Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Snake in the Grass

I've mentioned I've known about the word "nachash" for a while. At least ten years, since I wrote this in 2005.

When I was in college my girlfriend mentioned to me a guy she knew had told her about me, "You can do better than that." I had met him once and had a short but pleasant conversation with him. Why, I wondered, would he say such a thing about me?

The answer was immediate: he would have liked to take her away from me. He envied me. She was a cute one, it was true. Cute and smart, the kind he wanted but apparently couldn't get. So he wanted what I had. He was, to use a common expression, a snake in the grass. He was talking behind my back.

We use the term "snake" to refer to someone who is a backstabber. Apparently, this particular meaning has been used for thousands of years. Think of one of the best-known myths in the Western world, that of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Traditionally, the serpent in the Garden is a symbol of envy, because he wants to bring Adam and Eve down because they are the favorites of God. The word it's translated from is "nachash," which is a very interesting word indeed.

It doesn't literally mean "serpent." It has several interrelated meanings: to hiss or whisper like a snake, enchanter, prognosticator.

The word "enchant" means "to chant," as in hypnotize. Same thing as a "spell," meaning "tale," or "the use of words." The nachash used words in an attempt to cast a "spell" on Eve, to get her to do what he wanted so he could bring her and Adam down.

That's what the envious do. They don't come out and say, "I envy you." Usually they can't even admit it to themselves. Of all the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is the only one that isn't any fun. It is, in fact, one of the most corrosive feelings in the world.

Helmut Schoeck, in his magisterial work, Envy, described envy as "a drive which lies at the core of man's life as a social being…[an] urge to compare oneself invidiously with others." He considered it inborn. Perhaps it is, although the intensity varies in the person, from intense to almost non-existent.

Schoeck came to some surprising conclusions. After showing the ubiqitiousness of envy in primitive cultures, including the superstitious terror of arousing the envy of their gods, and that it was a crippling barrier to progress, Schoeck argued that one of Christianity's greatest achievements was in freeing people to progess, for it "provided man for the first time with supernatural beings who, he knew, could neither envy nor ridicule him," and who offered strong moral condemnation of envy.

Of all the myths I am familiar with, only that of the Garden of Eden condemns envy as a truly bad thing, because it sees it is essentially the cause of the overwhelming majority of evil in the world. Private property, Schoeck claimed, emerged not as the cause of envy, as egalitarians assert, but as a defense against it -- "a necessary protective screen between people," deflecting envy that would otherwise be directed at people onto material goods.

The envious are subtle about their envy, they backstab, they whisper, as Iago whispered to Othello. They attempt to tell the future, to prognosticate. Essentially what my envious backstabbing acquaintance was telling my girlfriend was, "If you leave him for me, it will be better for you." He was attempting to cast a spell on her, to get her away from me. He just wasn't very good at it. Actually, he was terrible, because he was so obvious. But as Aesop noticed, envy always shows. Whenever you see someone trying to pull someone else down, it is almost always caused by envy.

In the myth, when God catches Adam and Eve, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. Blaming other people for our problems is the first defense everyone engages in, and is, as M. Scott Peck has noticed, the genesis of evil in the world. He called it scapegoating. The myth tells us most scapegoating --blaming others for our problems -- is caused by envy. Perhaps not all of it is caused by envy, but probably almost all of it.

That myth, thousands of years old, is a wise and perceptive one. It tells us envious people whisper behind our backs in an attempt to bring us down. They are never upfront. They attempt to cast a spell on the intended, to tell them how wonderful their future will be if they listen. After all, the serpent did tell Eve, "surely you will not die."

The clearest example of envy in a movie I'm familiar with is Amadeus. Salieri is eaten alive with his envy of Mozart. So what does he do? He devotes his life to ruining Mozart, and doing it in such a subtle, devious way that Mozart always thinks Salieri is his friend. Salieri does it behind Mozart's back, he whispers to people, he attempts to cast a spell on them. He is a snake. Of course, he blames Mozart for his failures as a musician. And he ends his life in an insane asylum.

Of all the political systems in the world, the one that has been the most destructive, that has caused the most deaths, is socialism. The heart of it, that which it's based on, is envy. That's why socialists are egalitarians. If everyone is the same, they think, and has the same, then there will no envy. Instead, this attempt to bring Heaven to earth instead bought the worst Hell the human race has ever experienced.

The one political system that is the least conducive to envy is the free market. As the ancient Greek philosophers noticed, the benign form of envy is admiration. At least under the free market, people have a chance to be upwardly mobile. They can attain the same heights, or close to the same heights, as those they envy. They can admire them instead of envying them.

The problem with the human race is not that people are stupid or evil. They're half asleep, hynotized. I am reminded of Kaa, the snake in Kipling's The Jungle Book. In the movie Kaa enchanted his victims by singing to them (and the word "nachash," can also mean "singing"). Kipling also wrote that "words are the most powerful drug ever invented." He was right.

