Men: You're Fired

This is your memo informing you that your position as provider workhorse has been terminated.

Women are not going back to becoming housewives. A collapse of the economy is not going to change this. Only a full scale loss of technology is going to change this fact because it was not women who liberated themselves - no matter how much feminists want to believe - it was technology which allowed for the changes.

Redundancy of housework meant that women as housewife was made redundant. Women however were smart enough to realize that they're redundancy in the home could not stand and so they became workers, flooding the market with cheap labor. They did this because they could do it. The office was comfortable, safe, and provided them with meaning to their lives and they're not leaving. They're not going to shift en masse to being housewives anymore because that job simply does not function within modernity.

Women didn't change their instincts though and those instincts have exacerbated the inherent greed of the female sex. Women - possessed of mild grade narcissism - cannot except any form of criticism since it damages their weak sense of self, a sense of self mostly derived from two places: the acceptance of the collectives they ascribe to and the dominant authority figures in their lives. Any female readers who feels emotional pangs at this paragraph is verifying this assertion.

This greed of the female is what drives the search for a good man. To the woman, who is naturally inclined to seek a mate for provision, a man who earns less than her is not a good man. This is the singular reason women can't find good man. Men didn't get worse. They didn't really change. Women didn't change their definition of good man either. A good man is the same: a superior man. The further the female ego is built up the less likely she will be to find any man as good since the definition of a good man is someone who is superior to her in every way and one in which she can exploit with her sex.

The role of the provider is not needed. Why aren't you listening to women? They don't need you. They've made that clear. Every time a woman utters a variation on the "men are useless" meme she is elucidating her own beliefs about men. And what are those beliefs? Did men suddenly stop being romantic, compassionate, and loving? No, men did not drop that part of themselves. What changed in recent decades is that women began to earn their own money. That's it. Now that they've done that they've declared the majority of the male sex as inferior, obsolete, and unnecessary. But men are still clinging to this model of manhood which does not exist and cannot exist in the modern world. Men are no longer providers for women.

Ask yourself this question. If women truly are the romantic, pair bonding sex, then when the role of men as provider of the family was destroyed, what did women do? Did women turn to romance? Did they suddenly start finding romantic, caring, sensitive men attractive? Did women start looking at men for reasons other than financially?  Or did they divorce their husbands, take their children, and write articles about the end of men?

Men are under NO obligations to women or society. None. Women don't need you in that role. You're not needed to carry the species. Men are like workers who continue to show up at the factory years after it's been shut down. It's time to find a new identity. One you create for yourself.

Women Rule the World

Women rule by proxy. Men certainly have limited power. If we break power down into economic, political, and reproductive then we can see that women in aggregate have far more power than men. There are more female voters. Women control more wealth than men. And most importantly, women’s sexual power far exceeds men’s.

The fact that women have not voted in a female president since being able to vote en masse for a hundred years is telling of their thoughts of ruling overtly. This is corroborated with women’s general dislike of working for a female boss. Though it does appear that women have decided they want to rule overtly now as I think most people are predicting a Clinton presidency as well as a female fed chief, giving the two most powerful positions over to females. I expect HIlary will be hated by women more than men, even by the women who voted for her.

Women’s power is a tripod propped up by capitalism, democracy, and sex. Sweep a single leg and the tripod falls. They’re more responsible for the way the world is than men are. They’re willing to take credit for improvements in society, even though they didn’t cause them, but not for the failings. There’s also the fact that women influence the subsequent generations through child rearing far greater than anyone else.

I’m conflicted on how I feel about a female president. On one hand I believe her term will be doomed from the beginning because of the economy, so it’s she’ll be seen as a failure. The other hand is that she’s guaranteed to make life worse for men.

Women will do what they're told by an authority figure. The milgram experiment is interesting to look at from a gender perspective. 100% of the female participants were willing to kill a person because an authority figure told them to do it. Sherly Sandberg is telling women to lead overtly. She's as much of an authority figure as they'll need. They're likely to follow what she says even if it makes them miserable. Expect that women will never surrender power.

Likely in the transformation from covert rule to overt rule some power will be displaced. Women will not lose any sexual power. That is certain. What power women will lose is the power of the victim class. They will attempt to retain this as long as possible but only so many bogus statistics will be held to when reality conflicts with them at every step. 

