Friday, May 25, 2012

Rites of Passage - Boys to Men

Quite often when we think of “Rites of Passage” the image of a primitive society performing some bizarre ritual comes to mind, such as the Vanuatu Land Divers.

"Both a harvest ritual and a rite of passage amongst the tribes of the small pacific island of Vanuatu, land diving is now a tourist phenomenon. The men who live on Pentecost Island in Vanuatu, climb a rickety 98-foot-tall (30-meter) tower, tie vines to their ankles and dive to the ground, falling at speeds around 45 mph (72 kph). When a dive goes correctly, the person gets close enough to touch his shoulders or his head to the earth. However, unlike bungee jumping, these vines aren’t elastic and a miscalculation in vine length could lead to broken legs, cracked skulls, or even death. Boys once they have been circumcised at about age 7 or 8 begin participating, though they usually are permitted to jump from a shorter tower. As a boy makes his first dive, his mother holds an item representing his childhood. When he jumps, she throws the item away. Divers also refrain from sex the day before they jump — legend says it will cause the jump to go badly." -- 10 Bizarre Rites of Passage

I, however, would argue that rites of passage are actually more of a sign of an advanced society. It is patriarchy that builds civilization. Patriarchy is the idea of "putting sex to work," which is based on the ancient contract of marriage. The ancient contract of marriage is an economic contract whereby a woman "sells" her sexual reproductive abilities to a man (ie. the children of marriage are his children, not hers) in return for the superior protection and providing abilities a man can, and will, procure once yoked to children of his own. What does this have to do with rites of passage, you ask? Well, in order for men to be attractive to women, a man must surpass the female so that he has some tangible benefit to offer the female which she either cannot do herself, or is unwilling to do herself, and therefore fulfill Briffault's Law:

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

The Corollaries to Briffault's Law:

1 - Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 - Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 - A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

It is the nature of the female's mothering instinct to be 100% totalitarian. Small children need this type of totalitarianism or they would soon get themselves into all sorts of trouble. Thus every boy starts off life completely dominated by a female and it takes a decisive change to escape his mother's gravity field and grow into a man so that the next generation of women will have men to marry. For all the ballyhooing in the media of "the man-child" and for all the haughty snipes of women at males to "be a man," they don't seem to understand that in order to be a man, he cannot behave like a woman. Our thoroughly feminized society has relentlessly propagandized us to believe "the right way" for humans to behave is "the female way" while at the same time has attacked and derided everything that once defined masculinity as "macho" and unfavourable.

Just as children are not equal to adults, men are not equal to women - a "man," who is a man in the true sense of the word, has surpassed the level of women and has grown beyond it. This fulfills Briffault's Law and also enforces the hypergamy which women need to be exposed to in order to be sexually attracted to a man. Thus, a family hierarchy develops - and this hierarchy works... we know it works because we have historical evidence of it working for several thousands of years in our very own Western Culture - the family as based upon the Bible.

Man --> Woman --> Children

It's the natural order of things. Women take care of themselves and children, and men take care of themselves, women and children. It does not work in reverse. 

Lots of women spit and fume about this, but what they are forgetting when they are told Biblically to submit to their husbands, is that husbands are also commanded to submit to God, or to The Truth. And as Jesus pointed out, to rule is to serve. Thus, this is the proper ordering of human existence if we are to live above that of the beasts of the field. Only when a man lives in proper accordance to The Truth can he expect a woman to be in proper relation to him.   

God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children

In reality, there is no such thing as equality. All relationships are hierarchical in one way or another. Sometimes they change, or often what is going on underneath is entirely different than what appears on the surface. The men who stood on the deck of the Titanic so that their women could survive is an example of how the underlying hierarchy is often different than the social appearance of hierarchy.

"But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle, The Spartan Women

"Equality" really only has meaning in relation to the sphere of human law - in the realm that all people are equal before the law in regard to their rights as put forth by the American Founding Fathers: The rights to self-ownership, life, liberty and property. Certainly not the "right" to a job, or to healthcare, nor to be able to vote to bankrupt the future of one's children so that we may party it up today on their credit card bill.

"Men" are not on the same level as women. When men consider themselves "equal" to women, they are resented and disrespected by women. The sexes are different, and thus need different things from each-other. Women need men to be their tool in society, and therefore men have to bring something to women that women cannot do themselves. (Watch how birds court each-other) Thus, if he remains "equal" to a woman, she has no use for him. A "man" has to graduate beyond the level of women - if he doesn't he will be completely flattened by women when he encounters them. It is women's natural right to be in authority over children but it is not right for women to be in control over men. If a man behaves as a boy and relates to his wife as "Is it OK for me to be me, Mommy?" he is not a man equal to women - he is beneath them. This is what happens in many marriages today - the husband ends up treating his wife as his mother, and as such she begins to resent him. How can something that is her own creation (a boy, a child) be equal to its creator? 

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE

Only when boys separate from the totalitarian power of the Mother and grow into men do they truly have a sphere to address women and from which women respect them as men. However, women instinctively try to prevent boys from leaving their field of power - children are women's "possessions" and who wants to lose a possession? To mother, he will always be "her little boy." Also, it is not wrong for it to be a struggle to escape the totalitarianism of mother, for manhood not "won" is not manhood at all. Women cannot show boys how to become men because it is an entirely foreign concept to them - just as children cannot show adults how to behave because adulthood is something children simply don't understand. Women are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict, which might cause people's feelings to get hurt, and thus, they try to prevent boys from growing away from their field of influence and into men.