Envy will never be gotten rid of entirely, as long as people are half-awake. It is, as the serpent tells us, part of our animal nature, and will be until our animal nature is overcome, if such a thing is possible. But if not possible, envy can at least be minimized.

Not a Serpent but a Nachash

"Nachash, the snake within man, is the radical egotism which causes an individual being to make of itself a center and to relate everything else to it." - Sacred Texts

"Eve was not talking to a snake. She was speaking to a bright, shining, upright being who was serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her with lies." - Sound Doctrine Ministries

I've known for years it wasn't a snake or serpent in the story of the Garden of Eden. It was a nachash, which means "shining one" and to "hiss or whisper" like a snake (and as in the whispering of soothsayers - those who claim they can tell the future). For that matter, "Lucifer," which appears only once in the Bible, also means "shining one." (Not surprisingly one of the negative aspects of the word "Lucifer" means "to boast.")

A "shining one" would appear to be good but in reality is bad. Isn't that the way it always is? And who does the nachash first target? The woman.

Women oftentimes look at the surface of things. Being run by their feelings and lacking analytical ability (not all but a lot) of course they'll fall for something that looks good on the surface.

The nachash is also described as "subtle," as in "crafty and cunning."

So then, all you have to do to con most woman is to shine, to boast, to be crafty and cunning and deceive them. To tell them, like a soothsayer, that things will get better for them if they listen to liars. After all, women are the daughters of Eve, just as men are the sons of Adam.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Monday, May 25, 2015

Genesis 3:16

There is a lot of good, solid, practical wisdom in the Bible. Let's take the correct translation of Genesis 3:16:

"Then he said to the woman, 'I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.'

"CONTROL your husband."

That's in the first book of the Bible. How many people know the correct translation? How many ministers have preached sermons on it? None, perhaps?

Women cannot run societies. That's why there has never been a matriarchy. The closest these days is black culture, and it is a complete and utter catastrophe. It couldn't get more dysfunctional.

There is a good reason women have been traditionally been denied the vote. As an example, they're the ones who put Hitler into office (and yes, he was democratically elected).

Ultimately women don't want freedom. When they're allowed to do as they please, they want license and therefore degrade themselves and the culture.

Just look around.

And damn if men didn't let them do it.

"The Keynesian Sexual Marketplace"

I don't accept the "social-sexual hierarchy" and the classifications of Alpha/Beta/Whatever because it goes completely against my experience - and I have a lot of it.

I have never met an "alpha" because they don't exist - at least the commonly-accepted definition: "The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who at a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status."

That's a psychopath/narcissist and they should be referred to as such. They're incapable of love. As for someone fitting the entire definition - they don't exist.

The PUAs I've met have been cowards and douches, every one of them. In fact every one of them has been the bottom-of-the-barrel, even if they made a lot of money (which flowed through their fingers like water). They see women as narcissistic supply for their character disorders.

Everyone I've met who has the "Dark Triad" has been a criminal/alcoholic/drug addict who is now dead from drugs, murdered or in prison. None has been popular with women.

I got to know a lot of whores when I owned a taxi and some of the guys who were their customers were bottom-of-the-barrel sex perverts. A lot of drug addicts are, too. I had one living my back room years ago (because he had no place to stay) before he killed himself because of his 30-year drug addiction. He also held a semi-automatic pistol against his slut/whore/drug addict "girlfriend"'s head when I was in the front room and had no memory of doing so. He was also a kink who, it turned out, wore women's silk underwear. Among other things.

As for his "girlfriend," I once woke up in the middle of the night to find her giving me a blowjob - with her "boyfriend" sleeping in my back room. And the cops stopped me on the street wanting to know why this whore was living in my apartment - which was when I found out she was a whore.

After his skeleton was found in the woods (after six months) a cop showed up at my door (with the attitude we were gay lovers and I had killed him) wanting in to search the place. No dice on that. The second was a detective who informed me he was wearing women's underwear (which I found under his bed, along with hypodermic needles). No dice on his searching the place, either.

By the way, long before the internet I heard Ted Nugent babbling on TV about being an "alpha." I know something about this douche. He's been long known for liking teenage girls and I have one friend who knows him, since he and some friends were going to go into business with him. They decided not to, since Nugent is what the British call "unclubbable." He's not an "alpha"...he's close to being an "omega." Who just happens to have a lot of money.

I don't agree with everything in this article, of course, but it makes more sense than the cartoon concepts in a lot of the Manosphere..

This article is from the from No Ma'am blog and makes a lot more sense than mental cases like Roissy, buffoons like Roosh and the naive like Vox Day.

(This article was originally written in reference to an article which featured an interview with well-known PUA, Neil Strauss, who boldly stated his support for feminism - it caused a tizzy in the manosphere at the time, since many felt it is not possible to be pro-game and pro-feminist.)

