The Bookshelf: Shoot Deer

Manosphere-affiliated blogger Tim, has created an introductory ebook on hunting deer, called, in blunt style, Shoot Deer. He gave me a copy to review.

I am a beginning hunter; I went out by myself this fall for the first time.  For my first hunt, I simply drove out to the nearest crown land, parked at the side of the highway and walked a few hundred meters into the bush til I found a small clearing. I then sat on the ground in small dip leaning back against a tree and waited, shotgun in hand. Probably not the most effective way of harvesting anything, but it was a learning example for next time (while hoping not to get lost in the woods), when I plan to prepare a bit better.

As could be expected, I didn’t catch anything, which was somewhat frustrating as I could hear scraping/crunching within shooting range, but couldn’t see anything through the trees. I would move a bit closer, wait 5-10 minutes, then move again, but it always was just out of sight. In retrospect, it was probably just another hunter and we were simply spending a few hours hunting each other.

Other than that attempt, I’ve never hunted and I don’t really know anybody who hunts, so the topic of this book really appealed to me. Learning a few tricks of the trade would be handy.

And that, this book provided. It had a lot of information on deer hunting. I can’t tell you if its correct or not, as I don’t have the proper experience, but what he writes makes sense and he seems to give due consideration to methods of which he disapproves.

There a lot of things in here I simply would never even have thought of. As one small example, he talks of finding special detergent to wash camo, as most detergents make clothes brighter, something you do not want for your camo.

The book cerainly delivered on its main purpose of providing solid information for beginners on deer hunting. I plan to re-read it again closer to the next deer season.

The major problem I had with the book is Tim focuses a lot of the book on maintaining private hunting property, especially in the first half of the book. He devotes 8 chapters to the topic and only two to alternatives.

For a beginner, its quite the expense to purchase a decent chunk of land for hunting. I live in an area that’s not overly expensive, but checking Kijiji, the cheapest hunting land is $12k for 40 acres. Although, that might be cheap for real estate, that’s quite a bit of upfront investment for a beginner. (I wish I had $80k to spare, there is a lot of beautiful land I could get on Kijiji).

I think the book would have been better for beginners if it had a bit more on hunting on public land (although, maybe public land isn’t as abundant in the US as it is in the western Canada). It would also have more flow if the property chapters were more towards the end of the book rather than right near the front.

That being said this book is excellent and I wish I had had it this summer. There’s a lot of information, and it all seems good. The book is written in a conversational, first-person tone which fits well enough. It also looks well edited for self-publishing; there were few typographical errors and none that interrupted the flow of the book.

At $8 for about 200 pages, the price is good for the amount of information presented.

Recommendation:

If you’re thinking of starting deer hunting, this will be a gecent book to helping you get started or to give you a some information on what’s involved in hunting. Pick up Shoot Deer, but skip the chapters on property ownership (unless of course, you plan to purchase property right off the hop).

If you’re not interested in deer hunting this is obviously not going to be all that useful.

If you’re interested in more information on deer hunting, check out Tim’s blog, Shoot Deer.

Also, Tim, I would suggest putting up an easy to see link to your book on Amazon on your blog; I didn’t see one.

Game, Attraction, and Morality

Sarah’s Daughter asks of those anti-game Christians:

I’d be interested to know if those who find it somehow not Christian for men to learn and apply techniques that stimulate a woman’s attraction to him find it as non Christian when women learn to do the same. And if not, what makes it different?”

An interesting question. One made even more interesting by her example of making herself more attractive for RLB:

I remember learning that how I wear my hair matters to my husband. I had not thought of it before, I just did my hair the way I liked doing my hair. When we first met, I liked wearing it long, highlighted, sometimes curly, sometimes straight. When RLB told me he wanted me to color my hair platinum and was willing to pay whatever it took to get it that way, it dawned on me that this is something that is important to him. The same is true about my weight, my physical condition, my attitude, and my submission to him.

From this my mind immediately went to a particular Bible verse:

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3:1-6, ESV)

And to another related verse:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:8-15, ESV)

So then, the question becomes is SD’s point the exact opposite of the one she is intending to make? Rather than proving men should learn attraction techniques, is she simply proving that both men and women should avoid attraction techniques?

Is SD sinning by ‘adorning’ her hair in ‘platinum’?

I think that by looking at the morality of girl game, we could probably gain some insight into game.

****

No braids, no gold, no stylish clothes; it seems harsh doesn’t it.

Harlot!

Very few outside the most extreme of fundamentalists forbid women from braids, yet this command is given not just once, but twice, and by both Peter and Paul. This would make it seem to be of some import.

Are almost all Christians sinning in this regard?

If we focus just on clothes for a second: “Do not let your adorning be external…the clothing you wear” and  “not with… costly attire”. An exacting, literal reading of the former would be not to dress, yet that would be obviously incorrect. While the latter would be against any costly clothes, yet in Proverbs 31, the virtuous wife “makes bed coverings for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple.”

If we look to jewelry, there are a number of times in the old testament where it is spoken of neutrally, even positively.

So, a contradiction? By no means.

As in all Biblical interpretation, context is of the utmost importance.

Reading the verses, the focus is not on the hair, jewelry, or clothes rather the focus is on modesty, respect, submission, self-control, and good works.

The attitude is what is important, the attitude is what should be focused upon.

I think this passage from Isaiah illustrates nicely:

The Lord said:
Because the daughters of Zion are haughty
and walk with outstretched necks,
glancing wantonly with their eyes,
mincing along as they go,
tinkling with their feet,
therefore the Lord will strike with a scab
the heads of the daughters of Zion,
and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts.

In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves; the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; the signet rings and nose rings; the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.

Instead of perfume there will be rottenness;
and instead of a belt, a rope;
and instead of well-set hair, baldness;
and instead of a rich robe, a skirt of sackcloth;
and branding instead of beauty. (Isaiah 3:16-24, ESV)

The daughters of Zion lived in pride and purposefully incited the lust of man. The finery was not the problem, the finery was a symptom of a malaise among the women.

So to the NT verses. The gold, the braids, the clothes are not the problem, the problem is women focusing on their external appearance, their vanity, their pride, their ability to incite lust, rather than on living modestly and in submission.

That is what women are to avoid.

****

Back to the original question, is SD sinning by ‘adorning’ her hair?

I would say not. She is displaying (on the internet, I can say nothing of her in real life) the attitudes Paul and Peter demand: modesty, a quiet and gentle spirit, submission to her husband, respectfulness, and pure conduct. (Good works can only be judged in person).

She is focusing on the important matters. She is not using her platinum adornment (at least according to herself) to incite lust in men, to draw attention to herself, or as a crutch for vanity. She is doing so in modesty and respectfulness.

So too with girl game.

Is a woman practicing girl game doing so in pure conduct and modesty? Is she developing in herself a submissive and respectful attitude? Does she practice self-control and good works?

Or is she trying to incite the lust of men? Is she seeking attention? Is she girl gaming to satiate her pride? Is she being wanton? Is she causing her brother to stumble?

A woman who develops and practices girl game within the former attitude will will bear good fruit. Her game is pure. Whether she has braids or jewelry is irrelevant; if she wears them, she does so in right heart. If she doesn’t wear them, her attitude and inner beauty* will still attract the right type of man.

