The Antagonistic Economy

A fascinating video that may not be completely MGTOW, but something to ponder about a rat race style society.

The Antagonistic Economy

Another Powerful Post . . .

From a man going his own way. This is from The Spearhead, which is highly recommended if anyone has not already checked the site out.

This is from the article and thread-starter by Zed; Why Western Women Are So Empty And Unhappy:

Jabherwochie

Not that this is relevent, as there are always outliers, and hell, I’m actually very emotional, but I’m pretty good at looking at things dispassionately. I even understand the female side of this war more than I would admit, and I would never bring up their legitimate gripes or concerns about men, as it wouldn’t advance my sides position and instead would rather hinder it. I might play more fair than I should, but I’m not going to help the other side out. I do allow much of my emotion to seep through because I feel it is a powerful tool of persuasion, especially for people prone to relate more on an emotional level. One mans crying over his lost children in a custody battle may be worth a hundred rational arguments to the unthinking masses.

On that note, one thing I find quite rational, but I still can’t get across to the female population because it is about my personal male emotional experience, and therefore hard for females to empathize with, is that growing up in sex saturated culture, surrounded by sexually signaling females in their sexual prime, and being (I have solid reasons to believe this if you want me to go into them) far hornier than the average male, my developmental and adolescent years were nothing less than pure -PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE-. No hyperbole intended. This torture existed from 5th grade, all the way through college. It was psycho-sexual solitary confinement. It was being starved my whole life by slave masters who kept me chained by the table from which they ate feast after feast. Kis, do you understand this? Do you understand why I have resentment for female sexual power. A power that is often misused, as in your case probably, by using it to attract the wrong type of man, abused, as many girls think flirting and playing hard to get is just a game, when it is really more like a cat playing with a mouse before it devours it, or not used at all, which means it is wasted and not used for any good at all. How many women reward nice, honest, caring men with their sexuality. How many pity fucks do men get, who are so broken by the opposite sexes rejections that they can no longer even approach a women? Zero. How many women look down upon men for being so affected by their sexuality, as if that biological imperitive is just an itch, yet at the same time demand that its power holds sway over and tame the most untamable of Alpha beasts.

Maybe I’m a pathetic looser. That doesn’t change the fact that my pain is ignored or dismissed by every female I have ever shared it with. It is outright mocked by Feminists. They often say MRAs are loosers who can’t get laid and have mommy issues, and in my case, that is the case. In shaming me with those words, the psychological torture I endured is openly mocked by them, like I’m some pathetic creature not deserving of the most basic human consideration.

Of course I’m not horny anymore and get laid whenever I want. But sex barely does it for me now. My psycho-sexual development has twisted me that much. That is why I’m into the BDSM community. My sexuality feeds off of my anger. Now, instead of always being horny, I’m simply angry. Women created my rage. That rage still fuels me, and I suspect it always will. I’m 31 and don’t see myself stopping this war against Feminism until I die. Tell all the women you know that they have naively created a monster by weilding the power and gifts granted to them by God in selfish ways. Tell them you fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant.

Your failed relationships, your failed marraiges, are nothing compared to existential hell I went through. Keep in mind I left out the details, which paint a much worse picture than even described.

Anyone who thinks this is too much information can go jump off a cliff. I hardly can be affected by words at this point. I remember all the fights I used to get into, and how alive I felt after them, even after the ones I lost. That pain was the most life affirming thing in my life. I’m that damaged. I’m here to see it doesn’t happen to anymore young men than it has to.

Zed On Gaming and MRAs

This is a recent post by Zed from the outstanding blog The Spearhead---which I have recently linked to if anyone is not acquainted with it yet. Without further ado, I'll save the commentary and let the prose speak for itself---enjoy!

Upping MRA "Game": Honing Our Rhetoric of Ridicule.

by Zed

Feminism is cultural-level Game being run by women, collectively, against men, collectively. Men and boys swim in a sea of negs, and the purpose is exactly the same as using negs in game – to keep the other side off balance.