Women are innately sexists so it's likely that if women achieve overt power they will follow their solipsistic beliefs to a maximum conclusion and disenfranchise men to the point of violent revolt. Women are less rational than men  and being taught that men are the enemy. By making rational discourse impossible you make war inevitable. 

Worship Power

"All ideologies are bullshit strategies for power. Everything a person pretends to believe in is simply a strategy for gaining power, prestige, status, import, reverence, deferment. Christianity is no different than any other ideology. If it has power, then it is a good thing. Power is the only thing you CAN worship. It doesn't make any sense to NOT worship power, because to worship powerlessness is insane and illogical.

At least Christianity recognizes that nobody likes OTHER people who worship power and so teaches us to use reverse psychology and behave as if we are NOT powerful. Jesus did not come as a powerful figure, but as a meek, humble one, with massive, unbelievable fucking power of spirit."

White men are the greatest pussy beggars

Japan and China have as much technology as anyone else and while they've made changes to feminize their countries they have no where near the level of feminist insanity that effects the west. What's the difference? 

Perhaps it's as Magua from The Last of the Mohicans says.  "Magua understands that the white man is a dog to his women." Magua understands the white man well. There is no greater pussy beggar than white men. In the femdom communities the huge majority are white men eager to worship their goddess. Not surprisingly this post at koanic details the prevalence of whites who posses neanderthal DNA. What's interesting is that he states that the neanderthals were a matriarchal group. Taken together this can help explain a lot of the things we see happening today.

Empower Men

The best way to empower men is stop praising them for getting laid. Stop offering your friends validation for having sex. It's not an accomplishment. Running an ironman race is an accomplishment. Rebuilding a 67' mustang is an accomplishment. Winning Gladiator in WoW is an accomplishment. Rutting in the age of secularized mutual masturbation is nothing to brag about.

If you're seeking validation from sex you're not seeking sex. How many men right now would not care too much about sex if they didn't get congratulatory high fives from their friends? How many PUA forums would dry up if it weren't for all of the men posting lay reports. Ask yourself this, are you interested in the sex or the validation from your friends more?

Validating this behavior is what gives women so much power because they control sex absolutely or close enough. Then when a man wants some approval, some attention, he knows he'll get it twice. Once from the woman which is bad enough but another time from the men. I bet there will be less men willing to sleep with less than worthwhile women without the conciliatory high fiving that often comes from it.

I'm not saying to shame men. They don't need that. Leave men alone. But treat sex like a chimichanga. It's not even a steak dinner with a sweet potato and brown sugar. It's just a taco stand grade chimichanga that you picked up after your workout. No big deal.

More importantly though offer men validation and approval for things that actually matter. Things that don't involve kissing a woman's ass or giving her any underserved attention. For god sakes stop shaming men who don't get laid. It doesn't make you superior no matter what Roosh thinks. Sex has become a handshake now. We've taken on the mold of masturbating bonobos. Sticking your dick into a soulless woman's hole is as validating to your manhood as taking a shower in the morning. Treat it as such.

Women Choose and Men Lose

Women are already disposed towards materialism and pettiness. When they display it by mate selecting for money they just expose themselves for what they are. I appreciate it as it saves me time from realizing that these women are soulless. In the past that might have taken a few dates to figure out. Soulless women will wind up with soulless men in loveless marriages only connected by their lust for money.

So a woman who reads what I wrote might be offended. It sounsd harsh. Certainly, it does. I look down on this type of woman though. There is nothing for me to be intimidated by. I have the wealth I need to survive. See, that’s the difference. I wouldn’t expect a woman to date homeless men or men who can’t support themselves but every woman reading this knows that’s not what women want. They want to exploit their potential husbands to fill the void in them where their soul should be. They shove plastic crap made in China into their psyches, garbage food grown in Mexico, and spend, spend, spend endlessly with the crack addict belief that this time I’ll be happy, fulfilled, content.

Men will let them do it too because men are pathetic and needy. Their only accomplishments in life have become getting pussy and most can’t even do that so these pathetic men will do anything to receive the least bit of attention and validation from a woman. They’ll marry fat, bitch women. They’ll sell other men out without thought.

