May 302015

InfoWars/PrisonPlanet (Alex Jones’s websites) released a youtube video about something called neomasculinity:

I noticed several things about the video.  While it used game language and other language from this part of the internet, it’s clear that whoever wrote the script for that video didn’t really understand what we talk about.  MGTOW gets attacked (which has led to responses from MGTOW like Barbarossa).  Overall, this is another attempt at entryism by tradcons with some game terms used as an unsuccessful attempt to hide that it is an attempt at entryism.

This is nothing new.  It’s just another form of Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0, an attempt to repackage game for the benefit of women (and in this case Alex Jones’s bank account).  This is the same thing Susan Walsh, the Manhood Academy/Manhood 101 morons, and others have tried and failed to do.  This time it has a dash of, “you have to get married because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!” (which is why believing in the depopulation agenda is misandry) and “They (whoever they is) are putting chemicals in the water to turn you gay”, but it’s really no different.  It’s an extreme form of the tradcon cry, “You have to get married to save civilization”.

Why is Alex Jones interested in creating another game 2.0 and attacking MGTOW now?  Sandman discovered that on Google trends that MGTOW became more popular than PrisonPlanet starting a couple of months ago, and MGTOW is only getting more popular.  Alex Jones is having the same problem all tradcons are having in trying to recruit young men.  As Hollenhund described, young men refusing to follow the tradcon script.  Alex Jones’s conspiracy theories are all derived from tradcon ideology, so when young men refuse to follow the tradcon script, they won’t buy into his conspiracy theories.

Alex Jones has a history of trying to cannibalize grass roots movements, and that is what he is doing with neomasculinity.  Barbarossa and John the Other had a conversation where they talked about that and how it turns into mission creep to the point where the original mission of a grass roots group gets replaced with doing nothing other than talking about the NWO.  Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists treat the NWO as all powerful so nothing can be done.  It creates a self fulfilling prophecy of nothing getting done.  After Alex Jones cannibalizes a grass roots group, the group is completely neutralized.  If Alex Jones is successful both game and MGTOW (and the M(H)RM) would be cannibalized to the point where they are meaningless.

I am certain that Alex Jones’s attempt at entryism will fail.  We have dealt with entryist tradcons before.  Tradcons have nothing to offer game, MGTOW (or the M(H)RM) so neither does Alex Jones.  No one is impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization”, so no one will be impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!”  We may see a few guys planning on pulling a Mark Minter use neomasculinity as a cover, but that will be it.  We don’t need Mark Minters so good riddance to them.

The more tradcons attack MGTOW, the more popular it becomes.  Let Alex Jones attack MGTOW and try his attempt at entryism.  He will fail, and MGTOW will be more popular afterwards.

May 252015

Today is Memorial Day in the US which means its a day to remember those who have died in war.  What group has died in war more than any other group?  Men, in particular young men, and many young men died as nothing more than cannon fodder.

The modern equivalent of cannon fodder does not involve drafting men to die in wars.  The modern equivalent of cannon fodder is attempting to get young men to follow gynocentric scripts for the benefit of women which involves getting married and/or having men’s income transferred to women via taxes and government spending.  The tradcons, the feminists, and other groups are all guilty of trying use young men as cannon fodder.  It’s not an exaggeration to say that all of these groups want to use young men as cannon fodder.  They want young men to do things that in the best case scenario not in their best interests and in the worst case scenario will involve losing your assets and your children, and being thrown in prison.

What groups are trying to draft young men as cannon fodder?  Hollenhund describes each group and their respective script:

In online parlance, “MGTOW” basically refers to any man who’s off-script. There are many scripts out there.

The tradcon / white nationalist script: bust your ass and remain celibate, then marry some supposedly good and worthy Christian “virgin”, move to some rural area, have lots of kids and homeschool them, grow your own food and brag about your lifestyle on the Internet.

The feminist script: bust your ass and have egalitarian relationships with feminist women based on mutual respect, marry an ageing spinster or single mother, have 1 or 2 children and indoctrinate them with feminism, move to the suburbs, pay off your wife’s debts, brag about it all on the Internet and then tearfully claim it’s all your fault when she frivorces you and ruins your life.

The MHRA script: bust your ass and do lots of activism on behalf of MRA organizations. Donate money, show up on protests and conferences. Paint a target on your back for tradcons and feminists to shoot at. Whenever attacked, claim that you support “gender equality” and love women.

The PUA script: bust your ass, work out like crazy, spend your free time learning all sorts of “valuable” skills, go on a diet, approach 10 women everyday, travel the Third World, brag about it all online, then move to the Philippines or Latvia when you’re tired of it all, then self-publish your memoirs in online format and sell it on Amazon.

The people pushing these scripts are all targeting the same demographic, young single betas, so they are in fierce competition. What is making their job even harder is that a growing segment of these betas are refusing to follow any script. This is making more and more people angry and frustrated, as evidenced by increasingly shrill public discourse about MGTOWs and the “Sexodus”. Young men are supposed to be dumb disposable shits, after all, and follow a script. But a growing number of them simply won’t do it.

Each of these groups is trying to draft young men as cannon fodder, and they’re all using the same tactic in trying to draft them, shaming language.  However, it is not working.  Most of these young men have never heard of MGTOW, yet they have decided to refuse to become cannon fodder for these groups, effectively becoming MGTOW.

Why are young men refusing to become cannon fodder in increasing numbers?  First, the attacks on them are become more and more shrill which just steels their resolve to become cannon fodder.  Each of the groups that want to use men as cannon fodder are not offering young men any incentives to follow them.  There’s a saying that was said in the Soviet Union, “They pretend to pay us.  We pretend to work.”  Even the Soviets understood somewhat that incentives matter which is more than can be said for any of the groups that Hollenhund listed.  Sending young men the equivalent of increasingly insane strong worded letters is not a strategy that will work to convince young men.

Second, young men see just how bad women are becoming.  This is a strong disincentive to join any group that wants to use them as cannon fodder.  Young men see the behavior of women and are getting more and more fed up with them for good reason.  In 6 years of blogging, the most popular page on this blog by far is a page where I documented several comments from The Spearhead where young men were talking about how they are fed up with women.  The second most popular page on this blog was a follow up to that page.  This is not a coincidence.  Those pages represent how growing numbers of young men feel about women due to their experiences with women.

Why should a young man become cannon fodder for the indirect or direct benefit of women they are fed up with?  Even if a young man is willing to sacrifice himself as cannon fodder, he isn’t going to sacrifice himself for a group he is fed up with and likely hates him.  More and more young men are figuring this out and refuse to become cannon fodder.

Jan 192015

One thing the attack on Charlie Hebdo has done is given us evidence on how feminists view men like Elliot Rodger compared to the Charlie Hebdo attackers.  Both Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers murdered several people.  However, the feminist reaction to Elliot Rodger and Charlie Hebdo has been quite different.

Feminists said that Elliot Rodger was a “misogynist extremist” and a terrorist (that terrorized women) and tried to link him to PUAs and MRAs as if Elliot Rodger was part of a larger group of MRAs and PUAs that constituted something similar to Al Queda.  Anita Sarkeesian has blamed “toxic masculinity” for Elliot Rodger (and other male shooters):

The reality of Elliot Rodger was that he was mentally ill.  This was a man who fantasized about creating a virus that would kill all men except him and was being treated by psychologists since he was 8 years old.  Rodger also murdered more men than women so he was hardly targeting women.  He acted alone and was not associated with any group of MRAs or PUAs.  Since Elliot Rodger is dead, his murders ended there.

This is in complete contrast to the Charlie Hebdo attackers.  They were not mentally ill and were working with Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).  Objectively, this makes the Charlie Hebdo attackers much worse than Elliot Rodger.  As long as AQAP is still around, then what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did has not ended.  The feminist reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attackers is to come close to defending them such as with this article from Feministing or in the case of Jonathan McIntosh (Anita Sarkeesian’s “partner” as Feminist Frequency and likely boyfriend):

McIntosh actually thinks that what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did wasn’t that bad because they were “marginalized”.  Feminists pretend that Elliot Rodger is a demon and a terrorist while supporting actual terrorists.  Why do feminists think Elliot Rodger was evil while the Charlie Hebdo attackers are misunderstood?  It comes down to one thing.  Elliot Rodger murdered (pretty white) women so they consider him to be a misogynist despite the fact that he murdered more men than women.  Feminists considered some of the work that Charlie Hebdo published to be misogynist.  It all comes down to the fact that feminists consider violence to be legitimate against anyone they consider to be a “misogynist”.  That is why they treat Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers so differently.  That’s it.



Sep 132012

My last post has certainly stirred the pot.  Bill Price over at The Spearhead provided a thoughtful response.  Ankle-biter, Matt Forney, decided to call me a “perma-virgin” which anyone who reads this blog knows is absurd. Elsewhere I have been called a false flag operation:

Just like those knotheads RooshV and Krauser talk about sex because they never have really have any; PMAFT blabs on about false flags because he’s probably a false-flagger himself.

The only time I talk about false flags is when someone accuses me of being one or makes the stupid comment, the the MRM is filled with them.  At least if you combine false flag and perma-virgin, maybe something starts to make sense.  None of this is insane as what Nestorius said about Paul Elam:

It appears the Paul Elam is a Mason, and that he is getting paid for his website (as one commenter at Roosh’s blog said).
In fact, it is expected that the Masons will be leading an anti-feminist movement. Feminism is the thesis and men rights movement is the antithesis out of which they will create the synthesis.
One thing that is very suspicious about AVfM is that it is full of sophistry and nonsense. The titles attracts you and make you believe there is content while there is none.

On the other hand Jack Donovan is a Satanist (therefore a Mason) and a homosexual. He doesn’t hide the fact that he is a Satanist: Therefore, Donovan is clearly a dis-info agent. I never could understand how a homosexual is teaching men about manhood?!

One should always be careful that there will always be infiltration in every field, and the “manosphere” is a wide field which the Masons could use to indoctrinate clueless people out there.

I’m a false flag and a perma-virgin.  Paul Elam is a Mason, and a member of the Illuminati, and on the government’s payroll.  What brings up all of these ludicrous accusations?  (They’re connected more deeply than just being absurd.  There have been previous conspiracy theory based accusations that the MRM was recruiting sexless/virgin men, and that the “elite” is recruiting virgin men.)  This isn’t due to a MRM vs. Game fight.  There is something else going on.  What is telling is how when Roosh originally said that the MRM is dead, men like John Rambo and Peter Nolan, neither of whom are gamers, jumped on the bandwagon.  In fact this is part of a pattern we have seen elsewhere.