"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbors whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." -- Fred Reed

Women want us all to be women - or children - because that is what they understand. They have no comprehension of "men" or what it takes to be a man. Children deprived of their fathers through divorce are horribly abused in this way, for they get "aborted" at the female/child stage of development and have far greater challenges "growing into men" and learning how to address women in any other way than seeking the approval of mother. 

Along with the thorough feminization of our culture, so have we removed many of the aspects that used to make boys into men, and in turn we are finding that there are less and less "men" for women to want to associate with. Once a woman enters into a male institution, it immediately becomes feminized - thus we now even see that girls are allowed into the Boy Scouts. Men and boys need to have places separate from women where they can meet and be men, free from female influence.

Learning self-reliance and self-confidence is essential for boys. Thus things such as camping and learning how to build fires from scratch are good builders of character for young boys. Women are creatures who depend upon others, but men are creatures who must depend solely upon themselves. Not only must they depend upon themselves, but they must also be able to depend on themselves in excess, or they will not become sufficient "tools" for the next generation of women.

In our feminized school systems, when children play sports like soccer they no longer keep score so that the children's feelings will not be hurt by being "losers." This again undermines masculinity. When I was a kid, I played on a soccer team and we were the worst team in the league. I don't think we won a single game all season - but our coach did a very good job with us in teaching us how to lose gracefully. It builds a boy's character to lose and accept it. Many endeavors a man takes on in life will not be successful, but learning how to lose gives him the confidence to try anyway... and if he keeps on trying because he is not afraid of losing, sooner or later he will find success. Our schools are "aborting" boys development by robbing them of the opportunity to lose - and when they can't figure out why boys aren't developing properly, they fill them with Ritalin rather than addressing the fact that boys and girls are different, and need different strategies to develop.

Learning to deal with the bully is also a rite of passage for many boys. I remember as a young boy when my father taught me how to stand up to the bully. I had gone to a private Christian school as a child and there was this one kid named Peter who was constantly bullying me. Two grades higher than me and bigger than me. One weekend we were at a church camp-out, shortly before my 11th birthday, and Peter started picking on me and shoving me around in his usual way. I remember I went running back to find my Dad and told him what was going on. 

My dad told me, "Boy, there's just some times that you are gonna have to take care of these things on your own."

I still remember his words, and in fact, have followed lots of them to this day.

- Always walk from a fight, but never run.
- There's a time for talking, and then there's a time to stop talking.
- Once you get into a fight, fight to win. But even if you don't win, you've got to show him (and the others) that when they mess with you there's going to be consequences.

I recall him providing me with a strategy too. "There's nothing 'fair' about this fight. This kid is two years older than you and he's bigger than you. If you have to knee him in the nuts, then do it, and start punching him - and don't stop until he's on the ground."

I remember walking back out to where all the kids were playing, and that's how it worked out. He started shoving me around again, and I kneed him right in the nuts, and punched him in the head about five or six times as he was going down, then I turned and walked away. Everyone was shocked.

When I walked back amongst the row of RV's, as soon as I rounded the corner, there popped out my old man (he must have been watching). I was trembling like a leaf. He just put his arm around me - never said a word to me about it, neither good nor bad - just walked with me.

Today, here in Canada, there is a great big "anti-bullying" campaign going on. All the kids are encouraged to wear pink shirts to symbolize they are against bullying, there are bullying "hotlines" set up, and every time there is a conflict between two kids, the mothers are called in to the principal's office to "work things out." Apparently, at some school in Toronto, there is a ten year old boy who decided he was gay (how can you decide you are gay when you are ten?). In order to keep this "gay" ten year old from being bullied, the school has appointed a teacher to walk around with him full-time to keep him safe. The old "schoolyard rules" have been completely abolished and we are raising our boys to be feminized sissies, not independent men confident in their own abilities. 

Being bullied is part of life for men and it is important for them to learn how to stick up for themselves. 

Re-framing this culturally, the boys of today are similarly being bullied by feminists. It's a similar 'fair' fight. They're bigger, smarter and they fight very dirty. And this is something this generation of boys needs to sort out themselves, because the older guys will not be around forever. Perhaps becoming Men Going Their Own Way and passing feminism's cultural fitness-tests might be the new Rite of Passage for the boys and men of today and tomorrow.

Related: Diagnosis ODD -- by Hawaiian Libertarian

"Mothers find in their children satisfaction for their desire to dominate, a possession, an occupation, something that is wholly intelligible to them and can be chattered with: the sum of all this is what mother love is; it is to be compared with an artist's love for his work.  Pregnancy has made women kinder, more patient, more timid, more pleased to submit; and just so does spiritual pregnancy produce the character of the contemplative type, which is closely related to the feminine character: it consists of male mothers." -- Freiderich Nietzsche 
Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Any Gal of Mine

I like this song. It brings back memories of a time about 16 years ago now, after I had split up with a girlfriend I had been with for a couple of years. There was a pub that I used to frequent and quite often they hired a Newfie named Gordon, who was quite a talented one-man band, to play music there. I became quite good friends with him over time. After I had split with my girlfriend, when I would walk into the pub and he noticed me, his next song would always be, Garth Brooks' Friends in Low Places. Gord would often sit at my table in between sets and have a beer with me... and I'd always tell him, "You know what I want to hear, Gord." and he would make his next song, "This one goes out to Rob," and he would sing "Any Gal of Mine," the whole pub would laugh, because they knew it was my favourite song. He even screeched me in as an honourary Newfie. Since I'm one of them now, I'm allowed to poke fun of them - although, sometimes they come back at me with "What's black and blue and floats in they bay? The last Mainlander who made a Newfie joke." Newfies are a lot of fun to party with... if you can understand what the hell they are saying. "Deed I is me 'ol cock, and long may your big jib draw!"   