While some serious practitioners of Game may be fine with the relative advantage that knowing Game gives them over a lot of other men, others cannot help but be aware that the playing field is tilted signficantly to the advantage of females and that leveling the playing field in general would probably help their overall percentages. As the trailblazers of Game have studied individual female behaviors and learned how to use those behaviors to their advantage, I think that men can certainly study collective female Game, or feminism, and use that understanding to improve conditions for men at the cultural level.

Nilk just made an interesting comment – “I don’t have the answers, but I suspect a part of it comes from beating the enemy at their own game.”

Let that one sink in for a minute.

In order to do that, first we must define the enemy, then identify their game, and finally analyze it so we can devise tactics to defeat it.

So, let’s start with who is the enemy. Are women “the enemy”? Yeah, yeah, I can hear the chorus of objections coming from all directions. Stow it. I’ll come back to this.

Is the NWO the enemy? They make a convenient scapegoat – like hobgoblins, evil spirits, and “patriarchy.” Sorry, but there have been more “new world orders” or “new orders for the ages” throughout history than wannabe prophets and messiahs, and there have been plenty of those.

Maybe Alphas, or SoCons, or maybe even “card-carrying-Kommunnnists!” And then again, maybe not.

Or maybe all of them are for one simple reason: their interests are not our interests, and they are going to pursue their interests and show no concern at all about ours – leaving that job to us. And if we don’t do the job of looking out after our own interests, then we are the ones who dropped the ball, not them.

So, let’s start with the enemy that looks back at us from the mirror and tackle that one first. What keeps us from actively advocating for our own interests? I’m looking for reasons, not excuses. (”Excuses are LIES, plebe!”) Identifying obstacles is the first step in the process of problem-solving, which we men are supposed to be so good at. Sorry, dudes, based on the performance of the past 45 years I would have to say we really suck at it. Let’s start by seeing if we can get out of our own way and start to do something effective.

Which brings me back to women and the game they have been running on men and boys.

While they may not be “the enemy”, they are certainly not our allies, either. Feminism has convinced a great many women that their interests and men’s interests are in conflict, mutually exclusive, and a zero sum game. That makes many of them our opponents, our competitors, and a group of people who generally view any gain for men as a loss for women. Many of them also view any loss for men as a group to be long overdue because every man throughout history has led a life of unbroken “power and privilege” don’cha’know.

So, one answer to this has been to run game on men and boys collectively with an unbroken and constant stream of negs – sometimes hidden behind “cuteness” and sometimes just flat-out man-bashing. The tiresome litany of complaints has become so cliched that most of us could write the entire kvetch based on the first line or two. Recently Novaseeker did a post about a post on another blog titled “94 reasons the guy I’m dating isn’t right for me.” A better title would have been “94 cliches negging men, repeated for the 10 millionth time.”

Whether they are “enemies” or not, you can pretty much count on most women playing for “Team Woman.” They are going to high-five each other over cutting those “over-inflated male egos down to size”, and nod their heads in enthusiastic agreement as the “you go grrls” give men their what-for.

And, betas just sit there with stupid Prozac grins on their faces and take it. Why?

There are a lot of reasons, but I want to focus on just a couple of them.

First, men have a very difficult time internalizing the fact that they are dealing with an opponent dedicated to stonewalling them and preventing from making any progress. For some odd reason, a lot of men unreasonably and irrationally cling to the “reasonable and rational” approach despite the fact that it has never worked.

Second, men generally lag behind women in the psychological warfare being waged. They do not realize that they have walked into a gunfight with a plastic spork, and when their patient explanations do not win over their opponents, they often get angry, flustered and inarticulate.

I think the next stage of evolution of cultural-level game will be for men to upgrade their skills in the rhetoric of ridicule. As things often play out now, one or two representatives from “Team Woman” can usually easily keep the issues confused and keep stinging men like hovering wasps with their crafted words which are skillful personal attacks designed to stonewall and derail discussion.

Our friend Anakin has done a very valuable piece of work with his “Catalog of anti-male shaming tactics” by identifying the most common games run on men to try to shut them up. I think it needs to be taken farther, however. While he identifies the mechanism – the emotional response of shame – it needs to be taken to the next step and how those tactics fit into an overall strategy needs to be subjected to the same sort of analysis.

