Let us set aside outrage culture and look at the question of women with an even footing.
The Alt Right suffers from categorical thinking regarding people. When you think categorically, it means that you assume that all people in a group are roughly the same; this shows the origins of this thinking in egalitarianism, which is the fundamental idea of the Left and therefore best avoided.
Women are many things. First, they are a varied group. Second, they are people too, even if there are differences in abilities. Finally, they are individuals, and individuals make different choices.
We hear a lot these days about how most Western women are broken. In my experience, the problem here is “most,” which is probably not true, and the assumption that all women follow the behavior of this group. In reality, women are varied, with different castes behaving differently, and some individuals having more moral fiber — the ability to defy herd behavior when it is wrong — than others.
You may not find a perfect princess who is waiting for you in virginal splendor just because you are cool and finally got “woke” about a few key issues. More likely, you are going to find a real live human being who has some mistakes and some victories on her report card. She will have fears, baggage and blind spots, but she will also have convictions, strengths and some wisdom.
The most important thing to do is to meet this person. You will probably not meet her at an Alt Right web site. The best advice for young men is to go to places where women are. There sure are a lot of women at Whole Foods, Target and Costco. Many are at your local library, a nearby graduate school, or volunteering on the weekends. They are out there and can be found.
You are going to want to find someone from a similar background as yourself. This is not as simple as “huwhite,” but involves ethnicity — such as German-American — and caste as well. You want someone of roughly your level of intelligence, with a similar values system, and who has had the same essential experiences you have.
If you grew up in a trailer park, find a woman from another trailer park who has the same basic abilities and outlook that you do. If you grew up the son of a doctor or lawyer, then go find a woman like that. Do not worry about political outlook because most people have no idea what they are thinking in this area anyway.
She will have dents, nicks and scratches, just like you do. Probably some romantic failures as well. Avoid the real no-fly zones — one-night stands, hard drug use, sociopathic traits, race-mixing — and find a decent and normal girl. She will want you to have some source of income and prospects for being a recognized contributor to society in the future.
You will know the right person for you when you encounter her. It will just feel different. Before you get to the feeling part, however, you have to find her by using your brain. Look for someone like you who is genetically, socially and morally compatible. She does not need to perfect, but she needs to be attempting to do the right thing.
Are there a lot of white thots out there? Yes, but there always have been. European lords were disgusted by the sexual habits of their serfs, who often had multiple children by multiple men by the time their teens ended. Lower caste behaviors have never changed because they are regulated by low intelligence and moral fiber. These serf women live on in today’s cheesy white bar girls.
There are a lot of lonely white women out there who need white men to accept them as they are, push them to greater heights, and realize that these white men are not perfect themselves, and so they do not need perfection, only basic goodness. No one will emerge from morality unscathed and so we have to forgive each other our failings, find the good in each other, and rebuild this ruined world.
That will not happen if we are thinking in these broad and absolute categories and condemning each other for our mistakes while ignoring the greatness that lies sleeping within us. If you want to be a man of the West, get out there and find a Western woman and make her yours. Maybe it will not be like the movies or fairy tales, but it will be real, and at least you can stop caring about thots.
Where to draw the line on self-identification is an obvious question, and a fundamental one, Ms. Tuvel suggests in her paper. Think transracialism is tricky? It only gets more complicated from there. Her paper briefly considers other exotic forms of self-identification. How do progressives reckon with people who say they’re really “otherkins,” identifying as nonhuman animals? Are we morally required to accept “transabled” people, who are born physically normal but feel one of their limbs transgresses on their identity?
As with gender, Ms. Tuvel writes, “we need an account of race that does not collapse into a position according to which all forms of self-identification are socially recognized, such as one’s self-identification as a wolf.”
The Left insists that race is a golden ticket to permanent grievance politics; this advances the agenda of the Left, which is to break down organic civilization and replace it with artificial government, which defends the individual against the consequences of his actions by dissipating the damage as socialized cost.
The Right, in response, has claimed that noticing race at all is a form of “identity politics,” which is how mainstream conservatives slander identitarianism. The cost of their participation in democratic politics, which always lean Left, is that they deny any form of natural inequality and insist that we can all be made perfect through patriotism, religion and working hard.
In response to that rather silly gambit, the Left has doubled-down on race as Professor Tuvel did in her paper: they are insisting that it is, after all, biological and cannot be ignored. If the game is played as usual, the talking heads will be thankful for this misdirection and spend the next decade haranguing one another about it.
Reality as always hides behind the lies, partially overlapping each of them, which is what gives them believability to their audience. Identity is innate to each person much as sex, family, caste and natural abilities are. Those traits however are not equal, so egalitarians wage war against them in the most smug and passive manner possible.
Until the Right is pushed hard enough by the Alt Right, it will not publicly acknowledge that equality is a lie. Once we start saying that equality is a lie, as loudly and proudly as possible, the Left will be forced into a defensive position, and in so doing, will reveal further its actual agenda.
Control is a psychological state, a method of wielding power, and a philosophy. It can be used in any context and most commonly is intangible, meaning that you cannot point to a specific thing and say it is control. There is evidence of it like ripples on the surface indicating fish below or a healed wound hurting before the rain, but no one will ever lay hands on it.
You can recognize control because it manifests as a need to manipulate others directly for self-referential reasons. The person in control is not leading a group to accomplish an objective, but master of closed-circuit power, which means enforcing obedience upon a group by making them embark on actions whose only goal is the perpetuation of control.
A need to manage others directly and to have them do exactly what is told, as opposed to a decentralized or brachiated system of leadership, forms the basis of control. Instead of giving individuals a goal and having them collaborate toward it, control hijacks the goal and makes itself the goal like a parasitic organism would, and so each person must do exactly what it is told.
Without control, people set objectives and then work individually toward them with what they have, and are rewarded unequally for their differing abilities to achieve those objectives. When people panic at this state of inequality, they inexorably demand “equality” instead, or having everyone serve basically the same role. Control always arises from democracy, mob rule, cult behavior or gang mentalities.
People find control comforting: everyone is accepted so long as they do one thing, and they are accountable to control and not to reality, so they do not even need to be successful in their aims, only obedient. Everyone is accepted equally under control except those who defy orders, and those give the mob a reason to unite for a lynch mob witch hunt. Life as a herd is psychologically easier than struggling to survive.
Control requires an equal group doing the same things with any internal status variations being symbolic. With control, all that matters is the uniform obedience by method, not by goal. Everyone must think alike. This is how control maintains its power, and since its real goal is perpetuating itself, all other actions are pretexts.
For example, in a control state, war happens frequently not because the foreign objectives are important, but because wartime terrifies people and motivates them to contribute labor and obey authority. Some actions are made criminal so that anyone can be guilty at any time, causing people to turn on one another to get into the good graces of those in authority.
Most significantly, control regulates appearance. People must be able to look up from their tasks and see others obeying and none dissenting. They must witness, on a regular basis, the human sacrifice of those who failed to uphold the pretexts of control. This keeps them constantly incentivized to obey, and thinking that it is their own idea to do so. This makes them feel free while enslaved.
Control accelerates because it benefits from human failings. When people make small mistakes, they can be destroyed, which means they must either immediately beg for forgiveness in exchange for some other act, such as informing on others, or face oblivion. Control also uses human lusts, desires, emotional reactions, passivity and confusion against them by luring them onward with false promises and real threats.
For example, consider the use of sex in the Soviet Union as a control mechanism:
The official line is that promiscuity is bad, but exceptions are made for whatever advances control. This binds the individual to control both by granting a forbidden pleasure, and making it a shared secret that puts that person at the mercy of control, lest the rules be enforced against him.
Our society has — during its Leftist descent — encouraged open sexuality but also an increase in penalties for rape, as well as a loosening of standards for what is considered rape. It would not be surprising if this violent sexuality were encouraged among those in the inner circles, in whatever breadth of depravity can be summoned.
The democratization of sex — making it available to all on an individualistic basis, or demand-based economy — has led to unexpected consequences, namely that making something universal makes it worthless, and now people are pulling away. Notice the demystification of sexuality caused by sexual liberation:
The debate was ignited on Mumsnet after one poster revealed how she disagrees with the assumption that everyone wants sex, and she was by no means the only one.
Even those who have previously enjoyed an active and even satisfying sex life agreed that they were perfectly happy never to be intimate with a partner again.
She and others pointed out that believing everyone should want sex is akin to thinking everyone must like cake or cats, and there’s something wrong with anyone who doesn’t.
Now that sex is everywhere, it has low value, sort of like running water. We are learning that sexual liberation means sexual conformity, and because the herd is all doing the same thing, value flees to those who are outsiders and doing something else, like tying sex to family and existential purpose, which makes it more valuable where “liberation” makes it less valuable.
Like all things Leftist, sexual democratization renders worthless something one prized by destroying the best examples of it so that the other examples can feel “equal.” In other words, no one gets what is beautiful; beauty is destroyed so that the average can rule. This is what the fearful and tyrannical human ego does to any segment of experience.