A woman of the second type’s game will bear bad fruit. She will attract the lustful (or no one at all). Whether she wears braids or jewelry is irrelevant; her pride is still her undoing and it will be readily apparent, repelling all but the wrong kind of man.

Girl game should be focused on the internals, the attitudes, first and foremost.

****

From this we can analyze game. The tools and techniques of game (posture, social skills, dress, masculine confidence, etc.) are morally irrelevant. Rather, we need to ask from where are these tools gained and to what ends are they used?

Are these tools being used out of rebellion or out of submission to God’s will? Are they developed from the lusts of the flesh or from godly motive?

Is your masculine confidence born of pride or does it come from faith in the Rock?

Are you learning these techniques so you can further the kingdom or so you can engage in sex?

Do you secretly hope young women lust over you or do you wish to promote modesty, pure conduct, and right-thinking among young women?

Does your physical training supercede your spiritual discipline?

Are you learning social skills to manipulate others or to build others up?

Is a woman (or women) your goal or is God your goal?

Do you wish for a wife as a status marker or for selfish reasons, or are you truly looking to devote yourself to developing her and your family spiritually and ministering to them?

Do you wish to lead your wife for her and the family’s benefit and the glory of God or for your own prideful needs?

****

Chad has said repeatedly that game is based in pride. Secular game is run through with pride and the lusts of the flesh. The entirety of secular game is based on pride.

While game itself is not sinful, it is was developed from pride and the flesh, most of the conversation comes from a place of sin.

Some men of strong faith, such as Vox, may be able to learn and practice Christianized game without falling to temptation. Others, such as Keoni, may be struck by the truths found in game, leading them to explore further truths. But for many, the pride and impure motives of most proponents of game will be a stumbling block.

While reading the flurry of activity on this topic the last few weeks, I was convicted. I have found that for myself, my motives for my self-improvement were often misedirected and occasionally sinful. The impure attitudes was seeping into me.

For this reason, I embrace the (re)development of masculine Christianity that the Christian manosphere has embraced.

I hold nothing against those who practice Christianized game and don’t think there is an inherent moral conflict between Christianity and game, but I think a Christian masculinity based explicitly in Christian values will be better than repurposing or Christianizing game, especially for younger and weaker brothers.

But even as we do so, we should avoid sniping each other too much. For all the enemies of Christ, masculinity, tradition, and civilization out there, those of us who support those values should focus on our enemies rather than on our friends with whom we disagree.

****

* The concept of inner beauty exists, yet I use it here not as it is usually used, as it has been much abused. That’s another topic for another time.

Alternatives to Game

Lately, discussion of game and Christianity has been occurring in the Orthosphere, led by GBFM, Donal, Zippy, and Cane. I don’t disagree with many of the conclusions of the anti-gamers. There is probably a lot of the placebo effect to “game”. Although, there is also evidence that dark triad traits, which game attempts to mimic, are attractive, while being a nice guy isn’t.

I do find though,  that a lot of the Christian, “is game acceptable?”, debate really boils down to defining “game”. Nobody comes to terms before discussion, so the conversation almost always turns into a bunch of people talking past each other.

I myself have gone back and forth on game.

Either way, chasing flags and notches is an empty, joyless, if sometimes pleasurable, way to live. Roosh’s personal reflections over the last year or so provide ample example of that. No Christian should participate in it, and, even according to game advocates, even most non-Christians are simply not suited for it and would be better of finding an average girl and marrying. “Game” in the gimmicky, manipulative, player sense is something to avoid; at best it is a stop-gap.

But, men should instead focus on building themselves up. Instead of focusing on gimmicks, men should focus on improving themselves and being the kind of man who would have the kind of life they desire. Focus on the core, what some call inner game, and you will be attractive to the type of woman you want in your life.

****

This being said, I don’t think all game is a placebo. While I avoid the immoral and gimmicky parts of game, some of the more straightforward and practical social skills and body language advice is useful.  One of the earlier posts which made me take Roissy seriously, was this post on contraposta. Simply standing differently, and having a way I could purposefully stand, did wonders for my confidence. Just off the top of my head, other such tactical posts that helped me immensely include Simon Grey’s eye contact post and Roissy’s statement-statement-question.

Little practical things like these can work wonders and give socially awkward men like me something firm to hold onto.

****

All this being said though, whether you are pro-game, or anti-game, there is something you can agree on. So, what if, as Zippy says:

Game (understood as the pickup artist’s toolkit specifically) is actually pretty lousy in terms of effectiveness, right on par with placebo.  Doing something (and learning from the experience, and being persistent, and building confidence) is far better than doing nothing; but once you extract taking action at all, persistence, confidence, and learning through experience from the equation, the part of Game that is left over (that is, Game itself) – at least according to the “best of the best” PUA themselves – doesn’t do much for your percentages.

Let’s say game is mostly a placebo. Let’s say that its only real effect is to give awkward guys something to latch onto so they have a place to start developing confidence and acting. Let’s say, game is simply doing something.

This leads directly to the question, what else is there? As I’ve said before:

There is nothing else.

If you are an awkward, nerdy male, the only people willing and able to teach you practical advice for attracting women are the PUAs. I’ve checked. There is simply no one outside the manosphere teaching men how to meet a pleasant, moderately pretty girl for a stable long-term relationship.

I’ve read a number of Christian books and articles on dating, but they all assume a woman is attracted to you. They are either discussions of what kind of dating is appropriate and exhortations against sin or man up articles on how to avoid sex in relationships, how to avoid leading women on, and how to be firm in your intentions. There is almost no practical advice on how to actually attract a girl in first place so that the other advice has any relevance.

(For any Christian manospherians reading this, here’s a great book idea: write a guide to help awkward Christian guys attract a Christian wife. Market it in the Christian culture industry and you’d make a killing. I’d write it, but I’m not qualified at this point.)

Going outside the Christian stuff, everywhere else you look the socially awkward male is given the same advice: be yourself and be a nice guy, she’ll come… eventually.

Guess what?

We already do that: it doesn’t work. If it did work, we wouldn’t be looking for advice.

For women (and church leaders and others who may care): if you do not want awkward guys going to PUA’s for advice on attracting women, offer a viable alternative.

The only reason I started taking guys like Roissy or Roosh even remotely seriously was because they were the first people I found anywhere who gave enough of a shit to give some practical, useful advice. I haven’t adopted either game or playerhood, but I have tried some of their more morally neutral advice and it has been useful. (I’m now more influenced by the Athol/Dalrock approach).

How royally screwed up is it that self-proclaimed assholes like Roissy and Mentu are the only ones honest and selfless enough to give practical advice to the awkward guy looking for companionship (even if they mock us while they do it)?

Zippy, GBFM, Cane, and the rest can criticize game all they want, they might even be, probably are, right. But it doesn’t matter.

There is no alternative.

If I, as an awkward, nerdy Christian man, want practical, actionable advice on finding and attracting a nice Christian wife, game is the only place to go.

