The Red Pendulum

As I’ve described before, one of the fatal flaws of the lefty is her belief that we can create some sort of heaven here on earth.  Utopianism has reared its ugly head in the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, and in countless other places and times.  Efforts to perfect man and society repeatedly leave things worse than they were before, and that’s even if we don’t count the millions slaughtered in the process.  Feminism can’t yet match the  body count of her sister movements (if you don’t count abortion), but it has changed things for the worse.

Yet as we realistically assess the damage caused by utopianism, we would be equally blind if we failed to acknowledge that before each of these “Great Leaps Forward” that things were far from perfect.  The Ayatollah was worse, but that doesn’t mean the Shah was exactly good.  The same goes for the Sandanistas and Somoza, the Bolsheviks and the Czar, Castro and Batista, etc.

Likewise, it’s imperative that we who oppose feminism recognize that the Patriarchy was by no means an ideal system.  Better than what we’ve got?  Hell yes.  Perfect?  Not quite.

And the reason it wasn’t perfect is that man is imperfect.  He always has been, and barring some supernatural milestone, he always will be.

Governments and societies are imperfect men sanctioning the actions of other imperfect men.  Some systems work better than others, but none work perfectly because there’s nobody perfect alive to implement them.  One of the central features of political maturity is the ability to recognize this.  It’s why America’s Founding Fathers were largely successful and why the Jacobins wound up with an emperor a few years later.

Can things improve?  The American Experiment proves that we can (at least for a while), but as I’ve written before, we can only hope to bring things closer to how they should be if we first recognize how things actually are.  A is A.

Genesis 1:1 describes the Heavens and the Earth as different places for a reason.

Yet another aspect of A (A is A) is that a part of human nature desires to bring the Heavens here to Earth, and we think we can do it on our own.  We’ve always had problems, and we never like them, whether we’re some poor bastard washing his underwear in the Ganges or a Prince suffering from perpetual ennui.  We will always stretch our positive desire to improve things into a negative desire to ignore reality.  We think that life consists largely of  good and bad choices when the choices are more frequently between bad and worse.

So when we look at the world that brought us feminism, we see imperfection.  There were actual women trapped in loveless marriages, doomed to boredom and misery.  Fantime, Tess Derbyfield, and Hester Pyrne are fictional characters, but they’re based on what happened to real women who were put into actual binds.  Single mothers were shunned by their families, and their “bastard spawn” who played no role in their own creation were treated as outcasts for the rest of their lives.  Under certain circumstances, even rape victims could be shunned as impure, relegated to the fringes of society because of the violent and selfish acts of men who may or may not have faced any censure at all.

Therefore, the progressive mind sees error, and there was error.  I repeat, there are always problems.  The questions are which of them can we solve, and which of our solutions will be worse than the problem we’re solving.

Chesterton has a quote that bears consideration:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

The feminist saw the “fences” of restrictive gender roles and unfair societal approbation, but did they ever consider why those fences may have been initially erected?

Indeed, some women were trapped in loveless marriages with alcoholics because of strict prohibitions against divorce, but is there any way to calculate how many times these prohibitions simply kept women with their husbands for a rough couple of years, only to discover a few years later that the marriage was actually worth preserving?  As awful as a life like Tess Derbyfield’s must have been, is there any way to know how many women steeled themselves against the temptation of an exploitative Alpha nobleman in order to avoid ending up like her?

Sometimes the tradeoffs are downright ugly.  Bastards were treated horribly, but that may have been why we didn’t have quite so many of them.  I despise the idea of holding a woman responsible for an actual rape, but how rapes were avoided because women learned from Dinah’s mistake and didn’t place themselves in compromising positions in the first place?  We will never know.

(And for anyone who thinks I’m excusing rape, I think Shechem suffered an appropriate fate.  Unfortunately, that didn’t keep Dinah from suffering an unspeakable hell.)

Do I think that the above social conventions were ideal?  Far from it.  I think we could and should have done better.  However, feminism “cleared away the fences” without paying any mind as to why they were initially erected.  I don’t like how things were, but I fear how far the pendulum has swung in the other direction.

Yesteday’s harlots are todays Heroic Single Moms, yesterday’s adulteresses today’s liberated women who simply weren’t understood by their husbands.  What we used to call “bastards” we now call “kids”.  Families are merely social constructs and children often get more guidance from other six year-olds or gangs than they do from their own families.

If you think that fatherhood has no meaning (other than some guy who has to pay child support), none of this really matters.  The boys who grow up to flood our jails or spend years as incels may mean nothing to you, or perhaps you think that a father can be easily replaced by some new government program.

