Hierarchical Equalism

Feminism rests on three basic assumptions.  For obvious reasons they express them simultaneously only when they think they can get away with it.

The first is that men and women are inherently equivalent.  Deep down, we’re all fundamentally the same, save the pernicious effects of patriarchal socialization.  The only reasons we don’t have as many female mechanical engineers as males is that women have been trained to either dislike engineering or have been taught to feel unworthy of even giving it a try.  The only reason there aren’t as many male daycare workers as females is that men have been trained to see “women’s work” as unmanly.  We can rectify such imbalances through society-wide re-socialization programs:  teach boys and girls to both play with trucks and dolls, have lots of kid movies with badass female protagonists (for both kids and adults), encourage young women to enter STEM fields while simultaneously training young men to get in touch with their soft side, etc.

The second is that women are uniquely superior to men.  Men have been responsible for the vast majority of economic oppression, wars, violence, and broken hearts since the beginning of time.  Despite having only one inherent advantage (physical strength, which they admit only grudgingly), the world over men have used their uniquely evil lust for power to oppress both women and each other.  Whereas women prefer sensitivity, community, cooperation, and egalitarianism, men prefer toughness, individuality, competition, and hierarchy.  To properly evolve we need to forsake the latter in favor of the former, to base promotion and hiring decisions on touchy-feely notions like “corporate culture” instead of masculine merit.  Men see only their own naked interest, but women instinctively understand what’s best for all of us.

The third is one they’ll never admit, but if we follow the Game principle of “watch what she does, not what she says”, we find that it’s also true that feminists believe that women are uniquely inferior to men.  Although women supposedly have the same basic emotional makeup as men, only women require trigger warnings to keep them on an even keel.  Although Ashton at the local Country Day school has far more opportunities to explore math and science as Billy Bob Jr. at the trailer park, only Ashton needs to have her hand held every step of the way on her way to becoming an engineer.  Without government programs encouraging women to make the right career choices, they’ll invariably choose something stupid like “housewife.”  Without government redistribution schemes, they’ll never survive the ramifications of their dumb mating choices.

Violent crime is horrific for all those who experience it, but only rape requires we re-program half our species to prevent it (when’s the last time you’ve heard a feminist fervently support any sort of “war on crime”?).  Women need extra support groups and “women in business” luncheons to have any hope of competing with the men.  Involuntarily celibate men are perfectly capable of just sucking it up, but involuntarily celibate women (usually obese) require infinite amounts of emotional support from everyone.

We often accuse the left (not only feminists) of equalism, the notion that underneath the surface we’re basically all the same.  Whether we’re speaking of race or sex, I disagree.  Indeed, the left often spouts an equalist rhetoric, there’s nothing about their underlying philosophy that supports the notion in the slightest that they actually believe in anything other than a strict system of hierarchy of value, rights, and responsibilities.

For example, take Retrenched’s description of modern entitlement:

The prevailing idea in the modern west is that women always have an absolute right to receive whatever it is they happen to want from men – sex, love, relationships, marriage, children, bullet shields etc. – but men must always earn whatever it is they want from women, whether it’s sex, love, marriage, or even the right to see their children post-divorce. Men’s worthiness must be continually proven, all the time, while women’s worthiness and perfection are just presumed by default, regardless of their character or behavior, and are never to be questioned under any circumstances.

This bias towards women’s inherent worthiness [compared to men's relative worthlessness] is so pervasive that to even suggest that women must earn things like love and marriage the way that men must earn sex is considered vicious misogyny.

How can one reconcile such sentiments with anything even remotely resembling a view that we’re fundamentally the same?

You can’t, and I don’t think we should try.  Not unlike the postmodernists who preach that all cultures are equal only so that they can later sneak in their true belief that Western Civilization is uniquely evil, feminists promote equalism only in hopes of securing special rights and privileges for women and women alone.  To promote the idea that our enemy is leftist equalism is to posit that their rhetoric somehow matches their real beliefs.  It doesn’t.

Yet we also mistakenly assume that the sense of entitlement stems only from a belief in the superiority of whatever group they’re hoping to support.  In a sense it does, for they believe that women (or gays, blacks, etc.) deserve everybody else’s stuff.  It’s more important for Chrissy to get her pills with your money than it is for you to keep what you earned.

However, coupled with the belief that Chrissy is more worthy of your money than you are is the unexpressed assumption that without you, Chrissy can’t cut it.  White males sometimes go through financial hardship, too.  On one hand, they don’t give a damn (unless it looks they might be able to get him to vote Democrat), but on the other hand they just assume that the white guy will be fine if we don’t do a damn thing to help him.

In my taxonomy of leftists, I divided the left into three basic groups.  The Anointed believe that they’re fundamentally superior to the rest of us, sufficiently enlightened to know how the rest of us should run our lives, which of us need help and who should do the helping.  In unscientific formula, this is written as I>U (pronounced I am greater than you) or I=G (I am G-d).  The Benighted feel guilty, unworthy of their lives, they’re willing to give it all away.  They’re formula is I<U, or I=A (all I am is dust in the wind).

But the feminist Entitled are a mixture, worthy of the fruits of your labor, incapable of surviving without them (most male feminists are Benighted).  The Entitled believe both I>U and I<U, that they are both gods and victims.  They’re just like men but uniquely superior, just as capable of any man but forever in need of extra help.

They don’t believe in the equalism of rights (equality before the law), nor equalism of human worth (we’re equal in value before God), nor equalism of ability, nor biological equalism.  They believe women deserve and need special rights, women are uniquely gifted and morally superior, and women can’t make in on their own without men, even though they can.

