# A Rational Cost/Benefit Analysis of Marriage

by on November 17, 2009

This study conducted by Professor Paul Frijters of Queensland University in Australia calculates the costs and benefits of marriage. Frijters estimated the sum of money that would be the equivalent of certain life events for married men and women. Naturally, the headline leads one to believe that a man gains the most happiness from a marriage. Scouring through the numbers and analyzing the real-life picture of marriage shows a different outcome for men. While this type of study is highly specious, it is interesting to analyze.

When calculating the present value of something, one has to take into account probabilities and the effects of interest rates on the value of future events. The golden rule of finance is “a dollar in the future is worth less than a dollar today.”

A marriage buys \$29,600 (17,700 British pounds) in happiness for a man and only \$14,600 (8700 BP) for women. Marriage is a steal of a deal for the man right? Wrong. A newly married couple has about a 50% chance of divorce which entails higher “costs” for men than women. Perhaps due to the monetary cost or the emotional one, divorces cost \$102,000 (61,100 BP) for men and a paltry \$8,300 (5,000 BP) for women.

Multiplying the costs of divorce by the probability of it occurring gives us a true picture of what the whole rigmarole of marriage costs at the outset – when our whole future is subject to the winds of change and the gina tingles of your potential wife.

If we break out our abaci, we’ll see that the whole marriage package leads to a net present value of negative \$21,400 (\$102,000 times 0.5 plus \$29,600) for men and a \$10,450 gain for women.

Granted, men gain more happiness from having children, according to this study, but it is unclear what the effect is should divorce occur. The study doesn’t break down the numbers to indicate if the high cost for male divorce includes the likely loss in custody issues or child support payments. More importantly, the study doesn’t indicate whether the large benefit men gain from having children is dependent on an intact marriage. Men also suffer a \$16,000 deficit when changing homes.

In all, if we’re to conduct a rational cost/benefit analysis of marriage, men absolutely lose out. From a financial standpoint, an investor should accept projects that have positive net present values. After all of the costs are accounted for and the future income discounted back, if we have a positive value, we should accept the project. Likewise with marriage decisions, if a man has a positive value, he should “invest” regardless of the huge deficiency he has compared to the woman. According to this analysis, if the marriage doesn’t produce children or the costs of divorce are higher or there is a change in domicile, the man should forgo marriage.

rebel November 17, 2009 at 14:38

Interesting enough.

I would like to suggest the same study for men who do not marry. (cohabitation).

I would like to know if it is economically better to cohabit instead of marrying and how much I can save.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck Ross November 17, 2009 at 14:39
Renee November 17, 2009 at 14:46

Well since the study is about marriage itself, would it be accurate to bring in divorce? Personally I believe marriage and divorce should be seen as separate in this study.

Now did this study take into account problems within marriage, especially those that would most likely lead to divorce?

Like or Dislike: 0  3
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 14:47

There is a tremendous amount of sleazy marketing, in which both feminists and socialcons are complicit, to create the illusion that WOMEN are the customers that need to be enticed into marriage.

The diamond industry, the wedding industry, the TV/film industry, all of it portray the woman as the prize.

But no. MEN are the customers. Even if society tries to flip the roles, that cannot last for long.

The product does not deliver as advertised, and while it took a few decades, the customer is wising up. Hence, under current laws, marriage has priced itself out of the market.

Like or Dislike: 2  0
wow November 17, 2009 at 14:49

What about the cost a man puts into his education prior to marriage? I have a friend with 3 degrees, and lives in a friend’s basement. His degrees cost probably \$50K…living on a friend’s couch isn’t exactly a great rate of return?

Of course his ex has the 4 kids, the big house and fights him for equal parenting….

no marriage

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 15:01

Renee,

Only a woman would say what you just did.

Since 90% of all divorces are directly or indirectly initiated by women, AND the costs of divorce fall overwhelmingly on the man, OF COURSE an analysis of marriage has to account for divorce.

Your unthinking point is like saying, “Hey, let’s assume all stocks go up, and then project how much money we made!!”.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Demonspawn November 17, 2009 at 15:11

Renee,

I’ll second what Fifth said. The reason you can separate the two is because women drive divorce.

Look at all divorce indicators:
Her level of education? Affects the chances of divorce.
His level of education? No change in divorce rate.
Her age at marriage? Greatly affects chances of divorce.
His age at marriage? No effect in divorce rate.

So on, so forth.

Out of the multitude of divorce rate factors, there are only two I know of where the man matters: Has he previously been divorced and are his parents still married. And even in both of those factors the delta for the husband is much smaller than the delta for the wife.

Women are the deciders of divorce. As such, it is feasible for a woman to declare that the two are separate. It is not feasible for a man to separate the two.

Like or Dislike: 2  0
Omega Man November 17, 2009 at 15:14

I think the risk/reward analysis will be different for different types of men. Some will gain more than others, and others will have a higher probability of loss. I conjecture the benefit is least for high status men; I have though that it is also low for low status men, but I’m not entirely sure about that now.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 17, 2009 at 15:19

Renee –

Given that the overall divorce rate is around 50%, I think that divorce is a fundamental aspect of the reality of contemporary marriage. With divorce rates that high, any study that approaches marital happiness which does not take into account divorce would have to be seen as deliberately misleading.

Like or Dislike: 2  0
Novaseeker November 17, 2009 at 15:25

I conjecture the benefit is least for high status men; I have though that it is also low for low status men, but I’m not entirely sure about that now.

The most stable marriages are in the demographic where both parties have college degrees or better — this is the demo with the lowest divorce rate. This suggests, as economist Betsey Stevenson has pointed out, that at some point the raw consumptive combination of these couples incomes is what serves as the practical glue to keep the marriage together — each “needs” the other, in a relative sense, because they both become addicted to the higher consumptive power they have together as compared to what they would have if separate. Some of these men may be high status men, as well.

It appears that in every other demographic, though, marriage rates are lower, and divorce rates are higher — suggesting that women generally are less inclined to marry and more inclined to divorce men who do not bring as much to the table. Of course we knew that intuitively, in a sense, but the stats bear it out as well.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Max November 17, 2009 at 15:46

That’s interested that someone so smart (the professor) had to conduct a study and do actual math to figure this out.

Any married man (or man in a long term relationship) will tell you all about the horrible cramp in their ass for free . . .

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Wears a helmet November 17, 2009 at 15:57

I don’t know what Frijters is a professor of, but this sure sounds like a sociology study. What a comical pseudo/social science.

The article states, “We know for instance that marriage improves the lives of men much more than women.” Actually, we don’t know anything of the sort. I’ve read summaries of studies that have reached that conclusion, and their “logic” would get them laughed out of any real science field. They don’t ask unmarried men about their happiness and then ask the same men about their happiness after, say, ten years of marriage. Instead they ask unmarried men about their happiness and unmarried men about their happiness, and they find that happier men are more likely to be married. Gee, do you think that maybe men who have good careers and incomes are both happier and more likely to be considered a desirable partner by women?

Good chance these silly studies just put the cart before the horse. Maybe happier men are more likely to get married, rather than marriage making men happy. But that seems to be too difficult a thought process for someone engaging in sociology.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
David Brandt November 17, 2009 at 15:59

That’s interested that someone so smart (the professor) had to conduct a study and do actual math to figure this out.

Any married man (or man in a long term relationship) will tell you all about the horrible cramp in their ass for free . . .

I agree with the exception of men in the ‘honeymoon’ stage, they are clueless. Give em’ a few years. I write as a man with experience, and the best analogy I can offer is that of being in prison with a really nasty cellmate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Wears a helmet November 17, 2009 at 15:59

Sorry
“Instead they ask unmarried men about their happiness and unmarried men about their happiness, and they find that happier men are more likely to be married.”

Should be
“Instead they ask unmarried men about their happiness and they ask married men about their happiness, and they find that happier men are more likely to be married.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
crella November 17, 2009 at 16:01

Sometimes because I think they dare not say otherwise!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 16:03

Of all the married men I know who appear to be happy (judging from their body language and facial lines), 100% of their happiness is from their children.

Just about NO man who is 5+ years into marriage, is receiving any real happiness from his wife, except on the margins (she cooks a few things I like, etc.), OR she is hands-off to the extent that she lets him pursue his hobbies without nagging.

So if the best-case scenario is merely the absence of nagging, that is not very good.

I say this trying to maintain as unbiased an assessment as possible (something women are largely incapable of).

More simply, when men Google for pictures/videos of women on the Internet, what percentage of those pictures are of women over 35? Over 40? Virtually nil.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 16:05

Renee:

When you enter into something for the long-term, do you totally neglect the chance or cost of something going wrong?

Novaseeker is right: Perhaps if divorce was a rare occurence , or didn’t hurt either partner very much on average, it could be ignored. Given that the costs to men of divorce are high, esp where children are involved (and I don’t just talk monetary costs, custody battles or visitation interferences suck enough that quite a few men kill themselves over them) it only makes sense to consider the financial costs of divorce as without being married you cannot get divorced.

What this really does is show that marriage is a poor proposition for men these days. It’s an unenforceable sham of a “contract” that stands a good chance (yes, not all divorces are horrible, but I’d say probably at least half are less than ideal in terms of hostility, financial loss, etc) of breaking his wallet as well as his heart.

I like how the “news” packages it to fit a feminist narrative: hey look if you stay married ladies you don’t get as much financially out of marriage as men do! Sexism! Exploiting women! Male pigs!

Never mind that both are benefitting financially from the intact marriage (even though most of the reasons he’s coming out “ahead” are that so many women work part time or just stay at home), and never mind that love in a good marriage is worth infinately many dollars in a way and is good for both of their healths.

I bet many people will just skim the article, not read the study and that at least a few wives will have an easier conscience about divorcing the “exploitive bastard”.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
kis November 17, 2009 at 16:07

This is totally counter to my reality, but I already know I’m the exception that proves the rule.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 16:13

Of all the married men I know who appear to be happy (judging from their body language and facial lines), 100% of their happiness is from their children.

Just about NO man who is 5+ years into marriage, is receiving any real happiness from his wife, except on the margins (she cooks a few things I like, etc.), OR she is hands-off to the extent that she lets him pursue his hobbies without nagging.

Than you don’t no any married men who have fulfilled their proper role of being the Patriarch and head of their family…

…or a married man that still keeps the flame of attraction alive through game.

Like or Dislike: 0  1
clarence November 17, 2009 at 16:15

Well , kis, remember he is going by averages.

I suspect in Canada, Britain, and the United States your current situation would be anomaly these days. Women usually win in divorce, if kids are involved. What happened to you seems to have happened because of some choices you made about what you would not do during the divorce and a bit of bad luck both in partner, and in law.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 16:21

TFH, you’ve never seen a good marriage?

I’ve seen both kinds. My parents were at each other’s throats nearly every day that they were together for 22 years.

I lived with or near my maternal grandparents for about 3 years of my life. I hardly ever heard them speak a harsh word to each others and smiles were common over the course of their 52 year marriage. They were married until my grandfather died and today, over ten years later, my Grandmother still gets a wistful smile whenever he comes up in conversation.

I agree with Dave in Hawaii. Yeah, women have some bad brainwashing going on these days and are in the US and most western countries very spoiled on average, but it would still help if the dominant cultural memes in Britain and the USA and Canada weren’t so anti-game in their messages to men.

Ironically I think if more men started “gaming” in their marriages the divorce rate would go down and marital happiness would go up- but there’s be more calls of domestic violence and more men in jail, simply because wifey didn’t like the fact that hubby finally got the balls to look at her sideways when cleaning the floor in his petticoat.

I only half exaggerate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 16:24

but there’s be more calls of domestic violence and more men in jail, simply because wifey didn’t like the fact that hubby finally got the balls to look at her sideways when cleaning the floor in his petticoat.

I only half exaggerate.

Hah! I also don’t doubt that some of the more egregious cases of real domestic violence, where a man beats the living tar out of his wife/girlfriend, could also be the result of a beaten and whipped, beta-ized man that finally snaps under his woman’s increasing contempt, nagging, bitching and frigidity.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 16:25

When you enter into something for the long-term, do you totally neglect the chance or cost of something going wrong?

Heh. How many of the top hedge-fund managers and venture capitalists (fields where easily-measured results are visible, and compensation tracks performance closely), are women?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
kis November 17, 2009 at 16:25

Never mind that both are benefitting financially from the intact marriage (even though most of the reasons he’s coming out “ahead” are that so many women work part time or just stay at home), and never mind that love in a good marriage is worth infinately many dollars in a way and is good for both of their healths.

I’m glad you concede that men can benefit financially and might actually get LOVE within a marriage. So few men here believe that anymore.

Perhaps the best way to weigh the financial benefits of marriage for a SAHM wife is to break down her duties within the home (cooking, cleaning, child care, sex, etc) at fair market wages, and then subtract applicable “income taxes”, her share of mortgage/utilities, her car payment and associated costs, her personal purchases, her share of food consumption, half of all mutual bills and purchases, etc.

My sister pays her live in nanny/housekeeper a base salary, then subtracts room and board. Of course, the nanny gets downtime, but she’s expected to still contribute to domestic chores to a lesser degree–like a roommate would–during her time off.

My ex would likely have owed me money (perhaps more than he earned, lol), but I doubt that would be true for most women.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
kis November 17, 2009 at 16:26

Than you don’t no any married men who have fulfilled their proper role of being the Patriarch and head of their family…

…or a married man that still keeps the flame of attraction alive through game.

Oh, HL, if you ever do break up with her…

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 16:28

TFH, you’ve never seen a good marriage?

I’ve seen men so enamored with their kids that the ‘whole deal’ is a positive for them, despite the wife being a liability on the balance sheet of happiness.

But the husband-wife relationship being truly happy and joyous after 10.15. 2o years in, rather than just ‘tolerable’? *Extremely* rare, except for men of unusual Game, and/or of a bygone generation (born before WW2). Your grandparents qualify as this group.

But of people born after 1960, who are more than 5 years in, yes, I will say the happiness the wife directly provides is almost zero for the man.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 16:29

Dave:

Ironically, I disagree with my good friend Knack and the PUA community in general about all women wanting dominance in their men. Their do seem to be some naturally dominant women who either seek a submissive or much less intelligent partner (please understand in this context I’m not talking bdsm male slave /sub “games”) and get off being cruel and capricious to him or they don’t get married at all. I submit there are very few if ANY women in this world who have never met a man at least as dominant as them, so it’s not always a case of settling for a lesser alpha, either. To the fem supremacists and some of the cruel women in this world, any man they entrap really is a worm.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 16:35

…or a married man that still keeps the flame of attraction alive through game.

Oh, I use your example often when telling socialcons how Game is conducive to a good marriage. They go to great lengths to deny ‘Dave in Hawaii’ even exist.

BUT, the unavoidable factor is : Consisten LTG Game is a LOT to expect from the average man, particularly given all the headwinds from television, other women, etc. working against him, on top of all the other responsibilities he has in life.

PLUS, after the woman is 40+, the man will have to draw down deep to feel sufficiently inspired to Game is now less-than-beautiful wife. He may still do it, but summoning up the motivation would be that much harder.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 16:39

I am not proofreading my posts tonight, and it shows. I’m sorry for all the there/their mixups and things. I hope I am being understood.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 16:43

The Fifth Horsemen:

Men and women both age. It’s much easier to age “gracefully” these days than ever before, so if you have one of those “I’ve done enough and so I”m letting myself go” type of wives in her forties, a man with game will at least give her some reason to try and stay in some kind of shape. Gina tingles are good motivators and if they’ve been together for any length of time when her menopause starts to hit her, she’ll probably still have some love to go on.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 16:47

True TFH.

I’ll say this – declining female beauty is an inevitable fact of life. It’s a tradeoff a man can deal with if he’s bonded with her over many other things – like raising children together and her being a pleasant and cheerful and fun person to be with on a daily basis.

Let me say another thing here: any man that is nagged, or bitched at for pursuing past times like fishing, hunting or WHATEVER he likes to do (that isn’t inherently destructive to his familial relationships), does not have the respect of his wife, and has fallen into the mother/son relationship dynamic with his wife instead of the husband/wife dynamic.

I go hunting on the weekends, and I train martial arts 3 times a week…and usually go drinking with my friends late at night on a Friday or Saturday night. I get no nagging, bitching or grumbling about it whatsoever – but always dealt with that back in the bad old “beta-ized” days.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 16:55

HL,

Yes. But what you have done is still substantially beyond the ability of most men.

Not all men can bench-press 400 lbs, not matter how long they train and try to incrementally build strength.

That is the problem.

The headwinds of cultural misandry, other women, the power of the STATE behind the divorce laws, etc. on top of the man’s career duties, chores, fatherly duties, etc. is just too high of a burden. The amount of Game needed to counter all this is going to be more than the average man can overcome.

It is, presently, a very tall order.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
kis November 17, 2009 at 16:57

PLUS, after the woman is 40+, the man will have to draw down deep to feel sufficiently inspired to Game is now less-than-beautiful wife. He may still do it, but summoning up the motivation would be that much harder.

See, now that annoys me, because it assumes the only reason a man could love his wife is for her looks. I’m telling you right now that my mom looked older at 39 than I do (although she did look younger than her friends through her 40s, 50s and into her 60s), and not only can my 76 y/o dad “summon the motivation” to game her on a regular basis, they bonk like rabbits. And believe me, if they split up he’d have some options, likely with younger women.

How much time and energy does HL spend on his Game? Is it effortless now that he’s been doing it for a while? Does he feel the rewards will continue to be worth the effort as his wife gets older?

Tell me tell me tell me, Dave!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 16:58

The amount of Game needed to counter all this is going to be more than the average man can overcome.

@tood- don’t give up before you’ve tired. Leave the bar hussies alone as they obviosly aren’t your speed(a good thing). How about getting some of your relatives in India to find someone for you?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 17:04

Sadly, TFH, I think you’re right about that. I’ve tried to get guys I know in the real world see the situation clearly for themselves…but the cultural indoctrination of misandry, female pedestalization and white knight chivarly is ascendant in the minds of most men.

kis – I’m ALMOST at the effortless stage. I occasionally backslide into beta-ization…but that’s ocurring less and less as time moves on.

Sometimes I’m still amazed at just how far I can take it with her.

I say and do things to her that I would never have even dared to dream of just a few years ago…but than I used to be afraid of her emotional state.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 17:07

How about getting some of your relatives in India to find someone for you?

That is not the situation at all. Hundreds (yes hundreds) of Indian women have approached my parents, regarding me, in the last 5 years. I have all the checkboxes that would put me at the very top of the Indian eligibility hierarchy. I turned them all down, even the 8s and one or two 9s.

I can still get married to an Indian 7 or 8 in 6 months if I decide to proceed on that goal tomorrow.

But I don’t want to. The happiness rate in Indian marriages is even lower than in white American marriages (what do you expect when engagement is done after meeting three times?). The tortured despair is visible in the eyes of male cousins my age and older.

If you live in the US, US laws apply to your marriage, whether or not your ‘culture’ ‘believes’ in divorce or not.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 17:09

Clarence – Women that truly seek submissive men so that they can be dominant are probably unhappy people to begin with, and any relationship they would be in would fundamentally be a miserable one.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 17:10

kis,

True mastery of Game is when it is effortless, i.e. it becomes ‘who you are’.

Some ‘naturals’ can do this quickly. Introverts, on the other hand, never get there, and have to ‘get into character’ each time. This is suboptimal, but still works well enough.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 17, 2009 at 17:11

Marriage beneficial to Men? Yeah right. Another tax-payor funded piece of propaganda to get the slaves back on the plantation.

Check out this column by Adrian Walker called “Alimony Agony” from last Thursday’s Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/13/alimony_agony/

The comments include many from actual alimony-slaves. Bone chilling stories. Beneficial my ass.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
kis November 17, 2009 at 17:14

I say and do things to her that I would never have even dared to dream of just a few years ago…but than I used to be afraid of her emotional state.

LOL. I keep picturing George Costanza during his “the opposite” phase.

I’m guessing with the marial arts training, etc, you’re probably pretty buff and I’d guess you’re physically attractive as well. But I don’t know that that’s necessary for this?

I wrote a (m/m/f) menage story where the dominant male was pretty much a pencil-necked geek appearance-wise, while the more submissive male was both more attractive and physically larger and stronger. One reviewer really liked that it was “all about attitude, and he had it and then some”.

I’m aware that what’s possible in fiction might not be in real life, but I wonder if the average husband would need to be able to bench-press 400 lbs or have kick-ass looks to game a woman he’s already married to?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 17:18

LOL. I keep picturing George Costanza during his “the opposite” phase.

You are learning more and more. That episode WAS prophetic regarding Game in many ways.

When a man learns that being cocky/funny and irrationally confident and even arrogant works WELL, while being a nice pedestalizing betaboy just about kills any prospect of seduction, many men can never bring themselves to accept that the conventional wisdom is the opposite of what works.

How George Costanza did takeaways with that girl, with a touch of arrogance, was actually pretty good Game.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 17:22

heh. Put it this way kis. We got married when I was 25 and she was 22. At that time, my wife was a 9.

People would say I was lucky, that I had married up. And I internalized that, and put her on a pedestal, and nearly got divorced over it after years of having a relationship following the dictates of our matriarchal culture.

After bearing my child and passing the 35 year mark, It’s safe to say she’s no longer a 9…

…but now that I’ve figured out how MY behavior was ruining our relationship, and fixed it, I can appreciate all of the other things she brings to the table now that she’s happily married to a man she does not have contempt for and is still attracted to and actively lusts on a regular basis.

It takes two to play the game.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 17:25

HL,

Your young ages at the time of marriage were also contributors to your success, mind you. She did not have 10 ex-boyfriends, the way a 32-year-old city woman seeking marriage would. Plus, this could also be indicative of a traditional, rather than ‘feminist’ value system in her (but correct me if I am wrong).

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 17:32

But I don’t want to. OK.

The happiness rate in Indian marriages is even lower than in white American marriages (what do you expect when engagement is done after meeting three times?).

I view a happy marriage as one in which the husband and wife get along fairly well with occasional disagreements. The two have fiends outside of their marriage as well as hobbies to occupy their down time. They may or may have children.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 17:34

A happy marriage:
1. a couple that argue infrequently
2. a couple in which each party respects the other.
3. a couple who don’t solely depend on the each other for happiness.
4. share some interests.
5. both parties are good at managing money.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Amateur Strategist November 17, 2009 at 17:35

Alright, Dave in Hawaii, I’m looking for resources, mostly because I’d like to understand things, and perhaps pass off the most important to others seeking knowledge.

Could you please enlighten me where one could learn the first lessons one would learn of “Game”? Randomly reading articles in the blogs about them kinda helps, but it can be like learning about advanced electricity physics when you are just learning how to arrange wiring.

Thanks!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 17:37

Oh, absolutely. She also came from an intact family (her parents are still together), and I was her first, and one and only (unless she’s cheated on me and I am unawares.)

I think it was those factors that weighed in my favor when I was in the process of killing all attraction from her when I was beta-izing.

It’s funny…with eyes wide open, I can now see quite clearly that in fact her father has tight game…a natural — my mother-in-law once told me that he had a nickname in high school, the “panty pleaser” and that he was infamous for having a menage e trois with two of the hottest girls in school. lol…I never realized it, but now I know that my MIL was actually bragging about that! She married and had the children of the most “alpha” man in her school.

All of the negs and playful teasing? That’s what he STILL does to her to this day…and she eats it up. Once I started playing the game to, it was like I started living up to what she has always been looking for. By emulating him, my wife now loves me whole-heartedly.

There’s more truth to the idea that women ARE looking for the men their Father role modeled for them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
kis November 17, 2009 at 17:38

heh. Put it this way kis. We got married when I was 25 and she was 22. At that time, my wife was a 9.

Well, my question was not whether your wife was a 9, but whether you were–although if you married up, I guess not. But seriously, do a man’s looks themselves (barring extreme unattractiveness or obesity) hamper LTR game? I’m asking because I’d like my son to learn it, and though he’s certainly handsome enough, he’s the least jock-type boy ever. I’m not about to tell him to spend 10 hours a week buffing up to get a relationship if he’d be better served spending the extra time learning the psychology.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 17:41

AS – I started reading up on two sites – a now defunct blog called the “Reality Method” and also reading all of the free stuff David DeAngelo had available (it was always ‘teasers’ to get you to buy his material…but he would give away enough stuff that jibed with other free internet resources, that I never had to buy anything to put the pieces of the puzzle together.)

But I have to say, my “journey” really began by discovering the MRA blogsphere and starting my own MRA blog. That was the first step in deprogramming from our feminist-warped culture. It made me much more open to considering the validity of this “game” theory I found on the internet.

To accept “Game” I had to first de-pedestalize the female gender in my own mind first.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
21Guns November 17, 2009 at 17:52

A happy marriage:
1. a couple that argue infrequently
2. a couple in which each party respects the other.
3. a couple who don’t solely depend on the each other for happiness.
4. share some interests.
5. both parties are good at managing money.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 17:52

Well Kis, I wouldn’t call myself a 9…but let’s just say I never developed “Game” as a teen or young adult because I never dealt with approach anxiety. I’ve always had a lot of women make their attraction for me rather obvious. And perhaps that’s how I got my wife in the first place…I wasn’t so “beta” when I was actively wooing her, and my wife has told me that all of her friends were attracted to me as well. In fact, I didn’t even know who she was, her friend actually called me up and told me she “liked me.” This gave me a bit of initial cocky arrogance when I first asked her out…so I guess I probably stumbled into “gaming” a woman I would probably never have approached on my own out of sheer intimidation.

In retrospect, I can see how I was playing “alpha” when courting her – I definitely took the assertive lead in planning and doing things with her when we first began dating. I was trying to win her by being as exciting and interesting as possible. I would take her hiking, surfing, bike riding, camping, diving and all sorts of other activities when we were dating.

But I soon let that all go by the way side as I beta-ized after we got married.

And yes, I am in good shape from years of a very active lifestyle. I’m not “cut” but I’m proportionate and have more muscle than fat, that’s for sure. I did start getting fat around 28 – 32 (which also coinincided with my worst of my beta-ization behavior) before I learned about proper diet.

And it seems like I’ve had more women come after me AFTER I got married than before…

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 17:59

Chic – I view a happy marriage as one in which the husband and wife get along fairly well with occasional disagreements. The two have fiends outside of their marriage as well as hobbies to occupy their down time. They may or may have children.
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 5:34 pm

A happy marriage:
1. a couple that argue infrequently
2. a couple in which each party respects the other.
3. a couple who don’t solely depend on the each other for happiness.
4. share some interests.
5. both parties are good at managing money.

This is all essentially beating around the bush.

A happy marriage is one in which both people KNOW their roles in creating a single entity…a FAMILY, and they embrace it happily.

This requires a women who RESPECTS her man as a man, first and foremost.

Because a woman that does not respect her man as a man, simply CANNOT live an existence without arguing, bitching, or nagging. The dissatisfaction of being married to man she doesn’t respect will literally DRIVE her into becoming a nagging, bitching shrew that is impossible to live with.

And if she doesn’t respect him, she won’t submit to his proper role that requires dominance.

If you don’t feel he is worthy enough to submit to, you will not be able to live up to all those things you listed.

In other words, a happy marriage is based on a man’s level of game keeping her respectful and attracted to him.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
piercedhead November 17, 2009 at 18:02

“Oh, I use your example often when telling socialcons how Game is conducive to a good marriage. They go to great lengths to deny ‘Dave in Hawaii’ even exist.”

If the people you talk to have difficulty accepting what you are saying, and the best you can do is recite one guy on the internet, then they’re probably justified in remaining doubtful. Not because he’s being false in any way, but because most of us need a greater weight of evidence to take seriously a claim so counter to our current understanding of the nature of marriage.

This isn’t to doubt Dave or question him. I can readily accept what he says about his own life, and what he ascribes it to. I can even accept the possibility that his reasoning may be correct. But until I hear more examples than just ‘Dave in Hawaii’ (and I don’t mean 1 or 2, but hundreds or thousands), then the possibility that he has just been lucky looms rather large.

Touting the ‘Dave From Hawaii’ story does not support the claim that game in marriage is the missing ingredient, the lack of which causes divorce – it does the opposite. It tells us how rarely game in marriage makes a difference. Reasonable people would start becoming convinced when they started seeing a torrent of guys saying how game saved their marriages. Guys in their own lives, not the internet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 18:06

pierced -It tells us how rarely game in marriage makes a difference. Reasonable people would start becoming convinced when they started seeing a torrent of guys saying how game saved their marriages. Guys in their own lives, not the internet.

So true. When I try to tell guys how they’re doing it all wrong, they can’t even comprehend where I’m coming from. Their minds default to their cultural programming…the things I’m talking about are MISOGYNISTIC and I must be CRAZY to say such things.

Guys can’t believe it when I tell them things like ‘let’s go out this weekend’ and they tell me they can’t because their wives or girlfirends won’t let them…and they ask me how is it I ‘get to do what I want?’

I can’t even convince most guys I know with my real life example in front of their very eyes!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 18:22

21 guns- sorry, I should’ve added that to the list but I think the other things are more important for a long term marriage.

piercedhead Touting the ‘Dave From Hawaii’ story does not support the claim that game in marriage is the missing ingredient, the lack of which causes divorce – it does the opposite.

Something tells me that if divorece held the same level of stigma today that it did in 1920, far fewer people would be getting divoreced today. If you think that every little ole lady you see on the street loved her husband deeply, you’re a fool.

Most men have no idea how women feel about about you, especially those alpha cads who some women fall so hard for. There are a whole range of conflicting emotions that men bring about in women. Of course different types of men bring up different sorts of emotions but those alpha cads/aholes bring out the worst kind of emotions.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Mr.M November 17, 2009 at 18:25

Thats how it is with most people, men or women… they have to actively SEEK help/advice and WANT to make changes.

I lost count of how many times I offer tips of diet/exercise to friends, male and female, and the very next day they’re slurping down beer to go with their fries after a long day of desk work.

You can tell them the right way to do things until the cows come home, but most people won’t give a shit, or do shit, until they actively seek the knowledge for themselves.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 18:34

Dave in Hawaii Because a woman that does not respect her man as a man, simply CANNOT live an existence without arguing, bitching, or nagging. The dissatisfaction of being married to man she doesn’t respect will literally DRIVE her into becoming a nagging, bitching shrew that is impossible to live with.

This isn’t true. You ever hear some guy say”I was blindsided by our divorce”,”My wife and I seemed happy” or “ There was never any arguing or nagging from either side”.

That’s because his wife was the type to hold her anger inwards. Some women can stew in anger, hatred and bitterness and unless the wife unleashes oneday, the husband is none the wiser.

I should note that some of the I’m unhappy stuff that you hear/see people coming up with isn’t really tied to their marriage. It’s other things that are eating away at them. If you see a woman suddenly balloon up in weight and it wasn’t caused by medication or a health problem, she is deeply unhappy even if she is putting on a smiling face for the whole world.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 18:40

chiclet:

Please don’t fool yourself into thinking that sex is not important in long term relationships. You’ll only end up hurting yourself or your man. I’d definately have to put sex into the top five things that can cause a breakup of a marriage, at least until the man and woman hit their fifties, and the sex drive for men naturally goes down. I must also state that in the one example I know of a really good long term marriage in my personal life – my maternal grandparents – their sex life didn’t entirely die. It seemed to be rather rare- a matter of every few months, but there’s more than one time I wondered into the house to hear them..well. Anyway, no one wants to think of two actually older people getting it on -unless they’ve aged extremely gracefully it usually brings to mind wrinkles and other unsavory things. But y a know what? Those two probably had their inner minds eyes focused on the inner person and memories of many good sexual years to go with. That’s not a bad thing.

Anyway, my advice to you if you ever do get hooked up with someone – default or whoever – be sure to put out as much as possible, be prepared for the occasional “duty calls” roll in the hay, and be sure to tell your partner about your sexual needs and concerns. Lastly, if you want a happy man, it’s best to put at least once a month till he’s in his mid fifties.

Sex by itself is not the be all and end all of relationsihps and if he keeps you happy, it seems natural he’ll get more sex anyway. But plain forgetting it in a list of ltr attributes is a particularily female type of narcism I have little patience for.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Arbitrary November 17, 2009 at 18:43

kis,

As a certified geek, of the not particularly athletic or attractive appearing variety, I guarantee you that learning game will be more valuable for your son than working out constantly. He probably won’t be receptive to it until he’s seen it work–and seen the usual methods fail miserably–but he will ultimately be very thankful for being pointed in the right direction.

Being healthy is important; some degree of exercise is needed for that. But obsessive athleticism is entirely unnecessary.

Amateur Strategist

I second the choice of David D’Angelo as a good place to start, mostly because he hammers home a few simple ideas repeatedly.

chic

I expect that there were signs even in many cases where one party “was blindsided”; they just got so used to these behaviors that they ceased to see them as warning signs.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
whiskey November 17, 2009 at 18:44

Why get married though if married life, to be happy, is one of constant game? That romantic love exists only as a conditional response to Game either expertly applied (love) or not (contempt)?

Why shouldn’t a man just Game random women? Why marry at all? And wouldn’t both men and women be happier?

That sucks for kids of course, but when has modern society cared about them? As opposed to self-realization?

Like or Dislike: 1  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 18:48

Chic:

You are correct in that some women do hide their resentments/lustful wondering eyes rather well.

It doesn’t change Dave’s larger point. She may hide it, but she still resents the man she is no longer attracted to.

Like or Dislike: 0  1
kis November 17, 2009 at 18:51

This isn’t true. You ever hear some guy say”I was blindsided by our divorce”,”My wife and I seemed happy” or “ There was never any arguing or nagging from either side”.

Too true. My ex didn’t see it coming at all and told me he couldn’t understand why I was ending the marriage. Then I asked him “When was the last time I hugged you, kissed you, told you I loved you, talked to you other than when necessary, or called you ‘hon’ or ‘dear’?” It had been almost a year and he hadn’t even noticed.

Unfortunately, I think he saw my voicing my actual needs as shit-tests (because I voiced them), and the true, year-long shit-test (probably the only one I ever *consciously* gave him) as contentment because by then I’d stopped bothering to voice my needs.

But yeah, discontent in women can manifest as a lot more than nagging, bitching and whining.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 18:53

whiskey:

As good as your points are, IF both partners wish to raise a family -that is, have kids- and IF they don’t forget that kids need both parents – then such “builder” oriented type of people would do well to marry. They each will realize and aspire to something higher than themselves – and they each will have a sense of fullfullment and duty as they go along in their married life.

Of course besides women and men who don’t want children there are plenty of women who denigrate the importance of a father to “their” child. Such women are not good marriage material, and there are quite a few of them out there.

So while I still believe it’s wise and useful to marry if you both want the same thing regarding children and both believe in two parents not one, in any other circumstance, I really can’t recommend marriage either. The only possible exception would be if both partners didn’t want children but believed in “nurturing” each other. Such people might also be profitably married.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 18:55

kis:

From what I remember of your posts about your marriage, I really don’t think your husband cared much about you at that point, though he might have “pretended” to. He had his video game after all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 18:57

Let me clarify something I said to dave in Hawaii

When talking to women I notice that most have a certain caution when it comes to men but by far, the most bitter are those who chased/chase after alphas, those who had bad experiences with bitter betas or daddy issues. When you come across this type of woman, proceed with caution.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 19:00

clarance It doesn’t change Dave’s larger point. She may hide it, but she still resents the man she is no longer attracted to.