The art of seduction, commonly known as "game," has become a big focus in the manosphere over the past few years. I would like to make clear that I believe many of the elements of game are real and I agree that men should know about the attraction triggers of women. Game is essential to understanding the problems that we face as men in society. Without this knowledge, men will continue to be run around in circles, never getting anywhere – as has been evidenced over the past forty years. However, I learned about game in a bit different of a way than most. First, I learned via observation and through two friends of mine who both had extremely high partner counts - one I estimate has slept with 200 people and the other I suspect is in the 400 range. (Both are 40'ish now and the numbers add up over the decades). Things like social proofing and increasing one's sexual market value by "climbing" from one chick to the next I had figured out on my own by the late 1990's. But it wasn't until I read the Book of Bonecrcker at somewhere around 2005 or 2006 that I really seen it laid out in print in a way that corresponded with my own life experiences and observations.

The Bonecrcker is different from much of the game-o-sphere in one key way: His definitions of Alpha, Beta & Omega are entirely different from the conventional definitions we are using today. I still believe that he is closer to the underlying "Truth" with his ordering of these definitions because he goes beyond merely "scoring" and a high partner count in his definitions, for he includes social status and the ability to co-operate with other men - in order to create power - as part of his definition of "alpha."

Here are the definitions I learned it under, which will make sense further along in my argument.

Alpha: The “top” male – both sexually and socially.

Beta: Most males in the population. The average guy.

Omega: The scum/deviant/criminal class

Zeta: Weak-willed males

Alpha males don’t usually get the most partners. Alpha males get the best chick around and she beats off all the other women with a stick. Alpha males are respected in society – they are not only sexually attractive, but they also have great social power and have the respect and admiration of other men. Think back to when you were in high-school. The star quarterback, while he could have shagged a lot of 6’s, 7’s and 8’s, that is not generally what he does. What happens is he gets the prom queen – the best/hottest chick – and they usually stay together for quite a while. He does not trade his “10” in for quickies with a series of “7’s”. The top male pairs off with the top female and they tend to stay together.

Keep in mind that female hypergamy comes into play with the Alpha. If the prom queen is dating a "10", then who would she "trade up" for? Most men are not 10's and there is pretty much only one Alpha in any closed group (it's zero sum). Most males are 5's (average), leaving the range from 6 to 10 for female hypergamy to wish to trade up for when she's dating an "average guy." At the top end of the scale, however, there become very, very few prospects for her to view as better than her current 10, and so the top pair tends to stay together.

“Beta” males are almost all other males. They are not weak wimps, as they are so often derided as. They are merely the males that come in second place (or further). Not everyone can win the footrace and place 1st. The sexual marketplace is a zero sum game. There cannot be 12 alphas of equal sexual-social rank. It just doesn’t work that way with hypergamy. She prefers only the best, and that does not refer to the “top dozen,” but only number one is “The Best.” Beta males generally have more sexual partners than Alpha males as they screw around lots when they are younger and sort out their socio-sexual rankings before finding the right socio-sexually ranked female to pair off with. Being 2nd place does not mean you are a slow runner – it merely means you are second place, which is still higher than third, which is still better than fourth. You cannot have 12 firsts – except in modern feminist-inspired schoolyard sports.

“Omega” males are the scum class as well as the sexually deviant class. These are the bad-boys and these are also the guys who have multiple sex partners. A key characteristic of Omega males is that they cannot form stable relationships. They are not powerful like Alpha males. They might get lots of girls, but essentially they are powerless in society and have little real respect from those around them - especially other males. Girls may screw them, but girls don’t stay with them. Not having the respect of other males makes them socially powerless, and this is the key to why they are not Alpha males.

“Zeta” males are weak-willed males. They rarely get sex and when they do, they are ruthlessly manipulated and exploited by women.

When the game community talks “Alpha” they are really describing “Omega” and when they say “Beta” they are really describing “Zeta.” The proper references to Real Alphas and Real Betas are missing.

Now, one has to keep in mind that since the rise of feminism in our culture, most males have been relentlessly propagandized to believe that Zeta characteristics are the proper ones. After 40 some years of this, as well as a healthy heaping of totalitarian styled laws removing all sorts of powers from the average male, indeed, if most males are “Beta” males (ie. average people), then it is true that this indoctrination has indeed encouraged and tricked the average man into taking on many characteristics of the weak-willed Zeta. In this sense it is understandable to confuse the modern Beta with the traditional Zeta.

However, it is entirely false to confuse the Alpha with Omega traits. One must keep in mind that human beings naturally exhibit pair-bonding and Alphas still pair bond while Omegas do not. Most high partner count people I know, such as my two friends I mentioned above, are Omegas, not Alphas. They are sexual deviants with numerous sexual partners but their social ranking is low and that is why they need to continually game more than one woman at a time. They can only fool a woman into believing they are Alpha for a short amount of time and they have little ability to actually keep a woman of high mating value. Another reason they continually need to have more than one chick on the go is to protect their own emotional vulnerability. Of course, this behaviour also provides the Omega male with social proofing, which helps them get more chicks, but this is a different kind of social proofing than that which the Alpha male gets.