And nothing will change. Women have all of the power in sexual relationships and men are needy slaves. This woman will probably get what she wants. Most women will. Men aren’t on strike. That is nonsense. Look at Minter. The first woman to offer him companionship and he jumps at the chance to get enslaved with her.

Men need to understand one thing. Women do not like you. They never have liked you. They are built and designed to exploit you and cast you aside the moment your usefulness is gone. Women say they don’t need men. They’re right. They don’t. They’ve made that clear and I believe them. Right now, men need women. If they didn’t need women they wouldn’t be so eager to endure abuse, so willing to be exploited. Women are going to get whatever they want and men are going to accept it and suffer for it.

Man's Oldest Enemy

If you wanted to give a psychological evaluation of a political ideology it would be easy to label conservatives as fearful. If you wanted to spin it nicely you might call it cautious. The right prospers during lean times. That is to say it survives during lean times. No one prospers then. Winter is coming is the Stark family motto. It could be a conservative motto as well. It's no wonder then that the right is full of Christians, apocalyptic prophets, and white people.

And the left? How would we diagnose that group? It's not pretty. Messiah complex might work. They have a penchant for fixing things, saving things, or at least attempting to fix and save things. Their plans always fail because they don't read history. For the progressive left cracking opening a history book is like peering into a horror novel too ghastly and terrible to be considered something to draw wisdom from. It's only purpose is a warning sign. To the left the future is always bright, sunny, without a cloud on the horizon. The 87 trillion dollar liabilities don't matter. The economy is fine. Ignore the muslims. Intolerance is the problem.

You know what else the left is? Maniacal, ego maniacs. You can't be the lord savior without first being the lord. And that means power. You can't look at the world and want to fix it unless you're certain that you can fix it, that everyone else who tried didn't care as much and wasn't as smart as you. Obviously, since you're certain of success and morality then your way is clear. But this egoism is rarely backed up by any real accomplishment, any real understanding of history, any long term projections into the future. They don't read history remember and they're known as bleeding heart liberals for a reason. They feel first and rationalize later. That's fine during spring, summer, and fall but during a winter anyone who doesn't plan ahead doesn't survive.

The difference between the left and the right in america is drawn on a map. You can see it. Red state. Blue state. More importantly, the distinction is made between a mostly rural environment and a mostly urban environment. Cities tend toward leftism and there is no surprise that the growth of the modern city and the modern state coincide. With the loss of survival through agrarian means either untenable or impossible the ruralite makes the sojourn into the metropolis in search of employment. A job replaces the farm and understanding political teachings becomes more important than understanding harvest season.

Nature is cyclical. A season to all things. A time to build and a time to destroy but once cut off from nature, isolated within concrete, disconnected from the seasons, the bounty, and most importantly the winter, the urbanite forgets about nature. At worst it becomes a nuisance - like conservatives - something to hem and haw over but nothing of any real concern. A rainy day when you planned your picnic. Scraping windows on your commute to work. Those who live close to the natural world know better. Mother nature is aptly described as a woman, beautiful and alluring at times but fierce and ruthless.

If man has made eternal war against anything it is nature. It's true. Before an environmentalist shirks in horror and composes a eulogy over the death of trees consider that this war is not what we've come to know war as. There are two types of war with two different goals, one to dominate and another to destroy. The war against nature is our oldest struggle, our greatest conflict, but it is not one to destroy. Man seeks domination over nature by mastering gravity, by taming the forest, harnessing the energy of the sun or the atom. Only the suicidal would seek to destroy nature.

The significance of all this in the right/left divide is their relationship to nature. As much as the environmentalists lament the death of trees and compose dirges to sunflowers, their war against nature is the same as others. The left's battle with nature is against human nature and instinct. When it denies that gender exists beyond social construct it denies nature. When it denies racial differences it denies nature. It is an inner world and an inner conflict the leftist struggle with. Disconnected from where their food comes from, cut off from the source of their clothing, from the cycle of life and death, they believe they have bested the natural world without and focus their attention on the conflict within human nature.

Adaptation is reflex. Changes in the environment can create the atmosphere for changes in ideology. Cities produce dependency. Rural environments produce self-reliance. City kids are summer kids born to recline on the beach listening to the waves and pluck fruit from the hanging limbs. Free from the seasons of nature they forget nature believing it pacified. The march goes on. More left and left and their ever victorious army will not be stopped by anything but man's greatest enemy.