Whether equalism is great, awful, or somewhere in between, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what feminists actually believe.

Posted in Culture, Feminism, Politics, Race, Rhetoric | 17 Comments

The Solution’s Core

This post will be short, but it’s a relatively simple point that I think needs to be made more often.

In the comments yesterday, deti composed a mantra of sorts, and other commenters think it would make a great poster:

You’re not entitled to commitment

You’re not entitled to anything from any man.

You’re not entitled to a man’s money, time, resources, attention or sexual fidelity.

You’re not enttiled to protection from any man nearby simply because you want it or think you need it or are feeling afraid of something. Men are not women’s de facto personal bodguards.

You’re not entitled to a man’s help with a flat tire simply because he is a man and you are a woman.

You’re not entitled to a man’s help simply because you want or need a high item reached or a heavy item moved.

You’re not entitled to attention from a guy just because you’re a woman and he’s a man.

You’re not entitled to help with your work.

You’re not entitled to favors of any kind. You’re not entitled to rides to or from work, help moving to your apartment, or a shoulder to cry on after you caught F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer “cheating” on you with the cute bartender.

You’re not entitled to a drink from that guy.

You’re not entitled to anything from that hawt guy just because you went home with him from the bar that night. You’re not entitled to commitment from him. You’re not entitled to a relationship, a morning breakfast, a return text, or even an acknowledgment that he knew you. Why should he value you more than you value yourself?

You’re not enttiled. To anything.

Of course such a mantra would make most modern women go ballistic.

HOWEVER, as much as they want everybody to think they’re entitled to everything, they crave a man who refuses to buy into that crap in the slightest.

We here in the Manosphere all learn quite early, don’t listen to what she says, watch what she does.  Well, she says she’s a special snowflake who deserves every consideration imaginable, but she does the guy who makes her wait twenty minutes for their first date.  She says she wants to be coddled, but she craves rough men who rough her up a bit.

Of course what she wants matters or we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in; obviously at least a part of her likes to be told how special she is 450 time per day or she wouldn’t spend so much time on social media.

But we know how she really feels.  On a certain level, way deep down, she knows we’re right.  She knows that being spoiled is bad for her, otherwise she’d throw herself all over the first nice guy she meets with a fat wallet.  She knows she needs to be told and shown what’s what, otherwise fewer of her fantasies would involve such dominant men who completely control her.

Some women may have all but given up on their needs in favor of their wants, thoroughly convinced there’s nobody man enough out there to give her what she craves.  Other times, it might simply not be worth it to do what it takes to keep her in line.

Yet for those of us who know this ugly little secret, we’re at an incredible advantage.

Tell her she’s not entitled to commitment, watch her work extra hard to please you.

Show her she’s not entitled to anything from you, and she’ll either get it herself, give up, or try to get it from somebody else.  Either way, she might like the guy who eventually helps her, but she respects you.

Convince her she’s not entitled to your help, and observe how she magically becomes appreciative when you do help her.

I know it’s slightly different when it comes to politics, I know that there are layers upon layers of lies to overcome, I know that White Knights will oppose you every step of the way.

But if you somehow get stuck in a Womyn’s Studies class and hold your ground against every woman in the room and all the White Knights, who do you think she’s going to remember?

That’s right, the one she keeps screaming at.

The White Knights may never see it, the hardcore battering rams will fight you to the death.

Nevertheless, we can say it:  Girl, you’re not entitled.  To anything.

We can say it loud, and we can say it proud.

And she’ll like it.

Posted in Alpha, Culture, Feminism, Game, Politics, Rhetoric | 12 Comments

Who She Calling Entitled?

A couple of posts back, M3 left a comment I found to be nothing less than inspired.  I don’t have much time to write tonight, and I believe his comment should be read even by folks who don’t wade into my comment threads here.  Therefore, I’m making it into this post.

For the record, M3 and I have some pretty profound disagreements.  Nevertheless, he’s a man for whom I have immense respect, a guy I know I’d have a great time grabbing a beer with.  He’s been through some hell, but he does what he can to help others either avoid or overcome that hell themselves.  That’s part of what I hope to do too, so despite any disagreements, he’s an ally, and a strong one at that.

I was initially going to intersperse my own commentary or highlight certain phrases, but I decided it stands best as is.

So without further ado, M3:

Women jump at the chance to use the word ‘entitlement’ against men when it’s not even that men feel entitled, they just felt that they performed the prescribed script (as they knew it under blue pill feminine imperative conditioning) as the successful path towards relationships/romance/dating that would ultimately lead to sex. Nowhere is it implied that they feel entitled along the way – they feel like they ‘earned’ it and are rejected. If they felt ‘entitled’ well then.. they’d probably rape you to boot seeing as how they’re entitled to it no?

But even farther than that, the real reason it’s such a solipsistic thing for a woman to say to a man who’s tried in earnest and genuine intent to strike up a romantic relationship with the hope of it becoming a sexual relationship – is that by and large, women can never ever come close to experiencing the male experience of being ‘invisible’. Male and Female attraction are on 2 different spectrum’s. Where a womans attractiveness is relatively stable on the visual spectrum where all changes to enhance attraction ability lies on that slider, male attractiveness to females is the punchline of jokes and internet memes of 427 control dials/buttons and switches that must be attuned just right before it it noticed, usually ON TOP of having to have exquisite, punching above your weight good looks too.