This is why I have suggested no longer calling them “shaming tactics” and instead calling them “Personal Attacks and Mind Games Used to Silence Men.” The strategy is to shift the discussion from the subject at hand to being about the person, and with a personal attack put that person on the defensive.

So, this leads us back to the idea of beating our opponents at their own game.

The naive and simple Charlie Browns, thinking that they are not dealing with people who are actual opponents but simply people who don’t understand yet because it hasn’t been properly explained to them, will plunge doggedly ahead making points their opponents do not want to hear and will do everything in their power to prevent from being heard. The wasps will swoop in and start stinging – “loser, you hate women, you live in your mother’s basement, you must have a small penis” until they land one that hits a sore spot and triggers Chuck’s anger.

At this point he will lose his train of thought, and pop off with some terribly imaginative comeback like “bitch” or “whore” or “slut.” Contrary to all the nonsense about “slut shaming”, these terms don’t bother the attack wasps of Team Woman in the slightest. In fact, they are clear signals the wasps have hit their target, accomplished their objective, and reduced poor Chuck to barely articulate profanity.

So, it’s time for MRAs to up our game, and improve our own negging ability – to start honing our rhetoric of ridicule so we can sting our opponents as deeply as they are trying to sting us. This is where the masters of Game have a real advantage. They know how to go for the throat, how to undermine, and how to do it with a light touch so that objections can be dismissed as being thin-skinned, or having no sense of humor, or taking themselves too seriously.

Now, of course, this being Game, there will be the cultural level version of cockblockers. Most of these will be SoCons, or knee-jerk chivalrists, or manginas – “HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT ABOUT WOMANHOOD!!! Up with this, I WILL NOT PUT!!!”

That is probably where we need to start developing wingman skills. Instead of leaving our intrepid Man Who Is Concerned About The Status And Future Of Men (MWICATSAFOM? Nah, fuggit, “MRA” is much simpler) hanging out there on his own, we need to give him an assist.

Unfortunately, this will probably require going for the throat. It will require analyzing the areas where women really are insecure and beating on them the same way operatives from Team Woman will attack a man’s potential areas of insecurity in order to shut him down.

It’s nice to see that Paul Elam has resurrected Voice For Men after a hiatus of several years. On his front page, he poses the interesting question which a lot of long-time MRAs have pondered -
“Suppose they had a gender war…and men showed up.”

Are men ready to start taking the sticks of dynamite that Team Woman has been throwing at us for more than 45 years, lighting them, and throwing them back? Are we/they ready to take off the kid gloves, abandon their romanticized Victorian notions about women, and realize that many of them have no concern at all for us (best case) and some actually harbor intense and active malice toward us (worst case)?

Is Team Men ready to take the field? Is it time for “Game on”?

Gems of Wisdom From Philalethes

Philalethes is enigmatic and doesn't seem to write in a prolific manner. He is also unorthodox in his writings, and perhaps anyone in MGTOW can glean something from him with his different perspective.

------


For one am increasingly tired of the constantly escalating level of sexual white noise in the culture. In summertime a lot of females parade around practically naked. For a long time I wondered why it is that women seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to bare their bodies in public; in winter I've seen them sometimes with serious gooseflesh when they could just as easily wear a little more clothing and be comfortably warm. Finally I recalled reading in Desmond Morris' classic The Naked Ape (highly recommended) the simple, scientific observation that while other species' sexual signals may be olfactory (scents--which is why dogs urinate on fireplugs) or auditory (birdsong), human sexual signals concentrate on our most developed sense, i.e. sight. When a woman bares another half-inch of skin, it's never an accident: it's an escalation, either of an attempt to capture male attention, or of competition with other females to do the same.

If human sexual signals were transmitted in sound, our present situation would be literally deafening.

Once again, women don't make sense, at least on first observation: they behave in a manner obviously calculated (though often subconsciously so) to attract male attention, then they complain that males "can't keep their eyes to themselves." It's just more testing. If nothing else, it's a test of the male's ability to deal with the stress caused by female irrationality. "I'm not logical. Deal with it." What does not destroy you ... makes you a promising candidate as a mate. From the point of view of Nature, their (and our) ultimate Boss, this makes perfect sense. Nature knows no restraint; She will escalate every contest to the ultimate.