All that lives must....

Goodbye Roosh

http://www.rooshv.com/the-manosphere-is-lost

In his emotional breakdown Roosh says farewell to the manosphere. Sorta.

In a tirade that would fit right in with a feminist on her rag, Roosh remonstrates the manosphere for being too inclusive with women and "beta" males. He makes some vague allusions to the pacification of the manosphere for social acceptance while at the same time condemning the old neo-nazis who hate black. Apparently, his brand of anti-pc rhetoric is permissible but others isn't. Then he bids farewell to the manosphere and now everyone is supposed to feel some sense of loss.

Hopefully, he stays gone because he's actually helped very few men do anything. His game is weak because he's not aggressive enough. He has to approach hundreds of women to have sex because his game is so indirect that most women assume he's their new gay friend. He had trouble getting laid in Denmark which speaks a lot about his game. While I don't know dick about Denmark, this guy does:  http://www.boytoystory.com/get-girls/ And he bashes Roosh as a loser PUA more intent on selling books than actually getting people laid. The sole reason is that Roosh doesn't get laid as much as he wants you to think. He's out to sell books and generate money from his websites and little more.

Chances are very high that Roosh's exit is hyperbole. He's not going anywhere. His mediocre existence is made bearable only by the attention he receives online and he's not going to leave that behind. There's also the fact that he earns money selling his bogus "how to be a girls new gay friend" books. There is almost no chance that his departure is permanent. Once his period is over (heavy flow this month) he'll be back writing worthless articles on game and making decent social commentary on feminism and the nature of women. So goodbye Roosh. For now.

Christ the feminine

Christianity is feminine. Jesus called his followers to turn the other cheek. A masculine religion like Odinism called for his followers to rise up and destroy the ice giants. One is for a tolerance of evil. The other is for its destruction. The feminine is explicitly left and Christ was feminine. While history may not appear as a solid leftward march it was not for a lack of ideology. The same could said for the feminists or the abolitionists. If you recall that Socrates called for freeing the slaves and equal rights for women. His arguments are just as good today as they were then but it wasn't until the prosperity of technological advance that the slaves could be free and women were liberated. It was not so much the lack of moral underpinnings to the problem but the necessity for slaves and housewives. Once slaves became economically inefficient they were freed. Once women were redundant thanks to washing machines, public schools, and household appliances they were put to work outside the home. The leftist ideology has always been in Christianity. The equality of all men’s souls. The tolerance of evil. None of that changed or had any effect for millennia because it couldn’t. It needed prosperity, technology, and opportunity to become active but there lay a kernel of leftism dormant within Christianity since its inception.


There are few men in Christianity compared to women for a reason. It prattles endlessly about love because it is a feminine religion and the feminine is the source of leftism. The likely stop to global leftist thought will not be imposed by men but by nature as we either reach the redundancy of human labor or the leftist singularity destroys the whole.

Should Women Vote

Should women vote? I don’t like the question mainly because I’m uncertain about democracy. It seems impossible to contain the electorate. Originally, women could vote if they were considered heads of house but that generally fell on a man. The intent was that only those who contributed to the republic would have a say in how it was run. It worked at the time but lawmakers need jobs and they constantly reform lest they be put out of business. Eventually, groups lobbied for expansion of the electorate to include everyone natural born. There was never really any need to discriminate against women with the vote.

But voting was a terrible idea anyway. First, because it politicizes people who should not be concerned with politics. Prior to democracy no one cared about issues. The issues of the day were the things that mattered. Did I have a job. Was there food available to eat. The banality of gay marriage would have no place in the majority. If the answer to the former questions was a no then the people voted with pitchforks and guillotines and replaced their leaders by force. It offered real consequences to the leaders because if they screwed up their heads rolled. Now the elite wield the vote like a cudgel to legitimize their rule. They can deflect the blame if the president miscalculates something because he was the chosen elect of the people. It’s the people’s fault for voting for a moron. Third, democracy politicizes the family when the family should be united. Their survival should be paramount and linked symbiotically to each other. By the division created along political issues it furthers the dividing line between woman and man who are naturally going to hold differing political opinions and creates animosity where union is needed.