I think this is true but she may not be the loud nagging screaming bitter strew. And for some women, the resentment maynot be backed by hate if the husband is a good man.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 19:02

That sucks for kids of course, but when has modern society cared about them? As opposed to self-realization?

The kids, of course. I don’t care if modern society cares about them…I care about them. And having a stable, two-parent home is THE best way to ensure they have the best chance to succeed in growing up into well adjusted individuals.

And ‘gaming’ the wife certainly contributes to that overall goal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 19:09

hawaiian libertarian The kids, of course. I don’t care if modern society cares about them…I care about them. And having a stable, two-parent home is THE best way to ensure they have the best chance to succeed in growing up into well adjusted individuals.

Agreed and it’s the reason why I dislike how some people seem to divorce over the most flimsy of reasons. Unless there is a drug addiction, physical mental abuse or hardcore adultery; most problems can be worked out. I guess couples need to sit down before the get married and discuss their expectations of the marriage and of each other.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
kis November 17, 2009 at 19:10

From what I remember of your posts about your marriage, I really don’t think your husband cared much about you at that point, though he might have “pretended” to. He had his video game after all.

I think he did care, or honestly believed he cared, or something. It might have been a self-centered type of caring, but I know he was hurt and angry and honestly had no idea what he’d done to make me leave him.

The game was more than just an excuse to tune me and the kids out–it was an addiction. When I told him it had been a year since I’d kissed him, the look on his face was like a man who’d slept for a hundred years and woken up to flying cars and androids and meals in pill form. That’s probably the only reason I decided to be generous to the point of night sweats in our divorce.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 17, 2009 at 19:17

Agreed and it’s the reason why I dislike how some people seem to divorce over the most flimsy of reasons.

And this is what I keep getting at – I would argue that in most of these cases (since we all are aware of the fact that 70+% of all women initiate divorce), those ‘flimsy” reasons are most likely based on the female no longer respecting her man…he no longer fulfills her biological desire for hypergamy in her mate.

When a man fulfills that desire (through “game”), he doesn’t need to deal with a woman nagging and bitching.

He doesn’t need to “ask permission” to do things he enjoys.

Worrying about the lack of sex goes away, because she still LUSTS him because he is satisfying her hypergamous instincts.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 19:33

He doesn’t need to “ask permission” to do things he enjoys

to me, the idea that either spouse would need to “ask permission” to enjoy a hobby is asinine. a man who marries this type of woman, started off on the wrong foot. Of course you’re going to hobbies that don’t include me, and I’m think that’s okay.

What you may be dealing with is a woman with attachment issues, paranoid that you’ll cheat on her and just being controlling. You wrote that you like to fish so why the hell do you need her permission to go fish.

*strip clubs or very dangerous hobbies are the exception.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 19:34

dave, in a way we are saying the same thing, well almost. More often that not, you and I agree but it’s the smallest thing that we seem to but heads on.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 17, 2009 at 19:38

I agree with that, actually — I think a lack of female satisfaction is the leading cause of divorce, and contemporary men are very bad at satisfying women.

The thing is, I don’t think this is subject to massive change. I agree with TFH in that most men are not going to be able to learn Game — or at least not good enough Game to Game their wives. And most of those who do learn it are going to have a hard time keeping at it 24/7, even if it eventually becomes who they are in a way. More likely is that the divorce rate remains fairly constant because the current and future crops of feminized men are not attractive enough to women for women to remain married to them.

Most of the older generation of marriages are *not* marriages where the husband had Game. They were marriages where in that generation divorce was a huge stigma. That as much as anything else preserved the older generation of marriages. One can argue that both ways, however — was it good that these lackluster marriages stuck together, or was it bad that people felt socially pressured to remain in lackluster marriages? Even if kids are involved, the answer is not that clear-cut, because the difference in performance in life between children of divorced parents and children of intact married parents is quite small at the highest levels of the socio-economic ladder, indicating that there is probably more to the story than the simple assumption that divorce is a terrible tragedy for all kids in all situations other than addiction or abuse.

In my mind, I think marriage today makes sense for people who are bound to it by religion, because those of us who are so are already trying to live in a countercultural way in the contemporary culture. And that countercultural nature will only grow as the culture continues to careen full-throttle towards selfishness and nihilism. But for everyone else? I think marriage is a bad fit for many contemporary people, in terms of lifestyle. We are, as a people, far too restless for the commitment of marriage — Game or no Game. Many people get married because it is the thing to do, or for the social proof and so on — and of course they are in love, but marriage was never meant to be about sustained romantic love –> it was meant to be about social stability for children and society, and commitment. Basing marriage on the expectation of long-term, sustained romantic love was the beginning of the unraveling of the institution, and now that this unraveling has continued to the point of becoming full-blown, extreme measures need to be taken by those who are already married and wish to maintain their marriages in the current culture. I can’t help but think that our culture is screaming for a new relationship model — a new kind of social proof which is more flexible and suits modern life better than marriage does. And it *is* about social proof to a great extent, at least in the United States. Marriage rates in other Western countries are much lower than in the U.S., and people cohabit in more stable relationships than is the case in the U.S. Americans are the ones who still place a premium on marriage, due largely to the social proof it provides. Yet the institution chafes at many people as they try to reconcile it with the modern self-actualization culture we all live in today. There is no easy answer, but marriage, as an institution, is appearing to be increasingly anachronistic for non-religious people.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Welmer November 17, 2009 at 20:00

Nova, I also think you’re going to see a lot of guys who just give up on trying to game their wives, because when all it does is keep them in a miserable marriage, that isn’t sufficient motivation.

If I’m married to a woman who just whines and complains and doesn’t bring any emotional support to the table, and also simply blows money on herself all the time, what’s the point of using game?

I think it’s high time more men started breaking up their own marriages, given the current situation. Guys should ask themselves what role they want to play in regards to their children, take that role, and then if they want to, divorce their wives and argue for the status quo in terms of custody. I’ll take the really old fashioned view and say that women are good for pleasure, children and work. No need to have one do all that. You can have a girlfriend, a brood mare and an old maid who can easily fulfill all these for less than a single wife would cost — it’s called outsourcing. This is essentially what the Chinese men do already, and it doesn’t have to be polygamy because the young girlfriends typically have several men at once, and everyone knows it. I believe the French and other Latin societies have a similar system worked out.

As men, I think we need to be realistic about what women bring to the table. Once you’re in your 30s, you know it isn’t much, so just live your life as you please.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 20:44

A few observations based on comments just in the last 12 hours, both here and elsewhere :

Men as diverse as Welmer, Doug1, Zed, Novaseeker, Puma, Ferdinand, Chuck, Roissy, T.A., and Obsidian have all said that marriage, given the present state of the law, media, and female morality, is too risky of a deal for men regardless of income or race. It is safe to say that at age 25, almost all of these men thought marriage was a normal and natural progression of their lives. That view changed dramatically, through each of their experiences and observations.

At the same time, just today, we see comments from Chic Noir upthread, as well as from Black&German and deery here, and from some of the GirlGame ladies, to the effect of :

“Don’t give up on marriage before trying it at least once!” (ChicNoir)

“Married men are the happiest and healthiest men!” (deery)

“I think women are becoming equally uninterested in marriage as men” (Aoefe)

“Don’t you want companionship??”(multiple)
——————————————-

While all these women are well-intentioned…….

a) Note how they cannot grasp that the divorce laws are the biggest deterrent of marriage, for men who might have wanted to marry once.
b) Note how ‘GirlGame’ wants to help women secure the commitment of the best man they can, but fail to see what is the biggest reason men don’t commit.
c) Note, most importantly, how the tone of women here has gone from the typical female shaming language to a tone that is far more pleading and imploring. How about that, eh?

Are these the first signs that the culture is shifting, since the product has priced itself beyond what the customer (men) will buy?

I think something notable is happening here.

P.S. The opinons of Indian women, like Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, FeministX, and lovelysexybeauty (LusBee) on the matter of human sexuality and seduction should never be taken seriously, for reasons described here (an interesting read). The Indian programming that Indian women are given (even those born in the US) cannot be easily undone, and is incompatible with comprehending the Western sexual marketplace or legal climate. For starters, they have had little or no pre-marital sex (which is actually good, but also makes them unqualified to discuss the topic). Not that non-Indian women are much better, but Indian women are a notch below once they step out of the Indian cultural system (which they have been groomed for, and which works just fine as long as outside influences are kept out).

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 17, 2009 at 20:50

Novaseeker,

I had that same conversation tonight at work. I was discussing the idea of romantic love and how it has basically screwed long-term relationships up. LTRs should be about the kids. The romantic love notion is something to helps us in creating kids and putting forth a little bit of parental investment along the way.

With division of labor, there is so much “down time” in a relationship that men and women engage in ways that we aren’t really capable of dealing with. We spend many more hours together with little shared focus (outside of activities for the kids) than any time in our history.

To me, marriage is like trying to fit a square in a round peg. We aren’t really cut out for the ideal of marriage. Our natures are against it. Trying to force that will cause something “bad” to come out in the wash.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 20:52

You can have a girlfriend, a brood mare and an old maid who can easily fulfill all these for less than a single wife would cost — it’s called outsourcing.

I remind everyone that if you really, really want to make a go of it as a single dad, you can get top-quality donor eggs + IVF + a surrogate in India for just \$20,000. The kid will be your biological kid, and you just have to visit India twice, 9 months apart. You can even do 2 kids in parallel with 2 surrogates.

Yes, two parents are better, etc. It is not a path most men should consider. But if you really want to do it (and presumably have a mother and/or sister who wants to play the grandma/aunt role), it is possible, and is cheap. A nanny is cheaper and more obedient than a wife.

Just so y’all know what options you have in the modern age.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 20:55

tood Don’t give up on marriage before trying it at least once!” (ChicNoir)

Actually, IIRC you’re the only guy here who I’ve mentioned marriage too and the reason why is… you seem to want a wife or at least a girlfriend. Reading your post earlier was like listening to a tortured man cry. I know it’s bothering you that you don’t have a woman. So that’s why I asked if you had an relatives who could find a wife for you. I don’t want to get married so why would I push it on you???

P.S. read nova’s comment about marriage and maybe you will get the hint. It ain’t a fairytale, even if you manage to land a “10”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 20:55

The two have fiends outside of their marriage

FIENDS?

Typo? Or Freudian slip?

heh heh

Like or Dislike: 0  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 20:56

Well, I might quibble with a few of your characterizations of some of our female posters, TFH. But I won’t.

Instead I’ll lay it out to the ladies here. I am hoping to get married IF I find the right woman sometimes within the next seven years. I would hope if I do get married to have at least one, and possibly two children. I know that, even given men’s more forgiving (but still present!) biological clocks that my fertility is on the decline as I”ve gotten into the game late, and it will be pretty much shot by the time I reach 45.

In doing so, (assuming I can get married as I find someone worthy who also likes me) I am taking on what I estimate to be an immediate 25 percent chance of a bad divorce. A divorce that will almost certainly devastate me as when divorces are nasty, men tend to lose the vast majority of the time. Even a good divorce would hurt, and the probability of divorce is approx 50 percent.

I hope the ladies in this thread can appreciate just what the hell I am considering getting myself into and ask themselves if they would do so if they were in my shoes?

Like or Dislike: 1  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 20:57

Actually, IIRC you’re the only guy here who I’ve mentioned marriage too and the reason why is… you seem to want a wife or at least a girlfriend.

Let me put it this way.

I wanted marriage. I wanted 3 kids. I wanted to be a pillar of the community, and to commit to one women forever. I wanted this more than most guys.

But the climate, and the laws, are such that I will not risk it. Plus, I worked hard to become very skilled in Game.

If the institution of marriage has lost ME, it has lost far too many men for it to survive much longer.

Ponder that.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Welmer November 17, 2009 at 20:58

In doing so, (assuming I can get married as I find someone worthy who also likes me) I am taking on what I estimate to be an immediate 25 percent chance of a bad divorce.

-clarence

Don’t forget the possibility of a bad marriage!

Like or Dislike: 1  0
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 20:58

Note, most importantly, how the tone of women here has gone from the typical female shaming language to a tone that is far more pleading and imploring. How about that, eh?

Am I guilty of shaming language? whelmer,chuck, clarance,davein hawaii,whiskey? I will call a mysognist out but I don’t think I use much shaming language but you guys see chic in a way that I can’t see myself. So you guys tell me.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 20:59

you seem to want a wife or at least a girlfriend.

er… I have Gamed about 25 women, all 7s and above, in the last 3 years. I have my seduction process down to an exact science, with full utilization of the 7-hour rule. I have 4-5 women I can call up at any given time.

But enough about me…. My long comment above is far more important.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kathy Farrelly November 17, 2009 at 21:02

“It is safe to say that at age 25, almost all of these men thought marriage was a normal and natural progression of their lives. ”

The saying “youth is wasted on the young” comes to mind.

“That view changed dramatically, through each of their experiences and observations. ”

It will be ever thus ,TFH

There will always be young men who will stick their necks in the noose (so to speak) no matter what the older generation of men or women say

We all learn from our OWN mistakes, and usually become wiser (and sometimes a bit cynical) as a result.

Like or Dislike: 0  1
chic noir November 17, 2009 at 21:03

toodI wanted marriage. I wanted 3 kids. I wanted to be a pillar of the community, and to commit to one women forever. I wanted this more than most guys

The Fifth Horseman, fair enough but to find the sort of woman you’re looking for, you will have to search long and hard.

At the same time it seems like you want the happy ever after from a Hollywood movie , you won’t get that in the same way that the average woman won’t get Tupac with a PhD.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 21:18

Chic Noir,

No one said you use ‘shaming language’ yourself. I actually said that all the women here are well-intentioned.

BUT,

If a dozen men have been shouting for months that the divorce laws are so unfair that it has become the main reason they don’t want to marry, shouldn’t you listen to what they are saying EVERY DAY?

Women who want husbands should LISTEN to why more and more men do NOT want to risk becoming husbands.

I can’t make it any simpler than that.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Arbitrary November 17, 2009 at 21:28

Kathy, there may always be some such men, but every year there are fewer and fewer who are willing to tie the knot in the rope around their own necks. We of the younger generation may not always listen to the wisdom of ages past, but we can very well see the catastrophe that has been marriage in the generation of our parents, and it’s a situation few of us are willing to repeat.

chic, the problem is that, for a man, settling for a situation where happily ever after isn’t even on the table as a possibility means making an already bad decision worse–most of the likely marriage outcomes are worse than staying solo. How many years of happy marriage do you think are worth losing half your assets, your home, and any access to your children? The average marriage that ends in divorce lasts only 8 years. Do you really believe that that sort of proposition is worth it?

Like or Dislike: 1  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 21:30

Kathy, there may always be some such men, but every year there are fewer and fewer who are willing to tie the knot in the rope around their own necks.

Bingo. It only takes 20% of men to avoid marriage for the whole thing to collapse, since 100 women competing for 80 men is stressful for ALL women, particularly when women age out of contention faster than men (hitting their Wile E. Coyote moment).

I think we are not too far from that 20% point now.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 21:37

chicklet:

I might have vague impressions of you using shaming language once or twice on Roissy’s over the past year and some months, but obviously it’s not something you are guilty of very often. Certainly not in this thread.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 21:37

I hope the ladies in this thread can appreciate just what the hell I am considering getting myself into and ask themselves if they would do so if they were in my shoes?

Don’t bother hoping – they are just not capable of ‘getting it’.

Go back to Obsidian’s article from yesterday for details.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 21:47

The Fifth Horseman, fair enough but to find the sort of woman you’re looking for, you will have to search long and hard.

But where did I say I was looking for any one woman like this?

Recognizing that it is hard, I have chosen a life of Game. I will continue doing what I have been doing for quite some time now.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Hestia November 17, 2009 at 21:48

TFH-If a dozen men have been shouting for months that the divorce laws are so unfair that it has become the main reason they don’t want to marry, shouldn’t you listen to what they are saying EVERY DAY?

Women who want husbands should LISTEN to why more and more men do NOT want to risk becoming husbands.
Probably hypocritical to say, sitting here typing as a married woman, but I agree listening to men’s reasons is very important. I do not, however, believe the legal reasons should be the only reason women take to heart. Many issues between the genders do not occur because women can’t hear what men don’t say but rather because women don’t shut up and listen long enough to fully absorb the words being said.

Many wives treat their husband like garbage. Just look around, girls, and listen. Listen to the whining and nagging shared between married women at a restaurant or even at church. It’s sickening beyond words to hear what is said about men who are providing well for their families and doing the best they can. Instead of appreciating the reality that nobody is perfect and cultivating the grace to deal with both their own imperfection and that of their husbands–something that could actually make their relationships better, there are women who sit on pedestals looking down at the minion males and degrade them as a fun activity.

There are women who are so cruel they not only initiate a divorce but take a man’s child/ren from him. How heartless does somebody have to be to do this? Do they have ice running through their veins. I watched my daughter in the summer of 2008 not understand why her daddy had went away on a deployment. She’d ask me everyday where he went, grab his clothes when I was making dinner, and sit by the door waiting for him to come home. Witnessing her miss him so much killed me inside and I cannot for the life of me imagining putting my husband and our child through this for my own selfish reasons.

Later on during the deployment, when he came home for R&R, she didn’t understand why he had to leave again. She screamed when he walked out the door, yelling about how he “forgotted” her and saying she hated him. She refused to talk to him on webcam for nearly two weeks until I finally, somehow, someway, got her to understand that he was at work because he loved her and wanted the best for her, not because he hated her and didn’t want to see her. These were among some of the worst moments in my life and it blows my mind that women exist who will posion their children to hate their fathers just for the sake of revenge. How do they witness their children’s pain and not feel anything? How do they turn their children against the man who was in the delivery room with them, holding their hands through the throes of labor pain, and there for them during the tearful, frightening, and confusing days of brand new motherhood? How can they just throw this all away, hurt this man like that, and destroy the relationship he has with his children? To lose your children, to have them turn against you is something I cannot even begin to imagine.

The issues men face go deeper than merely divorce laws. Many cause pain beyond words and personally I cannot blame men who are weary about marriage. If I were a man in this culture, I think I’d be very cautious as well.

Like or Dislike: 2  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 21:56

Hestia – Totally true.

There is pain far beyond just the laws. But I think the laws have cause all the ill effects that have happend downstream, and have been the main reason things have changed so much in just 40 years. The ‘collateral negativity’ will poison the culture for decades to come.

Like or Dislike: 1  1
HellBunny November 17, 2009 at 21:57

Renee writes:

Well since the study is about marriage itself, would it be accurate to bring in divorce? Personally I believe marriage and divorce should be seen as separate in this study.

…………………Editing………..

Renee,
Your analysis is inaccurate. That is because marriage is a necessary but not sufficient condition for divorce.

In order to get divorced, you have to get married. This results in a linkage between marriage and divorce. This linkage makes any separation between marriage and divorce difficult.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
clarence November 17, 2009 at 22:12

Well..not to be accused of “let’s think about the women too!”..lol…but..

Somewhere between 10 to 15 percent of all non custodial parents in this country are women. While it’s true that probably at least half of them are non custodial for real good reasons – if the woman wants the kids she usually gets them even if she’s a druggie -that still leaves a good 5 to 8 percent suffering under the same stupid laws as men. The ones that place arbitrary monetary support over other kinds of “child support” and that do little to address custodial parent abuses of visitation .
You’ve also got decent custodial mothers who find themselves with little or nothing from a profligate or dishonest ex. An example would be kis. They are relatively few percentage wise, but when one is talking about systems that effect so many people they are large in numbers in absolute size.

The current system mostly rewards the more dishonest and the lawyers. We should all be ashamed of that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 22:15

The Fifth Horseman, fair enough but to find the sort of woman you’re looking for, you will have to search long and hard.

Yes, and 4% alimony is women paying men, vs. 96% of alimonyu paid by men to women.

The laws are such that a token amount of women also are affected, so that feminists can get mileage out of that and scream “See! The laws are gender neutral!!!”

I still count 95/5 or 90/10 distribution as pretty anti-male.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
kis November 17, 2009 at 22:35

An example would be kis. They are relatively few percentage wise, but when one is talking about systems that effect so many people they are large in numbers in absolute size.

As a custodial parent, I certainly have the law on my side, but even a battalion of free lawyers can’t get blood out of a stone, right? According to BC law, if he’s not earning more than ~\$11,000/year, he doesn’t have to pay. Period. If he doesn’t want to take them more than a few hours every other weekend, I can’t just dump them on his doorstep (well, I probably could, but I can’t imagine how that would feel for them).

There are all kinds of ways he can duck child support here. He could work under the table, he could earn up to the maximum level for no child support and let his girlfriend support him the rest of the time. It’s not worth the headache to me to hound him for money I may never get. It’s not worth the ill feelings and the stress on the kids.

But I AM going to a lawyer to find out the minimum of what I would likely be awarded by a judge so I can negotiate from a stronger position. I’m fine with the possibility that I might never get a dime from him–as long as I don’t end up having to pay HIM just to keep a roof over my kids’ heads.

But I will say that as a single mother, I’d likely get more zealous representation from maintenance enforcement, more consideration from a judge or mediator, from the entire system than a single father would. Turn on the waterworks and everyone’s patting you on the shoulder and telling you it’ll be all right. Men are supposed to be able to take care of themselves. Women are supposed to need saving.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 22:43

Men are supposed to be able to take care of themselves. Women are supposed to need saving.

Then feminists shouldn’t be seething about the ‘Patriarchy’ then, should they. The patriarchy provided benefits that women will sorely miss when they are gone.

Like or Dislike: 0  1
kis November 17, 2009 at 23:02

Then feminists shouldn’t be seething about the ‘Patriarchy’ then, should they. The patriarchy provided benefits that women will sorely miss when they are gone.

Yeah, I know. Hypocritical. But it’s the way things are. Sigh.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
LIL November 17, 2009 at 23:27

Her level of education? Affects the chances of divorce.
His level of education? No change in divorce rate.

Interesting. You should note that in marriages where both partners are educated, the rate of divorce drops drastically, and is continuing to fall.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
LIL November 17, 2009 at 23:30

Oh, I suppose I should read all of the comments before I add my two cents. Yeah Nova!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 00:26

* *Of all the married men I know who appear to be happy (judging from their body language and facial lines), 100% of their happiness is from their children.

Just about NO man who is 5+ years into marriage, is receiving any real happiness from his wife, except on the margins (she cooks a few things I like, etc.), OR she is hands-off to the extent that she lets him pursue his hobbies without nagging.**

* Than you don’t no any married men who have fulfilled their proper role of being the Patriarch and head of their family…

…or a married man that still keeps the flame of attraction alive through game.*

This.

Marriage requires a skill set, just as “pick up” does. The fact that we have ceased to train men in these skills (and as a result we are surrounded by failing marriages) does not alter the fact that with the proper skills marriage can be a very enjoyable and fulfilling experience. In my mind, one of the most enjoyable and fulfilling that life has to offer.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 00:42

It actually says a whole lot about how boring some peoples lives are in the modern day world, that they have to seek out these kind of problems and suicidal risks to feel “enjoyed and fullfilled”, if you ask me.
Just a thought…:D

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 01:06

*It actually says a whole lot about how boring some peoples lives are in the modern day world, that they have to seek out these kind of problems and suicidal risks to feel “enjoyed and fullfilled”, if you ask me.
Just a thought…:D*

An interesting comment. It is not the risk that is fulfilling, though. And my life was certainly not boring. When I married I was a career navy officer (albeit only a few years into my career, but a military life was my plan), and everything was exciting and new.

No, the enjoyment comes from knowing that you are part of a team, and that this team is doing something meaningful and important (much like the navy, in a way). I do things for “us”, for my family, that I would never do for just me, things that I am glad that I have done, and have made me a better person. I like myself more for what I have acheived on behalf of my “team” than I do for anything I acheived before that.

In addition to Game, though, I think Goal is important. LTR Game is part of how you keep your relationship on track, but your Goal is WHY you keep the relationship on track.

(Note on the above. I really do feel that a good LTR brings an enjoyment of it’s own, but this must be offset by the possibly equal enjoyment that womanising might bring. Therefore, I am talking about the “extras” that casual relationships cannot provide.)

I really do not think that marriage is for everyone. Anyone who is simply content to exsit should not get married; the effort the relationship requires is more than the benefit received by furthering the Goal. This effort could instead be put into “picking up” when required. The consequences of getting that wrong are far less severe.

However, there are many people out there who strongly desire to build something greater than themselves, something that will last beyond them, whether this is a family or something else. For these people, a good marriage can allow them to acheive things that would be far more difficult, or even impossible, on their own.

Religion can play a strong part in all this. Christians may feel that they are serving God by raising good Christian children (building god’s army, etc), for example. For the Jews, and some Pagans, bloodline and kinship are also given religious significance. While aetheists may not understand this, marrying for faith (as opposed to social pressure arising from a faith dominated culture) is a valid Goal.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 01:40

Heathen

Well, if you look at the divorce risk in percentage, then let me ask you, if you would ever take on a bet knowing that the odds were stacked that high against you from the start. And that you wouldn´t just lose some money, but your children, your wife, and your house and car. Besides having your (hopefully) biggest love turn on you like a rabid dog.That´s really what it boils down to, isn´t it?

Like or Dislike: 1  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 02:02

Hypothetical question:
A woman has a problem with post menopause in which hormone levels drop completely. She compares the situation with something like uterine cancer, and states her husband should remain faithful, i.e. celibate, and refuses to discuss the issue. He tells her to solve the hormonal problem and she refuses out of fear of cancer.
Does her husband
1. Swear oath of celibacy
2. File for divorce
3. Cheat
4. Negotiate an open-marriage agreement

I should explain that this happened to someone I know, and she gave him permission to have sex elsewhere without penalty. When he did, she claimed that she wasn’t ’serious’, and is calling him a cheater. He called it “green-lighting’. Hilarious.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 02:07

The aphorism “Know Thyself” was inscribed on the Temple of Appolo at Delphi. It is as good advice now as it ever was.

Don’t be blinded by statistics. They simply tell you what will happen to the average man. If you are not average, for better or for worse, your fate cannot be read in those figures.

When you marry you are not betting on the odds, you are betting on YOURSELF (comment page does not let me italicise), and you get to determine who you are. Knowing who you are and what you are capable of is a far better guide to your future than statistics.

Of course, most people have only a very rudimentary idea of who they are, at best. For these people, and for those that aspire to no more than average, I would say that there is much risk and little reward in marriage.

But for some of us, as the special forces say, “Who Dares, Wins”.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 02:27

-Famous last words, indeed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 02:28

If marriage were presented to men in the anglosphere with full disclosure as an investment proposal, only a fool would never buy it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 02:47

But there again you ignore the classic falicy of the comparison. Generally speaking, a given individual has little to no ability to influence the performance of a given investment. That is not the case in a marriage.

Marriage is far more accurately compared to a sporting event or starting your own business. In both cases, the effort/choices of the participant make a huge difference to the outcome.

A talented, hard working entrepreneur can perhaps make his business work despite the recession. A strong athlete might fancy his chances in the ring against a particular opponent.

Remember, the distribution spectrum for men is a wide one. Many men are well above average, and can expect well above average results.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 02:57

“Many men are well above average, and can expect well above average results.”
Statistically, the odds are heavily against this. Additionally with penalties such as alimony included and very strong anti-male bias in the court system, it would be a bad investment to begin with using my analogy. Why invest in something with this rate of failure?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 03:00

Currently, there is a non-official ‘marriage strike’. It has been attributed to men not wanting to invest in a future with such a potentially devastating outcome. The number of marriages has decreased drastically from the 70′s, simply because men have observed what has happened to their father’s and friends.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 03:20

*Statistically, the odds are heavily against this*

We actually have no statistical evidence, really. All our statistics are based on total populations. I am not aware of any studies that isolate the “alpha males” as a population (however you choose to define them) and report on their marital sucess rate, although somebody earlier mentioned that divorce rates go way down where both parties have a degree, which would offer some small support for what I am saying.

The truth is that half the male population is below average. Another large section are insufficiently above average (in whatever qualities matter in making marriage work) to make any appreciable difference to their chances. But that does not mean that ALL men have equally poor chances of a sucessful marriage. This is important because some of us are saying that Game can dramitically improve the odds of your of a sucessful marriage, if that is what you want.

It’s also not for me to tell people why they should get married. I am simply pointing out that just because beta and omega marriages fail (statistically, as they make up the bulk of the pupulation) or are miserable, it does not follow that an alpha’s marriage (or people with enough game to emulate an alpha) will necessarily fail or be miserable.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 03:21

Heathen
“Remember, the distribution spectrum is a wide one..”

My point exactly. With the vast amount of women out there, that will never get married or have relationships, there´s really no point in getting married and risk losing everything you´ve worked for. The sea is full of fish, so to say, and you can get more than your fill of enjoyment and fulfillment without jumping into the meatgrinder, -heck, some of these women will even pay you for some male companionship once in a while.No need to walk blindfolded into the minefield of modern day marriage when you don´t have to. I´ve never married or had kids, but then again, I´ve also never had to stand in a divorce court and get screwed. Life so far has been quite good, and I don´t look half as old as the guys my age, who acted on their programming and took the bait. Most of them are in their second or third marriage by now, and still trying to sell me the concept, while at the same time bitching about their wives and lives, and wishing they were in my shoes when a 15-20 year younger girl picks me up at work.
And I haven´t even touched on the subject of the amount of women who actually plans on divorce in order to get more money out of the state than they´re receiving already. (Taxes etc.)

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Epoxytocin No. 87 November 18, 2009 at 03:24

When you marry you are not betting on the odds, you are betting on YOURSELF (comment page does not let me italicise), and you get to determine who you are

Um… You’re also betting on the other person. That’s the crux of the issue.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 03:31

David Brandt

Thumbs up on all accounts!

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 04:03

*Um… You’re also betting on the other person. That’s the crux of the issue.*

Yes… and no.

I believe that, with a statistically insignificant number of exceptions, ANY woman can be mastered by a strong enough man. This being the case, you are betting that you are capable of being this particular woman’s master/leader/husband.

Granted, some women are easier than others to deal with, but again, you get to decide whether or not you marry them. You pick the matchup.

*there´s really no point in getting married and risk losing everything you´ve worked for*

You sound happy. That’s great. Don’t marry. Seriously. But a friend of mine once observed “When you follow someone’s example you cannot acheive any more than they did.”

I want, and wanted, more than you. I have been very satisfied with the result.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  1
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 04:09

Heathen
“I have been very satisfyed…”

I´m glad to hear!-And I sincerely wish you good luck in the future!
Just remember it ain´t over ´til the fat lady sings…;)

Like or Dislike: 1  0
djc November 18, 2009 at 04:09

After carrying out my own study for the past two years, I’ve come to the conclusion that this man is overwhelmingly happier without a woman. Your results may vary.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kathy Farrelly November 18, 2009 at 04:24

I do not blame men one iota for their reluctance to marry. The odds are stacked against you guys.
Particularly in America. At least here in Oz we have shared parenting laws.

That being said.. When you meet someone that you fall head over heels for… Well, all rational thought goes out the window .
It did for me..

And it paid off.

Hey sometimes ya gotta go with ya gut feeling.

Life’s like that.

Hypotheticals do not equate to real life situations, which, can be quite unpredictable,

Clarence, I think that you have your head screwed on right, mate

The girl who gets you, is gonna be one helluva lucky girl.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Gx1080 November 18, 2009 at 04:50

Yeah, going all unrational works until it means becoming an uninspiring, non-dominant mangina. If you can, fine go ahead, but there’s cohabitation (yet), in which you can walk out without getting ass-raped by a divorce court.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Vassago November 18, 2009 at 04:54

I have a feeling that Heathen is more or less playing on the card of “elite”.

Even though there are few, there is prestige, and the prestige is even heightened by there being few.

An example would be “Only the few and the best can drive Mercedes”

^not necessarily true, or an advertisement on my part, just an example.

I see lines like “If you don’t want to get married, don’t”, which is fine, but then I see lines like “I want, and wanted, more than you and have been very happy with the result”. The latter seems actually a bit “pushy” to me.

Indirectly implying that those who don’t want to be married are “average” is another thing. I’ve been above average people screwed by divorce, in fact, more often than average, funny thought.

Not to imply that Heathen is a Marriage Mandate Movementer, but I can’t give him the same credibility I give Dave in Hawaii. If someone told me that they “hoped I enjoyed the searing quick metal bits go against the back of my throat, and that I have many happy thoughts while the shotgun shell goes through my brain” I would STILL read it as an insult.

Choose your response well, Heathen, I am not easily fooled.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 05:01

Vassago

Actually I read “I want, and wanted, more than you” as “I risk, and are risking, far more than you”. But that´s just me, I guess…
Better safe than sorry.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 05:23

Foundations of Male Powerlessness:
1. Denial of Fear.
2. Fear of Isolation.
3. The need to convince, have credibility, be acceptable, receive validation

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Black&German November 18, 2009 at 05:27

“I hope the ladies in this thread can appreciate just what the hell I am considering getting myself into and ask themselves if they would do so if they were in my shoes?”

I understand. You know I do, Clarence. Which is why I advocate changes to our marriage and divorce laws.

TFH, my point was just that marriage can still be worth it if a guy has at least a limited knowledge of the female psyche, wants children, and finds a suitable woman.

For what it’s worth, it’s not just men. I know plenty of women who don’t want to get married. They don’t see the point. I know what they’re missing out on but each person has to judge for themselves, in the end.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 18, 2009 at 05:58

I am simply pointing out that just because beta and omega marriages fail (statistically, as they make up the bulk of the pupulation) or are miserable, it does not follow that an alpha’s marriage (or people with enough game to emulate an alpha) will necessarily fail or be miserable.

If this is the case, then most men should not get married, because most men are beta/omega, by definition, and the overwhelming majority of these betas/omegas will not learn Game, or at least will not learn it well enough to emulate an alpha marriage. It may be where we are heading: marriage for alphas and alpha emulators and the relatively few women who are able to find one to marry, and marital failure — or no marriage at all — for everyone else.

there’s cohabitation (yet), in which you can walk out without getting ass-raped by a divorce court.

This is jurisdiction specific. Some places, like FL or PQ, have laws which are cohabitation friendly in that they do not attach many rights at all to cohabiting couples. Other states attach a lot of rights to cohabiting couples depending on the facts and circumstances (how long, financial situation and so on). Some states are now imposing marital type obligations based on the breakup of relationships that did not involve any cohabitation at all, as well. You need to be aware of what the law is where you live, in order to be certain what the impact of cohabitation would be down the road. You also need to keep in mind that once kids are involved, it doesn’t matter *that* much whether you are married or not because child support, which has a large de facto alimony element to it, will apply regardless.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Black&German November 18, 2009 at 06:34

There’s a lot of statistics being thrown around here so let’s back up and list them in a way that tells a slightly less depressing story:

The American divorce rate for first marriages is 41%-50%.
2/3 of divorces are initiated by women.
BUT
* 66% of those divorces involve childless couples.
* The divorce rate for couples over the age of 21 is closer to 25%.
* The rate drops to 16% for those with a college degree. (that’s less than 1 in 6) Those with “some college or post-secondary education” are somewhere in-between the 16%-25%.
* Following divorce a man’s average standard of living actually rises slightly while woman’s drops slightly (due to having custody of the kids). I know you guys can all name someone for whom this is not true (as can I), but we’re talking averages here.
* Women with children initiate divorces more often for a simple reason: sole custody. In states where joint custody is becoming more common, the divorce rate is sinking: http://deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php.