In "traditional" cultures, women generally had the sense to discipline their collective behavior, to keep the sexual noise to a level that wouldn't cause a total collapse of social order. This is the origin of all the restraints which feminists complain so bitterly about, from marriage to the seclusion of women to the burkha: simply varying, often desperate attempts to govern the overwhelming sexual power of the female so that we can have human societies, rather than the life of chimpanzees.

In our "modern," revolutionary culture, these restraints have been broken down, abandoned, and it's a free-for-all. Women themselves are caught in the situation: as the level of competition rises, even women who don't feel inclined to act like prostitutes feel they have no choice. Few women other than Camille Paglia are willing to admit that under the "patriarchy" women were far safer to walk the streets at night than they are now, in our "enlightened" social order, where women are "free to be themselves." The simple fact is that (most) women, like children, on their own don't know what's best for their own welfare.

People who come to our country from traditional cultures say that our women dress like prostitutes: why advertise so aggressively unless you're selling what you're showing? But of course, as our "modern" culture spreads across the world, traditional cultures' restraining patterns are breaking down as well. A recent issue of National Geographic shows this quite graphically, with a cover photo of an Indian woman and her daughter: the mother is dressed in a traditional sari, the daughter is dressed like a typical American teenage wanna-be whore, complete with pout. No culture can last when this behavior becomes the norm.

Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a woman shaman from the Iroquois nation. She was impressive: one of the few real, grownup women I've encountered. Calm, restrained, gentle, completely aware and in control of herself, she glowed with power. I sat in a room full of women at her feet, and was struck by the behavior of a middle-aged, white-haired Anglo female sitting across from me. She didn't know how to comport herself; she had her legs up so her underwear was clearly displayed to the room. I thought, "This is the best model our culture can offer as an adult woman?" It was sad.

I was amused to see the following passage in the Seneca Falls "Declaration of Sentiments":

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.

The truth is, the history of humankind is a history of desperate attempts to escape the unconscious, unrestrained rule of woman, and thus the absolute rule of unconscious, ruthless Nature, by creating social constructs which, whatever their imperfections, at least offer us a life less "nasty, brutish and short" than that of the animal world from which we came--and back into which we may fall at any time. This is the real meaning of "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Apologies about the Comments And Personal B.S.

I haven't been here to publish them because I have been out searching for another job, even though I currently hold one. Sorry.

Here's my personal struggle of the moment. Once I'm settled again I will write more.

There's been rumors that the establishment will not survive another year and that's ironic; I was laid off months ago because the last place I worked at for nine years closed its doors. I'm going for another interview tomorrow, but I won't hold my breath---people have tried to take advantage of my skills since everyone was out on the street from the upscale restaurant became a dead zone.

Yes, I am a gourmet chef. No, I don't do recipes online. But I can relate a few stories once I settle in another place. The luck I'm haven't isn't great, I'm half a step away from getting a gig at assistant restaurant manager at a francise instead if offered. Not glamorous, but when you what to save for retirement and don't have the excess income to do it, what do you do? "Selling out" isn't as bad as you might think.

They are looking for a sushi chef full time. Not my expertise, but maybe they will offer a deal that I can't refuse. Not to mention it's closer to my family from way back---I'm hoping it's destiny but hope springs eternal.

Oh, btw, I have the culinary degree as well. It would be shame to place on the backburner. If I get too restless I am going to Chicago or something---bigger towns still grapple with the idea of gourmet perfection, so does my current boss who is a past drug addict and current alcoholic. I've also talked to three people who predict the proverbial ship is going down in a year. I wouldn't be surprised; he's been charge of two buildings that had business failure and had been axed from a job for drinking. Why the fuck did I bother to work for this guy? Oh yeah, I wanted to remain in gourmet cooking.

I may have to place the blog on hiatus if I move---which I intent to do from anywhere from two weeks to half a year, but it will be up and running and I will check in now and again.