Anyway, back to this ex-girlfriend I broke up with. I had suspected already for a few weeks that "something was wrong." I should have trusted my gut. As the weeks went by, a friend of mine dropped by work and said he seen me and the girlfriend driving around in her truck that afternoon but I must not have seen him because I didn't wave back... I hadn't been with her driving around in her truck that afternoon, so then I knew. (Her truck had tinted windows and the guy she was cheating on me with had the same colour hair as me etc.). I had a little bit of time therefore, to collect myself and figure out a strategy for dumping her. I was sick of all the antagonism that happens after a break-up, and decided to "kill it with kindness" - especially since we lived in a small town and would inevitably be bumping into each-other from time to time... forever. So, I called her up and asked to meet after work, and did the deed. I asked her if she was seeing someone else, and she denied it. I told I thought it was good for us to spend some time apart, and we should break up... she told me I was an asshole... I responded, "It's too bad you feel that way because I really enjoyed going out with you." And that was that, we broke up.    

Of course, that's not the end of the story. (You didn't really think it was, did you?).

When people would ask me about the ex and what happened, I just refused to talk about it - I never bad-mouthed her. I just said, "She was a nice girl, but things just didn't work out." I think about the worst that I said about her was when people asked me about my snowmobile (I was an avid and well-known snowmobiler in my community) - if they asked me if I had done any performance work on it for this season, I would reply, "Yeah, I light-weighted it by around 130lbs." Everyone would laugh. I would see the ex around town, driving her new boyfriend's truck, and she would give me "the death glare" - I smiled and waved. The truth was, though, I was really hurt by the whole thing. I was just determined not to let it show. I didn't realize it at the time, but I played the biggest mind-game on her of all - and that was not my intention. It was simply my intention not to have her as an enemy. But I think it drove her insane.  

It was quite a revealing situation for me on how females work. It soon became that several of her friends would show up at the pub and sit with me. Two of them I had slept with earlier in life - I discovered that both of them had lost their virginity to me. (I didn't know that). Also my ex's best friend started coming on to me in a big way. I never slept with her because as the SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy) that I was back in the mid-nineties, as well as keeping with my intention of not making the ex into an enemy, I didn't want to create troubles with the ex - even though her friend couldn't have made it any clearer she wanted me to screw her stupid. I would even come back from the washroom at the pub, and the two girls I had already slept with were describing my cock and its size to her. Women tell everything about sex and relationships to each-other - right down to the most intimate details. Men never do this. It is really stupid of women too. They brag about their boyfriend and how good of a sex life they are having with him, and the next thing you know, their friends want to try some of that too. In retrospect, I should have given the "best-friend" a good grudge-fucking - I didn't owe the ex anything after she cheated on me. Lol! Also, when you start walking into the pub in a small town and notice there are entire tables of women that you've slept with at some time or another... it's perhaps time to move. It's also further evidence that social proofing amongst women is real.

After about two months, the ex could no longer stand it. She picked up the phone and called me. "Are you mad at me?" She asked. "No, why would I be mad?" I replied (lied). I unwittingly opened up a future shit storm by doing this however. After this, she acted like nothing had happened. She started calling me or visiting me at work three or four times a week. "We used to be so close... I miss you... I still like talking to you... you know, the reason we broke up was nothing to do with sex... it just kinda happened.... we had a communication problem." (Yeah, like you failing to communicate to me that you were banging another guy). This lasted for a month or so before I finally put my foot down. I told her that was enough. I had been more than gracious about what had all happened, and I didn't think it was a good idea for us to be "friends" - at least not until a year or two had gone by.

This did not stop things, however. Soon, she was dropping by work, creating excuses. "I still had this t-shirt of yours, and thought I would stop in and return it." I told her I didn't care. Keep it.

Then snowmobiling season started, and everyone knew I went "night riding" on Fridays. A group usually formed on Friday nights and I would often be "the leader" because I knew the mountains so well I always knew where I was, even at night. (The RCMP and Search and Rescue have contacted me in emergencies too).

 I couldn't believe it. Guess who was sitting amongst the group in the parking lot but the ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. She had convinced him to buy a snowmobile and now they were going to come riding with me together. What the hell? She had never gone snowmobiling before meeting me, and he had never been snowmobiling before - sledding was "my thing." They even joined the Snowmobile Club together as "a couple." I didn't know what to say or do. I didn't own the mountain, and there were about 20 people there. I just went riding and said nothing, but it irritated the living hell out of me. 

I called her later on that week and said we needed to talk. "I can't," she replied, "I have a boyfriend." I told her she had a boyfriend when she met him too, and if she would like, I could call him and ask if it was ok, since he must know how many times she'd called or visited me over the past while - I'm sure he knows about it and won't mind if we talk.

Anyway, we did meet up that evening and I told her, "Look, I've been more than gracious about this whole thing. You were the one who cheated on me and I've done nothing back to you. I don't even criticize you for it, and you know it. I think it's completely unfair of you to invade my Friday night riding - you know it's 'my thing.' Let's continue to keep things civil between us, so please, go sledding all you want, but leave my Friday night rides alone." She, of course, denied there was anything sinister about it, but agreed to respect my request. I heard later that some other people had mentioned to her that was pretty bold of them, and she tried to excuse it by claiming "safety." My new boyfriend doesn't know the mountains very well, and it's so much safer to ride with Rob.

Guess who was waiting in the parking lot the next weekend?

I was so pissed off, I rode like a crazy son-of-a-bitch all night. I had the meanest, biggest machine you could buy at that time. I took everyone on the twistiest, bumpiest, most jumpiest and difficult trails I knew of as fast as I possibly could ride - which was pretty fast. Every-time we would stop for a bit people would be "Holy, what's gotten into you tonight? We can barely keep up."

Then when we stopped in the club's warm-up cabin... I remember it pretty clearly. I was sitting next to the wood-stove looking down into the can of beer in my hand. The new boyfriend started shooting off his mouth about how great his new Ski-doo brand snowmobile was and started poking fun of a couple other guy's Polaris sleds. Now... my daddy rode Polaris, my brother rode Polaris, and I rode Polaris. I didn't raise my head at all but kept looking down at the floor, and started speaking rather loudly, "You know, it's one thing that you were banging my girlfriend behind my back, and it's another thing that you're so fucking stupid to think you can come riding with me... BUT I'LL BE GOD-DAMMED IF I'M GONNA SIT HERE AND LET YOU CUT DOWN POLARIS SNOWMOBILES!!!"

By the time I looked up, I only seen the ass end of the ex and her boyfriend - coats and helmets in hand rather than on - getting out of the cabin as fast as they could. "Vroom" they were gone. They also broke up that weekend.

It was after this experience with that ex-girlfriend that I really began to clue into the behaviour of women. (Yeah, I was a bit slower than you younger guys - we didn't have the internet back then either). I began observing people in their relationships and "how things worked." Being from a small town really helped, because I knew so many people over such long periods of their lives that I knew many people's relationship history. It was also a time when I moved from my mid-twenties to beyond - the time when Schopenhauer declares that men start to pass women in maturity:

"The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

Men really are tools to women. And just like we often say about "game" - "it's simply a tool, it can be used for good or bad." So it is when women adhere to Briffault's Law and use men as "tools." 

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

Just because a woman is associating with you and using you as her tool, does not necessarily mean that the benefit she gets from the man-tool is used for good. Sometimes it is used for her to promote an evil agenda.

I wrote a lengthy comment at the Spearhead the other day. In it I described how women go on a binge and purge cycle after denying their sex-drives. Here is a part of it I would like to refer to:

Once a woman’s time-limit is up and her interest in you becomes dark and sinister, this is when she goes into a “binge and purge cycle.” She starts with-holding sex in order to manipulate you. Lots of husbands fall for this and think she’s not interested in sex anymore – this is not true. What she is doing is starving her own sexual desire in order to drive up her sexual value to manipulate you. (Once a woman starts refusing you sex, it is time to dump her – she does not have pure interests in you anymore). Then, after about a year or so of her denying her own sexual desires, she gets rid of the man (and tries to keep all of his benefits) and THEN goes on a sexual binge where she fucks thug after thug, trying to satiate her starving sexual desire. Once she has done this, she again looks for a more suitable long-term mate who confers “benefits” upon her, she pair-bonds again, and the whole cycle starts over again. 

It is true that “all women are available” but what is not true is that “all women are available all of the time.” This is why the PUA-sphere (the ones who actually know what they are talking about) are always looking for IOI’s (Indications of Interest). What you want to do, if you are a “player” looking for easy, commitment free sex, is be the second guy to screw her after she splits up with her long-term mate. The first guy is usually an emotional tampon, or an orbiter, who ends up getting royally screwed because he is usually only being used as an emotional sounding board, or as a tool for the woman to gauge her sexual market value. To be a good “player,” you want to be the guy that catches her in the middle of her binge phase. This is the phase where she goes nuts and sucks and fucks up a storm and does things her ex-husband/boyfriend never dreamed she would do. But, it is very time limited. Once her “binge” is done and she has satiated herself, it is back to Briffault’s Law.

One of the main reasons to avoid chicks who are married or are in long-term relationships, aside from basic moral values, is because of a very important reason I left out in the above comment. It's not that women just use the first guy as an emotional tampon or to gauge her sexual market value... quite often they will use you as the direct catalyst for a break-up, they themselves being too chicken to actually simply break up with their boyfriend/husband. Your purpose as a her "tool" in these situations is often to force her husband/boyfriend to dump her while creating as much drama as she possibly can. It's not smart to be that kind of particular tool because now you have made a very deeply motivated enemy - especially if it involves a marriage and the man loses his children, his house and his freedom.

Learn the cycle women go through - observe her behaviour. Always be the second guy to screw her after a relationship, never be the first. It's safer, it's more morally pure, and you'll get the better sex out of her than all the other "tools" have gotten: 1 - The Longterm Pair-bonded Tool, 2 - The Emotional Tampon/Orbiter/Break-up Catalyst Tool, 3 - The Tool used to satiate her cravings with wild, hot, kinky sex, and 4 - The next Longterm Pair-bonded Tool.  

I'll take door number three any day of the week.

Also I learned that once it's over, make it over. Tell her to get lost. Don't be too nice to her. She screwed you around and you don't owe her any kindness. You don't have to go out of your way to be an asshole, but don't be friendly either. Change your phone-number if you have to. Women continue to shit-test you even after you've broken up - and by that time, it's based on pure evil.


The women sometimes responded with a kind of countermanipulation: “they thought if they were cold and treated their husbands terribly, the men would leave, or ask them to leave.” Sometimes this happens—which, incidentally, explains why divorce initiation statistics can be misleading. A significant portion of the roughly thirty percent of divorces which are formally male-initiated result from the wife deliberately maneuvering her husband into taking the step. -- F. Roger Devlin, "Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers, p.8

Friday, May 18, 2012

You're Such a Tool!

NOTICE: This article has been updated and moved to The Masculine Principle. Please click here to read the new version or scroll down to continue reading in the old format.


"Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs." -- Immanuel Kant, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, Southern Illinois University Press 1978, originally published in 1798

One thing our society struggles with as it continually fails feminism's cultural fitness tests is the silly notion that men and women are "equal" and thus we are essentially coming at each-other from the same point of view regarding our interactions with the opposite sex. This is the wrong way of thinking. We are not "blank slates" who are different merely because of society's externally imposed social constructs upon us.

In fact, anyone who believes in evolution would scoff at the idea of men and women being essentially the same. Natural Selection is what "evolves" us. Sharks mate with the fastest swimmers and the sharks best able to feed themselves. By selecting those with the genes which display these traits, they continually evolve to become better swimmers and better predators. Animals evolve to do the tasks which they are best suited for. Thus, the sharks of today are likely "better" sharks than the sharks of 10,000 years ago as the genes of those best at survival continually get passed on more often than those who fail to survive.

Between the sexes, we also evolve to do the tasks which we are best suited for. You can see that men and women are physically different, each being designed for what they do best. Certainly there are some social constructs that society imposes upon men and women, but they are based on our biological natures, not upon the blank slate.

In women's case, their entire bodies are designed for giving birth and caring for children. They have wide hips to give birth and have breasts to feed children with. Note that it is also these traits - women's "curves" - that are a large part of what men find sexually attractive in women. It is their "reproductive features" we find attractive. Further, even a woman's mind has evolved to make her more suitable for rearing children, thus a woman's "multi-tasking brain" is more suitable to care for children - or to do other tasks while also caring for children. But it goes even further than this multi-tasking feature. Women are somewhere in between that of a man and a child. Often times, the men of old observed women were merely children of a larger growth:

Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted — in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.-- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

Women have mentally "evolved" to be something intermediate between the child and the man. We have all heard that women are more emotional than men and are more "in tune with feelings" than men. And this is correct, for tell me, how do infants communicate except through the language of emotions and feelings? How does a baby indicate it needs to be fed? It is through the emotional response of crying - certainly not by saying, "Hey momma, bring those soft, round milk thingies over to my mouth." Children communicate emotionally, and since women have evolved to become "better carers of children," they have also evolved to be more in tune to the language of children, which is emotion.

We also often hear that girls mature faster than boys. This is also true, and to refer back to Schopenhauer again, he acknowledges this as well:

Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

The reason girls mature mentally before boys again goes back to their biological function as the bearers of children. Everywhere in nature, when an animal is physically capable of giving birth it is also mentally developed enough to care for its offspring - at least in the most primal of ways. This is also true of human females. When they reach puberty, they are mentally mature enough to give at minimum the basic care to an infant to keep it alive. Even though we don't encourage girls to have children as soon as they reach puberty, we do see in our culture that adults begin to trust girls at the age of puberty for tasks such as babysitting, thus lots of girls in the 12 to 14 age group begin to earn some pocket money in this manner - they have become mentally mature enough to adequately do the task. Why does Schopenhauer indicate women reach the maturity of their reasoning and mental faculties at the age of eighteen? Well, what would be the evolutionary advantage to women growing out of this phase of relating to children and beyond it? There is none.

But then, what is it that men have evolved to become?

The first thing we have to realize is that everywhere in nature, the male is the sexual servant of the female.

"This goes down to the level of plants which have "male" and "female" parts.

The ripening of an egg, or ovum, is a time and energy intensive job, so the male is designed to be ready to fertilize that ovum when the female notifies him that she is "ready."

In the rest of the natural world, females announce their readiness to the entire world with a variety of cues - smell being the most significant, but visual cues come in a close second.

When a female chimpanzee is in estrus, her genitals swell up and become a specific shade of bright pink. Jane Goodall observed one such female whose genitals could be seen from across a valley - nearly a mile or 2 away.

There is a species of fish in which the belly of the female turns a particular shade of red when she is gravid. A block of wood with the lower half painted that exact shade of red will drive males into a mating frenzy.

Smell is even more important. There are many species in which a female in heat gives off pheromones which are specific to that species which can be picked up by males as much as 5 miles away.
" -- Zenpriest

Men have evolved to become the best providers and protectors we can possibly be in order to meet the needs of the female - especially during her most vulnerable time, which is when she gets pregnant, gives birth, recuperates, and then raises the child until it becomes self-sufficient (ie. It can walk, talk and feed itself). This whole process takes about four years to complete, and then her rotating polyandry cycle kicks in and she discards the male in order to seek out a new man to repeat the cycle again. This is the primitive method of assuring genetic diversity amongst her offspring, which increases their overall chance of survival.

So aside from merely being sperm donors, men have also evolved into being the best at what we do - and these are also the things women find attractive in a man: our protecting and providing skills. We have developed upper body strength which is vastly superior to the female's, and so it is tall, strong, broad shouldered men which women find sexually attractive. Men have developed linear thinking brains which help us figure out how to perform specific tasks as efficiently and productively as possible. No matter what men set out to do, aside from raising children, women cannot compete with men on a level playing field because we have evolved to best perform our tasks in order to make ourselves useful to women. Most women admit that they are sexually attracted to men who are more intelligent than they are - this does not mean that all men are are smarter than all women, but merely that each woman tends to seek out a man who has higher intelligence than she possesses.   

But ultimately, men do all of these things in service of women, in the hopes of gaining - or maintaining - her favour. However, the kink in this plot is that women don't actually "love" men, only gay men truly love men. Rather women love being loved. "Love" means different things to men and women.

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale
Think of a man as a stick in a woman's hand - a tool which she uses for her own purposes. The woman with the biggest stick will fare better in society than women with smaller sticks - or especially women with no sticks at all. This is a further reason for women to give men fitness tests - to test how strong of a stick he is. If she finds him sufficiently strong, she will begin to conform herself around him, creating the illusion that she is his ideal mate so that he will begin to fall in love with her and thus become useful to her as a "tool."

This is one thing that men must always keep in mind in his dealings with women. For women, their love is parasitic - it is based upon what she gets from a man. But for men, their love is the host to the parasitic nature of the woman - it is based upon what he gives. 

"When I started researching this book, I was prepared to rediscover the old saw that conventional femininity is nurturing and passive and that masculinity is self-serving, egotistical, and uncaring. But I did not find this. One of my findings here is that manhood ideologies always include a criterion of selfless generosity, even to the point of sacrifice. Again and again we find that 'real' men are those who give more than they take." -- David Gilmore in his 1990 book Manhood in the Making

Also, one must keep in mind that relationships don't mean the same thing to women as they do to men. Relationships are a "tool" for women - they get things from it, or rather from the man. Women get over relationships far more easily than men do. They are never as deeply "in love" with a man as a man is in love with the woman. Men and women are polar opposites. We are two sides to the same coin, but those sides are not the same. Women have more emotions but they are shallower. Men have fewer emotions but they run deeper. In an evolutionary survival scenario, it makes sense too, that men would love women deeper than women would "love" men. It is a man's deep love that will make him sacrifice his produced goods and even his life for the woman he loves. This rarely happens the other way around. While there is an evolutionary survival advantage for the female to lose interest in a man after completing her four year rotating polyandry cycle, there is no similar advantage for the man to lose interest. In fact, just the opposite. It is in both her and her offspring's advantage to have the man still hopelessly in love with her, providing and protecting his brains out while she slyly seeks out her next suitable mate before giving the present "tool" his walking papers.  

Everything a man does in a relationship is in her benefit. This is the basis of Briffault's Law.

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

It is also important to note the corollaries to Briffault's Law: 

1 - Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 - Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 - A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

Briffault's Law is the reason the most important word a man must learn in his relationships with a woman is "No!" If a man keeps nothing for himself and simply gives it all to her, she has no reason to continue to associate with him. No matter what he does, it soon will become "What have you done for me lately?" He must keep the benefits he bestows upon her under his control, and learn to say no often, as she will naturally try to get him to pass them on to her. No, I won’t spend $100 for roses on Valentine’s Day. No, we’re not going to Hawaii for a vacation (unless you are paying, Toots!) No, you cannot move in with me. No, you cannot move in now that you’ve been evicted – that is what your girlfriend’s couch or your parent’s spare room is for. NO! We won’t get be getting married. No! You are not going on the pill so we can have bareback sex. No! No! No! No! No! NO!

There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child custody to mothers. -- Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p360

“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce” — James H. Jones, Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.

Women's attitude to men is easiest to understand by comparing it to our attitude towards a job. Whether we love our job or not, most of us think we must have one. We often think a bad job is better than not having a job at all. No matter how much we may love our job, we'll jump ship and go with a better one if it's offered. And no matter how good our job may have been for us in the past, if something happens that upsets us, the love has probably gone forever. We don't ever think we are owed for the past.

For women, attracting a man and using him for her own designs is her job - it is how women survive. 

- What do women have jobs for? To entertain themselves while they aren't working - The Predatory Female

Women never want to be without a "tool" in society, for it is through her man-tool that she accomplishes what she needs in society - thus, women are like monkeys and never let go of one branch until she has gotten hold of the next. This is why you usually find that at the end of her relationship with a particular tool, er, man, there is always another man hanging around somewhere in the wings. Female "independence" is an illusion. What women's independence actually means is that they want the freedom to change from one tool to the next without consequences. Men would view independence in a much different manner. 

In fact, Buddhism acknowledges the three phases women go through of using men as "tools" for their own designs during their lives:

 Women have the “five obstacles” (inability to become anything great) and the “three followings” (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son).-- Buddha - from Selected Writings of Nichiren

In her youth, a woman gains her power through her father - he is the "tool" that serves her and represents her in society. In adulthood, she gains power through her husband, who spends his life's energy providing for her and the offspring they produce together. In her old age, she gains her power through her son. In each case, she uses a man as her tool to deal with society.

I can certainly attest to the last one about the son with my own mother. Since my father died a few years ago, it is now me who my mother uses to navigate life. When she has a problem, she comes to me to deal with it. If she suspects the mechanic at the shop is trying to rip her off, it is me who goes there to talk with him. When she needs to make a financial decision, it is me who she seeks advice from and who she hands over the authority to make ultimate decisions. Since she lost my father as her "tool," she transferred the responsibility to me. She is not independent as a man would be. I'm not upset about it. It is the natural order of life. And since she didn't stuff me into a daycare, allowing strangers to raise me, but rather did a good job for me as a true mother when I was young - nor did she selfishly destroy our family with divorce, but stayed with my father for 48 years (and I'm sure not all of those years were easy ones), I am willing to let her use me as her "tool" in her old age because she deserves it. 

We are failing feminism's cultural fitness tests because we are not asserting our authority and telling women, "NO! You can't use me as your tool for free. We are humans, not monkeys." And since men's love is "the host" for women's "parasitic love," it is essential that the host leads the parasite, rather than the other way around. When the parasite leads, it destroys both the host and the parasite, but when the host leads, both organisms can survive. 

NO! Learn to say it, and learn to say it often.

You don't even have to be rude about it. You could also say "NO MA'AM!"

Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland.

If the men “leave” the women will follow, because female “independence” is an illusion.

…. \_/...........
“The woman follows the man. In her youth she follows her father and elder brother; when married, she follows her husband; when her husband is dead, she follows her son.” – Confucius

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Smoking Truths - by Ezra Levant

Ezra illustrates very well how "organisms" work - even the supposedly "good ones." Basically they exist only to serve themselves, find problems where they don't exist or create hype over non-issues. They all expand government, however. I can't see how creating "organisms" for the Men's Movement will work any different. (ie. Men's Political Lobby Groups, A White House Council on Boys & Men, Male Studies in Universities etc. etc.). It is far better to Go Your Own Way and keep these types of organisms and the intrusive government they grow out of our lives. .

(Sorry, I can't figure out how to centre this damn video. Hey, I never claimed I knew how to work one these new-fangled 'puter thingies. Aaargh!)

Heh, I love Ezra. And for those outside of Canada, keep in mind when he criticizes the Conservative government that it was Ezra Levant who was once the Member of Parliament for Calgary Southwest, and stepped down in a by-election to allow Stephen Harper to take over his seat and "unite the right." Harper, of course, went on to become our Prime Minister after this. Ezra, ummm, gets invited to 24 Sussex for dinner once in a while.

Also, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) went after Ezra for publishing "those Muslim Cartoons" in his magazine, and charged him with "hate speech" for offending Muslims because he accurately reported the news. Hoo boy, did the CHRC pick a fight with the wrong man. He fought them tooth and nail, won, then kicked them in the balls repeatedly when they were down. The CHRC was so used to people backing down that they weren't expecting Ezra.




What a great Canadian.

The only thing I disagree with Ezra on is that smoking is bad for you. Just the opposite, because studies have proven it:

"Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase serum hemoglobin, increase total lung capacity and stimulate weight loss, factors that all contribute to enhanced performance in endurance sports. Despite this scientific evidence, the prevalence of smoking in elite athletes is actually many times lower than in the general population. The reasons for this are unclear; however, there has been little to no effort made on the part of national governing bodies to encourage smoking among athletes."

Read the article here.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Empty Vessels and Relative Truth

All truth to women is relative. It is men who seek Absolute Truth, or rather, have a better ability to get closer to the Truth. Women find truth through the consensus of the herd. If the herd believes 1+1=3, then it is right because the herd believes it is so. If tomorrow, the herd believes 1+1=1, then that will be right because the herd believes it is so. This is why you see women are so much more attuned to changing fashions and why it is often social proofing that decides for them who is a sexy and desirable man. What the herd believes is right is the "truth" for women. It is men who insist that 1+1=2, I don't care how much you cows moo at me.

"... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?" -- G.F. Hegel

This is very old and part of the human condition. In fact, the story of the Garden of Eden is very much about the Absolute Truth being over-ruled by the Relative Truth of Eve.There was only one rule in the Garden… DON’T EAT FROM THAT TREE! There was only one truth that Adam and Eve had to follow… and here is where it gets interesting, because Eve was deceived but she was not particularly lied to. In fact, the serpent’s assertions are perfectly valid, although very craftily worded:

- The serpent was right when he says “you will not surely die.” (He was right, they did not surely die… After being tossed from the Garden, God offered them a path to salvation and eternal life – if they chose to follow God’s path).

- The serpent was right, when they ate the fruit, their eyes were opened, and they did become like God and gain knowledge of good and evil.

And then Eve’s female rationalizing hamster wheel starts churning, mired in Relative Truth.

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”

Because it was good for food, pleasing to look at, and desirable for gaining wisdom… Eve rationalized to herself why the Relative Truth which she wished for ought to be able to over-ride the Absolute Truth that existed.
Ahem… could placing the Relative Truth we create in our brains over the Absolute Truth that exists in reality be the “original sin?”

Also to note here in the Garden story is the difference between men and women, and something we also often speak of in the MRM: Adam, the mangina, simply went along with her.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 RSV “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

Adam was not deceived. He sinned willingly. Eve deceived herself with her female driven hamster-wheel of a relative-truth laden brain… but Adam was not deceived at all. He was standing right there and was not deceived; Eve gave it to him, and he was still without sin at this point but like a mangina eager to please he said, “Sure thing, Toots!” and swallowed ‘er down whole.

Adam sinned willingly, but Eve was deceived.

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’… (Man’s Curse)

It’s pretty clear.

Between Adam and Eve, God expects a different level of cognition… God expected Adam to “know better” than Eve… because Adam has the capability to know better.

Of all of the things that were in the world during the Garden, the only thing not directly from God… is Eve. She was created from Adam, who was created in God’s image. Adam is a copy of God, and Eve is a copy of Adam… Adam is “one step closer” to God/Absolute Truth than Eve is.
1 - Absolute Truth = God
2 - Objective Truth = Man
3 - Subjective Truth = Woman
Everywhere in nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female. However, while humans are of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. It was when humans started putting the male principle in front of the female principle that we stopped living like animals and rose up from being beasts of the field.
Buddhism also acknowledges the way a woman's mind is mired in Relative Truth.

The course of a river and a woman’s mind both wander. Water is malleable, it turns here and there when rocks and mountains block its path. Women are like this. They are inconstant as water. Although they know what is right, when they run into the strong will of a man, they are checked and turn in bad directions. The right fades like a line drawn on the water. Women’s nature is unsteady: though they see what they should be, they soon become what they should not be. Buddhahood is founded on integrity. Therefore, women, who are easily swayed, cannot become Buddhas. Women have the “five obstacles” (inability to become anything great) and the “three followings” (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son). Thus in one sutra it is written: “Even should the eyes of all the buddhas of the three worlds fall to the earth, women cannot become Buddha.” Another text says: “Even if you can capture the clear wind, you can never capture the mind of a woman.” -- Buddha - from Selected Writings of Nichiren

You can also see how women’s “truth” never really exists by the way they relate to men sexually. Many men will notice this if they meet up with an ex-girlfriend after a few years of not seeing her. She is an entirely different person than who he remembered her as. It is as if the girl he once knew was completely false and no longer exists.

Women are “empty vessels” – they conform themselves to whatever man they are currently with and take on his truths, that is, until her rotating polyandry shifts her to her next man, then she takes on the new guy’s truths.

"As a rule, the woman adapts herself to the man, his views become hers, his likes and dislikes are shared by her, every word he says is an incentive to her, and the stronger his sexual influence on her the more this is so. Woman does not perceive that this influence which man has on her causes her to deviate from the line of her own development; she does not look upon it as a sort of unwarrantable intrusion; she does not try to shake off what is really an invasion of her private life; she is not ashamed of being receptive; on the contrary, she is really pleased when she can be so, and prefers man to mould her mentally. She rejoices in being dependent, and her expectations from man resolve themselves into the moment when she may be perfectly passive." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Woman and Her Significance in the Universe

For example, I’ve known one woman for many years now. When I first met her, it was through snowmobiling. I was an avid snowmobiler and so was her boyfriend. She was really into snowmobiling – just loved it… until after four years, she broke up with her boyfriend. She never went sledding again.

The next guy she was with though, was really into drag-racing. She ended up marrying that guy, and really got into drag-racing. In fact, she ended up becoming the President of the Drag Racing Association of the town she lived in… until she divorced the guy. Now she couldn’t care less about drag-racing.

The guy she is with now is a sheep farmer and breeds border collies on the side. Now she has a government job which monitors forage for sheep farmers, and she is a member of the Border Collie Breeding Association or something – they travel all around to dog shows etc. and she is really into it.

That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.- Schopenhauer, On Women
Now, does such a woman actually have a personality of her own? No. She finds her personality through her man. She has no “truth” of her own – it is always relative and is always subject to change.

This is one of the reasons women give men fitness tests/shit tests. They test him for the strength of his character, and if they find him suitable they will conform themselves around him. Thus, it is important for men to know themselves, take a position, and staunchly never budge.

XV. Maintain your state control

You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.Roissy’s Sixteen Commandments of Poon

The problem comes in when we falsely believe that men and women are equal, and thus let women “lead us.” They can’t, for they are full of relative truth – their truth doesn’t exist, not for long anyway. It is why women resent men so much who don’t take the lead. It may satisfy a woman’s ego to have her husband grovel before her, but what she needs is for a man to be strong so she can conform herself around him. She needs his “truth” in order to find herself through him.

What’s going on in society is that as a culture we have been failing feminism’s shit tests and have become weak men.

A man should also never be afraid to lose a woman for once you are in that position, she is the leader and he is the follower. If as a culture we are failing feminism's cultural shit tests, the solution is to become Men Going Their Own Way. See ya toots!

Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland.

If the men “leave” the women will follow, because female “independence” is an illusion.

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........


"The most decisive proof for the correctness of the view that attributes henids to woman and differentiated thoughts to man, and that sees in this a fundamental sexual distinction, lies in the fact that wherever a new judgment is to be made, (not merely something already settled to be put into proverbial form) it is always the case that the female expects from man the clarification of her data, the interpretation of her henids. It is almost a tertiary sexual character of the male, and certainly it acts on the female as such, that she expects from him the interpretation and illumination of her thoughts. It is from this reason that so many girls say that they could only marry, or, at least, only love a man who was cleverer than themselves; that they would be repelled by a man who said that all they thought was right, and did not know better than they did. In short, the woman makes it a criterion of manliness that the man should be superior to herself mentally, that she should be influenced and dominated by the man; and this in itself is enough to ridicule all ideas of sexual equality." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Male and Female Characteristics 
“The woman follows the man. In her youth she follows her father and elder brother; when married, she follows her husband; when her husband is dead, she follows her son.” – Confucius

Further Reading:

Pook #40 - Do Girls Want Sovereignty?

Bonecrcker #47 - Living in La-La-Land