John Rambo spams the MRM in an attempt to make the MRM about his foreign women BS.  He failed and now attacks the MRM.

Peter Nolan tried to turn the MRM into an arm of the Freeman on the land conspiracy theory.  He failed and now attacks the MRM.

The Manhood 101 idiots tried to turn the MRM into peddlers of their BS.  They failed and now attack the MRM.  (They spend most of their time attacking Paul Elam since he did the work in fighting them off.)

Susan Walsh tried to turn the MRM (and the larger manosphere) into an arm of her Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0 scheme involving fake empowerment of men so that men would become chumps who would marry women after they were done riding the cock carousel.  She failed and now attacks the MRM (and the larger manosphere in her case).  In addition, she also called the idea that I am working for the elite (i.e. I’m a false flag) compelling.

White Nationalists tried to turn the MRM into a movement of racists and anti-semites.  They failed and now attack the MRM and accuse the MRM of being run by the Jews.

Traditionalist conservatives tried to turn the MRM into an arm of traditionalism (along with all of the misandry associated with traditionalism).  They failed and now attack the MRM.

You can see a pattern here.  Some individual or group decides to come in and co-opt the MRM so that MRAs will become the personal army for their pet cause.  They start by pretending to agree with the MRM about feminism.  Eventually (or in many cases quickly) the MRM recognizes what they are and wants nothing to do with them.  Then these individuals and groups turn on the MRM when they realize that their attempt at co-opting the MRM has failed.  Paul Elam is often a target at this point since he runs the most visible MRM internet organization.

The same thing happened with Roosh, Matt Forney, etc.  What they are is not gamers.  Matt Forney says that they are “paleomasculinits” (so even he admits that they aren’t just gamers), but what they really are is just guys selling self-improvement and lifestyle BS.  It doesn’t just involve game.  It includes diet BS, exercise BS, etc.  They came in to the MRM thinking that they could sell their self-improvement and lifestyle BS, but that didn’t work out.  They turned on the MRM and now attack the MRM.  They’re especially pissed because the existence of MRAs provides a competing option to the books they are selling.  MRAs are unintentionally a threat to their income so we get a lot of crap from them about how the MRM is dead.

What is going on in all of these cases is not an MRM vs. game fight (although that does happen from time to time).  It’s a fight between the MRM and every individual and group that wants to co-opt the MRM for its pet cause.  The good news is that they have all failed.  This is the real reason why there is so much venom against the MRM.  In many ways, this shows that the MRM has been successful to a degree.  We wouldn’t see so many attempts to co-opt the MRM if there wasn’t something worth taking over.  This also means that we need to be vigilant against future attempts to co-opt the MRM since as the MRM grows, the number of individuals and groups who want to co-opt the MRM will only increase.

Aug 302012

Roosh wrote a post showing his irrelevance.  Paul Elam had this to say about it:

One has to wonder why Roosh would even write on this subject, targeting men he thinks to be losers when he is already so thoroughly ensconced in all that pussy and magnificence.

The point? Roosh depends on painting himself as superior so he can peddle vagina acquisition self-help to guys who really are insecure with women. And it is MRAs that are like COSMO readers?

Sure, yeah, whatever.

I am not saying that is all bad. And I am sure that Roosh is being honest when he says he gets thank you notes from guys who say his writing has helped them. And I am sure some of them actually have been helped. I get the same emails, lots of ‘em.

But it doesn’t change the fact that there is a reason this article is about bashing MRAs instead of his standard fare about shooting his copious load into two eastern European perfect 10’s a day. And that reason is no different than the other ways he paints himself as a god. He will always be pointing at other men and shouting loser, because that is how you sell yourself, and your products, to men who feel inferior.

Maybe it helps them, maybe it doesn’t. Either way, that’s the shtick. It should come with a plaid jacket, a bow tie and a cheap cigar.

It is the habit of a many PUA’s and Gamers to have the occasional outburst about how superior they are to MRAs. And hey, if they need that sort of thing to feel better, they should go for it. We have thick skins and they seem to need the boost in self-esteem.

But any way you look at it, whining on the internet about guys whining on the internet seems a pretty lame pastime for a guy who prides himself on a face full of smegma and an audience to clap about it.

I agree with everything Paul Elam said.  I would add that Roosh isn’t just trying to stoke insecurity in other guys, but also deal with his own.  That’s why he comes up with absurd rationalizations for his failures with women in Washington, DC.  After all, if you think the MRM is completely dead, then why spend time writing about it unless you have a massive insecurity complex?

Dec 232011

I have been busy, so I haven’t commented much on the latest Susan Walsh debacle at Dalrock’s where she says that divorce only happens because men cheat on their wives.  Everyone is saying what needs to be said, so I am not concerned about contributing.  If you want to find out what Susan Walsh is really all about then that post and all of the comments will provide you with an excellent education on the subject.  She really digs a hole for herself and shows her true colors.

I’m glad to see that more and more people are finally figuring out everything I have known about Susan Walsh for close to two years.  I knew eventually she would say something that would demonstrate her game 2.0/man up 2.0 attitudes.  If you want to know something before other people do, you should be reading this blog.

It’s clear to me that Susan Walsh is on the same path as Obsidian, who over time crashed and burned as the truth about him came out.  (I also figured out Obsidian long before most anyone else.)  Susan Walsh is really Obsidian 2.0.

Dec 072011

When it comes down to it, game 2.0 proponents don’t truly understand game.  They may think they do, but they don’t.  What they’re dealing with is a “watered down” version of game:

“that is NOT game 101. that is WATERED DOWN game 101.”

Yes. Exactly.

Susan’s biggest problem is that she *thinks* she understands game, and men.

Well, it’s not what we know in life that gets us into trouble; it’s what we think we know that just ain’t so.

Susan is, and will always be, part of Team Woman.

What does “watered down game” attempt to produce?  Some would call it a “better beta”, but it would be accurate to say a “better” chump.  The biggest threat to form of promiscuity women prefer is men who were supposed to be the chumps that they married realizing the truth and avoiding becoming a chump.  Whether these men decided to become a PUA or a ghost or something in between doesn’t matter.  With knowledge these men can choose a path other than being a chump.  The weakest link (to women) in the female preferred form of promiscuity is finding a chump when a woman is done with the alpha carousel because either the chumps will discover the truth and not be chumps or the chumps won’t be attractive to women.  Game 2.0 tries to attack that problem by watering down game so only the desired result of a “better” chump can be produced.  This will never work since game 2.0 proponents don’t truly understand game in the first place.

Nov 262011

Sorry about the delay getting this out.  Things are busy this week for me.

Originally, I wasn’t going to say anything about the Elam-Frost debate.  To me it was an epic failure from almost all perspectives that I best avoided.  However, as I wrote my post on Man Up 2.0 & Game 2.0, I changed my mind because I realized there is a fundamental failure in in the Gamer vs. MRA wars.  I will talk about that later in this post.  First, to get a flavor of my thoughts (and of MGTOW in general about this), read what some of the men at the MGTOW Forums had to say about the Elam-Frost debate:

Frankly, while I think I follow their individual points, I can’t figure out just what the debate is supposed to be about. Seems to me it boils down to

Elam (zeta male): “Chasing pussy is more trouble than its worth!”

Frost (PUA): “No, it isn’t!”

So it mostly works out as both of them calling each other a fool or other slurs. I’m pretty disgusted by it. And I usually like Elam. Am I missing something?


I don’t really see the point. The only overlap between the Game community and MRAs is within the values of individuals.

Being a PUA is about getting laid. Being a MRA is about actually changing things or at least making a stand. One group is focused on fucking women while the other is an activist group. The aims of the two groups are completely different.

I don’t have a problem with guys learning stuff to get laid but it has little to do with the legal and cultural realities we deal with.


I’m so bored with the PUA versus MRA debate that I could spit. It’s as easy as ‘To thine own self be true’ imho. I’m not about to become dogmatic about MGTOW; seems like a contradiction to me. Men need to stick together these days. Pussy has divided us enough. To each their own.


True. Men can go their own way and definitely have sex. There’s a difference between that and letting it “control” you though, (like a drug). Also jumping through hoops or ego boosting to get laid is counterproductive. If you don’t do those things, that’s great.


I listened to the AVoiceForMen radio podcast last night and was so disappointed. As a MGTOW, I already feel pretty disconnected from most of the blue-pill world as it is. At least most of the PUA’s recognize thatsomething isn’t right. That’s enough for me to feel like those guys, while they don’t have the same end-goal as me, at least aren’t fumbling around in the dark wondering what happened. Basically, I never felt like the PUA guys are “the enemy”. And it seemed like Paul has been really pushing for that. Very disappointing.


I think it’s important to understand that MGTOW, MRA and PUA aren’t mutally exclusive or inclusive. You can be all three at once or just one. The fact that most guys who fit in one category usually fit into one of the others doesn’t really mean that the three things are significantly related.

You can be a MGTOW ghost and not be an MRA, like I am. There are PUAs that are non-MGTOW pussy beggars and PUAs that are MGTOW.


I thought MGTOW was about … Men Going Their Own Way … or am I missing something?

Be fucked if I stick to some stupid rule book – for anything.

The whole debate was a disaster from the beginning in my opinion.  Elam saying that all you need to do is take a shower to get women was silly.  However, Frost made a mountain out of a molehill and actually implied that MRAs are trying to trick men into celibacy.  It got worse from there.  There was no way that this debate could get to any reasonable conclusion.

There were several definition and scope problems, like when either of them are talking about game, what are they including or excluding?  Things are not helped by how 90% of game advice is BS and how most gamers and PUAs have never heard of mens rights.  Worse, many of them are self admitted feminists.  The response to this will be that we’re only talking about the Roissysphere, as Frost said, (which is valid and I have no problem with) but that has problems too.  It still includes Roosh, the guy that said mens rights is a euphemism for sexual loser.  If this debate happened a year ago, Obsidian Trollsidian would be included too.