Women are born with the privilege of being biologically desired at all times by most all men so long as they hold the look/shape of femininity. Even if their personality deviates drastically from feminine to psycho man hating bitch, the visual representation of femininity is enough to arouse attention from men. Most every woman who can control her weight will never go for a lack of attention or desire by the males of her species.

Contrast that against the men, in some cases very good looking men, men who are successful in many aspects of life, and can provide and create and be a producer to the society – still fail when it comes to women because they are incapable of triggering the lizard portion of ‘civilized western womens’ mind. And until they either discover red pill or game, they are doomed to continually fail under the provisions prescribed by the feminine imperative and feminist dogma on how to approach and engage with females for the express purpose of courtship ranging from be nice, be a gentleman, have a good job, don’t be a rapist, be a good shoulder to cry on, be there for her, respect her (even if she does nothing to warrant it), and always ask for consent before going in for a kiss (thus killing any spontaneity to spark the lizard brain tingles)

If every woman was suddenly stripped of her ‘femaleness’, her innate sexual primacy, and men were no longer biologically compelled to seek them out for mating (imagine a shot that inhibited mens desire or attraction – MGTOW in a needle) and women no longer were chased, sought, desired or ‘visible’ to men…

if the male gaze ended tomorrow, there would be a mass die off of women claiming their own lives due to depression, insecurity, feeling of abandonment. No, they need it, desire it, crave it. In order to survive they must have it at all costs. It doesn’t matter if they are aware of it or not.. all that matters is that they know men will continue to seek them out solely because they are women.

They feel entitled to it.

Posted in Alpha, Culture, Feminism, Game | 12 Comments

Doubling Down

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

–Hamlet, Act III, scene ii

In my last post, among other things I discussed the emotional reaction many women seem to be having to the Santa Barbara shootings (they don’t seem to mind the stabbings too much).

My intent was to describe the visceral reaction, the notion that something’s off becoming apparent and thus creating an emotional upheaval of sorts.  In no way did I mean to suggest that they young women were actually going to do something about it like treat lesser males with a bit more compassion or stop being so damn spoiled.

However, my last sentence could leave that impression:

But if men aren’t entitled to sex, if a young and virtuous bride is an unreasonable demand, that’s fine.  They’ll just stop giving women all the goodies to which they feel entitled.

And that’s when civilization collapses.  I suspect on some level, young women are beginning to suspect that.

And I did leave such an impression with three men I respect, deti, Reality Doug, and to a lesser extent M3.  (Doug objects to another one of my assertions, which I’ll deal with below.)


Well, yes, if the average man can’t get sex, he has no incentive to improve. And if he has no incentives, then he languishes. Multiply that by 10 million or so, and yeah, you have a recipe for civilizational collapse.

But are women suspecting that? I don’t think so. Are women drawing the connection between collapse and any role that they themselves might play in that? I doubt it. Not because they are stupid, but because they just don’t connect the dots. And they don’t connect the dots because they don’t have to.


I think they see the events of last weekend as proof that they, and society, are justified in avoiding and discarding these men as unimportant and dangerous. I think that they will use this as further proof that more and more men are rightly being pushed to the fringes of society because, well, that’s where they belong.

Look. I’m not saying that women have to start sleeping with these men. Far from it. I’m simply saying that this is going to be used as proof that awkward, socially misadjusted men are going to be viewed not as a symptom of what’s wrong; but as the cause; and therefore must be removed.


As long as they flip the switch and the light comes on.. life is peechy. As long as the iPhone can recharge and get a signal from the tower.. the world is fine. As long as there is water coming from the tap to make her morning coffee.. there is nothing to worry about.

Reality Doug, in a post of his own:

I think Martel gives women too much credit. I’m no closer, but I have field experience, and I can tell you field experience is the cure to giving women too much credit. Women are not complex, not unfathomable. I think Martel may be hoping against hope that women will wake up and realize how wealth stewardship is important to all of us. They will not.

This doesn’t particularly make for a wild and crazy shouting match, but I agree that “they just don’t connect the dots,” that young women feel “justified in avoiding and discarding these men,” that if “there is water coming from the tap to make her morning coffee…there is nothing to worry about,” and I seriously doubt that “women will wake up and realize how wealth stewardship is important to all of us.”

However, I wasn’t writing about a rational response to the shootings, for I began my post by describing the volume and intensity of the #YesAllWomen tweets, none of which (that I read) were sympathetic to the plight of any males in the slightest or drew any connection whatsoever between today’s sexual/marriage markets and impending doom.

Instead, I was referring to a subtle disruption, a sense that something might be off (although I concede I wasn’t as clear as I should have been).  Rational creatures like M3, deti, and Doug might respond to such a feeling by making an intellectual effort to “connect the dots”, to ascertain what’s really behind what’s going on.

Irrational creatures don’t.  They”l sense a “disturbance in the force” and loudly and violently blame what strikes them as easiest to blame.  Elliot Rodger hated women, therefore the problem is misogyny.  Claiming anything other than that much mean you’re a misogynist, too.  The more evidence you present to support your assertions, the more brazenly they’ll call you names.

Sometimes when discussing economics or other issues with lefties, they’ll be perfectly calm and reasonable until I’ve got them pinned down on some point or other, at which point they’ll get extremely angry and start calling me racist or misogynist or something.  They don’t do this when I’m still flushing out the points we have in common (before I’m any threat), they wait until they have to face the terrifying prospect that I might be right.