Maybe we’ve replaced the  Oppressive Patriarchy of the past with a New Age of Feminine Goodness, where we won’t need men to protect women from rapists and heightened levels of Awareness can keep our economy roaring along forever.

But what if you’re wrong?  What if we face a time in which strong men are the only thing keeping you away from the sharp edge of a machete?  What if someday we have to send those softies we’re castrating in elementary school off to some hellhole like Okinawa and they’ve never been taught how to control themselves without Ritalin, or their terrified of the very thought of guns (just like you want them to be)?

What if a world run by Grrl Power just doesn’t cut it, and everybody decides that maybe it’s better to put up with their teenage daughter’s incessant whining than it is to raise her children for her?  What if enough men decide that they’d rather go to jail than pay for your fourth child out of wedlock?  What if everybody decides that women aren’t capable of responsibly exercising this newfound “freedom” and are driving us straight to hell?

What if the pendulum swings back?

You’d better hope it doesn’t, because as far as it’s gone in this direction, when it swing back, momentum might take it places even I don’t want it to go.

Dread-Locked

Dread.  It’s one of the more difficult aspects of Game for those who want to believe that there’s something more to this whole inter-sexual dynamic thing than hormonal cycles and biological imperatives.  I don’t dispute that it works, but I can tell I’m not alone in that although I know it’s true, I still kind of wish it wasn’t.  Or more precisely, maybe it works, but do I really have to use it?  Did my grandfather really have to worry about this crap?

He probably didn’t, but you do.

Let’s examine Rollo’s Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

Fine, but then how the hell did relationships last a hundred years ago when we never heard about great-grandpa leaving great-grandma in the middle of a cornfield somewhere, giving her a few hours to “think it over” before he trotted by on his horse and gave her a ride home when she was cold, wet, and terrified?

One reason is that we weren’t particularly likely to hear about it, for this isn’t the type of thing that great-grandma shares with her twenty-odd grandchildren and great-grandchildren around the fireplace on Christmas morning.  Nor were the writers of the day likely to remark on it when it happened in romance novels.

But still, as true as Rollo’s Rule may be, it’s really hard to believe that it’s always been this way, that’s it’s always been this bad.

And that’s because it wasn’t.

Hyper-Hypergamy

In olden days of yore, even beta males were Alpha by today’s standards.  Yet even those who weren’t particularly Alpha were still able to maintain a similar frame in that they were still “the one who needs the other the least.”

Back then, she depended on him for income, today she’s got “You-Go-Girlism.”  If she was caught cheating on him then, society would frown upon her en masse; today he gets blamed for not adequately getting in touch with her emotional needs.  There were fewer opportunities to cheat (the logistics of cheating is easier to navigate in small towns today than it was in big cities in prior eras), no Facebook to remind her how special she is every two minutes, no movie stars or professional athletes for her husband to not measure up to, and no political movements telling her she had a right to make beta males she’s never met pay for her kids independence.  She was more likely to attend church, and in church she was more likely to be reminded of her duties as a wife.

So unless her husband was a hapless omega, he didn’t need to provide much dread because everyone and everything else was doing it for him.  There was far more dread associated with hooking up with the wrong guy and getting pregnant back then than there is associated with getting caught in the act by her husband today.

In fact, PUA’s in prior eras used to actively lessen the prospect of dread by using over-the-top promises of eternal love that would utterly flop today.  Just read or watch Dangerous Liaisons (the movie’s great, book’s better) and you’ll see countless examples.

Women had the same hypergamic instincts they do today, but far more dread to counter it.  If a woman in other eras pulled this crap, he wouldn’t need a week-long freeze-out, he could probably just tell her parents, or the preacher, or any of her friends, and she’d be ruined.

Today, it’s the complete opposite.  If the vast majority of Americans heard the anecdote I cite in the previous paragraph, they would be horrified.  If instead of running back into his arms she banged the plumber, she would hear infinite choruses of “you go girl!” (including many from her church, if she even attends one).

It’s a bit deterministic for my taste, but Roosh largely nails it when he describes The True Nature of Women:  Water takes the shape of the container it fills.  The container for the modern woman is the perpetual reminder that she can do better, that her feelings matter more than anyone else’s, that she has the right to have children with whomsoever she chooses and somebody else has to fit the bill, that men are idiots if they don’t find her attractive, that she has the right to quash the God-given liberties of any who might offend her, that she has the right to make it as tempting as humanly possible for a male to have his way with her but bears no responsibility at all if things go awry, that it’s perfectly okay for her to cheat on her husband.

Where I differ with Roosh is that I believe that although a substantial portion of a woman’s “container” is determined by her hormones, upbringing, environment, and other external factors, she’s not just some empty vessel that floats with the wind.  Her choices also matter, there’s a little voice inside of her that sometimes tells her things that the Hamster doesn’t want to hear, and it’s her job to listen to it.