What this and other evidence shows is that it’s a statistical possibility to get your personal divorce rate down to the low-teens or, theoretically at least, the single digits. You can’t divorce-proof your marriage but you can create a climate where divorce is unlikely.

It works like this:

* Get a college degree. (You’d probably also be able to do well enough with a professional certification and equivalent experience but there are no statistics on that.)
* Do not have children out of wedlock.
* Only marry once.
* Don’t marry until after age 21.
* Don’t commit any crimes or hang out with people who commit crimes.
* Join a religious group and practice your faith. It doesn’t seem to matter much which faith, just the faith. Even devout atheists get the faith-bump. Note: the dismal Evangelical divorce rate is due to early marriage. When you control for that they get the same faith-bump as everyone else.
* Know the person for at least a year before marriage.
* Attend marriage preparatory classes before the wedding.
* Educate yourself on personal finance and money management. Reduce or eliminate your short-term debt.
* Once you get married, reproduce quickly (within a few years). But don’t have more than 4 children.
* If you are a man, marry someone with at least slightly lower career attainment goals than you have. It’s okay if she has the same profession but she should be willing to put her career on the back-burner for a while.
* Don’t cheat (not even online), gamble habitually, view pornography, overuse drugs or alcohol, or abuse your wife or children.
* Limit a history of sexual promiscuity. The more partners he’s/she’s had (even in LTR), the higher the probable divorce rate.

Then, of course:
* Choose a woman of similarly high quality.
* Campaign for joint-custody and gender-fair divorce laws.

Now, it’s true that you could still end up in a bum marriage or a nasty divorce but you’ve at least controlled for pretty much everything you can and the rest is up to God and Game.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 06:34

Renee–

Well since the study is about marriage itself, would it be accurate to bring in divorce? Personally I believe marriage and divorce should be seen as separate in this study.

Yes it’s absolutely accurate to bring in divorce as well, though the subcomponets should be revealed. One can’t be divorced if one doesn’t marry (or isn’t deemed married by the state, as e.g. apparently happens in Ontario Canada after a year of living together).

Like or Dislike: 0  1
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 06:41

* I have a feeling that Heathen is more or less playing on the card of “elite”. Even though there are few, there is prestige, and the prestige is even heightened by there being few.*

What you say is true on a technical level. Any activity requiring above average skill or knowledge (which I am arguing marriage does) is, by definition, an elite activity.

However, that only carries status if you value the activity. The NFL is an elite league of athletes. However, because I dislike that game I am unlikely to give an NFL player any additional status based solely on his participation in the league, though I recognise that many people would.

Similarly, I recognise that Kimski does not value the additional benefits of marriage, and I certainly don’t expect him to be in any way impressed that I do.

My intention is not to tell people to get married. Rather, I want to counterbalance the “group think” that seems to be growing up in the men’s movement on many issues that creates broad generalisations (all women bad/worthless, marriage guarenteed to fail/never worth the risk). To this end, I point out that a person with the right qualities (game being but an example) faces significantly different odds of divorce IF THEY WANT TO GET MARRIED (I cannot italicise in the comments section).

Unquestioned generalisations such as “all men are potential rapists” have led us here. More of the same will not lead us back, or to anywhere better.

* An example would be “Only the few and the best can drive Mercedes”*

“Best” is a subjective description of a type I have avoided using. It implies a right, and a wrong. “Above average” makes no comment on the value of the quality measured. A person could easily be “more unpleasant than average”, for example.

* I see lines like “If you don’t want to get married, don’t”, which is fine, but then I see lines like “I want, and wanted, more than you and have been very happy with the result”. The latter seems actually a bit “pushy” to me.*

Ah, the old subjective morality conundrum. Shall I appologise for believing that a happy, healthy marriage genuinely provides benefits that are not available to “players”, or even serial monogamists, lest I offend such people? Should I hide my values to avoid startling the differently inclined?

Perhaps I should, but I do not think I shall.

I have no interest in “converting” anyone on this thread, but I will not pretend that I believe all life choices are equally worthy.

* Indirectly implying that those who don’t want to be married are “average” is another thing. I’ve been above average people screwed by divorce, in fact, more often than average, funny thought.*

Whether or not the “average” man wants to get married is a matter of statistics, and I do not have any evidence on this point one way or the other. I have only tried to point out that for those with the “right” quilities, marriage is not as risky as some people would have you believe. These “above average” people you mention may have been above average is many ways, but having an above average IQ or income does not necessarily correlate to having above average relationship skills.

* Not to imply that Heathen is a Marriage Mandate Movementer, but I can’t give him the same credibility I give Dave in Hawaii.*

Nor should you. Dave and I are very different people. Dave is clearly a very thoughtful, articulate, likeable man who equally clearly wants to help people. It seems to me that he was, at one or more stages of his life, a beta, and this nearly ruined one of the most important aspects of his life: his marriage. Fortunately, he woke up in time and turned things around. Now, like a man escaped from Plato’s cave, he comes back to try and communicate the revelations that were so helpful to him. Dave is to be very much admired.

I am not Dave. I have never been “beta”. As an immigrant child from a broken home in small town north america, I grew up with no people skills and no social safety net. Some of my earliest memories are being subjected to random acts of redneck violence. I never bought into the social conventions of our collective culture, simply because nobody bothered to sell them to me. I was at the bottom of the social ladder, an omega.

In my late teens I grew about 2 feet in a single year, and I started taking martial arts. A few fights later, the highschool violence stopped. The next few years saw me drag myself out of nowhereville and go to university. During that time I took a long hard look at my miserable existance and set about changing who and what I am. I molded myself into a person that can live with himself, and I lead a life I can enjoy.

However, all this has given me a very different perspective from Dave. If Dave saw the light; I have come in out of the darkness. Dave wants to share his revelations with his former colleauges; I am surrounded by people who at one time would have been my enemies and abusers. Dave wants to benefit those around him; I feel disgust for those who were given better chances than me and who have failed to save themselves. Dave, I feel, loves mankind; the list of people I like is not a long one.

In short, Dave is a far better role model than I. He has transcended himself, whereas I have merely grown stronger.

* If someone told me that they “hoped I enjoyed the searing quick metal bits go against the back of my throat, and that I have many happy thoughts while the shotgun shell goes through my brain” I would STILL read it as an insult.*

Would you care to direct me to the passage where I said anything of the sort?

* Choose your response well, Heathen, I am not easily fooled.*

Well then, I imagine that it is lucky that I have no desire to fool you.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 06:53

Heathen

You might not believe this, but I come from a similar background.
I guess we just chose different paths, that´s all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 06:54

Heathen

We actually have no statistical evidence, really. All our statistics are based on total populations. I am not aware of any studies that isolate the “alpha males” as a population (however you choose to define them) and report on their marital sucess rate

Someone has. The data mining wonderkind, The Inductivist has, using GSS data. Alphas are 8 times as likely to be divorced as betas. (He defines alphas as those who’ve had 20 or more lifetime sex partners , and betas as those with 1 or 2.)

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2009/09/alphas-betas-and-marital-status.html

Alphas cheat more. They also probably treat their wives less well, on average.

I am simply pointing out that just because beta and omega marriages fail (statistically, as they make up the bulk of the pupulation) or are miserable, it does not follow that an alpha’s marriage (or people with enough game to emulate an alpha) will necessarily fail or be miserable.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 06:55

Heathen

I am simply pointing out that just because beta and omega marriages fail (statistically, as they make up the bulk of the pupulation) or are miserable, it does not follow that an alpha’s marriage (or people with enough game to emulate an alpha) will necessarily fail or be miserable.

Wishful thinking. See the above.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 06:58

Novaseeker

You also need to keep in mind that once kids are involved, it doesn’t matter *that* much whether you are married or not because child support, which has a large de facto alimony element to it, will apply regardless.

The difference can matter huge Novaseeker. The main effort of prenups is to have them mimic the effects of a living together split up, in states that don’t make living together in effect marriage, as the great majority of states do not. Not having to move out of your house and give it to her is a huge difference. Not having to give her half your retirement and other savings after she’s cheated is a huge difference. So to is being free of explicit alimony.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 07:03

I’ve had game since I was a teenager, although it wasn’t defined as such then–it was part of my personality. I have also had a lot of women approaching me since I was young. It works unless the person you are married to is clinically insane (my luck, eh?). If this had not been the case, I would have jumped for shared parenting. I didn’t have to fight very hard for custody, but it was a fight. Under the circumstances which I won’t bother to relate here, I became a single dad because I had to, there were no other options.
@Heathen
It is being intentionally disingenuous to break the statistics down by alpha/beta/omega–I’m more than certain you were aware of this, and as has been pointed out, most are betas and omegas. I was not, and in the larger context I fared rather well. I have friends who are betas, who would never take my advice and got ass-raped in ‘family’ court after. My attitude has always been that I am the prize, not her in every relationship, and I’ve always bailed first. I have experienced a woman knocking on my doors and window late at night after I broke up with her. My ex is remarried, and still (when she has had the chance door-opening because of my grandson) tells me “I know you still love me”.
Roissy recently did a post called “Marriage, the ultimate shit test”. I could not agree more, and unless/until the anti-male laws change in the anglosphere, not only am I actively against it, but I pity the fool (my favorite saying regarding my daughter, which is another topic). I fully understand men who want to have children desiring marriage because of their beliefs. For them, I would suggest they find a way to expat. The marriage strike is the only way to choke the divorce industry, and it is being extremely effective.
@Kimski
Thanks.
@Black&German
The marriage strike is coming from men, not women. Women are consistently pursuing commitment, and one look at the magazines/TV/culture will verify this. Men aren’t buying it anymore, as they see it for the state-supported noose around their necks that it is. Men, if you decide on a LTR, inform her immediately that you are not interested in marriage, and that if more than one push is made in that direction, you are walking. The second time she does it, walk. As for common-law issues it depends on the state. As for myself, I live with my son, who is autistic. His sister works as a model, jaw-dropping beauty on the outside, but I have severed my relationship with her. My son is a dead ringer for Adrian Paul, and gets hit on all the time just because of his looks–even after I explain that he’s autistic (he’s not interested, and can’t live independently). This really makes me wonder what is wrong with so many of the women here in the US.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 07:16

*You might not believe this, but I come from a similar background.
I guess we just chose different paths, that´s all.*

If this is true, I may understand your path better than you think. I too had resolved not to marry. I found that although women loved what (rather than “who”) I was now, I always felt they would not have loved what (again, as opposed to “who”) I once was. Why share your success with someone who did not put in the hard work?

Meeting my (future) wife took me by suprise and derailed many of my plans. But I am very glad that I married her, and I would not want anyone to avoid having what I have simply because of a fear of statistics. Not wanting it, on the other hand is perfectly valid.

*Alphas are 8 times as likely to be divorced as betas.*

Ah, but how many of those alphas allowed themselves to become betas through lack of self awareness, or laziness? Again, the statistics do not tell the whole story.

*Alphas cheat more. They also probably treat their wives less well, on average. *

This arguement actually works against you. If this is indeed why alphas get divorced, then it is because these alphas are either too stupid to ponder the consequences of their actions, and in which case they deserve what they got (and I will happily add “retarded alphas” to my list of people who should not marry), or they are alphas who were aware of the consequences of their actions and went ahead anyway. In this second case, the alphas are actually chosing divorce, not the women. If the alphas are in control, then they do not need to fear divorce statistics.

Statistics do not lie (though some lie about statistics), but they also never tell the whole truth.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Black&German November 18, 2009 at 07:19

What most marriageable women (sane, non-slutty, non-rabid-feminist) want is a high-beta with some Game. That’s what black women refer to as a “quality man”. He doesn’t have to know all the rules but he should understand our most basic instincts and desires. We try to do the same. The problem is that they rarely make them like that anymore, male or female, so we’re both reduced to reading advice books and Internet articles, fighting our upbringing, and figuring things out on our own. It’s a bit like going on a diet. It requires intense effort and often just ends in tears (and divorce). And, like in dieting, there’s a heck of a lot of conflicting advice out there. Many of the young married women I personally know are making a sincere effort (with varying rates of success) to change themselves into better mates. They call me up for advice, devour books I recommend, struggle with their inner nag, etc.

No point in marrying an alpha and trying to tame him; little chance of success. I’ve seen it over and over. Most of those guys seem incapable of keeping their pants on. Black women refer to them as playas and the worst ones (like Roissy) as damaged-beyond-repair (DBR).

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Black&German November 18, 2009 at 07:21

Heathen, you are obviously the rare alpha with some self-control. Your wife is lucky. And I bet she knows it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 07:23

Doug1
Interesting thing about cheating, since it has been steadily increasing with women, or at least more ‘acceptable’. While I am all for honoring agreements on monogamy, I have friends whose extremely sickening beta-like behavior was most definitely the deciding factor in her wandering eye. It was hard for me to tolerate, so…. A man should not ‘let himself go’, and his wife should always know that he is attractive to other women. He doesn’t need to cheat to accomplish this. I’m not the expert in that area concerning marriage though.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kimski November 18, 2009 at 07:31

David Brandt.

Exactly, -women are not the prize anymore, -men are. As zed has pointed out numerous times;-when the restrictions that kept women in “bonds” went out of the window, the restrictions for men went the same way, and men have a history of being able to live without love and under far more spartan conditions, than any woman will ever be able to. So in light of that, you don´t really have to participate in any game or in a marriage, since men have become a prize in themselves, due to the marriage strike. The ones that will eventually suffer the most because of the current situation will be an ever-increasing amount of women, unable to find a partner or husband. The only thing the feminists have created in “liberating” women is a buyers market for men, while at the same time freeing us from the corporate-wheel we had to run before, in order to have a wife and children. On behalf of myself, I can only express my deepest gratitude. Keep it up, grrls!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 18, 2009 at 07:40

The difference can matter huge Novaseeker. The main effort of prenups is to have them mimic the effects of a living together split up, in states that don’t make living together in effect marriage, as the great majority of states do not. Not having to move out of your house and give it to her is a huge difference. Not having to give her half your retirement and other savings after she’s cheated is a huge difference. So to is being free of explicit alimony.

Yeah, it depends on where you live, as I noted, and also what your circumstances are. In my own case, alimony was not an issue (we earn the same) and asset distribution was straight down the line 50/50 both ways (and neither of us brought substantial premaritals into the marriage), also in terms of savings and retirement and so on. So for me the main impact has been c/s, and if we had been living together it wouldn’t have made much of a difference at all, really. If course, if you have a SAHM as a wife, then you’re completely screwed, and it’s different depending on whether you are married or not. Again, it’s all dependent on where you live and what your circumstances are.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 07:52

Heathen–

This arguement actually works against you. If this is indeed why alphas get divorced, then it is because these alphas are either too stupid to ponder the consequences of their actions, and in which case they deserve what they got (and I will happily add “retarded alphas” to my list of people who should not marry), or they are alphas who were aware of the consequences of their actions and went ahead anyway. In this second case, the alphas are actually chosing divorce, not the women. If the alphas are in control, then they do not need to fear divorce statistics.

It’s thoroughly unnatural for a 40yo alpha (not to mention a 32 yo one) to never have sex again with any other woman but one. In very few countries and very few times in history has that actually been invariably expected. Male adultery doesn’t actually exist in the bible. It’s a later churchmen invention.

America’s one of the few countries where women actually divorce alphas who are otherwise being good husbands and providers as well as sexually desirable men.

Yes I thoroughly believe in a double standard on this. (Though I think an understanding is far preferable to cheating.)

Unlike in the case of female adultery, the female advice to young women contemplating sex with a married man that they “never leave their wives” is largely true, especially if they have minor children. Women however usually do fall out of love with their husbands or even more often “realize they already had” AFTER they are emotionally deep into an affair. Women do tend to be monogamous, though often serially so, unlike men, who have to be socialized into it (with far less effective results than when women are). Now of course I culture in many ways encourages female adultery, by nearly always blaming it heavily on the husband, making it seem exciting and empowered, and telling women if they strongly feel the urge, it must be their husband’s fault.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Demonspawn November 18, 2009 at 08:04

Sorry, I saw this and I had to reply because there is a fundamental mistake being made here:

I’m glad you concede that men can benefit financially and might actually get LOVE within a marriage. So few men here believe that anymore.

Men DO NOT get love within a marriage and only barely benefit financially.

Men CAN get love and financial benefits within a long term monogamous relationship.

It is the relationship which grants these benefits, not marriage.

Outside of a few cases, marriage grants very little to nothing for a man over and above a long term monogamous relationship with the same woman.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Jabherwochie November 18, 2009 at 08:18

@David Brandt-

“My son is a dead ringer for Adrian Paul, and gets hit on all the time just because of his looks–even after I explain that he’s autistic (he’s not interested, and can’t live independently). This really makes me wonder what is wrong with so many of the women here in the US.”

Completely off topic, but what degree of Autism does he have? Any gifts/talents? (They are actually very rare, but my own personal opinion is that many might just have gifts and talents not readily apparent to a normal people. Try studying what he is interested in as see if demonstratess any unusual apptitudes in that interest. If he does, try to expand on those abilities.) How do you raise him/teach him about women and people in general? How do you systemize complex/contradictory human behavior to him? I ask, because if he is handsome, it could lead to problems later on when you aren’t there to look after him.

Sorry if you think I’m prying, but I have a deep interest in Autism. Feel free to ignore my inquiries if it is a touchy subject, but as someone with Aspergers, I have an emotional connection to Autistics. To me, they are beautiful. My best friend has Sensory Integration Disorder, which is a distinct condition from Autism, but exhibits some similiar behaviors. Being socially isolated in his youth, his mind developed in unique ways, a metaphor I use being the unique evolution of animals in Australia because of their isolation. He has a beautiful mind, and creates the must sublte, multi layered representational abstract paintings I have ever seen. He will one day be in art history books, I’m sure. I’m rambling.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 08:21

*It’s thoroughly unnatural for a 40yo alpha (not to mention a 32 yo one) to never have sex again with any other woman but one. In very few countries and very few times in history has that actually been invariably expected*

I thought self control, accountability and logical thought were male attributes that elevated us above the feminine. Yet these so-called alphas can’t seem to control their… impusles?

I know that Roosh would disagree, but I posit that self-control = alpha. Being ruled by emotion and impulse is a distinctly feminine trait (though I hastily add that simply having emotions is something that should be common to all humans; men, especially alphas, simply don’t let their emotional state govern their actions).

And let’s face it. Not everything feminists have ever said is untrue. At many (though not all) points in history women did need men more than men needed women. Because of that power balance men could, and did, cheat with impunity. That does not make them alpha, and it does not mean that they have some sort of right to continue that behavior.

For better or for worse, women today have more options, and no longer have to tolerate men that cheat on them. If today’s alphas can’t wrap their head around that and act accordingly, they get what they deserve.

But then again, the kind of man that devotes himself to the pursuit of multiple women is probably is not the kind of man that would enjoy the full benefits of marriage anyway. Given that he won’t want to marry, arguing about whether he could do so safely seems a moot point.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 08:22

Unquestioned generalisations such as “all men are potential rapists” have led us here. More of the same will not lead us back, or to anywhere better.

That is a very good comment, which leads to some good and interesting questions. Given the fact that we are here, where is the better place we would like to get to and how do we get there?

Sooner or later the problem with the extremely low quality of potential marriage mates and the biased legal system has to be addressed. Taking a “Caveat Emptor” – “Let the buyer beware” approach to marriage is going to result in a lot of men becoming biased toward being overly wary. Tales of those who have survived playing Russian Roulette without blowing their brains out are simply not very compelling arguments.

This whole circular argument of “Not all woman are like that and if a man’s marriage fails it is his fault because he didn’t find the right one and have enough Game to keep her” simply perpetuates the cultural problem of women being able to be invisible in the interaction and always duck behind the Feminine Mystique any time someone tries to hold them accountable for their behavior.

This is the one big problem I have with the way Ev Psych is being applied – it is too fatalistic and deterministic and does not allow for cultural forces to contain and shape people’s natural tendencies.

A dozen or so years ago I wrote that it appeared to me that culturally we were headed in the direction that marriage was becoming a luxury of the “attractiveness elites.” For women, this means appearance first and income potential a distant second, and for men it appears to be Game first, income potential second, and buff appearance third.

The problem with putting so much emphasis on Game for men, and letting women off the hook by believing that all they have to bring is appearance and sex, is that it makes marriage a harder and harder sell. The man with Game supposedly can continue to pull younger hotter women than his aging wife whose appearance degrades every year and, if he has the resouces to go with that, allowing her to monopolize his time and resources while giving nothing in return will always look like a bad investment to men.

If nothing else, the generalizations by men are putting women on notice that they have to up their Game if they want to have any chance of having a husband to sit on when the music stops for them.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
applimat November 18, 2009 at 08:23

One problem that I see in many discussions on this site is that the term “alpha” is being used in several, and inconsistent, ways.

It is sometimes used as a label for someone who has managed to learn (and understand) only enough about Game to con many girls out of their panties, for a short time.

It is not surprising that, for such “alphas”, the following (from an earlier comment) would be true:

“The Inductivist has, using GSS data. Alphas are 8 times as likely to be divorced as betas. (He defines alphas as those who’ve had 20 or more lifetime sex partners , and betas as those with 1 or 2.)”

There is more to being an alpha and Game than that.

For those who may not be aware of all of the aspects of being an alpha, I would suggest going to http://www.takeninhand.com and searching on the term “alpha”. (Left sidebar, second section (Articles), last option (Search by keyword)).

Having learned about both, I have come to the conclusion that TakenInHand is a more direct subset of Game that emphasizes the ideas most necessary for a long term relationship or marriage.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 08:29

BTW, I absolutely do not believe anything in that study, leaving aside the headlines failure to cost in the probability of divorce. I strongly suspect junk methodology. As well anyone who doesn’t know that sociology and related fields in the social sciences throughout the West are HEAVILY tilted to the left or far left and feminism, knows nothing of universities.

Take this “finding”

Correspondingly, the birth of a child scores a low cash sum, more than £18,000 for a man and just under £5,000 for a woman.

What utter rubbish.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 08:32

applimat–

There is more to being an alpha and Game than that.

You think?

The point is he could find that measure in the data. Your definition, whatever it is, would be “harder” to find.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
applimat November 18, 2009 at 08:44

@Doug1

“The point is he could find that measure in the data. Your definition, whatever it is, would be “harder” to find.”

If “that measure” is not clearly defined, then all subsequent conclusions are meaningless.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 08:46

Heathen–

But then again, the kind of man that devotes himself to the pursuit of multiple women is probably is not the kind of man that would enjoy the full benefits of marriage anyway. Given that he won’t want to marry, arguing about whether he could do so safely seems a moot point.

Oh I agree. Once alphas do want to settle down I by far recommend cohabiting with a woman to marrying her. An occasional discrete fling while maintain love and attention for your living together woman is not the same thing as still “constantly chasing multiple women”.

For better or for worse, women today have more options, and no longer have to tolerate men that cheat on them.

What you seem to fail to understand is all the options which alpha males who are also excellent providers have, if they cohabit rather than marry, of marry only with a prenup. There are more hot girls wanting such guys than are available. It’s true that feminist (and for that matter on this traditional pedestalling chivalric culture) stand in the way. So you need to first have your own beliefs down solid, and then be persuasive – and ready to walk away.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 08:46

*This whole circular argument of “Not all woman are like that and if a man’s marriage fails it is his fault because he didn’t find the right one and have enough Game to keep her” simply perpetuates the cultural problem of women being able to be invisible in the interaction and always duck behind the Feminine Mystique any time someone tries to hold them accountable for their behavior.*

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I have not achieved anything in my life by playing the victim and complaining about what somebody else did to me. One of the major turning points in my life came when I realised that people did to me what I allowed them to do to me. When I took responsibility for that and started working to fix that, I was able to start turning my life around.

All my gains have been made by fighting HARD for what I want. Now that I am here, I own my successes. I own the choices that led me here. I swam against the currents of “should have been” and made my own wyrd.

Feminists have built a movement on victimhood. Let’s not follow them down that particular rabbit hole.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
clarence November 18, 2009 at 08:47

doug1:

I don’t know about the idea of expressing things in monetary terms. But our study author hit the ball out of the park when he factored divorce in with marriage. The two do go together, and as he correctly noted (and feminists have written books of frothing rage denying mostly using suspect data) divorce costs men much more so than women.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 08:50

Women demand 75% of marriages. Then they later demans 75% of divorces. Then the court punishes the man for the whole thing, during the divorce.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Jabherwochie November 18, 2009 at 08:57

Alpha has two distinct meanings to me, as someone who has studied Evo-Psych as a hobby. This is how I seperate the two, and is my opinion.

Game Alpha- Someone who mimics Alpha qualities that evolved and were important in a pre-industrialized society, in such a way to attract and control females.

True Alpha- Someone with extreme status, power, and/or respect in his sphere of influence. (This does not necessarily translate to success with women. You can be an Alpha scientist, and have an ego the size of Jupitor, but still lack the right type of game to attract women.)

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 08:57

Feminists have built a movement on victimhood. Let’s not follow them down that particular rabbit hole.

You keep missing the point. Pointing out problems with a situation does not equal “victimhood.”

I agree totally with you about taking control of one’s own life. I dated for more than 30 years and simply never ran across that one woman out of thousands that I thought I could trust and rely on enough to pitch my entire life into the pot with her.

But, survival of the toughest is not a good strategy at the cultural level. If you should get falsely accused of something like rape some day, I wonder how you would react to people telling you “don’t play victim.”

People who die in a Cholera epidemic because they do not understand the disease and how it gets spread may be partially to blame for their own deaths due to ingnorance, but dismissing any discussion of the epidemic itself with “let’s not play victim” and thumping one’s chest about one’s superior immune system isn’t going to get us to any “better place”, either.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Black&German November 18, 2009 at 08:58

Why isn’t my statistics post showing up?

[Ed.: It was stuck in the spam pile, probably due to links or something like that. It's posted now at 6:34.]

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 18, 2009 at 09:04

divorce costs men much more so than women.

Of course it does. The way they get to the other statistic (ie, that women are impoverished by divorce) is by (1) not deducting CS, alimony or both from the male post-divorce income and (2) not including CS, alimony or both in the female post-divorce income. In other words, they take the position of the tax code that this income earned by the man is actually “family income” (even though the guy is no longer married) and therefore the transfer from ex-husband to ex-wife is “intra family” and therefore neither an expense for the ex-husband nor income for the ex-wife — and therefore no need to take into account when evaluating post-divorce income. Instead what they do is simply look at the raw gross income post divorce — which of course is going to skew towards men because women get the children almost all the time (at their demand) and therefore work less than men do post-divorce, and so they earn less, on average. But of course that grossly misstates the reality, because of the substantial transfer payments of CS and alimony that cut down on the ex-husbands income while substantially augmenting the ex-wife’s income.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
rebel November 18, 2009 at 09:15

If marriage is a worse deal for women than it is for men, is there a way that we could entice women into our marriage strike?

If BOTH men AND women refuse to marry, then there is hope that the old, obsolete institution will be made redundant.

Marriage is the great killer in our society.

This would be a much better world if marriage was obsoleted or abolished.

My own son got divorced a few years ago: he’s had more sex in one year than he had during his entire five year “marriage”.
In a sense, he is happy he did marry: he can now see both sides of the fence and, naturally, he chose freedom, sex galore, multiple partners and the possibility to spend all his money on himself.

I smile every times he tells me :” Dad, I live like a King now”.

At least, this story had a happy ending.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 09:16

You guys read the WSJ Halloween special on Alimony right? There was the story of the guy who was divorced amicably back in 1982. They both had jobs back then. He was a civil engineer and she was a computer engineer (working at IBM no less). And then three decades after the divorce his ex-wife runs into financial trouble, blows her retirements accounts off on day-trading, and then develops some health conditions. She goes back to divorce court to ask for, gasp!, alimony, 26 years after the original divorce was finalized. She wins!

This guy’s retirement is ruined, and he recently had to file for bankruptcy, because suddenly he has to support until death, a woman he hasn’t even seen in 26 years.

What kind of human being would sign up for such a trailing legal liability? It is insane!

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Demonspawn November 18, 2009 at 09:28

“This would be a much better world if marriage was obsoleted or abolished.”

No. Marriage is the fundamental building block of civilization.

No marriage = no civilization.

Marriage is required to yoke men into working harder than they need to just to survive, and society to ride on top of those men’s shoulders to advance. Without marriage, (the majority of) men do the minimum required to obtain their needs, and with the cheap sex flying around today that’s not much.

But that doesn’t mean that men should put on that yoke if it is detrimental to them overall. We need to make marriage an appealing thing for men such that they will partake in it willingly. Otherwise, like the situation we have today, men gain their desires outside of marriage and have little reason to enter the institution.

The plain sad truth is that a successful society isn’t very nice to men or women. But it’s the price that needs to be paid to keep one’s culture growing and safe from takeover.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 09:28

Jabherwochie
No, I always welcome insight so you’re not prying. He communicates on his terms, which are sometimes non-verbal (I must ask for him to show me). He has always had incredible ability with puzzles, at least from the age of four? I have observed him solving things which–ok, I was going to say a few years but who am I kidding? I have heard him singing in a voice that didn’t seem to be his, beautiful melodies that I’ve never heard, and I’ve been a lifelong musician. If he doesn’t like someone or someone’s attention, he ignores them (he will not even acknowledge that they are there). I have become annoyed when a woman does not stop after being told because it is easy for me (and should be for her) to see that he flat out is not interested. He can verbalize quite well, however does not seem to make sense at times. I don’t think they’re interested in his verbalization skills, however. He chooses who he likes and does not, and I can tell he is annoyed (he detests his biological mother and reacts in the same manner when she has approached him, i.e. rolling the car window up while she’s in mid-sentence). Fortunately, she’s given up using him as a reason to see me because she understands this.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Gunslingergregi November 18, 2009 at 09:34

this was from the puma link.

”””””””JudgeBean wrote:
Perplexing legal issue- Does a a sex change operation entitle the former he to the she alimony scale?
11/13/2009 8:18 AM EST
””””””””””””””””’

Kind of drives home the point that woman getting over.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Gunslingergregi November 18, 2009 at 09:37

And its so funny on the alimony shit when they act like the woman has no skills. I think it just proves that she added nothing to marriage then if she couldn’t be bothered to learn something or help the husband with financial obligations.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 09:38

Jabherwochie
I have observed him solving things which–ok, I was going to say a few years but who am I kidding?

I should have added “I could solve in a few years after ‘which”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 09:42

Novaseeker–

Instead what they do is simply look at the raw gross income post divorce — which of course is going to skew towards men because women get the children almost all the time (at their demand) and therefore work less than men do post-divorce, and so they earn less, on average.

Women also earn less because they care more about job satisfaction over income than men do. Partly that is because men regard income as part of how they attract and keep the interest of attractive women, and partly because women can often get men to pay for them in part. As well women are hypergamous with respect to income as well as status.

When married women hit a career bump they often drop out of the workforce and have babies, instead of try, try again. Or they switch to a less competitive and moneyed but kinder/gentler career path etc.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
applimat November 18, 2009 at 09:46

I think that “alpha” is defined by capabilities and choices.

For example, suppose that a man has strength of will, dominance and leadership qualities, self-control, rationality, intelligence, understands himself, experiences emotions strongly but is not ruled by them, selectively connects with others deeply, can have as many women as he wants …

Do these qualities make him an alpha?

Suppose that this man chooses to be exclusive with one woman. Is he still an alpha?

Suppose that he chooses not to be a leader or to exercise control. Is he still an alpha?

I am not saying that there is one right definition, but only that we should clarify this for ourselves, and then define our terms, at least implicitly, when talking with others.

I have read threads where a woman, who is upset by the idea of “alpha” (which to her means one thing), is being lectured by a man to whom “alpha” means something else entirely.

While this is very entertaining, especially when she starts having a hissy-fit, it really doesn’t accomplish anything useful.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 09:47

And its so funny on the alimony shit when they act like the woman has no skills. I think it just proves that she added nothing to marriage then if she couldn’t be bothered to learn something or help the husband with financial obligations.

Gunslingergregi
Couldn’t agree more, and I’ve read some of the most outrageous stories. Fortunately in some states like mine, this is almost non-existent (I believe it may be allowed under certain circumstances, but I’ve never heard of a man having to pay it here).

This is about as anti-male as it gets. There was a recent story of a woman paying it and bitching to high heavens about it. My heart bleeds for her.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
kis November 18, 2009 at 09:50

You guys read the WSJ Halloween special on Alimony right? There was the story of the guy who was divorced amicably back in 1982. They both had jobs back then. He was a civil engineer and she was a computer engineer (working at IBM no less). And then three decades after the divorce his ex-wife runs into financial trouble, blows her retirements accounts off on day-trading, and then develops some health conditions. She goes back to divorce court to ask for, gasp!, alimony, 26 years after the original divorce was finalized. She wins!

So did the idiot woman who spilled hot coffee on her lap in her car and sued McDonald’s for millions–and now we’re all stuck with tepid coffee.

So did the burglar who broke into someone’s house, slipped and fell, and sued him for keeping an unsafe premises.

So did the 18 y/o Canadian adult who’d never snowboarded before, went on an expert level jump on a school field trip and broke his neck–and now I have to fill out a ten page legal waiver when my kid goes on a school picnic.

There’s a lot of bullshit decisions made in courts of law, most of them involving idiots who simply don’t want to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. In these cases–and the one Puma linked–judges need to be soundly spanked. It’s a fucked up world all around once you involve lawyers.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 18, 2009 at 10:27

@David Brandt-

Do you try to teach him or warn him about human nature, or do you feel that it would just be a waste of time, like explaining advanced astro-physics to a pre-teen? Do you trust his instincts when it comes to judging human character based on what you have witnessed? Even if social skills are poor, sometimes broader personality implications are apparent to Austistics, like sociopathy or liers. Often times not. I’m just saying that sometimes instinct has a powerful ability to remain active in the reptilian part of our brains, despite any cognitive anomilies. In fact, cognition often fataly overrides our instincts.