Such it is with this.  By no means to these women think that the ostracism suffered by unwanted males might merit some sort of attention or solution (do many of them even think at all?), but when one such male goes off and starts wreaking havoc, it’s got to shake them up a bit.

And it has.  We’re not seeing a calm refutation of Rodger’s thesis, we’re seeing fuck all loser men!!! being screamed all over the place on Twitter like never before.  This isn’t because they’re more convinced of the rational basis for the need to subvert the patriarchy, it’s because they’re beginning to suspect that there’s a problem.

That’s not to say they’ll correctly identify the problem, nor that they’ll respond to it with any perspective or maturity.  But they most decidedly had to sense that something’s wrong in a way they didn’t before.  Their reaction will probably be exactly what Alinsky advocates:  to double down in the face of doubt.  However for a moment, way deep down, they did have a brush with doubt.

Otherwise they wouldn’t be acting so damn obnoxious.

Therefore, I reject Reality Doug’s notion that I’m somehow overestimating women.  (I”m painfully aware of how much chicks dig serial killers.)  Moreover, even if I were being naive, it’s not my theology that would have led me to such mistaken notions.  Mine is the theology that teaches us about Eve, Jezebel, Delilah, and Herodita.  Besides, Christian deti was on the same side as Doug on this.

However, Doug does have another issue with my post that deserves to be addressed, for he directly took issue with my assertion that I don’t believe we should force women to “spread their wealth (sexuality) around”.

For many reasons, I advocate a government using force as rarely as possible on its own citizens, including women.  Unlike many others of a libertarian predisposition, I come to my conclusions not because I believe in some inherent goodness of man.  Quite to the contrary, I believe we’re too fundamentally craven to be allowed to have too much power over each other.

Fortunately, I see little need to break with this principle to rectify our current sex-based mess.

The problem is less that women are being “allowed” to do what they want, it’s that they’re able to do so with impunity, with Uncle Sam intervening to prevent them from suffering the full weight of their mistakes.  The vast majority of negative female behaviors are subsidized by government interference.

Why are marriage contracts the one type of contract (that I’m aware of, at least) that allows a first party to break it and afterwards use the courts to make the second party suffer for the first party’s breach of contract?  I’ve formulated a paternity testing system that minimizes governmental interference in families.  Government student loan programs encourage women to get degrees who probably shouldn’t (and consequently fund hard-left academia), government-mandated maternity care, government subsidized child care, healthcare, birth control, and welfare ALL encourage women to make poor choices on somebody else’s dime.  Furthermore, sexual harassment law has completely subverted the notion that you should be able to know whether or not you’ll be committing an offense before you do it (how the hell can you ever know if your “advance” will be “unwanted” until after you’ve made it?).

Before making the case that we should force women to do what they should, how about we first try to refrain from paying them to do what they shouldn’t?

So I support liberty for women the same way I do for men, but I harshly reject the government empowering them.

She can do whatever the hell she wants, but she has no right to require her employer to bend over backwards to support her childcare decisions, if she frivorces her husband she won’t get the house, she can get a degree in Victimhood Studies if (and only if) daddy is willing to pay for it, and banging a dude who refuses to support the resulting kids means she has to support the kids on her own.  She can play programmer at the tech conference, but nobody has to pay any attention to her if she gets offended by the dongle jokes.

Reforming the government in such a manner won’t completely solve the problem:  it never does.  However, it would help a lot.  Moreover, it doesn’t require more effort or deficit spending on our part to solve our problems, it just means stopping all the crap we’re ostensibly doing to solve them now (while actually making them worse).  Such an approach is anything but passive; it’s merely the enforcement of liberty.

Nevertheless, however messed up and misandrist our laws may be, nothing will work if we don’t get our own asses in gear as men.  Not only are wimps incapable of enacting legal reforms, they’re incapable of having a sufficiently positive influence on our overall culture, their communities, or even their own families.

So in addition to and more importantly than legal reforms, we’ve got to change ourselves, to keep writing and talking and leading and being the men we were made to be.  Only then will we attract those who want to be part of our strength, and only then will we strike sufficient fear into our enemies.

Besides, nothing makes a woman realize how immature she’s being than a strong man in her life showing her what’s what.  If it can be done (and that’s sometimes a pretty big “if”), that’s the very best way.

Posted in Alpha, Culture, Feminism, Game, Politics, Religion, Rhetoric | 27 Comments


Chilling: Elliot Rodger allegedly posted this graph on Facebook, showing how he would conduct his 'revolution'

Image created by Elliot Rodger and reproduced by Mail Online.

Today I decided to explore #YesAllWomen.  Nothing in the tweets themselves was anything I hadn’t already heard dozens of times (I’m already aware that as a man I’ll never know what it’s like to dress in such a way as to attract as much attention as possible only to find that doing so attracts unwanted attention), but what struck me was the sheer volume of tweets.  Women have definitely noticed what happened in Santa Barbara.

By any objective measure, Sandy Hook was a far greater tragedy than what happened in Santa Barbara, yet Santa Barbara seems to have inspired a much more intense reaction.  It’s not as useful for gun-grabbers because lots of the deaths were stabbings (and there’s considerable overlap between gun-grabbers and feminists), the deaths of innocent children tug at our heartstrings more than the deaths of innocent young adults, and the body count was far lower.

Yet Santa Barbara inspires emotions that strike me as every bit as intense, and probably more so.

And there’s good reason for it.