The “true” Alpha – the high-school football star who’s screwing the prom queen - doesn’t need to be sexually promiscuous in order to be social proofed. He is social proofed already by dating the best chick. All the other girls “know” who the best chick is, and they hate her with an envy that would turn Kermit the Frog three shades greener than he already is. Also, every girl would like to replace the prom queen herself, because they all know that the prom queen’s boyfriend is the highest value male and whoever can displace the prom queen will become the new female atop of their female ranking. In other words, the “real Alpha” doesn’t need to screw dozens of chicks to have social proofing. He’s already got it by banging the hottest chick, which every other girl wishes she could be. Should he and the prom queen split, there will be a plethora of women from the lowest sexual rank to the highest trying to achieve status by being the prom queen’s replacement. He will be snapped up again very, very fast by another very high value female, and he will again ignore all the women below that level.

Another factor that has enabled Omega behavior to be successful is urban anonymity. It is easy to be a “sexual sniper” in the big city where the Omega can easily disappear into the background before the valuable Beta class finds him out and ruins his life. You cannot rise in socio-sexual ranking when you are constantly cuckolding all those around you, whose co-operation you would need in order to gain social power in society. Keep in mind that urban growth is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. For most of history humans lived in relatively small, rural communities and they needed the co-operation and respect of those around them, especially other males, in order to survive.

An apt example of these forces and their results is found within economics. In Keynesian Economics, we see all kinds of market distortions. Low/negative real interest rates discourage savings in favor of spending – and anyone with half a brain knows that you can’t spend yourself to prosperity. However, when faced with falsely imposed negative interest rates, spending money suddenly does make more sense than saving money which will have less value in the future. In Keynesian Economics, low interest rates also lead to excessive speculation, when anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that sound investing is more profitable in the long run than risky speculation.

In the same way, what we really have going on in society is almost a “Keynesian Sexual Marketplace.” In other words, a false economy based on Government Totalitarianism, enabled by Urban Anonymity, and fortified by relentless propaganda encouraging the “average Beta” to assume the traits of the weak-willed Zeta – with some further false sexually economic factors in the form of the pill and abortion – all combining to skew the “free sexual market.” The whole thing is as false as fiat money is to gold, and should these factors be removed, humans would likely revert back to a more traditional sexual marketplace – the kind often ballyhooed about in foreign cultures where things are not as far along in their screwed-upness as ours.

If it were not for things like government totalitarianism, women who mate with the scum class would find survival very difficult for themselves and their spawn. Many would likely die – and rightfully too, according to nature - for choosing an anti-survival strategy of mating with powerless Omegas who are unable to properly pair-bond. “True Alpha” males – those with high social and sexual value – would survive the best, as they have the best ability to provide, and all the lower ranking males and females (the Beta class), would again quickly pair off simply for survival’s sake. No animal, with the exception of perhaps lemmings, chooses anti-survival methods of living.

As for the Omega class, were it not for urban anonymity where they can disappear before being forced to deal with the consequences of their actions, they too would likely disappear quickly – most likely at the hands of the socially valuable Alphas and Betas. If you lived in a rural community and decided to try and screw 100 of the local women, you can almost be guaranteed to make at least 100 very motivated lifelong enemies. Keep in mind that women are like monkeys and don’t let go of one branch until they’ve gotten hold of another. Each time an Omega “scores” another man gets screwed over. Except for virgins, pretty much all women are romantically involved with someone at the time they decide to discard the old for the new. This is not conducive behavior for gaining social power amongst the other males surrounding the Omega male, and in fact will soon leave him completely powerless and struggling for survival. If an Omega were the town blacksmith and he screwed 100 of the local women, he would soon find a large portion of the town shunning him and taking their business to the next town, if someone didn’t outright kill him first for his cuckolding behavior. There is very, very little survival value for a woman and child to be attached to an Omega male. Without government welfare picking up the slack and creating a “Keynesian Sexual Marketplace,” the natural market would soon see both the Omegas and their lovers removed from the race.

And herein lies the quandary with “game” as it is put forth in the Manosphere today. We have the Omega class (low value males – lower than Beta) posing as Alphas (high value males), and since Omegas are the scum class rather than socially powerful Alphas who have other males’ cooperation (along with high female attraction), the Omegas are flourishing while Beta males are floundering after being relentlessly propagandized to emulate the weak-willed traits of the Zetas. And, in many ways, Omegas are scum for how they treat other males. There are many who believe that when out pussy-hunting, it is their right to screw other men’s wives and then get a chuckle at their cuckolding of other men. This is deviant behavior, and certainly not “Alpha.”

I have seen it pointed out before in Game circles that “Alphas” like to consider all women “theirs” and will try to undermine the “Betas” to protect his harem. This is, I believe, incorrect. It is deviant Omega behavior that does this. The Alpha has lots of social co-operation in society because he has only one chick – the hottest one – and he stays with her, thereby not screwing over multitudes of other men whose cooperation he needs in order to accomplish things. It is the Omegas that choose to screw multitudes of people over in order to achieve their sexual goals.