Besides which, opposing female suffrage directly is too radical a notion for too little gain. It demonizes the manosphere et al further and offers fuel to our opponents to ignore everything else they might be willing to listen to otherwise. Only a small percent of feminists are truly man hating. The others are just following their lead. They’re going along to get along and many would be willing to listen to a new way of life if one was presented. The problem is that there isn’t another paradigm offered. There is the feminist woman and nothing else.

Follow Your Obsessions

A few years ago I went through a painful ordeal. While I won't go into the details it pushed my sanity to the limit nearly breaking me in the process, but it also helped me realize a few things about my mind. Namely, I noticed that the worse and worse my situation got the more I was drawn to horrible ideas. As I grew fearful, depressed, emotional, and weak my mind was pulled in a few directions. First, I could not stop thinking about my parents dying. At the time I was staying with my father and the thought of him dying repeated in my mind like a mantra. I did not really fear his death as much as I feared being abandoned. At the time I was incapacitated. There was no way for me to care for myself so my fears were not unfounded. Even though he was in good health I kept thinking of facing homelessness and poverty in my current mental state which was quite literally insane.

The other area my mind was pulled to was obsession with my problem and I think this helped me confirm some of what Freud wrote about obsessions. Freud's theory of an obsession was something like psychoanalytic career advice. Our obsessions are the chink in our mental armor, they reveal the cracks where we are weakest, showing the soft underbelly we try to protect. For me, I'm obsessed with dieting and weight loss. That's pretty easy to understand. I'm a lonely person and I'm insecure about my body. It seems to fit together well. To have my needs for affection met I feel like I need to lose weight. I've been trying to for years and failed which is why it's turned into an obsession. Behind the motivation to lose weight is an unfulfilled need. It is suffering which is this driving force.

This can also reveal what a person values. As I lose weight I judge others by their bodies more. In my desire to understand other people I've realized that people hold different values than myself. Success is relative to the individual. I noticed this after reading about a career woman. She wouldn't date a man who made less than her and couldn't find a date because she was successful. I thought her callow but really it's a false dichotomy. Her values and my values do not align. Her successful man is not my successful man. To me it's like the vulgar woman who reveals her true character on the first date. Some men might recoil at the obtuse behavior but I find it reassuring. Maybe not in the moment as it's happening but afterwards I can enjoy the efficiency of it. She didn't waste my time trying to be someone she wasn't. I'm not going to find out six months into the relationship that she is a prude or angry person. I know up front who she is and that we're not compatible. I think this is one of the reasons why relationships fall apart.

The typical American date is a meeting of two actors both sworn to their roles for their initial few meetings. The man plays his part and the woman players her part and while those two roles may be in flux in modernity they are still facade. An unfortunate thing is that many first dates that go poorly are probably between two people who were overall compatible but could never get passed the initial attraction phase. I don't value money much beyond the necessities of life. I don't know why this is but I never have. It's never interested me to make money. I only wanted happiness and money was never a part of that.

I putted through college. That's the best way I can describe it. It's fitting. I took dozens of classes that I never needed to. I spent the better part of a decade at school mostly racking up loans I'd never pay back. I quickly noticed that most of the students and faculty had no real interest in learning. Knowledge was secondary to making money. That was their goal and not the knowledge itself. Understandable but unfortunate.

I finally picked a major, English, and worked toward that. All of my frolics into science and history stopped as I sat down with my adviser and she explained to me that I had all of my elective credits met twice over and that a class on Roman history was not going to help me graduate. I left my rebuttal silence.

Even when I picked a major I had my doubts. I chose english because I liked writing not because I enjoyed reading literature. I didn't. In fact I still don't enjoy literature. I've never enjoyed it and always thought of it as boring. I liked reading but nothing literary.

That's where my mistake was. When deciding a major or a career path I would have been better served by following my obsessions in greater detail. Instead of majoring in english, I should have majored in nutrition or physical training. I would have not lacked for any enthusiasm at the time but I didn't know what I wanted.

Bombing For Peace

Feminist assert their certainty that the spread of feminism into the world is cause of social ascent. Backed by the statistics of a reduction of crime and violence within western countries they spread their ideology pell mell without regard for the veracity of their claims and while it may be true about the statistics, in the endless complexity of society and historical change there are very few certainties.