As a capitalist, I’m accustomed to fending off countless accusations of heartlessness.  I believe that any public assistance should be the responsibility of the states instead of the federal government, but even when we get the feds out of it, I believe that private charities, communities, and churches will do far more good for the receivers of aid while doing far less harm to the economy as a whole.

Theoretically, under my system we could be overwhelmed with abject poverty, millions of lost souls with nothing to do, nowhere to go, and no hope of any life other than starvation unless the government (and only the government) does something about it.

Because of this possibility, most lefties advocate “spreading the [financial] wealth around” to ensure that “everybody gets their piece of the pie”.  Yet simultaneously these caring lefties advocate a ruthless dog-eat-dog sexual marketplace in which it’s perfectly acceptable for 10-20% of men to virtually monopolize sexual access to all of society’s fertile females.

Okay, not quite monopolize:  it’s perfectly acceptable for a reliable, unexciting guy to marry a 31 year-old after she’s “found herself” for a decade or so.  If he can’t get laid in his twenties, sucks to be him.  If he wants to get married when he’s young, he’s probably a misogynist pig who just wants to tie some poor girl down with babies.

Tell a king of the financial markets that he should consent to having stolen share his assets for the good of society, lefties applaud and nod in agreement.  Tell a queen of the sexual markets (a young woman) that she should share her assets for the good of society, and you deserve ostracism and/or death.

I’m of the sincere opinion that no unmarried person of either gender is entitled to sex from anyone else.  Were I to have told this to Elliot Rodger, feminists worldwide would have nodded in approval.  Were I to tell this to Louis CK’s chunky friend, they’d want my head on a stick.

We’ve every right to confiscate as much wealth as possible from the rich guy, no matter the years of his life spent training for and performing his job.  We’ve no right whatsoever to expect that a woman spend so much as fifteen minutes with a guy she doesn’t think is cute.

His valuable assets:  everybody’s.  Her valuable assets:  hers and hers alone.

Do I think that we should in any way force women to “spread the wealth around” in order to satiate the needs of incels among us?  Hell no, even though quoting portions of this post out of context might lead lefties to think I do.  I’m merely pointing out the inconsistency of lefties who believe that good fortune should be shared, unless that good fortune happens to be theirs.

Socialistic economic philosophies operate under the assumption that the economy is like a pie from which everybody is rewarded a slice.  One of the many reasons their philosophies are flawed is that the economy is not like a pie.  If I have a big piece, it doesn’t mean you’re stuck with a really small piece because of my greed; we can make the whole pie bigger and both have more.  Wealth isn’t stagnant.  We can create more of it, so that even if my piece is a whole lot bigger than yours, your piece can increase in size too, so long as we increase the size of the pie.  My economic benefit is not necessary to your detriment.

In the sexual and marriage marketplaces, this isn’t the case.  In fact, in these markets the pie analogy is actually quite apt.  We can create wealth at a faster rate than we create people, but unless we engage in some serious social engineering, for every new woman we create, we’ll probably be creating a new man.  Whereas if I have more money it doesn’t necessarily mean somebody else will be stuck with less, if I have a harem of five hot babes, by necessity four guys will be deprived of sexual affection.

Economic imbalance bugs the hell out of the left, even though wealth disparities in no way cause outright deprivation.  Yet they explicitly favor sexual imbalances that do cause men to be literally deprived.

Young modern females implicitly equate their vaginae with our penises:  something they can use to “score” and “have fun”.

That may be how she sees it, but regardless of how casually she might give it away to whomever turns her on, to us it’s far more than that.  Feminine sexual affection is the force that inspires great poetry, that gets men to get up for work each day to contribute to the economy, that pushes us to achieve greatness, or maybe just do what has to be done.

For with a woman and children at our side, there’s more to life than just me.  A man with a family has a stake in his community, an interest in creating a better world, incentive to be productive and responsible, and the sense that he’s part of something that’s going to last far longer than his very own life.

The traditional family structure provided this for most men.  Yes, there was always sexual imbalance, but when one man/one woman was the norm, damn near all of us had some sort of stake in tomorrow.  An awkward beta still had value, even if it was just to his wife and child.  He might be at the bottom of the economic totem pole, but he had incentive to strive regardless, for his wife and child depended on it.

So it’s not just that they “can’t get laid”, it’s that we’re writing omegas off entirely.  The leftist structure of economic equality (in theory, never quite in practice) with sexual haves and have-nots is far more damaging to our national soul than a world of economic dog-eat-dog in which most guys get a woman anyway could ever be.

Hence, the emotional reaction to Rodger’s massacre.  As I’ve made clear before, Rodger is a villain, a man who failed.

Nevertheless, subconsciously I suspect that this might be the moment in which millions of young women are getting there first sense that something might be wrong.  The infinite cries of “rape culture” notwithstanding, young women today have it exceptionally good.  They’re showered with attention from the men they don’t want, can have as much or little sex as they want with no apparent (or at least immediate) consequence, and they’re free to value only those traits in men that turn them on.  They’ve no need to even consider his character.

Thus far, the men who inspire no tingle have seemed perfectly safe to ignore.  Now, they’re beginning to suspect that this system of infinite pleasure for me might inspire some sort of blowback.  I doubt they’re particularly inclined to sympathize with awkward guys (and the second Rodger pulled the trigger he forsook any claims to sympathy), but it’s just a bit harder to see them as entirely irrelevant.

For although it still doesn’t occur to them that nobody’s going to pay for their birth control if everyone’s given up on life and just delivers pizzas for a living, the notion that the dorky guy in math class is of no consequence just might have been threatened.  If he’s completely ignored forever there’s no telling if he’ll blow a gasket or just drop out of society, but what happens to him might mean something for the rest of us.