The Roosh and Trollsidian examples are sideshows compared to the real problem of scope here.  The real problem comes from the Man Up 2.0/Game 2.0 contingent.  What is Man Up 2.0/Game 2.0 all about?  Co-opting game or manosphere ideas in general by providing minimal or fake empowerment of men for the purpose of benefiting women. In the mens rights world we have already dealt with the mens rights equivalent which include the socons/tradcons, white nationalists, and other fringe groups trying to co-opt the MRM. In the game world this has not been dealt with yet.

This isn’t just an academic question. Game 2.0 subverts game in a manner similar to how marriage 2.0 subverts marriage. It’s also no surprise that the same groups that promote game 2.0 are the same groups that tried to co-opt mens rights. Some of them are just trying to defend the status quo and the preferred female form of promiscuity like Susan Walsh. Others are just pissed that MRAs don’t hate blacks and Jews such as 1stdv who said this about the Elam-Frost debate:

I’ve long suspected that many MRAs are motivated primarily by a pathological hatred of white women and not women in general. For example, one MRA who I will not name gave a sperm sample and listed his race as Caucasian despite being East Indian – and then bragged about getting back at some white feminist when a brown baby comes out. This might be one of the sickest things I’ve read on the Internet, but it fits well into the pathological hatred of white women. Further, blaming (white) women for our troubles partially absolves “people of color”.

If one were to apply what Paul Elam said about game to just the Man Up 2.0/Game 2.0 morons, then Elam would me more or less completely correct.  (The Game 2.0 morons do not need to actually understand game at all. All they “know” about game is that it can be used in a bastardized form to bludgeon men and attack mens rights.) However, Elam is not willing to make this distinction. The other side doesn’t see the problem.

There were also other problems with this whole debate such as other gamers who couldn’t understand that there is a false rape industry, but no rape industry, and many other side problems that are too numerous to list here.

Lastly, there is no one strategy that will defeat misandry by itself. The entire principle if MGTOW is each man going his own way, not Frost’s way or Elam’s way. I found Frost saying that the “seduction community” would defeat feminism incredibly laughable (beyond the fact that most of the seduction community has never heard of mens rights or is explicitly pro-feminist).

In the end I still respect Paul Elam. He does things to advance the MRM even though he doesn’t understand the actual problem here. I didn’t care about Frost before this, and I care even less about him now. I find his dedication to nebulous and poorly defined “self-improvement” a waste of time especially when it comes to the paleo diet plan, something that will be in the dustbin of history in a year or two like every other diet of the last few decades.

Nov 192011

Over at the Rational Male blog, Rollo Tomassi introduced the concept of “Man Up 2.0”:

I’m glad to see it getting the publicity, but ONLY a woman could write this without suffering fem-screech backlash accusations of misogyny. This is the environment we’re in today. I have no doubt that Ms. Charen will receive her share of frothing hate from ego invested Jezebels, but at least her critique will register for them. No man could write this critique and be taken seriously, and therein lies the danger in women co-opting the message the manosphere has been compiling for 12 years now. The environment is such that anything remotely critical a man might offer is instantly suspect of misogyny or personal (‘he’s bitter”) bias, however, couch that message in a female perspective, play Mrs. Doubtfire, and you’ll at least reach the audience beginning with something like validity.

Not surprisingly this element of message delivery is lost on most women. Adopting the male perspective seems novel, something that might set a woman apart in a sea of common fem-speak, but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

A major illustration of this can be found in the ‘late-to-the-party’ resurgence of masculine ideals in mainstream evangelical christianity today. Like so much else in christian culture, they’re happy to use the popularity of a secular phenomenon and repackage it as kosher, the manosphere is no exception. Hacks like Mark Driscoll and more than few other “relevant” new order evangelical pastors have co-opted manosphere (MRA?) fundamentals – even ‘purified’ forms of Game – as their particular cause du jour for returning men back into their roles of accountability to the female imperative. This of course has an overwhelming appeal to White Knight prone guys, but the push is disingenuous for the same reason ‘pro-men’ female writers are – they still use the girl-world, female imperative rule book to define their outlook.

This is a real danger that I’m glad we’re starting to talk about.  There’s a real danger of game being “sanitized” for the benefit of women or “made safe” for women.  This form of game is game 2.0, a parallel of marriage 2.0, and it feeds into the form of promiscuity that women prefer allowing women to be sluts exclusively on their terms and is all around detrimental to men.

Socons/Tradcons love man up 2.0 and game 2.0.  It fits into their blather about “male leadership” that is really only about having a ready made scapegoat when a woman needs it.  A good example of this is Escoffier who recently at Dalrock’s blog declared that Athol Kay was the only good gamer out there.  He didn’t include other married gamers.  He only included Athol.  Even most married gamers are not pro-female enough for him.

Many of you are thinking, “Doesn’t this apply to someone like Susan Walsh too?”.  You aren’t the first to think that:

This can also be seen with Susan, as she is an erstwhile proponent of Game, but tends to mesh in a variety of conditions, qualifications and other caveats. Sometimes I read her stuff and just cringe at how even a professed anti-feminist still writes from the Team Woman perspective.

The threat of man up 2.0 and game 2.0 can not be underestimated, and until Rollo wrote his post, we weren’t dealing with it.  One reason I think that we had the disaster that was the Elam-Frost debate (something I wasn’t going to address originally, but with this I have changed my mind so I will be writing a post on it on Monday) was this.  Just because someone uses game language (or Roissy style game language) does not automatically make them pro-male in any way.




Oct 152011

Denise Romano, the woman who thinks that gamers are hypnotizing women into having sex with them, is back and left this comment:

There is also a link to a UK (male) MD who states that “hopefully, using hypnosis as a method of seduction will now be considered as much of a crime as alcohol inhibited behaviour”:

What happens when you click that link?  You get a, “We’re sorry, but that page doesn’t exist…”  Oops.  Denise Romano is full of BS again.  (And it’s likely she’s clinically insane.)

Jul 312011

For a while now I have been meaning to talk about the “beta orbiters” in the manosphere who should know better, but Ferdinand sort of beat me to it:

Actually scratch that – ALL of the women in the alt-right/manosphere (except for Bhetti and Aoefe) get way too much attention. If you have a pair of breasts and say all the right things, you’ll have a coterie of sackless beta orbiters hanging on your every word.

I would add Laura Grace Robbins (and Hestia if she was still blogging) to the list of women in the manosphere along with Bhetti and Aoefe who don’t get as much attention as they should, but otherwise I agree with this.  It’s pathetic the way men who should know better end up being beta orbiters to women.  These men believe that they aren’t beta orbiters because of game or some other reason, but all that means is that they haven’t really internalized game.

Consider David Alexander.  He’s a beta orbiter at Traditional Catholicism Christianity, but he knows he is one.  Think of how pathetic he acts.  If a man is a beta orbiter to a woman in the manosphere, then he is just like David Alexander.  For example, Obsidian is a beta orbiter of Susan Walsh (which is why Susan Walsh’s blog is the only blog in the manosphere that Obsidian hasn’t been banned from or otherwise forced out of) so this means that Obsidian is Susan Walsh’s David Alexander.

Beyond that I’m not going to name any names since the purpose of this post isn’t to humiliate anyone but to get men who are beta orbiting without knowing they are thinking about what they’re doing.  Are you a beta orbiter to a woman in the manosphere?  Just like beta orbiters in real life, beta orbiters in the manosphere don’t get anything out of being a beta orbiter.  If you’re a beta orbiter of some woman in the manosphere, then why are you doing that?  Now is a good time to stop.

Jul 282011

I have always been skeptical of Roosh ever since he said that mens rights was a euphemism for sexual loser.  After seeing him claim that DC sucks for guys, there is good reason for being skeptical of him.  As someone who lives in the greater DC area, I’m going to comment on what he had to say:

1. There aren’t many attractive women. Most are sloppy, ugly, fat, and don’t care about looking good for men.

If you read the longer explanation it’s clear that he’s talking about nightlife, specifically bars and clubs.  I really can’t speak to the nightlife scene in DC since that isn’t my thing.  Roosh also mentions LA, NYC, and Miami.  The DC area isn’t a magnet for models and actresses, but most areas aren’t.  Plus, it’s not like he is getting any women at that level (just as you or I are not).

If you’re talking about about the whole DC area, Roosh is wrong.  DC is the second fittest city in the US, and it was the fittest city for the last three years.  I could take you to any number of places with hot women starting with my own condo building and the immediate area around it.

2. The city has boring, cookie-cutter people.

How is this different than most other places?  It’s not.

3. Regardless of what surveys or Census figures say, Washington DC is the biggest sausagefest on the Eastern seaboard. This is obvious to anyone who has been out on a Saturday night.

If you read the description under this, this is really another nightlife complaint.

4. It forces you to lower your standards and date low-quality girls you would’ve never previously considered.

The description under this has to do with how guys in DC rarely get married to women originally from DC and when they do the women aren’t that great.  That’s a problem with getting married to women, not DC.

5. The few girls who are pretty have princess attitudes because of all the attention they get from the surplus of desperate, horny men.

Women with princess attitudes aren’t unique to the DC area by a long shot.

6. The city is rapidly exporting cool, attractive people while importing ugly political nerds from the Midwest or upstate New York who insist on wearing flip-flops all the time.

It’s clear from the description under this, that this is another nightlife complaint.

7. There aren’t enough cute white girls for white men who don’t want to date minorities.

All this means is that you need to get out of DC proper.  DC has had a high minority population, but if you expand your horizons outside of DC proper it’s not the same.  Unlike most cities DC is defined arbitrarily.  Places like Arlington, Alexandria, and Bethesda would be in the borders of DC if DC wasn’t the capital.  (Arlington used to be a part of DC before the section of DC taken from Virginia was retroceeded back to Virginia.)  In many ways those areas are “urban”.

As we see again this is a nightlife problem.  And it’s a DC specific nightlife problem.  Because of the unusual borders of DC, it’s important to get out of DC proper.  There’s no reason not to do that.

8. Women who live in DC gradually become status whores, obsessed with what you do and if you’re getting a table at the newest club on K Street.

Other than the part about K street, that’s no different than any place else.

9. Recent implants have sucked all the character out of neighborhoods by supporting soulless corporate chains. Soon the only stores in the city will be Starbucks, Potbelly, Chipotle, or cupcake shops.

Again, this is no different than anyplace else.

10. Adams Morgan turns into an open-air ghetto on weekend nights during the summer. You can’t walk around after last call without wannabe thugs making derogatory comments at your girl.