Still, even the most loyal of wives, the sweetest and most feminine single girls, virgins and whores alike all have their hypergamic tendencies reinforced countless times almost every day.  It’s hard for us to not look down one chick’s shirt when she bends over.  If it happens fifty times a day, you’re gonna catch a few glimpses.

So, regardless of how right a guy may be when he tells women to stop shit-testing, it’s not going to happen:

“[Her] grandma had the same urges, but contrary to your ilk she easily got it under control.”

But her grandma also had about four hundred reasons to get it under control that women today don’t have,  including societal sanctions against shit-testing instead of in favor of it, churches that didn’t automatically take the woman’s side, a legal system that didn’t give her undue leverage, Facebook posts telling her she’s the cat’s ass dozens of times every day, etc.

Nevertheless, even if the modern can’t stop it, she can “[get] it under control”, although it won’t be “easy”, and she’s going to have to limit herself when she’s not even around her man if she wants to control it.  She might have to go to the gas station with the frumpy old Indian dude instead of the one with the amateur body-builder.  She’s got to want to succeed, desperately.

Still, even though men don’t have the backup they should have, we’re NOT powerless.  We have the ability to be as Alpha as we know how, we can learn Game and how to apply it, and we know how to shut down her tests.  The better women will have fewer than the shrews we need to leave behind, but all of them are going to have a least a few.

But if it ever gets too much, we’ve got something she’ll never be able to counter.  As men, we have a Weapon that’s infinitely more effective than any culture or legal system.

And we have to be willing to use it.

Princess of the Damned

Yes, she’s horrifying.  Yes, I’m aware that this is the third time I’ve shown her.  Just scroll down as fast as you can after you get the gist of her personality, and then think of puppies or something happy to prevent any nightmares.

Yet nothing I’ve ever encountered encapsulates the theme of today’s post more than that thing.

A female commenter yesterday unintentionally gave me an insight into the mentality of the shrew:

When you find this man, the one to whom you are just an afterthought, it becomes the woman’s job to make him see her. Of course, it is her looks that will get her visually seen, but what does a man like this care for looks other than to enjoy? It is when she can accomplish really being seen that she feels like a princess. Those moments when she can make herself come to the forefront of his mind and forget for a moment about his mission. These moments are intoxicating. It’s where a woman’s power can really shine through.

Indeed, despite the readily observable fact that women crave men who neg them and know how to put them in their place, that isn’t the only force at work.  I’m not prescribing any particular course of action for men at this point, but a woman also longs for a certain form of validation.  Little girls wouldn’t dress up as princesses if they had no intrinsic desire to feel supremely special, and to think that this desire is completely divorced from the Alpha Fux portion of AFBB and relegated entirely to the Beta Bux portion is absurd.

That’s not to say that we should adopt some outdated form of chivalry, nor that men should in any way succumb to the Feminine Imperative.  However, even Roissy concedes that all-asshole-all-the-time won’t work in perpetuity.  I’m only saying that there’s more to the feminine psyche than the desire to get negged.

Which explains yet another facet of the shit-test.  There are benefits to a man either passing or failing.  He passes, she’s excited by his Alpha allure, he fails and she gets what she thinks she wants and inspires her sense of hypergamic worth so that she’s more confident she can get a better man.

But there’s one way in which she looses out entirely.  It’s officially a “pass” in that the man proves his worth to her, but for her it’s a harsh and bitter fail:

“Leave.”

“Do what you want.  I’m gone.”

“Whatever.”

“We’re done.”

Text.  Send.  No response.  Ever.

Although it’s a fitness-test for him, whether or not the man passes, the very fact that he takes it validates her.  Both the Alpha who puts her in place and the beta who complies with her demands took the test.  She’s still “being seen”.  The PUA who laughs off her bitchiness like he would a bratty kid-sister still somehow validates her just because he stays (prior to the hook point, leaving only tells her Hamster that she was too much Woman for him).  In the female brain, the boyfriend who calls her every awful name in the book but still hasn’t packed his bags and left for Denver shows her that he cares enough to yell at her at the top of his lungs.  ”I must really matter to him or he wouldn’t get so threatening.”

But no matter how hot she is, there is a point at which he simply won’t take the test any more.  He’ll pass, but she’ll be SOL.  This point varies with both her SMP rating and his, but there are times when even orbiters will go find another world to revolve around.