I've been here for a couple of years---hope you will, too, and when I'm on a roll and get a good job (outside of this Captain Ahab I'm slaving for) I'll be writing more often. SR/Chris

Smashing the Social Contract Asunder

There's been more talk about the roles men are supposed to enact concerning masculinity, and while I don't intend for this post to ramble on too much about it, it is rather concurrent with the "child-man" bashing that occurred last year or so.

Funny thing is, you read and hear about the lament from women about the lack of "real men"---whatever that is supposed to mean anymore---when all the possibilities of their other exploits have been practically exhausted---someone is supposed to pick up the tab and pay for all the mistakes and foibles from the past. I don't know why anyone would want to be the brunt of all the resentment because of a misspent youth, but the code of chivalry that runs deep within many men doesn't die easily.

But it can be mangled for good after being abused for only so much. And the long term results aren't always pretty.

When feminists were hell bent to rearrange gender roles, something particular happened. While many will attest that feminism would free up men from the confines of traditionalism, if anything, it has not occurred. Women have choices and license, and men still have responsibilities---and then some. Hell, even a male feminist openly stated that miltary men should be employed to save foreign women from their perspective cultural constraints, without a word about women doing the same. When in doubt, use men by proxy and claim all the credit.

It's curious that the gender that was so oppressed can vote without having to sign up for selective service, or that they are now the majority of college grads and get advanced degrees often with more support, or aren't the victim in a greater percentage of violent crimes, or still (somewhat) out live their sexual counterparts. Not to mention that women are often given lighter sentences than men, even with murder.

As far as benevolent sexism, it still benefits those who decry it, and that's why many will not refuse it. After all, giving up priviledge is not easy to do---especially those who complain that they were oppressed and lack the certain benefits they are already comfortable with, expecting more out of men who already may not realize they are being shafted as I write this.

And yet, people are still puzzled as to why men are dropping out or turning off, so to speak. When skank behavior is excused and praised, and men suffer in the advent of divorce and custody battles, or when women still jump start divorce and others witness how little sympathy men still receive, can they be blamed not when they don't want to engage at all? We still are, anyway. Sure, the older traditional compact had it's drawbacks, but with any social obligation there was a checks and balances of sorts.

And after all this, there are people who want to go back to the old rules. The audacity of this way of thinking is simply stunning.

When men see that there exist women that change the rules in mid-stream to suit themselves and adjust the odds so they win no matter what--and societal norms, policies, and the media to back it all up---if Johnny Normal resorts to playing Xbox on the weekend and slipping on cheap alcohol instead of beefing up his PUA skills anymore, should anyone be surprised? Or are anyone stunned when he avoids single moms like a leper colony in his 30s and 40s because they cry for a beast of burden to raise someone else's offspring, which smacks of a matriachal setting hypocritically demanding the trappings of a patriarchal nuclear family?

When men are shunted with social obligations and women given the illusion of freendoms with universal support from anyone from selfish politicians to the dim witted skank in a local club, it's an imbalance that cannot last.

Let's hope the women that have their heads screwed on straight can convince men not to resort to a crushing backlash, but I'm afraid it's going to be huge. And several of us simply won't listen to their needs after being exploited and then told it's all our fault for this mess. But hey, men's needs never were the order of the day, right?

You Guessed It---I'm writing about George Sodini

Well, not exactly.

What I'm going to write about is the reactions and ramifications surrounding the event. George Sodini shot and killed three women at a Philadelphia gym, wounded others, and killed himself in the process. In spite of apparently longing for a real relationship, Sodini harbored a tremendous mounting anger towards women and at the surface level, it would seem that he had scapegoated them not just for his alleged lack of success, but failure to have a deep bond with one in many years.

Much has been written about the act and the hows and whys. Much of the responses are typical---that we still live in a misogynist culture that breeds or instigates men perpetrating violent acts towards women. Or that Sodlini was a mentally imbalanced misanthrope that would have done this eventually, and who women have to guard themselves against male malevolence and aggression even more.