Even in DC proper there are plenty of places better than Adams Morgan.  Adams Morgan has improved a lot since the 80s even if it’s not that great now.

11. There are not as many young and nubile au-pairs coming into the city as before.

I suspect that Roosh is really complaining about the the lack of bottom of the barrel women like Anouk, who he fucked on a bus.  (I think Anouk was an au pair or had a similar job.)

12. It’s one of the most expensive cities to live in the United States , yet the girls are bottom of the barrel and still expect to be treated like NYC models.

DC is expensive but that has nothing to do with the women here.  Women expect to be treated like models everywhere.  That’s not specific to DC.

13. The subway system is managed by retards, resulting in a high loss of life for a public transportation system in a first world city.

This one is true, but it has nothing to do with the quality or lack of quality of women here.

14. The weather sucks. It’s an intolerable swamp in the summer and cold enough in the winter that most women hibernate with their vibrators.

If you think the DC area gets cold in the winter (on a regular basis), then you have no idea what real cold is.  Again, this has nothing to do with the quality of women here.

15. The HIV rate is the highest in America, exceeding that of many African nations.

This is true, but it only applies to DC proper.  Plus 75% of those who have HIV in DC are black.  Is Roosh so desperate now that he has gone through Anacostia (a very poor part of DC) trolling for women?  I guess so.

Some of the comments to that post pretty much covered a lot of what I wrote.  There were several comments about going to Arlington and taking the orange line (the metro line that goes in Northern Virginia towards where I live).

In the end there’s nothing to be said except that the DC area isn’t worse than most other places when it comes to women.  (Yes, that isn’t saying much, but that’s not the point.)  If I can get laid here, then shouldn’t Roosh be able to?  Guess not.

Jun 192011

A commenter posted this idea:

That is why church would be a great place for a PUA to run Game, and instead of complain about the feminization of church, use the church as a Sunday morning nightclub.

1) There is a built-in structure to meet women that takes out the difficulty of doing a cold approach.
2) All other men there are so pedestalizing, that the competition to a man who actually runs moderate Game is nil.
3) Sunday morning = where else would you Game at that time?
4) Once you have slept with a couple women in that church, simply move on to another church. Who cares if one is Baptist and the other is Episcopalian and the third is Lutheran? Just use up the desirable women and move on.

I’m not Christian, and could not easily blend in there, but I encourage white guys to do this every Sunday. Make the church implode on itself.

Oh, and remember to post flyers in the Church’s bathrooms, under the URLs @ Urinals campaign.

I think this is a great idea.  The churches for the most part are feminized and filled with white knights.  They also push men into getting married acting as a one-two punch with the anti-family court system.  One way or another this will force churches to defeminize or destroy them.  Either outcome is preferable to what we have now.

All you need to do to use the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” is find a church with single women.  Some churches are pretty much all families so avoid them.  Other churches are supertraditional where everyone gets married before 20.  Unless you’re in the middle of nowhere in a rural area, you aren’t going to encounter those.  I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches.  I only say that since the Eastern Orthodox churches tend to attract more men than women.  Supposedly they aren’t that feminized either, but I don’t know if that’s really the case or that’s temporary because the Orthodox churches haven’t been on the radar screen since they aren’t very visible in North America.  (I would think that the lack of feminization would not apply to the Greek Orthodox church.  This is something Novaseeker if he was still around could tell us about.)

When it comes to meeting the women there, you already have built in openers to use such as how “you have been looking for a church”.  These women will put out for you.  You aren’t going to find any virgins waiting for marriage (with the exception of a few outliers with very unusual issues).  The women there are better described as “sluts for Jesus”.

If you a member of a religion other than Christianity or familiar with non-Christian religions than I assume it would work the same in those places as well.

And as he reminds us: PUT UP SOME FLYERS.

I’m sure this post will get criticism from the socon/tradcon set for encouraging the defilement of virgins (even though there are basically no virgins in church anymore) and preying on “innocent women” (despite the fact that there aren’t any innocent women in church either.

Jan 162011

Here’s something that will piss off the Mark Richardsons and Susan Walshs and Escpaistarts.  I expect more comparisons to serial killers after this post.

Those of you reading this blog know that I have thought plenty about banging Sabrina’s best friend (let’s call her Kate) and having a threesome with Sabrina and Kate.  This weekend Sabrina and I were talking.  Since I have known Sabrina, Kate has not been able to find a man.  This seems surprising since she’s hot and only as crazy as the average woman.  Sabrina was complaining about Kate complaining about striking out when trying to get a man recently.  The conversation went like this (Everything is paraphrased for brevity, clarity, and just to make it into full sentences where there wasn’t any, and I left out some of the insults.):

Me: I will bang Kate to shut her up for you.
Sabrina: Ha Ha. Very funny.
Me: No, I’m serious.
Sabrina: You’re serious???? I give you all the sex you could ever want and that isn’t enough? I let you do things to me no other guy has done. Why do you want to cheat?
Me: I want a threesome. That’s not cheating.

Sabrina just gets a lot angrier at this point.

Sabrina: You’re not getting a threesome or anything from me anymore. You…You…You’re going to have to jerk off your little dick from now on.
Me: (I start laughing.) That’s not what you said last night or a million other times about my dick.
Sabrina: I lied to protect you. You have the smallest dick I have ever seen. Oh..and I had a threesome with two big black guys.
Me: With two big…you mean fat black guys? Why would I care about that or that they were black?
Sabrina: No you moron. They had really big dicks…This big (Sabrina did one of those, “I caught a fish this big with her arms”)
Me: That big? How was the hospital afterwards after getting impaled by those guys?
Sabrina: Shut Up!  SHUT UP!  SHUT UP!  Fuck this. That’s it. I’m leaving.
Me: Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

It took a lot of mental energy to be able to come up with all those comebacks that quickly and stay level headed.  I was exhausted.  And I’m sure someone like Roissy could list quite a few game failures here.  I thought Sabrina and I were done, but two minutes later I get a knock on my door.  It’s Sabrina and she says, “Hey there Mr. Big, can I come in and apologize?”  Sabrina went through this big long apology complete with commentary about how huge my dick really is.  She claims that she only said I had a small dick because she was angry.  (Are women capable of saying, “you have a nice average sized dick?”  I don’t think they are.  It’s either huge dick or small dick.)  Sabrina said that she’s “woman enough” to handle a threesome if I can convince Kate to join in.

Sabrina even went to the point of saying that she can handle me having the occasional woman on the side as long as she knows about it.  This sounds great right?  Alarm bells were going off in my head when she said that.  Sabrina went from being angry about me even thinking about other women to saying I could fuck other women within the space of several minutes.  I’m certain Sabrina has some other ideas in her head.  It may be as simple as trying to generate drama to planning her eventual divorce and using my “philandering” as an excuse.  It may seem absurd to plan a divorce before we’re even married but there’s a strong possibility Sabrina is already planning her marriage to me so planning a divorce now as well doesn’t seem far fetched.  Either way I don’t know so I’m going to try for the threesome and see what happens if I can make the threesome happen.

Dec 152010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

There are lots of people who claim to be against feminism but really aren’t.  One way of figuring out if someone is seriously against feminism is asking if their critiques and solutions of feminism deal with the reality on the ground for men and boys.  Instead if they are engaging in an academic discussion mental masturbation that does not offer anything to help to reality that men and boys are dealing with, then they aren’t serious about being against feminism.  Most likely they are another form of female supremacist that agrees with 99% of feminism but has some sort of meaningless trivial disagreement with feminism.  This is even more true if they claim to be against feminism but spend lots of time attacking MRA’s or the MRM.

Look at this post from the Oz Conservative blog.  There’s a lot of talk about “individualism”, “separatism”, and “autonomy”.  This is supposedly a criticism of both feminism and the MRM.  Notice how those terms aren’t really defined for context they’re used in.  They’re supposed to be “bad” because they’re “bad”.  There are also a lot of bizarre claims that MRAs want to be “liberated from masculinity”.  What “liberated from masculinity” means is not defined either.  Nearly all MRAs would have no idea what is being talked about in that post because MRAs are dealing with the reality on the ground.  MRAs are dealing with issues that affect (and in many cases destroy) the lives of men and boys such as anti-male divorce courts, fathers having their children taken away from them, men forced to pay for children that aren’t theirs, men in jail because of false rape charges, men losing their jobs due to affirmative action and the mancession, boys trapped in feminized school systems, boys forced to take drugs like ritalin, etc.  If a 7 year old boy fights back against a feminized school system he is trapped in (as much as a 7 year old boy reasonably can), are we really supposed to believe that 7 year old boy is wants to be “liberated from masculinity”?  (The author of the Oz Conservative blog is a teacher so he may actually believe that.)

Another example of supposed anti-feminism that refuses to deal with the reality on the ground can be found at The (Not) Thinking Housewife (along with another post at that blog).  Look at some of the things Josh F. had to say:

And so what  is becoming ever more evident is that the “men’s rights movement” is really a white male liberationist movement towards radical autonomy/ de facto homo-ism. It is the consciously persued spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman. This white male liberationist movement justifies itself by incorrectly identifying its foe as feminism/woman  in order to give cover to its fellow radical autonomist, devout dyke.

The incentive for adopting the roles that Mrs. Wood speaks of is the opportunity TO BE A REAL MAN. One isn’t born a man nor is one able to be a man without continually “acting” manly. The idea that males seeking de facto homo-ism (spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman) can be MEN is the fraud of the “men’s rights movement.” Liberal “man…” Radically autonomous “man…” “Man” that rejects woman IS actually anti-man. He is the “soul mate” to the other anti-man, the inappropriately named “feminist,” i.e., devout dyke.

The delusion of the MRM is in the idea that its  liberal male collective can defeat the liberal female collective either by utilizing liberal tactics or by withdrawing into a state of de facto homo-ism (radical autonomy)…This is the radical liberal’s subconscious desire to self-annihilate so as to realize final  liberation from the burden of being God-fearing American Man. This is the essence of the MRM; a mirrored sham very much in collusion with devout dyke to destroy both man and woman.

To lead males to de facto homo-ism with a rally cry of “no marriage, no kids” is to lead males to a state of radical autonomy. Meaning, you are ensuring that he never sees the light of manhood.

Homosexuality is not JUST two people of the same sex that are attracted to each other.