She becomes invisible, without the validation she craves.  When he ignores her, he proves he deserves her, and virtually every woman in a relationship has a moment when she’s just got to find out how Alpha her man really is.  But what if she’s lost her value or doesn’t have a whole lot to begin with?  What if it turns out that he’s too Alpha for her?  What if it’s not “Ignore Strategy“?  What if he really means it?

Enter the Shrew

I’ve described how the male failure to pass a woman’s tests will invariably lead to stronger tests:

Vox Day recently asked “why [] women ruin everything, even for themselves?”  Because they’re giving shit-tests, and there’s nobody around to pass them; the men are either weak or nowhere to be found.  When women know they’re testing, there’s a chance that they can limit themselves (sometimes, sort of, almost, under the right conditions).  However, feminists don’t admit that they need anything from men (besides their genitalia and/or sperm), so they’ll never admit to giving tests.  Nevertheless, test they must, and the more vicious their tests, the more likely men will see no need to bother with them.  The Hamster, uncontrolled, untrained, and without masculine restraint morphs into pure evil.

The Hamster is now the Shrew.

A high value woman is far less likely to become a shrew because there’s a much greater chance that some guy somewhere will pass her tests.  She might become incredibly bitchy, but the very fact that she holds the treasure that men crave indicates that a high value man will simply see her as a challenge and defeat her.  That’s not to say she won’t ever get dumped for “going rogue” on him, but she’s got a bit of leverage herself.  And maybe the very fact that she’s got something worth holding onto will calm her down.

Maybe.

But for the woman in the video above, there’s no chance.  Perhaps most Alphas could turn her into a sandwich-making kitten in no time, but why the hell would he even bother?  It’s one things to laugh off a dressing-down to bag Ashley Greene.  It’s quite another to do it for a younger version Professor Umbridge.  Furthermore, it’s one thing to piss off a guy so much that he never wants to see you again after you’ve been banging him for a few months, it’s quite another to do it from across a crowded room before you’ve even met.

When you see a woman like Umbridge, you’re witnessing female insecurity run amok, the throbbing desire for a Man to take her, tame her, and put her in her place.  Yet the only men who could possibly surpass the Superman standards she requires would never spend more than twenty seconds on her even if they’re blasted out of their minds, she’s the only woman around for twenty miles, and he just got back from a six-month submarine deployment.

And if by some amazing fluke she manages to score with him, the moment she does anything wrong (and probably even before that) he’s out the door.  Through intentional ugliness of both body and spirit, she’s made it impossible to ever get what she so desperately needs.

To finish Stingray’s (seemingly not a shrew) earlier comment, “No amount of whiny and complaining will give her [intoxicating moments], and deep down, women know it.”  ”Deep down”, correct, but what if her screeching has been the only way she’s even felt a shadow of being seen, that Alpha rolling his eyes before he walks away the closest thing to a man taming her that she’ll ever experience?  Of course she knows that no man of value could ever want her, but what if the easiest way for her Hamster Shrew to rationalize her failures with men is to not only make the tests impossible, but to make it thoroughly distasteful to even take them?  ”He’s just not man enough to handle my independence/lard/intelligence/bitchiness.”  If you replace “lard” with “beauty”, isn’t that how the NFL cheerleaders think?

She can convince herself that nobody passes her tests because nobody’s worthy, when the truth is that nobody passes them because nobody wants to.

I avoid shrews, I will never White Knight them, and I know that they’re probably getting what they deserve.  Nevertheless, I do feel something that almost reminds me of pity when I see one of them in action.  Yes, I see failure in her, but I also see the end result of “you-go-girl!” education, feminized and compliant males, the “fat pride movement” and millions of other societal shortcomings.  She’s in a prison of her own making, and I doubt any Earthly force could ever set her free.  I’ve been in such prisons myself, and they’re the ones with the strongest chains.

For when modern shrews find Petrucchio, he figures she’s not worth the bother.

The Weapon

And the things that he fears are a weapon to be used against him.

                                                                                                                      –Neil Peart, “The Weapon”

The initiated already know that “nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women“.

This “value” can apply to his sexuality or to his more ostensibly beta provider traits.  Stingray in a previous comment:

One of my biggest fears is losing my husband. Not only would I lose the man I love, but I fear for my children. If one us us had to go, I would prefer it be me for all of the reasons you outlined above. Kids needs their father. Yes, they need a mother as well, but if it had to be one or the other, my choice would be for them to have their Dad.

But Stingray is far wiser than most women.  All too often, women have been convinced that fathers are but a luxury (as long as the invisible beta pays for her daycare).  The FI is doing all it can to make Woman feel as comfortable as possible with the prospect of single-motherhood.

Legally, she also has the upper hand.  If he dumps her for a younger woman, the courts will probably take her side.  She rules academia, the culture, and the church.  Ours is a feminized world.  Team Woman roars.