Without the game advice of these “low value dirt bags and sexual garbage collectors”, I never would have been able to approach this girl. I never would have gotten this date. I’ve had more dates in the last year than in my whole life prior, and a lot of it comes down to the advice and help I got from these “dirt bags.”

Without the advice and encouragement of them, without the practice from my previous dates, I probably would have awkwardly blown out the first date with the girl I’m currently courting.

None of these dates or approaches involved gimmicks, sleaze, or even anything resembling the popular perception of game. They were all simple, straightforward, well-intentioned interactions that nobody would or could think ill of.

But game advice gave me something to latch onto. It gave me practical steps I could take to improve myself. Was it a placebo? Possibly. But some of it was real. (The simple advice to not follow around a girl you like like a love-sick puppy alone was worth its weight in gold).

It was something practical I could do to improve myself and become better at social interactions with.

Roissy, Roosh, et al. may be self-professed degenerate scum but what is Zippy* providing?

This is the problem. What are the Christian man’s alternatives?

My Omega’s Guide was a start. I tried to make a practical guide to self-improvement anyone could use while avoiding “game”. Donal puts out a lot good theory, Chad’s stories are excellent sources of some Christian attraction principles put in practice, Vox throws out a fair amount of Christian game, and Athol puts out good, but non-Christian, advice for married men. A few other Christian blogs from my roll put out the occasional advice post.

Of these, Vox and Athol are the only names even remotely well-known and the only ones who have successfully found a wife and there sites is the gamiest and least Christian, respectively, of them all.

The awkward Christian man’s sources of information for attracting a wife without game are few unknowns who have plucked the pearls from the vast library of information the degenerates put out and have tried to apply it, but haven’t even found a wife for themselves.

So, give us something. Where is the church? Where is the help from the pro-marriage, anti-game moralizers to help us?

I don’t need another exhortation to man up, I’ve had enough of those. I don’t need another post telling me the greatness of marriage. I don’t need another lecture on servant-leadership; I’m drowning in those. I don’t need another sermon on avoiding fornication; I’ve been listening to those since before I knew what sex was. I don’t need more don’t do this, don’t do that; I need more do this.

Where is the practical Christian advice that will help me find a wife? Where can I find advice so the good Christian girl’s description of me to her friends isn’t “ew”?

Without that, all the rest of this debate over game is just noise and thunder signifying nothing. Awkward Christian men will go the degenerate dirt bags, because our choices are either try to pick the occasional nugget of truth from the hedonists and hope we don’t become corrupted by them or live the rest of our lives in grinding loneliness and sexual frustration.

If you don’t like game, give us an alternative.

****

Being opposed to complaining without providing a solution, I will point any Christian men reading this and looking for answers to my Omega’s Guide. It should provide some good advice I’ve painfully learned through the last 7 or 8 years. At some point, I’m going to arrange it into a self-published ebook for easier distribution.

Once I’m married and can speak with real authority on the subject, I plan to write a book on finding and attracting a Christian wife (probably cribbing heavily from the Omega’s Guide). I might even try hocking this to the various Christian publishers.

****

* I realize this is unfair to Zippy, and mean no offence, he’s not making a relationship blog and he isn’t professing to, but neither is anyone else.

The Bookshelf: 10 Laws and What is Neoreaction

Today, we’ll look at two tracts created by people from the masculine reactosphere, the 10 Laws of Finding Your Mission by LaidNYC and What is Reaction? by Bryce Laliberte. Both works are rather short, respectively 14 and 59 pages, so one post should cover an overview of both. We’ll start out with the 10 Laws because I read it first because it’s shorter (I’m pragmatic that way).

****

The 10 laws of Finding Your Mission

The 10 Laws has the unbeatable price of free, but Laid is asking for donations to help his puppy. Dogs are awesome, so help him out.

The first thing I noticed was that there were actually 11 laws, because there were 2 Law #3’s. So, you actually get more for your moochery than advertised. Despite this minor mistake, there are relatively few typos or grammar errors; it’s well-edited for a free online book.

The book essentially reads like an extended series of blog posts combined into a single document. Each law takes about a page and is mainly independent from the rest. The writing is mostly straightforward and competent with the occasional bit of humour. It’s functional.

But that’s not why you care, you’re reading this for the laws, not the writing style. In that the book is good. He outlines why you should have a mission and gives you some hints on how to go about finding your mission. He is both optimistic and realistic at the same time, which is a nice combination to have.

The book gives an excellent amount of value for the price of free, At the very least, I suggest giving it give it a skim; the page headers make it very easy to do so.

Recommendation:

If you are trying to find your mission, I would recommend the 10 Laws; it won’t take much time and could be very useful. I would especially recommend it for younger men who may not even know they are looking for a mission. If you are still in high school or college, make sure to read this; it could save you a lot of stumbling and regret later in life. It’s good value for money; if you like it, send LaidNYC a donation.

*****

What is Reaction?

Bryce Laliberte at Anarcho-Papist came onto my radar in July after writing a lot of insightful posts in a short period. It took effort to keep up, but keeping up was worth it. He’s since slowed down, and in a period of blog downtime he wrote a tract with the academic-sounding title of “Ideology, Social-Historical Evolution, and the Phenomena of Civilization Or What is Neoreaction?” as overview to neoreaction. He asked me to review and I was looking forward to reading the essay since reading the teaser, so I agreed and here it is.

At first, I thought this would be an introduction to neoreaction, but it is not, it is more an overview and is probably not for the beginner to neoreaction. As well, this is written at a very high level; it is mostly high theory and is written in very academic language. Do not be fooled by the short length; this is not a simple read.

In the essay, Laliberte examines starts with some examination of what ideology is and what is required for an ideology to succeed. He outlines the difference between the occult motivations of and the vagaries/superstructure of an ideology. He posits the reactionary occult motivation as order (protestantism/liberalism’s being equality), while the various manifestations of neoreaction (capitalism, nationalism,futurism, monarchism, anarchism, etc.) are vagaries of this motivation.

He then examines the main concepts of reactionary philosophy: the ascendance of modern spiritual egalitarianism (the Puritan/Protestant hypothesis), hierarchy and stability, the social determinism of biology, the importance of time preference, patriarchialism, anti-modernism, futurism and the effects of technology on man, hedonism, race, capitalism, monarchism, nationalism,and tradition.

I’m not going to critique the analysis of the essay, as most of it is not particularly novel; if you’ve read a fair amount of neoreactionary blogging you’re probably familiar with most of the concepts. But his explanations of the concepts are good ones; as just one example, I’ve read about the benefits of patriarchy many times already, but I still very much liked his explication of the issue and his explicit linking of it to societal time preference.

There are some smaller quibbles I could make; for example, he seems to implicitly posit nazism as a virulent form of reaction, when I see it more as more of a demotist movement, but for the most part his analysis of neoreaction seems sound upon first reading.

My one problem with this essay is the academic-style writing. I’ve always hated the self-important bloviating and purposeful obfuscation of the academy and this essay seems to drop into it at times. I understand that complex topics may require complex terminology and writing and mostly Laliberte sticks within these reasonable bounds, but, especially closer to the beginning of the essay, it seems he is being unnecessarily complex and obfuscating in that particular way academics are. On the other hand, writing in the academic style might be necessary to push neoreactionary ideas into mainstream academia, so this might not necessarily be a bad thing. (When the restoration comes, I hope one of the things we do is destroy the idea in the liberal arts that writing should be complex for complexity’s sake).