It is a simple fact that those who believe in sexual autonomy (fluidity) simply reject the idea of an externally imposed sexual order. This means that their sexuality is self-created. Homo-sexuality is the sexual attraction to the self, first, and only then the same when the void is felt. But make no mistake, a self-created sexual “orientation” that is sexually attracted TO ITSELF (the purely physical narcissist) is really a sexual “orientation” that rejects the externally imposed sexual order; this fluid sexual “orientation” rejects man as devout dyke and it rejects woman as radical homosexual. It is very plain to see that a self-sexualizer, even when he fills the void with something of the same, is by nature a self-annihilator.

What Josh F. is saying is difficult to read because many of his concepts are not defined.  What is “autonomy” in this context?  What is a “real man” supposed to be in this context?  What is the “externally imposed sexual order”?  It can not be figured out except that it is supposed to be “bad” for some unknown reason.  Also, Josh F. tries to redefine terms like homosexual to some other nebulous concept similar to how leftist academics try to murder the English language for destructive purposes.  The only idea that Josh F. communicates is that he is trying to expand anti-male shaming language.

What are these “devout dykes” that Josh F. talks about?  They sound like aliens on another planet.  That is because Josh F. refuses to deal with the reality on the ground of feminism.  If the only problem of feminism were a group of aliens on another planet then men would have nothing to worry about.  The problems of feminism are all around men on this planet.  A woman who forces a man into divorce court and steals his children from him is not a “devout dyke”.  It’s a heterosexual woman.  An actual lesbian wouldn’t marry a man in the first place.  When considering all of the problems caused by feminism, it took a lot more women than some small cadre of lesbians to create these problems.  It took the work of average everyday heterosexual women too.  To ignore this is to ignore the reality on the ground for men.  Josh F. refuses to consider that not getting married and not having kids is a solution that men can actually implement to protect themselves.  This is why a lot of men avoid marriage and children.  These men have never heard of words like “autonomy” or “self annihilator” in the context they are being used.  Even if they have, they don’t care because they are dealing with the reality on the ground.  They are trying to avoid things like divorce court and jail.  Does a man dealing with the real problems of feminism such as a man who is a victim of false rape charges care about Josh F.’s weird ideology?  No, because he is dealing with the reality on the ground, namely avoiding jail.

Look at what Jesse Powell (the same person who said that men should be imprisoned on false rape charges to “protect women”) had to say:

“Duty to others” always exists no matter what the circumstances. Men have the duty to “provide for and protect” women simply because that is a fundamental part of the man’s role in society; it is an inherited duty; it is an intrinsic characteristic of the man.

Why do they positively celebrate the decline in marriage calling it “the marriage strike”? I suspect men’s rights supporters know their condemnation of marriage and their refusal to fulfill their obligations as men is destructive to society and so they embrace and glorify the destruction of society in order to legitimize and glorify their own anti-social behaviors.

What is the “duty to provide for and protect” women?  Why does it exist?  These questions won’t be answered because there isn’t an answer.  Those statements exist to avoid the question, “Why should men get married knowing the reality on the ground?”  The reality for men getting married particularly younger men is that there is a greater than 50% chance their wives will force a divorce on them, take half or more of their assets, and take their kids away.  Since when is it a man’s duty to go to divorce court or jail?  Jesse Powell is telling men to ignore their own good judgement and ability to plan for the future and pretend the reality on the ground doesn’t exist.

All the people in these examples do the same thing, avoid dealing with the reality on the ground men are facing.  They provide no practical solutions for men to use who are facing these problems in the face.  They refuse to admit these problems even exist and refuse to admit the lives and men and boys are being destroyed by the problems feminism has created.  Instead they waste their time on mental masturbation inventing concepts that don’t reflect reality in any way.  This is in stark contrast to how the MRM or the greater manosphere acts.  Take game, for example.  It’s a solution that was created to deal with the reality on the ground men were facing.  This is one reason why it’s effective.  The only way we men will move forward in dealing with feminism is dealing with real problems and find concrete and usable solutions to them.  Anyone who wastes their time on weird ideological debates will not be a part of a solution to the problems of feminism and is not really against feminism.

Dec 062010

There’s some excellent material in the hater category today.  (And thanks to the person who emailed this to me since I wouldn’t have seen it otherwise.)   This is some of the best hater material ever.

There’s this woman who goes by Escapist, and her blog is here.  If you are unable to figure out what she’s trying to say, you are by far not the only person with this problem.  She also has this alternate account and blog called Sexy Pterodactyl.  Don’t ask me to explain that either.  She posted this at HookingUpSmart, Susan Walsh’s blog (full comment included for context):

Aunt Enid (aka Susan Walsh), I have a question for you? If you care about girls having good dating experiences, why do you specifically (and tacitcly) support stuff like the following? Perhaps its that women are inherently worthless/class enemies once they’re past say age 27?


Surely the manosphere (MRA PUAs, or even the “nice happily-married ones like Dalrock”) is not about belligerence, just justice/righting wrongs? Au contraire. Consider this post and the associated comments at Dalrock……
…celebrating guys that put up a nice front (including via Internet dating, and including showing marriage interest), but are actually purposely “using”/taking up the time of the women they are dating (they target women in their late 20s and 30s) – as revenge for the crime of said women (not necessarily even the specific women in question, but their age group) not dating them when they were younger.

Consider also the nice nerdy “Pro-Male Anti-Feminist Tech” blogger whose attitude towards his girlfriend Sabrina is basically that of a serial killer observing a specimen for how best to prey. He’s trying to figure out how/when to dump her to avoid having to be nice at holidays, meet her family and such – but to still get Sexytime/a threesome (not so much for enjoyment, but because that way he “wins”) and the associated ego-feed goodies in the meantime. Aunt Enid (ahem, Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart) and the like duly submissive-helpmeet-squadron him in his comments section.

Serial killer?  At least she’s admitting that serial killers are popular with women and not like this guy.  What is the serial killer argument she’s using?  It’s just like this woman who commented her a while ago how I was being “controlling” with Sabrina but if/when Sabrina tries to do the same thing it’s a “feminist relationship”. Women prey on men all the time but when a man just has a real backbone that’s “preying on women”.

I don’t think Escapist/Sexy Pterodactyl really read my blog.  Where is this “submissive helpmeet squadron” in my comments section?  Provide some links, or it doesn’t exist.  How am I avoiding meeting Sabrina’s family when I have already done that?  And what’s wrong with threesomes?  If they weren’t enjoyable why would anyone do them?

While the “serial killer” bit is new, none of what Escapist/Sexy Pterodactyl says is new.  I have been accused of “preying on women” before which is a common enough use of anti-male shaming language that I gave it its own color, Code Magenta. I have been accused of sexual depravity, of being a sexual deviant and sexually degrading women in a filthy way, treating women like cum dumpsters, having a large dick and using it to hurt women, etc.  You see elements of all that in what Escapist/Sexy Pterodactyl says.  It should surprise no one that the same silly arguments/shaming language are coming up over and over again.  A year and a half ago they would have just used code purple shaming language of how I’m just pissed I can’t get laid.  Since they can’t use that anymore, I get this.  No matter what I do outside of chopping off my balls or becoming like David Alexander I will always get one form of shaming language or another from women like Escapist/Sexy Pterodactyl.  If one form of shaming language stops working, they just move on to another one.

The only things that Escapist/Sexy Pterodactyl missed were calling me a reptile alien in charge of the Illuminati and a global depopulation agenda and having a small dick.  Maybe she did but I couldn’t find it anywhere in the gibberish that is her blog.

Also, let’s not forget why I can’t (or won’t) do a standard progression of relationship to engagement to marriage with a woman.  It’s because of the corrupt anti-male divorce system.  Escapist/Sexy Pterodactyl won’t admit that exists so I get attacked for being like a “serial killer”.

Susan Walsh had a response to this:

He and I have never been on speaking terms, and I banned him from this blog a long time ago. I do not read his blog, so I’m not sure why you claim I’ve commented there. I actually went over and read the posts you mention, and I’ll go on record as saying that he disgusts me. I do not support him or his tactics, either blatantly or tacitly.
Or are you calling me out because Ferdinand links to me and links to him at the same time? Do you really believe that I am responsible for the company Ferdinand keeps?

I disgust Susan Walsh?  That means I must be doing something right.  This is also an example of code beige shaming language, the charge of some sort of non-specific “shameful behavior”.

What tactics am I using?  Ones to avoid entrapment.  That’s it.  Why do I only stay with women so long?  Because I’m avoiding marriage or more accurately, I’m avoiding the corrupt anti-male divorce system.  I am also doing things to avoid being entrapped in the anti-male child support system (with an “oops” pregnancy), etc.  This is what really drives haters like these two.  I’m successfully avoiding women getting their claws into me and my bank accounts.  They can’t stand a man that is free, and I am free.  This is not the first time I have been attacked for this.  It’s happened before because like with the rest of this it’s nothing new.

Ferdinand, you need to work a lot harder at generating some haters.  It’s pretty bad when you have to rely on your association with someone for generating haters.

The last thing I have to say about this is knowing that Escapist/Sexy Pterodactyl is so mortified at the prospect of having a threesome makes me want to have a threesome with Sabrina and her best friend even more.  I’m sure that last sentence will drive Escapist/Sexy Pterodactyl even more crazy if that’s possible.

Aug 282010

Let’s review what code purple shaming language is:

Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example:

  • “You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”

Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, “What if the grapes really are sour?” At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called “circumstantial ad hominem.”

Why was this added to the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Language?  Because a man’s worth isn’t based on how many women he has fucked.  We should understand this better than most but too often there is too much judging of a man based on his sex life or lack thereof.

Rob (of No Ma’am) had some good things to say about this:

Meh, uncontrollable sex drive only occurs for about 1/3 of human life (or less). One thing that happens with the “game crowd” is they are placing more value on getting laid than what it is worth. 2/3 of your life will still be spent in a state where pussy is not your number one goal or thought. What happens too often with game/sex is that it is like being popular in school. It seems really important at the time to wear the right type of jeans, but in the end, it doesn’t really matter too much – certainly not as much as what you once thought it did.

I would certainly like to see the “Game” crowd stop behaving like women and calling MRA’s bitter little whiners.

I’ll tell you this, many in the MRM crowd have bedded enormously more amounts of women than the average commenter over at Roissy’s – and many of them don’t consider themselves to be PUA masters – however, I am simply amazed at how “few” women so many “gamers” think is successful.