A fellow human being?  Not quite yet.  Potential cause for concern?  Maybe.  Is this the first hint that the Red Death might somehow find its way into the ball, that the wallflowers might crash the party, that her orbiters might not help her move next Thursday?

I can’t say for certain, but I know it’s caused a stir.

The first two columns of Rodger’s diagram are accurate, the third not so much.  Rarely will men of any status have the incentive to kill masses of women.  This is a good thing.

What’s far more likely is for the male column to wind up shorter than the female one.  They won’t turn into crosses like Rodger, they’ll move to the Philippines, find a cabin somewhere in the Rockies, stop developing new social media networks, and somehow not have any wealth to tax.  Women will assert their freedom to bang whomsoever they choose, and the men they don’t choose will just stop showing up.

Which might be fine were the men they choose not so frequently objectively useless.

For all the feminist talk of Rodger’s sense of entitlement, it’s women who feel entitled to the fruits of male labor:  clean streets, indoor plumbing, televisions, and iPhones.

All men wanted in exchange was sex.

But if men aren’t entitled to sex, if a young and virtuous bride is an unreasonable demand, that’s fine.  They’ll just stop giving women all the goodies to which they feel entitled.

And that’s when civilization collapses.  I suspect on some level, young women are beginning to suspect that.

Posted in Alpha, Culture, Family, Feminism, Politics | 49 Comments

Deeper Than Game

In one sense, I agree with Roosh that No One Would Have Died if PUAHate Killer Elliot Rodger Had Learned Game.  The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  Take a guy who doesn’t know how to turn women on, teach him how to turn women on, problem solved.  Right?

In Rodger’s case I suspect not, for I have every reason to believe that Rodger embraced his status as a victim to such an extent that deep down he actually wanted to be a loser.  All too often we incorporate the ways in which we’ve been screwed over into our very identities.  Our problems become who we are.  Actually solving them means letting go of the hate, the sense of dignified righteousness that comes to consume us entirely.

In many respects Rodger had reason to be pissed.  Never before has the chasm between what women claim they want and what they actually want been so great.  Roger was entirely correct that women completely disregard some pretty important qualities in men in favor of sheer brutish attitude.  It’s perfectly legitimate to not like how younger women completely overlook strength of character and to wish that weren’t the case.

But it is the case, and to rail against reality instead of learning how to best adapt to or thrive in it (or perhaps even change parts of it) is the mark of angry dreamers, professional victims, and generally pissed off people everywhere.

With women, effort alone counts for a lot, and Rodger considered sitting in the vicinity of females to be effort.  I arrived in Spain with only a smattering of drunken hookups under my belt, and my first night there I did at least fifteen approaches, getting shot down harshly almost every time.  Rarely have I ever felt so exhausted or dejected.

Yet despite my lack of advice or knowledge of any of Game’s techniques or principles, within two months my success with females was the envy of my entire social circle.  Eventually you stop giving a damn and you find your words and body language just naturally express Alpha.  No blogs, no training, just sweat.

I understand that Rodger may have been worse off, but there’s even more evidence that he merely hoped to play the martyr.  Dale Launer was an apparent Alpha who expressed interest in helping Rodger through his predicament, and apparently he wasn’t alone.  Rodger: [emphasis mine]

He wanted to help me overcome my troubles because he is a so-called expert with women. He even showed me pictures of all of the gorgeous women he has dated in his life, and there were a lot of them. This man truly lived.

A few men who are successful with women have offered me help and advice about this in the past, but nothing ever came of it. I suppose they want to help because it would be a boost to their already big egos, and also because they feel sorry for me. People should feel sorry for me. My life is so pathetic, and I hate the world for forcing me to suffer it. I feel sorry for myself.

In truth, there is nothing men like Dale can really do to help me attract girls and lose my virginity. They can’t mind-control girls to be attracted to me. My brief friendship with Dale would, however, spark a few more interesting e-mail conversations where I confide to him about how cruel I think women are by nature. He would only be amused by this. Of course he would be amused. Women were never cruel to him. They gave him sex and love all his life.

Perhaps Launer was a natural, a man so blessed with effortless Venutian success that he was entirely incapable of relating to Rodger enough to provide any assistance.  Maybe his advice just sucked (I haven’t seen the movies).  But maybe not.  Does Elliot “I feel sorry for myself” Rodger seem like he could have been reached regardless?  Not even a super-PUA advice squad of Roosh, Roissy, Mystery, and Rollo combine could “mind-control girls to be attracted to [him],” but that’s what he thought he needed.

Whether Launer’s (and the others’) reasons for helping Rodger were pity, benevolence, or just looking for a challenge, help was there.  But instead of finding out how to make women seem less cruel from a man who probably knew what he was talking about (and at least knew more than Rodger), he had to emphasize and cling to their cruelty.  Women are mean.  That’s all.  Nothing else.  To hell with all of them.

When I think back to prior eras of feminine-induced pain, I would have given anything for a man like Launer to take an interest in my success.  Rodger had it, but what good is a light if you refuse to open your eyes?  As all of us in the manosphere know, the Truth is unnecessarily obscured by the media and our feminized culture.  But the Truth’s still there, and Rodger had a better chance of being reached by somebody who could have helped than most of us.

Indeed, Rodger could have benefited from knowledge of Game.  However, without some sort of psychological transformation, a true change of heart, there’s no way that any knowledge of Game could ever sink in.  That’s something no mentor can do for you.