Most of their claims can be reduced to the hypothetical pile with one phrase. Correlation does not equal causation. An oft cited saying in our scientifically driven, digital age and one that holds merit in many circumstances. The drop in crime is debatable as well.    In America, some cities have an increase in gun violence but a decrease in gun homicide. The answer is found not in police tactics but in medical technology. Of course the police are all too willing to take the praise. But so are the politicians. So are the professors. Oddly, the doctors seem to be the last group in line to claim this victory even though they're most responsible for it. Some E.R. surgeons claim that only 1/5 gunshot wounds are fatal now.

George Bush believed in democracy and capitalism as fervently as the feminists believe in the authenticity of their claims. Bush invaded several countries under the ostensible auspices of liberating the Iraqi people and while many might wish to make the claim that Bush was not the brightest president to set foot in the office he wasn't without his reasons. Democracies rarely war against each other. In the modern world the spread of democracy is correlative with the spread of peace. Though a caveat must be that democracies tend not to war against each other. Instead, a democracy because a war among itself, preferring electoral war if possible and civil war if not. But Bush looked at the planet and with the zealous belief of those who keep the faith he bombed for peace believing that if he could establish democracy within Iraq and Afghanistan he would cement his legacy as a peaceful warrior.

There are many correlations to the decline in crime but a look at history shows that the majority of social changes enacted today are not anything new. When looking at society it's important to understand the novel. What is it up about this era that is different from the last. Women obtained power throughout history so it's not that and contra to the women's studies revisionist theory of history, men have never been an oppressive force to women. As Warren Farrell points out, it's best to say that both men and women have traditionally been repressed by gender roles. It's an example of the individual sacrificing itself on the altar of the collective. Women have worked as well. In particular the lower and middle class women were often treated no differently than lower and middle class men. They worked. They did the jobs they were capable and while there was sexual segregation in employment, they were not chained to the stove as it often remarked.

So what did change and what has changed about our time? There are many corollaries that one can draw from the present. One is that the majority white or Christian countries are more peaceful though no feminists will ever make that claim lest they be ejected from the safety of the leftists hive mind. Perhaps it was evolution. Maybe in two hundred years humans evolved enough to allow for these changes within society to occur. Doubtful, as I've seen no evidence of it. In fact, it appears that our intelligence has already peaked so it's unlikely we've had some great behavioral or intellectual evolution. But the pioneers who settled America didn't have cell phones. Neither did the 19th century feminists, nor the women who gained power in ancient Sparta. They didn't have cars or high speed internet. They didn't have washing machines which made their jobs redundant in the home. They didn't have birth control.

The most likely answer as to why things have changed and improved is not found in social or ideological progress but within technology. All of the examples given by the feminists always fail to mention the impact that technology has had. In fact, any progressive is likely to cite their own ideology as the driving force behind what they deem the moralization of humanity when it fact is has always been driven by technology and not morality.

Socrates was an abolitionist long before the Emancipation Proclamation. He was probably the first feminist as well so it was never a lack of moral ambition that was missing within the world. The ideology was there and has been there for literal millennia but what was lacking was the wherewithal. Once innovation in agriculture - the cotton gin for example - made slaves redundant or for the most part economically inefficient it was only a short time before they were freed.

Society is a vast, complex network not easily understood. There is a certain balance to it. For each joy of civilization one must sacrifice something else. Simplified it is a balance between collective beliefs and individual desires. It has been throughout history this balance between the individual and the collective which has lead to the advance of technology and consequently the advance of society. Where one element became unbalanced the other becomes dominant and eventually a rebalancing occurs. Society is self-correcting and if enough people abandon the sacrifice of their individuality for the collective by destroying all social bonds and "social constructs" there will be no collective and no society left and un-oppressed individuals will all meander around unrestrained and listless, lacking cohesion. They will probably all congratulate themselves on their moral superiority though.

It's easy to conflate change within society to ideology. Temping, especially when someone wants that ideology to spread. Backed by the veracity of not only the moral superiority but the efficiency of one's belief it's easy to become entrenched in that belief system to the exclusion of all others. From there it's no great leap to follow in the steps of other leaders who were absolutely certain in their righteousness and start "bombing for peace". And while there is no lack of groups willing to accept the victory for the advance of civilization there is none who can rightly claim it since it is not social advancement that we see in the world today but technological innovation.