Clearly, this is faulty because most men obviously don't go on mass shooting sprees towards women. The whole thing raises the spectre of Marc Lepine, which has been a cypher, a symbol for feminists who want to prove that male hatred of women is alive and well although most men are reluctant to vent their spleen on women even in a far less extreme manner. Listen up feminists and you chivalrous men---most men don't like hurting women or get off on it.

The other remarks have been rather unfocused and simply not correct. Being socially awkward, possessing a background of a convoluted family history, living a rather isolated life, and being rather hung up on appearances describe a plethora of men, and yet there are so many critical comments to paint Sodini as a Stephen Kingish bogeyman that (by all purposes rendered) looked like the guy next door. There's also some conversations about the psychosexual development of Sodini, although his rage unleashed is not the same as the sexual sadism of certain serial killers. Far from it.

Now, perhaps, every man is suspect, no matter how affable and successful he is, or possessing the mask or normalcy.

There's a number of things that may have prevented Sodini's violent outburst and suicidal end. I honestly don't think he was born evil nor wanted to harm women for a good portion of his life. Obviously, he had worked himself up to enact and expunge what he felt was his vindication for being marginalized, even though (apparently) he did attract some female attention. I don't approve of his actions and maintain his own responsibility for it, but I can't help but wonder something.

Years upon years of feeling unwanted and undesired in a culture that is patently anti-male in more that one aspect didn't help this at all. I realize that the crime against others and himself rests on his shoulders, and no matter how much one can rationalize it, it's still tragic and ugly in of itself.

But I don't think many want to understand how crushing feelings of alienation, chronic, deep rooted emotional pain, and the sense that you are not a potential mate and a object of desire truly is. And lack of a support network compounds that. Most people who experience this don't engage in mass murder. But they often live sad and unfulfilled lives, drowning themselves in addiction or materialism, and our society does little to lighten the load---including branding those as different as creeps and losers even if they would never step forward and do what George Sodini did.

Is this what contributed to his personal malaise to finally lash out? I've been wrong before, but I do believe it's a crucial element.

I've read on a couple of feminist blogs that a few MGTOW men view this has a victory of MRAs. They are wholly wrong. If anything, it makes it more difficult for men's rights proponents to place men in a positive light. We are not going to bear the collective guilt here, but the cloud of darkness remains. Sodini is not a posterchild whatsoever, and yet despite the "gender is a social construct" crowd and claiming the damage he had done is the result of patriarchal oppression, more than few have expressed glee at Sodini being demonstrative of male hate and that maybe there is even something wrong about masculinity.

And as the owner of Toy Soldiers blog has pointed out, there are feminist-minded blogs that have shown their own colors and jumped on this for their own cause:


Real people were hurt. Real people died. Yet, instead of even trying to discuss that in a rational way, feminists resort to the typical “blame it on teh menz” nonsense. It is beyond disrespectful to the victims to do that, just as it is beyond conceited to view oneself in a “holier than thou art” grandiose manner. The victims deserve much better than to have their injuries and deaths reduced to an infantile attack on people who had nothing to do with Sodini’s actions.

That is, by far, the greatest irony of this. Sodini reached his final point by scapegoating and blaming an entire group of people for all his problems while demanding quite a lot from them. Yet some of his critics seem, rather stupidly, content to engage in the same ill-conceived logic.

I've always said if gender feminist and enablers couldn't find a nemesis, they would have to invent one. And now, for years to come, George Sodini will be one that they can point to for their smug attitude to condemn and slag masculinity no matter how good men struggle or their protests and ordeals legitimate.

I find that repellent as well.

Oddly enough, the real danger here is that if our environment does create George Sodinis, the disparaging output is that men that do go through emotional torment and isolation from intimacy and love from women is not violence and hatred---it's turning their backs on women when more anti-male sentiment and agendas get credence because of situations like this.

Shame, blame, and embitterment toward men after events like this do not create amends and forgiveness between the sexes---it further continues the chasm. And those who have been mistreated throughout a lifetime don't celebrate. They either understand that it's another battle to forge forward, or acknowledge that any healing is questionable, and instead of risking being stigmatized, coldly go forward and rather than protecting and praising skankdom and female supremacy, let themselves drift further rather than be lumped with fringe individuals.

That's something the detractors should learn. Maybe they never will.