Whatever the femmis might say, it’s not ironic that Rodger liked to hang out at PUA Hate.  Angry incels like Rodger are akin to the minorities who despise the self-made men who grew up in neighborhoods like their own, who see uplifting movies like the Pursuit of Happyness as evil capitalist propaganda.  Trying to get black folk to believe that’s it’s even conceivable to succeed here in America is the worst form of deception because success for poor blacks is impossible unless the Democrats control Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and every state house and governorship in the country.  Dr. Ben Carson is proof they’re full of it, that it might be rough, but it can be done.

So the incel who goes on to either become a successful PUA or find a loving marriage is worthy of the worst kind of derision, for that man proves that hopelessness is the lie.  If a man actually can go from only experiencing woman’s cruelty like Rodger to experiencing her good side, what does that say for Rodger and those like him?  Women will never change, but you can, and then you’ll see a different side of them.

But I shouldn’t have to change.  THEY should change.

Which is a great way to deflect blame, feeds your own sense of importance, and a lot less work.

Experience injustice.  Rail against your oppressors.  Refuse to do anything to help yourself (you shouldn’t have to) until said injustices are rectified and your oppressors have been punished.  Result:  Detroit.

None of this is to say that either Rodger or the folks of Detroit have nothing to complain about.  Rodger had to confront life from an angle that no boy should have to experience.  I may or may not explore some of his gripes, but he had them, and they were real.  Even if he were doing exactly what he needed to do to solve his problems, he would have suffered much more humiliation and loneliness before things improved.

But they would have improved.  Instead, he refused to reconcile his beliefs about what women should be with what they actually are.  Granted, much of what they are today sucks.

Yet we’re called to face ugly realities, to understand both what we can and can’t do to change them, to learn how best to adapt to that which will not change but take whatever action we can to make it better.  There’s a word for handling what should not be in the best way possible:  heroism.

But instead of finding a way to turn his life around (and maybe help somebody else once he’s done) and being a hero, he became it’s opposite.  Elliot Rodger failed, and destroyed others’ lives in the process.

In the words of Neil Peart in The Pass:

No hero in your tragedy

No daring in your escape

No salutes for your surrender

Nothing noble in your fate

Christ, what have you done?

Posted in Alpha, Culture, Family, Feminism, Game, Politics, Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Checking Correia’s List: Intro

It was written some time back, but I’ve just stumbled on this incredible dissection of lefty arguing techniques by Larry Correia.  Although it ostensibly describes nonsense rhetorical techniques for the internet, each of these have their “real life” equivalents.

Online, it can be virtually impossible to “defeat” an opponent, for the moment you corner them, they’ve the option to vanish into thin air much more easily than they ever could in person.  Nevertheless, it’s important to learn how manage the morons you’ll encounter on various sites for two reasons.  Correia describes the first:

I often get people who agree with me posting stuff like “well, you wasted your time on that doofus!” Ah, but you miss the point. You don’t defend your beliefs in the hopes of convincing the willfully ignorant. That’s a lost cause. The willfully ignorant aren’t to be convinced, they are to be mocked. Their flaws are to be pointed out until everyone around them realizes how full of crap they are. Remember that argument is theater, and your performance isn’t aimed at your opponent, but rather at the audience. If you choose to follow the Fisker’s Path, your goal is three fold.

Give ammo to the people already on your side.

Convince the undecided .

Allow your opponent’s to display their petty ignorance to the world.

Your opponent may be a hopeless windbag and your own site’s commenters may already agree with you, but there are lurkers.  In person, I call the person with whom you’re having a discussion your Opponent, but your Target is the person you’re hoping to persuade.  If your Opponent is among the Benighted he could simultaneously be your Target, but if he’s Anointed your Targets will invariably be those quietly listening in on your conversation.  Therefore, there may well be a point to engaging the idiots.

Second, online rhetoric mirrors the rhetoric you’ll encounter in person, on television, and in other media.  Handling internet trolls and obnoxious co-workers aren’t equivalent skills, but they are related.

Correia does a phenomenal job of describing how lefties like to argue.  However, in this post he only obliquely describes how to respond to them.  I’ve no doubt he’s great at it (I just found his site but I’m assuming based on his writing ability), and it wasn’t the point of the article.  Nevertheless, he didn’t do it in detail.

That’s where I come in.

Lefty beliefs match lefty rhetoric, and fortunately there’s a pattern to it.  The items on Correia’s list all derive from their flawed premises and their desire to frame any discussion away from addressing them.  These flaws can be summed up in one word:  subjectivism.

Subjecivism stems from the failure to adhere to the principles of GIA, and it manifests itself somewhat differently according to the specific principle being violated:

G-subjectivism (or moral subjectivism or relativism):  There are no objective moral standards.  Whatever floats your boat.  You feel that way just because you’re white.  Our supposed moral codes stem merely from attempts by the powerful to legitimize their privilege.  It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about who controls the narrative.  It’s not about whether or not a specific action is moral, it’s about who’s doing what to whom.  Your morality stems entirely from your desire to either gain or maintain power.  Philosophical forebear:  Nietzsche.