The Omega male will also support feminism in many regards, as it makes women sexually loose and into bonafide sluts. The Omega gamesman wants women to be sluts with a screwed up, anti-survival sense of mating, and the Omega wants his sexual competitors to be denigrated, taking on Zeta male traits to the point of them being sexually unattractive to the females in his line of vision.

Most faux-Alpha Omegas are also actively trying to dominate other men (AMOG'ing) in order to raise their sexual ranking and are quite pleased when they succeed in doing so. This is deviancy and is not conducive to social climbing but rather, it produces the opposite. Both of my high-partner count friends I ended up ejecting from my life because the troubles they brought about to themselves, and by extension to me, was enormous. They also had no qualms of sleeping with their friends' girlfriends if they could get away with it. "Bro's before ho's" had no meaning to both of my high partner count friends and there was constantly a shit-storm following them around because of it. The one - the guy who has slept with around 200 women - was relentless in trying to cock-block his friends in regard to women, unless he had banged the woman first. As long as he had screwed the chick first, he was OK with one of his buddies dating her after. I also discovered over time that he had slept with almost all of his friends' wives behind their backs at one time or another - usually during times of marital difficulty - and he even had it down to a science. When you start hearing about "nailing your friend's wife game," you know you are getting into the deviancy quadrant.

Think of the guy in the pub who always tries to comb everyone else down with his superior IQ, his superior vehicle, his superior house, his superior fighting (bragging) skills, his superior blah blah blah, compared to your stupidity, your piece of crap car and house, your wimpy attitude… yeah, that is usually the guy that ends up sitting alone in the corner all alone because nobody likes him and nobody wants to co-operate with him. Now think of that same guy but he is trying to dominate you by sexually stealing your woman, and everyone else’s woman too! Not only is it homo-erotic to try and dominate other men by proxy through women, but it also might convince some of those men to get up out of their chair and deal with the situation in a very primal way. This is not the behavior of an Alpha who has high social standing, but is deviant behavior typical of the scum/criminal class, creating damage wherever they go.

On the other hand, I know two "true alphas."

They are both assertive and dominant with their women. The one guy is one of my best friends. My jaw just dropped when I seen him walk in with his new girlfriend - the absolute hottest girl in town.

You know what? He refused to have sex with her for the first two months they dated... said he didn't want to until he knew they had real feelings for each other (ie. qualifying). He also told her she was not allowed to work as a waitress at a pub or anything like that - he just would not stand for it, having all kinds of men at the pub always hitting on her.

She conformed herself around him and they have been together now for around 16 years. When you went to their house, you rang the door bell and knew you had to wait for five minutes because they had to get dressed - after 8 or 9 years, they still had sex four times a day. The last time I was there (I don't live in the same town anymore), he was in the shower while she called and left a dirty message for him on the answering machine... I was in the living room having a beer with his dad and he was in such a hurry to get out of the shower so we wouldn't hear that he fell, ripped the curtain off the shower, and ran out naked to stop the recording. His dad and I laughed at him repeatedly all night. But good for him it is like that after all those years.

The other "alpha" I knew was a guy who married a chick fifteen years younger. He was 40 and she was 25 when they met. They had been married for a little over ten years when I knew them. He had been through the divorce wringer before and told her they were going to follow traditional gender roles, and that was that.

They would have me over for dinner, and afterwards, I would try to help cleaning up and doing the dishes.

"No no no, Rob," he would say to me. "We follow gender roles in this house. You came here to help me put siding up on the house for a weekend and she didn't help because that was man's work. Now it is time for her to do her work. Let's go into the living room and watch NASCAR."

You know, it was one of the best working marriages I've ever seen. She was very happy.

Both of these men were very popular and had lots of friends as well as respect in the community. There is definitely a difference between these men and the two high-partner-count friends I had, who got into fist fights almost as regularly as they got laid. The two "true alphas" had enormous social respect and co-operation while the two high-number friends had a vast number of enemies and were always looking over their shoulder.

Does this mean that Game in the conventional sense that we have come to know doesn’t work? Absolutely not. It works very well – especially in our false sexual marketplace coupled with the ability to disappear into a large urban environment where getting along with others socially is not nearly as important as it was only 150 years ago, and throughout most of human history before that. Also, knowing that Beta males are being socially conditioned to adopt Zeta behavior is enormously useful to regular men/Betas. Hopefully it will help the average man reverse the damage which the Zeta-promoting feminist propaganda has brainwashed him with.

But Omega is not Alpha, because Omegas make too many enemies to be socially successful with other men, and when other men don’t want to co-operate with you, you may find yourself truly screwed in society, which in turn makes Omegas of extremely low mating (survival) value. If/when our governments go broke, as well as everyone else along with them, and the failures of society can no longer count on being “bailed out,” the false sexual marketplace will disappear. Without this government interference, women who choose low-value, high mate-count Omegas will again be forced to pay, and pay dearly, for their anti-survival mating strategies and the true Alpha & Beta paradigm will again reappear, simply because of survival strategy.