For example, Americans are having less sex because sex is sort of like running water or wi-fi now, i.e. everywhere and without much significance, which cries out for it to be bonded to something larger and more transcendental than what modernity has reduced to a bodily function:
American adults are having less sex than they did a quarter century ago, with married people showing the most dramatic decline of all.
The paper, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, showed a drop across gender, race, region, education level, and work status. One factor is the higher percentage now of unpartnered people, who tend to have less sex than partnered ones. But a major driver is a steady fall in the rate of sexual activity for people who are married or living with partners, which reduces what had been known as the “marriage advantage.”
…At the same time, Americans overall became less coupled. In 1986, 66 percent of American adults were living with a partner; by 2014 only 59 percent were, according to GSS data. People who are not in couples, including those who have been married in the past, tend to have sex half as frequently as people who are, the study said.
In other words, sex has become a bargaining chip. People trade it for acceptance in a relationship, and once they are in one, there is no need for a further transaction. The liberation of sex has made everyone into slow-motion prostitutes. And as a result, sex has become a chore like any other job, something done in exchange for money or power and therefore, something undesirable.
This is the nature of all things under egalitarianism. Because society is re-oriented toward a minimum, everything which is not mediocre becomes a commodity, and as the herd chases after it, its value falls as it becomes democratized or spread around. In the end, nothing is worth anything, but each prole can claim they are a king… albeit in an entropic wasteland where nothing has value.
On the Right, the temptation is to realize that the all of the assumptions that form the basis of our current society are lies, and therefore to go the exact opposite direction.
This is a strategic error.
The opposite of what we have now is the same mental state with a different starting direction. Because it is the same mental state, whatever direction you take will lead to the same cycle, and opposite extremes will connect. That will re-create the same problems we have now, but also create the ultimate crypto-disaster scenario: we will think we have solved the problem, but in fact, will have made it more entrenched.
What this means is that we cannot avoid the crisis by attempting to be its opposite. We must find a different direction instead, and reach toward that instead of merely pushing away from what we know.
Nowhere is this dilemma clearer than in the Red Pill attitude toward women. Sure, you reject the modern view that women are special snowflakes who are entitled to be whores whenever is convenient, and who in a political sense serve as usual idiots obsessed with womanhood. Your average woman may be that; the smarter ones, obviously, resist it and many break free. But you need another view of women that is not entrenched in the modern illusion.
Arising from the Rightist view that most human behaviors are deterministic, and the introspective without experience nature of the solitary male, the tendency of Red Pilled males — especially those from STEM backgrounds — is to treat women like some kind of alien life form, or even a mysterious machine. Press the right buttons, and you are in control, and can direct the machine as you see fit.
Explain the roles of a man in a marriage, and tell me some of the things you would do in order to help your man to achieve those roles. What groups would oppose your husband from fulfilling those roles, and what have you done in your life to prepare yourself to help your husband in his roles? What are some of the most important things that a man needs from a woman, and what specific things should a wife do to provide them?
SAMPLE ANSWER: Men are supposed to be protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders. In order to help men to be protectors, women have to give them time to study to discern truth from lie, and support their ability to be physically strong, and to own firearms. It is also a good idea for women to have a positive view of good men who use force to restrain evil, as with the American military. Women should support the use of force against radical Islam and terrorists, as well. In order to help men to be providers, women have to advocate for fiscal conservatism in the public square. That would mean advocating for lower taxes, less government spending and smaller government. It would also mean being frugal in the home and helping the man to move ahead at work. If the children are up and out of the house, it could mean going back to work or starting a business to help make ends meet – or monitoring investments. For a man to be a moral and spiritual leader, a woman has to be supporting of him making moral judgments in the home, disciplining the children, holding her accountable for moral errors, and for making exclusive truth claims when it comes to spiritual things. She should not censor him when he gets into debates about spiritual things, even if other people who disagree feel bad – so long as he is not being a jerk. Her goal is not to be popular or liked, but to support her husband in his roles. The most important thing a man needs is respect, and that means treating him as important and significant, being grateful for his contributions, soliciting his opinion on things, being mindful of his male nature, which is more visual and sexual.
These are sample answers he wants from any wife candidate to show that she is oriented in the right direction. It is both test and contract, not just killing the romance, but introducing a misery and tedium that should kill the relationship quickly.
His plan treats women as some kind of coin-operated machine. Put in your coin, select the right button, and take her home like you would any other product. This is not only unrealistic, but entirely contrary to the nature of traditional attitudes toward family. However, it is exactly the type of thinking that one can expect from STEM people who have not reached beyond their comfort zones.
The West understood romantic love once, and you can see it in classics like Pride and Prejudice, but this notion has been washed away under the onslaught of prole notions of sex=love and commercial ideas of how to sell people on perpetual childhood so they can be perfect domesticated product-buyers, fundamentally miserable and thus always in need.
But the scary fact is that people are individuals, and romantic love was not about sexual attraction, but finding someone comparable to oneself with whom one could spend a lifetime. The romantics bonded their ideals intensely to death in order to achieve this time scale, and the vision of love they found was about what everyone hopes for: someone to grow old with and never feel out of place. This is compatible with genetic determinism because people are looking at inner traits of others, which starts with general race, ethnic, caste, class and social compatibility on a genetic level.
In this way, romantic love was utterly opposed to the idea of universalism, or that all people were essentially the same. Instead, it sought the union of individuals matched in ability, inclination and aesthetics. This formed the basis for a lifelong friendship and partnership which could result in family and have that family be content because the parents just made sense together.
STEM-addicts/MRAs and others are caught in the utilitarian idea that all people are the same, and this perverts the ancient knowledge of biological determinism. Under the egalitarian ideal, people are basically the same and can be manipulated by the same incentives and punishments. Under the romantic ideal, in contrast, it is the exceptional and unique nature of people that allows two to match up as a couple and then a family. Biological determinism supports the latter — unique traits — over the former, which emphasizes uniform traits in denial of nature and reality.
In reality, what we can observe matches the romantic notion more than the STEM mechanistic one. People differ widely. Some match up because they are similar in position in the hierarchy of humanity, and matched by temperament. This creates a solid basis for lifetime interaction that brings about the most pleasurable result of all possibilities, including remaining single or a less committed marriage.
This cannot be forced with the industrial-style, control-based and mechanistic view of women that sees them as objects to be manipulated. Relationships and marriage are partnerships based on the moral choices of individuals and their aptitudes, not forcing people into manipulative frameworks which treat them as little more than robots.
Traditional roles exist for a reason, and if we become separated from that reason, we are nothing more than repeaters of the methods of the past without understanding the purpose. Every household needs a leader, or each decision will become a debate, so we choose the person optimized for leadership style decisions, which is the male. Balancing that, women provide a counterpoint: an understanding of detail, depth and sensation that allows for the configuration of a happy home. The two balance one another, and the leadership role of the male does not entail the loss of autonomy and authority by the female. To act otherwise is to defile the traditional institution of marriage, and replace it with a thoroughly modern notion of control.
Under control, each person is seen as a means to an end, and this is fulfilled by having the all use exactly the same methods to agitate for an ideological purpose. Even reality becomes a means to an end under this mentality, which filters what is compatible with the ideology and rejects the rest of the data. Control makes people into idiots, but it is required for egalitarianism to exist as has been creeping into the West for the past thousand years.
In addition, with these extreme doctrinaire STEM-Christian types of thinker, we see that religion serves as a proxy for culture/race:
My purpose in marrying is to make the marriage promote the things that God likes, and oppose the things that God doesn’t like.
In my case that means:
impacting the university with apologetics and conservatism
impacting the church with apologetics and conservatism
impacting the public square to promote policies that enable Christian living
producing as many effective, influential children as I can afford to raise
In particular, with this writer, we can see that his adherence to Christianity is in part an attempt to staunch the blatant cultural confusion:
My mother is a Muslim-raised agnostic. My father is a Catholic-raised agnostic. Half of my father’s family is mostly Hindu, and some Catholic. My mother’s family is mostly Muslim and some atheist.
Christianity is a part of the singular healthy civilization design for the West, but it is not the whole of it, nor the core of it. The core of it is a desire to do good and be excellent, to aspire to more than our domesticated livestock lives of jobs, credit cards and shopping. We need to want to be great again. If we do that, we will have Christianity, as part of our sensible society but not attempting to lead it, because we need kings to do that and history shows us it will be disastrous if we let priests compete with kings for power. What that means is that Christian fanaticism is not “the” answer even if it is part of the answer.
Unfortunately, modern people are inculcated in the mentality of a one-size-fits-all solution that can be implemented immediately by either overwhelming force (government) or mass conformity (control). The STEM mentality plays into this because STEM fields specialize in knowing how to do things without ever knowing how to assess the goal and why it is important.
When this mentality is applied to women, it produces a robotic pre-emptive knee-jerk view that guarantees misery. Most of these guys will end up with fetal alcohol syndrome wives or other complacent, somewhat stupid women; this is why the great White Nationalist dream is either to run off to Eastern Europe or Asia for a bride. It is not that they believe these places are better, as they loudly say, but that they want a little robot to apply their robotic thinking to so that they do not need to interrupt their own solipsistic, narcissistic or egotistic narrative.
In this way, they are identical to Leftists.
As with most things in life, the question of relationships is nuanced. Here are a few very general thoughts:
Find someone like you. People are happiest with other people who are like them in terms of not only race and ethnic group, but caste/class and general outlook (extravert/intravert, right/left, outdoor/indoor and others). Not only is communication much easier, but you are headed in the same direction morally and existentially, which means there is less to negotiate over. You want someone from roughly the same background, ability level and moral outlook. This part is genetic determinism: the woman who is most like you will be the one you appreciate the most. This does not mean she will not challenge you.
Roles are not properties. Men and women serve complementary roles; the contemporary church (idiots all) interpret this as equal roles because in the modern time, you never get in trouble for saying that equality is the principle of everything since the dawn of time. However, it actually means entirely different and unequal roles that balance one another, such that each sex has a domain of its own. This principle exists for efficiency: when quick action must be taken, the person in charge of that domain just does it, instead of being boring modern bovines who like to stand around “discussing” every issue until boredom and failure set in. You do not “own” each other or have absolute “rights.” Instead, you are working together by surrendering your identity to the family, and beyond that, God and the nation.
Love is not linear. When you love someone, you may be mad at them but you will never hate them. You are not there to force them to do anything, but to nurture them so that they may rise to their greatest possible heights. It does not resemble a lab experiment nor a right. Instead, you must cooperate, this requires each person to understand the goal and principles and work toward them in their own way. These contributions will not be the same, or necessarily comprehensible to one another. That is fine too.
If you are not finding women, change your life. “All the good girls are gone!” they say, throwing up their hands. This is self-pity and it will ruin your life. Go somewhere else, and think about what women like to do, not what you do. Be prepared to treat this as a long-term project, meaning that you do a little bit every day. Volunteer at your church, go back to school, work at an animal shelter, take cooking classes, spend time jogging or just walking in public parks, and — most importantly — explore the people your people knew back when you were kids. You will find the most likely candidates in people with backgrounds like yours, from neighborhoods like yours, whose genetics are similar to those of their parents, who probably befriended yours because they are similar.
Get rid of the disposable mentality. You will meet many women. You will court a few who are special. Among those, if you stop courting them, it will be for a solid reason: you found something no-fly zone about them, or they did about you. This means fundamental incompatibility, not inconvenience. Knowing the difference between those two is vital. When you find someone compatible, be aware that there will be rough edges. She may have a semi-unfortunate sexual history, have a kid from a failed marriage, or have once been a Democrat. If she has figured her way out of the pitfall, then she is still worth pursuing and not disposable. This means you accept some bad with the good so long as the bad does not overwhelm the good. If you go looking for a Hollywood vision, you will find nothing, because Hollywood has always been illusion in every area.
Humans suffer from one essential evil, and that is self-centeredness. We do what is mentally convenient and ignore what we have an obligation to notice. This, unlike Hollywood evil — where the evil intends to be evil — is the source of all of our downfalls, and is manifested in behaviors like solipsism, individualism, egotism and narcissism. Treating other people like machines, or as categories instead of individuals, is one manifestation of this behavior.
Again, we cannot defeat modernity by attempting its opposite. We can however have a different goal, and if that is tradition and health, we will naturally curve away from the insane behaviors of modernity and find ourselves in a new place. But with women, as with many other areas, this requires a nuanced, detailed and balanced look instead of a robotic STEM-tard rigidity.
Generally, documentaries are best avoided because they tend to be emotionally manipulative, swing left and wax boring. Beyond Clueless avoids most of that with an in-depth look at the duality of teenage life: public versus private personae, and sexual release versus awareness of the adultness that sex brings into life, perhaps too early.
Narrated by Fairuza Balk (The Craft) the documentary samples from dozens of teen films from the 1980s through the present day, tackling five sub-topics which overlapping generally distill to the two ideas mentioned above. Balk gives a convincing voice-over that is periodically excruciating, but more frequently profound. When it is over-written it ends in disaster but for the most part it stays functional and avoids this.
Where this film excels is in de-mystifying the teenage movie as a means of de-mystifying the teenage experience, and by showing so many Hollywood films in sequence, it reveals the emptiness of the Hollywood vision, which is centered around sex as EnlightenmentTM, and the destructiveness of the teenage tendency to fix on high school as a permanent rather than transient experience, and to expect social role — including sexual power — to substitute for self-development. This occurs through accidental or deliberate juxtaposition of multiple scenes revealing the emptiness of the thinking behind them, and explorations which leave out more than they say, then hit the viewer with so many repeated and similar visions as to reduce the symbol of that visual to a clich&eacuate; in contrast to its presentation as profound, stimulating and important. Beyond Clueless reduces teenage rituals like sex, proms, defiance and clique-jumping to rote animal behaviors. This in turn deprograms viewers by debunking the cinematic mystique.
Balk provides an excellent job of narrating with natural enunciation and a lack of over-acting, which makes her rise above the normal documentary standard of over-emphasizing emotion and making the experience miserable as a result. While Beyond Clueless may not be as exciting as some films, it seems much improved over the horrific dreck that is passed off as coming-of-age movies and from which, unfortunately, many teenagers get their expectations for their own behavior and moral choices. Without being preachy, this documentary reveals the emptiness of the illusion and implies the importance of finding a center within to resist peer pressure, social competition and other nonsense that merely serves to scar these kids on their way into adulthood.
Every society possesses taboos. Healthy societies ban destructive things; dying societies ban dissent. In the distributed totalitarian system of modernity, citizens enforce rules on one another through ostracism and name-calling. In response to this, a community of “trolls” sprung up to bait people with forbidden knowledge and draw them into contradiction when they cannot confront the implications of this knowledge.
To explore this fascinating phenomenon which uses un-popular right wing and realist thought to torment the oblivious among other methods, we interview an internet troll. Identified only as “Iconoclast,” he has trolled the internet for over a decade with a palette of provocations including rightist views of race, sex and society. The language might be a bit rough but you can see why trolls attack — and the reason to their madness — with this interview with an internet troll:
What is the purpose of trolling?
Trolling doesn’t have a singular purpose; rather, it is a set of methods to create spectacle. Take in point the various types of trolling: concern trolling, fake personas, bullshit press releases, devil’s advocacy, social engineering, and etc. Not all of these will be done for the same purposes.
As for spectacle, a (good) troll finds a target to attack, absorbs its mentality, and determines the best way to undermine the opposition’s position. One of my former trolls — and one of my more entertaining ones — was pretending to be the culmination of stereotypes that white supremacists hold for Jews. With that one I was able to troll the entire planet, having both neo-nazis and far-left commies enraged. The goal, of course, was to provide humor while making both those groups look like the asses they are.
Another set of trolls I did was to create fake press releases under the guise of a conservative christian group exposing pedophilia on wikipedia. This troll was pretty interesting because a lot of the content in it was excellent investigative journalism, combined with some smear attempts against ideologically driven abusive wikipedia admins. The motive for this one was to attack wikipedia for its anti-elitist stances, bureaucratic bullshit, and autistic, ideology-driven editing.
I suppose, to summarize, trolling is basically cloak-and-dagger black propaganda in a world where people are incapable of intellectual argument, and if they are, they’re too ideologically stubborn to even accept any arguments whatsoever, blindly attacking thru nitpicking and bullshit. Intelligence is low: we live in a world where the formerly named “The Learning Channel” now broadcasts the Kardashians and Hoarders. I think that concept says something profound, in a very ‘tarded way. This world is not reason-driven, I am not going to reason with the average idiot.
What sort of topics do you introduce with trolls?
Race, sexual perversions, and leftism are my favorite targets. Everybody is so absolutely sensitive about race — I’d say many people are actually self-hating nowadays, regardless of race — it’s a pleasant topic to shove in peoples’ faces like a dog that pissed on the carpet. We live in a world where kids are introduced to pictures of people from, say, India, and are asked if he is black or white while not given the actual, real choice, and when kids of course get it wrong they use it as a “gotcha, race doesn’t exist!!” plate of bullshit. That said, I find the whole race topic to be overblown by both sides… it’s important, but it’s not worthy of being the zenith of political discussion. No, racial-separatist nationalism is not the answer, nor is cultural marxism. If you took the top 10% of people (nebulous defintion of what is “top,” but let’s just keep it that way) and put them on another planet, I really doubt racial issues would arise much if people were sufficiently intelligent and moral.
Sexual perversions are quite funny, and if you look closely a lot of leftists are very big into it as well. Of course, this stuff all ties together in a Gordian knot. Leftists like to use people’s sexual problems as some sort of political statement, of course to excuse weird, deviant behavior as some weird way of attacking majoritarian people, and for having their own failings be swept under the rug. A bit rany, I know, I once had a hilarious troll on collarme.com where I pretended to be a neo-nazi chick who wanted to enslave blacks and Jews. Oh man, the messages I got on that were beyond wild; I had one Rastafari guy google-stalk me a year later, paranoid as fuck, even though I had no interest in revealing personal info because I’m not a loser like failed troll Jason Fortuny.
That ties into another point: the troll also learns more about the bizarre side of human nature. When you can stretch absurdity as far as possible, and be able to intereact with others in that mode, you learn a lot about what people really are like. It’s quite disturbing and takes away one’s hope in humanity or belief in the viability of human dignity.
When did you become a troll, and why?
Hm. This reaches waaaaaay back to the limits of my memory. I think it involved getting falsely blamed for someone else crapflooding or trolling a “Find Luigi in Mario 64” forum when I wasn’t even yet a teenager. I think that let to jihad on my part against them, and me and my brother were just better than them at it. Really hard to remember details. Not terribly important, training wheels for a troll, though.
More than that, though, was posting on gamefaqs.com and finding out I just didn’t really respect the average poster there (I’ve come around to not really respecting the average person in general. I’ve matured quite a bit since then). I became a somewhat legendary troll, social engineer, and pest on that site to the point where the site admin, CJayC, called up my ISP once and I was briefly taken offline.
I’ve always found the witty trolls of forums to be more interesting people, being less involved in social posturing and more on merit. When people “win” internet arguments by using big words and trying to seem intelligent, you realize that debating is pointless and verbal insurgency is far more effective. The trolls, I’ve noticed, never needed that posturing.
Who are the most famous trolls and what is their claim to fame?
Good question. Does this mean internet trolling, or in more general, a gadfly of sorts? I’ll take the latter as it’s a better question to answer.
Diogenes of Sinope was quite a good one. Telling Alexander the Great he couldn’t distuinguish the bones of his ancestors with those of slaves was extremely ballsy, if the story was true, though I really doubt it is.
Marquis de Sade I’ve always felt was more of a troll than a pervert (though he was still that).
Of course, Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” is probably one of the more brilliant pre-internet trolls, as well. All the marks of good trolling: false persona, absurdity, horrific satirizing of society’s attitudes.
As for internet trolls:
Sigvatr is one of the best trolls I’ve seen. Totally wild, great sense of humor, pissed enough people where he can’t legally enter Germany. Apparently he spawned a child and left the internet, but electricretard.com was great as was the competitive spree shooter site. His dedication to trolling was so intense he took pictures of him eating his own cum to shock the somethingawful.com boards. That’s only a summary off the top of my head. A+ troll.
During the republican primaries of ’08, a bunch of Ron Paul people made fake forums purporting to be the grassroots supporters of rival republican candidates, and the stuff they did was some of the best political trolling I’ve ever seen.
The GNAA did some good stuff, I’d say the best was the JewsDidWTC website that got featured on CNN. GNAA was always a little bit of an underperformer though due to a chaotic IRC channel.
Most recently, I’d say anons from /pol/ have done a lot of good work attacking social justice warriors, a group that I feel doesn’t get enough trollage. SJWs and feminists are dangerous neo-Marxists absorbing weirdos from the internet with a lot of support from academia, and I think they’re going to get more influential in the next decade or so as more broken people band together to angrily attack normal “majoritarian” people.
What led you to become discontented with this society?
The disparity in my intelligence and other people’s. Catholic school was especially harsh because you have a mentally broken baby boomer adult base coupled with kids in an environment that is hostile to childrens’ nature. Not to mention most of the other children were leagues below me morally and intellectually, I even had one teacher bribe other students with candy to hate me.
I remember once in elementary school I managed to get one of those red rubber balls before anyone else did because I never got a chance to play with one. All the “popular” kids began whining like babies and the teacher forced me to give them the ball, because –get this — “that’s democracy.” I shit you not, that’s exactly how it went.
As a child, it always was strange how other children had less of a moral base. So impulsive, willing to lie to adults to get what they want.
As I got older, I realized what mattered was not truth, but perception. The masses of worthless people only really care about social status, novelty, and maybe a little bit of cognitive dissonance here and there so in brief moments of lucidity they can make a half-assed attempt to atone without really putting in much effort.
Saying so, to me, is a bit amusing, because my morals have become less prominent in day-to-day life, nowadays. They’re still there, but I’m much more scummy now than I used to be. I don’t mind it, it is simply an adaption.
What are your aims in life?
Really? Drinking alcohol and passing the time. Hoping for an anarchic peroid of reboot for civilization. Too much noise, not enough signal, few things mainstream really ever catch my eye. There’s not much here, I think it’s way too degenerative and decayed for revitalization. We just have to wait for disaster to occur so things can be corrected. This is outside of our control. We hit the point of no return on leftism and idiocy.
We bred a mass of domesticated, selfish, boring people and gave them the ability to make their own bread and circuses. We just have to wait out for their self-imposed downfall.
As for my personal life:
I could get a career, but I don’t ass-kiss very well, I’m quite abrasive and don’t want to work for a higher-paying job while worrying what my mouth says to get me in trouble in an environment of beta-males and people more deserving of becoming the plaything of a coprophiliac serial killer with a love of the Human Centipede films.
Most immediate aim is getting swole. Would be fascinating to understand the underlying animalistic power differential to other people when one is swole.
If you could create your ideal society, what would it be like?
I don’t know how to answer this. I’m not a fan of top-down solutions when it comes to society and economics. I think we need less people, better people, better art, and whatever else. The fundamental problem of our day and age really is just human nature. I don’t think any design in particular really matters, you just need people who are morally better, intellectually superior, and more focused-yet-relaxed than what we have now.
I’m always entertained by idiots who complain about capitalism. Capitalism, at heart, is the ultimate bottom-up economic model (when corporations aren’t given handouts or favoritism by government). Any flaw with it really, in all actuality, is a flaw in mass-human nature. When your entire population is composed of bitches, don’t be suprised at the stupid shit they elect with their dollar. No controlled economy is going to do any better when the average person is only one standard deviation of being entertained by separating the corn and peanuts within their excrement.
Somewhat disconnected, but I’ll cut the details obtained by experience, and to any younger readers planning on assembling a group to head out onto the wilderness and leave modern society: not gonna happen. Focus elsewhere.
What do you think will happen in the future to the USA?
Not entirely sure. An eventual collapse of some sort, there is no real plan or focus going on and it seems to just be special interests fighting for their own little ego puppet show all nilly-willy, without any real concern for the future. For the immediate, I see the left continuing to score “victories” in both government and culture, resulting in an alienation of the majority (by that I mean, those who generally are conservative and middle class, mostly white but I don’t think race matters much on this), but they’re definitely going to have much more control over academia, politics, and culture. The modern american right isn’t effective nor brave enough to do anything but smile and nod and bargain.
I don’t think it is important to focus too much on how things will unfold in 20-50 years. Maybe something will happen with technology that is a complete game-changer.
What is your outlook on dating, marriage and sex?
For the most part, modern women are only good for sex. Most are attention vampires, completely ego-driven with impulses of sadomasochism, concerned only with men in matters of novelty or social status. It is completely impossible to have adult conversations with the majority of them, they have no knowledge of history, no street smarts, hell, no book smarts even, either. They offer nothing other than their worn-out vaginas, mouths, and buttholes. I’d rather hang out with men, though sadly most men are complete weenies who take shit too personally.
Marriage is a godawful institution for modern men. I’d advise men to avoid it because the left-wing government is hostile to men and it gives men almost no legal advantages, instead it gives women the world to screw a man over. That said, I think good men should find some way of passing their genes on without becoming indentured servants to the government. I’ve not yet figured that one out, so I’m not the one to ask on that.
I think men need sex, and sex doesn’t seem damage a man’s ability to form attachments, so I think it’s fine for a man to have one night stands, and pump and dump. Whores have existed since the dawn of time, let us on the right stop pretending to be “volkisch pure-hearted chaste mega-mormons” because men who don’t get their wick dipped tend to go crazy. As for attachments, I think men have a built-in capacity of brotherhood (that can translate to loyalty in general) that women don’t have, thus, even a manwhore can settle down.
As for women, I don’t even know. Having a lot of sex partners as a woman definitely does seem to make her incapable of being loyal. I don’t know if women are even capable of loving men — they love what a man can do to and for them, but not the man itself. It’s transactional. I’d say that women are only capable of loving their parents, their children, and the small yappy dogs or cats they buy after they’ve hit the wall or the children left the nest.
Feminism is basically built up by failed, ugly, fat women, who have successfully poisoned the well, but not entirely have been able to turn sexuality into a witchhunt against men. If they get political power, that will change, but for the forseeable future women will continue to blow bad boys while taking nice guy’s money.
I think, in the future, as ridiculous as it sounds, once the articial womb is available, and sentient AI alongside realistic robotics, men will opt for their gynoid Stepford wives rather than deal with real women, who provide no intellectual stimulation and come with too much baggage. It does sound ridiculous, but thinking of me settling down with a subpar woman until I get divorced in 5-10 years and lose half my wealth alongside all of my kids sounds even more absurd.
I think the disparity in sexual values between men and women is among the more important problems in our little “equal” society, but men will win in the end, I think, insofar the leftist brainwashing reaches its limits. It’s hard to tell. I’ve known men better looking and in more shape than I who, despite my warnings, ignored my advice on women and yet had not the balls to even tell me what happened when their ignoring me fucked them over, so I cannot say where things are going to lead.
Is there any hope for humanity?
Very little as of now. This place is wacky. So much posturing. Such fake. So wow.
There is some cultural revitalization. Craft beer is booming, so good beer isn’t hard to find. Dubstep is the popular thing right now, and though I don’t listen to it, from what little I have, seems to be leagues better than what kids were listening to in high school when I was that age. Not ideal, but I would’ve expected kids nowadays to listen to Justin Bieber clones singing about how it’s okay to get fucked in the ass by a woman with a strapon.
I know both are unimpressive, but, could be far worse with the way things have headed.
At any rate, the increasing proliferation of the absurd can be a bit amusing at times. I think a human zoo full of autistics on display would be neato. Wait…. I think there is one…. think it’s called “tumblr.”
As bad as things are, the future is opaque. I’d advise people to do constructive things instead of bicker on the ‘net about the what or the why for now. Focusing on the specifics of politics and theorizing about “traditional societies” and all that jazz isn’t going to do much to make you a better man. Ethno-nationalism isn’t gonna fucking save you. Leftism sure as hell won’t, LOL. Collective humanity is far too degraded. Let it collapse.
Where do people read more of your writings?
I don’t write much. So much noise on the internet, I’d just be one man in a room with a megaphone next to a very long human centipede, and if someone had dysentery in that ‘pede, the sounds of bowel movements would drown me out. Something like that. If people have interests in me writing more, I might give actual articles and such a chance,
They call it “passive aggression” because under the camouflage of being the victim, you’re on the attack.
You find some reason why you are at a disadvantage through no fault of your own — usually, the universal right to be doing anything anywhere at any time because you’re equal too — and then use this to force yourself onto others.
The dark side of consumerism and democracy is that they are two sides of the same coin. One is voting rights, because you’re equal; the other is the right to behave in any manner you can afford (keep going to that day job, prole) because you’re equal.
What they don’t tell you, however, is that by making yourself reliant upon this external image of yourself — this equal person who can force others to do things, and thus derives meaning from that — you’ve bonded yourself more closely to the mass herd mind than you could in an authoritarian regime.
You’ve done it to yourself. By chasing your own freedom/consumerism, you have made yourself an advocate and agent of the post-totalitarian state. You have become a salesperson for a lifestyle that represents a political decision that now has taken over your brain.
Such is what happened to women. Society literally convinced them to become whores with a quick sleight-of-hand. It went this way: our men are off at war (WWI & WWII) and now you have “freedom” since you have a job and money. That’s the only way you have freedom, selling yourself for money. If you don’t do it, you’re a prude and old conservative fossil.
As a result, women launched themselves into this new politicized lifestyle. They refused to learn home arts, because that meant being a prude, and they tossed away sex to any man who made a minimal effort at conning them into it. They also set up a mythology of being victims.
But as mentioned above, if you call yourself a victim — a passive act — you’re inevitably going to discover passive aggression. When women crusaded for “equality,” what they really meant was a chance to get ahead. They did it at the expense of the traditional family.
And the results?
Divorce. Most marriages end in divorce. Divorce shatters children’s trust in the world so thoroughly it turns them into low-grade sociopaths who evade all commitment forever.
Slutness. It’s hard to find women who are anywhere near virginal. This means a lack of trust because you know that you and your partner are both gaming each other, just like you gamed sex in the past. It’s not surprising many if not most people end marriages by cheating.
Lack of rewards. If you stumble out of high school or college into some dumb job, and get an apartment and some dumb hobbies, that’s about as good as life gets. Not much will change until you die. You might try marriage, but you probably hate your divorced parents and thus hate the idea of family, and why marry a whore anyway?
The result has been a destruction of the family. As a subset of that, it has been the destruction of both women and men. Men have figured it out halfway; women are still riding the high of thinking they’re in a Virginia Slims commercial. “You’ve come a long way, baby!” — but to what?
Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? – The Atlantic
Because The Atlantic hires mostly liberals, it has a de facto liberal bias, which means it takes the side of whoever is perceived as the “underdog”; liberals love underdogs because it allows them a teachable moment to expound on democracy, the classless society, equality and other pleasing notions.
As a result, this article is a hit piece on men. They don’t ask the vital question: if society has become a giant Habitrail tube where we attend stupid jobs that don’t fulfill us so we can buy stuff so we can prove we’re equal to other, who wants to be adapted to that?
The problem is that such thinking leads men straight into the victimhood complex that we see in most MRAs. They tend to reason this way: “well, the goal is equality, and women are ahead, so men need to assert their rights” — in effect, becoming victims and slaves to the mental concept of victimhood. Right.
Forget that. What men need is to think outside the box, step outside the rule-system that our leaders have drawn for us, and to re-define life as more than a bureaucratic job, an apartment and personal drama that imitates Sex and the City,Friends and other thoroughly neurotic lifestyle showcases.
When men become victims:
If you are forced to use public transport, you see them all the time. Soppy young blokes in skinny jeans, hair artfully arranged to mimic a guinea pig in a hurricane, being mollycoddled by a domineering, post-Spice Girls vixen who, if figures released last week are correct, also earns more than him.
If he’s allowed to travel alone, he’ll be reading Harry Potter or playing with his phone, spreadeagled like a giant baby in its cot, scratching his crotch and yawning so brazenly you fear being sucked into the gaping chasm of his mouth.
It’s not just young bucks. Men who would once have been called middle-aged are behaving like teenagers, faces nourished by some male consumer-targeted unction (because he’s worth it), huddled over their Nintendo Wii or iPhone, desperate to ignore the spectre of maturity tapping on their shoulder. – The Daily Mail
Don’t get me wrong: this world is a neurotic mess. It drifted away from reality-based thinking (now called “conservatism”) into pie-in-the-sky fantasies driven by a Soviet desire for absolute equality — but you can look that up elsewhere.
Suffice it to say, women “succeeding” isn’t because women have leapt ahead; it’s because civilization, in its process of falling apart, has turned jobs into bite-sized make-work do-nothing clerkships where people hang out in offices, go to meetings, and do a whole lot of simple nothing. Interchangeable cogs.
As one commentator wrote:
I could not help but notice that the women’s jobs were things like family therapist and other “elevator music” stuff of quiet office life.
In short, no wealth or prosperity being created there, only tended and administered (or perhaps redistributed). Good luck with that culture you are creating, gals. – Snowguy
Women have destroyed their own futures so much that jobs and a man-whore are all they have left. They view jobs as power, and being a homemaker as a failure, and so they throw themselves into these jobs — 50, 60, 80 hours a week — and society loves a good obedient whore so it rewards them.
I’m not sure they’re more effective. In my experience, most of these jobs are bureaucracy serving itself and they tend to crush these same women’s minds and make them into neurotic automatons. At some point, they wake up and find gray hairs, realize they’re single and have so many treadmarks in their sex organs that a true-blue, honest-love, man-and-woman together forever marriage is out of the question, and freak out.
What’s Your Number?, the new Anna Faris comedy about a 30-something woman named Ally Darling who is fixated on the fact that she’s slept with 20 men, is a critical and box office failure, with reviewers slamming the film’s retrograde sexual mores. For those of you who missed this flop, here’s a quick synopsis: Ally, who has just lost her job and hit bottom, becomes obsessed with the significance of a woman’s “number”—the number of men she has had sex with—after reading in a women’s magazine that women who have sex with more than 20 guys are much less likely to get married. As Slate movie critic Dana Stevens notes, the film doesn’t really argue with the notion that Ally is a capital-S slut. As Entertainment Weekly’s Lisa Schwarzbaum put it, “Whore is the kind of descriptor the creators of What’s Your Number? think is hilarious for a woman to apply to herself, one whose only ‘scandal’ involves a head count of her sex partners. And by the way, who in this day and age is counting?” – Slate
I had something of value, and instead of saving it up and putting it all on one big decision, I frittered it away over the years and now I don’t have it: my innocence, the positive outlook (the opposite of “gaming the system”) which enables me to fully bond in love with a man.
What’s left are more political relationships, more negotiating around the failures of another person because I can tolerate him because I can manipulate him. He allows it to happen; like Ashton Kuchner, he can always walk away. Dudes are OK with their solitary lonesomes.
The tragedy for modern American women is that people aren’t counting in public, but they are counting. At some point, you’re blown out. You’re no longer marriage material. What you are is convenient sex material, and since you still think your certificate program paper-pushing job is important, you’re a disposable cog at work and in bed.
What’s the solution? We know what the solution is not — don’t become feminists in reverse like most MRAs, who make themselves into victims and basically adopt the feminist platform for men. Then you’re falling down the same path that made women insane.
Instead, “man up.” This doesn’t mean some dumb macho ritual; it means that you recognize that this civilization is failing, and instead of passively bending over, you start fixing it. Get invested; get responsible, develop a career, find a good woman instead of date-fucking idiots, and rebuild.
Here’s the classic view that MRAs take, which is that manning up is impossible because everything sucks and well, you might as well just chase vapid pleasures instead of trying to fix the mess that others have made:
I will man up and find a wife on eHarmony. She’ll be my age, a handsome woman tired of being pumped and dumped, with a masculine sensibility that South American and Eastern European women don’t have. She will drastically shorten her hair six months after the wedding, and in spite of my disapproval, she will gain one pound a month until finally exploding like a whale for our first of two kids. She’ll never make the effort to lose the pregnancy weight, no matter how many subtle gym membership gifts I get her for Valentines Day, Mothers Day, her birthday, and Christmas. She will lose interest in having sex with me. The most humiliating moment of my life will be when she tells me to pump her hand while she reads a woman’s magazine. I will feel unattractive and unloved.
Once the kids are in middle school, my wife will initiate divorce proceedings because “the feeling” is no longer there. The feeling was no longer there for me either, but I was willing to make it work for our children. Nonetheless, I will man up and let her take the property, the cars, and the kids. I will pay her steep child support payments that leave me on the edge of poverty. My kids will be brainwashed against me, and hate me for the rest of their lives. I’ll hate them too, but if I stop paying child support I will be sent to prison. With little fatherly influence in their lives, my son will become a little bitch and my daughter a slut who loses her virginity at the age of 14.
I will not give up on life. I will work even harder and make wise investments until my kids are 18 and the burden of child support payments are lifted. Once eligible for social security at the age of 67, I will take my modest nest egg to a modern country with a cheap standard of living, maybe Poland. Once there, no one will count on me and no one will expect anything of me. There will no reason to wake up before noon. I’ll spend my days writing, reading, drinking, and purchasing pussy. – Roosh
Life is just horrible.
Actually, it’s not, but we’re in a bad time. The angry lynch mob who would have hunted witches in the past has learned the trick of passive aggression. Instead of calling you a witch, they claim you’re intolerant of witches. Their goal is to tear down those who rise above and humble them.
The feminist movement is part of this, as are various other victim movements. They are those who destroy civilizations. Under the guise of doing things “for the good of humanity,” they’re selfish, because they really have only one goal:
Make sure no one can tell them what to do, so they spend all of their time on themselves.
Have we heard this before? Scroll up, a bit — oh yes, this is the same democracy/consumerism lie that turned women into the horror of the modern administrative slut who thinks her paper-pushing, web-designing, do-nothing job is important. Do we want to follow that lie?
Break out of the cage; think outside the box. Man up; don’t “grow up” in the way that beaten, hopeless, and angry people do. Use this world to find something you are good at, and use it to make the opposite principle of victimhood: the principle of strength. The principle of manliness. Vir.
That is a popular stance with those who are confused, but it’s not policy. Policy is how you make society function by setting up values, rules and procedures.
No area is this more clearly seen than the topic of marriage. MRAs want you to think all marriage is bad; as I’ll demonstrate, they are actually working against their own best interests.
Society automatically paints a stereotype on men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry. They are labeled as:
A) Womanizers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or
B) Selfish, childish or irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.
No other explanation is ever explored.
– all quotations from Do-Not-Marry.com
Let’s reverse this. Reasons a man would not marry:
Self-satisfied. This includes both selfish (including solipsists, narcissists and megalomaniacs) and literally self-satisfied. If you are a genius painter, you have no use for marriage or sex.
Incompatibility. You have not encountered a compatible partner. The more personality you have, the harder this issue is.
Failure. You would otherwise marry, but have been unable to get your act together.
You either cannot marry, want to marry but cannot, marry or fail to marry. That’s it.
The first question is: are you someone who wants to marry?
People can do this for the wrong reasons, such as fear of aging and death. Nothing can stop that. Or social fear. Nothing can stop that, either.
Most people marry for a simple reason: it makes life better.
Any repeated process, task or technique gets boring. You are not learning anything new. It’s a dead-end rote route. No matter what your age, unless you’re pathological, after about a dozen first dates you get it. What next?
A significant number of 20 and 30-something women spend most of their disposable income on luxury rental apartments, upscale restaurants, frequent exotic vacations, leased cars, spa treatments, and excessive amounts of designer label clothing, purses, shoes, etc. Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.
Why would any MRA even consider such a woman? She advertises that she has no control over herself.
The only reason you would attempt to marry one of these: she has entrapped you sexually. You are excited by her drama, her sensuality, and most of all, her competitive effort to be sexually appealing and thus, when she has you, you feel like the focus of all of this intense sex energy.
This puts you in the position of beggar and receptor, not creator and initiator. You might as well sell yourself for passive intercourse by baboons.
Like anyone else in life, women mark themselves by their behavior. You are what you do, and that doesn’t mean career. It means how you spend your time. If you spend it on surface activities, whether mainstream (consumerism) or underground (hipsterism), you are a directionless person. E.g. you have no direction but you.
The people in this life that you want to know have started the process of self-actualization. They are comfortable in their own skins, and recognize their limitations and the limitations of being human. As a result, they are not interested in egomania, narcissism, megalomania and solipsism.
Instead, they direct their energy toward productive things. They will have a job, and a home of some kind, like everyone else. But instead of ineffectual “hobbies” — tv, sex, drugs, drink, vids, etc — they are directing that energy toward some constructive end.
One person commented to me once that there are three places to hunt modern woman: in education, in volunteer groups, and overachievers in the workplace.
You want to find one of those, not the modern female narcissist (MFN) as discussed above.
Immediately after buying a ring, the man may be rewarded with demands of financing all or part of a lavish wedding… (Depending on the size of his bank account.) The costs of today’s weddings exceed that of a house down payment. (Or in certain parts of the country, the house itself.) If a man enters a marriage having saved up a down payment for his dream home, it can suddenly be snatched from right from under him. Many men may object to spending this sum of money on a one-day party.
Here is the logical fallacy: the trend is x, therefore you must do x.
Don’t do x. Independent of trends, people have been getting married in small local ceremonies and asking their parents to pay half or more — for centuries.
If she insists on x, you are marrying an idiot. Don’t do it.
The injustices can go from bad to worse when children enter the picture. If the man can afford to carry the entire financial burden, the woman can elect to stop working. (Regardless of how the man may feel about the decision.) The day the woman stops working is the day all of her past financial baggage unequivocally gets thrown onto the man’s head. If the woman has racked up credit card debts, these are now his payments. If the woman has not bothered to pay off her student loans, these also become the man’s responsibility. (Stomach-churning irony = the man is stuck paying for her degree, and she’s not even working anymore!!) And can the man object? Can he say, “No, you made your mess, and it should not be my job to clean it up. You knew you wanted kids even before you met me, and you should have planned ahead.” No, the payments can’t be deferred until she is once again able to continue repaying them herself (besides, that day may never come), not if he wants to retain a clean credit rating to get a loan for their dream home.
Did he take the nails out of his hands to write this?
You will inherit her debts. She may have them. So may you. You will also get some financial breaks at tax time, and increased likelihood of promotion in the workplace, to deal with this.
If you start off your marriage by treating your wife as chattel — “she should be earning me money,” which is what a pimp says, not a man — you will poison that marriage forever.
Your kids will be healthiest and happiest with a stay-at-home mom. As a result, you need to transition from single-guy-with-an-apartment mode (cut all costs, live day to day) to adult mode. Adult mode isn’t just a setting on your cable box.
It means that you are planning for a family, for stability and a future. It is a prerequisite to marriage that you be ready to do this.
If you treat marriage like extended dating, it will fail.
Marriage is starting a family. On the downside, you will be obligated to this family.
On the plus side, you get a family, and unless you alienate that family, it will be the greatest source of joy in your life.
Webster’s defines slavery as “the state of being under the control of another person.” If the husband earns enough to support both of them, he would be hard pressed to make an argument to preserve equality, and have her continue working as he does. If the wife decides to stop working, the men who have been left holding the financial bag find their options limited. They may find themselves stuck in careers they hate, or working for abusive exploitative management, working excessively long hours, working in jobs that are physically threatening, that have no growth potential, enduring prolonged commutes, etc. At this point, considering the corner he’s been painted into, he is often powerless to affect any change in his own life.
This is true whether you get married or not. This is a debt-based society. If you stop working for more than about a month, you go bankrupt in most cases. In the best cases, where you have saved up enough, you may be able to take a few months off, but not much more. This is independent of marriage.
What you gain with marriage however is a greater understanding of your career needs. Most likely, your boss is married. His most valuable employees are probably married. Marriage is for stable people who are committed to having families. For this reason, married people are sought-after employees.
In addition, you now both live a more efficient life. Instead of paying for two places and two commutes, you pay for one house, one commute, and one set of all bills.
If you aren’t a selfish idiot like an MFN, you want your children to grow up in the most stable and nurturing environment possible. That does not include a working mother. Nor does it include divorce or parental instability.
In other words, marriage — which leads to family — is not about you. It never was. It’s about making a family. If you try to treat it as permanent dating, you will fail.
If a married man cheats, he’s the scum of the earth…A selfish jerk who has jeopardized the family unit. However, when the woman cheats, she’s conveniently portrayed as the victim. Poor thing. It’s for her empowerment, or to help her self-esteem. Worse yet, her cheating can be the man’s fault. How? He doesn’t compliment her like her new man does. Or he works too much. (Yes, the man who is scrambling to pay the mortgage and cars she may have demanded is now considered negligent. The man who may be working 2 jobs to allow her to be home with her kids is now considered negligent.)
Your problem above is a political one. Feminism and liberalism together always favor the perceived weaker party, and have in them an entrenched hatred of the stronger.
Femninism ruins women and leaves them with wrecked lives. If you are marrying a feminist, or a woman whose friends are feminists, expect to be divorced (acrimoniously) and vilified within the decade. Whether you screwed it up or not.
It’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand a man make a certain salary, to be deemed “marriage material”, and provide stability. Likewise, if a man demands the wife do the cooking/cleaning, he can now be labeled a sexist misogynistic PIG. If he asks her to carry her weight financially (just like he does), he can be criticized as an inadequate provider. What exactly deems a woman “marriage material”?
To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannies as their husband can afford. Yes, they stay at home, and hire someone ELSE to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered “stay-at-home” mothers. This is not all women, but certainly the odds increase if the man can afford it. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?
Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.
He wrote this as he held his severed penis and admired the fineness of the cut.
Traditional roles are your one salvation. They give each partner a domain in which they can be valuable. This is the only lasting form of stability.
You do not want your wife competing with you for authority, so delegate. She handles the home and the kids, which is a full-time job.
If you marry an MFN, she will screw this up because you screwed it up. You married a moronic narcissist. How many men are out there talking about how they realized their wives were dangerous morons after the divorce?
They didn’t recognize the truth because they were in victim-mode. Victim mode is when you decide to ignore vital information because you’re afraid of it. It always ends up with you getting screwed.
No sane woman marries with the intention of failing at it. If you find a woman has a cavalier attitude toward divorce, you get what you deserve if you marry her. She warned you.
As he says, not all women are like this. If you read that with a critical eye, you realize this means you have an option to pick a woman who is not an MFN.
However, you won’t exercise that choice because being in victim-mode also puts you in weenie-mode. You are not encouraged to stop, think and take responsibility for your actions. No — you can always blame someone else.
“Women did this to me. Heartless modern women ripped away my soul,” he said, holding his dismembered penis. “I knew she was a stripper who loved cocaine, but I never thought she’d cheat on me. I thought I was different.”
Women are like men. They are individuals. Most of them are shitheads. Most men are shitheads. The two go together. If you’re not a shithead, don’t pick a shithead wife.
This leads us to the one valid point he makes, and then underwhelms:
If a man insists on a prenuptial agreement, he is selfish and unromantic. When is the last time a woman who demanded a prenuptial agreement was called “unromantic”? On the contrary, if a woman requests a prenuptial agreement, she is fiscally responsible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a prenuptial agreement, run for the hills. She has just shown her hand.)
If you and your wife come from the same mindset or religious community, you are one of the fortunate few who do not need to worry about such things. You do not intend to divorce. The penalties for screwing up are high, so you make the choice carefully — both of you. She chose you and you chose her.
Remember that half of marriages do not end in divorce, and the number is probably even higher since “half of marriages” includes a huge number of second-fourteenth remarriages that have no chance of succeeding either.
If you screw it up once, you’re likely to screw it up again, usually by the same method. (I have zero sympathy for a man who hooks up with a married woman, helps her cheat on her husband, then marries her and seven years later is shocked — shocked, I tell you — to find her in the sack with the pool guy.)
However, if you’re a normal person who is hoping to survive this broken time of feminism, litigiousness, dysfunctional government and society and so on, you may want a pre-nuptial agreement. Think up a fair one.
If the woman rejects it, move on. She is not of the mindset for marriage.
By the same token, many men want to create a pre-nup agreement that preserves the pre-marriage perpetual single-guy-in-an-apartment lifestyle. This arrangement usually says, “If we get divorced, I walk away with what I earn, and you get nothing.”
This is too extreme.
Realistically, she will have given up her career to be your wife and mother to your kids — if she doesn’t, your kids and you get inferior attention and she is more likely to stray, drugged on the power of her spending, forgetting how you providing a stable home allows her to enjoy that income. You want her to give up her career and become a Mom now. You give up your reckless lifestyle and become a Dad. See how there’s a trade in evidence there, equally for both parties?
This is why the courts hand money to the woman: she has sacrificed to become a wife.
They are overcompensating, of course, because we live in a time of liberalism and that encourages subjugation of the more powerful party. We get “equality” that way.
She will be compensated because she has given up a lot to become married.
Your only defense against this is the exact opposite of what this guy and most MRAs recommend.
Do not become a victim. Become a victor.
You do this through two methods: (a) insist on traditional roles and (b) pick the right woman.
Men need to stop and ask, “Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today’s world?”.
It is no longer a lifelong commitment, because it can be reversed overnight.
To be a man who insists on acting like a victim, and then avoids the one state of life that escapes this process, and then also refuses to get politically involved to fix the situation, is to join the culture of weenies who are also behind feminism, the nanny state, sit-when-you-pee, etc.
Feminism is liberalism. If you drift toward liberalism, you are supporting feminism.
Modern life is derived from liberalism. The idea of equality is its foremost concept.
Traditional roles are derived from a different concept, which is that of roles. Roles make each person sacred for what they do that is not the norm, instead of making both people the norm and then making them compete.
The woman reigns over the house and children. This is her responsibility.
The man reigns over income-production and family direction. This is his responsibility.
Any healthy marriage involves the two partners being able to discuss each others’ zones of responsibility, but not sabotaging each other by micromanaging. Any healthy marriage involves knowing that raising kids and taking care of the home is a full-time job that is biologically and culturally more important than bringing in a paycheck. This is at least how adults look at it.
What’s a mom worth?
According to one report, $138,095 a year.
That’s the figure in a study put out by Salary.com, which calculates the wages that would have been paid a stay-at-home mom in 2007 if she were compensated for all the elements of her “job.” That total was up 3% from 2006’s salary of $134,121.
The job descriptions that Salary.com used to determine a mom’s salary includes 10 jobs that moms do on an average day: housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, CEO and psychologist. – MSN
While the above estimate might be extreme, the point is well-made: to be a wife and mom is hard work, if it’s done well.
If it is not done well, a sensible husband takes it up with the wife. Don’t wait for her to get to this stage:
To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannies as their husband can afford. Yes, they stay at home, and hire someone ELSE to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered “stay-at-home” mothers.
These people are behaving badly. If you’re in command of the home, lay down the law. You need to confront the wife about her bad behavior. It’s not normal to be a lazy wife. Get her ass in gear.
If she cannot follow through with it, tell her you cannot afford the nanny and cancel the payment. If you’re uncomfortable with that, look for evidence that the nanny is botching the job. Force the lazy wife to panic and have a tantrum, then document it. She will either come to her senses or reveal herself to be an MFN, at which point you look like the sensible party: she refused to take care of the kids.
Traditional roles are your defense, and enable you to enjoy marriage as two people working toward a goal, instead of two selfish people manipulating and using each other for selfish ends.
Liberalism is about the ego. Me, me, me. We’re all equal means “But I’m more equal.” Traditional roles are the opposite.
Pick the best woman you can. This starts with getting out of victim mode:
Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?
Do not listen to this poisoned voice. You are going to attend a job, and work to get ahead, whether you are married or not. The question then is whether you come home to a happy family or a dismal bachelor apartment, too tired (and eventually, too old) to go out and score some idiot for a few moments of sexual pleasure.
It pays to work and get ahead, and to use the one power you will always have, which is choice.
MRA includes “game” which is both a way of talking morons into bed, and a way of managing the upper hand with your spouse. “Game” is a subset of manipulating human psychology. If you’re a white hat, you do this to make good things work out; if you’re a black hat, you run scams. Most of us are greyish white hats.
You use psychological manipulation every day on people who need to be manipulated. Talking your kid into putting down the pretty snake (around here, we get coral snakes) is a fine art. So is working with subordinates or bosses.
Your “game” is psychology game, and it’s the opposite of what society tells you to do — which is lie back, enjoy it, become a victim, and then after you’ve been nailed to a cross, demand reparations. Society is designed to control you, not make sure you get what you need.
When looking to marriage, you cannot use “game” (scare-quoted for being such a goofy phrase) in the same way you con women into bed. It’s not a con. It’s about maintaining the male role as leader and dominant creature that makes a woman feel safe:
The point is, if I had been nice, I would have never had married Jennifer. I would have just seen a pretty girl with a not so great boyfriend bugging her and done nothing of interest. Being nice is a very important aspect of your personality, having no nice in you just means you’re an asshole. Adding in a little of the jerk / Alpha Male trait is the key to building attraction though.
At some point in your courtship, you likely did something that was a little crazy, a little wild, something over the top that made your wife to be sit up and take notice of you. Maybe all it was happened to be fronting up to her, and making it plain being just friends with her wasn’t an option you where going to be able to live with.
Marriage can easily fall into a rut. When was the last time you made it plain being “just friends” still isn’t an option you can live with? That you want a passionate connection to her. Make sure she knows with her you have no half-way. If you don’t do this to her at least once in a while, you leave the door open for someone else to do it to her. Emotional connections are serious things and sometimes not even your best friend can be trusted with the woman you love. Do not let the moment pass.
The fundamental mental aspect of game is mental toughness: you need to set a goal and pursue it aggressively. This is the mental aspect our ancestors called vir.
You are the man. You choose the woman, you woo the woman, and you make it clear what the roles are. Any woman who has problems with this is defective, and in healthier times, would be relegated to prostitution or other careers for flake-out nutjobs who cannot commit.
As part of this decision, you need to not screw it up. How many men do you see on a college campus who sought out the non-confrontational female? Usually you see white nerds with fat girls or Asian girls, because they think these will be easy and not force the man out of his single-guy-with-apartment comfort zone. This is of course insane because both fat girls and Asian girls are women, and women are humans, and all humans operate within a range of the same psychology.
Pick the right woman. Pick someone who is honest, realistic and (ideally) has traditional values. That is the kind of woman you can base a relationship on.
If you are looking for an easy score, you face a trivial problem. You need to find some girl who has gone to a bar with the intent of getting drunk and (although she can’t admit it) getting laid.
Women like this do not actually believe they will ever achieve marital happiness. If anything, they are certain they will not, and are self-pitying, and thus prone to all sorts of bad mental habits.
If you are looking for a wife, you have to change your thinking. This is no longer coerce some idiot into bed time. This is no longer single-guy-in-apartment time. This is an important choice.
To claim that marriage is bad, because many if not most women are bad, is the height of stupidity. Here you are, sacrificing something good that you could have for yourself, in the name of what other people do. Might as well dice your penis and make chili with it because you have no right to own one.
The Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) movement is doomed as long as it chooses to put men in the position of passive victim. This is the opposite principle of what it is to be male, which is active conqueror.
Until it figures that out, there will be people like the above-quoted “Do Not Marry” dude who pander to your fears, insecurities, doubts and sense of self-pity. His goal is to make a buck off you and he doesn’t care if it ruins your life.
My solution earns me no money, and is simpler: act like a man. If you don’t think you can, use discipline to force yourself into the role. Get out of the role of victim and passive half-man at home in his apartment, with his boring job and shitty video games. Get out there and fight.
Modern society worships the cult of the individual. We are equal, therefore every decision is equally valid, and we have no idea what to want except what external distractions tell us is important.
As a result, you get a land of zombies who follow the images they see on television:
“I used to race home to have sex with my wife,” says Perry, a 41-year-old lawyer. “Now I leave work a half-hour early so I can get home before she does and masturbate to porn.” Throughout the course of our conversation, Perry insists that he’s still attracted to his wife of twelve years. Still, he says, she can’t quite measure up to the porn stars he views online. “Not to be mean, but they’re younger, hotter, and wilder in the sack than my wife,” he says.
Is it possible that porn is causing men to detach from their partners in more profound ways? Though porn research is the subject of much debate and barb-flinging (with religious groups seizing on any study to prove that porn and masturbation are wrong), scientists speculate that a dopamine-oxytocin combo is released in the brain during orgasm, acting as a “biochemical love potion,” as behavioral therapist Andrea Kuszewski calls it. It’s the reason after having sex with someone, you’re probably more inclined to form an emotional attachment. But you don’t have to actually have sex in order to get those neurotransmitters firing. When you watch porn, “you’re bonding with it,” Kuszewski says. “And those chemicals make you want to keep coming back to have that feeling.” Which allows men not only to get off on porn but to potentially develop a neurological attachment to it. They can, in essence, date porn. – New York Magazine
So let me get this straight: men are preferring watching sex acts to engaging in them. With girls they will never meet, and would probably not date in real life. What attracts us so much to porn, if not the fact that it is the attachmentless, obligationless sex that represents sex in its purest form, entirely detached from any other consequences or reasons why?
Family, pregnancy, long-term love… these things require not only commitment, but a commitment to doing them for their own sake. You don’t have a family because it pleases you (solely). You have a family because it’s the right thing to do, the right way to share love, and part of a life you can enjoy. But you can’t separate that life-ideal from the family any more than you can separate sex from the family, at least if you want positive outcomes.
Parental alienation syndrome is not a gender specific issue. It was once believed women were the main perpetrators of parental alienation, but no longer. “Fifty percent are men,” said Judith Ray, a licensed family therapist in Colorado Springs.
“Those who are men tend to be narcissistic, characterized by a sense of entitlement, arrogance and low empathy. Female alienators often have borderline personalities, marked by insecurity, neediness, a strong fear of abandonment and chronic emptiness.”
When we speak of parental alienation we aren’t talking about abusive fathers trying to further their misguided, ill treatment of a mother. We are talking about damaged parents, both mother and father whose children need to be protected from a different kind of abuse. – Huffingdogma Post
This is an article viewing the other end of the process: when people who want only to please themselves not only have a family, and not only have kids, but have to raise those kids. Parents who understand themselves as serving a sacred role toward a whole life raise healthy kids; selfish parents abuse their kids in the most covert and untraceable way, the most passive-aggressive way. It’s not what they do, like hitting a kid, but what they don’t do. They offer love when convenient, usually when the offspring is compliant. They withhold that same love when the offspring is inconvenient. They want it to be just like them, and to serve their needs, and when it cannot or will not, they retaliate by not doing things. Not offering affirmation. Not offering support. Not reassuring the little critter that it belongs in the family and has a place in the world in its own right. No, the narcissistic beings instead reinforce the idea that without the parent, the child is nothing.
No wonder we have a nation of man-boys and party girls who can barely manage to bond for a few weeks at a time, then flit off to the next set of genitals/pleasures/illusions. We hate the family. We hate it because it is inconvenient, in that it reminds us that we are all very small things that together serve a larger role. If we treat the family as it should be treated, it is a constant reminder that despite all our intelligence, we are not gods. We are like trees, animals, the wind or the rain. We fit somewhere in a hierarchy, and we serve toward its ends, and any calculation of our own ends is doomed outside of that context, like trying to breathe in a vacuum. That makes us feel impotent and small, and since we’ve made a modern society based on the empowered individual whose perspective is equally valid and thus all-important to that individual, we then feel like hollow failures.
More than half of all marriages — there were more than 2 million in 2009 — end in divorce, according to the National Council of Family Relations.
The probability of a first marriage ending in divorce within five years is 20 percent. After a decade, the chances of a divorce are 33 percent. As the number of marriages increases, so does the risk. By the third time around, about 73 percent will dissolve, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Women are often hit harder than men, as they try to navigate new lives with fewer financial resources, more child-care responsibilities and the challenge of dating again.
One report in Marie Claire magazine said a woman’s quality of life drops 45 percent after divorce. – ABC
The thing about low standards is that they always reinforce the process of lowering standards. If one person says we must uphold idea A, and another says we need to have no such fascist standards, that idea of lowered standards becomes de facto idea B. The first person could say why do we consider idea B to be any more of an obligation/choice than idea A, but most people will not see this simple truth. What they see is simplistic, not simple: idea B has no requirements, so idea A looks like an imposition, at least if you’re living for yourself. And so they reject idea A, default to B, and then repeat the process the next time anyone comes up with an idea more complex than keep sitting on that couch, going to that easy but boring job, watching sports and buying stuff, and being tolerant. It’s a circular, endless trap.
Your character is not defined by what you say you believe. It’s defined by the choices you make. History painfully records that when a people allow their personal character to dissipate, they become putty in the hands of tyrants and demagogues. Such tyranny often takes the form of actual rulers, but it can also involve the serfdom of our nobler nature to a lord of lustful impulse. Decadence can destroy democracy as surely as dictatorship.
When a person spurns his conscience and fails to do what he knows is right, he subtracts from his character. When he evades his responsibilities, foists his problems and burdens on others, or fails to exert self-discipline; when he allows or encourages wrongdoing on any scale; when he attempts to reform the world without reforming himself first; when he obligates the yet-unborn to pay his current bills for him; when he expects politicians to solve problems that are properly his own business alone; he subtracts from his character – and drags the rest of us down, too. – CSM
Lowering standards is lowering character. When we lower character, we become less inclined to address the third party in any interaction. When party A and party B come to a disagreement, they can either demand attention to their own self-interest (a state known as anarchy, or disorder, which can ultimately only be solved by theft, violence and the corruption of authority) or they can pay attention to the third party, idea C. Idea C is whatever hierarchy, role, values system or goal that guides that civilization or social group to which A and B belong.
With abstract ideals that we can use to interpret concrete objectives such as idea C, we have a new basis for a society. It is no longer a race to the lowest common denominator, but a desire to fulfill roles and in so doing to transcend our limitations by being part of a larger, more important quest.
In our desire to avoid the need for an idea C, we have mutated our society from an orderly place to an open-air shopping mall where the meme of the moment prevails, equality prevents us from making any real choices, and the demagogues and panderers win in the shady corners where they transact business. Worse, it has made us selfish beings who hate anything but ourselves, and we may even hate those. This is why our society of Utopian “progress” has ended up creating a jihad against the family, and against real love even, and it’s why we increasingly fail from within, no matter what we try to fix the problem.