Beyond my usual interest with Autism, I was an art teacher for 4 whole months before getting railroaded because I led the class in a strong masculine manner and provided an active learning environment. What might look like 35 kids in chaos, (vs 35 zombies) was 35 kids actively engaged in learning. (Long story, but I was awesome) They mainstreamed in learning disabled kids into my classes. I had one Autistic. He was high functioning and his mother chose not to tell him he was Autistic (I stongly disagreed with this, but my opinion was rightfully moot). During a special conference with her, she instantly said, “He will like you.”, not knowing I struggled with Asperger’s growing up (I did not tell her, most people don’t believe I had/have Asperger’s after interacting with me (another long story of overcoming my social limitations). It was her mother’s intuition I guess. Anyways, sure enough, we bonded quite easliy as he was an exceptional artist. He drew houses and buildings mostly. He broke some obvious perspective rules to me, but most he got right. It created a unique, disjointed, multi-perspective style. The thing is, he was self taught, and perspective rules is not something people normally stumble into on their own, but he was figuring them out. I made such quick progress with him that I was about to move him onto the human form before I was fired by my Feminazi overlords.
Not being able to expand him to his full potential is my biggest regret on being fired. I hope I planted the appropriate seeds. I would always tell him when he was being to0 literal in following directions or communicationg with other students, but it was hard to explain to him why he thought diferently from others with out going into the whole Autism thing. I get the feeling many Autistics can be taken advantage of by manipulation. I feel as part of their education they should learn about the dark sides of human nature. I don’t think this is ever emphasized in our PC, touchy feely education system. Helping someone be social, but not teaching them about the down side of always being nice and cooperative, can lead someone to peril. Just thinking outloud again.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 18, 2009 at 10:34

This is about as anti-male as it gets. There was a recent story of a woman paying it and bitching to high heavens about it. My heart bleeds for her.

Yup. My ex knows a woman who is paying CS to her ex-h — she wanted shared custody because she’s a high flying lawyer and wanted more time for work, so she gets to pay him a relatively small amount per month which she complains about. Y’all made the beds, sweeties.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
691 November 18, 2009 at 10:36

You need to read this study like an economist. Men get more monetary benefits out of marriage? That’s because it takes a higher price to convince a man to get married than to convince a woman to get married. Why? Because men give up more to get married.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 18, 2009 at 10:47

rebel:

“If marriage is a worse deal for women than it is for men, is there a way that we could entice women into our marriage strike?”

Nah, I’m all for women chasing that carrot. Let them *want* marriage while men shy away from it. This will redress the imbalance that men face. Only by not giving in to something they want, displaying higher value and such will we ever regain *some* of the power we’ve lost through the mechanisms of cultural marxism.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 10:51

While talking of alimony, this article called Alimony Wars just came out 1hr ago on the Socyberty’s online magazine:

http://socyberty.com/relationships/alimony-wars/

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 10:54

You all really should read this WSJ article on alimony, that’s discussed above:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 18, 2009 at 10:57

691:

i’m not arguing that the intial headline “Men gain more from marriage” is incorrect per se. What I’m arguing, that as rational agents (viewing this as an economist would), we have to take into account the probabilities of future outcomes in our analysis.

Women lose a lot less from divorce than men do. This accounts for their higher rates of divorce initiation. Divorce is easier on them. They usually get financially rewarded and don’t have to deal with their “deadweight loss” of a husband anymore. So as economists, we can realize that the headline of this study is complete garbage. Also, we realize that this study is meant to be read as an analysis “of the average”. Since it is an analysis of the average marriage, we must also apply the average rate of divorce probability: 50%.

Its pure junk social science.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 11:01

“Do you try to teach him or warn him about human nature, or do you feel that it would just be a waste of time, like explaining advanced astro-physics to a pre-teen? Do you trust his instincts when it comes to judging human character based on what you have witnessed?”

I’m going to give you a mixed answer on this that I’m sure you’ll understand. My experience with him has involved him teaching me as much as, if not more than the other way, at least during his adult life. I have never known anyone with some of the abilities he has, one of which is extremely acute intuitive capacity. I could go on with some examples, but I don’t want to veer OT too much. The main question for me, and has been for many years is what happens when I’m gone. In all honesty, I don’t think he views me as being accountable or responsible for him, it is something I see as important. My primary concern at this point is to ensure that he is still as free and happy as he is today. You understand that what you and I may see as beautiful, others view with disdain as odd or wrong. Those of us who can view ‘reality’ in different ways have a much easier time relating. What I don’t want is for him to be under the control of those who neither understand, nor appreciate what a unique individual he is, and respect that. This is my current goal. He rarely loses his temper, but I’ve been on the wrong side of that. I am a muscular 190 lbs., and he lifted me up off the floor and effortlessly threw me across the room like a rag doll. So while he will meet others, smile and shake hands, I don’t piss him off.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 11:17

Chuck–

i’m not arguing that the intial headline “Men gain more from marriage” is incorrect per se.

I understood perfectly well what you were arguing when I first read your post.

However I find it very unlikely that men do gain more from marriage. It doesn’t comport with what I see in married male friends.

I think rather that women in the Anglosphere are literally taught by the feminist media culture to be dissatisfied in their marriages, so as to ever further the feminist agenda of demanding more and more. For instance more housework from men who are bringing home most of the money. More compliance with her priorities from men who already comply too much. Ironically taking these stances in the relationship even when she gets what she wants quite fully, make her less happy. Because with the culture’s help she’s pushed her husband into being that much more beta.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 11:23

Any man considering getting married in Massachussettes, an alimony for life state and one where it can be modified up any ole time, even years later, is out of his mind. So too is any married man considering moving to Mass cause if that’s where you live when she divorces you, the fact that you got married in Texas (3 years of alimony, max, and they really don’t want there to be any) ain’t gonna help. I believe I saw somewhere that prenups declining alimony aren’t enforced w/r/t that there either.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 18, 2009 at 11:31

Thanks David. I appreciate you letting me see a glimpse of your life.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 18, 2009 at 11:34

I think rather that women in the Anglosphere are literally taught by the feminist media culture to be dissatisfied in their marriages, so as to ever further the feminist agenda of demanding more and more. For instance more housework from men who are bringing home most of the money. More compliance with her priorities from men who already comply too much. Ironically taking these stances in the relationship even when she gets what she wants quite fully, make her less happy. Because with the culture’s help she’s pushed her husband into being that much more beta.

Yes, it’s completely self-destructive, and destructive of the men in their lives as well. It’s like Tsing-Loh and her LA friends — all turned their husbands into sexless kitchen bitches only to wistfully wish they were more like Don Draper or Muslim men in Scandinavia. The generation of women between 30-50 is very, VERY, tainted with this stuff. I have been very fortunate enough to meet some exceptions to this, but there’s really most of a generation out there in the big cities who have completely lost touch with what they want and need and only wake up to that in midlife, destroying the lives of their spouse and kids in the process. It’s shameful, really, but such is life — my guess is that most of the women involved had no idea that by being a pushy empowered GRRL they would actually cause their marriage to be less satisfying. A generation that seems to have been more or less completely without a clue, really, but given the legal power to wreak massive damage on a broad scale.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 18, 2009 at 11:39

Gents, you want to know the cost of marriage?

The criminals who call themselves magistrates of the private run for profit company called the Australian Federal Magistrates Court stole my house and sold it. They then confiscated the proceeds of my 27 years of labour. My ex is claiming the entire proceeds of my labour for 27 years. I have a court date next week in Sydney to address this issue. I have written to the AG as well as to the magistgrates involved. I have sent lawful notices to demand documentation as to their lawful right to sell my house and retain the proceeds. They have been unwilling to reply to the lawful notice and have therefore gone into dishonour. I have issued a bill for \$A5.5M against the registrar that sold my house. I will issue a default judgement against the magistgrate who has refused to hand over my property. In Ireland my bank accounts were frozen evern before documents were served on me. My company was destroyed. My children were kidnapped. The forced sale of my house against my will in a down market cost about EUR100K over what might have been achieved more properly.

I have spent about EUR100K in legal fees before discovering that the lawyers are agents of the state and totally complicit in the extortion system of the global elite. My ex has submitted a claim for 100% of all assets despite the fact that it was me who produced ALL the assets of the marriage through my labour. That other women are not outraged at such a claim demonstrates clearly what crap western women are. Her latest affidavit had 12 counts of perjury as I counted them. That other women will not jail her for this demonstrates what crap women are now. Women don’t like being called ‘crap’? Tough shit. Stop supporting women committing perjury, kidnapping, assault, and robbery via the courts and maybe my opinion of you will change from one of being that ALL western women are crap and not worth any decent mans time.

You men might want to start asking why it is that the AG and the magistrates are not able to show documentation as to their lawful right to do what it is they do. You men might want to start asking why it is that they respond with silence when their so called ‘authority’ is challenged. It’s because they don’t have any and they know it. They rely on men like those of you here to be willfully ignorant of your rights, and they are correct. Pretty much every man her is willfully ignorant of his rights. And evern worse, many criticise men like me who are doing our best to wake you up and tell you what your rights truely are. But no, most of you guys are just so smart you want to remain willfully ignorant and remain a slave to the global elite and you want to undermine men like me who are doing our best to wake you up. Gee…well done guys. How many of you have actually watched ‘It’s all an Illusion’ or ‘Bursting the Bubbles of Government Deception’ and realise you are not a person, you are not a citizen, and you are a slave by your own choice? You men might want to get into public blogs like this http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/asksam and start asking the hard questions and start stating the facts. You men want to start shoving the truth down other mens throats so hard they want to puke, just like I do. Then, maybe, just maybe, we might wake up a few men who might actually take some action rather than sit on their fat arses and type posts onto internet forums about how ‘bad’ it is. Where are the men who will sit on de jour juries and jail these judges who are the vanguard of the NWO and their destruction of the family. A de jour jury of 12 good men issuing a verdict and sentence against a judge is all you need to incarcerate a judge. A de jour jury can pass sentence that the state MUST enforce.

So, next week? I turn up in Sydney and I fight these bastards and their criminal cartel. I will use everything I have learned over the last 18 months. They may shoot me and kill me. They may throw me in jail for ‘contempt of court’. The one thing they will NOT do is obey the law. And you men might want to know this and you might want to be telling other men about this.

If anyone from Sydney wants to come along and video tape what is happening the location is: Commonwealth Law Courts, 1-3 George Street Parramatta, NSW, 2150 and it is 10am on 26/11/09. In my claim of right I have claimed all disputes against me are to be heard in public with video and audio recording. So those of you in Sydney are welcome. And feel free to spread it around the place that this defense of freedom against this criminal cartel is happening in this place on this day. Men who want to fight against these criminals should turn up and meet out the front at 9am. I am wondering if I should have a sign that says ‘globalman’ on me so people know who I am on the day.

So yes MEN….The cost benefit of marriage today? It costs you EVERYTHING and more including your children. Your benefits are NOTHING. Your wife will more than likely turn into ‘bitch from hell’ once the children arrived. Don’t listen to ANYTHING women tell you about this….Talk to the men who got the short end of the stick from the corrupted courts. Read ‘Taken Into Custody’ by Stephen Baskerville.

Any man who now walks down the aisle and says I do in a western country is a complete idiot and deserves everything he gets from this point forward. I hope to be able to save the lives of many of those men who did this before it was clear the Illuminati Corrupted courts are totally committed to the abuse of men and the destruction of their willingness to have children.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 18, 2009 at 12:03

Globalman-

Globalman-

I hope someone documents your endevours. Please see to it if you can.

On a side note-

I’ve always toyed with the idea of going off the grid for a while, to sorta test the viability of it. It just seems like a logistical and financial nightmare. I grew up camping, but I would still need a vehicle and a way to generate revenue. I am a talented artist, but I doubt I could sustain myself on that. Then again, homeless people with a lot less drive and ability than me seem to get by, and most of them are addicts on top of everything else. How hard could it be? Any words of wisdom, especially from a legal perspective?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 12:05

I see more signs that the whole sordid scam that is ‘Marriage 2.0′ is collapsing under its own weight.

My comment here elaborates. Let me summarize.

Men as diverse as Welmer, Zed, Doug1, Novaseeker, Globalman, Puma, Obsidian, Dragnet, Ferdinand, Roissy, T.A., Chuck, etc. all say marriage is a risky deal for men no matter what their income or race, and clearly state the anti-male divorce laws as one of the biggest, if not THE biggest reason.

Yet, a lot of women commenters still spout the following :

“Married men are the happiest and healthiest!!”
“Don’t knock it until you try it at least once”
“Dont you want companionship?”

Anyone see the pattern here?

Note how the tone has become one of pleading/imploring. I dare say that the jig is up, and women realize how much they have to lose now that men are getting informed.

Yet, women are far, far from getting a clue as to WHY they are having trouble landing husbands nowadays…..

Black&German,

It is absurd to claim that women are also losing interest in marriage to the same degree as men. Aoefe claimed the same thing. Au contraire, women are even pushing for soft polygamy – that is how desperate they are to be with an Alpha.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 12:20

I think rather that women in the Anglosphere are literally taught by the feminist media culture to be dissatisfied in their marriages, so as to ever further the feminist agenda of demanding more and more.

That is VERY analogous to how Al-Qaeda managed to stoke the grievances of average Muslims.

But that didn’t turn out so well for them, and today, by all accounts, AQ is much weaker than it was in 2001 or 2006.

The parallels are many.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 12:21

“Don’t knock it until you try it at least once

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had friend who got his hand caught in a rolling press and almost lost it. He went through years of surgeries just to get some use of it back. I don’t have to “try it”, even once to know that I don’t want to go through what he went through. I had another friend who got his arm caught in a conveyor belt and almost got it torn off. To this day he can’t raise that hand higher than his shoulder. I don’t have to “try it”, even once to know that I don’t want to go through what he went through.

The number of divorces I have seen number literally in the hundreds. I don’t have to “try it”, even once to know that I don’t want to go through what the vast majority of men I knew in HS and college went through.

The relentlessness with which women will deny everything men say about the subject, while they use every manipulative tool at their disposal to trick men into shoving their necks in the noose is simply amazing, and is a perfect illustration of what complete lack of regard, respect, or any concern at all that women have for men.

The good news is that no matter what they try, none of it seems to be working any more.

A few more years, and maybe they will wake up to the fact that their strategies are totally bankrupt and maybe decide to try something else. At least until they do, men know what they need to do to avoid giving women the chance to rip their arms off and their heart and testicles out through their wallets.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 12:28

The good news is that no matter what they try, none of it seems to be working any more.

Bingo.

Their tone has shifted from shaming/moralizing to one of pleading/imploring.

That signifies something huge.

We are getting somewhere, gentlemen….

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 18, 2009 at 12:30

Puma November 17, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“The comments include many from actual alimony-slaves. Bone chilling stories. Beneficial my ass.”
Well said Puma…beneficial my arse. I’ve seen both sides of this coin now, close up and personal. I will never, ever again suggest to a young man he should consider marriage. Until I die, which might be next week at the hands of the blue gun thugs in Sydney, I will tell young men:

DO NOT MARRY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Those who do not heed the warnings? Idiots.

21Guns November 17, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Don’t you get it yet 21Guns? In a ‘happy’ marriage for a woman there is no sex. WTF do you think guys like me are trying to tell you youngsters?

chic noir November 17, 2009 at 9:03 pm
“fair enough but to find the sort of woman you’re looking for, you will have to search long and hard.”
What a croc of shit. Women are so full of shit nowadays it just busts forth like projectile vomiting. There are NO decent women in the west….the few that are decent are so few they are not worth searching for and they will be brainwashed into hating men soon enough. Conversely, I am yet to meet and eastern woman who was not absolutely lovely, even the ones I send on their way are polite and take the rejection well. Women spew out this shit that ‘you have to search long and hard to find the one’. Nope. It is the other way around. Men do not need to search for wives, there are plenty of women available. Women need to search for husbands and the supply is drying up. As fifth said I was similar. I used to be christian and the archtypal ‘family man’. I am extremely well respected and regarded in my family as having done a superb job these last 23 years with my ex. That ‘Family’ and not only lost me but made me an energetic advocate of the ‘f*** and chuck’ approach to women is nothing short of stunning. Today I tell young men to treat women like cars. Drive them hard when they are new and as soon as they show signs of wear and start to play up get rid of them and get a new one. Hey, this is how I treat the women I REALLY LIKE, and they know it.

The Fifth Horseman November 17, 2009 at 9:18 pm
“I can’t make it any simpler than that.”
Dude, she’s a woman therefore a liar and selfish. She doesn’t want to hear what you are saying.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 12:36

Amen.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
E. Steven Berkimer November 18, 2009 at 12:44

What Puma said.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck Ross November 18, 2009 at 12:47

Doug:

“I understood perfectly well what you were arguing when I first read your post.”

My comment was directed at 691.

Globalman November 18, 2009 at 12:49

Jabherwochie November 18, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“I hope someone documents your endevours. Please see to it if you can.”
Jabherwochie, I am sending all details to colleagues and I am writing a book on this. The book will contain the real names and the real documents. It will be free. It will be published on my personal web site. The bad guys know this is what I am doing. They can’t stop it by killing me. They can only slow it down. I am in a private men only group and they are committed to seeing this through. Of course in the book I will need to be a little more ‘poltically correct’ as I still have a business to run and there are many women in the clients I deal with and we all know women are such crap nowadays they can’t deal with the idea a man might have a differing opinion so they gang up on men and scream abuse and get the blue gun thugs to come and arrest him and they will try to enlist the full force of the Illuminati corrupted state to abuse him…blah…blah..blah…western women are pathetic. So ‘empowered’ they can’t stand and argue, they need to call MEN with guns who will oppress the man that holds the offending opinion.

“I’ve always toyed with the idea of going off the grid for a while, to sorta test the viability of it.”
I do not think you need to go off grid. Strawman recapture works fine. This is what I did. If anything I am highly visible. In recent times I have submitted lawful notices to the Queen of England, Australias PM, AG, GG. Today I sent letters to Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel over human rights violations I have suffered at the hands of their staff in not observing the World Passport I have and my right of freedom of travel. Yep. I am making one genunine pain in the arse of myself to see if these guys will obey the law of the land. As you can imagine, their response is to refuse to do anything and go into lawful dis-honour. I am considering that in my default judgements I document the remedy be assassination. That might get their attention… Under common law, when someone goes into lawful dis-honour the remedy that can be declared is anything the human being chooses. By being silent the other person has acquiesed and declared themselves guilty and pre-agreed to any punishment deemed appropriate. Silence is not golden in law. In the end we are going to have to find men willing to sit on de jour juries to incarcerate these criminals or we are going to have to assassinate the FC judges, lawyers and corrupt politicians. The alternative is increased slavery, most of you are already slaves. I decided I didn’t want to be one any more.

zed November 18, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“Don’t knock it until you try it at least once”
Now this is actually true. I had a woman say that to me and I said “Would you put your hand in a fire to see if it would get burned, or would you take my word for it that your hand would get burned”…stupid f***ing woman said she would try it for herself….women are so f***ed up with cognitive dissonance that they even have to claim they would burn and mutilate their hand in support of their argument FOR marriage.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck Ross November 18, 2009 at 12:52

Globalman:

“‘f*** and chuck’ approach”

Is this different from the “fuck *a* chuck” approach that I think every woman should use?

zed November 18, 2009 at 12:55

they even have to claim they would burn and mutilate their hand in support of their argument FOR marriage.

Let them. God made fools for the rest of us to learn from.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
ray November 18, 2009 at 12:56

“I have heard him singing in a voice that didn’t seem to be his, beautiful melodies that I’ve never heard, and I’ve been a lifelong musician.”

creating new songs for the next generation of musicians

“He chooses who he likes and does not, and I can tell he is annoyed (he detests his biological mother and reacts in the same manner when she has approached him, i.e. rolling the car window up while she’s in mid-sentence).”

lol oh yeah their No Bullshit-O-Meters are always on

most of the “kanners” autistics i’ve known are truly guy’s guys, some would call them alphas except they dont play those games

“You gotta stand on your tiptoes to see the future”

– Uncle Sweetheart, “masked and anonymous”

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 18, 2009 at 13:10

Hestia November 17, 2009 at 9:48 pm
“Many wives treat their husband like garbage. Just look around, girls, and listen.”
Hoo-f***ing-ray…coming from a woman, that’s excellent. Thanks Hestia.

The verbal and emotional abuse western women dump on men now is totally disgusting. And any woman who stands up for her man is also attacked by her ‘sistas’. The hate programmed by the Illuminati into women is severe and deep. It is particularly apparent when dealing with eastern women. When I tell western women I disowned my former children they universally abuse me. When I say the exact same words to eastern women they are supportive and notice that I had been so abused and so hurt that the only way for me to go forward was to sever my relationship with my former children. They get immediately that I was a loving and caring father and that I had to give up that which I most loved in the world in order to survive. You western women are such total crap it’s not believable…

And ladies? Sorry is not going to cut it. There is no statute of limitations on common law crimes like kidnapping. You are going to have to punish every single woman, like my ex, who broke laws like kidnapping and you are going to have to provide remedy to the men to ever, ever, ever be considered for a seat at the foot of the table. These men who are spineless whimps who suggest we should ‘call it quits’ and ‘get along’ are just that…spineless whimps. I strongly dis-agree with any ‘peace offering’ to western woman. They are going to be put back in their place like the russian men have done. For the remainder of my days I am going to take every opportunity to make sure young men understand just how crap western women are.

And you ladies had better start wondering. How in the hell do you provide lawful remedy to a man when the woman kidnapped his children and deprived him of his God given right to raise his own children? Until you women start to come forward with damn solid proposals to remedy THAT kind of abuse I will continue to label you women as ‘crap’. Until women are punished in EXACTLY the same way a man is today for kidnapping (usually around 5 years in jail) I am going to call you women crap. Until my ex is rotting in jail for her crimes of perjury, kidnapping and extortion, I am going to call you women crap. You don’t like me doing that? Tough. You are children. You are irrelevant. You are worthless apart from pumping out babies because you will not hold your ‘sistas’ to the law of the land. In one word, you are pathetic.

zed November 18, 2009 at 8:22 am
“Given the fact that we are here, where is the better place we would like to get to and how do we get there?”
I now promote to young men the same life I am living. I have a luxury apartment in Germany and another small one in London. I don’t pay income taxes, alimony or child support. I make a lot of money. I can make enough money to live for a year in about 300 hours of work. Not many men can do that. I go where I please. I do as I please. I hang out with my mates. I get all the women I want. They give me lovemaking and sex that I never even knew was possible. Indeed, I said to a friend the other day if the blue gun thugs shoot me next week at my court appearance I am ready to go.

My life over the last 18 months has been better than most guys get at any time in their lifetime. I am now a satisfied man. Totally dis-engaging from western women was the best thing I ever did. Engaging only with eastern women the second best thing I ever did. I promote to young men. Treat women like cars. Treat them like the children they are. Do NOT give an inch. I am not at the level of many other men I know who are continually putting their women down to undermine their confidence and keep them off balance but I can assure young men here that negging and endless criticism is a great way to keep a woman compliant. I even know men who tell their girlfriends that if they say no to sex they will just go and get sex from a prostitute. They tell me it works fine. The woman never says no to sex. Women have tried to dominate and control? Well men are the masters of domination and control and we are going to be doing it back to you women for millenia to come.

I am going to live the rest of my life working on interesting things, eating fine food, drinking fine wine, having fine women and then I’ll die. I will never, ever, ever allow a woman to live in my home. THAT is a ‘better place’ for men. THAT is a life worth living. Chidren? Over-rated. We have too many people anyway. Women? Who cares if they are happy? I’d like the women I date to be happy but I don’t care whether they are or not. There are way too many women to be useful anyway. Many of them are ugly fat women who serve no useful purpose. We would be better off without them. ‘Big Beautiful Women’? Please. Land whales are not ‘beautiful’ in anyones eyes but their deluded ‘sistas’.

“Sooner or later the problem with the extremely low quality of potential marriage mates and the biased legal system has to be addressed.”
Nope….us men can simply refuse to engage in THEIR society. We can refuse to marry and have children. We can refuse to be governed. We can f*** all those desperate 30-35 year old women who are trying so hard to get us to marry them and then kick them out when we are done with them.

I see NO REASON to address the biased legal system when it can be safely ignored. I see NO REASON to be governed by a corrupt guvment when you can rescind your consent to be governed. I see NO REASON to offer the hand of peace to women until such time as they have punished all those women who committed crimes. I’m not talking about just ‘being nasty’, I am talking about crimes committed being punished. The same way pretty much every man here would agree if a man committed a crime he should be punished. Women want peace? Clean up your own back yard. Punishment is not a gender thing, it is a crime and punishment thing. Only men do this…western women are such crap they think crimes by women against men should not be punished. Pathetic.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 18, 2009 at 13:17

Chuck Ross November 18, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“Is this different from the “fuck *a* chuck” approach that I think every woman should use?”
Good sense of humour Chuck….LOL! It didn’t cross my mind when I wrote it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 18, 2009 at 13:21

Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 11:23 am
“Any man considering getting married in Massachussettes, an alimony for life state and one where it can be modified up any ole time, even years later, is out of his mind.”
Any man who knows how to manage his affairs as a soverign entity in the former british empire has no obligation to pay alimony. Seems men are really, really, really committed to NOT learning this. I am going to keep challenging this statement until we get the article here I suggested by Robert-Arthur: Menard.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 13:24

Globalman – I thought your divorce was taking place in Ireland. How did the Aussie family-courts get in on the action?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 13:26

*You keep missing the point. Pointing out problems with a situation does not equal “victimhood.”

I agree totally with you about taking control of one’s own life [...] But, survival of the toughest is not a good strategy at the cultural level. If you should get falsely accused of something like rape some day, I wonder how you would react to people telling you “don’t play victim.”

People who die in a Cholera epidemic because they do not understand the disease and how it gets spread may be partially to blame for their own deaths due to ingnorance, but dismissing any discussion of the epidemic itself with “let’s not play victim” and thumping one’s chest about one’s superior immune system isn’t going to get us to any “better place”, either.*

Touche.

I agree completely that understanding is necessary. It is the basis of all informed decision making. And, to extend your metaphor, I would even advocate avoiding tainted water. But I would still step up to contradict anyone who started saying that all water, anywhere, was tainted, or that it was not possible to make water safe to drink.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Arbitrary November 18, 2009 at 13:36

Heathen,

But what of people who say they can go without until the epidemic passes? Or that they can get by solely with other drinks? Or even just moving somewhere else where the water supply is a little less toxic?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
arthur November 18, 2009 at 13:38

@kis,
If it’s all the same to you we’ll go ahead and just focus on the fucked up family courts.

@heathen,
The more this thread has progressed, the more condescending the tone of your posts has gotten. You have gone from “not trying to tell guys what to do” to viewing yourself as better/above average, and finally to the good ol’ “you guys are playing the role of victims just like the feminists” card.
Which is it?

Are you frustrated because we are not buying what you’re selling?
Because we are not. Motivational speeches and tapes are so 1980′s.

We are not here to improve ourselves so that we can be customers of a shit product. Women/marriage/the garbage laws constitute that shit product.
We are here to promote the boycotting/striking of said product until the product and the conditions that surround it improve. This just can’t be that tough to comprehend.

One last note. You might be speaking from “on high” now, but you will not have won, or proven to be better than the rest of us mere mortals, until you die without going through a divorce. The game ain’t over yet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 13:53

‘Heathen’ is drifting into the socialcon zone….

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 13:55

Globalman wrote :

Any man who knows how to manage his affairs as a soverign entity in the former british empire has no obligation to pay alimony. Seems men are really, really, really committed to NOT learning this.

We need a step-by-step guide on how to do this, what it entails, and how to not screw up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 13:55

I agree with the 5th Horseman. Marriage 2.0 must perish.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 13:56

…. I mean his earlier point in one of the way-above posts.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 13:56

Globalman–

Any man who knows how to manage his affairs as a soverign entity in the former british empire has no obligation to pay alimony.

So much strum and drang signifying nothing. You never explain how do you. Yet you spend the time to write voluminious rant after rant after rant.

I don’t doubt your ex wife is maneuvering to hand you a very rum deal under Australian laws. I do doubt that you have any coherent or likely successful strategy to deal with it. But maybe you do. If so good.

Meanwhile your constant allusions to ways of escaping divorce judgments “in the former British Empire” (including America-that’s mighty far back former?) i view with extreme skepticism. Especially w/r/t America.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
threerivers November 18, 2009 at 13:59

Heathen: “But I would still step up to contradict anyone who started saying that all water, anywhere, was tainted, or that it was not possible to make water safe to drink.”

arthur: “We are here to promote the boycotting/striking of said product until the product and the conditions that surround it improve. ”

So, for the product and the conditions that surround it to improve, it must be possible to make the water safe to drink. Right?

This discussion reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. The one touching the ear says that an elephant is like a sail, the one holding onto the tail says that it is like a rope, the one touching the side says that it is like a wall, and so on.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 14:03

Threerivers – Are you familiar with the concept of the Marriage Strike?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 14:19

But I would still step up to contradict anyone who started saying that all water, anywhere, was tainted, or that it was not possible to make water safe to drink.

What seems to be missing from this perpetual circular argument is an understanding why you have such a vested interest in getting guys to drink water they have reason to believe is tainted.

If a man does not wish to get married, that is his right. There is, so far, no law demanding that men do so.

Perpetual argument dismissing and attempting to invalidate any and all reasons men give for not wanting to do so merely strengthens their resistance instead of weakening it.

I pointed out in a comment recently (it may have even been in this thread) that women in feminist countries have a very bad PR problem. They are seen as extremely poor bets for marriage, and as generally being tainted enough that they aren’t worth bothering with even a small sip – Arthur could serve as Exhibit A.

Now, in any sort of free-market system, no one has EVER been able to harass potential customers into buying a product that those customers repeatedly and clearly said they did not want.

Now, personally, I would like it if women were to become not so excruciatingly intolerable. And, I think most men would prefer to have a half-decent relationship with a woman over having to regard them like plague-carrying rats.

Now, given all this, and the fact that women in feminist countries have turned themselves into sexual Edsels – overpriced products that no one seems to want – why is the burden on men to “keep looking until they find…” the supposed princes that is worth the quest, or to have to find a way to purify the water that they have made clear they have no desire to drink?

It makes no sense at all.

Any free-market company whose target customers are not buying its product are going to try to find out why and offer a better product that people do actually want to buy. As I said, it just is not possible to harass men into it.

Now, so far, men have been fairly good sports and said “No, we don’t want to buy your product, and this is why” – giving the sellers a perfect opening and all the information they need to improve their product to the point where men might start buying it again.

But, oddly, all the sellers seem to want to do argue with the men and tell them why they are wrong and continue to try to harass the men into buying a product they have made it clear they do not want.

Once men get tired of arguing, they simply go from saying “No, and this is why not” to “No!”

As the old sayings go, “No means no!”, and “What part of ‘NO!’ do you not understand?”

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 14:21

*But what of people who say they can go without until the epidemic passes? Or that they can get by solely with other drinks? Or even just moving somewhere else where the water supply is a little less toxic?*

These are all valid responses. I especially like the third response. Please remember that my comments were triggered by other people saying things like “NO man who is 5+ years into marriage, is receiving any real happiness from his wife”. I believe that marriage is important on many levels, and can be very rewarding if done properly. I therefore felt the need to interject an alternate viewpoint.

*@heathen,
The more this thread has progressed, the more condescending the tone of your posts has gotten. You have gone from “not trying to tell guys what to do” to viewing yourself as better/above average, and finally to the good ol’ “you guys are playing the role of victims just like the feminists” card.
Which is it?*

Both. I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do (in the sense of telling people to get married), but marriage, and family, are at the heart of my religion and my value system and discussing them necessarily means that I will be expressing strongly held views. While my goal is not to be condescending, I do not apologize for believing that some paths in life are more worthy of praise than others.

What I _have_ been trying to do is point out that marriage can be made to work for those people who want marriage. In other words, Dave is not the only guy out there who has found that game, or something similar, can keep your long term relationship healthy.

*Are you frustrated because we are not buying what you’re selling?
Because we are not. Motivational speeches and tapes are so 1980’s.*

Frustrated? Not really. I knew before I posted that the vast majority of men on this board are going to do exactly as they were always going to do, and go about their lives completely uninfluenced by my words. But just as men must challenge the feminist conventional wisdom and status quo, so too must people within the Spearhead challenge the local conventional wisdom and status quo. The fact that this dissent can come from within the group without tearing it apart is a major difference between men and women. We are not threatened by differences in opinion.

*We are not here to improve ourselves so that we can be customers of a shit product. Women/marriage/the garbage laws constitute that shit product.*

I should hope that we are _all_ here for self improvement. And you seem to miss one of my earlier points. We are not passive persons being acted upon; we have a great deal of control over how that “product” turns out. Yes, there are risks, but with the proper tools and understanding, those risks can be minimized. It still may not be for everyone, but it does not have to be quite to futile as it is often painted here at the Spearhead.

*We are here to promote the boycotting/striking of said product until the product and the conditions that surround it improve. This just can’t be that tough to comprehend.*

I understand what you are saying. I am just saying that a boycott is not your only option. Is that too tough to comprehend?

*One last note. You might be speaking from “on high” now, but you will not have won, or proven to be better than the rest of us mere mortals, until you die without going through a divorce. The game ain’t over yet.*

I have never claimed to speak from on high, but you are right, the game is not over, though I play it with progressively more confidence. However, that works both ways. You too have something to prove. Either you must die, never having married, or you must die never regretting that you never married. And all that any of that proves is that for _us_ our decision was right or wrong. People value things differently. What makes one of us happy may not please the other.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Gx1080 November 18, 2009 at 14:23

I would like to add something:

In any country when single pregnant women can get free goverment money is one where you can be sure that “forever” will only be until you fail too many shit tests. I see the point for a fuck, but in YOUR house when you want to rest?. No thank you. Specially when the cunt can have you ARRESTED for a bullshit claim of abuse and she don’t get charges for perjury.

@Globalman

Try to get your battle in video and upload it to You Tube and in all the video sites possible (You Tube is the most popular, but is owned by faggots so it won’t last long). Is impossible to completely erase stuff off the Internet. Other than that, make them pay.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 18, 2009 at 14:26

Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“So much strum and drang signifying nothing. You never explain how do you.”
Actually I have put pointers to long explanations of this here many times.

How many times am I going to have to tell you and others here to go view “It’s all an Illusion” by John Harris over at http://www.tpuc.org and “Bursting the Bubbles of Government Deception” by Robert-Arthur: Menard over at http://www.thinkfree.ca before you actually do it? It would appear the answer is ‘lots’. Sure, I never told you how to go about these things. Nope. Men like you just refuse to listen, refuse to follow links, refuse to educate yourselves and then blame someone else for not ‘educating’ you. Worse than a woman. At least women have the excuse of low intelligence levels. What is your excuse Doug? Can’t be bothered following links and learning for yourself?

Here is a forum with 6,000+ people on it who are working in this direction.

Gee Doug, you want me to come over to your place and give you 2 months of education on how to do this for free? Or are you going to be an adult and actually educate yourself. This stuff takes time to learn. Some guys have written books on this. Some guys have gone to jail lewarning this stuff. They deserve to be paid for their pain and effort. Robert Menard has been at this 9 years now.

In my case I went for strawman recapture. What does this mean?
I created a security agreement between myself and my corporate strawman crated by my berth certificate.
I created a hold harmless agreement.
I created a certificate of Sovereignty.
I created a common law copyright for my calling and the strawmans name.
I created a Deed of Evidence.
I created a Private Agreement.
I created a Notice of Understanding, Intent and Claim of Right.

As a result of this I have legally and lawfully separated myself as a human being from my corporate strawman. I have created myself as the Primary Creditor and Secured Party for the corporate strawman.