These are the times we live in. With Keynesian Economics and the false influences it causes, one would have been a complete fool to have sat in gold bullion from 1980 to 2000 while passing on the rising real-estate market because of “false Keynesian influences.” You still have to live in the times you are presented with until natural forces once again over-rule synthetic ones. In the mean time you have to survive and see that your needs are still met. And so it is in the sexual marketplace of today, where men have to adjust their behaviour to ensure their needs are met, and thus certain aspects of game are indeed advisable to utilize. Perhaps the term Ethical Omegas ought to be created. It is unadvisable to pair-bond in our current political climate and yet men's need for sex is very real and cannot be denied, thus men ought to make sure that their needs are met while protecting themselves as much as possible - therefore it is indeed wise to emulate certain Omega traits such as avoiding "one-itis." But, in the back of one’s mind, it would probably be wise to remember that we are living in the times of a false sexual economy and eventually natural forces will overwhelm the synthetic ones. Natural forces have a habit of doing that.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Living Well is the Best Revenge

It's true; it really is the best revenge.

I've been reading some articles recently how to deal with feminists (who again are leftists and motivated by envy and therefore the desire to destroy men). Some advise you to be indifferent to them. That's not enough, because they'll still attack you.

Living well will drive them insane with envy and they'll still attack. So it has to be a combination of living well, being indifferent to them - and yet still attacking them ("the best defense is a good offence").

Old cliches wouldn't exist unless there was much truth to them...such as the unhappy don't want anyone to be happy.

"How To Screen For Female Receptiveness And Why"

The Manosphere really gets things confused with "the social-sexual hierarchy," the Greek alphabet soup, pick 'n' choose evo-psych, "the Dark Triad," "shit tests," made-up words like "hypergamy"...you get my drift.

When I was 17 I had a man tell me the masculine was the dominant (most guys don't have a clue what they really means - it means getting people to willingly listen to you and follow you), the active, the rational. The feminine was the emotional, the passive, the receptive. I've written before that Yang (the masculine) protects Yin (the feminine) and Yin supports Yang.

Turns out he was right, and he got that from history.

This article is from Franco Seduction and he makes a lot of sense, because he is using the facts, unlike the worst of the Manosphere with its belief that women are loveless "hypergamous" whores seeking "alpha" sperm and then seeking "betas" for "provisioning."

(By the way, I will get people saying, "Shit tests do exist" because the author mentions "tests." To which I respond: Since the Lost Boys of the Manosphere don't even know what the difference is between the masculine and feminine, they certainly know don't what these tests really are about.)

When you are looking for a relationship with a woman, you should screen for female receptiveness.

How you can seduce women effectively I have described in the Manual of Seduction.

Having the ability to pass the tests of virtually any woman, and have sex with her; is a good skill to have.

However, it can cause you to make wrong choices, even short-term wrong choices…not just the long-term ones.

There are female tests that are better to not pass, so you have more time to dedicate yourself to other, better women.

Female receptiveness is defined as the skill a feminine woman has of acting as a soft, receptive container to your masculine activity.

It is a psychological skill that has a physical component to it.

It is the power of the Yin.

The power of the Yin is not a passive act. Female receptiveness is an active act.

The female vagina is not only a physical entity, it is also a symbol.

The symbol is the skill of psychologically and physically “sucking in” the masculine. A real female has the skill of acting as a “black hole”, which lovingly takes the masculine inside.

Thus receptiveness has to be distinguished from passivity. A woman who is passive is not actually participating in the interaction; she is castrating the male, not favoring his actions.

Passivity from a woman can be one of the many ways a man can be emasculated in a relationship with an unreceptive woman.

Without feminine receptiveness, a weaker man will be very quickly emasculated by the woman, especially if he is not in touch with what is going on.

Stronger men will not be emasculated because of the protection offered by their instinct; they will sense what is happening, and they will become aggressive, bitter, and angry.

They will face constant pain and frustration in a relationship with a woman like this.

The rare men who are in touch with the meaning of feminine receptiveness will sense and understand what is going on, and simply will not enter into a relationship with a woman if she is not receptive.

Rarely will men have this skill, as feminine receptiveness does not have a place in heterosexual masculine culture. After all, if you were to be in touch with this skill, you would probably not be a man.

Understanding female receptiveness is a strength, not a weakness! It is only a different strength from the masculine ones you are used to.

The majority of the men will be blind to this huge power the Yin has over them.

Having sex with a woman who is not sexually receptive will be always a negative, bitter experience for a psychologically normal man.

Only a man who is a psychopath will be able to have sex with a woman who is not sexually and emotionally receptive and still enjoy it.

All the other men will face pain and frustration when faced with a woman who is not receptive and will very soon become unable to function.