At any rate, both Gamers and the MRM could do eachother a benefit by dropping this petty little schoolyard fight of mocking… but I have to say, gamers seem to be the ones that don’t want to drop it, as 75% of gamers (falsely) consider themselves as alphas, and criticize everyone else as a loser beta. (It’s a zero sum game, so for every new alpha created, another alpha drops down to beta – unless you are both going to cram your cocks into the same pussy at the same time – the top 20% is always going to be the top 20%, just like the top 20% of hockey players are still the top 20%, even though they are 100 times more skilled than hockey players from 100-years ago). Also, alpha and beta are not constant states, but rather ebb and flow throughout a man’s life – and much of this ebb and flow also comes from a realization, often through swallowing bitter pills, of what the MRM often speaks about.

Let’s face it.  Most of the gamers who go after the MRM and MRAs aren’t that great at getting women.  They’re not in a position to talk about MRAs being losers.  Talk especially on the internet is very easy.  To see just how easy take a look at the Jersey Shore as a example.  Go to 7:05 of this video of one of the Jersey Shore after shows. They talk about how Pauly and Mike (“The Situation”) claim to be these great players but they’re really just “scraping the filth off the boardwalk”.  “The Situation” even once called a large number of women in an hour and none of these women wanted anything to do with him.  Granted, these guys haven’t called MRAs losers but if they did it would be nothing but a joke like the gamers who do that now.  You’re not that great.

The “not getting laid” argument is just like the “not getting married” argument that gets used against MRAs and is used in pretty much the same way.  We all know the dangers of marriage and why it should be avoided.  This has not stopped conservative female supremacists from attacking us for being “immature”, “boys who shave”, or “refusing to do what God wants” or telling us that we need to “man up”.  Agreeing with the CFS shaming language on marriage just gives women, manginas, and white knights power over men.  (That’s why such shaming language exists, to control you.)  It’s no different when undue importance gets placed on getting laid.

We all know the reasons why getting married is dangerous.  It wasn’t always this way.  It is possible with increased feminist control of government that sex with women could get more dangerous in the future just like marriage did.  Hopefully, the misandry bubble will burst so that doesn’t happen but it could.  Attacking MRAs for (supposedly) not getting laid is not going to protect you.  If things get bad enough I am prepared to stop fucking women.  Are you?  If you aren’t then you are letting women, manginas, and white knights have power over you.  I’m not suggesting anyone (least of all me) should stop fucking women right now.  We aren’t there yet but game will not save you if things get this bad.  As Rob pointed out marriage 2.0 nullifies a great part of game and if government ends up making fucking women as dangerous as marriage game will have the same problem there as well.

Knowing all this, why does it matter to you if another man is getting laid or not?  If a man who isn’t getting laid says 2 + 2 = 4, that doesn’t make it wrong.  Personally, I have a lot more respect for a man who isn’t getting laid and knows the truth than a man who is getting laid and letting himself get pushed around by women, manginas, and white knights for the “privilege”.

Mar 092010

If you go to the blog of a socialist and start posting economic facts, the socialist will eventually ban you because they don’t facts interfering with their delusion.  I was banned from Susan Walsh’s blog, the same Susan Walsh who said that I’m a dick and incapable of treating women like anything other than “cum dumpsters”, in much the same manner.  Its even a more apt comparison since Susan Walsh has no understanding of economics, just like socialists, despite having gone to Wharton.  When I read that I was banned, I couldn’t help but laugh.  I’m surprised she didn’t ban me sooner.  I’m a real threat to her ideology, not in what I say despite bringing some facts to her blog, but I can draw directly on my own life experiences such as my experiment to show she is wrong. While I’m surprised that I wasn’t banned sooner, I’m not that surprised that it happened right now.

One side thing that happened was that I took on one of her readers that is some type of Gloria Allred lawyer type in the Philippines.  I objected to her characterization of Filipino men as dangerous animals that spend their days raping and beating women.  She tried to claim this was true because women are “short” in her country, that there was a law called VAWC (violence against women and children) which didn’t even work, and an example of a guy with six mistresses (among other things).  Of course, you should notice the similarity just in the NAME of the VAWC to VAWA.  Anti-male misandrist laws have similar names wherever you go.  The last thing she said to me was that I wasn’t interested in “dialog”.  That was the only thing she was right about.  As I said in a similar fashion in my piece on Triangulation, I am not interested in “dialog”, “compromise”, or “finding a middle ground”.  All those terms mean (if they actually worked and history clearly says they don’t) only half many men would be ass raped in divorce court, only half as many men would be in jail because of the false rape industry, etc., and this is unacceptable.  Most succinctly, “dialog” with someone or someones that are insane, drunk on power, & power hungry always means they will win.  Thus we must reject it because there is no reason we should negotiate our freedom away.  As Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

There is guy who posted there who went by the name of Steveo.  Steveo’s story was that he was about 30 and a sexless virgin.  In his questioning of why this was happening, he came across the MRAsphere/MGTOWsphere/gamesphere.  He realized either before or after about the injustice against men, and he is understandably angry about it.  At Susan Walsh’s blog, Steveo got a whole lot of platitudes and other pro-female BS.  Of course, Steveo knew enough to know it was mostly BS (even Obsidian and others noticed this) especially the parts that effectively assumed he was obese and smelly with crappy clothes.  Steveo emailed me, and I have been talking to him.  It’s clear that I have helped him more in one email than all of these pro-female morons on Susan Walsh’s blog could in months.  I’m not sure what path Steveo will take in the short, medium, or long term, but I know I helped for real.  And Steveo is not the only man I have helped.  I get emails all the time from men in the same situation or similar situations to Steveo.  It’s plenty of work responding to all of them, but I know I have helped for real.  Susan Walsh says I have a new “follower”, but that just means she doesn’t understand men or what men are deciding to do in response to pervasive misandry.  As a MGHOW I am doing what’s best for my life.  Steveo now understands that he can GHOW, whatever his own way is since it may or may not be similar to my way, and doesn’t have to obey misandrists.  The great sin I committed was that I made it so the morons on Susan Walsh’s blog don’t have their punching bag anymore.

Plenty of shaming language was also used against Steveo.  Susan Walsh said about Steveo and guys like him, “I believe steveo’s sexual frustration drives his interest in the political aspect, as is often the case with MRA types, in my experience.”  This of course is code tan shaming language.  (Susan Walsh did try to claim she really didn’t mean that not getting laid is the only reason men talk about male injustice, but this was conveniently after when she banned me.)  There’s plenty of anti-male shaming language going on there, not the least of which is how Susan Walsh tries to claim what women are going through (i.e. feeling bad and seeing women get together with alphas) with what men are going through.  This is absurd, and she denied it, but after I showed an example of this false equivalence, I get banned.  She can’t bury what she said when I’m around.

In all this talk about Steveo, one thing that came up was all of the monetary transfers done by government were disenfranchising guys like Steveo, similar to what I talked about here.  Susan Walsh denied such a thing was relevant to Steveo’s situation, but it is.  Hungry Hungry Hippos disproved this.  More importantly, it reveals that Susan Walsh has no understanding of economics whatsoever.  She even said about this, “transfer of wealth from the govt. to women”.  The government has no wealth of its own.  It only has what it gets in taxes (and loans) both of which have come from men not a magic money tree.

Also, revealing her lack of understanding of economics Susan Walsh asked me this, but banned me before I could answer, perhaps to prevent me from posting an answer there:

I have a question for you re the transfer of wealth. As we know, women are outpacing men in education, and catching up rapidly in earning power. The Pew report said that in 22% of marriages, the woman earns more than the man. This is up from 4% in 1970. This trend is expected to continue. What will be the impact on men as the wealth transfer slowly evolves to women supporting other women?

There are plenty of economic fallacies here.  I suggest you don’t play a drinking game of spot the economic fallacies in Susan Walsh’s question, otherwise you will pass out quickly.  Women are “outpacing” men in education.  As we all know there are a big difference between degrees in engineering, the sciences, liberal arts, women’s studies, etc.  With much of the “education” these women are receiving (which isn’t really an education, but a credentialation), all that is happening is indoctrination.  If it weren’t for government jobs and government derived jobs, these women’s degrees would be useless (given the rapidly increasing nature of student loans they already are arguably), and they would be saying, “Would you like fries with that?”  Women are catching up in earning power only in that men are having their jobs (which are real, wealth producing jobs) destroyed by government policies to favor women.  What this means is that there will never be a wealth transfer from women to women.  As the mancession continues, and men’s wealth producing jobs are destroyed by the government there is a shrinking tax base.  It’s not a coincidence that the mancession happened at the same time as greater than a trillion dollar federal deficits.  Watch as those deficits become multi-trillion dollar deficits.  With so many women dependent on government jobs or jobs sucking off the government teat, the tax base is continually shrinking.  It’s not sustainable the only reason it’s still going now are the loans given to the government.  As we know this increasingly means bonds sold to foreigners particularly the Chinese.  You won’t have women transferring wealth to women, but Chinese men and other foreign men transferring wealth to American women.  Of course, the Chinese aren’t going to fund our deficits much longer.  Even if they wanted to, they are physically unable to do so.  Combine this with the Tea Parties who are very angry about the platinum plated salaries, benefits, and pensions that government workers are getting, and we are not that far away from government being forced to shrink, and this means lots of unemployed women.  Expect some major battles as these women will fight it tooth and nail.

It has been pointed out that most women have no understanding of supply and demand so Susan Walsh’s failure to understand economics is not surprising except that she went to Wharton.  However, it has been shown that at the time she went (early 80s) their affirmative action program was desperate for women, any woman.  Even knowing that, you would think that Susan Walsh would have learned at least a few basics about economics by osmosis being at Wharton if nothing else.  It just goes to show that she was at Wharton due to affirmative action, and that’s probably true about her subsequent jobs too.

Susan Walsh said that I am not seeking an “emotional connection” with a woman, and thus I “don’t belong” on her blog. How would she know? Most women aren’t offering such a thing so its clear that Susan Walsh doesn’t understand cause and effect either. It’s just like when she said that I can only relate to women as “cum dumpsters”. If that is the case (and the same that I’m not looking for an “emotional connection”) then the reason why I am successful with women now is because I treat women like “cum dumpsters” and don’t look for “emotional connections” with women. You can decide for yourself if I treat women like “cum dumpsters”.