I think this is a good encapsulation of neoreactionary ideology. If you are new to neoreaction, I’d suggest reading Moldbug first, this is not something that will convince you. On the other hand, if you are an outsider want an academic look at neoreaction, this is probably a better analysis than Moldbug’s work, which tends more towards argument for than analysis of.

If you are already a reactionary, this is worth the read. It’s priced affordably and solid value for money.

Recommendation

If you’re a neoreactionary or knowledgeable of neoreaction and looking to explore it more academically, I’d drop the $3 and get What is Neoreaction? If you’re new to neoreaction, read Moldbug first.

If you’re an academic outsider researching this new neoreactionary ideology, this essay would be an excellent place to start.

If you don’t care about neoreaction, this would quite obviously be a waste of time and if you hate academic-style writing, you may find the essay annoying to get into at first.

Guest Post: Friends and the Red Pill

Today we have another guess post from Daniel on the red pill and your old friends. Remember, we accept guest posts on blog-related content; check our contact page  for guidelines. If you have something you want to say, feel free to send it in.

Once in a while you realize how you need to change, how your life sucks and how wrong is everything around you. Then you go looking for something, some way to turn this all around, and you arrive at the manosphere. You find all sorts of useful advice, examples and inspirational tales that help you build the will and courage to finally set foot on the road of change. Unfortunately, they only rarely show you how to deal with the luggage of your previously life. How to deal with friends, memories and all sort of things that will eventually drag you down and back to the very hell you’re trying to escape.

I have currently this problem myself, so I thought I could write some lines about it. First, friends will be your major challenge in becoming an upgraded version of yourself(second only to yourself); not only they are used to the present you, but also will probably think they own you (talk about materialistic idiots who are defined by what they own and own what defines them). If you’re lucky you’ll have one friend with whom you can talk about it, but, generally, talking will just make things harder. So, don’t talk, and refrain from showing any major signs of change in the first moments, they’ll only resent you for that – for challenging their world view, for bringing discomfort to their lives. Look for a more distant group of people who either don’t know you well enough or just haven’t been around that much to care. They will be your training ground. But that is just one minor problem in the whole thing, the major one will be retaining all you’ve learned when you’re with your group of close friends.

As you grow to be a man, you’ll build some habits and lose others. But since (if you are like me) you lived pretty much stuck in the same level for the majority of your life – and shared this time with these friends -, you’ll have very old ingrained habits that are almost impossible to let go. Now, once you are in another place with other people, you will notice – correctly – that these die-hard habits are easier to forget, why does that happens? Well, first, I believe novelty brings forth novelty, that means, as you are with other people in different situations you’ll naturally act different, but, more important, is that your old friends and acquaintances will act so as to maintain the old you in you, hell, just the environment  will do it. It’s harder to let old habits die if you are constantly in situations where these same habits first evolved. So, the sad truth is that you may think you’ve overcome your vices, but as soon as you’re brought back to the old setting, you’ll realize that was not the case.

But fear not, not everything is lost. Your new habits are still with you, only the older ones are stronger – if that term applies in this context, but you get it. There is where the will comes in and you, consciously, can choose how to act, and, at first it’ll be difficult, but as you go out, train and come back it will become easier. One day, they’ll be gone for good. Now, some friends may not be threatened  by small changes in you – if they see the improvements you’re making and not only agree, but support you, you know what friends to keep -, but as I said, the majority probably will. I would like to say that there is an easy way out, but that is not the case. If they are serious about holding you back, cut them loose, tell them to fuck themselves and forget them. Friends are important, but quality always comes before quantity. And if you see one trying to do the same – improve himself – help him.

That’s it. I know it isn’t much new, as some things have already been said, but I still think they weren’t said enough, and, also, it is a problem more common than thought. It isn’t much, but it is what I learned in my experiences in the last years(some of it is just “get the hell away from where you are” and “do new things”, but I thought I could explain it a little more). I hope it helps somebody, as I once also needed this kind of advice. God be with you all, and, as we say here, Servus.

Marketing Marriage

f you follow Dalrock you’ve seen is recent posts on this little advertisement on Mark Driscoll’s new man-up and marry series:

Dalrock has already pointed out the moral problems with the ad, I’m going to focus the advertisement aspects. Dalrock argues that the ad is aimed at churchian feminist woman, and I agree because otherwise, the proponents of marriage suck at advertising.

Instead of making marriage look like something men would want to pursue and would be willing to sacrifice for, they make it look horrible.

In the little skit in the middle, the man is the thoroughly henpecked, seemingly unhappy husband of a fat, dumpy, controlling wife. He’s so thoroughly beaten down that he’s afraid to have a little masculine bonding time with his son, with the video implying that there’s something wrong with him wanting to do so.

Watching this, my main thought was”is this really how they want to advertise marriage to men?”

I’m lean more towards the more pro-marriage part of the manosphere, but this would drive me away from marriage more than any other possible effect it could have. What kind of man would desire to become that husband?

What young man could possibly watch that and say, “yeah, I want to man-up and marry so I too can be a the ball-less husband of an ugly, dominating shrew who’s afraid to play pool with his son.”

C’mon guys. If you want men to man-up and marry how about making marriage look good? How about making marriage seem like a rewarding experience?

In fact, I’ll give you guys an awesome marketing campaign. A marketing idea this good would generally cost thousands of dollars from a slick New York agency, but I’ll give it to you for free because I love western civilization and we need working marriages to keep the remnant chugging.

Here’s my ad campaign for a man-up series:

It starts with an average-looking man in a suit, someone most guys could identify with, coming home from a day at the office. He looks kind of worn-out and stressed. He parks his car, sighs a bit, then walks up to his house. He opens the door.

The first thing seen when the door opens is his non-offensively pretty wife dressed femininely. She looks up from working in the kitchen and sees he’s stressed, so she comes up to him with a smile on her face and gives him a hug and quick kiss on the lips. She takes his bag and says, “Dinner is almost ready, why don’t you sit down?” He gets into his recliner and leans back, his stress visibly fading away. She joyfully brings him a small plate of freshly made cookies and some milk. He thanks her with an expression of mingled gratitude and relief and takes the cookie. While he snacks she says, “How about later…” and bends over and whispers something in his ear while brushing her hand up his leg. The man responds with a large, expectant smile.

Cut to her calling out that dinner is ready. The man goes to the table to find a delicious home-cooked meal of steak and potatoes, his cute, happy children run up to the table. His wife wipes the dirt smudges off of one of the rascals as they sit down. The man looks on proudly as he sits at the head of the table. His wife sits to his right. She looks at him with an expectant smile, her hand on his arm, and he proudly says grace for the family.

During the prayer fade to black and end with the tagline: Worth being a man for.

Boom. I’d want buy that product. I don’t know a man who wouldn’t.

I’d happily man-up to come home to that; I’d happily work 70 hour weeks to come home to that; I would happily sacrifice quite a bit to come home to that. So, would most men. Most men would willingly sacrifice their left nut for that.

So, some marketing advice to Mr. Driscoll. If you want men to man-up and marry, make marriage seem like something rewarding for men.

McDonald’s doesn’t sell cheeseburgers by having a fat, ugly man eat them in his dingy basement while playing WoW and sobbing to himself. They sell cheeseburgers by showing groups of realistically attractive people having fun together while eating cheeseburgers.

Likewise, you don’t make men desire to man-up and marry by showing marriage as a demasculating process of having your pride, virility, and freedom slowly drained from you by an ugly, domineering shrew. You make men want to get married by showing marriage as a refuge from the cares of the world occupied by a pretty, loving, nurturing woman.

Then again, my campaign might be false advertising for most men. Driscoll might get sued.

1-10 Scale: An Analysis

Last week I wrote about the Archetypical Modern Women. It was my most popular post ever by views and was also one of my most commented posts as well. Most manospherians liked the post, but there was one common criticism that seemed  virtually unanimous: I overrated the woman, she was not a 7. The consensus seemed to be she was a 5, although a couple commented she was a 3 or even lower.

I explained my reasoning in the comments: “she’s thin, young-ish with a moderately cute face. She’s not beautiful, but a youngish, plain sort of pretty with a slim build would fit my definition of a 7.”

I generally don’t use the scale in real life; in fact, I can not remember ever having using it in RL, but there’s a small possibility I have. In normal conversation, the scale is kind of silly; the descriptors of beautiful, cute, unattractive, etc. are usually more than good enough and are more humanizing. (That and a numerical scale sounds sort of spergy, and I have enough problems with that as it is).

On the other hand, I occasionally use it on the blog as it is a simple comparative method; more human descriptor cans be open to interpretation and can have different meanings. While a numerical scale at least gives the illusion of objectivity.

But after the criticism of my assigning the label 7 I wanted to figure this out, my inner data nerd was aroused, so I’m going to analyze this more. I’ll warn you now, this is going to get spergy and is going to be dehumanizingly analytical.

Oh, and before I begin, Truthmosis at RotK has a post up on the scale that I came across while writing this. Check it out.

I’d also like to point out that, to some degree, beauty is subjective, so a numerical scale is not the be-all-end-all of female beauty. There are certain objective metrics of beauty: a 0.7 hip-to-waist ratio, symmetry, and other such indicators of fertility and health, that (almost) all men are naturally drawn towards. These can be a basis for an “objective” 1-10 scale.

But outside of that, there are numerous subjective factors on which men disagree. For example, I really like fair-skinned, light-haired, innocent-looking women (ie. cute women) and detest tattoos and piercings. A tongue piercing disgusts me and is an automatic 3-point drop. So, if I were to rate a woman with a tongue piercing a 5, others who don’t find it disgusting, might rate that woman an 8. Another example: I’ve never figured out why the Captain likes Jennifer Aniston or many men like Angelina Jolie; never seen the appeal.

Anyway, with that caveat out of the way, here we go.

****

The first thing to do when creating a scale is decide the system the scale will use. The two major ones are the bell curve and the decile system. Men as a whole tend to use a bell curve system (on a 5-point scale), but I’ve tended to think in a decile system.

In a normal bell curve system (and looks would be normally distributed) a scale would be related to standard deviation. In standard deviation, 68% of all women would fall within one standard deviation from the mean, while 95% of all women would fall within two, and 99% would fall within three.

In a 1-10 scale 5 would be the mean. Most like we’d use 2 sigma (SD:2.5) above the mean to signify a 10 and 2 sigma below to signify a 0. 1 sigma would make far too many 10s, and 3 sigmas would mean only 2% of woman are above a 7+.

A 2 sigma scale would mean means that about 2% of woman would be 10s and 2% would be 0s. About 14% would be 7.5-9.5s and another 14% of woman would be 0.5-2.5s. The vast majority of woman (68%) would be 2.5s-7.5s.

We could also use a 2 sigma to signify 1s and 9s (SD:2). On this scale 2% of woman would be 9+ and another 2% would be below <1. 14% of woman would be 7-9 and another 14% of woman would be 1-3. The large majority of woman (68%) would be 3-7s.

If I were to use a bell curve, the latter is likely the one I would use because no one uses 0 on the 1-10 looks scale and many think (and I agree) that there are no 10s. Limits could easily be put at .1 and 9.9 without negatively effecting the rest of the scale. Not to mention the use of whole numbers rather than decminals greatly simplifies the scale.

So, if we’re scaling women’s looks on a 1-10 (Mean:5, SD:2) we can use a stanine scale to find the proportion of woman at each number.

On the other hand, if we use a decile system 10% of women would be 1s, 10% would be 10s, etc.

The former is more useful for statistical calculation, the latter is easier to use for everyday talk. It is a lot easier to calculate: she’s a 10 because she’s in the top 10% of people, she’s a nine because she’s in the 80-90% range, etc. than it is to calculate: she’s a 9 because she’s 2 SD above the mean and is in the top 4% of woman.

In more practical immediate effect, the former will result in a lot of 4-6s and few 1s and 9s, while the latter will result in an even distribution of all types of woman.

****

Knowing this, how can we systematize the calculation of where an individual woman falls on this scale. That”s likely impossible because beauty is to some degree subjective, but we can give it a shot. This analysis will focus on adult women of child-bearing age because menopausal women are no longer sexually attractive.

In the US 32% of women aged 20-39 are obese. If we used the decile system, that would mean the obese take up all of 1s through 3s. If we used the bell curve, the obese take up 1-3 and most of the 4s as well.

But obesity is not the only indicator of unattractiveness, some women just have the bad luck to be born with a deformity of an extremely unattractive face. If, for simplicities sake, we estimated that 8% of women are simply born deformedly ugly (not unattractive or plain, just ugly), that means that on both scales 1-4s are made up of the deformed and fat.

So, simply not being obese or deformed would immediately make a woman a 5 in either scale.

Back to weight, in addition to the the obese are the overweight. 64% of adult women are either obese (BMI >= 30) (36%) or overweight (BMI of 25-29.9) (28%), so we’ll assume the 28% overweight rate hold for women 20-39. So, we now have 60% of women aged 20-39 who are overweight or fat, but let’s remove 5 percentage points because the BMI does sometimes classify fit people with muscle as being overweight. So about 55% of child-bearing age woman are unattractive due to be overweight or obese.

I can not find any numbers on the percentage of woman that are unattractive due to face alone, so I’ll have to make up some assumptions. Let’s assume, for the sake of ease, that 10% of women who are not fat, have faces that are unattractive enough, that a moderately fat woman with a decent face would rate higher on a scale.

With that assumption we now come to 65% of women are either fat or as unattractive as a fat woman.

(Check out this BMI visualizer to understand what is meant by overweight and obese).

In a decile scale that means that a woman who is not fat or equally unattractive is automatically a 7; in a normal distribution scale a woman who is not fat or equally unattractive is automatically a 6.

This gives us a starting base.

I do not have the time or ability to start messing around with the ins and outs of symmetry, eye size, distance between the eyes and mouth, and all the other micro-variations that distinguish beauty. Suffice to say though that most men can tell objective beauty of these micro-variations fairly easily.

So, we can assume they’d mostly agree.

****

Based on this here’s a 1-10 scale we can use based on the decile system.

1-4: Obese and/or deformedly ugly
5: Fat or ugly
6: Chubby with a cute face or unattractive
7: Plain, not fat
8: Somewhat attractive
9: Slim and pretty
10: Curvy and beautiful

Here’s on based upon normal distribution:

1-4: Obese and/or deformedly ugly
5: Fat, chubby with an unattractive face, or ugly
6: Plain, not fat or chubby with a cute face
7: Slim and pretty
8: Curvy and beautiful
9: The best of the best (very rare)
10: Does not exist

The normal distribution lumps the middling and moderately attractive categories together but allows for the distinguishment of the really beautiful from the beautiful, while the decile scale allows for more distinguishment from the middling, but lumps all the beautiful together under 10.  The decile system leaves more distinguishment in those of middling beauty, but lumps the good looking into 2 categories.

From the impression I get from people write on the manosphere, they seem to use the normal distribution system. If we go back to Truthmosis’ discussion of the topic we can see that his scale more or less matches the normal distribution, as does his picture scale.

So, I guess I should start using the normal distribution scale to match up with others around here.

****

Anyway, back to the women who started this discussion:

As we can see, she’d probably be plain, not fat. So, my initial impression of her as a 7 on the decile system was correct. If we used a normal distribution she’d be a 6.

Someone ranking her a 5 is implying she’s ugly, which I do not think this picture supports. Whoever ranked her as a 3 is just dead wrong; she’s neither obese nor deformedly ugly.

****

A few last notes:

I knew the obesity crisis was bad, but I was surprised that 64% of adult women and 74% of adult men are overweight. That’s just plain nuts.

Also, only about 40% of women would be attractive enough to be worth even considering marrying (not even including other factors). So, if you’re looking to marry, make sure you’re in the top 40% of men or you’re going to end up with someone fat or unattractive.

I hope you’ve enjoyed my spergy little analysis.

The Archetypal Modern Woman

I think we now have the physical incarnation of the manosphere archetype of The Modern Woman. From this point on, when someone wonders what the manosphere means by the modern woman, we have a specific person we can point to.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you: Tracy Clark-Flory.

You may have heard of her before, but the dude did not take my advice to RUN NOW, so the story just got better. But before I get to that, I’m going to outline exactly how she makes the perfect archetype of the modern woman.

We can start with the double-name, which came pre-marriage, suggesting she comes from a feminist line. She has your typical worthless degree (BA in English from a Californian liberal arts college) and a job at the liberal rag Salon writing about sex and relationships.  We can see from her profile picture above that she was fairly good-looking, a solid 7.

That’s a good start, but it gets ever so much more entertaining.

During her pretty years, she spent her youth on hooking-up and casual relationships. In her owns words, at 24 she “had roughly three times as many hookups as relationships,” but she’s not a slut as she “never had a one-night stand, only several-nights stands.” She passionately defended the hook-up culture arguing it never hurt her going through guys like she was “making an enthusiastic check mark next to every box” on “the Career Center’s job placement questionnaire.

She did indeed have fun times in her youth, but they did not last. A couple of years later, she still defends the hook-up culture and encourages one night stands, but she softens saying, “maybe we’re beginning to also allow ourselves more nuanced feelings about our hookups.  Like Klausner and Anderson, we can now acknowledge regret over a one-night stand, without being considered, or seeing ourselves as, forever ruined women…”

Just a year later, she begins to express second thoughts about casual sex, stating that most people find friends with benefits relationships to be “overwhelmingly negative.” “At some point [she] realized that, despite [her] insistence otherwise, [she] actually wanted those sorts of intimacies, only with an actual commitment.”

Her descent into absolute sluttery isn’t quite done yet though. Two years later, in 2012, she sees her favourite male porn star in a bar, and decide she has to fuck him. So she does. The sex is the narssicistic, hollow, rote sex one would expect from such an encounter:

It’s exactly what I had breathlessly watched him do many times before, but this time it seemed mechanical and theatrical. Instead of being entertained, I was doing the entertaining, and I suspect he was too — but for whom, exactly? We were the only audience.”

“Despite the emptiness of it, [she] felt a sense of accomplishment over my conquest.” Yet, a little while later she begins to question herself and “began to feel shameful”, “What kind of man will want to be with a woman who’s slept with a male porn star?”

But don’t worry, her hollow, meaningless sex had meaning and made her a better person. She now has “a whole new appreciation for the difference between fantasy and reality, and how much sexier the latter can be when you aren’t striving for pornographic perfection.”

By pure coincidence, “not too long thereafter I got into a relationship with just such a guy.” This had absolutely nothing with the the profound sadness and hollowness she felt from her “conquest”.

At this point she’s careening towards the wall face-first:

The combination of aging and her empty experience with the porn star send her into a frenzy of self-introspection. She realized she “spent her twenties having lots of good sex, but faked her way through nearly every climax.” She “now climax[es] reliably, sometimes even effortlessly, with Steve [which] seems nothing short of a miracle.” She finds out she likes having relationships, even ones which grow out of hook-ups.

Realizing that she likes relationships, she then does exactly what every modern women does when faced with age and emptiness, starts demanding “real courtship.” Just half a year after she shags a male pornstar on the first night and writes about her awesome relationship with Steve, she finds a new beau. But this one is different, this beta boy doesn’t start with hook-ups, like Steve, no, he brings her aging self flowers. She is “shocked to find that traditional courtship is pretty great.” Yay for her.

But unlike the porn star or Steve, beta boy does not get sex that same night. Nope, beta boy is special and “there’s a specialness in waiting until you’re comfortable enough with someone to get naked together while totally sober.” Beta boy has to work for what she gave the rest of the world so freely. He had to go on five dates, pay for big meals, pick her up in a cab, etc. before he got what McPornstar and Steve got for being available in a bar.

With her newfound love of traditional courtship (ie. making beta boy earn her sex and love), she then starts trying to convince everyone that men love relationships, but dislike casual sex, because that would be convenient would it not?

Recently, we found at she has a happy ending to her tale. She’s getting married to beta boy and is talking about becoming a mommy. In a shocking twist, it turns out beta boy was actually  someone she first met “around the same time that I wrote that first hookup essay.”

Looks like beta boy’s been pining away for five years and finally made good (after she spent the last of her youth on dozens of other men).

She could have had his love the whole time, but “even if [she] could, [she] wouldn’t in a million years go back and shake [her] 23-year-old self and tell her that she’d already met her future fiancé.” She just loves her memories of empty fucks with pornstars and her relationship with Steve far too much to give them up for boring old love with beta boy.

But this is good for beta boy because she “would have loved him the same.” Why her “hookup years made [her] more accepting of [her] fiancé’s imperfections.” Can’t you just feel the love she has for him.

Having had her alpha fux and having secured her beta bux, she is still encouraging other women to follow in her path. Her story is a “reminder that the hookup hand-wringers are wrong, and not to be trusted.” It’s a story of true love winning out; young women can fuck whoever they want and still end up with a pliable beta to pay for their children.

****

So, in a nutshell, Tracy Clark-Flory is the the stereotypical, nay, archetypical, modern woman. She fucks uncountable alphas, ignoring the beta who likes her, throughout her years of youth and prettiness. She realizes how empty it all is, but only once the wall approaches and the good times are coming to an end, so she uses the last of her fading feminine charms to husband-up the barely tolerable beta.

All that’s needed now is her complaints about how beta boy won’t divide the chores properly, followed by a story of how she’s falling out of love with him, followed by her divorce within the decade. Then there will be stories about how being a single mother is hard, how dating as a single mother is hard, and how there are no good men left.

If we’re lucky (and beta boy isn’t) there might even be a hilarious story of how she pined for Steve throughout the years of her marriage to beta boy.

So, whenever someone demands an example of alpha fux/beta bux, or wonders what we mean by the modern woman, we only need to point them to this post.

Here’s to you Tracy Clark-Flory, you are the Archetype of the Modern Woman!

You won the mating game. You got the alpha fux and have almost attained the beta bux. To you we raise up a rousing course of “da professional womenz ode.”

****

I’ll say it one last time, just in case he comes across this:

To the guy marrying Tracy: RUN AWAY. Run as hard and as fast as you can before you are legally bound to her. Do it; this will not end well for you. I hope, for your sake, you find this and take heed my warning. If you don’t lulz will be had at your expense in the future.

****

A lot of the information was cribbed from Susan and Vox.

MGTOW, MRA, and the Long March

I’ve written on the long march before and how the progressivists goal is to have us dependent on the state, how the alt-right, manosphere, and their issues are all related and at war with progressive unreality, and how we can fight the progressivists, or at least protect a remnant to rebuild when state-backed unreality is no longer sustainable.

The goal of the long march is to get us dependent on the state. The most effective way to do this is by destroying the community ties that bind us and create civil society. These voluntary, local ties to the individuals around us allow us to live free and independent from the state.

The strongest of these social ties are marriage and the nuclear family, so these are the ones attacked the most by the anti-civilization forces.

One tool in destroying the family is destroying male-female relationships, so that they never join together to become families in the first place. So, you end up with men writing things like this. Through feminism making modern marriage inhospitable to modern man, man stops caring about and for women and preemptively removes himself from the family.

But feminism is not the end goal of the state-worshippers, it is but one step in the process. The next step is the adoption of Men’s Rights and/or MGTOW. As No Ma’am outlines:

So, what’s next? What were the original goals of this Cultural Marxist plan? Well, in regard to the ladies, it was to achieve “true equality” by putting women back into the public work force, thereby destroying the entire concept of the family. In order to do this, women must be relieved of their biology as mothers, which is why V.I. Lenin instituted such things as no-fault divorce, easy abortion, community kitchens, sewing centers, housekeeping services, and state-run daycares. The goal of this, however, was not to “empower” women. That’s just what was said. Quite frankly, if you want to argue that Lenin was altruistically helping women be all they could be, you would be sorely mistaken. The goal was to take children away from their parents and bring them under the control of the state, instead of parents. Families, say Marx, Engels, Lenin and Feminists, are the founding cornerstone of Capitalism, and therefore all discrimination and oppression ultimately stems from the family.

But, no matter how much women hate men today, and no matter how much money they make shuffling papers around mindlessly in their cubicles, do you think that women would ever willingly give up their own children?

I think not!

The way to remove children from their mothers, via Marxist techniques, would be to abandon the cause of women and take up the cause of men. It can easily be pointed out now that it is men who are not treated equally, and dialectically speaking, it is quite easy to see how disenfranchised fathers could be manipulated into thinking shared-parenting (or, marriage 3.0) is in everyone’s best interests, and thereby empower the government to take custody of children away from mothers and place them in the custody of the State –  who will then decide a baby-sitting schedule for the sperm and egg donors. It is also not a stretch for oversight committees to be erected to ensure the “ongoing best interests of the child.” Heck, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s thesis compared children in the family to the corruption Indians experienced on the reserve. That wingnut Marxist believes that the government should create a new bureaucracy to represent children separately from their parents. In other words, each child ought to have a legal-aid lawyer representing them, so that their parents don’t abuse their power over them.
…
The idea of government taking custody of children today, however, is much greater than in the past. As the Bull Market in Anti-Feminism develops, more and more fathers are going to demand the government grants shared-parenting, which is quite obviously the foundation for government taking custody of children. Is it such a stretch of the imagination to see courts appointing government representatives – an unelected bureaucracy – instead of parents, who will decide what is “in the best interests of the child?”

Just because a backlash is developing against feminism does not mean it is a good thing, nor that it can only benefit men and society. Many of the things the MRM are requesting is in line with feminism – DV shelters for men is one example, and would only serve to increase government power in the home, not decrease it.

I can’t bear the thought of men being manipulated into becoming Useful Idiots who further feminist and Marxist goals.

Can you?

We have no great love for MRA’s here. While we do agree with some of their goals, fighting progressivism with greater progressivism (excepting in the case of well-executed black-knighting) is a fruitless endeavour. It will simply further drive another nail into the coffin of Western civilization.

MRA’s are not the solution, they are a distraction.

As well, going your own way is not the solution. With MGTOW, the family is even further destroyed. By removing himself from society, the MGTOW only further helps lessen the importance of family.

Same with PUA’s who are only the other side of the self-destructive hook-up culture.

As a man, you are meant for more than burning yourself out on the hedonic treadmill to feed the tyranny of the state.

****

Now, I am not encouraging you to ‘man up and marry that slut’. In fact, do not marry a slut or a women with baby rabies; a destructive marriage ending in divorce is worse for society than no marriage at all.

Find a good wife if you can.

In fact, I’m not telling you not to be a PUA, an MRA, or a MGTOW. You are free man, do what you want. Besides, there are probably not enough good wives out there for every man, so many will have to find an alternative.

All I want, is for you to think about it. To know that by fighting progressivism with more progressivism or by simply stopping caring, you are not helping the problem and are probably hurting yourself in the long run.

If you decide trying to fight the system is too much of a pain and want to be a MGTOW, I won’t condemn you, in fact I sympathize. If you decide that fucking sluts is too much fun, that is your perogative, but will you think the same a decade from now when every pussy feels the same and the mechanical sex is little better than emotionlessly masturbating into a very realistic sex doll?

Make an informed choice that is all.

Then again, maybe the system is doomed, and the PUA’s, MRA’s and MGTOW’s are simply hastening its inevitable collapse and hopeful rebirth. In which case, maybe they are doing civilization a service.

The Cathedral Footsoldiers

The Karamazov Idea has gone down and just a week or so after I added him to my blogroll. It seems he pissed off the feminists (this link is the second highest Google result for Karamazov Idea) and was threatened with being doxed. (Before he went he made this good post examining empirically the types of women who get tattoos. Check it out on this archived page.)

You may also remember that earlier this year CDM-N went down in a similar situation. A similar thing could have happened when Lindy West of Jezebel attacked Victor Pride, but Victor Pride fought back and he’s now given up his anonymity. Numerous other blogs in our little corner of the internet have had trouble with being doxed, outed, or real life attacks.