With a female who is not sexually and emotionally receptive, the average man will either be forced into a spiral of repressed anger – which will in turn damage his health – or he will increasingly lose interest in sex with her.

Practical Advice For The Modern Man

That was the theory. Here is the practice.

When you are out dating women – regardless of what your goal might be: short-term, long-term, getting married, or maybe just adventure – always, always screen for female receptiveness.

You need to screen for female receptiveness from the very beginning, while at the same time running your dating game.

Passing the tests of a woman will in many cases surely get you a new sexual experience.

That is a good thing, but if you simply have sex as the only screening criteria, you had better be prepared to face some unpleasant surprises.

The pleasure you will get from that experience will be very limited, and it will soon turn into pain if the woman you met is unable to be sexually and emotionally receptive to you.

This is very important for the modern man to know: the social circles, the streets, and the workplaces of the industrialized world are full of women who are not able to be sexually receptive.

They either are not able, or do not want, to be that soft container a masculine man needs to be sexually active with a woman.

How do you detect quickly enough if is she a sexually receptive female?

I will be happy to share with you here the numerous signs you can learn to detect her receptive qualities.

General steps to follow

Passing her tests: timing and various strategies.

The seduction of a woman will always include on her behalf testing your strength as a man. In the Manual Of Seduction I have described how to recognize a female tests and pass them.

All women do this.

If a woman does not do this, it usually means that she is not attracted to you.

You can begin to screen her for female receptiveness even before you begin to pass her tests by detecting the deepest motives of how and why she tests you.

Begin by observing the nature of her tests. Not all the female tests are similar.

The way she tests you will tell you a lot about her degree of feminine receptiveness.

Generally speaking, one female test is her creation of a “fake danger.” This is to quickly detect how strong you are as a man.

For her, the meaning is the same as an investor or a marketer: testing the investment or the market quickly in order to immediately know what to do.

One of the fastest ways of knowing in advance if she is receptive as a female is to quickly detect the nature of her tests before you even decide if you want to pass them or not.


If her tests have the theme of a fight for a “one-upmanship”, you can be dead sure that she is not able to be receptive to you.

The proper approach with this kind of woman is the opposite of what the modern man seduction community predicates: it is better for you to not pass this kind of tests, and move on to the next woman.

If you want to practice, or you are a sadistic man and enjoy putting people down, just go ahead and then come back to tell me how you found out that this woman was in reality sexually frigid and unable to be loyal to you.

Alternatively, if her tests are meant to detect if you are able to lead her by the means of communication, then you probably have a feminine woman in your hands who is able to make you happy by being receptive to your masculine sexual desire.

The true feminine woman will not be passive. This is the most difficult thing to discern. The truly feminine woman will actively withdraw by being a container for your masculine activity.

Aggression and destructiveness in her tests

Are her tests meant to induce an aggressive, destructive reaction in you, or are her tests meant to detect the strength of your Ego and your ability to be a leader and protect other people?

If she tries to detect if you are a real man by inducing an aggressive reaction in you – which could possibly be destructive for her or your peers – you can be dead sure that she will be unable to be a receptive woman in a relationship with you.

So, if she tests you by putting you up to compete with her boyfriend, the possible outcome could be destructive in one sense or another.

Even if you get what you want, you will ultimately get a non-receptive woman for yourself, and that will make your relationship with her a nightmare afterward.

This would be a Pyrrhic victory for you.

The right approach is to not pass this kind of test. The right approach is to move quickly to the next woman.

Even if she is a champion of Kung Fu and you still managed to have her on the tatami with your strength, without female receptiveness the pleasure you will get will be about the same as dominating a gay male in a situation where you are stronger than him, though deeply heterosexual.

It is a little bit like eating ice cream that tastes like a stone. You will only get a very poor quality of pleasure and plenty of dangerous implications.

What some guys in the modern man seduction community teach is that “The more she tests you, the more dominant you need to be”. This is a double-edged sword that can turn against you in a longer interaction with her – or even in a short-term interaction.

If her tests are directed to detect your positive leadership qualities, your skill of withstanding long-term pressure, and her testing is directed to get power over your heart without any destructive implications for her… then you can go for it.

If you sense that “sweet and active withdrawing” when you pass her feminine tests for leadership, and her goal is power over your heart, then you have a receptive woman in your hands.

Two types of sexually frigid women: the masculine type and the passive type.

We might define the non-receptive woman as “sexually frigid”, and we might be right.

However, that is too simple a way of seeing it: there are no frigid women, only scared women or women who are out for power and have a reason for controlling their sexual desire.

Desire for power or fear is the main reason for a woman’s lack of female receptiveness towards a man.

So if you meet a woman who is not able to be receptive as a female, there can be two main reasons: she is controlling it because she has an agenda, or she is unable to express it because of fear.

Don´t think even for a second of becoming a “rescuer” to this woman; many men get into trouble for this reason!

You would need a lifetime to change her, and it would still not be enough.

