Jun 132011
 

I found this at Oz Conservative which got me thinking:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: for every provocative “slut” there must be a “manimal” with so little control over himself that he rapes.

For socons and tradcons this doesn’t just apply to sluts and rapists.  Socons and tradcons assume that when a woman sins sexually (to what socons and tradcons consider sexual sin), a man must also sin sexually, homosexuality notwithstanding.  While this is technically correct, they take this to also mean that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between female sexual sin and male sexual sin in terms of the numbers of women and men committing such sins.  While heterosexual sexual sins require a man and a woman this doesn’t mean that sexual sin is distributed equally among men or women.  Getting back to the quote above, it’s clearly absurd to say that there is a rapist for every slut out there.  In reality, there are many sluts per rapist.

The same principle applies to (what socons and tradcons consider) sexual sin in general.  Those of us who understand hypergamy know that sex is not evenly distributed among men.  We know that approximately 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women.  That means many men are going without or getting very little sex and thus committing no or little sexual sin.  On the other hand sexual sin among women is more evenly distributed.

Often you will hear socons and tradcons say that they’re against some form of sexual sin such as premarital sex equally in men and women.  Since 80% of men aren’t committing that sin at anywhere near the same rate women or alphas (the top 20% of men) are, what socons and tradcons are doing is white knighting for women (and in a way alpha males).  If socons and tradcons are going to attack (what they believe is) a sin, then they need to attack where it is happening.  By being against a sin “equally” in both men and women assumes that said sin is being committed equally by men and women and equally among men.  As we know this isn’t the case.

As bad as this is, what socons and tradcons are doing is even worse.  With their “men are supposed to lead so anything a woman does wrong is a failure of male leadership” nonsense, socons and tradcons either partially or fully excuse the sexual sin women commit because it’s the fault of some man.  Also, who is likely to be in a church on a Sunday?  The alphas, the 20% of men who are getting most of the sex, won’t be there.  The men who are in church will be from the other 80%.  Since sex among women is more evenly distributed, that means the women in church are likely to have committed sexual sin.  In other words, socons and tradcons are going after the wrong group in their churches when it comes to sexual sin.  It’s just another example of how churches are become feminized and another reason why men want less and less to do with the church.  Why would a man want to go to a place where he got blamed for something he didn’t do?

On top of this socons and tradcons will white knight for women who have sexually sinned a lot in the churches by trying to shame men into marrying them.  These white knights delude themselves into thinking their female coreligionists are innocent and sexually inexperienced when the opposite is true.  The men who decide to have nothing to do with the churches know better.  They know that churches have universally become anti-male and vehicles for white knighting.  They know that the women in the churches are just as bad as those outside of the church and that the churches will do nothing about female sexual sin except blame men.

Mar 212010
 

Since this is coming from David Alexander it doesn’t necessarily have much meaning, but he says (about me), “You are an alpha, not an idiotic anti-social dysfunctional sub-human male that’s clumsy and bumbling and incapable of making a basic decision.”  I decided to start a poll about it.

Am I an alpha?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

If you want to answer something other than yes or no, write a comment.

Mar 052010
 

There is this mistaken idea going around that we now have a “deregulated sexual marketplace”.  This is incorrect.  There is a dude calling himself steveo who is angry with good reason who has pointed this out on Susan Walsh’s blog.  In addition to myself, Hungry Hungry Hippos has also noticed that we don’t have a deregulated sexual marketplace and explains why very well:

I haven’t read all the comments yet, but if there were truly a sexual free marketplace, then women wouldn’t also be receiving transfer payments from betas who would normally only provide them with resources in a pair bond. These transfer payments take such a huge variety of forms(“family law”, affirmative action, a vast majority of state employees being female), but if it were possible to cut all of them off, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that would enfranchise a pretty huge portion of betas, possibly even as much as the institution of “sexually socialist” monogamy. It’s like the beta suffers both from the removal of monogamy AND from a shit ton of taxes being levied on him in an effort to make transfer payments to women.

The government is giving subsidies to women that distort the sexual marketplace so there is no “deregulated sexual marketplace” right now.  This causes vajazzling in a figurative sense of the term.  Vajazzling is when a woman superglues crystals to her vagina. If you take a look at the link, the women doing this actually think men like this (as in they think it raises their value with men when it really doesn’t).  Socialist subsidies to women are vajazzling in a figurative sense since those subsidies give women the false belief that their value has increased.  With literal or figurative vajazzling, a woman’s value has not increased in reality so we have a misandry bubble that will soon pop.

Jan 302010
 

Those of you who have been reading my blog for a while know I don’t like the alpha-beta (or even the alpha-beta-omega) classification.  By definition having just two or even three categories is not enough for describing where men are especially since with just the alpha-beta there’s no room to describe what is happening to most men.  Vox Day has come up with a much better classification system:

Alphas – the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you’ve seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can’t deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!

Betas – the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They’re popular, they do well with women, they’re pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha’s natural self-confidence and strength of character. They’re not leaders and they’re not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they’re Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won’t change their game because they don’t really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha’s endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile.

Deltas – the great majority of men. These are Roissy’s Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it’s just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I’ve gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.

Gammas – the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you’ve found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement “all are fallen” applies to women too. She isn’t any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are.

Lambdas – the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.

Sigmas – the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma’s withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood’s movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it’s not intentional torture.

Omegas – the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn’t kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn’t entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing “interesting facts” with them.