But Man as his most desirable doesn’t give a damn about any of it.  The Alpha who conquers, the Alpha who kills, he draws in Woman like moths to a flame.  Her lawyers, her shit-tests, the cattiness of her friends and the admonishments from the pulpit phase him only insofar as he chooses to let them influence his mind.  His pulse never races.  He doesn’t sweat or beg.  If he’s phased, it’s with the boom of righteous indignation or the coldness of an icicle knife.  Her lawyers can take all of his assets (after one hell of a fight), but he is his own master and knows he can just take back whatever he needs.

But there is one weapon She can never take from Man if Man chooses to accept it:  Her very own most primal sexual drive.  She needs him to be everything she’s trying to make sure he isn’t.

She wants the Alpha, the Man with Options.  She craves him to an extent that only a few of us can comprehend.  This Man by nature knows no fear, and as he renounces all fear, he instead makes her afraid.  Perhaps afraid of destitution, but more likely afraid of simply losing him.  The way he makes her feel can’t be replaced.  Somehow with him she simultaneously feels like an afterthought and a princess.  She must have this feeling, and no lawyer, whiny preacher, or re-education program can ever change that.

The Man without fear has reason to cause it in others.  He’s lethal, unapologetic, and knows his own value.  He can cause pain.  In today’s world, sometimes he knows he must:

For the first few hours she was cool with that. By the next morning she was telling me to give it a rest. By the next night (at her family’s place) she was threatening to withdraw sex if I didn’t warm it up. I just didn’t fucking care. Like, at all. I alpha’d up. Like, way the fuck up. I was the man, I was fucking awesome. The next morning, she’s a little weepy…

As one of the Blogger Formerly Known as Bill Powell’s commenters remarked, we live in “a culture where no one trusts anyone for anything”, and in such a culture it’s downright idiotic to not use whatever leverage you might have with someone who can take you for everything you’ve got if she so chooses.

I’ve explained how the Hamster can become the Shrew.  All women must test.  If the woman is worthy, the man will pass her test.  But woe to her if she’s not:

But something shifted down deep inside. Something that frankly scared the living shit out of me. In front of me, I no longer saw my beautiful sexy wife that was in killer shape despite 3 kids and pushing 40. I saw the wrinkles, I saw the sagginess, I saw the lumps and bumps. I saw an aging, crazy, bitch of a woman. And I was… just not into her any more.

Or CoffeeCrazed:

 I have found as I have engaged in an LTR, that the woman becomes more attractive. However, there was one from whom the bitch came out and I experienced the exact same thing. She became ugly ugly ugly before my eyes.

And note thefear this causes.  Natalie at Red Pill Wifery:

I’m a red pill woman…but dang, can’t we women have an off day ever without fear of our man going rogue on us?

You’d better hope so, sweetie.

If YOU “go rogue” on an Alpha, he knows he doesn’t have to take it, and if he “takes it”, he’s no longer an Alpha.  The shit-test of the shrew is lose-lose for all parties concerned, for to maintain your attraction he’s required to either scare the living crap out of you, or to leave.

The first shit-test was when Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge.  It’s best you not “go rogue” and get the Knowledge of which option he’ll pick.

So my advice to my female readers, read the comments Sturges puts into the narrative, read the comments from the men who are beginning to give up on you.  Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t, but either way, I suggest you learn from Sunshine Mary and TempestTcup and develop some damn gratitude.

Frankly, we’re getting sick to fucking death of your shit.  We know we can get by without you.  We’re the motor of the world, the Men who make you feel alive.  The world can’t exist without us.  Dammit, we know our value.

And you wouldn’t want us any other way.

From Hamster to Shrew

[Edited to include a factual correction brought to my awareness by the Hawaiian Libertarian.]

Some believe that the book of Genesis is historic, others that it’s largely metaphoric.  Either way, it’s as insightful into human nature as anything written before or since, and the Fall is no exception.

There a numerous implications of the Fall, but we can undoubtedly observe it’s a story of Adam failing a shit-test.  His acquiescence to Eve’s desire to eat of the Tree of Knowledge leads to suffering.  He fails the test, and in so doing fails her as well.

Although the modern shit-test replicates Eve’s request that Adam follow the Serpent, it’s also the only way for a woman to find out if the man in her life is capable of passing the test that Adam so miserably fails.  She’s psychologically and biologically wired to seek out men that will decline her stupid requests, and the only way she can find out who these are is to test them.  Those who pass her tests are qualified to lead her, ensuring her that she won’t make the mistake of eating from the Tree of Knowledge again.