And yes, you might say I am repeating myself. This is because men are placing clearly false statements here, or statements that clearly demonstrate they do not understand common law. The one about the wife being able to come back for years is a good example. She can only do that if the man is ignorant and consents to paying her more money. Often it takes repetition for men to finally take notice of something and to look into it. It’s like mortgages. Your mortgage, if you have one, is fraudulent and can be zeroed out. The first case of this in the US was 1968. The judge died in an ‘accident’ shortly after. If you have a mortgage in the former british empire you can get it zeroed out. How to do it is in book one here. http://www.theclassifiedfiles.com. Thomas Anderson has been working on this stuff for years. He lays it out plain and simple how to clear your mortgage. Even then some people whine he wants to be paid. So many people want something for nothing now.

“Meanwhile your constant allusions to ways of escaping divorce judgments “in the former British Empire” (including America-that’s mighty far back former?) i view with extreme skepticism.”

Then join the ThinkFree forums and ask around as to who is doing this and where they live. We are having our early successes at walking into courts and refusing the Jurisdiction of Family Court. By refusing the Jurisdiction of the FC it is not possible for the FC to issue an order against you. If it does, unlawfully, we are teaching men to issue a bill for 10x the amount of the order. I am not asking you to believe me. And I welcome your skepticism. But to resolve your skepticism you are going to have to do your own homework by reviewing the vast amount of materials out there I have pointed to. By the way. I put a lot of this onto the forum with my intro append. I can only tell you people so many times where to start looking and how to go about this. I’m not here to be your nanny. You have to be willing to learn yourself.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
threerivers November 18, 2009 at 14:27

@Puma

Yes.

My point is that you guys are picking each other apart when you are not actually in disagreement.

You each have a valid point, but act like the existence of another independent valid point somehow invalidates yours.

Won’t widespread availability of what Heathen now has be achieved for everyone, when your general goal is achieved?

It seems that Heathen is saying that you should keep the entire big picture in mind. But that doesn’t mean that the painful experiences described here aren’t the biggest part of the big picture, for now.

And when some of you do acknowledge a bigger picture, you do so in a bass-ackwards way: for example, ALL women are evil and should be shunned, erm, except for the Eastern ones.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
chic noir November 18, 2009 at 14:39

David Brandt My son is a dead ringer for Adrian Paul, and gets hit on all the time just because of his looks–even after I explain that he’s autistic (he’s not interested, and can’t live independently). This really makes me wonder what is wrong with so many of the women here in the US.

David please stop!!! Women never get so wrapped up in very handsome men that they would overlook his inability to provide for them or amuse them etc…

*sarcasm off*

I tried telling the men folk that very handsome men hold power over women but they don’t want to believe. A good number of women don’t want to believe it either.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 14:40

Rule #4: Double Tap

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Welmer November 18, 2009 at 14:44

I’ll chip in to say that the women aren’t all bad, but marriage is. Women are women — they are opportunistic, volatile and don’t have a clear idea of cause and effect (which is why, I believe, they are so poorly represented in science and engineering).

I can handle women, but I can’t handle an institution that can enslave me. All marriages can potentially do this to men, so all marriage is tainted.

If you want to have a relationship with a woman, fine. If you want to marry her for spiritual reasons, that’s fine, too; just don’t sign that state contract! No man should ever do that today. I’d even go so far as to say that it isn’t marriage, but simply unconstitutional state tyranny.

I really have NO idea why so many homosexuals want gay marriage. Marriage as it exists today is not a “right” — it is an abrogation of rights.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 18, 2009 at 14:46

Gx1080 November 18, 2009 at 2:23 pm
“Try to get your battle in video and upload it to You Tube and in all the video sites possible”
I recently bought a flip video device and I shall be videoing my little court case next week. I have chosen to write a book. Not do videos.

Gents…There are many others who have written many books and done many vidoes on this subject. I keep pointing you to them and you keep ignoring them. In some cases, one person went to the thinkfree forum and found it ‘confusing’, people stop because they simply refuse to make the effort to start to understand.

There are web sites and whole binders of stuff you can simply buy and start learning. They are good commercial products.

Take a look at Winston Shrout Solutions in Commerce. http://www.wssic.com/

This guy is one of the leaders in this area. He has productised a lot of what he talks about.

I mean the only way that I could be MORE direct with you guys here is if I reached through the computer and shoved these web sites down your throats until you puked. Do you guys have ANY idea how resistant you are to actually learning something new? Once you are out of the matrix and can see what I see you would wonder how you could have resisted so long seeing what is right before your very eyes.

There are very few of us who are applying these techniques to the Family Court. These techniques have been applied to many other court cases but not so much FC. I am one of the first ‘cross overs’ to use these techniques in the FC. And when I say “I” I mean other men who are going up against FC are using these techniques and I am assisting as I can. My book will be for Australia and Ireland. Places where we are going up against the FC. Other guys will do other countries. Once we get the book out it will be complete and then it will evolve.

Simply put. In the former british empire common law still exists. For example the US CON-stitution is based on the common law and is subservient to the common law and must operate in harmony with it. Under common law sovereigns can access the law. Today courts do not operating in common law unless you force it to. They default into Uniform Commercial Code masquerading as ‘law’. This is the law of the water, commercial law, admiralty law. That’s why you have a dock. There is no justice in courts there is only commerce. Therefore all these ‘Family Law Acts’ and what you think are ‘divorce laws’ are not laws at all and you do not have to obey them if you don’t want to. It’s really that simple. And people are so committed to believing that these things are laws that they reject those of us who come along and say ‘FAMILY LAW’ is NOT LAW. It is legislation and you have no lawful obligation to subject yourself to legislation. I am no longer subject to any legislation of any guvment anywhere in the world. Why would I be? They are all corrupt. Yes, it took me 6 months to get through all the reading for this. But it was worth it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Arbitrary November 18, 2009 at 14:47

[blockquote]
These are all valid responses. I especially like the third response. Please remember that my comments were triggered by other people saying things like “NO man who is 5+ years into marriage, is receiving any real happiness from his wife”. I believe that marriage is important on many levels, and can be very rewarding if done properly. I therefore felt the need to interject an alternate viewpoint.
[/blockquote]

But the first answer is just MGTOW, the second answer is just PUA, and the third answer is just expatting. These are the courses of action people are recommending; and in view of them, why would one bother to risk the tainted waters here?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 14:49

Globalman,

Good. Now please turn that comment into a more detailed article for The Spearhead, and ask Welmer if you can guest-post it.

The reason more men are not moving in this direction is because ‘they don’t know what they don’t know’.

People are willing to learn, but more handholding is needed. It is the exact same thing as when men try to learn Game.

YOU have to do more mentorship. Those people in turn become new mentors for new men.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 14:52

I’ll chip in to say that the women aren’t all bad, but marriage is.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Women are women — they are opportunistic, volatile and don’t have a clear idea of cause and effect

Double yes. That is why they are totally blind to what 10 men are saying here day in and day out.

That is why in 2020, most women will be less prosperous, more lonely, and more unsafe than today.

If you want to marry her for spiritual reasons, that’s fine, too; just don’t sign that state contract!

Is the marriage license this contract? Or does just having a ceremony constitute a marriage contract? What about ethnic marriages overseas, where people then come to live in the US? I know the US court has jurisdiction, but what about documentation?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 14:53

*What seems to be missing from this perpetual circular argument is an understanding why you have such a vested interest in getting guys to drink water they have reason to believe is tainted.*

Since my tone seems to be losing something between my head and the reader, let me start by saying, zed, that I have a great deal of respect for you.

That being said, please let me quote some of my earlier posts:

“I really do not think that marriage is for everyone.”

“Game can dramitically improve the odds of your of a sucessful marriage, _if that is what you want_.” [emphasis added]

“It’s also not for me to tell people why they should get married.”

“You sound happy. That’s great. Don’t marry. Seriously.”

“My intention is not to tell people to get married.”

I do not feel that I have tried particularly hard to convince people to marry, a task that, especially on this website, would be futile and of no benefit to me.

However, I do feel that marriage is a ‘really big deal’. As such, I did not feel that the very broad generalizations being thrown around did justice to what is a very significant issue. I felt that they were one sided, and that there was an alternative that was not being properly discussed.

In the course of discussing that alternative, it has become clear that I have very strong views on the fundamental “rightness” of marriage, above and beyond the risk vs reward of today’s environment. It has not been my goal to make these views the focus of discussion, but nor will I attempt to deny them.

*If a man does not wish to get married, that is his right. There is, so far, no law demanding that men do so.*

Of course not. And I would vehemently oppose any such law. Just as I would oppose any law that prevented men from marrying.

*Perpetual argument dismissing and attempting to invalidate any and all reasons men give for not wanting to do so merely strengthens their resistance instead of weakening it.*

My arguments are not really for men who don’t want to get married. They are for men that _do_ want to get married but want to minimize the risks.

*I pointed out in a comment recently (it may have even been in this thread) that women in feminist countries have a very bad PR problem. They are seen as extremely poor bets for marriage, and as generally being tainted enough that they aren’t worth bothering with even a small sip – Arthur could serve as Exhibit A.

Now, in any sort of free-market system, no one has EVER been able to harass potential customers into buying a product that those customers repeatedly and clearly said they did not want.*

As I hope I have made clear by now, I’m not trying to harass anyone into doing anything.

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 14:53

Won’t widespread availability of what Heathen now has be achieved for everyone, when your general goal is achieved?

I’m guessing that English is not your first language, because I really do not understand what you are saying in this particular paragraph.

You each have a valid point, but act like the existence of another independent valid point somehow invalidates yours.

It seems that Heathen is saying that you should keep the entire big picture in mind. But that doesn’t mean that the painful experiences described here aren’t the biggest part of the big picture, for now.

Let me point to one aspect of the big picture which does seem to be tripping everyone up – this did not happen overnight. The forces which have created the current situation have been at work for years and lot of people have been pointing it out, and their observations HAVE BEEN consistently invalidated. So, there is one respect in which Heathen has jumped into an argument which has been going on a long time and whatever valid points he might have are difficult to distinguish from the fact that he appears to be supporting the same denial system which is what allowed things to get this bad in the first place.

No progress is ever going to be possible until the severity of the problem starts to get acknowledged.

The whole “there are lots of good women out there, YOU (men) just have to go out and find them” argument has two fatal flaws.

First, the role of men as the “designated initiator” or “designated aggressor” (the one who has to go do the finding) puts a man at risk of a great many criminal penalties. Thus we have a sort of back-door perceived “inflation” of the value of women in that men “should” accept the risk of loss of career, wealth, and freedom which goes with the “designated aggressor” role because “women are worth it.”

But, you have men saying over and over and over again “No, they are NOT!” and the appearance of absolute refusal to even acknowledge that a lot of men see things this way.

Second, that devaluation of men and over-valuation of women that goes along with “you have to find them” has been expressed as “sorting through turds in search of a tootsie roll.” The value and character of the man’s experience is simply dismissed. It is assumed that 100,000 bad dates with totally obnoxious women, or even the risk of a jail sentence or lawsuit is of no consequence as long as every “good woman” out there get some prince at the base of her tower begging “Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair.”

It is the devaluation of men and over-valuation of women which underlies this whole mess, and which will stall any attempt to do anything about it until it is recognized and dealt with.

Like or Dislike: 1  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 14:57

I really have NO idea why so many homosexuals want gay marriage.

I think very few male gays want it – it is a lesbian objective.

I am eagerly waiting for news about bitter financial battles between divorcing lesbians.

Furthermore, that issue was invented by the left to dupe the easily-duped socialcons into opposing this distraction, so that they continue to miss the forest from the trees – that DIVORCE is the threat to the marriage that they hold dear, not a few thousand lesbians seeking marriage in a country of 310m. Sort of like bribing a kid out of a \$100 bill with a piece of chocolate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Welmer November 18, 2009 at 14:58

Globalman,

Good. Now please turn that comment into a more detailed article for The Spearhead, and ask Welmer if you can guest-post it.

-TFH

I don’t think I should be posting legal advice here, TFH.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 15:01

Some of Zed’s paragraphs above are awesome, and worthy of being woven into an article themselves.

It is the devaluation of men and over-valuation of women which underlies this whole mess,

It is even worse – the very concept of alimony is effectively an admission that women are not equal to men.

So it is very much a ‘we are superior when it suits us, but we happily play the victim card when it suits us’ that makes this civilization not worth saving.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Heathen November 18, 2009 at 15:03

*But the first answer is just MGTOW, the second answer is just PUA, and the third answer is just expatting. These are the courses of action people are recommending; and in view of them, why would one bother to risk the tainted waters here?*

Yes, I understood your metaphor perfectly. And I agree that they are all valid responses. But as I have said above, there is another option, which, to extend your metaphor, would involve purifying the water locally. Ie, a marriage based on a proper understanding of women and your role in the marriage (aka, game). There is a risk that it will not work, but some people are not spoilt for choice.

If people want to swear off women, great. If men want to womanize, fine. If men are willing and able to expat, good for them. But some men don’t fit into those three categories, and want to marry someone local. Shouldn’t the men’s community recognize that these people exist and help them make the best of their situation by teaching them about the tools that can help them?

And what about men who are already married? When they come here should we point and laugh and tell them how they screwed up and it’s all going to come crashing down? Or should we point them towards places they can learn the skills Dave from Hawaii used to turn his marriage around?

-Heathen

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 15:03

I’d like to point out that while I’ve written alot about my own marriage, and how I was able to seize the role of Head of my Household, and make it work for me…

…I advise younger men in my personal sphere of influence that unless they are with a woman who makes more \$\$ than he does, he should NEVER marry her or co-habitate with her.

I will simply tell young men to look around themselves and take note of all the men’s personal stories that they know of…men who are financially raped and divested of any meaningful role in their children’s lives by our corrent divorce regime.

Many young men at least understand that much when they actually think about it.

Also, should my marriage end for whatever reason, I’m 100% I would NEVER EVER take that walk down the aisle and say “I Do” ever again…

…at least not in any country that has come under the influence of our modern dystopia’s socially engineered gender roles.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
threerivers November 18, 2009 at 15:05

@Welmer

“I can handle women, but I can’t handle an institution that can enslave me. All marriages can potentially do this to men, so all marriage is tainted. ”

I agree completely! This is a bounded and rational “absolute”.

What I find counterproductive are the “ranting absolutes”. Unless you are just yelling to let off steam, you need to account for the exceptions, especially if you are trying to encourage supporters.

So, when I see “ALL women …”, I think of, for example, Hestia.

Or when I see “NO woman has ever …”, I think of, for example, Christina Hoff Summers whose books include “The War Against Boys”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 15:06

However, I do feel that marriage is a ‘really big deal’. As such, I did not feel that the very broad generalizations being thrown around did justice to what is a very significant issue. I felt that they were one sided, and that there was an alternative that was not being properly discussed.

There is always a problem with coming in to the middle of the movie.

I understand your religious beliefs, Heathen (interesting bit of irony in your choice of name) but I think you are way over-reacting to Globalman. And I do mean WAY overreacting. He is the most extreme here, and in order to understand where he is coming from, I would ask that you read this post by Novaseeker. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/12/moving-forward-as-men/

Globalman is in the anger stage, and the more people argue with a guy like that, the more he is going to get stuck in it. Just ignore him, let him rant, and eventually he will cool down. But, he never will if people keep blowing up at his extremist statements.

Something to think about, Heathen, is that if a man really was done with women and didn’t care how any of this turned out, he wouldn’t be here – he would be out fishing. Getting dialogue going is worse than pulling teeth, and many times more painful.

Women are not idiots – they have functioning brains. I do not believe in that paternalistic attitude which holds that men must fix this mess for women, despite women fighting men tooth and nail for the past 40 years in order to create it in the first place.

I have done a lot of work with alcoholics and drug addicts over the years, and I know that it is possible to break through the denial system if you just keep confronting people with the truth and get their enablers to stop supporting the denial system. Interestingly, it is almost always easier to get through to the addict than it is to get the enablers to stop enabling.

If you really want to do something for women, you could add your voice and intelligence to an intervention to try to break through to women in feminist countries that all they have to look forward to is an old age of loneliness unless they face up to how destructive their behavior has become.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 15:09

Chic
“I tried telling the men folk that very handsome men hold power over women but they don’t want to believe. A good number of women don’t want to believe it either.”

This happens to him everywhere. Although the fact that he isn’t interested must initially contribute to it after the hit, in no way does it cause the level of attention (and it is about as blatant as it gets). Given my observation and experience, you are correct.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 15:11

And what about men who are already married? When they come here should we point and laugh and tell them how they screwed up and it’s all going to come crashing down?

Heh…Heathen, this is PRECISELY what I encountered when I first discovered the MRA/MGTOW blogosphere. Upon first discovery and serious contemplation, I almost pulled the trigger on divorcing my wife first. I’ve also had more than a few MRA/MGTOW bloggers and commenters tell me I was a fool, or dumb, or deluded and that my wife would guaranteed divorce me and take me to the cleaners for the simple fact that she was a Western woman.

But it was delving into the “GAME” sites and blogs that brought me to the point of understanding MY own role, and my own behavior did have a substantial effect on the quality of my marriage.

For the sake of my children, I’m glad I did.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Arbitrary November 18, 2009 at 15:18

Heathen, of course those people exist. I’m one of them. But marriage is a terrible fiscal contract; the best advice I can give to others like those you’ve described is to:

(1) Learn Game. It’s not just about being a PUA.
(2) Stick with religious marriage, and avoid living anywhere where cohabitation laws render that equivalent to civil marriage.

Solely giving the first answer about relationship success under-represents the risks involved, and minimizes the very real problems involved with modern marriage and divorce law.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 18, 2009 at 15:21

This is how the little ladies plot and plan:

Ways to Get Alimony

http://www.infobarrel.com/Ways_To_Get_Alimony_or_Spousal_Support

Money Quote: “One of the ways to get alimony is to show that you have become accustomed to a certain lifestyle which you cannot attain on your own.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0
kis November 18, 2009 at 15:28

Heathen: “But I would still step up to contradict anyone who started saying that all water, anywhere, was tainted, or that it was not possible to make water safe to drink.”

arthur: “We are here to promote the boycotting/striking of said product until the product and the conditions that surround it improve. ”

So, for the product and the conditions that surround it to improve, it must be possible to make the water safe to drink. Right?

Of course it’s possible. One side (arthur) is advocating that no man drink water until all water treatment facilities are up to code.

The other (heathen) is advocating that until then, men can boil their own water to make it safe to drink.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 15:31

But some men don’t fit into those three categories, and want to marry someone local. Shouldn’t the men’s community recognize that these people exist and help them make the best of their situation by teaching them about the tools that can help them?

And what about men who are already married? When they come here should we point and laugh and tell them how they screwed up and it’s all going to come crashing down? Or should we point them towards places they can learn the skills Dave from Hawaii used to turn his marriage around?

Ok, BINGO!!!

I agree with you completely on that. The one issue that I think may be causing repeated problems is that I think such guys are in the distinct minority.

But, for guys like them, we do have Dave. The Spearhead represents a huge variety of points of view, and his is well represented here. But, I think you will find that the majority of men, particularly those over a certain age, are just completely burned out on women and that is going to be reflected in what they say.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 15:35

Chic
I must add that some of the women who do this literally risk their jobs in their persistence, and I have been surprised at some of what has been said to him. OK, so they didn’t know at first. What about after they know and they persist? I suppose that would be power if he were interested in using it, as they seem willing to jump through some real hoops (their jobs, the fact that he’s disabled, and my warnings, which are about as to-the-point as I can make them). He does get annoyed, but it very even-tempered. That is a good thing, because they wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 15:47

Unless you are just yelling to let off steam, you need to account for the exceptions, especially if you are trying to encourage supporters.

1. Yes, most of the yelling is to let off steam,
2. For a lot of us here, like Arthur and me, it is way too late for “supporters.” Some of us have had to learn how to survive without a woman in our lives, and we don’t give a shit what women do or what happens to them. We don’t need “supporters” any more because we were forced during all the years when we encountered nothing but resistance to what we were saying to develop unilateral solutions.

For guys like us, as far as we are concerned women can go to hell and rot and burn there and we really don’t give a shit.

It would really be nice for everyone, however, if enough people would wake up and deal with the BS so that another generation of men like us do not end up getting made in 20 more years of the same old same old.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
threerivers November 18, 2009 at 15:49

@Zed

“Won’t widespread availability of what Heathen now has be achieved for everyone, when your general goal is achieved?”

“I’m guessing that English is not your first language, because I really do not understand what you are saying in this particular paragraph.”

Heathen wants and likes marriage, and feels secure in the one that he has created.

To paraphrase Welmer: At present, marriage is an institution that can enslave men, and all marriages can potentially do this to men, so all marriage is tainted.

When your goals are achieved, marriage will no longer be an institution that can enslave men.

Then, what Heathen has now (a marriage in which he feels happy, fulfilled, and not at risk) will be available to any man who wants one, as long as he is willing to do what is necessary to create and maintain one.

I included that sentence because some of the previous comments had implied that the problem was the concept of marriage itself.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
kis November 18, 2009 at 15:54

But it was delving into the “GAME” sites and blogs that brought me to the point of understanding MY own role, and my own behavior did have a substantial effect on the quality of my marriage.

For the sake of my children, I’m glad I did.

I don’t know whether I’ve asked you this, because your posts and comments are usually so mission-related I keep forgetting. Do you love your wife? Is it just the kids that make you glad you learned game?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 15:56

Yep. Always have…which is surely one of the reasons why I didn’t walk out when things were at there worst.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Mr.M November 18, 2009 at 15:58

Ok, BINGO!!!

I agree with you completely on that. The one issue that I think may be causing repeated problems is that I think such guys are in the distinct minority.

But, for guys like them, we do have Dave. The Spearhead represents a huge variety of points of view, and his is well represented here. But, I think you will find that the majority of men, particularly those over a certain age, are just completely burned out on women and that is going to be reflected in what they say.

I’m sure it has been said before, but just because ONE man (Dave) has successfully employed game and righted the course of his marriage/LTR, does not at all equate to every man being 1) able and 2) willing to do such a task.

Further, the fact that people (not directed at you zed) seem ought to place the burden of the situation on men, once again, is just another example of how literally fucked up this misandrist society is. I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a commenter, male or female, who’s taken the stance that marriage/women are still worth saving, hint/suggest/recommend/mention/whisper that females need to change their attitude, control their emotions, manage their expectations. ALWAYS is the burden placed on the shoulders of men.

Game doesn’t work in all situations, either. It is definitely not the 100% saving grace in any marriage. Game will only help turn the odds in the man’s favor…and the underlying message is that it is still and unmistakeably a gamble. And with the way the legal system is set (I’ll have to read into global’s links…) the cost of losing is enormous. As other people echo, the risk of investment is NOT worth the reward. Not a chance.

Ultimately, you cannot control the other 50% of the marriage (the wife), and should her emotional whim lead her to initiate divorce, well too bad…you lost your bet and money and children.

I agree with TFH, the writing is on the wall and many more men will see it…marriage will be avoided by increasing amounts of men as time drags on.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
threerivers November 18, 2009 at 15:58

@Zed

“Something to think about, Heathen, is that if a man really was done with women and didn’t care how any of this turned out, he wouldn’t be here – he would be out fishing.”

“For guys like us, as far as we are concerned women can go to hell and rot and burn there and we really don’t give a shit.”

So, Zed, are you not really here, or is there more than one of you in your head, or what?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
21Guns November 18, 2009 at 16:04

David Brandt -
I must add that some of the women who do this literally risk their jobs in their persistence

oh shit, are you saying these women are caregivers? That is just creee-py.

I Googled ‘Adrian Paul’ and hot damn, I can see how women could go bonkers over someone who looks like that. You have my sympathies; if I were his parent I’d go out of my mind with worry.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 16:06

When your goals are achieved, marriage will no longer be an institution that can enslave men.

Marriage will always involve trade-offs, and the possibility will always exist of getting a bad marriage partner. I think the values of the cultures we are talking about are so corrupted that the possibility that these goals might be achieved are too low to calculate.

It’s unfortunate for everyone that we seem to have to relearn at the cultural level what makes a marriage actually work. Or, maybe relearn is not the right word because what worked 60 years ago no longer does, so people are actually having to discover new ways to make them work.

Like it or not, I think the first stage to reform of marriage laws is going to be men in large numbers refusing to participate. Regardless of success stories like Heathen and Dave, who I have never met and would not know if I ran into them on the street, no amount of sunshine blown up our butts by a few guys who did find ways to make things work are going to displace the hundreds of marriages going down in flames that most of the men here have witnessed.

It may be that what has to happen is like the Israelites having to spend 40 years wandering in the wilderness until everyone who remembered the old ways had died off.

I have personally seen so few marriages that were anything other than severe agony for the men involved that I, personally, could never recommend the experience to anyone.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 16:08

So, Zed, are you not really here

“I’m the Urban Spaceman, Baby,
here comes the twist –
I DON’T EXIST!

(You will either get the reference, or you won’t. If you don’t, then don’t worry about it.)

It would really be nice for everyone, however, (PARTICULARLY MEN) if enough people would wake up and deal with the BS so that another generation of men like us do not end up getting made in 20 more years of the same old same old.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Arbitrary November 18, 2009 at 16:08

threerivers,

He’s done with women, but he still cares how this turns out.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Gx1080 November 18, 2009 at 16:09

@Globalman

I was talking about the court room, not the entire build-up to the event. That is better written, too long for a video IMO. But is your call anyways.

The Internet is huge. Hell, I found this community of pure coincidence. So more linking is always good. You need to put it right in the front so people notice it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 16:15

Like it or not, I think the first stage to reform of marriage laws is going to be men in large numbers refusing to participate. Regardless of success stories like Heathen and Dave, who I have never met and would not know if I ran into them on the street, no amount of sunshine blown up our butts by a few guys who did find ways to make things work are going to displace the hundreds of marriages going down in flames that most of the men here have witnessed.

Hey folks…I’d just like to point out that my entire purpose of relating my story is NOT to “blow sunshine up anyones butts” with regards to the state of Marriage 2.0.

I relate my story for two reasons:

1) For men who are already married when they have their eyes opened to the realities of our BraveNewWorldOrder;

and 2) Because I see a lot of men who take NO personal responsibility for their own role in the tragedy of our current gender war. A lot of men have fallen into the exact, reverse image of the rabid feminist denouncing the entire gender of Men for Patriarchal oppression…

…I think some people need to take a good, hard, close look at themselves before blaming anyone and everyone else.

Because, THAT is truly MY message.

The only person you have the absolute power to change is yourself.

Just because society is fucked, just because the system is fucked…that does not mean you do not have the responsibility to better yourself.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 18, 2009 at 16:26

Because I see a lot of men who take NO personal responsibility for their own role in the tragedy of our current gender war. A lot of men have fallen into the exact, reverse image of the rabid feminist denouncing the entire gender of Men for Patriarchal oppression…

…I think some people need to take a good, hard, close look at themselves before blaming anyone and everyone else.

Because, THAT is truly MY message.

The only person you have the absolute power to change is yourself.

Just because society is fucked, just because the system is fucked…that does not mean you do not have the responsibility to better yourself.

Fine, but your message has a limited importance. You bagged an HB9 for marriage. Yes, you “fell” to where most of the rest of us are, and almost lost her because a woman like an HB9 would loathe being with a normal man, so you learned to bend over backwards to please your woman. Good for you, Dave. But, seriously, this is not a recipe for most men.

Most of us marry women with different expectations than HB9s. Sure, they want a strong man, but parlaying that to an educated, entitled, feminist bitch of a wife is a way to end up in JAIL. You are blind to this, or in open and willing denial of it, and on behalf of the many men who have found themselves in that situation, I am calling you on it.

The reason why marriages are failing is not because men do not have “Game”. What the fuck is that? Marriages fail because women expect the moon and the sun and the stars as well, and you are giving them that yourself, and fucking up the curve, to be honest.

Marriage is dead. Religious people like me will still marry. And guys who can pull an HB9 into marriage like you will marry, and will bend over fucking backwards to keep her — understandably, because what the fuck else are you going to do? But the idea that this is universally applicable is absolute trash and nonsense. You started from a very high level (as did Roissy and PA and so on). Most of the Game preachers have done. It makes it much less relevant as a system, while the relevance for understanding sexual psychology remains valid for everyone.

Sorry for the language, but what you have written here is pure bullshit, imo.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 16:32

I remind everyone of a few historical points :

The reasons that marriage ‘worked’ in the old days were :

1) People married at 20 (and earlier) and died by 50. The wife was still attractive 15 years into the marriage. This is a completely different psychological dynamic than marrying at 33 after the woman has had 10 ex-boyfriends.

2) It was always normal for 10-20% of men to die, or be horribly crippled, on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group. Widows were visible in their poverty, and unmarried women often had to resort to prostitution. Hence, women who were married to a proper man knew how lucky they were, and treated their marriage with the appropriate respect.

3) Social stigma, shaming, and the real threat of poverty from being an unwed mother were also major deterrents to female behavior. At the same time, young women were so busy in their 20s with childrearing and household duties that evil thoughts had no room to arise.

Today, none of these three forces exist, so things have changed. As men, we are lucky to live longer than before. The tradeoff of that is what we see here.

At the same time, the invention of the pill has made female promiscuity possible. In the past, it was NOT possible for a woman outside of the highest levels to sleep with 5 different men in her lifetime if she was not in the low-status occupation of prostitution.

There are other major disruptions on the horizon, both economic and technological. But these will benefit men this time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 18, 2009 at 16:38

of course, tfh. Marriage is an anachronism. It works for religious people, but otherwise it is an anachronism. Some people may work diligently to make it work in the current environment, but they are just proving out the rule by the means of being an exception.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 16:41

Puma–

Money Quote: “One of the ways to get alimony is to show that you have become accustomed to a certain lifestyle which you cannot attain on your own.”

So what if she’s become accustomed to it? Tough noggies. She should have made the marriage work. She’s no longer contributing anything ongoing to him. Women can earn a very good living these days. If she can’t that’s her problem. What of men who lose their high paying job and can’t find another one that pays nearly as well? Tough nooggies for him, right?

Just what did she enforceably promise when he married her? Is she obligated to give him sex if she doesn’t feel like it? Not that’s now marital rape, courtesy feminists. Can he demand housework from her? You’re kidding, right? Can she leave the marriage for any reason whatsoever, cause she just isn’t feeling it anymore, without any penalty at all and in fact benefit? Can she in fact commit flagrant adultery and still pay no penalty but in fact receive all kinds of money from her ex husband, or decide she wants to go other man prospecting as soon as the divorce goes through or in fact she’s filed (i.e. she wasn’t caught before)? In the great majority of cases where the woman has hypergamously married a man with higher income, or who soon has one, since she feels free to emphasize other, less stressful, more enjoyable to her things.

Just what do women enforceably promise in marriage anyway?

So women, in addition to getting half his assets unjustly certainly in cases where it’s a lot or ones where she leaves without egregious fault on his part, and child support=alimony because at it’s early 90s jacked up rates around the country under the “dead beat dads” campaign and slogan in most certainly does include alimony for middle earning men on up, women think they should get explicit alimony on top or instead.

Screw that.

Don’t marry. Don’t even consider marriage without a prenup that mimics living together re split up, and then only if you want children imminently.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 18, 2009 at 16:44

Basically, getting involved with a woman is like taking on a business partner who is 14 years old, and giving them 51% of the voting shares.

I just don’t see it any other way.

The conclusion one is forced to come to, after the decades of denial by women (and legions of manginas) that anything could possibly be wrong, is there are only two explanations for this behaviour (denial of reality), and both are unflattering and speak volumes about “a woman’s place.”

Conclusion #1: Women are really stupid. As stupid as a 14 year old is to a 30 year old. If they really don’t “get it” (re. all the points Zed has made), then they really are stupid. Moronically stupid. Too stupid to have any say.

Conclusion #2: Women actually do understand, but by nature are devious and hostile towards men. They cannot/will not attempt to attain to the ideal (even though they have no problems in understanding these very ideals such as honesty and fairness and sharing, when teaching their children – or demanding it of men they know – and yet feign cluelessness when a man calls them out on their lack of reciprocal behaviour) This would indicate that they are too untrustworthy to have any say.

Neither conclusion is very flattering.

The only way to disprove these two conclusions are for women to step up and take responsibility for their OWN actions – as Zed said earlier, biomechanics may be involved, but we also have a HIGHER brain than our hind brain – THIS is what separates us from the animals. Either women possess such a brain, and they can be held accountable, or they don’t, and they should be treated as inferior. Simple. I don’t get mad at my dog for not bringing down \$50,000 a year, because he is incapable.

This is one problem that I have with “game” from a LTR perspective. Is it good? Sure. Should you use it? Sure.

But, never should we get to the point where we say that a man who doesn’t game his wife is doing something “wrong.” The woman ALSO has a responsibility to behave in a manner that is conducive to a mutually beneficial relationship.

I get all the ins and outs of it.

But a large aspect of “game” indicates that women have no free will… but yet, a man does, and illustrates it by enacting game on his wife – or even his willingness to study it, and improve.

It’s kind of a slippery road… but the emergence of “game” is not a biological determinant that absolves women of their crap ass behaviour towards the betas that they HATE HATE HATE.

I hate fat, smelly chicks. But, I don’t manipulate the shit out of them and try to drain their bank accounts, or falsley accuse them of insane shit. For many of the men here that are fed up with their wives, how many do you think are harbouring thoughts of falsley accusing their soon-to-be ex-fat-wife with sexual abuse charges, or are manipulating rumors and gossip that will damage her life for years, in order to better manoevre himself through an upcoming divorce? Not many. Most will just want to be rid of her with as little pain and drama as possible – and he most often will choose actions to try and steer into this direction.

Women DO understand what is going… just look at the morals they teach their kids. How could they not understand after actually teaching those moral values?

It is simply that they CHOOSE not to be respectful to men who fail to moisten their cotton lined gussets.

“Game” should be used as a tool – but not as an excuse for women’s crap behaviour.

They still have a choice.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 18, 2009 at 16:44

Nova–

Marriage 2.0 enforceably obligates men, and by far more than ever before, but only optionally and culturally creates any obligations at all on women. I.e. it doesn’t create obligations. As well any woman considering divorce can find an American girl culture that will support her choice, and her maximum extractions big time, no sweat. Probably many or all of her existing girlfriends will.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 16:46

Nova,

Game CAN make a dramatic turnaround in a marriage…..

BUT,

It is increasingly more hard work for increasingly diminishing returns. The forces a man has to counter are so great, from the media to other women to the state, relative to the declining beauty of the women, that the main motivation for a man, once his wife is 40 or so, is to avoid the divorce grinder.

Sort of like going into a lion’s den, and then someone hands you a sword and shield. You might fight valiantly and heroicly survive, but it is a lot more work than avoiding the lion’s den altogether.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 16:48

Chic Noir,

What have you learned about WHY men are avoiding marriage? What should a woman who seeks a husband do, based on what men are saying?

(a response will be as educational for the audience as the lack of one).

Like or Dislike: 1  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 16:56

Fine, but your message has a limited importance. You bagged an HB9 for marriage. Yes, you “fell” to where most of the rest of us are, and almost lost her because a woman like an HB9 would loathe being with a normal man, so you learned to bend over backwards to please your woman. Good for you, Dave. But, seriously, this is not a recipe for most men.