In larger culture, this has also happened to public individuals like John Derbyshire, James Watson, and, recently, Jason Richwine. It doesn’t matter how small or big you are, they will try to shut you down. Even in national politics we can see this, such as the recent IRS case.

Now, this is a common tactic of the left, using their bullying power to shut down people whose ideas they don’t like. The religion of the Cathedral is Truth and heretics must be stamped out. Thankfully, they haven’t gotten to burning people at the stake, yet, they simply try to take away your livelihood and economic future.

The left, supposed “free-thinkers” who love “critical thinking”, will try to remove your livelihood from you simply for expressing an opinion, or in Richwine’s case, simply presenting facts. But of course, we all know the left doesn’t like actual free-thought or critical thinking, these are simply code-words for intellectual stultifying conformity.

Eventually, unless something changes, these kinds of witchhunts will simply result in shooting. At some point, the right is going to get sick of fearing constantly for their jobs and their family’s food simply because of their political opinions. This will result in them realizing we have all the guns and the cowards at Jezebel, Gawker, et al. have purposefully disarmed themselves. The ‘fight’ at this point will be rather one-sided, maybe enough so to simply be a ‘cleansing’.

But that’s for the future. Right now, for us here in the manosphere/alt-right, this means we have to be aware of their tactics. There are three ways to deal with this: either need to have nothing to lose, such as Victor Pride who works for himself, or we must be willing to accept the costs of being the leftists’ enemies, such as Vox Day who has said before that he has lost work because of his writings (but I can’t find the link), or we must simply be anonymous, then back out when the threats come and let someone else takeover, such as with CDM-N and Karamazov. (There’s also the possibility of just being a fun guy like Danny, who no one seems to take offense to).

For myself, for now, I choose anonymity, it’s easier, but as a single man with no family to support and in a unionized government job, I’m not overly worried about being doxed.

Remember, be aware of the risks, but don’t let them stifle you. Leftists may be controlling, close-minded, tyrannical assholes, but they are not omnipotent.

****

Martel remarked at SSM’s:

In regards to blogs shutting down and the like, I though WE were the supposed oppressors. If we’re so damn oppressive, then how is it so easy for the oppressed to completely wreck our lives?

There are countless oppressors like Rollo and Roissy who have to blog anonymously (even me, although I’m not in their league yet), but victims of oppression like Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Wakeman use their real names. It’s like the oppressors are afraid of something but the oppressed aren’t.

However much the left might pretend they’re “fighting the power” or how oppressed they are, they’re lying to gain ideological points. The left has a firm grip on the levers of power.

The power differential is easy to see; leftists do not have to worry about being fired or having their anonymity slip because there are no repercussions for being a leftist. Rightests have to steel themselves and prepare, because being a heretic can end your career and economic livelihood.

****

Now having said that, I just want to examine that blog post about Karamazov’s post and its comments a bit.

The title of the blog post attacked Karamazov, “Karamazov Idea” Says Tattoos Make You A Slut. Of course, IIRC he argued that sluts where tattoos, not that tattoos caused sluttiness; the writer failed to distinguish cause from effect, but then again logic and feminists tend to have an adversarial relationship.

Now, one thing that will surprise no one, is that despite being against judging people on sexual history (the quip about “slut assignment” being case in point) they do seem to be a sexually judgmental lot. Some quotes from sluts who are opposed to sexual judgmentalism:

I have a $100 wager running that if this guy ever sees a naked woman in real life, he curls into a fetal position and vomits on himself.

I’m thinking that Christian Mingle wouldn’t even fuck him.

Sounds like someone was rejected by a woman with tattoos!

He’s totally a virgin.

Frustrated virgin dud really hates women who’re giving it up to everyone but him.

You’ll get laid someday little buddy.

Seething Dude w/ mommy-issues compounded by can’t-get-laid issues is seething.

Something tells me this guy has been rejected by too many tattooed women.

Pretty sure this is a sixteen year old boy who is super sad that he’s never seen pair of boobs in person.

That guy is a fucking douche. Majority of the female population has some kind of ink. So therefore no pussy for him. And he’s mad. I can read the anger through his little bitch boy post (s). He needs a high five to the face by a fierce tattooed up chick.

The only response I have for “Realism” [ed: one of the few sane people in the comments] is “HELLLOOOOO VIRGIN!” and this:

They are infuriating at first until you realize that they are just the new generation of guys who play Magik the Gathering and hold resentment that their moms made them zip up their jacket in front of girls.

Dude, you’re a 23 year old “man” with obvious mother issues. Sort yourself out before you die alone.

mommy issues… right???

Come hither, young Karamazov. I want to show you something fun you can do with your penis. No, it doesn’t involve sticking it in me. But it will be fun, and probably the closest thing you will experience to actual sex with a woman.

Here’s some of these people who are against discriminating against people based on their body:

Agreed… this guy has a teeny tiny little penis.

What this guy looks like in my mind. [image of fat, ugly man]

If only you had an echo chamber to console your tiny, lonely penis.

He does – it’s called his right hand. [ed. following prior comment]

He reminds of the dudes in grad school who used “intellectualism” and an interested in Christian theology as an excuse to say nasty things about women.

FWIW- those dudes were unattractive, socially awkward and didn’t get into their top choice PhD programs (or any).

Now, it should come as no surprise to most by now, but feminists are hypocritical when it comes to judgment. Men can not judge the sexual history of women, but at the same time those same women will happily judge a man’s presumed sexual history. “Slut-shaming” is evil sexism, but “virgin-shaming” is great. Shaming fatties and tattooed sluts who chose to deface their bodies is wrong, shaming a man through libelous accusations of having a small penis is thoroughly acceptable.

Remember, for the Jezebel and Feministing types, modern feminism has little to do with logic or principles and is simply the ideological wrapping-paper for the selfish entitlement complexes of sluts. Hypocrisy and illogic are all you can expect.

I wonder how these people would react if Karamazov called someone a cunt:

WOW I HOPE YOU NEVER GET LAID YOU MAN CUNT. ;D

Here’s a bit of irony:

Does any woman really care what this asshole or any man, for that matter, thinks?

This is being asked while 9 pages of women bitch and act offended by what he said. I know logic isn’t the feminists’ strong suit, but if any feminist reads this: [Protip]: not caring is the opposite of spending 9 pages bitching and being offended. Also, it’s kind of hard to argue no woman cares, when at least one spent enough effort to track him down in real life and threaten to ruin his anonimity. One woman even cared enough to start their own blog solely because of this post.

It seems women care a hell of a lot when someone points out that maybe making stupid choices in life is not the wisest move.

The best quote though, is this one:

I’ve been seriously toying with the idea of getting a tattoo for quite some time now but have been on the fence. Now, thanks to the Karamazov Idea… I know I definitely want one! So thanks a bunch douche bag!

You can really see the high level of decision-making skills in these gals: “Imma gonna permenently deface myself to spite some random guy on the internet I’ve never met and I think is a loser.” Fantastic.

****

Anyway, the point of this post: feminists are often hypocritical, but they have have the cultural power to hurt you, so be aware of that.

Or maybe they’re not hypocrites, but are just inferior beings who hold others to higher standards than they hold themselves.