Susan Walsh says I would like nothing more than for her blog to self destruct.  It doesn’t matter what I want or don’t want since her blog has already failed completely at its stated mission, helping women find relationships.  The blog self destructing is immaterial.  These women are hetero and presumably monogamous so that means relationships with men and one man for each woman.  The problem is that Susan Walsh is refusing to honestly describe what is happening to men.  Why would men want to get into relationships with these women?  Look at what is happening with divorce, sexual harassment, the mancession and all the other issues feminism causes to men.  Increasingly with VR sex, more onerous laws, less jobs, less men are going to want and/or be able to get into relationships, but on Susan Walsh’s blog men are treated as an object or an accessory, not human beings with their own thoughts and desires.  Let’s look at what my colleague at The Spearhead, Welmer, had to say about having women in his life now:

It goes back and forth. Sometimes I feel I still do, but when I think about the potential harm they can do, I’m not sure it’s worth it. When my ex went on her rampage and I filed for divorce and custody, dozens of women came out of the woodwork to condemn me, including several I’d never even met or heard of and many I hadn’t met more than a couple times (she dragged in all of her high school friends, family, and even parents’ neighbors). Only one woman – an aunt – stood up for me unconditionally. What this taught me is that when it counts, women can be guaranteed to side with women — especially when the women are behaving terribly.

If a man even just seen one experience like this (and many, many men have seen examples of women always siding with women no matter how noxious their behavior) why would he want to get in a relationship with a woman?  At that point the only thing is getting laid, and for a lot of men that isn’t even worth it.

I had also uncovered how Susan Walsh thinks feminism is all about casual sex and nothing else.  What is happening to men as a result of feminism is something Susan Walsh completely ignores.  It’s relevant because why would men want to get into relationships with women that listen to her?  It also shows how Susan Walsh is similar to conservative female supremacist women.  CFS women are “against” feminism, but their only real argument against feminist is abortion (and maybe gay marriage) to the point of claiming that feminism is all about abortion and that men benefit from feminism.  This is because CFS women agree with 99% of the feminist agenda.  They are female supremacist just like the feminists, but with a minor disagreement.  Susan Walsh is similar in that she has a minor disagreement with the Jessica Valenti stream of feminism.  Again Susan Walsh denied everything that is happening to men like CFS women when she said, “casual sex is feminism”.

This gets to the heart of the matter.  Women progressively get worse forgetting more and more than men are human beings.  The alternatives to women such as VR sex appear and get better and better.  Already you have men ghosting and semi-ghosting playing video games instead of having anything to do with women.  Video games don’t even claim to replace women in any way like VR sex would.  That’s how “bad” it is already for the women that listen to Susan Walsh.  However, I have said everything I can say about this, and it’s not my problem.

I take by banishment from Susan Walsh’s blog proudly and as a badge of honor.  I consider no different than the hundreds of women who said that I have a small dick last year. This is going in my denunciation hall of fame along with the insane dude who thinks I’m a reptile alien that runs the Illuminati and the insane chick who thinks I’m part of a conspiracy of men with large dicks to promote “large penis propaganda” to get “cum dumpster servant girls” and hurt them with our large dicks.

(Addition: Susan Walsh, your comments currently are in the moderation queue until I decide how I want to deal with them if at all.)

Feb 162010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Valentines Day Vagina Day has passed and like all Vagina Days, it involved lots of men supplicating before women.  In other words there are a lot men who should be dumping the women they’re with but they don’t.  You may be one of those men.  Let’s take a look at two (admittedly extreme) examples of men who need to dump their women, post haste.  The first example comes from here (which I talked about on my blog a while back).

Recently, my girlfriend of two months came up to me with a request for something foul. She wants me to try scat with her. Before I continue, let me say something. If you don’t know what scat is then trust me when I say that you don’t want to find out. Take my advice and don’t read this thread. When my girlfriend explained to me what scat is, I threw up right away, and I’ve been shaking ever since. So, believe me when I say that you don’t want to know what it is. If you aren’t planning on taking that advice, then know that you’re following at your own risk.

My girlfriend wants to poop in my mouth and have me eat it and swallow it. That’s what scat is. It’s the most horrific thing I’ve heard of, and my girlfriend wants to try it on me this saturday. She wants me to fulfill her desire. And I agreed to do it. She told me that if I’m not willing to do this for her, then I’m not a real boyfriend, that I don’t love her, and that we should break up. And, well… I love her. And when you love someone, you do these kinds of things for them. My girlfriend has been stuffing her face full of everything from bean burritos to chili, with plenty of laxatives thrown in for good measure. She wants to pull out the biggest crap of her life, just for me. I don’t think there’s any backing out at this point. Come this Saturday, my girlfriend wants to execute the greatest display of control and female empowerment on me that she possibly can by using me as a toilet. And there’s nothing that I can do about it now because I love her and I don’t want to disappoint. I’m just so terrified that I need help and some people to talk to.

I have to admit I’m not sure this is something that really happened.  However, I am sure something similar is happening to a guy (or many guys), especially with the standard shaming language that is being used.  While there is a joke that can be made about a literal “shit test” here, the fact is we have a man who has been bombarded with messages about how he’s a loser without a woman.  He needs to dump his girlfriend’s sorry ass.  Let’s take a look at the second example I found:

This my be a little long winded so I apologize in advance. My wife and I have been married for 5 years and I recently came back from a very long deployment over in Iraq. Shortly after I returned she confessed to me that she had been cheating while I was away but that it was all just a purely sexual fulfillment thing. After the shock and hurt wore off my understanding side came out and I basically told her that every woman has needs and that I understood and forgave her. She then hesitantly told me that she was without a doubt pregnant by one of them. Not him, but “one of them” she said.

Now the real confessions came out. Come to find out that during the year that I was deployed and gone she had numerous sexual flings with several guys. Once in a while she would have a one night stand but most of them were “friends with benefits” type situations or just plain old “Booty Calls” where they just used each other with no real friendship. When I asked her to tell me exactly how many guys she had slept with while I was gone she couldn’t give me an exact number. She just agreed that it was “more than a dozen”.

Now let me say this. At this point I’m still being the understanding and forgiving husband. I realize that while I was away at war she was extremely stressed.. wondering if I was going to get injured or killed. OK I get that. I forgive her for all of her flings no matter how many.

Heres what I have the problem with in all of this. Shes pregnant by another guy and doesn’t have a clue who’s it is. Not that it matters really but it just makes it even more wrong that she doesn’t know whose it is. And why is she pregnant in the first place? Because she has an IUD she never ever used condoms with any of the guys that she had sex with… ever. She says she didn’t think it was necessary with an IUD.. well obviously it was.

Before or during sex with these other guys she just either never mentioned pulling out to them or if they asked, she just left it up to them. Hmm.. if given the choice I wonder what the guys will do? Hmm. Of course they’re not going to pull out if given the option.. obviously because none of them did!

Now my wife is absolutely gorgeous..without a doubt. So I dont hold it against any of the guys for sleeping with her. However I do have a problem with something. She swears that she not only told every guy that she was married before she slept with them, but she also told them that her husband was over in Iraq fighting for our country. So they all knew that she was married and they still slept with her.. Ok, no shocker there.. But what amazes me I guess is that they knew I was over fighting in war, for America, risking my life every day while they used my wife for their sexual pleasure not even caring the slightest bit if they got her pregnant. Talk about thinking with your c**k!

Yet still Im not blaming them. She offered it and they accepted. They got their rocks off, some of them once, most of them coming back for more over and over again. I honestly cant say I blame them at all. She is hard to resist. 90% of the blame lies on her.. I get that..I really do

Before I say anything else let me tell you that Ive made the decision to forgive her for all of this and work on our marriage. I know without a doubt I can do it and that we can get past this. I really do. I love her more than life itself and am ok with what she did under the tough circumstances. The sleeping with all the other guys part doesnt bother me as much as the fact that she is pregnant by someone else. You may not agree or understand my decision to stay with her but Ive made it.

My(our) biggest decision, which is really why I am writing for advice here it what to do about the baby. Our 3 options are to either have an abortion, give it up for adoption, or raise it as my own. Shes already had 2 abortions in her past, once during college and one right before we met. Adoption I think would be tough on both of us. Being with her the whole 9 months that the baby is growing in her and then giving it up.. Dont know if either one of us can do that. The 3rd choice is to have the baby and raise it as my own. My friends and family would have to think that it was my baby though.. And I have no idea how I would feel being with my wife while she was pregnant from another man. Will it bother me? Be a constant thorn? A constant reminder of her sleeping with these other men? Would it end up turning me on for some reason? I have no clue.. Any thoughts from anyone?

This man is married so he is stuck from a practical perspective.  Dumping his wife’s sorry ass means a divorce which despite the fact that she was cheating on him with multiple men while he was in Iraq, he still will lose half or more of his assets and possibly his freedom.  In addition, if his wife keeps the baby he will be paying for child support despite the fact that the baby is not his and that there is no way it could be his since he was in Iraq.  However, this man’s problems go deeper.  Look at all the ways he is making excuses for his wife.  He is also pretending he has a choice when it comes to keeping the baby vs. adoption or abortion.  He doesn’t.  His pathetic excuse for a wife has all the power there.  What he needs to hope for is that his wife has an abortion so that he can divorce her afterwards with a minimum of problems.

Experts in game will tell you about push-pull techniques to keep women interested in you.  This sort of misses the point.  The point is having a backbone.  Both these men are lacking a backbone.  The first man should dump his girlfriend’s sorry ass immediately.  The second man needs more of a strategy since he’s married, but he should do the same.  We should not be reading their weak willed writings.  We should be reading how they have dumped (or will dump) their women’s sorry asses.  Maybe she will beg to you to take her back.  Maybe not.  However, the important thing is that you stand up for yourself.

Many of you men reading this may be thinking, “My woman isn’t that great, but at least I’m not those guys”.  These examples may be more extreme than what you’re going through.  However, is it really that different?  Just because your woman isn’t treating as bad as these guys are treated, it doesn’t mean that your woman isn’t treating you like crap.  If you’re man in a similar situation even if its only 1% as bad as these two guys, why are you letting it happen?  If you’re married, you have some hard decisions to make.  If not, then what you need to do is easy.  Isn’t it time you grew a backbone and dumped her sorry ass?