Yet in another sense, the tests make no sense at all.  Why the hell would you ask somebody to hold your purse if you don’t really want them to hold your purse?  Be inconsiderate just to see how somebody reacts?  Test your co-workers whom you have no intention of dating?  It’s necessary, but from a masculine perspective it’s also entirely irrational.

Enter the Hamster.  The Hamster has to convince her that she really wants the guy to hold her purse or she wouldn’t ask him to do it.  And in a sense she does want him to do it just as much as she doesn’t.  Imagine the Hamster of Eve:

Why shouldn’t we try this fruit?  We’re not hurting anybody.  Who the hell is He to tell us what we can or can’t do?  That snake said it was just because He doesn’t want us to be like Him, and that sounded pretty reasonable to me, and the snake actually bothers to talk to me every once in a while.  Besides, it’s a much prettier tree than all the other trees.  We’ll try it just once, and if we don’t like it, we won’t do it again.  I’ll ask Adam, and if he says it’s okay and it’s not, then it’ll actually be his fault if anything goes wrong…

So when Adam went along with it, I’m sure she was thrilled.  I bet she was also vaguely disappointed, for the shit-test is a win-win, lose-lose proposition.  If he fails, she’s increased her hypergamic worth and she gets whatever it was she wanted at the time, but she probably also feels confused and unmoored.  If he wins, she has to shut up or cut out whatever other nonsense, but she gets turned on and feels safe.  This guy will protect me from myself.

(During my beta days, on multiple occasions I thought I saw a shadow of disappointment on a woman’s face when I did something she asked me to do.  Yet I could also tell she was happy.  Only the Hamster could get her to put herself in such a position repeatedly with multiple men.)

Women value security for entirely understandable reasons, so no matter how empowered she may feel when the men in her life repeatedly fail her tests, there’s undoubtedly a sense of doubt and confusion that no male can ever truly understand.  The more she can do whatever she wants, the greater her sense of unprotectedness.  The more unsafe she feels, the stronger her requirements for masculine strength.  And what’s the best way to find a really strong man?

Really big shit tests.

Vox Day recently asked “why [] women ruin everything, even for themselves?”  Because they’re giving shit-tests, and there’s nobody around to pass them; the men are either weak or nowhere to be found.  When women know they’re testing, there’s a chance that they can limit themselves (sometimes, sort of, almost, under the right conditions).  However, feminists don’t admit that they need anything from men (besides their genitalia and/or sperm), so they’ll never admit to giving tests.  Nevertheless, test they must, and the more vicious their tests, the more likely men will see no need to bother with them.  The Hamster, uncontrolled, untrained, and without masculine restraint morphs into pure evil.

The Hamster is now the Shrew.

All psychoses are understandable and useful psychological traits that mutate into something destructive, a cancer with a life of its own.  Such is the Hamster who’s known no bounds, coddled in school, told she’s right during every conflict she has with a man, weak or absent fathers, encouraged to see her failures as the result of unfairness and discrimination.  She becomes untenable, unmanageable, feral enough to make Shakespeare’s Katherina seem as feminine as Ruth.

As individuals, we can manage this to an extent.  The shit-test of girls participating in men’s athletics was eventually handled adroitly by Keoni Galt.  He failed the shit-test of a female in kempo karate twice, first by making her look good in a way she didn’t deserve, and then by holding back and losing to her while sparring.  However, after she bragged about beating him, he beat the snot out of her.  He passed her test, and despite her tears, I bet on some level she was grateful (or at least turned on); he may have saved her life.

Like Dalrock says:

So long as women demand to be taken seriously, I’ll reserve the right to take them at their word.  If they put themselves in a position of leadership and/or make direct challenges to me or a group I’m part of, I’ll reserve the right to respond.  I’ll do this understanding full well that many will feel that I’m unfairly picking on a poor defenseless girl in doing so.  So be it.

It’s most decidedly not “picking on a poor defenseless girl,” it’s preventing the birth of a shrew, for shews have been allowed to eat of the masculine Tree of Knowledge every day of their lives.  Better to scare her away from her delusions before they embitter her even more.

Unfortunately, the shit-tests modern man must confront are often even stronger than those of a single vicious shrew.  The legal system, our schools and universities, and our culture are instituting a shit-test so venomous that soon only the strongest of Alphas will be able to pass it.  They’re going after our boys, preventing them from even developing the courage they will eventually need so desperately as men, and the men are already dropping out and refusing to fight them.

Some will be contentedly castrated and fail the tests, others will become barbarians.  Still others will resort to more unpleasant options.

Just like Eve, the modern shew will find that when the men in their lives all fail their shit-tests, they fail, too.