A-subjectivism:  What matters isn’t reality, it’s perspective.  The words in the Constitution, works of literature, or whatever legislation don’t mean what whoever wrote them intended them to mean, they mean what the reader wants them to mean, how it makes them feel.  Rape or sexual harassment aren’t objective crimes to be defined based on what the accuser does but instead on how the victim feels about them.  If the oil companies pay for a study we can dismiss it out of hand for bias, but the Sierra Club’s facts are objectively true.  Of course you’re going to support lower taxes:  you’re rich.  Try living in poverty for a while and your perspective would change and you’d understand the value of social programs.  Massaging statistics or facts to prove a point is perfectly fine, for facts don’t necessarily supports Higher Truths, and the Higher Truth is Leftism.  Therefore, just like “little white lies” in support of Truth are actually truthful, facts that cast doubt on Truth are actually lies.  Philosophical forebear:  Kant.

I-subjectivism:  Despite our rhetoric of equalism, we believe most profoundly in a hierarchy within humanity.  We believe not merely in a hierarchy of ability, achievement, luck, or stature, but a hierarchy that goes to the very depths of what it means to be human.  The Anointed can be trusted with determining how much we drive, what we eat, and the extent of our health coverage, but the Benighted can’t be expected to know that letting their children live on Doritos or stay up until 2 A.M. on a schoolnight is a bad idea.  Bush bears unlimited responsibility for all the horrible things that happened during his presidency, but you can’t really blame that single mom for getting knocked up the fourth time, the armed robber for not knowing that holding up a store is wrong, or Obama for anything.  White rednecks should be mocked and shunned for their bitter-clinging racism, but black culture bears no relation whatsoever to the poverty in our inner cities.  Corporate barons, Republican politicians, and rednecks both living and dead should be held accountable for everything, impoverished minorities and single moms for absolutely nothing, and the Anointed determine who should be bear what responsibility and how.  The very worth of a human being, whether he should be held accountable for his mistakes, whether he should have to pay more for health insurance or get kicked off his land, it all depends on how the Anointed have determined that society should be orchestrated.  ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.  Philosophical forebear:  Rousseau.

When arguing with a lefty, your enemy is subjectivism damn near every time.  Yes, there are honest lefties, still blind but not willfully so.  Nevertheless, even if subjectivism doesn’t infuse their rhetoric, it does infuse their belief system.  On virtually every issue, you’re calling attention to an error in at least one of the principles of G, I, or A, often two of them, and sometimes all three.

To use Larry’s rhetorical examples:

  1. Skim until Offended:  A & I (only the facts that support my indignation count)
  2. Disqualify that Opinion:  I (the opinions of the privileged don’t matter)
  3. Attack, Attack, Attack:  G & I (your inferior worth means it’s okay to say anything)
  4. Disregard Inconvenient facts: (objective truths aren’t true if not “Truth”)
  5. Make Shit Up: (lies aren’t false if they support “Truth”)
  6. Resort to Moral Equivalency: G (there are no moral standards, everybody does it)
  7. Concern Trolling:  G, I, and/or (depends on the motivation of the troll, complicated)
  8. When all else fails, Racism!:  G, I, & A (often requires using all three, but it depends)

Fortunately, just like there are patterns to the errors they make, there are patterns to how to correct them.

The goal of rhetorical sparring should always be to steer the discussion towards one of rational dialectic.  Even if you’re trying to get the troll to run away and hide, you want your readers to know that although you’re able to match him blow for blow with rhetorical bullshit, your goal is to seek Truth.  You insult not because you’re an asshole, you’re just great at self-defense.  You make the effort to be reasonable and extend an invitation to your opponent to do the same.  You won’t take any crap but make every effort to be fair.

You’re never just selling your ideas, you’re selling yourself.  Frame yourself as the benevolent ruler, the man who can admit he’s wrong but almost never has to.  You consider it “personal” only if you’re opponent insists on making it personal, but call attention to your opponent’s lack of maturity as you insult him.

Rhetoric is the sparkly pretty stuff we sprinkle on our own beliefs to make them look a bit more appealing to others.  It’s also the ugly brown paste we smother on the beliefs of our opponents to make them seem less appealing.

But rhetoric is merely ornamental; it’s not Truth itself.  This is both its strength and weakness:  strength because it can easily sway weak minds without needing any actual facts, weakness because it can be swept away if it’s either matched by superior rhetoric or even just exposed for what it is.

For the most effective way to neutralize your opponent’s rhetoric is to simply call it out.  Blow past the nonsensical frame of white men’s opinions mean nothing and call attention to how that frame bears no relation to Truth whatsoever, how not even they really believe it.

At least not the rhetorical crap they use, for they’ll gladly call you on it any time you try to pull it yourself (assuming they’re intelligent enough to recognize it).  To cite Correia’s example of how only women’s opinions on abortion count:  Do they really believe that Sarah Palin’s opinion on abortion counts for more than Joe Biden’s?  That Herman Cain’s views on race matter more than Harry Reid’s?

Bring this up, and just like Correia says, they’ll dodge, they’ll weave, they’ll vanish as soon as you’ve got them cornered.

But if it’s online people read it, in person people listen in.  Dedicate yourself to Truth, make sure your audience knows this about you, de-frame their nonsense, attack and establish your superiority, offer to let up on them if they change.  If they don’t, be ruthless.  If they do, engage in honest discussion to the best of your ability.

Over time I’ll describe how I recommend handling each item on Correia’s list.  No single attack or re-frame will change a mind, but by repeatedly pointing out the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, between their nonsensical insults and your good sense, you can start planting some seeds.

Truth is discerned through the dialectic, but the minds of the average idiot rely almost entirely on rhetoric.  Through recognizing and accepting the latter, you can help bring people to the former.

Posted in Feminism, Politics, Race, Rhetoric, Uncategorized | 26 Comments