You got this completely backwards, Nova. What I learned was to NOT BEND OVER BACKWARDS to please my woman. It was the “bending over backwards” part that got me into so much trouble in the first place.

Most of us marry women with different expectations than HB9s. Sure, they want a strong man, but parlaying that to an educated, entitled, feminist bitch of a wife is a way to end up in JAIL. You are blind to this, or in open and willing denial of it, and on behalf of the many men who have found themselves in that situation, I am calling you on it.

No argument here about that. Please re-read my post again where I stated that 1) I do not recommend marriage to other men, and 2) that I’m perfectly aware of our current reality about men finding themselves in “JAIL.” That being said, one of the reasons why I think things worked out for me was precisely because my wife was never a feminist, and only a high school education, and that she came from an intact family where her Father was the head of the house.

I came from a house where my Mother wore the pants. After I got married, without even realizing it, but by blindly following our cultural cues and my own childhood upbringing, I tried to make my wife wear the pants, and she resented me for it.

The reason why marriages are failing is not because men do not have “Game”. What the fuck is that? Marriages fail because women expect the moon and the sun and the stars as well, and you are giving them that yourself, and fucking up the curve, to be honest.

Where the did I ever say that? I know perfectly well why the institution of marriage is failing. My ONLY point is that in a lot of cases, men have their own part to play in a marriage failing as well. That is IT. Just because 85% of the problems with marriage today can be laid at the feet of women, feminism and the entire screwed up legal system doesn’t mean the other 15% should be ignored. Men are brainwashed by our culture to put women on pedestals. Until men gain a realization of how their own behavior, shaped by that brainwashing, is sabotaging any chances they have with relating to women period, they will ALWAYS experience relationship problem with women.

That is all I’m trying to say. I’m NOT saying the responsibility is ALL on men. But when you enter into a relationship with anyone for any reason, it does take 2 to make any kind of relationship work. So in the context of male/female relationships, Men most certainly DO have a responsibility to do what they can. That is all I’m advocating.

Marriage is dead. Religious people like me will still marry. And guys who can pull an HB9 into marriage like you will marry, and will bend over fucking backwards to keep her — understandably, because what the fuck else are you going to do? But the idea that this is universally applicable is absolute trash and nonsense.

The only thing I’m advocating that is “universally applicable” is for men to see through the cultural brainwashing we’ve all been influenced by.

Many men will eventually discover the truth about the lies society has ingrained them with, and will see how following those lies lead them to fail in their past relationships (or their current ones). Yes, women and the culture that guides their current behavior is fucked. But men are just as fucked in the head when it comes to relating to women.

You can’t fix “women” and all of the indoctrination they’ve undergone to make things as screwed as they are today. But you CAN fix yourself.

You started from a very high level (as did Roissy and PA and so on). Most of the Game preachers have done. It makes it much less relevant as a system, while the relevance for understanding sexual psychology remains valid for everyone.

I make no claims to being an “alpha” nor am I any kind of “PUA.” I can only say that by studying the theories behind Game and analyzing my own behaviors and interactions with women (not just my wife, but previous girlfriends), did I finally figure out what I was doing that was right and what was wrong.

And I worked on fixing myself.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 16:58

fedrz,

All the world’s major religions have specific and tightly defined gender roles. The spinoffs that deviated from gender norms are the ones that we don’t hear about, as they didn’t last very long.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
threerivers November 18, 2009 at 17:00

As Hawaiian Libertarian said, “A lot of men have fallen into the exact, reverse image of the rabid feminist denouncing the entire gender of Men for Patriarchal oppression…”

The “marriage strike” (along with other methods) is independent of this “reverse image”.

Assume that the marriage strike will succeed. Then, as I understand it, you will be able to do something with women that you are unable to do now.

Will acting like rabid feminists, and indulging yourselves as this reverse image, move women (at least those who do not yet mindlessly hate men) in a desirable direction?

What effect did those rabid feminists have on you?

So why are you doing the same thing?

Stop bringing yourselves down to the emotional reactions and leadership level of women!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 17:03

Assume that the marriage strike will succeed.

I’d say it is more than half-way towards success. Only 20% of men have to avoid marriage to put major stress on ALL single women.

Most women aren’t rabid feminists, but are too stupid to get their own house in order, and default into siding with feminists. Much like the relationship between average Muslims and Al-Qaeda.

There are *many* parallels, which portent to a weakening of the misandry empire within a decade.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 17:08

Rob – But, never should we get to the point where we say that a man who doesn’t game his wife is doing something “wrong.” The woman ALSO has a responsibility to behave in a manner that is conducive to a mutually beneficial relationship.

I think I’ve kinda put myself into a box here. “GAMING” the wife is NOT the sum totality of my experience. It just so happened that “game” is what really opened my eyes to the big picture of my relationship with her.

People seem to think I’m talking about constantly running game on the wife just to keep the marriage going. That I always have to be negging…constantly flirting and seductive.

No, the REAL effect I’m talking about was adopting the entire mindset, the attitude…the mentality, that SHE is lucky to be with me…rather than my previous mindset that I was lucky to be with her.

That this is MY WORLD, and she can be a part of it if she wants, or she can leave, I will continue to carry on regardless. I used to live in soul sucking fear that she was going to leave me. I used to have nightmares about her cleaning out the house and leaving me a “dear john” note.

Studying game put me into an entirely different point of view. I went from a pleading, begging, sackless chump that used to beg her to try to “work on our problems” to standing up and saying “you don’t like it, there’s the door.”

That’s not GAMING my wife to make my marriage work. That’s finally gaining an understanding of how my own attitudes and behavior were causing her to react to me.

“Game” gave me the entire mindset to RE-FRAME my entire outlook on life.

That re-framing of your mindset is the primary point I’m trying to get across.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 17:10

By the way, as I said earlier, I am actually an active supporter of the marriage strike!

I tell young men all the time about all of the things they should consider…to think with their big heads, rather than following their little heads into the enslavement that is marriage 2.0.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 17:12

Oops…forgot: that last post was to second what threerivers wrote:

The “marriage strike” (along with other methods) is independent of this “reverse image”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 17:14

To be totally fair, Dave in Hawaii’s situation is for men who are already in a marriage, and want to make the best of it.

Even he is saying that men who are not yet married, should think long and hard before entering it in the first place.

His views are not in conflict with the marriage strikers or MRAs.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 17:14

Assume that the marriage strike will succeed.

There is no “marriage strike.” It is a great sound bite, but it totally misleads people as to what is happening. Men are not going to suddenly and spontaneously “go back to work” when they “get a new contract.”

This whole idea that it is temporary is going to jack a lot of people up.

What we are seeing is a fundamental change in how a lot of people view marriage. Novaseeker, a very authentically religious man, says “Marriage is an anachronism.”

The distancing of themselves from women that you see men doing here is the future.

Will acting like rabid feminists, and indulging yourselves as this reverse image, move women (at least those who do not yet mindlessly hate men) in a desirable direction?

(sigh) Look at the culture 40 years ago and compare it to now. All of the legal changes which advantage women and disadvantage men were driven by radical feminists.

If I could tilt the scales back in men’s favor as much as radical feminists have tilted it in women’s favor, I would fine with you calling me the anti-christ.

Unless and until men fight back as aggressively and relentlessly as they have been fought against, they will lose ground.

But, hey, when they have no rights left at all, at least they can console themselves “well, at least we weren’t like the feminists – we never did do anything effective . “

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 17:18

If I could tilt the scales back in men’s favor as much as radical feminists have tilted it in women’s favor, I would fine with you calling me the anti-christ.

Herein lies the Achilles heel.

The ONE group that actually does subjugate women, is also the ONE group that feminists are afraid to criticize, and happily acquiesce to.

Islam has many flaws, but given how they can say the most anti-feminist things with no condemnation from feminists makes them an invaluable force to use at the right time in this movement.

Islam = Kryptonite for Feminists.

In an ugly war, you have to do business with ugly people.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 17:21

Zed – I don’t believe feminists succeeded because they were radicalized. They succeeded because their agenda fed right into Political parties agenda’s to seize more power.

Become every bit the misogynist that makes you a mirror image of misandrist feminazi’s is not going to change anything.

The people that have promoted feminism are the people that control all of the instruments of cultural influence – the schools, the mass media and even in a lot of churches.

THAT is why feminism has succeeded in all of it’s goals for destroying the nuclear family and the institution of marriage.

Not because they “fought aggressively and relentlessly” and men nowadays do not.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
threerivers November 18, 2009 at 17:28

Just to be clear,

The “marriage strike” (along with other methods) is independent of this “reverse image”

means that being an asshole to get “even” with the “all” women will neither help nor hurt the success of the marriage strike.

It will just make the women who have merely “defaulted into siding with the feminists” less suitable for whatever you would like to do after the marriage strike succeeds.

I also think that getting into a relationship with a woman is too risky, now. But, unless you never want to be in one, it makes no sense to add to the mess that you will just have to clean up later.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
sig November 18, 2009 at 17:50

Hawaiian,

You know that you’re entering that dark place where the truth lies in what you said with your last post, right?

I wonder who here really wants to know the truth, as to why we got here. Too much debate going on about shit that is meaningless. As to why the gender war was started – most here seem to acknowledge we’re in one. Who started it and for what purpose….? When does the true heart of the matter get discussed? I’m new, please bear with me if I’ve just been missing it somehow.

Maybe by identifying the source of the problem it can be dealt with better, more effectively, no? At least, if nothing else, it will be understood better, right?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 18:01

Oh, HL is right.

The international left saw that destruction of the family and subsidy of single mothers as the path to communism. They saw that in America, the constitution could be bypassed via the courts, and the public would not even be informed about it, let alone have the right to vote on it.

The divorce laws are so unfair that 70% of the public would vote them down if it was actually put up for a vote.

Feminists themselves were merely useful pawns. They are not powerful on their own – they can’t even get strip clubs to shut down.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 18:05

SO….

The real problem is that ‘Family Law’ operates outside of the constitution, and the laws were changed without the public being informed, let alone being allowed to vote.

The solution (in theory) is :

Put for ballot propositions in states like CA that end things like no-fault alimony, imprisonment for child support arrears, etc. They will easily get 50% of the vote. Even if they don’t, the vocal screaming of feminists will lead to an education that young men will receive on how bad they can get shafted, and will itself ensure a starving of the beast.

When you get an extremist to speak loudly and often, you ensure their downfall. Putting various initiatives up for a vote is the best way to draw out the extremists where everyone can see them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 18, 2009 at 18:06

sig – believe me, I’m well aware. Look up my Spearhead article “It’s A Conspiracy!”

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Welmer November 18, 2009 at 18:26

Why did feminism really succeed? It’s because people are fundamentally illiterate, and never pay attention to the many lessons of history. Sure, evil people worked on it, but they are a constant, and always there in any society.

In a primitive society, feminism could very well happen in a tribe. This would probably mean that the tribe would be wiped out within a generation by other tribes. The women and children would be enslaved, the men killed, etc. It probably happened a lot, but nobody wrote it down. Some tribes are evidently still feminist, such as an island off the coast of Africa, and certain villages in the tall mountains of Yunnan China. They are isolates, yet held up as an example to all.

However, in a civilized society, feminism -or something like it – can fester for far longer, because the mechanisms of the state have some staying power. But sure enough, it will eventually lead to a collapse. This is really what the “golden calf” and these other Ba’als that the Hebrew prophets were railing about was. The prophets were literate men, and could see farther into the future. But usually, people didn’t listen to them. Calamity ensued…

This is where we are heading. I’m not a prophet, but I think there is a reason to set this all down. Maybe someday some people will listen and avoid the same mistakes. They probably won’t, but I can’t think of anything else of comparable value to hand down to the following generations.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 18:33

I don’t believe feminists succeeded because they were radicalized. They succeeded because their agenda fed right into Political parties agenda’s to seize more power.

Dave, I was there. I studied with Saul Alinsky. I met Bill Ayers, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, and Rennie Davis. I was good friends with Mark Vaught.

But, of course, none of that matters because people think what they think – they believe what they believe.

Not one damn thing that the political parties or the NWO could do would make one tiny bit of difference if people would just see what was right in front of them. We have the power to scuttle their plans any time we choose.

But. no one will make that choice. People mostly want to keep on doing what they have been doing, and keep on believing what they have been believing, and just hope that things work out.

There is no “conspiracy” – there doesn’t need to be. Even when you tell people exactly what they have been up to and how they are accomplishing it, people keep believing what they want to believe. They can do it in plain sight, and people will just refuse to see it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Renee November 18, 2009 at 18:41

Ok, ok I stand corrected.

I thought that the entire study was about monetary measurement of joy within marriage itself, but it wasn’t. It was about the worth of joy during major life events in general including marriage and divorce.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
julie November 18, 2009 at 18:49

To Zed,

***There is no “conspiracy” – there doesn’t need to be. ***

Of course there is conspiracy. Conspire means to plan. The only reason why business studies teaches students to conspire 5 years ahead is because people are leaving jobs and moving into other jobs. We are short term thinkers these days.

Unlike the elite families in the world. They conspire for a generations. My grandfather told me as his young grandchild that it will be my children that will get the wealth he created and we worked for. It is a long term commitment. And my family is not alone. The Chinese lived this way and today it is their young generation saying, “To hell with all the ‘long tern thinking.’ I want to live for today like the west does. ” And it is the smart wealthy elite taking advantage of this.

Are you telling me you don’t beleive that certain families haven’t considered their environment and made the most of it? Come now, even management degrees teach that you have to look to everything. The inner politics and the outer politics. The laws, the buyers, the competition, the NGOs and everything else.

It was the French who stopped the major part of families power. At one stage the eldest inherited the lot so to make the bloodline important through wealth and power. All families did it.

But the French gave the second child and the third child to the church and to the army. It was a payoff for their successful bloodline.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
sig November 18, 2009 at 18:53

Hawaiian,

Much Thanks – nice that they have what appears to be the whole Jones movie on youtube – with many views, too. I’m really glad to see that some people are watching it. You and I are a minority with our view, even in a place like this forum. You are taking action, you are spreading the truth, I thank you for that. It takes guts to do that, and it takes guts for those few guys in here who are flushing their PC brainwashing down the toilet and coming out to call out and condemn the march into hell we are on.

Most seem to be too fixated on the issue of feminism itself, which is a worthwhile discussion piece but also a distraction from the bigger picture… Once I realized that feminism was an exact mirror of Marxism with a rebranded “victim” class and “oppressor” class I knew it went far beyond some movement inspired by women to achieve equal rights, etc. Women (even most men) could never be clever enough to engineer something like all that all by themselves. That’s the bullshit that was sold to make people, male and female alike, buy in. Had their aims really been so simple, they never would have been able to accomplish what they have by now, with a quasi-slavery system in place against males.

Naturally, if you want to subvert and subjugate, who do you go after – the weaker elements in society, like women? Hell no. You go after and attack the men, the backbone, the workers, builders, inventors, and soldiers of every civilization in human history.

People in here are giving women way too much credit. They have indeed gone to shit, and the gender war is a real problem, but that is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. The source of the disease, the poison that started it is what I think needs to be put under the microscope, not the frailty of the female mind or what constitutes an “alpha” male.

Your thread got into the rotten meat of the matter, and I read a lot of truth in there. Not surprised at all that the few guys who dare to speak the truth get bashed left and right by the “useful idiots” that seem to hijack almost every thread in here…

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck Ross November 18, 2009 at 18:54

Julie,

you look familiar. Have you been on TV or anything in the past?

fedrz November 18, 2009 at 19:01

Anyone who doesn’t believe in “conspiracies” should read about how Bismark manipulated the populace to despise the French, and started the Franco-Prussian War via manipulation, which united the German States.

The reason why my country, Canada, actually even became a nation in 1867 was because of the British’ fear (and justly warranted) that all of the war hawks coming out of the US Civil war would try to start another war with Canada, in order to justify maintaining the size of the military after the Civil War – this was not a joke, and there is evidence supporting it… plus, a whole country to the North of you to prove it! (Declaring war on a country, rather than a colony, was considered far more offensive to world politics, so the British hastened to make Canada a country, or rather, a Dominion, to ward off another War of 1812).

What do you think Lenin or Hitler were up to? An open book policy?

“Psychologically, this talk of feeding the starving is nothing but an expression of the saccharine-sweet sentimentality so characteristic of our intelligentsia.” — V. I. Lenin, “Robert Conquest,” The Harvest of Sorrow, (London: Arrow Books, 1988), p234

History is rife with conspiracies.

Et Tu, Brute?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Welmer November 18, 2009 at 19:06

Dave, I was there. I studied with Saul Alinsky. I met Bill Ayers, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, and Rennie Davis. I was good friends with Mark Vaught.

-zed

Must have been a cathartic awakening for you when you started to see what was going on.

Not one damn thing that the political parties or the NWO could do would make one tiny bit of difference if people would just see what was right in front of them.

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” – George Orwell

Like or Dislike: 0  0
julie November 18, 2009 at 19:08

To Chuck,

*** Julie,
you look familiar. Have you been on TV or anything in the past?***

Oh, gosh no! I live in New Zealand and TBH, the men who know all this stuff have been down trodden as “out there, too much, not political good enough” but they became the best friends I had for my own sanity.

Now men are showing documentaries of professional gangs in Australia going back to the 80′s. I saw all this growing up but no-one believed me. It was easy for them to control the drug market and some of those families entered into the bank scene. Just trying to tell people what went down is really hard. But it really happened. Also…

My grandfather hired 60 men and he even went bankrupt to pay them when the unions were new and went on strike because at that stage their was no way for them to feed their families.

Some of those families came back to my grandfather wanting to make him a multi billionaire so they could not just launder their corrupt money but pay him back by making him an International business.

My grandfather refused and being the type of girl I am I once challenged him as a teenager that I would have liked that life style. He said to me that our family doesn’t belong in the elite, that we are working class people.

I have never and will never defy my grandfather.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Welmer November 18, 2009 at 19:09

The reason why my country, Canada, actually even became a nation in 1867 was because of the British’ fear (and justly warranted) that all of the war hawks coming out of the US Civil war would try to start another war with Canada, in order to justify maintaining the size of the military after the Civil War – this was not a joke, and there is evidence supporting it… plus, a whole country to the North of you to prove it! (Declaring war on a country, rather than a colony, was considered far more offensive to world politics, so the British hastened to make Canada a country, or rather, a Dominion, to ward off another War of 1812).

-fedrz

Ah yes, it would have been so easy… Someone should have listened to the Hibernians — then we wouldn’t have to bother with customs on the way to do a little shopping in Hongcouver.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 19:15

What do you think Lenin or Hitler were up to? An open book policy?

Ever read “What is to be Done?” (1902) or Mein Kampf (1925-1926) ?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 18, 2009 at 19:20

Lol! Touche, Zed.

But you know what I mean. People made excuses for what they found uncomfortable to believe in. Hitler didn’t say: “I burnt the Reichstag to steal your freedom!” Rather, he said, “Those bastards burned the Reichstage! Now give me your freedom and I will protect you!”

(I have read Mein Kampf, btw – As evil as Hitler was… very smart man. “I save reason for the few, and emotion for the many.”).

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 19:33

People made excuses for what they found uncomfortable to believe in.

And that’s my point, Rob. There were people who knew that the Reichstag fire was a setup, but no one wanted to believe them.

Even here, people will point out how feminists react to Islam, but to suggest taking an equally hard line ourselves is always termed “misogyny.” People will always choose to fail by not examining their beliefs over succeeding by examining and changing them.

(I have read Mein Kampf, btw – As evil as Hitler was… very smart man. “I save reason for the few, and emotion for the many.”).

And, the most successful political manipulator in history must have understood something about people. But, men continue to choose “reason” as their only weapon, even when it never works among themselves.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 19:53

Must have been a cathartic awakening for you when you started to see what was going on.

I really didn’t grasp the enormity of it until the mid-70s when Brownmiller’s book came out. Kent State had really taken the wind out of the suburban kids who wanted to play at being radical and I thought the whole thing might start to fizzle. It probably would have, too, if a way had not been found to polarize people on such a massive scale.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 18, 2009 at 19:56

It won’t get 50% of the vote — women will overwhelmingly vote against restrictions on alimony and CS and men generally vote much less heavily than women do.

Democracy is a girl’s game — it doesn’t work for men once women get the vote. That is the core problem.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Welmer November 18, 2009 at 20:04

I really didn’t grasp the enormity of it until the mid-70s when Brownmiller’s book came out. Kent State had really taken the wind out of the suburban kids who wanted to play at being radical and I thought the whole thing might start to fizzle. It probably would have, too, if a way had not been found to polarize people on such a massive scale.

-zed

Living in China is what really opened my eyes. I had a bit of a culture crisis, rather than the typical culture shock. When I figured out what the red lanterns meant, and my friends took me aside and told me how it was, I struggled. It took a few years for me to really come to terms with all the lies of the West that were shattered over there in that ancient culture.

The bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and subsequent anti-American riots in Beijing were pretty traumatic for me. Seeing how easily expatriate American citizens were tossed to the wolves by the administration and how the rest of the world was lied to was quite a shock at such a young age. I can’t think of any country in the world that so casually denies reality to the extent our own does.

So I guess I must have been the same age you were around Kent State. Maybe it’s a coming of age thing…

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 18, 2009 at 20:06

So… if a “counter answer” is to be found…

Unite the people?

or divide them further?

As some of you know… I have no problems being a low-down, dirty lying scoundrel! So long as I win!

No amount of “higher morals” is going to win the day here. The Mennonites who refused to fight, but agreed to be non-violent medics, did not take the beaches of Normandy.

Low down, dirty mother-fuckers who killed first and asked questions later took Normandy.

Any man talking about “higher morals” when fighting the femarxists is going to get his ass handed to him too.

If the manosphere REALLY wanted to take action… Machievellie, Hitler, Lenin, Marcuse, Gramsci, Adorno, the Rand Institution, Tavistock etc. … those are the sonsabitches to emulate.

Sorry, but it’s true.

As we all know… Nice Guys (TM) finish last!

Feminists and gays are at direct odds, you know. You cannot possibly be “born gay” while claiming that “gender is a social construct” at the same time. It ought to create a black hole that sucks us all into oblivion. Why not separate these two allies?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
porkchop November 18, 2009 at 20:12

“Naturally, if you want to subvert and subjugate, who do you go after – the weaker elements in society, like women? Hell no. You go after and attack the men, the backbone, the workers, builders, inventors, and soldiers of every civilization in human history.”

Absolutely sig. Women are easily manipulated, hence the term “herd” creature. With the destruction of the nuclear family and the absence of strong men (assets to society, not thugs or players) in women’s lives, the communists can manipulate via media outlets (i.e. Oprah) and popular culture and win elections with the overwhelming majority of the female vote. The gender war they created has been sucessful beyond their wildest fantasies. In my opinion, it is even more brilliant than the class warfare they started with considering the extent of their success in a country with a supposed Constitution and Bill of Rights. And the fact that women march in lock-step, with hardly any exceptions while they watch the fabric of society burn and people suffer leaves me speechless at times.

“Your thread got into the rotten meat of the matter, and I read a lot of truth in there. Not surprised at all that the few guys who dare to speak the truth get bashed left and right by the “useful idiots” that seem to hijack almost every thread in here…”

The “useful idiots” that come on here to condescend to the rest who don’t buy into the lies or don’t believe “Game” is the magic answer to all the problems men face in this country today are annoying and frankly don’t deserve a response.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 20:18

It won’t get 50% of the vote — women will overwhelmingly vote against restrictions on alimony and CS

Oh, it would. Good ads will need to be run to counter the ‘deadbeat dads’ ads, but a sizable minority of women will vote for it, enough to ensure passage.

How a woman votes at the voting booth might very well contradict how she behaves when she stands to benefit from something, but there is no evidence that ALL women will vote for it.

By your logic, any female politician would get 100% of the female vote. That clearly does not happen.

men generally vote much less heavily than women do.

I don’t consider 47/53 to be ‘much’ less. The greater life expectancy of women accounts for the bulk of the gap. Twice as many women as men make it to 80, and old people vote the most diligently.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 18, 2009 at 20:21

Why not separate these two allies?

No. Think bigger.

The goal should be to force more direct interaction between feminists and Muslims. Feminists are afraid to condemn even the most outrageous things Muslims say and do to women.

Keep an eye on Britain.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Black&German November 18, 2009 at 20:21

If you want to marry her for spiritual reasons, that’s fine, too; just don’t sign that state contract! No man should ever do that today. I’d even go so far as to say that it isn’t marriage, but simply unconstitutional state tyranny.
Welmer,
I don’t always agree with you but you seem like a fair and balanced man. On this point, I actually completely agree with you. My Catholic marriage means much more to me than my civil one because it cannot be severed. That’s almost been reduced to a piece of paper and it’s worth is dropping precipitously.

I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a commenter, male or female, who’s taken the stance that marriage/women are still worth saving, hint/suggest/recommend/mention/whisper that females need to change their attitude, control their emotions, manage their expectations. ALWAYS is the burden placed on the shoulders of men.
Don’t come here often?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 20:29

When I figured out what the red lanterns meant, and my friends took me aside and told me how it was, I struggled.

What do the red lanterns mean?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 18, 2009 at 20:39

That this is MY WORLD, and she can be a part of it if she wants, or she can leave, I will continue to carry on regardless. I used to live in soul sucking fear that she was going to leave me. I used to have nightmares about her cleaning out the house and leaving me a “dear john” note.

Studying game put me into an entirely different point of view. I went from a pleading, begging, sackless chump that used to beg her to try to “work on our problems” to standing up and saying “you don’t like it, there’s the door.”

That’s not GAMING my wife to make my marriage work. That’s finally gaining an understanding of how my own attitudes and behavior were causing her to react to me.

“Game” gave me the entire mindset to RE-FRAME my entire outlook on life.

That re-framing of your mindset is the primary point I’m trying to get across.

And, if it works on the individual level for you, why do you not seem to believe that it will work on the cultural level?

Do you see the parallels here, Dave? People take what you say and think you are gaming your wife constantly. I suggest holding women accountable, and you call me a “misogynist.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 21:15

21 Guns
“oh shit, are you saying these women are caregivers? That is just creee-py.”

No, he doesn’t use any. I was referring to those in customer service who have gone waay overboard. Just wanted to clarify.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 18, 2009 at 21:21

Doug1
“Don’t marry. Don’t even consider marriage without a prenup that mimics living together re split up, and then only if you want children imminently.”

Everything that I’ve heard and read about prenups is that judges in ‘family’ court merely toss them like trash. Men get devastated in these courts, hence what has led to a marriage strike.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
julie November 18, 2009 at 21:48

Zed, the red lantern is about a female concubine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raise_the_Red_Lantern

Sounds a bit like Madame Butterfly.

I don’t know about the concubine in the 1920s but I understand the US males side when it came to Madame Butterfly. The US soldiers were not expecting to survive the war and lived in the day. Oh, the things I would do if I thought my life was very short.

I even know of a couple of people who shoplifted when they were told they were going to die and the judges refused to put them in prison.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 18, 2009 at 22:21

Oh Julie… you have not numbed enough male minds already?

N.O.W. must have you on one sweet retirement program.

Yeesh!

Blackball this woman.

She is a drain, pure and simple.

She seems nice, but will run you around in circles all day like a dog chasing its tail… and then still won’t understand why she should stop chasing her tail!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
clarence November 18, 2009 at 23:44

Black&German:

Like or Dislike: 0  0
clarence November 18, 2009 at 23:53

Kathy,

Thanks for the compliment. I hope you are right.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 19, 2009 at 06:45

“Feminists and gays are at direct odds, you know. You cannot possibly be “born gay” while claiming that “gender is a social construct” at the same time. It ought to create a black hole that sucks us all into oblivion. Why not separate these two allies?”

I agree this should be one of a multi-pronged strategy. I’ve heard a lot of good strategies for dealing with the situation at hand. There should be less debate on which ones are most effective and more debate on how to implement them all, and then let reality decide which ones work best. Everyone should become an independent cell, like Globalman, and take independent action that he/she thinks will work best. I spread the word as best I can in my face to face interactions with friends and families, but I think it is time to step up and expand our tactics.

If we are in phase one, propaganda, it seems to be gaining some traction on the web. Lets focus on continuing to spread the message to people outside the blogosphere. One effecient, simple, and easy way to do that would be with radical non-destructive vandalism possibly. Anyone want to write “MRA” with washable paint on the supreme court building, the HQ of NOW, or on any prominent government/Feminist building. I’m just brainstorming.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 19, 2009 at 06:47

Remember, lets not support anything “illegal” on the web, or at least “very illegal”. Extremism, radicalism, if it needs to get to that point, will take hold on its own without specific instructions.

Again, mental masturbation. I’m just throwing stuff out there to see what sticks. (sorry, couldn’t help myself with that one)

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 19, 2009 at 07:08

Feminists and gays are at direct odds, you know. You cannot possibly be “born gay” while claiming that “gender is a social construct” at the same time. It ought to create a black hole that sucks us all into oblivion. Why not separate these two allies?

I think we need to keep in mind that the dialogue about this has long since moved away from “born gay” towards one of freedom of expression. This was done, in large part, because anything that has the “freedom” label on it sells well in the marketplace of ideas in our culture. Specifically, once feminism moved onto the plane of “gender studies”, the door was opened to creating a unified link that included basically everyone but heterosexual men.

The core idea is that, as you note, gender is a social construct. If you buy this, then you are easily led to the conclusion that the idea that heterosexuality is “normative” is also simply a part of a construct about gender, and the intersection between gender and sexuality. As feminism generally peddles itself as being about freedom and liberation, when it comes to gender constructs, a part of that liberation is from the types of sexualities that have been associated with the gender constructs themselves — the idea being to break down not only the constructs of “man” and “woman” but also to sever the ties between what either of these things means and any particular form of sexuality. In this way, feminists can claim that the reason why gay men, for example, are oppressed is the same reason that women are oppressed — namely, they suffer from narrow gender constructs about “manhood” just as women suffer from narrow gender constructs about “womanhood” — and in each case foisted upon them by the heterosexist Patriarchy precisely to marginalize anyone who is not straight and male. That’s how you create a theoretical construct that unites the interests of gay men and feminist women — you get people to the point where they see everything in their lives as being the result of straight men oppressing them. And that “sell” to gay men has been remarkably effective — virtually the entire “activist” gay community buys into it, for example, because, in effect, it has encouraged them to see other men as the enemy (truly ironic given that these are men who love men) and to identify, instead, more closely with the perspectives of women. It was a brilliant strategy, quite frankly, and one which has been tremendously successful as a result.

In actual fact, however, the overall impact is small because the number of gay men is also small relative to the population overall. But it’s big enough to swing some votes here and there.

I think we should welcome gay men who come to us as allies, but trying to drive a wedge between feminism and most of the gay community seems like a tall order to me. Many of these guys really have a high level of hate for straight men (often due to how they have been treated by straight men, to be honest) — they won’t easily be made our allies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 19, 2009 at 07:31

I think we should welcome gay men who come to us as allies, but trying to drive a wedge between feminism and most of the gay community seems like a tall order to me. Many of these guys really have a high level of hate for straight men (often due to how they have been treated by straight men, to be honest) — they won’t easily be made our allies.

Gay men seem to have a political shadow way out of proportion to their actual numbers. As Novaseeker points out, their real impact is relatively small. And the grounds on which to form any sort of alliance are extremely thin. Some few may have children and be concerned about Fathers’ Rights, but aside from the generalized attack on men and masculinity there is not a lot of common ground. And, they certainly do have a lot of historic reasons to distrust straight men.

I think Rob’s principle may have application however. Feminism is also at direct odds with women themselves. If “gender is a social construct” then the only reason why women can’t perform exactly like men is because they are weak and stupid. Women have been stranded by feminists in a “no woman’s land” where they can’t actually be women any more, and are constantly forced to compete with men, and when they fail they have no excuse other than “Patriarchy”.

Over on the forum Kimberly just posted –

Womanhood is going the way of the Dodo bird, I guess I’d like to see a comeback.

Feminism has taken women’s identity away from them, told them that womanhood had no inherent worth, and the only reason they had not outperformed men in the past was due to malice on the part of men “oppressing” them. The family has been split, marriage seriously crippled if not destroyed, and women have been pretty much stranded and left high and dry. The feminists’ ability to blame all this on men is wearing out as women are being forced to become the majority of the workforce.

I think it would be a much more effective strategy to try to split “Team Woman” and separate feminists from normal women.

If you get enough women longing to be women again, and tired of being forced to be pretend-men, I think they would find a lot of men quite ready to be their allies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Black&German November 19, 2009 at 07:47

I think it would be a much more effective strategy to try to split “Team Woman” and separate feminists from normal women.
If you get enough women longing to be women again, and tired of being forced to be pretend-men, I think they would find a lot of men quite ready to be their allies.

This. I agree. Normal, sane, women are your natural allies. We get hurt by this junk, too.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
julie November 19, 2009 at 10:30

To fedrz,

Sorry for using the site the way I did. I had been asked to write a book a few years ago and am in the process of doing so and I have been commenting on sites when needing a little break.

Good for me but not good for you and selfish on my part. Sorry again.

*** Oh Julie… you have not numbed enough male minds already?
N.O.W. must have you on one sweet retirement program. ***

lol. Do you think they would like me? Do you think they might back my book?

*** Yeesh! Blackball this woman. She is a drain, pure and simple. She seems nice, but will run you around in circles all day like a dog chasing its tail… and then still won’t understand why she should stop chasing her tail!***

Thanks for the seems nice compliment. As for running around chasing her tail, well, I don’t use the Internet as others do, for sure.

I am not aware of these ladies. But *sigh* if they are low in men’s minds but better than I, I will be happy to learn from them and then maybe go up the line till I get it right.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
ray November 19, 2009 at 12:51

“The “useful idiots” that come on here to condescend to the rest who don’t buy into the lies or don’t believe “Game” is the magic answer to all the problems men face in this country today are annoying and frankly don’t deserve a response.”

yep that’s why they dont get one

feminism and the matriarchies that now dominate the anglosphere and most of the western world did NOT arise from the grass-roots agitation of females in response to “oppressive” life conditions under “patriarchy”

modern feminism was nurtured over many centuries by a limited number of intergenerational interests — largely family (bloodline) interests, but also a considerable number of nonfamiliar interests desiring to retain trememdous advantages in wealth, power, and communicative influence (propaganda, media, corporate etc.)

feminism was and is most certainly a conspiracy, loosely in the general sense, not literalistic point-to-point, and composed in actuality of many interconnected agreements (conspiracies) of lesser scope

many of the major families involved already have been identified, and the exploits of the major players in those families (e.g., lucretia mott, maria shriver) have been described, but the Conspiracy Loon people are never interested in this information, only in marginalizing the people who present such evidence

makes one wonder where their true interests lie

similarly, those who expose Game as the ludicrous folly it is are herein called “haters”

umm….. huh?

disagree with me = haters?

sounds very feministic!

your Great Guru of Game comes on here advocating giving LSD to cats for “entertainment” — when he can tear himself away from self-promotion

you sure must be proud to be acolytes of that!

the rise of the western matriarchies is the greatest conspiracy the world has ever, or will ever, experience, and it is particularly disappointing to see “christian” folks display apparent ignorance of the root of that conspiracy

perhaps a little less self-congratultory chatter and a little more bible reading would remind them of who their enemy really is (hint: it’s not people who dismiss Game or point out the obvious money/power connections in Western Old Money families that underwrite and spread feminism)

too much clique/herd stuff and useless banter

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 19, 2009 at 13:56

“feminism was and is most certainly a conspiracy, loosely in the general sense, not literalistic point-to-point, and composed in actuality of many interconnected agreements (conspiracies) of lesser scope”

I am coming around to accepting conspiracy theories when they are explained like this. I guess it’s a matter of connotation bias, as when I think conspiracy theory, I think of evil tyrannical super villians working away in hidden dungeons communicating in code with each other in order to manipulate the masses through complex schemes and shenanigans. I am trying to open my mind up. Patience with me and similiarly like minded skeptics would be wise.