Feb 072010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up.  As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

(This post is the result of this post on my blog about hypnosis and a follow up post on the same subject.)

I find debating feminists to be a waste of time usually.  It’s like fighting the Iran-Iraq War from the perspective of Iran or Iraq.  A lot of time and energy gets wasted with no real results at the end.  Feminists aren’t going to listen to our logic and reason, and we are not going to obey feminist insanity.  Denise Romano is a primary example of this.  It’s a waste of time to debate a known spammer and someone who says outright lies such as, “MRA blogs that enthusiastically incite rape and celebrate rape as a mens’ right”.

Another problem with debating feminists is accidentally conceding points because you’re busy making an argument about something else.  Most of debate with Denise Romano is about whether moral or ethical issues of game.  No one was asking the question of is everything that Denise Romano claiming even possible.  This is important because Denise Romano is claiming that there are PUAs using hypnosis to get women to have sex with them.  Hypnosis can’t be used to get someone to have sex with you (unless they already want to have sex with you in which case it’s redundant).  It simply will not work.

Hypnosis requires three things to happen:

  1. The subject must WANT to be hypnotized.
  2. The subject must BELIEVE he or she can be hypnotized.
  3. The subject must eventually feel comfortable and relaxed.

If you don’t want to be hypnotized, you can’t be hypnotized.  This means that hypnosis can not be used as a seduction technique ever.  The only case where it would work is when a person has already been seduced in which case there is no point in using hypnosis because it would be redundant and a waste of time.  Denise Romano is claiming that there are men out there that can forcibly hypnotize women against their will despite the fact that this is impossible.

Clearly, forced hypnosis is impossible.  If it was possible, a few guys trying to get laid would be the least of anyone’s problems.  We would see murderers who would instead hypnotize their victims into killing themselves, criminals who would rob people and banks by forced hypnosis to make people want to hand over their money, governments using forced hypnosis to gather intelligence, etc.  None of this is happening, and this is what the world would look like if Denise Romano was actually correct.

Since I banned her from my blog for being a spammer, Denise Romano responded to my first post on her blog.  Most of her response had nothing to do with anything I said, but Denise Romano claimed that “hypnosis professionals” agreed with her, and this was documented on Lady Raine’s blog.  If this was really the case, why is it only on LR’s blog and why was there no link to these “hypnosis professionals”?  We can figure out the answer to that, but I did a google search for the word hypnosis on LR’s blog.  I found no links to “hypnosis professionals”.  In fact, I only found three minimally relevant links.  The first was to some nut job who makes the same claim as Denise Romano but without any actual evidence.  That link also contains nonsense statements like, “but actually 7080% of us are receptive to some hypnotic suggestions”.  The second was a link to an anti-scientology website which had to do with people who voluntarily underwent hypnosis.  The third was a link to someone trying to sell a system using hypnosis so you can get laid.  Again, there is no proof that it works.  There are plenty of websites out there that claim to have products that will enlarge your penis, and they don’t work either so vigorous claims don’t mean anything.

Even “hypnosis professionals” can be very questionable.  A few years ago, Penn & Teller on their Bullshit! show on the Showtime channel did an episode on hypnosis (which you can watch here).  They showed how hypnosis is very problematic in terms of how well it works even when its voluntary.  Even when people want to be hypnotized to stop smoking or lose weight, it only works when that person was highly motivated beforehand.  Penn & Teller also talked to a “hypnosis professional” who claimed among other things that hypnosis could make your penis bigger, and she had a hypnosis tape to do that.  Knowing that even talking to “hypnosis professionals” may not tell you the truth about hypnosis.

The fact is that it’s impossible to force a hypnotic state on anyone.  You can’t hypnotize anyone against their will.  Denise Romano when she claims otherwise against the body of scientific evidence about hypnosis is claiming men have found a way to perform the impossible.  In essence, she is trying to start a moral panic which tells you everything you need to know about her.

Feb 042010

Let’s review the three things hypnosis requires:

  1. The subject must WANT to be hypnotized.
  2. The subject must BELIEVE he or she can be hypnotized.
  3. The subject must eventually feel comfortable and relaxed.

Denise Romano actually responded the my last post, if you can call it a response.  Only the first paragraph has anything to do with what I actually said which is par for the course with Denise Romano.  Here is that paragraph:

You’re mistaken. Many NLP and hypnosis professionals have already weighed in on this. Their responses are on Lady Raine’s blog.

Where is the link to these “hypnosis professionals”?  Why do I have to search LR’s blog to find them?  I did a search for the word hypnosis on LR’s blog (you can do the same search at this link) to find these “hypnosis professionals”.  After doing a find on the word, hypnosis, on the pages for posts that came up, I found nothing from any type of “hypnosis professional”.  Here are the only actual links I found.  First, was this link which doesn’t prove that a hypnotic state can be forced on anyone.  Vigorous assertions aren’t evidence.  The link also contains nonsense like, “7080% of us are receptive to some hypnotic suggestions”.  Second was an anti-scientology website, and that only had to do with people being voluntarily hypnotized since these were scientologists agreeing to an “auditing” procedure.  Sure the “audit” like the rest of scientology is crap, but no one is having an audit forced on them against their will (thus again proving hypnosis can only be voluntary).  The third is this link which claims that you can seduce women with hypnosis, but there is still no proof coming from this individual.  If we believe random claims on the internet then all that penis enlargement spam we all get would be true.

It’s time to bring in Penn & Teller.  Penn & Teller have a show on Showtime (in the US, other channels elsewhere) called Bullshit! where they expose various forms of bullshit.  They did an episode on hypnosis which you can watch here.  It’s about half an hour and filled with very good information on hypnosis.  They talked to an actual hypnotist who explained how hypnosis is an agreement between the hypnotist and the person being hypnotized.  That’s the only way it can work.  A person must want to be hypnotized to be able to be hypnotized.  Penn & Teller also talked to hypnotists who using hypnosis to try and get people to stop smoking and lose weight.  It turns out such hypnosis can only work when the person already is highly motivated to stop smoking or lose weight.  In other words hypnosis has limits even on people who want to be hypnotized.  If it can’t work in these cases how can hypnosis work to seduce a woman who doesn’t want to be seduced?  It can’t.

Penn & Teller also pointed out how the US government tried to use hypnosis to have people assassinate Fidel Castro.  Obviously, that was a complete failure.  They also talked to a few “hypnosis professionals” who made silly claims like hypnosis can enlarge your penis.  (I’m not kidding.  Watch the episode.)  If these are the “hypnosis professionals” Denise Romano is claiming are backing her up, then you have more proof positive that Denise Romano is full of crap.

Like I said before it is impossible to force a hypnotic state on someone.  Thus, hypnosis can’t be used to seduce someone who doesn’t want to be seduced by the person attempting to seduce them.  If they want to be seduced by that person then hypnosis is pointless and redundant.  Denise Romano is claiming a few bozos trying to get laid have successfully found a way to force hypnosis on someone where all actual research into the subject could not find a way.  Effectively, she is claiming that a single guy knowing game could cause more destruction than any national government that has nuclear weapons because these guys succeeded where major governments all failed.  This is how absurd Denise Romano is being.

Feb 022010

I have stayed out of the Denise Romano battles (except for this post at The Spearhead to make a somewhat related point) because it’s like fighting the Iran-Iraq War from the perspective of either Iran or Iraq.  What I mean is that a lot of energy gets wasted for absolutely nothing.  Despite the fact that logic and reason are on our side, we’re not going to convince Denise Romano (or many other women).  And Denise Romano’s insanity isn’t going to convince us.

I came across Denise Romano’s latest drivel by accident.  Of course, it’s all crap, but one thing she said caught my attention:

There are specific PUA books, e-newsletters, trainings, DVDs, lairs, bootcamps, and other “trainings” given by PUA “schools”…which also advocate the use of hypnosis

I done read or watch PUA literature so I can’t say if they really advocate the use of hypnosis or not.  However, I would be very surprised if they did because hypnosis requires 3 things:

  1. The subject must WANT to be hypnotized.
  2. The subject must BELIEVE he or she can be hypnotized.
  3. The subject must eventually feel comfortable and relaxed.

It is impossible to hypnotize someone that doesn’t want to be hypnotized or doesn’t believe they can be hypnotized.

If any PUA is using hypnosis then they are wasting their time.  Either the PUA has already been successful and hypnosis is pointless and redundant or the woman the PUA is after doesn’t want him and will refuse to be hypnotized.  Denise Romano claims that use of hypnosis is “abusive”.  How can it be?

Hypnosis only works on someone who already wants to be hypnotized.

Think about this.  If you could force a hypnotic state on someone, PUAs using hypnosis to get laid would be the least of society’s problems.  You would have people who would force a hypnotic state on a victim to make the victim “voluntarily” give hand over their money.  We’re talking a weapon that can be used in murders, bank robberies, and every other crime out there.  If hypnosis worked the way Denise Romano described, the world would look a lot different because everyone would be in constant fear of being hypnotized.  (Fortunately for all of us, hypnosis doesn’t work the way Denise Romano says it does.)  What this means is that Denise Romano is effectively saying is that hypnosis can only be forced on women by men trying to get laid.  Knowing this, Denise Romano is either insane or a liar because the only reason such a claim about hypnosis would be made is to criminalize any attempt by men to have sex or have relationships.

In her post, Denise Romano also had a link (which she seems to endorse) to someone saying that hypnosis as a “method of seduction” should be made illegal.  That would be a pointless law since hypnosis can’t be used as a method of seduction since it can’t be forced on anyone.  This is a level of totalitarianism that is beyond anything we have seen in the last century.  It makes Stalin look like a beacon of freedom.

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.

Jan 282010

You may not have noticed, but Denise Romano spammed this blog with her standard BS about game being rape. She did it in the previous post.  As that was about the most off topic you could be for that post and that it was a copy and paste of something she posted on multiple blogs, it fits the definition of spam.  I marked the comment as spam which is why it’s no longer there and banned Denise Romano from posting here again.

Because of this, I decided to write up a comment policy.  Basically, it’s no spam, no sockpuppeting, and no posting of personal info that a person doesn’t want revealed about himself with some language about how I reserve the right to edit or delete comments and ban anyone as I see fit.  However, as long as you don’t violate the three rules, that won’t happen outside of something really extreme.

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »