Amateur Strategist

Fixed that for you...

2011-08-22T03:29:00.004-06:00

Sometimes comics can get it wrong and really just need a slight push in the right direction. The comic's name is SMBC and it is number 1609. Just made a few slight alterations to let the truth ring through.

Rex Patriarch's Mental Martial Arts (MGTOW)

2011-08-04T21:59:00.001-06:00

Hello, Everyone.

It’s been a while since I’ve written or even posted great pieces by someone else, so today I’m going to do some of the latter.

Today I read an interesting piece by Rex Patriarch entitled “Going Your Own Way as a Mental Martial Art” that I found very interesting. I commented on his site, but I don’t think my input is important enough to warrant being next to the essay I’ll be reposting, but it’s still on his site.

“Going Your Own Way as a Mental Martial Art

The idea of going your own way which is basically getting fed up with the double standard, self serving attitudes of women and the stacked deck against men in the legal system isn’t necessarily the all or nothing concept held by some and the problem isn't so much that the grapes are sour as it is the venom is sweet but in the end it's still freaking poison.

But a man does not have to go completely off the radar or totally ban women from his life to go his own way. No, I think going your own way is more of a process where there are levels or degrees in which a man goes to whatever level suits him more or less. Sort of like the way there are different colored belts in a martial art for those who progress to whatever level they are able.

The theory of the belts is not just that they got dyed in a series of colors from white to black but that the belts became dirtier as a man’s training and experience progressed. I thought this concept could be an appropriate comparison to the way a man’s knowledge about the true nature of women can become more jaded or dirtier as his experience with them progresses in life.

This knowledge about the true nature of women is so harmful to their agenda of the entire universe spinning around their vagina that they will stop at nothing to keep young men from coming into this knowledge. This is why women fight so fiercely using all manner of shaming and vitriolic hatred towards any man who exposes the truth about them. The idea that women would have to be truly self sufficient and independent without aid of men or government terrifies them. They absolutely cannot have the slaves leaving Plantation Matriarch otherwise it would be to their own peril.

Well that’s their problem not mine. I didn’t start this insane cultural war against men but make no mistake there is a war going on. It’s not by your choice or mine but the war was already declared a long time ago even before some of you were born so you better wake up to the reality if you want to survive it.

There are many different ways men are fighting this gender war. Some men are beating their heads against the wall trying to be good husbands and fathers only to lose everything in the end anyway, some men become players or pick up artist raiding the supply of enemy vagina while it’s fresh, some men flat out turn gay looking to other men for companionship and then there are those who go their own way being somewhere between the faithful husband and the jerk who knocks up the wife of the faithful husband. That is the area I like to live my life in. Somewhere in the area away from the beta providers, the gays and the jerks.

This area of going my own way can be described as a mental martial art complete with its own color coding depending on what level a man reaches. This of course is just a system I made up based on my own experience. You can use it to compare it with your own life, see where you are at and maybe add new levels to it if you like.

White Belt – This is the first level. You may be in a LTR and or shacking up but having looked around and seen the destruction you don’t give in to the pressure of getting down on one knee and putting an engagement ring on her finger. That is for beta providers who drank the Kool Aid and are ready to sign their life away. You know once you make that mistake the good times are over. The change that will take place will be immediate. She will go from loving companion to bridezilla to angry shrew to bat shit crazy falsely accusing you of anything her imagination can come up with. You will be a 911 call away from getting beaten and tazered to death from White Knights in blue uniforms. No way. You already have one foot out the door and you are keeping it there until it’s time to bolt.

Yellow Belt – Having been through the temper tantrums, listened to the question over and over “Where is this relationship going?” sat through the “We need to talk” moments you wise up and moved out. You haven’t completely kicked her ass to the curb but she is getting to be more of a pain in the ass than she is worth so you put her on ice to see what happens. You may be called yellow for refusing to commit but your gut instinct is to self preservation. This is a dangerous level because she is losing control and knows it. This is where they go for getting pregnant. Be very careful here or it’s 18 plus years of child support for you.

Orange Belt – You made it. You didn’t get suckered into one last drunken sex marathon so she could get knocked up or you may have insisted on a DNA test when she did but tests proved that it wasn't yours. Either way you dodged the bullet. You have finally lost interest in her control issues and completely cut off contact. Now vowed never to make the mistake of letting one of them move in with you again. The freedom is just too sweet to give up when you never know when the mask will come off and she will turn up the heat on you.

