation of this.  The end game here, I suspect, is to make legal intercourse, for all intents and purposes, impossible for men.

Although most feminists profess to disagree in principle with the notion that all things “boy meets girl” are inherently sexist or oppressive – and may even trot out their own relationship as proof of this, the restrictions imposed on gender dynamics by these kinds of very popular demands made by very widely circulated and credible media outlets that represent the mainstream of liberal opinion on gender issues, would make establishing even platonic, let along erotic relationships extremely difficult.

That many feminists choose to make exceptions to their own rules for themselves and the men they get the D from should not be taken as proof of feminism’s flexibility and open mindedness.  It should be taken as proof of moral hypocrisy on part of the feminists so doing, and a tacit admission on their part that their system of sexual morality and conduct is no more reasonable and in alignment with human nature than that of the religious conservatives they so smugly see themselves as superior to.

Compound that with inundation of  feminist perspectives casting heterosexual relationships in so consistently negative a light; as being about nothing other than unequal distribution of domestic labor, unequal pay, riven with male insecurity and unreasonable male behaviors contrasted to the relief women are expected to seek and experience in all-female spaces, as characterized by universally poor male sexual performance and an expectation of female preference for marital celibacy, dildos, lesbianism, asexuality, promiscuity, anything other than relational intimacy – all hermetically sealed by a propensity to yell “fragile male ego” at any dissention from any of the above on part of men – as if this kind of petty weaponized rejection is something we should just sit back and relish, and feminist gender dynamics become a mortal threat to healthy heterosexual relationships, even if it turns out to be death by a thousand cuts rather than a swift beheading.

A strong MRM could be a countervailing force for reason and love in gender relations.  On the other hand, groups like MGTOW could just up the ante and make things worse rather than better.  Don’t get me wrong: you, dear reader, be you male or female, have every right as far as I’m concerned to live your life as you see fit, and if that involves not having a significant other of the opposite sex, good luck to you.  I once wanted an unattached life myself.  May you succeed where I failed.

But to advocate widespread rejection of the opposite sex, as feminism often implicitly and, in the case of separatist feminism, explicitly does, and MGTOW likewise does, is to advocate for the infliction of protracted neurosis and frustration culminating in a demographic holocaust upon whichever population is to embrace this as a form of gender based political activism.  It would inflict incalculable and irreparable damage on the psychological fabric of such a society.

But even a less strident form of male activism than MGTOW could end up becoming a gender flipped version of the worst aspects of feminism.  I’ve noticed that in every debate I’ve ever read between feminists and MRAs – though flame war is a better description in just about ever case, since debate implies a reasoned exchange of views and that’s most definitely not what happens – the exchange always boils down to each side saying to the other, “you’re just ugly and can’t get laid” – with cats and mother’s basements figuring in there somehow. Inevitably, one side resigns in frustration over the strident unreasonableness of the other, and both remain more convinced than ever that the opposite sex is hopelessly screwed up.  There’s not much of a future in this.

Taken to their logical conclusions, demands upon heterosexual relationships would end up more closely resembling shari’a law than they would anything previous generations of liberal feminists struggled and fought for.

Wait a minute …

Of course,  feminism – in its more reasonable forms, is still needed to protect and safeguard the rights of women. Life is certainly not all wine and roses for all women at all times, and men are not blameless. This is especially true in communities where, for religious reasons, women still very much are second class citizens.

This is what I find both astounding and disturbing about What looks like an alliance of feminists and Islamists, particularly in opposition to the Trump presidency.  While I don’t condone the more boorish things Trump has said about women, you can’t compare the danger posed to women by macho locker room bluster with the danger posed to women by shari’a law.  Given the dour attitudes that both feminists and Islamists appear to have towards free and fun expression of happiness and attraction between the sexes, however, I can see the kinship the two might have with one another, though from where I sit, it promises to be a stormy relationship.

What I worry about regarding the MRM, though, is its own potential to become a kind of rank gender partisanship. That “Male good female bad” thinking could, and does, easily arise from it.

Because that, in its own way, is exactly what happened to feminism. What began as being “just about equality” or just about “the same treatment of women as for men” has become a blinding and fanatical form of gender partisanship. Motivated by dogmatic adherence to feminism, whole cohorts of young women (and their male sympathizers) have circled the wagons and harnessed collective groupthink to hermetically seal themselves away from any kind of criticism or dissent.

Driven by a sense of universal and historical mission, these women regard themselves as quite entitled to ceaselessly make unilateral demands of men with no countervailing concessions, tar all men with collective responsibility and guilt by association for the very real crimes and misdeeds of some men, and to effectively kill any prospect for intimacy and trust between the sexes by making militant confrontation the permanent and universal norm for gender relations. Backed by unilateral academic and media support and an arsenal of canned responses and copy pasta with which to respond to naysayers, the impact that this has had on gender dynamics is nothing short of devastating.

As an antidote to this, we need to step back from identity politics. We don’t need a male version of the same thing. Given what we should now know about ideological and identitarian polarization, feminism and the MRM will most likely feed off one another and each further radicalize in response to the other. This is certainly what I’ve seen in every single exchange between MRMs and feminists that I’ve ever seen. If that process becomes normalized, it could well mean the death of heterosexual love in its entirety. The prospect of this worries me greatly. I really hope people of both (yes, both) genders can learn to take a step back from their attachments to gender ideology and start reasoning honestly about these kinds of issues.

13 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Islam, Law, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

by | November 12, 2017 · 7:23 AM

Corey Haim: Poor, Abused Straight Boy or Debauched, Gay “Hungry Bottom” from the Day One?

 

Hood: ROBERT

Sir

Was Haim an innocent victim or a debauched “bottom” by the time he was in his teens?

“Haim wanted to fool around again and Sheen acted cold and disinterested” I quote the cast member.

“Years later in his twenties Haim slept with Sheen again and then decided he was a loser” same actor.

Additionally, some deny this allegation. Haim’s mother and so on.

That is the downside of being Sheen. If somebody accuses you of sodomizing their toy poodle, people assume that you are guilty.

Most allegations concerning Sheen seem to be factual. For what it’s worth, there have long been reports that a lot of men in Hollywood play for both teams.

 

Geez. At age 13, Haim was already seeking out grown men for gay sex.

Pardon me, but that is not normal behavior. Normal, healthy straight boys do not seek out and try to seduce grown men for sex. Generally speaking, most boys doing that are already gay as the Ace of Spades. Now, it doesn’t necessarily make him gay either. But…years later, in his 20’s, Haim fucks Sheen again?! Huh? Ok, look, there is more going on here than some teenage sexual confusion, which as a counselor I have seen some evidence for.

Corey Haim appears to be gay. This is not some straight boy who got raped by evil, depraved homosexual men. This kid was gay from the get go.

And he was a bottom? Well, straight men and straight-leaning bisexual men do have anal sex, and some do like to be on the receiving end, but generally speaking, most straight men and even straight-leaning bi men do not engage in anal sex, as anal sex is seen as extremely faggot-type sex ,and those men do not like being seen in that light. As a matter of fact, many such men will only play the male role in gay sex as that is not seen as “not gay.” Straight men regardless of their sexual behavior have a reputation to uphold.

The more a man is into being a bottom in gay sex, the “gayer” is he is. It’s a marker for the degree and intensity of homosexuality going on in that individual. Your typical “hungry bottom” type is also a full-fledged queen, as this behavior is also associated with effeminacy. The more one engages in this behavior, in general the more effeminate they are. In fact, there are gay men who argue that the very act of engaging in receptive gay sex is feminizing in and of itself, and presumably the more you do it, the more queeny you get. It is also said to make one very submissive, as it is one of the most submissive sex acts out there. So the more you do this, the gayer, more effeminate, and more submissive a man tends to be. It’s a marker for all of those behaviors.

The gayer, more effeminate and more submissive a man is, the more he is going to do this behavior in the first place, and perhaps gay critics of this kind of sex are correct that the behavior is feminizing and submissivizing in and of itself. It is also thought to make you more perverted, as gay critics of anal sex say the more a man bottoms, the more perverted and slutty he becomes. So the behavior is debasing and sluttifizing also.

The fact that this boy is seducing grown men at age 13 and later turns into what is apparently a “hungry bottom” shows me that he was not some messed-up straight boy abused by some evil Hollywood gay mafia. Now the Hollywood gay mafia is pretty damn nasty (and more and more is coming out about this extremely closely-guarded secret Hollywood secret society), but this boy was simply gay from the get go.

30 Comments

Filed under California, Celebrities, Cinema, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Regional, Sex, USA, West