The Heavens

Basic elemental instinct to survive

Stirs the higher passion

Thrill to be alive

 –Neil Peart, “Prime Mover”

In my last (and relatively unnoticed) post, I introduce the concept of GIA, although I’ve referred to her components on multiple occasions.  GIA understood correctly is the foundation of every healthy individual, civilization, society, organization, or political movement.

(And for my secular readers, don’t be afraid of G, for even some atheists like Ayn Rand adhere to aspects of it.)

GIA is an acronym for:

God is what God is.

I am what I am.

A is A.

GIA is reflected in America’s founding documents, the wings of the conservative/libertarian movement, the effective application of rhetoric and game, economic law, the Trinity, and in innumerable other ways.  Once you recognize her (I’ll refer to GIA as “she” because “it” gets boring after a while), you’ll see her everywhere that things actually work.  You’ll also notice how things that don’t work result entirely from misunderstanding her or one of her components.

I realize that many of you don’t believe that the Bible is a sacred text.  Even if it’s not, it is the foundational text of Western Civilization (supplemented by the writings of Aristotle), and as such, even if it’s nothing more than a collection of “desert fairy tales”, it should not be disregarded.

So I’ll present GIA through one of the ways in which she was most succinctly expressed in the past:  the desert temptations of Matthew 4.

As I describe this, I concede that I’m no theologian, and in no way do I wish to denigrate or contradict any of the interpretations of this episode that have come before me.  Nor do I wish to imply that this portion of the Bible is there solely to clarify my pet philosophy.  Also, I recognize that the first component of GIA (G) is the most controversial in that non-believers may initially write her off entirely because of it.  Believe me or don’t, but I’ve found that even secularists who have common sense admit that they also ascribe to G, even if they disagree on G’s ultimate definition.

Matthew 4:1-4:

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.  And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.  And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.  But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Those of us who study Game have “swallowed the Red Pill”.  We see the world for what it truly is, our biological and/or sinful natures dictate a substantial portion of our behavior.  The success or failure of an individual depends on his ability to adapt to the economic and biological realities that confront him.  Women are hypergamous, men want to spread their seed.  We’re mammals that want to breed, sleep, have security and status, and each of these has a biological counterpart.  People are mindless followers.  A is A.

I deny none of this, but I vehemently deny that it’s all there is.

Man shall not live by bread alone.

And he doesn’t.  In it’s most literal sense, can we say that an omega who have plenty of food but no adventure or purpose is really alive?  That fat girl who blocked your way to the frozen wings in the supermarket?

But what if “bread” doesn’t just mean “bread”?  What if it also means the other Red Pill satisfactions like wealth, status, or sex?

If man live by “bread alone”, then why does Roosh, a man who has had more sexual success than at least 99% of men who’ve ever lived forever find himself vaguely dissatisfied?  Why do rock stars who’ve lived out every young man’s dream wind up killing themselves?  Why can’t Lindsay Lohan keep out of trouble?  Why do many PUA’s get burned out and settle down with just one woman?

The Baby Boomers had more “bread” than any generation before them, yet they dedicated themselves to “ideals” that sowed the seeds of destruction for the civilization that treated them so well.

And why do travelers so often report that people in places like Ethiopia who don’t have enough “bread” seem so much happier than Western Europeans who do?

It’s because there is something more than chemicals, breeding, status, and food.

That something more is G.

G is belief, purpose, the thrill that goes beyond what a dog could ever feel, ideals, and love.  G is how the political realities that led straight to despotism everywhere else in the world led to relative peace and prosperity in America.

G is “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” like Faith, Marriage, Love, and Morality.  It’s concepts like Justice and Liberty, ideals that we’ll never reach but that we’ll always strive for.

G is the man who feels alive because he’s doing what he’s born to do.  Pace Ayn Rand, but can there be a purely rational basis for Howard Roark’s obsession with architecture?  Could he have been nearly as fulfilled as a railroad manager like Dagny Taggart?  Those who live their mission know that something made them do it that simply can’t be described by a biological drive for wealth and babes.  That something is an echo of G.

Ultimately, G is Yaweh.  You can disagree with me, and I”m not here to persuade you.  However, if you know that there’s more to what happens here than molecules bumping into each other, if you believe in right and wrong, even if you don’t call it G or “believe in G”, you sometimes act and think as though you do.  As long as your actions reflect G’s proper manifestations, in the earthly battle to save our civilization, we’re allies.

But as I’ve said before, GIA depends on balance.  Without understanding that A is A, G can wreck you (the 2nd temptation).  Among the ways this error is commonly expressed is swallowing the Blue Pill, leftist idealism, White Knighting, quantitative easing, fat acceptance, and Republican Presidential campaigns.