To not accept we are biased, is a sure sign of bias.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 19, 2009 at 15:17

“the rise of the western matriarchies is the greatest conspiracy the world has ever, or will ever, experience, and it is particularly disappointing to see “christian” folks display apparent ignorance of the root of that conspiracy ”

rubbish. matriarchy and feminism wasn’t some conspiracy. it arose from democracy. once everyone is able to vote, the people with the highest number of voters and the most power (in terms of vociferousness against “oppression”) won out.

the nearest we can come to saying it is a conspiracy is realizing the fact that some gatekeepers to the reins of power sold it off to the masses in order to beget more structural power for themselves. liberals, wanting to keep power, sold it off to minorities and women in order to create and sustain their own power bases.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 19, 2009 at 16:06

I don’t know about that Chuck.

If I intended to destroy Western Civilization, and I knew that Democracy would destroy the principles of the West, why wouldn’t I try to inject Democracy into Western Civilization in order to make it destroy itself?

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” — Karl Marx

We have been fed a line of crap that the suffragette movement was all about getting women the vote. It is complete CRAP! “Feminism” officially organized as a movement in 1848, at Seneca Falls, I believe.

In 1848, most of the Western World was a limited democracy. Most men did not even have the right to vote. Universal suffrage for landless white men occured by around the end of the US Civil War. Black men by the 1870′s, and women anywhere from 1895 (New Zealand) to around 1920.

So, it was not possibly about “equal voting rights.” Most women already had that kind of equal right with men: none.

However, Karl Marx openly stated how to make a society want something like Universal Suffrage:

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx

Women “are” society. What women want, is also what society wants. Men are the sexual servants of the female, and this extends to all things, as men must adapt to female desires in order to be accepted in society. In fact, even things like “game” are the result of women’s desires and illustrates quite well how men, as sexual servants of females, will contort themselves around women’s desires in order to be accepted by them. It has always been this way, and it always will. Here is an article that explains the concept of “women as society” very well.

If I were to attempt to inject Universal Suffrage into a society, and I understood these things about human nature… I would instantly realize that the way to get ALL of society to desire something, neccessarily demands that I entice women to my ideology first, and then men will follow. Without women supporting the notion of a vote for everyone, most men probably wouldn’t have gotten up off their asses to agitate for a vote for themselves. The reason why it is so difficult to combat paternity fraud is for the same way: women are opposed to it, and so men follow suit. Want society to change something? Convince women that it is in their best interests, and society will change it for them… it’s what women do… for a living!

If I wanted to put an end to marriage? Hmmm… what would I do? What would I do if I wanted to end marriage? Well, I think I would take my knowledge of human sexuality and make it so that laws were passed and social mores were created which would make men sexually repugnant to women… like trying to convince men to be kitchen bitches that disgust their wives.

“They” definitely were not hiding it that they wanted to drive apart men and women and destroy the family.

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/womens-studies-101a-winter-semester.html

If I knew that women were attracted to dominance, the best way to split apart men and women is to trick men into thinking women are attracted to Sensitive New Age Guys.

If I knew that people were going to try to do an end run around marriage because of hostile laws… I would extend those laws to cohabitation, to further drive a wedge between the sexes.

If I make laws that are hostile to men for merely being generous enough to allow a poor waif of single mother and her thug spawn to live with me… such as by possibly making me liable for 20 years of childsupport as punishment for my generosity, then I can reasonably count on it that more men will refrain from allowing women to live under their roof, further destroying relations between men and women.

There certainly IS a conspiracy.

How can anyone even deny it? The GOAL of Marxism is International Socialism. The Soviets used to call it “Global Governance.” Today, we call it Globalization. Al Gore, an ex U.S. Vice President, is screeching from the rafters that the USA must give up sovereignty in order to fight Global Warming. Paul Martin, and ex Canadian Prime Minister, is travelling our country preaching that “Canada must give up some of its sovereignty in order to make the world work.” (In regard to handing over economic power to a global governing body). That is THE end goal of Marxism – One World Government.

What is going on around us, RIGHT NOW? All of the major world leaders are calling for less national sovereignty, in favour of a larger, MORE POWERFUL, international governing body. There is no Constitution in any country on earth that allows for such nonsensical talk… because such talk is pure fucking treason! What’s up with this?

The reason why they need a “One World Government” is because Socialism is a known failure… so long as there is competition. A socialist country will always be weaker than a non-socialist one, and thus, the non-socialist one will always dominate, and overtake the socialist one. Therefore, in order for socialism to succeed, there can no longer be competing economic systems… which there wouldn’t be if there was a One World Government.

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.” — V.I. Lenin

“The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.” — V.I. Lenin

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.” — Karl Marx

“[After Communism succeeds] …then, there will come a peace across the earth.” — Josef Stalin

Once there is Global Socialism, with no threat of a competing system taking over, then the next part of Marx’s plan for Utopia can be implemented: To remove all selfish human desires from the human experience (ownership, feeling , jealousy etc), so that man’s mind can transpire into a new form of consciousness, and create a new, superior kind of humanity. Basically, to create Heaven on Earth, and to dethrone God.

For there being “no real conspiracy,” the Marxists sure are the luckiest bastards around, because everything always seems to fall in their favour… and they don’t even believe in God, so it must be pure luck!

Like or Dislike: 2  0
Chuck November 19, 2009 at 17:26

fedrz,

i am not able to read your full comment as i’m in a rush; i’ll do so later. after reading the first paragraph i just want to reiterate what someone in the forum or in another comment said (sorry that i can’t cite them). your term “conspiracy” is a loaded word. it implies people gathering together in a concerted effort. i don’t think there was a conspiracy of any sort.

individuals act for the sake of their own power. they do things that they perceive will bring them the most power and control.

politicians and others who controlled the purse strings of power slowly eroded the prevailing power structure. by doing this, they obtained a first mover advantage. if they jumped on the power structure (patriarchy) they could forever cement their place near the top of the heap. they came to be a voice that had to be heard.

they get power from the masses and keep it by redistributing the power of those that previously had it. The masses realize that they benefit from the newfound power to the detriment to those who had it. They like this and don’t mind the implications for themselves should they have others try to take that power from them in the future.

I don’t consider this dynamic a conspiracy. It is a natural result of democracy gone wild. It was inevitable. People acting on their own best interests, without collusion or explicity shared interests, came to the same conclusion. Politicians and others fostered this because they benefited as well.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Novaseeker November 19, 2009 at 17:34

I don’t consider this dynamic a conspiracy. It is a natural result of democracy gone wild. It was inevitable. People acting on their own best interests, without collusion or explicity shared interests, came to the same conclusion. Politicians and others fostered this because they benefited as well.

This is what I think as well. It was, and is, a diverse group of actors all acting in their own interests.

I have to say, though, that men are largely also acting in what they at least *perceive* to be in their own interests by their own reaction to these developments. In other words: men want to get laid, and so they want female acceptance. If they think throwing other men under the bus will get them laid, other men will be thrown under the bus in droves and with a primal enthusiasm. If they think learning Game will get them laid, they will learn Game. And so on. Ferdz is quite right in saying that men basically dance to women’s tune — because they perceive that they will be “rewarded” by women for doing so, and they believe that being so “rewarded” is in their own interests — much more so than joining together with other men in an effort to stem the rising tide of matriarchy. That’s not a recipe for getting laid — and if it isn’t a recipe for getting laid, most men are not going to be interested, at least not until they start to slow down sexually or they have been personally burned by the system.

So when we speak about people acting in their own best interests (as they perceive them to be), we also need to include men in this as well.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 19, 2009 at 17:49

Well, I guess you would have to read my whole post.

But, like I said, if I wanted to destroy something, why wouldn’t I take a page or two of Machiavelli or Sun Tzu, and manipulate the masses to do my bidding.

And not ALL of this can be attributed to “popular will.” Take No Fault Divorce. There was absolutely ZERO public outcry for this extremely radical change to marriage. It wasn’t even in people’s consciousness, and suddenly, POOF! No Fault Divorce came barrelling down upon us.

Or, take Multi-Culturalism. There was no outcry for this lunacy whatsoever. In fact, it goes directly AGAINST human nature to agitate for Multi-Culturalism. It can only come from the top. And the dangers of Multiculturalism were not unknown in previous times. In order for the American styled “Melting Pot” to work, it was well understood that a immigrants must be limited in number, and given a period of time to “melt” before adding more immigrants of a similar background. It was well understood that in a country of say 10,000,000, taking in 2,000,000 immigrants from from a competing culture – say Ireland – would have an adverse affect on the overall population. So, the policy was to allow no more than a certain percentage of immigrants in each year from contrary cultures – say, 100,000 over 20 years, rather than 2,000,000 at once. We have dropped this wisdom… why? It cannot be because of democracy, because human nature dictates that most people are resistant to those with different cultures, looks, and customs than their own. But yet, here we are. If Multiculturalism is so “valuable”, then why isn’t Japan agitating to get more white people to move there to strengthen their nation? Because it is CRAP, that’s why. Only white people are cheering on the destruction of their own culture – why?

It does not change the fact, though, that most major events in the history of the world involved a significant amount of “conspiracy.”

The US Founding Fathers were a “conspiracy.” In fact, they studied “conspiracy” very closely, and even acknowledged (I think it was Ben Franklin), that only 5% of the population, dedicated to their cause, could alter the future of the entire population. A conspiracy indeed!

It is sitting right in front of our face. We just have to choose to see.

Btw. Lol. Pretty much my entire blog is dedicated to this very subject… and I too am pissed off with all the people taking what is “solid” and extrapolating it into the extremes of la la land with all kinds of wild crapola that is sheer fantasy and speculation – aliens, Masons descending through the Occult from Babylon etc. – TOO FAR!

I don’t talk of such things – I only talk of theory and how to implement it.

But the mechanics of Marxism are there, for all to see. There is no hokey shit about it. Hitler also used Marxist techniques to enslave the population… and we know because, um, he said so.

As for us and our situation, if it walks like a duck…

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 19, 2009 at 18:05

Agreed Rob. It seems like so many people just read the word “conspiracy” and they default to “wild, unprovable paranoid fantasy!”

Even when presented with a compelling case of easily observed examples…they just can’t get over the ‘idea’ of conspiracy.

It’s the “X-Files effect.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 19, 2009 at 18:05

Oh, and Rob…check out my latest post at my blog…

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 19, 2009 at 18:20

No offence, Nova,

But you flip flop on this issue far too much.

One day you state that there is no Marxism involved, and the next day you are writing posts about the dangers of Cultural Marxism. On this subject you have a particular wishy washiness that changes from day to day. I find it extremely agitating because 90% of my “activism” has been dedicated to this subject, and I’ve already proven my point. Extensively and thoroughly – and in simple language. I was not kidding around, and dedicated many, many man hours to study it sans all the wild crap.

Marxism cannot be a “grassroots” movement. It can become one, sure, but only after it has started “from the top” and gets injected into the mass culture via manipulation. So, if feminism is an offshoot of a Marxist movement, it also neccessarily says that in the beginning, it was “top down” rather than “bottom up.” Although, it has now gotten so far into our culture that the lines have blurred.

Ask Zed how enthusiastically women embraced feminism and sexual depravity in the beginning. Most women did not want to become hairy legged dykes at all. Why did they? It was not in their “democratic interest” to do so. Read up on Herbet Marcuse, and how he thought that Marxism was too heavy for the general public, and so he sold the pleasure principle to rebellious youth… he was highly influential in the 60′s, and his book “Eros and Civilization” was widely regarded, and influential on the culture… Marcuse studied at the Frankfurt School – which, btw, was dedicated to conspiracy. And I mean, outright dedicated to it!

Have a look at the Superbowl Hoax. Now THAT is a conspiracy right there! The Superbowl Hoax was used to rile up the emotions of the people, to aid the passage of the VAWA. It was definitely a conspiracy!

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/050412

To understand the DV urban legend, we need to go back to 1991, when senator Joe Biden of Delaware introduced VAWA for the first time. [www.vawnet.org/SexualViolence/PublicPolicy/VAWA-SVPubPol.pdf] But many in Congress were opposed to Biden’s bill because it ignored key provisions of the United States Constitution.

First, the proposed law flaunted the intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. Knowing that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, how could anyone in good conscience propose a law that would confer greater protections and services, but only for women?

Second, Biden’s proposed bill violated the principle of federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, and thus infringed on state sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, Biden’s bill was soon relegated to the legislative deep-freeze. That didn’t please the rad-fems. So someone came up with the idea of a publicity stunt.

In January 1993, a daring group of women called a press conference in Pasadena, California. Sheila Kuhn of the California Women’s Law Center made the statement that would provide the boost the feminists were desperately looking for: Super Bowl Sunday was the “biggest day of the year for violence against women.”

That stunning claim quickly appeared on Good Morning America, in the Boston Globe, and elsewhere. The Oakland Tribune would report the Super Bowl causes men to “explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten.”

How’s that for dispassionate news reporting?

Some remained unconvinced, however, including reporter Ken Ringle of the Washington Post. In his article “Debunking the ‘Day of Dread’ for Women,” Ringle showed the feminist claim was a preposterous fraud. [www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp] But Ringle’s expose’ came too late — the genie was out of the bottle.

The Super Bowl Hoax, as it was later dubbed, no doubt will become a classic in the propaganda textbooks. And it clearly did succeed in triggering a surge of letters and phone calls to Congress. The following year the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton.

More on the Superbowl Hoax here:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

http://www.debunker.com/texts/fair2.html

http://www.ejfi.org/PDF/Super_Bowl_hoax.pdf

A conspiracy!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 19, 2009 at 18:50

fedrz,

what you say makes sense; i don’t think it is necessarily inconsistent with what i’m saying.

the only thing i’d point out: i consider conspiracies something that happens from the top down. to me, marxism and its offshoots were grassroots movements that grew from the bottom up. like a weed through concrete, it was inevitable that it would break through to the top at some point.

the reason i dont’ consider it a pure conspiracy is because there are others who comply with the motivations of marxists because of the power it brings *them* (please see: any liberal member of Congress) rather than the ideological notions behind it. When he was alive, Ted Kennedy didn’t care about equal rights for everyone qua equal rights; he cared because it benefited his power base. He cut out pieces of the power pizza pie and handed it to his constituents. Being a national voice, his power – and other politicians – transcended the borders of his tiny state.

Again, I don’t think there was ever a mass concertion of effort to get to where we are today. I think it was the inevitable outcome of a bunch of different factions trying to get their agenda across. The huge umbrella that liberals must uphold today (voices from LGBT, blacks, hispanics, jews, lawyers, teachers, feminists, environmentalists, etc) is held up by the power they’re leeching from people in this country who don’t fall into those demographics: basically you, me, and other white men. The power will be disemenated accordingly with no “order” or conspiracy behind it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 19, 2009 at 19:04

I too am pissed off with all the people taking what is “solid” and extrapolating it into the extremes of la la land with all kinds of wild crapola that is sheer fantasy and speculation – aliens, Masons descending through the Occult from Babylon etc. – TOO FAR!

Ok, now you are getting down to the heart of the matter. Yes, the fruitcakes with their hobgoblins of “the Illuminati” do more to destroy people’s willingness to take an objective look at what is really going on than they do anything else. “Illuminati” means basically “the enlightened ones” and there have been thousands of groups throughout history who have wished to claim that status for themselves. They know a few things about human nature which most people just refuse to believe, which is what allows them to be more effective in accomplishing their goals than the average Joe Sixpack sitting in front of the boob tube watching 2 gangs of overpaid mutants hopped up on steroids butt heads with each other.

In a very real sense the Democratic Party in the US is a “conspiracy” to grab power from its rival gang the Repulican party, which is in its turn a “conspiracy” to grab power from the Democrats. Every political party in the world is a “conspiracy” in that sense.

As you pointed out, the US Founding Fathers were a “conspiracy.” Of course they were. Not all “conspiracies” have purely evil and malicious intent.

You might even say that the Spearhead is a “conspiracy” because we are talking about how to have a political effect.

The point that all this talk about “conspiracy” misses, however, is that people are still making the choices to go along with it. That is the story of political, ideological, and religious movements throughout history. Humans tend to be herd beasts and will go along with whatever most of their social contacts are going along with. The only thing that changes is who is pulling the strings in what sphere of influence.

Most of the population is being whipsawed between the political classes and the monied classes, who are battling it out for control of wealth and resources. Under the fiction of Communism, supposedly no one owned anything, but members of the Party sure controlled a lot more of what no one owned than anyone else did.

Sovereign nation-states mean that war is going to be a permanent fact of life as rival gangs compete over control of resources. The “have-nots” are always going to be jealous of the “haves” and are going to be “conspiring” to take control away from them. I think just about all of human history can be understood simply by reading Orwell’s “Animal Farm.”

The US itself is a sort of New World Order – “Novus Ordo Seclorum”, “New Order of the Ages”. But, it has any number of built in paradoxes and contraditions which attempt to hide the fact that is was the same old power politics which had functioned throughout history – with a slightly more noble intent and some very intelligent people as the architects.

The power of the “conspiracy” lies not in the conspiracy itself, but in the ability to get people to go along with it voluntarily. A New World Police State would be far more of a horror to live under, but the strange thing is that it could very possibly be democratically voted in by the masses who are easily manipulated by emotion.

If a democracy votes to dissolve itself and turn their power over to a group of elites, there will always be plenty of groups competing to be the chosen few.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 19, 2009 at 19:04

Chuck…there are in fact a wide variety of groups and organizations that have quite openly stated their goals and intentions of bringing the world under one, Supranational Global Government.

If you care to look into it, and actually take the time to discern the real info from the deliberate misinformation, you would see that this idea is not as outlandish as one would think.

I would recommend anyone read the last three authors extensive articles that I referenced on the “It’s a Conspiracy” article. Joan Veon, Nikki Raapana and Nancy Levant.

All three have done the research.

You’ll not find a single reference to “illuminati” or “reptiles” or “UFO’s.” What you will find is three ladies who have followed the paper trails, attended the meetings and conferences and done their homework to verify without the shadow of a doubt that in fact there is a “conspiracy” to implement the New World Order of global governance.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 19, 2009 at 19:27

there are in fact a wide variety of groups and organizations that have quite openly stated their goals and intentions of bringing the world under one, Supranational Global Government.

Absolutely true. So what?

Do you remember “The sun never sets on the British Empire”? India and Nigeria both have more people who speak English than the UK does. The Phillipines and Germany have more than Canada does, and France has more than Australia.

As the British Empire showed, and the Roman Empire before it, and the USSR, supra-national political units with a lot of ethnic diversity are very difficult to maintain.

Besides, in the modern world political governance matters a whole lot less than the ability to freely move capital between jurisdictions.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
The Fifth Horseman November 19, 2009 at 19:36

India and Nigeria both have more people who speak English than the UK does.

India’s English-speakers are now rivaling the US in number.

But I would say that ‘decline’ is also an overused term. A very long tail exists.

The Roman empire lasted over 1000 years after its peak.

Britain, even today, is one of the top seven countries in the world. It just isn’t #1.

America’s worst-case scenario is to become #2 behind China. Certainly no lower than that.

Besides, in the modern world political governance matters a whole lot less than the ability to freely move capital between jurisdictions.

Therein lies the solution. Capital and talent needs to flow quickly enough that governments are forced to compete with each other to see who can provide the most business-friendly and individual-friendly environment. This could reign in the misandry that is acting as an invisible tax on the US economy, and decreasing the competitiveness of the US economy. If overly feminized and misandric societies see capital and male talent leak out, such deviations will be quite self-correcting.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 19, 2009 at 20:04

Dave,

“You’ll not find a single reference to “illuminati” or “reptiles” or “UFO’s.” What you will find is three ladies who have followed the paper trails, attended the meetings and conferences and done their homework to verify without the shadow of a doubt that in fact there is a “conspiracy” to implement the New World Order of global governance.”

I prefer to think of things within the chaos/order dichotomy. Behaviors, regimes, etc follow cycles. I think of a radioactive element. It is chaotic and must resort an orderly state to survive. It lets out other noxious substances in the process. Multicultural society has reached the untenable position of a radioactive element. There needs be no “conspiracy” for society to resort back to a more orderly situation.

Rather than all of these disparate groups colluding together to create a New World Order, they act alone, achieving the same thing. Once democracy has taken hold it seeks more of the same in order to sustain itself. I dont’ call this a conspiracy, I call it an inevitable outcome of an untenable state of politics and power structure.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 19, 2009 at 20:23

I wonder how Globalman’s family court date in Australia went. It was supposed to be on Thursday right?

I haven’t seen any down-under news reports of “Bloody Thursday Uzi Massacre”. I guess that is always a good sign.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 19, 2009 at 20:30

Chuck,

But, there is one problem.

One cannot claim a Marxist element and “grassroots” at the same time. It screws up the space-time continuum.

Marxism, by the essense of itself, is neccessarily a top down manipulation.

It just IS. It manipulates the dialectic. It thinks two steps ahead. It IS top down.

To claim “Marxism” and also, “No Conspiracy”, is like claiming to believe in God, but not believing in the Bible.

Does.

Not.

Compute.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
InternetWood November 19, 2009 at 20:38

Chuck said:

the only thing i’d point out: i consider conspiracies something that happens from the top down. to me, marxism and its offshoots were grassroots movements that grew from the bottom up. like a weed through concrete, it was inevitable that it would break through to the top at some point.

Like the Federal Reserve and Social Security! And Great Society! And Abortion, and Divorce, and Drinking Age, and just about every other major change! Bottom UP!

Chuck, you are an annoying fool.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 19, 2009 at 20:51

Fedrz, Internet Wood:

“Like the Federal Reserve and Social Security! And Great Society! And Abortion, and Divorce, and Drinking Age, and just about every other major change! Bottom UP!”

I never said that cultural marxism operates in bottom-up fashion today. In its beginning it had to by necessity. Marxism itself was an overthrow of the existing power structure *that was at the top*. Marxism was not at the top; it was a means to take those at the bottom and flip the bitch around. It had to infiltrate culture and society.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 19, 2009 at 21:04

Yes, and such changes CANNOT be “grassroots”.

There was a “plan” to this loose madness.

In other words, a conspiracy!

Sun Tzu would most likely claim that it is stupid to discover the enemy’s core strategy, and then ignore it, and flitter off into other directions.

“But there we are, what do I know, eh? I am just a poor lonesome country boy with nothing but chicken wire to sit on and a rusty old marble to play with.” — Angry Harry

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 19, 2009 at 21:07

Marxism is 100% top down.

It just is.

It IS what IT is about!

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 19, 2009 at 21:18

fedrz,

There may have been a plan, but what access to “planning” did it have? A group of children can “conspire” all they want, but until they actually have power from adults their “conspiracy” is en empty word.

What you call a conspiracy was the mobilization of voices *at the bottom* to be heard at the top. Those at the top complied because they reaped the benefits of giving those people what they wanted.

What baffles me about your arguments is that Socialism in any setting tends to fail as von Mises laid out many years ago. At what point does this “conspiracy” begin to fall under the weight of micromanagement? How do they corral all of the resources to act in accord with their master plan? “Feminists do this, enviros do that, LGBTs do your thing” all for the purpose of multi-cult New World Order?

No, all of these groups and other advocacy groups for the poor and downtrodden share similar interests that move towards dismantling the status quo and dispersing power and resources. You may call that conspiracy but we have different definitions of the word.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Reinholt November 19, 2009 at 21:21

I hardly think mass stupidity and incompetence passes for a conspiracy.

Occam’s razor – the most likely explanation for seemingly incomprehensible acts is usually that people are fucking morons.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 19, 2009 at 21:24

fedrz,

either way, i plan on reading your website to see your argument on this. we can leave the discussion as it is for right now if you want.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 19, 2009 at 22:26

Good debate guys. I am learning a lot just following it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
piercedhead November 20, 2009 at 01:44

The bit about conspiracy that really bothers me is that it hands the genius to the feminists and marxists. Why are these particular conspirators so uniformly successful, when anyone conspiring to bring about any other outcome is so spectacularly hopeless? I mean, we all have differing conscious views of how we’d prefer the world to be ordered (or disordered), and there’s nothing stopping any of us using the dialectic, appeals to emotion, flattery and deception of the female, etc to bring about an alternate progression. Are the Marxists so much smarter than everyone else? More committed? Are inherently better organized?

Or is it that what we call ‘Marxist’ or ‘Feminist’ is really not a conscious process at all, but a natural inclination of the human psyche, and that we fall as certainly toward a Marxist type of collapse as certainly and naturally as a physical object falls toward the center of the Earth under the influence of gravity? (note also that as much as all things are attracted to the center of the Earth, they never actually get there). In other words, the academic lefties are right only because they picked the right horse, not because they raised it, trained it and got the right jockey to ride it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 20, 2009 at 07:36

I think there is a misconception going on here about how Marxism uses the dialectic. A common way used to describe “what” Karl Marx did, was he took the dialectic identified by Hegel, and “turned it on its head.”

Have a look at this diagram of the dialectic:

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/09/foundational-arguments.html

This is the “natural way” of dialectical thought, as put forth by Hegel.

What Marx did was take Hegel, and “turn him on his head,” so, take that diagram and turn it upside down. That is what Marx did. He started by saying “I would like a Man-Tax in society (as an example), now what arguments should I bring forth that will lead us to that conclusion?” Marxists use the dialectic for the purposes of a predetermined outcome, and this by nature is Top Down manipulation.

The reason why “they” are so successful, is because nobody bothers to study what the hell they are up to, and so the population keeps playing right into their hands. The vast majority of people couldn’t give a tinker’s damn about learning the dialectic and how Marxists manipulate it for their own purposes, because it very boring and difficult to learn. They are two steps ahead of us, usually, and have already predicted the populace’s response.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Chuck November 20, 2009 at 08:27

fedrz:

“They are two steps ahead of us, usually, and have already predicted the populace’s response.”

This makes me wonder how evolutionary psychology and HBD fit into their schemes. Long from being a marginal science anymore, these disciplines will uproot any notions of homogeneity or uniformity that cultural Marxism is based on.

When did the conspiracy start? On the one hand you make the case that feminism – one of the pillars of cultural marxism – wasn’t about the women’s right to vote but part of some grand plan. I cite Mary Wollstonecraft and the ever marching liberalism stemming from the Enlightenment as evidence that western society has been on a long path towards universal democracy. It didn’t need to be set in motion by a conspiracy to form a one world government.

We once had a somewhat orderly system: we knew who was at the top because there were relatively few controlling it. Chaos has crept its way in – as it always does – and seeks to give everyone else an equal voice. Its the natural way of any governmental system that has a free press and freedom of speech.

The dialectic can be used by all of these seperate groups in order to move towards one goal of sameness under the auspices of “equality”. They don’t need to be in concert to do that. If the dialectic succeeds in making everything relative with regards to feminism, it should work with regards to equality of the races and equality of sexualities and equality of outcomes etc. It can be applied to each different “company” rather than having to come from a vast monolithic corporation.

As I mentioned before, cultural marxism – as you describe it – rests on a lot of central planning. When has central planning of any kind ever worked? There are too many floating variables to make it feasible that the powers that be started all of this stuff. I don’t doubt that a lot of people want to see cultural marxism take hold in this country and do away with some of our society’s patriarchial structures, but they are doing it from an individual desire to gain power for themselves rather than for some group forming a New World Order. There is a lot of power at the top and within the masses, grabbing ahold of some of that by shaking things up is a way to tap into that power.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 08:41

“Occam’s razor – the most likely explanation for seemingly incomprehensible acts is usually that people are fucking morons.”

LOL, Occam’s razor 2.0

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 09:08

When something needs a word, like a conspiracy that doesn’t fit the conontation of a super secretive elite group of people all pulling strings in a synchronized attempt to further a paradigm shifting objective, I like to invent one.

-Viral Catalyst Anchor Conspiracy-

Okay, thats more than one word, but you try to do better. Basically their needs to be a word for a Conspiracy that grows organically with the help of a paradigm shifting belief system espoused by intellectual elites and backed with their resources.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 09:09

Or for whatever the hell the truth in the grey area is.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 20, 2009 at 09:10

chic noir

When talking to women I notice that most have a certain caution when it comes to men but by far, the most bitter are those who chased/chase after alphas, those who had bad experiences with bitter betas or daddy issues. When you come across this type of woman, proceed with caution.

Sure. That’s because women generally leave betas rather than the other way around, and hence don’t feel searingly hurt by them. Instead they typically feel increasingly “deadened” or “irritated” or “annoyed” or even “infuriated” by him, but rarely searingly hurt.

It’s alphas that leave women, or become remote towards them. Maybe what they actually do is take up with another woman, but in a way that involves less and less time with the girl who feels searingly hurt.

Situations differ of course but this is a common pattern

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Harry November 20, 2009 at 09:11

@Jabherwochie

” Basically their needs to be a word for a Conspiracy that grows organically with the help of a paradigm shifting belief system espoused by intellectual elites and backed with their resources.”

Something + ORGANISM

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 20, 2009 at 10:23

I guess if someone wants me to say that there is a Marxist clubhouse somewhere, where the “Cabal” has met for the past 150 years to pass on the “Central Planning Agenda”, they won’t find me saying it, because I don’t believe that such a Cabal exists – sort of.

Marxism is a religion – it is Humanism, which is the belief that Man is God himself, and can control his own destiny, through science, and create a Heaven on Earth.

In this context, let’s compare it to Christianity. Is there a cabal of Christians out there, meeting in some dark room hidden in the basement of the Vatican? I doubt it. But, is a Christian Missionary behaving any differently in the modern day than how Christian Missionaries were behaving 150 years ago? Certainly there are some differences that have adapted to the modern day, but the general premise is the same. There need not be a specific Cabal… the goals and the methods remain similar over the ages.

It’s the same thing with Marxism. The method stays the same.

So, 90 to 150 years, when Classical Economic Marxism was the order of the day, there were certain methods and principles that were acknowledged – for example: In order to alter society, one must entice the women first, and the men will follow. The manipulation of the dialectical method as well is a core principle of Marxism. Another core principle is “The Truth is Relative.” These things all stay the same, whether it is 1917, or 2009. Same shit, different pile.

100 or so years ago, Marxists were trying to bring about “Classical Marxism” as identified by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto.

Marx identified all of society being pinned on Economics. In fact, he reframed the entire history of the world into a dialectical stance in the very first line of the Manifesto:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Marx & Engels were proven to be wrong, of course, because the world did not throw off their chains during the First World War, as they had predicted.

“All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” — Friedrich Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rhenische Zeitung, January 13, 1849

Oopsies! It didn’t work out like that.

However, they still used many of the same principles to bring about their goals as modern Marxists are using today. Just like Christianity, the basic principles have stayed similar for the past centuries. Marxists, in order to bring about Classical Marxism 100 years ago, would still have been using women as their vehicle to smash through society and get their “progress” voted in.

Carey Roberts
did quite a bit of research a few years back, linking the Suffragettes to Socialism.

Susan B. Anthony held a 1905 meeting with Eugene Debbs, perennial socialist candidate in the US presidential elections. Anthony promised Debbs, “Give us suffrage, and we’ll give you socialism.” Debs shot back, “Give us socialism, and we’ll give you the vote.”

There are many more examples of course, but this is a blog comment, not my Ph D dissertation.

Marx himself rarely made reference to women, btw. It was mostly Engels who started talking about women, although Marx had earlier mentioned it, but never really expanded upon it.

At any rate, after the First World War, all the Marxists around the world started scratching their heads. Wtf? Marx and Engels said that the workers of the world would unite and throw off their chains. Why didn’t they? What went wrong? Why do people only pay obligatory lip service to it, rather than fully embrace it, as they were supposed to?

This is the question that was left after the War, and Marxist Theorists began studying Marx’s theory, and eventually came to the conclusion that Marx had not gone far enough in identifying the pillars which held up society… there was far more than mere Economics involved, there were also Cultural Influences such as Nationalism, Christianity, Ethnicity, Authority, Convention, Conservatism, Family, Capitalism, Patriarchy, Hierarchy, Morality, Tradition, Sexual Restraint, Loyalty and Tradition.

According to those studying “what went wrong” after the Russian Revolution, all of these other “pillars” must be destroyed as well – thus the emergence of “Cultural Marxism” rather than Marx’s classical “Economic Marxism.”

But, just because they identified more pillars that held up society, does not mean that their methodology changed. In order to destroy these pillars, they still used the same techniques to attack said pillars, as they did with classical Marxism… they still used the position of women to lead society around by the nose, just like a modern day missionary still preaches about Jesus from the Bible, as was done 100 years ago.

This does not indicate there is a multigenerational cabal meeting in private to pass down the game plan throughout the ages. It merely means that modern Marxists have taken the methodology of the past which worked, and applied them to their new goals. Most of Marxism is actually right out in the open, but it is so dry and boring to read, that I would rather read a stack full of King James Bibles – in Braille. They don’t need to hide it, because all but a few morons will just close the book after the first two paragraphs.

This does not mean, however, that are not groups with enormous power in the world, that are indeed “conspiring” to shove Marxism down our throats. The most glaring example which I can think of is the way Globaloney Warming was foisted upon the public from down on high at United Nations – the organization that is set up to BE Global Government itself, and makes no bones about it. The way that the UN’s Globaloney ALARMING was foisted upon us was batshit fucking insane! It was definitely a conspiracy, the way it was dramatized, and instantly and daily was the number one newsworthy event: “We’re going to DIE! Quick! Hand me your freedom!” The way that so many of the world’s leaders jumped up and immediately started demanding the Marxist goals of Global Governance, Global Taxation (the power to tax is the power to govern) and so on, certainly does indicate that it was “planned” and there were many powerful people and organizations that were exactly on the same page, and were perpetrating the same hoax. There MUST have been a form of a “cabal” over this nonsense. That is certainly using Occam’s Razor. Any other explanations are far more complicated.

There are oodles of examples of this happening all around us… and there is no way that it is all just random. There is a method to this madness. One just has to choose to see it. It takes a paradigm shift in one’s consciousness though.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 20, 2009 at 10:53

Another thing to keep in mind is there are many different interpretations of Marxism.

There is Leninism, Stalinism, Maoist Marxism etc. They all have different takes on interpreting Marxism, and they arrived at different methods for enabling it.

Lenin was really a dirty sonofabitch… of course the others were not much better – worse, by death count, but, Lenin veered off into his direction of violence to speed things along.

Marxism involves a lot of mass psychology and mass brainwashing.