Green Belt – Not wanting to be in another LTR but you still spend time with other women thinking maybe there might be one out there that could be worth the effort. There still could be greener pastures. Having been burned before you don’t let them stay over at your place or give them the key to your door. You know better than that now. Anytime spent with chicks are done at their place or some other location but never at your place.

Blue Belt – You been with a few women since the end of your last LTR. You have seen the extreme so you can recognize the subtle. You are not so easily fooled and there is a pattern developing. It’s starting to sink in now that women are all pretty much the same. There is nothing special about any one of them except that each and every one of them thinks she is special. You may even be getting the blues about this knowledge wishing you didn’t have it but you can’t go back. There is no blue pill that you can take to make it all go away. What you know is what you know and there is no such thing as Not All Women Are Like That because they are.

Brown Belt – Having gotten over the blues that All Women Are Like That you discover there is way, way more to life than you ever noticed before. Attracting women to your life is no longer important to you. They can come or go you just don’t care anymore. Having all of your time and energy to yourself you can get back to earth and focus on what’s important to you and not on what some chick thinks is important to you.

Black Belt – It’s been ten or more years since the end of your last LTR. You have started a new business, career or some other venture that is succeeding because you don’t allow women anywhere near it. Women are dream killers and they are not allowed to touch yours. You may have even given up dealing with women in business or in your personal life to the greatest extent that you can. Life is bliss as long as your health holds out and you even notice that has gotten better. All the bullshit about how behind every successful man is a good woman is proving to be the total lie that it is. You realize that some men succeed despite a woman in their life but it is much easier to do without one trying to drag you down.

And there you have it, my version of going your own way as a martial art.

Anyone that calls you a loser for practicing the art of going your own way because you decided to do what is in your best interests for a change instead of a woman’s can take on all the wives and or girlfriends their heart desires. In fact if cycling through as many women as you can is your goal in life you should be happy with the choice I made in mine and encourage others to do the same as I did.

But the real reason other men have a problem with going your own way is the subject of another post.”

Fairly good, I’d say, I think we can all learn from such a root-of-the-issue interpretation.
Well done, Rex!

Dalrock in the Suburbs

2011-02-27T03:02:00.002-07:00

Recently Dalrock had a lot to say about a particular weekly somewhat published by match.com entitled "Single in the Suburbs". Despite that the weekly column reads as a fantasy that likely has the "eat pray love" effect on the happily-married-women-who-apparently-don't-know-they're-actually-unhappy-yet crowd.

In any case, Dalrock makes a much better case than I can reflect from him, so in without further adue, Dalrock's Response to "Single in the Suburbs.

I do gotta say that from what Dalrock has reflected on sounds like perhaps some of it was true, the down-and-out parts, but then when the novelist realized how downer the piece was, she decided to make the ending nigh-impossible (indeed, impossible to happent to any and all who follow her "advice").

Polyphasic Sleep

2010-12-08T09:24:00.004-07:00

Recently, I've encountered stories of "polyphasic sleep." Polyphasic sleep is, in general, the belief that one can get by with 2-4 hours of sleep per day by napping for 10-30 minutes every x hours. It's been hyped by belief that Leonardo Da Vinci slept in such a matter as well as Thomas Jefferson (at times) and Nikola Tesla (among others!). In addition to saving time, it was also said to allow one to be more creative (like Da Vinci!), learn faster and have more time abound claims of feeling more energetic.

Naturally, I was intrigued and even planned for my own trial into this. I've always had somewhat of a love-hate relationship with sleep. I'd be pretty angry if I slept too late because then that meant lost time (this being before I could just stay up later to make up for the fact that I wasn't tired), and also didn't like that I couldn't just go to sleep when needed and get my full night's sleep out of the way. Mostly, it's not so much time that I hunger for more time these days as optimizing my brain in some fashion. Being able to learn faster or better could really help me out, and I've taken many different measures (sporadically, and with not enough dedication to any one of them) to try to increase my mental efficiencies.

I really don't like the feeling of being tired. To me, it's one of the worst feelings in the world and I've turned off alarm clocks manyatime in the past without even remembering that I did so the next day, skipping any non-work/non-school obligations. I can be a different person "in the morning" when someone tries to wake me up, I'll be fairly rude or inconsiderate about not getting up. I remember getting some 3 day weekend off in high school, and believing I'd sleep through that extra day, I had my Mom wake me up early that day, or rather, I didn't tell her there was no school that day, so she'd wake me up like normal. I woke up in the afternoon, as usual, and asked my Mom why she didn't wake me up. Apparently she did, and without thinking about it (or I did, but it was the other me that speaks for me when I'm asleep) I yelled at her not to wake me up because there was no school that day. I didn't feel proud about how I treated my Mom for something like that.