In regard to an inability to express female receptiveness, there are mainly two types of women:

The ones who control female receptiveness by means of a battle for one-upmanship. These are much easier to recognize than the ones who control female receptiveness by shutting off it by means of total passivity.

The ones who hide the inability of being sexually receptive by means of extreme passivity.

You can recognize the females of the second group by the simple fact that they behave like a dance partner who needs to be “carried” during the dance like a stone.

The truly feminine woman who is receptive will test your leadership qualities and then dance with you by withdrawing just enough to be a container to your masculinity. Not more. Not less.

The second type of woman is even more dangerous as you can easily mix her up with a truly feminine woman.

The woman who hides her inability to be sexually receptive to a man by means of the “one-upmanship” confrontation is usually the woman I have described in other writings of mine as LSE HD (Low self-esteem high sexual drive), and the passive type is instead very often the one I have described as LSE LD (Low self-esteem low sexual drive)

Important to notice that the LSE HD can be very, very sexual but still be unable to be that feminine receptive container a truly masculine man needs to be happy.

With this type, you will surely get laid but… will lose the “political battle” for your role as a man in the relationship, because by getting you into her game of the “one-upmanship” she will manage to demonstrate that you effectively rape her, instead of truly getting her.

Cultural and non verbal signs

We live in a society with many subcultures all together in the same place. Officially, all of them are right as our society is pluralistic.

Many years ago I was superficial, and I believed that “fashion is only fashion”. Now I know better.

The way a person dresses is an extremely good predictor of what a person is.

If in her way of dressing and behaving there are “tough signs” telling of aggression, confrontation, and destructiveness, you can be dead sure that she will not be able to be receptive as a female.

If in her way of dressing and behaving there are signs of poor love for herself, lack of style, poor care of herself, or signs of “childish” attitudes, you can be dead sure that this woman is the non-feminine woman of the passive type, and not able to be receptive to you.

Why it is important to choose a woman who is able to be receptive to a man

You as a man can truly express your sexual desire when you have a woman involved on this mental level in the sex and the relationship.

If she resists that in one way or another, she will demonstrate afterwards that you are a man who rapes women and ultimately will castrate you psychologically by either getting you into a destructive, aggressive mindset or by having you slowly lose your sexual interest in her.

Focus on passing her tests, and focus on detecting if she is receptive as a female from the beginning of your dating!

You will never regret it!

Saturday, May 23, 2015

"Whom she will become depends on whom she meets"

"Yang protects Yin, Yin nurtures Yang"

"Women get unhealthy when they are not good at being receptive, because they are not utilizing their primary energetic trait, which is receptivity. Men become unhealthy when they do not utilize their gifts of contribution and creativity, which are their primary energetic traits." - Felice Dunas

Felice is taking about yang (masculine) and yin (feminine). There is more to it than that, but the definition written will do for now.

Years I heard a feminist say, somewhat bitterly, that women will always do what they're do. Their nature, ultimately, is passive and receptive - for good or bad. These days, women don't know this and even vehemently deny it.

The following article is from Julian O'Dea.

Dusk in Autumn asked:

“…if you’re a socially conservative guy who hates bars and nightclubs, would you rather date the Audrey Rouget character from Metropolitan or who she will tend to become at age 30?”

As I wrote here, it looks to me, from her cameo appearance in The Last Days of Disco, as if Audrey Rouget was still dating and dancing in her thirties. If she had married Tom, her life would have been very different, obviously, and so would she.

I am sure my wife is a vastly different woman than she would have been if she had married somebody else, or not married at all. I rather suspect men underestimate the profound effect they have on the life and ultimate character of women. Here is a post by Silas Reinagel which touches on this point, and mentions a post by the female blogger Alte, which is unfortunately no longer available, on women as “empty vessels”.

As Silas wrote:

“Not only do women generally absorb opinions, interests and mannerisms from their boyfriends/husbands, but their knowledgeability and competence regarding such hobbies, interests and stances are directly correlated with the knowledgeability and competence of their men. This lends even more support to the idea that men are naturally hard-wired to be dominant leaders and that women are hard-wired to follow, learn from, and support their men.”


Will S found the original post by Alte using the Wayback Machine, which includes many comments by her readers. There is an interesting discussion about WHY women tend to change to accomodate their “main man”.

It is terribly important who is a woman’s first. There is a deep truth to the recent, otherwise creepy, pro-Obama advertisement targeting young women, which is parodied here.

To return to the film Metropolitan, a lot of the dramatic point of the movie is whether Audrey’s “first time” will be with the evil Rick or maybe the more decent and enduring Tom. The thoughtful Charlie character actually frets that Audrey will be “ruined” by Rick, in the same way as he has “ruined” other girls.


I thought this comment from a woman was worth adding:

“This was the danger of giving women the vote … the voting bloc of single women … who lack the guidance of a man in the form of a husband or intellectual mentor.”

I don’t think Australian women have made too much of a hash of voting. But the hysterical reaction from our local feminists as our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, continues to perform poorly has made me reconsider.