While I don’t think that even this is expressive enough to describe what we need when talking about male-female interaction (and I think the lambda category should be left out since this is about heterosexual interaction), its much better than the alpha-beta or alpha-beta-omega systems.

Sep 122009
 

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

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

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

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

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

Aug 222009
 

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

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


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


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

Aug 172009
 

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

Mark, I dont know how far the alpha terminology goes, as there are different ways of describing it.
i have two descriptions;:
Alpha defined by male
and
Alpha defined by female
In the absence of social economic support, birth control etc, these two definitions coincide.
and these are the men you see in the pictures of the previous centuries.
Leaders of men, honorable men, who were also wanted by women.
Yes, you had cads also, but life was more difficult for them.
And these leaders of men may have had harems also.
Today, the alpha definition by male still stands: leader, honor, etc
The alpha definition by female has changed (maybe not even reverted to natural, as birth control is not natural, so we dont exactly know what the natural tendencies are when women are restricted by the risk of pregnancy) so that alpha means “socially dominant”, or simply “wanted by other women”.
These two different defitinions can create a problem when one is trying to define alpha.
Alpha as defined by how many women one can bed definitely fits the female definition.
Jul 242009
 

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

In reading the comments to this post on MM’s blog it’s amazing the lengths people will go even anti-feminist men will go to absolve women of their behavior. It’s a triangle as I mentioned in the title because there are 3 angles in which men are being blamed for the behavior of women:
  1. The female angle of the guy must have “done something” to piss his wife off. This is the point of view in the first comment on MM’s blog to this story by “Kimberly”. (She’s tries to backpedal on this later, but it’s still somehow the “man’s fault”.) It’s clear that the woman is responsible for her own behavior, but someone this guy had “done something” to piss his wife off despite the fact that if a man acted the same way he would be considered psychotic.
  2. The pseudo-alpha (I say pseudo-alpha since as I have pointed out most supposed alphas aren’t really alphas) angle said by “Keoni Galt” of that the guy needs to “man up”. (Yes, this is borderline shaming language.) In this case, it’s because the guy isn’t dominating his wife enough. Again, the wife is acting psychotic. Why should a man have to act a certain way just so his wife acts like a NORMAL HUMAN BEING? (Before anybody points out how this worked for Keoni Galt remember there was a 50/50 chance he would be sitting in jail now because his wife felt “threatened”. Think about that.) Beyond that I know that I like many other men like to relax occasionally, and you can never relax with this option because then it will fail.
  3. The male feminist angle which really isn’t represented in the comments is sort of hit on by the guy having the problem (offering to do the dishes and the like). The male feminist will claim that its the man’s fault because he didn’t understand what his wife was going through or some other nonsense. The male feminist will also claim things like how the man needs to wash the dishes to show that he isn’t part of the patriarchy oppressing her or some other crap. As we can see from the story that doesn’t work. (This also could be called the beta or herb angle.)
What all of these things have in common is that the man is blamed for his wife’s behavior which in original story is clearly psychotic. These three angles create a triangle that surround and trap the man. The man can try to solve this problem by assuming that one of the three angles is correct in defining the problem and trying to solve that problem. However, whatever angle the man picks it will not work. Even if he tries another side of the triangle it still won’t work.
On top of all this by picking one side of this triangle, the man is not picking the other two. Why is this important? Because they all can say that the man is still wrong even if he picks one of the supposed problems to solve. In other words, the man is running around and around while his wife is acting all psychotic. It allows all three sides of the triangle to blame him for his wife’s behavior almost forever since by definition according to two thirds of the triangle the man is always wrong.
What is the key to breaking out of this triangle? It’s going your own way, namely MGTOW. What happened was this man let himself get into a position where what was happening in his life was defined by insane people (i.e. his wife) and people who are trying to prop up women to their own benefit (women, pseudo-alphas, and male feminists/herbs). The entire point of this triangle is to trap a man. If all a man sees are the sides of a triangle, he can’t escape from it. The MGTOW concept gives men a way out of this trap.
A MGHOW will still get blamed by women, pseudo-alphas, and male feminists because its in their interest to do so. However, a MGHOW will not be trapped in the hell that the guy from the original story is in. A MGHOW is able to live his life the way he wants.
Jul 062009
 

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

There are a few *real* alpha males out there, but they are childless playas’ who make good money that can endlessly lead women on and pump and dump them.

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

This comment shows the problems with most guys who are described as and/or claim to be alphas. Getting laid by a lot of different women in the end isn’t that alpha if the guy in question never reproduces with any of them. In the end most “alphas” will only reproduce with one woman, and many “alphas” with none. After their dead since their DNA was never passed on or only with one woman how were they really “alpha” at all? They weren’t.
Or take this scenario. You have a married powerful businessman with kids from his wife screwing his secretary. Let’s say that the secretary got knocked up and is raising the kid as a single mom or convinced her husband (if she’s married) that the kid is his. Sounds like the businessman is an alpha, right? Not necessarily. For that to be the case, the wife would not have to be screwing around. How does the businessman know that his wife isn’t screwing the pool boy? And by extension that all of the kids he has with his wife are really is? He doesn’t so he really isn’t an alpha.
At some point this scenario could get worse if the businessman’s wife divorces him. He could be paying child support for kids that aren’t his. That’s not alpha.
The comment above describes the only way to truly be alpha in Western countries. In the future you can add in artificial wombs which ironically allow more men to be true alphas in that all their kids would be theirs, and they could play the field “with a vengeance” (if they so desired). In other words there are very few true alphas in the West currently. The comment says there is less than 500 true alphas. That sounds about right.
Translate »