When one studies brainwashing, there is a general path which gets followed:

1). Unfreezing from the current comfort zone
2). Moving the subject’s consciousness to where you want it go
3). Freezing the subject at the next level, until enough time passes that it becomes the new comfort zone
4). Repeat as necessary to get to your goal.

Generally, the quickest way to “unfreeze” and “freeze” people is by use of violence. This is why prisoners of war are often the recipients of violence and pain as their captors mix torture and brainwashing together.

This is what Lenin did on a mass scale.

He injected massive amounts of violence into the population, and shocked the living piss out of everyone. They quickly complied, and altered their psychological views of the world.

In four years, by 1921, Lenin shoved in almost all of the anti-family stuff that our society has taken 40 years to implement. Abortion, No Fault Divorce, State Run Daycares, Sewing Centers, Community Kitchens… all were implemented by the time that Lenin declared the first International Working Women’s Day, in March of 1921. All the dearies were working in the fields, right next to those beastly men. Lenin achieved “equality of the sexes” in four years – he sped it up by using violence.

There is another form of Marxism known as “Fabianism.” Many of the proponents of Fabianism were found in places like the UK. The difference between Fabianism and Leninism is that Fabianism does not use violence to brainwash the masses, but rather it uses “gradualism.”

This is what we are dealing with. It uses “time” rather than violence to brainwash the masses.

What took Lenin 4 years with violence, took us 40 years with gradualism.

Zed points this out often. He comes from a generation that adhered to the old values, while many of the Gen X’rs like me are kind of bridging the gap – Zed is about the same age as my oldest sibling, and I would assume that our parents are likely within around a decade of eachother’s age. But, it was the people who were my age, with parents younger than mine, that were the beginning of the “divorce culture.” I remember when the first person in my grade had parent’s who divorced. I was in Grade 4. And we were all shocked, and could barely comprehend what the hell was going on. By Grade 7 or 8, several of the boys I hung out with were from divorced families… by the time I graduated and entered my 20′s, were were already running the 50% of marriages end in divorce paradigm. As Zed points out, the generations that are coming up after this, do not identify with the values in society when Zed was a child, because they have never witnesses those values – it is completely foreign to them. A 15 year old in the modern day cannot really comprehend a cultural in which the vast majority of people had both a mother and a father at home… for life. They have been separated from the past – by use of time and generational gaps – and their reality has been altered in the same way as what Lenin did with violence. The “unfreezing” and “freezing” has occured – it just used “time” rather than violence.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 10:59

@Harry-

Conspiracy Organism ( AKA Conspiranism) = A group of like minded individuals who spread a belief system through the use of common strategems and propaganda, orchestrated by an elite but disjointed core of intellectuals, and executed by the mass of followers in such a way their efforts appear synchronized.

It needs some work.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 11:02

Actually, I might have nailed it.

The MRM is a conspiranism.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 20, 2009 at 11:43

fedrz is putting on a f*cking clinic.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 11:45

Fedrz
“It takes a paradigm shift in one’s consciousness though.”
I thought of an excellent book I’ve read concerning breaking through control paradigms which we face from birth to death entitled interestingly enough “The Paradigm Conspiracy”. You can read some of it at http://twm.co.nz/paradcon.htm
For years I was a very close-minded skeptic. Experience altered this to change me into an open-minded skeptic. Experience always trumps belief, however being close-minded often results in literally refusing to observe something even up to the point of denying empirical evidence. Science is a process of discovery, not a dogma, and scientism is a religion. I was going to point out that a conspiracy can be people on a forum agreeing to something and taking action on it, but someone beat me to it. I could never consider myself anything other than a skeptic, albeit open-minded. There is truth to P. T. Barnum’s statement about suckers. There is also the axiom that the more we believe we know, the less we are capable of learning. I’m going OT again, but this is an important observation for me, as I’ve mentioned that my ‘disabled’ autistic son has taught me more than I could have ever taught him. As a child, I asked a neighbor a question he could not answer. It was “if I traveled to the end of the universe, what is after that?”. We exist in a reality in which everything is finite, like a straight line having a beginning and and end. What of the circle, which is seemingly infinite with neither start nor finish? Our best physicists are puzzled by our ‘reality’, from Einstein protege Bohm, to the Alain Aspect’s non-locality and beyond. OK, I need to stop rambling and get to a point here. It is very easy for us to fall into a trap, that of focusing so intently on a narrow part of the picture that we cannot visualize/understand the larger picture–and in order to do that we must consistently ‘step back’. Are there multi-generational plans set in motion, or does it just appear that way? I believe there are, but it is a belief based on observation, not empirical evidence. To prove it we would have to define what is acceptable empirical evidence, a juries version differs from a scientists.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 11:52

I visited your site, and I’m planning on GTFO. There are two ways of doing this, by making my own expensive mistakes (school of hard knocks) and from someone who has successfully tread that path. I’m choosing the latter, simply because I don’t have the luxury of time, the money to waste, and because of my unique situation with my son. I’ve read your posts here and @ Happy Bachelors, and your analogy of taking three parasites out is excellent.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 20, 2009 at 11:52

fedrz November 19, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“There certainly IS a conspiracy.”
Yep..anyone still denying the existence of the Illuminati conspiracy is brain dead. Thanks for the excellent posts backing up what about 10M other people already know.

Puma November 19, 2009 at 8:23 pm
“I wonder how Globalman’s family court date in Australia went. It was supposed to be on Thursday right?”
Next Thursday. I am still in London.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 20, 2009 at 11:55

fedrz November 18, 2009 at 7:01 pm
“History is rife with conspiracies. Et Tu, Brute?”
Indeed, until the early 1900s the history books were full of the conspiracies of the past. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the American Historical Society with the agenda of getting the history books re-written. “He who controls the present controls the past” and as part of the re-write obliterated the idea of ‘conspiracy’. Basically, since the early 1900s it has been impossible to be a real influence in any of the sciences etc without toe-ing the Rockefeller line in the US or the Tavistock Institute line in the UK.

Just by the way. How many of you know that the bus that was blown up in London on 7/7 was re-routed from it’s regular route and was blown up right in front of the Tavistock Institute? And the guy who supposedly carried the bomb into it knew it would be re-routed because he walked from the station he arrived on down the route it was due to go on to the prior stop thereby demonstrating he knew it was not going to travel it’s regular route.

Gee…what a co-incidence. Anyone who, with all the information out there now, denies their is a global conspiracy is brain dead and should just take their swine flu vaccine.

For those who don’t know, yesterday the UK guvment announced that, with a heavy heart, and with only the best interests of the children in mind, it was reluctantly FORCED to decide that all children MUST have the swine flu vaccine.

Here…let me get in before you….”Globalman, Globalman, put your tin foil hat back on…you are a conspiracy nutter…the UK guvment loves all little children and they only want to protect them…how dare you insinuate they have another agenda….blah, blah, blah….”

fedrz November 18, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“I have read Mein Kampf, As evil as Hitler was very smart man.”
Um..he didn’t write Mein Kampf. It was written for him and he presented it as his own. Can I prove that? Nope. But the likelyhood he wrote it is almost zero. He was also credited with writing ‘The New Order’ at the same time HG Wells was credited with writing ‘The New World Order’. And I don’t believe HG Wells wrote that either. Hitler was a dupe. You can read a lot about it on http://www.henrymakow.com.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 12:02

Globalman
“Yep..anyone still denying the existence of the Illuminati conspiracy is brain dead. Thanks for the excellent posts backing up what about 10M other people already know.”

I agree with you. I recall Aaron Russo talking about how a Rockefeller explaining feminism to him. Why would he lie or make up a story about this? He had no reason to, and he was shocked enough about it to bring it up on a number of occasions. I read some of your posts on common law and statutory law, and seem to remember a case in the UK which this was used to the dismay of the judge and when they researched it in disbelief, they found it was true.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 20, 2009 at 12:02

Novaseeker November 18, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“It won’t get 50% of the vote women will overwhelmingly vote against restrictions on alimony and CS and men generally vote much less heavily than women do.”
Then rescind your consent to be subject to legislation that you don’t agree with. Voting does not matter if you choose not to be subject to the legislation passed by the corrupt politicians.

“That this is MY WORLD, and she can be a part of it if she wants, or she can leave”
Yep…..my ex was super surprised when when I finally ‘strapped some balls on’ and said ‘No’. The ultimatum she got was that she had to sign over all rights to all property and all future income to me so that I could manage our assets for our retirement or get divorced. She obviously figured the guvment would get that money from me for her. Now that I do not tolerate ANY crap from ANY woman I deal with I find them much more willing to be nice to me.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 20, 2009 at 12:03

zed November 18, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“Globalman is in the anger stage, and the more people argue with a guy like that, the more he is going to get stuck in it. Just ignore him, let him rant, and eventually he will cool down. But, he never will if people keep blowing up at his extremist statements.”
Actually Zed this is not worthy of you. I am not at the ‘anger’ stage with my ex or western women in general. I was angry for about a month in late 2007. What I was angry about was that the money that I had hoped to spend on my former children to attend university would go to the lawyers. I am not ‘angry’ at feminised women. I am indifferent to them. They could be taken out and shot and I could not care less. We’d actually be better off without them. My message is presented to those young men who might be considering the stupid mistake of having a woman in their house in the current legal environment. Most young men do not get quite how bad it is. I am here to tell them not only is it that bad, it is worse. The legal system is nothing but a criminal cartel bent on abusing men for the purposes of serving their Illuminati masters in the planned destruction of our society. Period. Our society IS being destroyed and they WILL be successful unless at least 5% of men wake up and resist them.

My little bit of evidence this week? I have sent lawful notices to the Attorney General in Australia as well as the federal magistrates who propose to rob me at what they call a ‘final hearing’ next week. What is a ‘lawful notice’? In this case it is a signed affidavit of the truth as I understand it to be, plus a notice of intent and remedy. When presented with a lawful notice refusal to response constitutes lawful dis-honour and acquiesence (agreement) by non-response to the remedy proposed. Yet the Attorney General and these Federal Magistrates refuse to respond to these lawful notices? What does that tell you?

One of them was to prove they had a right to sell my house and pocket the proceeds of it. They are refusing to prove they had a right to do this so they have accepted my affidavit that I have lawful claim on the proceeds of my labour. Why? Why would the AG refuse to do this? Too busy? When my fee for his refusal is 1 ounce of gold per day? I don’t think so. They refuse to get into lawful correspondence because they are corrupt.

I am one of the few men who actually know what is really happening and have the time and money and will and intelligence to take the fight to the enemy and men like you brand me as ‘angry’. It’s laughable. Like I said, it’s simply not worthy of you. If the writers at the speahead wish to correspond with me I can give you all the documents used to date and take you through on a conference call how this works. You can then write and report for yourselves as you wish. All I am proposing is that those who wish to educate themselves do so. And spear-head looks like a place where just a few men might like to educate themselves. Indeed, the most likely place outside our little private mens group. Everything I am doing has been proven to work in courts in the former british empire. Many like winston shrout are years ahead of me. I am new to this.

As far as ‘extremeist’ statements go…what a joke. Feminised women are complete crap and we would be best off if they were taken out and shot. Since I can’t do that I’ll ignore them. That is about as ‘extremist’ as I get which is way less extremist than ‘all men are rapists’.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 20, 2009 at 12:04

Globalman – Good luck next Thursdsay. Give ‘em Hell.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 12:28

Super OT

When I was a child I asked my mom, why, if trees use nutrients and minerals from the earth to grow, why is there no indention around the base of a tree where it used up the nutrients and minerals in the ground to grow itself? Trees have a lot of mass, so why is that displacement of mass not noticeable, if even slightly?

I didn’t realize how efficient erosion is, or that carbon is obtained through the air but becomes a solid/liquid in the tree and accounts for much of the mass, but for a child, it was a brilliant observation. No adult ever answered it for me.

@David Brandt-

Have you heard the theories that the universe might be flat? Shaped like a record. Or it might be, more likely in my opinion, like a bubble, with no interior, but so large that the curve of the bubble simply appears flat.

I actually stopped thinking about that stuff a while ago, because it was like banging my head against a brick wall. The actual shape and amount of dimensions the universe actually is became less important to me than the fact that it is cycling in a way that creates an evolutionary trajectory. At least thats my theory. I believe the universe and everything in it, including us, eventually evolves into what we would consider God. Humans are an observable acme of this process, and maybe will be a driving catalyst for it, but a process still in its embryionic infancy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 12:35

“I am indifferent to them. They could be taken out and shot and I could not care less. ”

Globalman is past the angry stage and moved onto the “dead on the inside, so everyone else might as well be dead stage”….is that a stage?

I joke.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 20, 2009 at 12:40

David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Globalman
“I agree with you. I recall Aaron Russo talking about how a Rockefeller explaining feminism to him. Why would he lie or make up a story about this? He had no reason to, and he was shocked enough about it to bring it up on a number of occasions. I read some of your posts on common law and statutory law”
David, thanks for the back up buddy. The Aaron Russo movie was a real eye opener to me…I saw it in Q2 last year. When he was interviewed by Alex Jones he was dying of cancer. Aaron Russo, like William Cooper and JFK is a god damned hero that many men would dismiss. These men died bringing the message of the conspiracy to the wider world and ignorant men willingly dismiss them. It’s a damned shame. Bill Coopers book Behold a Pale Horse is compelling reading. Bill Cooper was THERE. At one time he was listed as one of the most dangerous men in the US because he KNEW what was happening. They shot and killed him in his own home for being the first to say 9/11 was an inside job.

Gents…Let me quote JFK exactly:

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.”

You want to fight for ‘truth’? Well, JFK fought for truth and they killed him for it. I do not intend to let his death, John Lennons death, and the death of so many millions of others be in vain.

Many people just assume he was talking about the soviets and seem to completely miss the fact there was nothing secret about the supposed soviet desire to spread communism. In the end is was all a hoax. The Illuminati funded the Bolshevicks to get rid of the Czar who was not playing ball nearly so nicely as they wanted him to.

As for common law. This is a good place to start.

http://www.tpuc.org/Acts_and_Charters

Common law exists in all former british colonies and can be accessed by a sovereign by declaring common law jurisdiction and declaring the court to be a de jour court rather than a defacto court. Sovereigns operate ABOVE the level of a country which is merely a corporation created by men. In a common law court the hierarchy is GOD -> Sovereign -> Corporations. Since I am above the Commonwealth of Australia in lawful status the agents of the Commonwealth of Australia must seek my consent to apply any of THEIR statutes to me as a human being. This is all very thoroughly covered by Robert Menard and John Harris. You can also look at the youtube site for TheAntiTerrorist as well.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Kimski November 20, 2009 at 12:45

Jabherwochie

A scientific magazine, some twenty years ago, tried to make a graphic illustration of how the universe looks. It´s shaped like to balloons, one slightly smaller than the other. They distinctly look like a mirrored image of Brittain and Ireland. No kidding.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 20, 2009 at 12:52

Puma November 20, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“Globalman….Good luck next Thursdsay. Give ‘em Hell.”

Thanks Puma…hopefully they will not shoot me. But I am fully expecting to spend a few days in jail. We shall see.

Time and place.
Commonwealth Law Courts
1-3 George Street
Parramatta
Final Hearing Starting at 10am
Thursday 26th November.

Meeting out the front at 9am. I will be having a sign saying GlobalMan/Petersmh on me from about 9am to 9:30. Then I will have to go inside and see if I can defend my rights against the giant corporate machine that is intent on stealing from me called the Australian Federal Magistrates Court.

I have invited others to come along and video record the proceedings. My claim of right includes video recording anything I want to including disputes brought against me. There is strength in numbers. Anyone who lives in Sydney or NSW is welcome to turn up on the day and see how this goes. If I get a few people to turn up they are less likely to shoot me.

If any men here wish to put posts around in places in Sydney that this is happening then please do so. I haven’t had anyone say they are going to turn up yet which demonstrates how seriously men take their rights…not at all…which is why they have had them taken away and replaced with ignorance of the law.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 13:05

@Jabherwochie

“I actually stopped thinking about that stuff a while ago, because it was like banging my head against a brick wall. The actual shape and amount of dimensions the universe actually is became less important to me than the fact that it is cycling in a way that creates an evolutionary trajectory. At least thats my theory. I believe the universe and everything in it, including us, eventually evolves into what we would consider God.”

I know the feeling, the same as intellectually attempting to understand time or space/time. Gave me headaches, metaphorically anyway, however back in the 80′s when I was extremely close-minded there was an article in Omni magazine about becoming aware in and controlling dreams. I was intrigued, and after some practice was able to (once) intentionally become aware in a dream–I enjoyed myself tremendously. Two weeks after that, I had an experience which was unlike any dream in my life, and over the years I’ve had others in which I seem to experience being in a ‘place’ where time did not exist. I emphasized ‘place’ simply because attempting to identify a spacial coordinate for it would be impossible, and I have no way of describing this in language given our common finite experience, though I have tried. A side note of this is that I wonder if my son has had similar experiences which he cannot verbalize but would be far better equipped to understand given his comparatively extremely advanced perceptions as demonstrated by his ability with puzzles, hence my aversion to using labels such as ‘disabled’ (in this context, which of us truly is ‘disabled’)? If time is not a factor, then God is outside of it and the entire process of the universe not only becomes, but already was and is. If I were a being who could do anything and know everything, I would be very bored–so how would I create a challenging experience for myself? Perhaps what we are experiencing is the result of that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 20, 2009 at 13:05

I live in the US. If I were there, I would come by to bear witness to the battle.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Globalman November 20, 2009 at 13:21

Puma November 20, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“I live in the US. If I were there, I would come by to bear witness to the battle.”
There are some Australians on here.

Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“Globalman is past the angry stage and moved onto the “dead on the inside, so everyone else might as well be dead stage”…is that a stage?”
Jabherwochie, you seem to miss the point that I only refere to feminised/western women like this and they are a small minority. I LOVE eastern european women. So lets not go saying I am ‘dead on the inside’ when I have a number of eastern women that I am very fond of and we love spending time with each other. I think the number has been 15-20 in the last 18 months with 4 favs one of whom has dropped out.

One thing that might make an interesting topic on spear-head is how men react to having their children taken from them by force with threat of incarceration or death should a man wish to be with his son. I’ve talked to a lot of men about this experience. You men who have never had this happen to you might want to listen up. It’s a lot worse than you might think. Also, many of these men make George Sodini look like a pussycat. They are not merely men reacting against women. Many of them are extremely intelligent and well educated and if they every pull the trigger they are not going to shoot 3-4 women. They are going to carry out attacks that kill hundreds if not thousands of women with a few other male casualities in the mix. I kid you not. The men who have had their sons taken off them are extremely dangerous because they have nothing to lose. They already lost everything they cared about once, doing it again? Peace of cake.

In my case the injury was enough that I chose the way forward to disown my former son and my other three children as well. As part of severing those relationships I would play music to myself that reminded me of them and it was incredibly painful to listen to this music over and over again. One example was when my baby girl was teething I slept in a bean bag with her on my chest for a week. Every time she woke up I played U2 Achtung Baby tacks 3, 6, 9, 12 to settle her again. In severing my relationship with her I would sit on my balcony and get incredibly drunk, smoke too many cigarettes and play these songs over and over again all night. Often until dawn. I did this for over a month all up. In that month there were many occasions when I considered the question should I take a long walk on my short balcony. There is no experience more painful that a man can go through. Physical torture and pain is nothing compared to the emotional injury of severing your relationship with the children you love more than life itself. I’ve had my share of injuries including slipping discs in my back three times. Nothing is even on the same scale as this. It’s why we see so many men commit suicide when their children are taken from them.

One result of my experience? I noticed about 12 months later that I am perfectly well aware I can kill any person I choose with complete indifference. I mean ANY person. I mean COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE. I wouldn’t even bilnk. This shocked the hell out of me when I first realised it. I know I could pull a gun out and put a few bullets into a persons head and sit down and enjoy my cup of tea without blinking. Not a problem. I have talked to other abused dads and they tell me similar stories. That they view other people as “You didn’t care about my son when he was being abused, I don’t care if you live or die.”

Now I am a man who stood up to bullies many times but have not had to strike a blow off the football field since I was 14. I am now a man, 100kgs, 187cm, well educated, well travelled who is well aware that he could kill without consideration. Must be what happens to guys after they fight in wars. I think it would make a great topic of discussion. It is a very real aspect of the society you guys live in. Women want men like me around? Men who have absolutely no sense of moral restriction about killing people? Who have no conscience about killing people? Not very smart. I’ve gone from a man who took the position that murder was ‘wrong’ to murder is just something I wouldn’t want to get caught doing because it might impinge my lifestyle. Until you have your ‘society’ take your son from you it is not likely you will understand this. I often wonder what those men coming into their 70s who were abused might do. I think we will see them balance the books.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 13:31

I was totally joking Globy, but I understand the need to clarify your position. I still like the word “absolute” when it comes to describing you, that is how I see you. Obviously, no single word does a man justice, as I’m sure you have doubts and inconsisticies, but its human nature to try to put things in a box. A cognitive way of compartmentalizing a fluid, complex, and vague world.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 20, 2009 at 13:32

Globalman – Don’t do anything you will regret later. I don’t have any kids, so I can’t fully emphasize, but I think I understand your pain. Remember that your kids will be fully emancipated once they reach 18, and then a fresh start awaits you both. You just have to stay alive and out of any long-term felony-type prison sentences (not counting petty civil-contempt stuff) until then.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 20, 2009 at 13:32

Puma November 20, 2009 at 1:05 pm

I live in the US. If I were there, I would come by to bear witness to the battle.

**agreed.
big support from Colombia, South America.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 13:33

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 13:45

“however back in the 80’s when I was extremely close-minded there was an article in Omni magazine about becoming aware in and controlling dreams. I was intrigued, and after some practice was able to (once) intentionally become aware in a dream–I enjoyed myself tremendously.”

Dude! No fucking way! When I was little, my nightmares where so bad I had to teach my self how to do that. I think I knew it later as Lucent Dreaming. I would literally have to make myself indestructable to fight off the monsters. It created an inner persona that existed in my dreams for a decade at least. I built a whole world eventually. Now, I hardly remember my dreams without putting effort into it. Depressing. I used to enjoy going to sleep just to dream.

“If I were a being who could do anything and know everything, I would be very bored–so how would I create a challenging experience for myself? Perhaps what we are experiencing is the result of that.”

Fucking exaclty dude!!! The big bang was God hitting the reset button. In the end, that stangnent perfection the universe evolves into, God so to speak, is not enjoyable. With out pain, their is no pleasure, etc. etc.

Of course our big bang might just be a little bubble, like a bubble of a carbonation drink, in a much bigger multi-verse, but I still think the multi-verse would be reflected by our universe, and therefore it cycles and the big-big-bang would the starting point. Man, I could go on forever about this…

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 13:50

“A side note of this is that I wonder if my son has had similar experiences which he cannot verbalize but would be far better equipped to understand given his comparatively extremely advanced perceptions as demonstrated by his ability with puzzles, hence my aversion to using labels such as ‘disabled’ ”

Yes, I believe you are probably as close to the truth as we can get. His entire understanding of reality is inherently different from ours. Others are as strange to him, as he is to others.

Einstein was a visual-spatial thinker, and the part of his brain devoted to visual spatial thought was measurably larger than a normal persons and showed more connections to the part of the brain the does analytical computations. (google that, its been a while) But regardless, Einstein visualized himself riding on a beam of light when he had his epiphany of relativity. (again, google that, its been a while)

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 14:01

Let me put this out there, because I dwelled on the nature of God my whole adolescence, and this is my conclusion.

God is everything, everything is a process of evolution, at the end of that process, when God is complete, he destroys himself, and the process starts over again.

I have a concept of evil and good too, that goes like this.

Everything has a balancing force, an opposite.

Entropy is the opposite of evolution.

Evolution is the hand of God at work.

If God is good, Entropy is evil. Evil is still necessary mind you. Destruction gives birth to life (like the big bang).

Pain is our evolved way of fighting against entropy. Its our way of maintaining structural and psychological order.

I’ll stop. I started a book, but it didn’t go very far. I’m lazy. Maybe I’ll work it up into an article. Zed- The yin-yang was a catalyst for my visualization of the universe by the way. It obviously is overly simple, but thats the point of a symbol. Therefore, it was martial arts that indirectly led to my personal understanding of God. Appropriate for people who see martial arts as more than just fighting. It is physical “game” in a way. It was the arrows around the yin-yang of Jeet Kune Do that made me focus on the dynamic nature of cycles, and how they are necessary for evolution.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Jabherwochie November 20, 2009 at 14:18

God is a process; through our minds we witness a point on that continuum and extrapolate the forces at work and the direction they drive the universe. The forces at work are physical, biological, cultural, technological, and eventually meta-evolution. The direction they drive the universe is towards perfection. Perfection is God whole again, at rest, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Stagnant. He then destroys himself in something like the big-bang to start the process over again.

Sorry, sorry….its over…can’t help myself..just trying to find the perfect words…leaving computer now for Modern Warfare II….must not annoy people….

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 14:55

Jabherwochie

One interesting site that delves into concepts of polarity is http://www.trufax.org . The author of the Matrix books (created before the film) refers to the as The Game and the polarities as dark and light. Some very interesting reading there. Also, some of the most interesting books I’ve read concerning much of this was Robert Monroe’s trilogy, particularly “Far Journey” and “Ultimate Journey”. This is fascinating to me as well. Since this is far OT, I’ll stop now as well and get back on the topic.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Doug1 November 20, 2009 at 15:06

Globalman–

How many times am I going to have to tell you and others here to go view “It’s all an Illusion” by John Harris over at http://www.tpuc.org and “Bursting the Bubbles of Government Deception” by Robert-Arthur: Menard over at http://www.thinkfree.ca before you actually do it? It would appear the answer is ‘lots’. Sure, I never told you how to go about these things. Nope. Men like you just refuse to listen, refuse to follow links, refuse to educate yourselves and then blame someone else for not ‘educating’ you. Worse than a woman.

While I sympathise with you or with the story you’ve told so much as I’ve gleaned it by reading you a bit here and there, I don’t trust your judgment whatsoever. I’m not motivated to chase after wild goose chases you point to. You seem semi nuts to me, or more But maybe you’re just impassioned and mad. I’d have to see you put some strong credible seeming info here for me to want to follow your “read more here’s”. I have a good bullshiite nose and crazy nose and you’re on the wrong side of it. Didn’t say infallible, so show my initial impressions wrong.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 20, 2009 at 15:06

Jabherwochie – maybe because I have a limited capacity cat-brain, but you totally lost me in your last set of posts.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
zed November 20, 2009 at 15:30

Marxism is a religion

Everything you’ve written is correct – of course because you researched it. But this statement comes the closest to capturing the essence of the problem.

What I’m trying to get across is getting away from what appears to be a fixation on one specific group – call them Marxists, or Illuminati, or whatever you want.

Marx was reacting to something – whether someone agrees with his thinking or not, it is important to understand that in his time he was acting in the same manner that Martin Luther was when he nailed his objections to the ruling order to the church door.

About 250 years before Marx, Europe had gone through a process termed “enclosure” which terminated common rights to grazing grounds etc. The land was basically seized by the Lords, using their system of laws and their armies. (Andrew Kimbrell has a good explanation of this.) The peasantry was converted from a near-subsistence but somewhat self-sufficient life to working for wages as laborers on the “manors” and “estates.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

The agricultural production was exported and formed the basis for the accumulation of extensive wealth by the classes of the hereditary aristocracy. Thus, the displacement of men from the family and entrapping them in the state Marx called “wage slavery” predated the Industrial Revolution, on which this displacement has often been blamed, by a couple of hundred years.

Marx himself, and Marxism itself, is part part of the dialectic. He was reacting to the economic conditions of his time, and had the same kind of deep moral misgivings about the essential enslavement of the peasantry that US Abolitionists had about literal slavery in the US.

This is another entire group at work in this whole picture that can get overlooked if too much focus is put on the Marxists, and that is the group on the other side of the dialectic – the capitalists.

The hereditary aristocracies of Europe are well represented among the ruling elite of North America, and are pursuing the same process of consolidation of wealth and ownership of all property into the hands of a few super-wealthy families that began as long ago as the 16 th century.

It is extremely difficult to be insistently opposed to one group without playing into the hands of the other group as willing dupes.

In addition to cultural Marxism, post WW II has been ruled by consumer culture. As people became more and more addicted to the perpetual acquisition cycle, they stopped the process of accumulating wealth for themselves. The “Home Equity” loan or line of credit is one of the most evil inventions of all time. It enticed people to pull value out of their own homes, and willingly, even eagerly, just hand that capital to the already extremely wealthy.

Putting women into the workforce, and money directly into their hands while bypassing men who might save more, directly serves the capitalists far more than it does Marxism. It was the key behavior that had to be cultivated in the population in order to make Keynesian economics work.

A great many people in the US have willingly, enthusiastically, thrown away most if not all of their real wealth so they could by cheap shit from Wal-Mart, and junky fiberboard furniture from Ikea.

The idealism which drives the Marxist religion is no less sincere that the idealism which drives Christianity or Islam. People are getting “converted” to it young, and then most of them spend the rest of their lives believing it and trying to make it a worldwide reality.

It’s essential to understand how people are being manipulated by both sides in order to find a way out of the trap of ending up a dupe of one side by becoming consumed in the fighting the other.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Bhetti November 20, 2009 at 15:34

Puma: God is the universe. God is you, me, the big bang, the big crunch. God is good, God is evil. God is everything, anyone.

All this is dispersed and spread out. The pieces of the puzzle of God are scattered.

The puzzle is slowly putting itself back together. Back together to its perfect state. That’s what J’s calling evolution.

Once the puzzle is complete, the pieces are scattered all over again.

That’s what I understood.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Puma November 20, 2009 at 15:36

Bhetti: Makes sense.

I think that is the “Watchmaker” view of God. Newton’s God if you will.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Gunslingergregi November 20, 2009 at 15:40

””””””””’Einstein was a visual-spatial thinker, and the part of his brain devoted to visual spatial thought was measurably larger than a normal persons and showed more connections to the part of the brain the does analytical computations. (google that, its been a while) But regardless, Einstein visualized himself riding on a beam of light when he had his epiphany of relativity. (again, google that, its been a while)
””””””””””””””””””’

I could always control dreams in some ways interesting stuff. It is how you can perfect the imagination to the point where you can see the future. When you can just input variables and predict outcomes correctly.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Gunslingergregi November 20, 2009 at 15:56

Also helps with never needing porn he he he

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 16:03

Globalman

You are valuable to your brothers, and I say this as one of those brothers. The topic of war came up and what it does to many of us. In truth, men are used as pawns for profit (just ask Kissinger-besides his BS about political/diplomatic, etc.). Men fight to protect their brothers more than for any other reason. The expert on this would probably be General Smedley Butler in his book “War is a Racket”. I don’t think he even realized the magnitude of the problem in his book, but most certainly more than most. We were never taught about him in school or the “History Channel” for good reason.

I’ll just say I lost round one in the custody battle, and with some exceptional mentors won the war. I literally had no choice, as she was psychotic (that wasn’t what made it easier, her criminal legal issues and my daughter’s talk with the judge did).

This next observation needs to be prefaced with this–I have nothing against drugs except for the obvious, that misuse is irresponsible–personally I believe many should be legal. When they were, there were no problems, prohibition was what created the ‘problem’, i.e. ‘forbidden fruit’ and massive profits. It is no secret who the largest importer of drugs is in the US. In the early part of the last century, anyone could walk into a pharmacy and buy most of these. Pharmaceutical ‘legal’ drugs are far more dangerous. The poison they put boys on to control (i.e. make more like girls) what are normal behaviors IS criminal, and the enforcement of such is an abomination. Methylphenidate is just as, if not more dangerous than cocaine, and related drugs aren’t ‘like’ speed, they ARE speed. Atypical antipsychotics and SSRIs are extremely dangerous and completely unnecessary/unwarranted/profiteering at it’s worst. Zyprexa is \$14.oo for one tablet, and it’s also being used in nursing homes to control our seniors (compare this cultural malignancy to the respect and care seniors receive in other countries).

In the larger picture I have a strong interest in preventing all marriage/paternity AND live-in relationships here in the anglosphere. Why live-in relationships? Even if you own your home, she can obtain a TRO and have you thrown out. She has access to everything in your home while you’re gone, and if you return to collect your things, you must do so under police supervision and only take a minimum. If you were able to prove that there was no reason for the TRO except her word, it matters not a bit. Just as in false rape accusations, her word is law. If she really had it in for you, she could hide something illegal and use it as blackmail when you regain your home. Just don’t do it to begin with, and ounce of prevention……

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 16:13

Jabherwochie

I must add one other name here–without his brilliant mind, we would not writing or lighting–Tesla. Tesla by every account I’ve read was a high-functioning autistic with OCD. It is a tragedy that so much of his knowledge has been suppressed. Anyone who is not familiar with why he was so important should do a search and read about him. A/C, radio and television were but a small part of his contributions.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 20, 2009 at 17:05

David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 11:52 am

I visited your site, and I’m planning on GTFO.

**smart man.

There are two ways of doing this, by making my own expensive mistakes (school of hard knocks) and from someone who has successfully tread that path. I’m choosing the latter, simply because I don’t have the luxury of time, the money to waste, and because of my unique situation with my son.

**correction–INTELLIGENT man.

I’ve read your posts here and @ Happy Bachelors, and your analogy of taking three parasites out is excellent.

**thank you, but i just put my spin on an excellent analogy
there are a lot of astute, action-oriented men here.

My only child, Nada Jr. turns 10 next month, so I understand your situation. Contact me, when you’re ready. I’d be happy to work with you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0
fedrz November 20, 2009 at 17:45

@ Zed,

Interesting – I will have to research enclosure and the timeframe in more detail.

I was under the loose assumption that, when one strips away the ideology of Marx’s Utopian Man, there is a significant Capitalist motivation to support Marxism… that being that Socialism is Monopoly Capitalism. It’s easier to be the CEO of Lada than General Motors, because there is no competition, and thus you can produce shoddy goods without worrying about losing your customers.

Also, once one gets to a certain wealth, it really doesn’t matter anymore. What the hell does Warren Buffet give a shit what the price of a Big Mac is? Even with 1/10th of 1% of his money, he still shovel a Big Mac into his mouth every minute for the rest of his life and never run out of money. After this point, it is not “money” in the sense that the average Joe thinks of money – what it buys him – but rather, “money” becomes a tool to wield power. It is the power that is important, not the money itself.

Are the end results of Monopoly Capitalism and Marxism any different?

Like or Dislike: 0  0
David Brandt November 20, 2009 at 18:16

Fedrz
“After this point, it is not “money” in the sense that the average Joe thinks of money – what it buys him – but rather, “money” becomes a tool to wield power. It is the power that is important, not the money itself.”

Which is more difficult to achieve, power over others or power over yourself? A five year old with a loaded .45 has power over the adults either running away or running after him attempting to take it away. If someone has total power/mastery over themselves, I think they don’t bother grabbing it from others. Additionally in a larger context, this power whether achieved through money or tech or both are limited by time, since each of us has an expiration date. The only way to extend that perceived power (I preface with perceived simply because it can be lost or stolen, it is not true power (the type achieved by controlling