G without A is misplaced idealism and will lead to painful correction, but A without G is empty, cynical, and pointless.

Perhaps an Alpha gorilla feels fulfilled with his harem as long as he has plenty of food, but rarely does the Alpha male human.  Somehow he needs more, and he craves more because there is more.

That something more is G, and it’s every bit as real as A.

Feminism vs. GIA

In my last post I described how Rousseau’s idyllic pre-civilization, socialism, and the Feminine Imperative are actually one and the same.  I”m aware that some of my readers prefer that I focus on masculine issues, other prefer it when I write about politics, still others when I write about culture.  I might emphasize one aspect or another for a while, but to me it’s all the same.

The society that today’s left hopes to construct is one in which we share a collective responsibility for the well-being of our children.  The biological female imperative is Alpha fux/beta bux (AFBB), and the “beta bux” portion would be taken care of through a coercive tax system in which the betas would get no credit whatsoever for their contributions to any particular woman’s children; it’s hard to feel gratitude for men you’ve never met who have no choice but to help you.

This frees her up for Alpha fux.  Women would obviously prefer that the Alpha sticks around after he’s done with her, but if he doesn’t, a magical “somebody” will help her with the bills regardless.  At least as long as the Democrats win the next election.

Such a system contradicts Truth in three fundamental ways.  The Truths it violates are those on which Western Civilization is based, and those that epitomized America’s Founding.  In no particular order:

1.  It violates Individual Liberty  (I) in that individuals are required to support the well-being of others; those who played no role in the creation of a child are required by the state to support it.  The freedom of a woman to bang whomsoever she pleases supersedes the freedom of a man to reap the fruits of his own labor.  Hence, in our efforts to define freedom as “feminine power”, we ignore the aspect of freedom that only requires we be left alone (liberty).  The notion of rights becomes hopelessly distorted, causing each of us to focus less on what we can produce and more on how much we can coerce.

2.  It tears away our very moral foundation (G).  Women require AFBB, but as we outsource BB to unknown and abstract betas, we dis- incentivize the moral, reliable behaviors like fidelity and a strong work ethic in all men.  Not only will the betas have no reason to do the right thing, Alphas will get theirs regardless.  In fact, the more primal aspects of the female sex drive (AF) often encourage men to be as immoral as possible.  Joran van der Sloot is about to get married, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has a fan club, but the guy who develops the app that helps you balance your checkbook may not get any female attention at all.

Right or wrong, female attention drives men like nothing else.  So if females care not for right or wrong, don’t expect many men to, either.

Moral behavior often has no reward.  However, healthy societies develop social sanctions that somewhat mitigate the harmful effects of morality and fight against the advantages of behavior that knows no moral restriction.  Societies in decline do the opposite.  That’s what we’re doing.

3.  It violates the realities of economics and human nature (A) to such an extent that the Gods of the Copybook Headings will be forced to “with terror and slaughter return.”

The socialists assured us that if we granted women more “economic liberty” through replacing the money that her husband used to provide that children would be better off, and the women who fell for it watched their sons grow up in prison or become quite losers who don’t produce grandchildren.  They tell us that if we punish achievement through punitive tax rates that we’ll achieve just as much regardless, and the states that practice this nonsense lose their jobs to the states that don’t.  They tell us that respecting women will inspire them to respect us back as we watch our most beautiful women fall for the likes of Chris Brown and Jesse James.

They told us that increased access to abortion would lead to fewer unwanted children, that pouring tons of money into our slums would make them vanish, that increased home ownership would lead to a stronger middle class, that “the stimulus” would stimulate the economy, that women could have it all, that a printing press could create value, that the programs they support would lead to “power to the people” instead of just more power to an unaccountable bureaucracy in Washington.

Reality, be it mathematical, biological, economic, or physical can not be denied.  A is A.  Pretend otherwise and suffer.

If we used to live in quasi-socialist tribes but stopped, there’s a reason we stopped.  Perhaps we learned that average guys work harder when they’re allowed to reap the fruits of his own labor and isn’t regarded as a slave.  Maybe somebody noticed that kids who had both a mother and a father caring for them tended to be happier than those that didn’t.  I’m not saying I approve of all the restrictions women in prior eras faced, but maybe somebody recognized that if Ethel does whatever the hell she wants with her body that she’ll just give it to the town pickpocket.  If liberty is the absence of external control and we don’t have moral self-control, what’s left to keep us in line?

To the feminists/leftists/socialists, call them what you will, the answer to this final question is simple:  do away with liberty.  The best way to control us, to make it seem like they have to control us, is to destroy our moral foundation.

God is what God is.  I am what I am.  A is A.  GIA is what made this country great, and only GIA will keep us from destroying ourselves.