That's the "hate" part of sleep, but I've also quite often felt a fondness for getting sleep. I've always felt better after a long session of sleep, but I can count the number of naps I've had on one hand, as long as those naps don't include the "naps" that turned into 8 hour sleeping sessions unintentionally. After watching some sleep documentary in High School that lavished that one's work and obligations would feel lighter after sleep, "Ironically, after spending more time in sleep, I felt like I had more time to devote to blah blah blah", so I've always been sure to get a lot of sleep and didn't view sleeping for 9 or 10 hours as a bad thing. It's at the 12 hour mark where I draw the line though.

If I slept for 12+ hours, I wouldn't be happy. I'd usually have a headache from it, not feel like doing anything (though sometimes I'd feel like going back to sleep!) and in general just didn't feel good. Telling me that I was playing "catch up" for all the 5-7 hour sleep binges in High School seemed like so much BS because that was years and years ago and I've gotten way more than enough to 150% compensate that by now. Don't tel me that.

So I was a bit reluctant to just jump into attempting polyphasic sleep. Not because I avoid things that could mess me up, I have a few of those things going on right now or on the back burner at least. I'd say it's a mixture of permanent screw up (don't know if I might get something like Epstein-Barr or narcolepsy from sleep deprivation, sleep's not my intellectual strong suit... yet) and the fact that for me, me personally, it'd be monumentally hard to do. First I'd need a wristwatch that tracked every 3 hours and then beeped, and then timed 10-20 minutes or whatever and was sufficient to wake me up.

Well, I could get the timer by either finding an app for my Droid phone or... make one with several weeks of learning how to make apps, but I still can't wake myself up with sound and light anymore. I've slept through hours of a REALLY loud alarm before, and it's starting to take physical confrontation to wake me up for really really important things with not-much-sleep now. Also, if this made me less efficient, I'd want to save the "acclimation period," the period where you are getting used to this sleep schedule where you're drowsy all the time and sluggish, for a vacation. A vacation like the one coming two weeks from now.

So, I've been waiting until then to even really think about starting this. Even though it'd help quite a few things if I can save time, it's the learning acceleration I'm after, and even with these claims, my faith in this working isn't so high.

Just yesterday, though, I read alllll of this article about polyphasic sleep. I'll be honest and say that I went into it thinking "yep, you say that, but I'll discover it for myself when I try it" and even questioned some parts of the scientific integrity of the author (no offense) when he/she wrote

Sometimes the blog just ends abruptly without a conclusion. Rarely does the "polynapper" admit defeat, or concludes on the infeasibility of polyphasic sleep. Few, disingenuously, claim the successful adaptation to the sleeping schedule and go on to blogging on other subjects.

I mean, how would he (I'm assuming it's a guy for now) know that the schedule is legitimately not working? One can't just say "nope, it's not working even if you say it is!". He does say quite a bit about the mechanics of sleep and why polyphasic sleep wouldn't work by our current understanding, but what if there is something to this we just don't know about yet?

However, even with that in my mind, it just doesn't seem worth it to pursue. For anyone else, their chances of getting acclimated are some percent (if there's a chance at all), but for me and my habits and my NEED TO SLEEP FOREVER it's effectively zero percent. As much as I like experimenting with such promethean potential changes to my life, I just think this will be a collossal waste of time, especially after I read some more the lines from the end of this publication about the failed experiment blogs. I've kept some experiment logs (but not blogs... YET) about the... >.> other things I do which could potentially ruin me, and they ringed a certain "I've heard this before" note with me in that I've written such disappointed lines before. I'd quote them, but they're conveniently at the end of the article in the "doubts" and "the end" sections mostly.

The author says that in 2005 (5 years ago), there was more rumor milling of polyphase sleep, but I haven't really heard of it until recently. I forgot where at first, but then adult swim ran some sort of bump about Da Vinci, imploring the viewer to do the same and, what else, use the extra time to watch their channel. I'm not sure if all the talk about polyphasic sleep has died down that much, it may be time for a revival.

Nonsexual applications of Game

2010-08-17T22:16:00.002-06:00

In advance, I apologize if you came here expecting to read up on the subject in the title, for I don't have any here.

I haven't posted in a while because I realized how little I know, and of course have the habit of studying others' writing. It's been helpful, as I learn a lot. The lack of writing of my own is more or less out of not being able to communicate what hasn't already been said that's also important.

Well, I would appreciate it if anyone could point me in the direction of how to apply game in non-sexual contexts, more or less to get the social dynamics advantage, especially in regards to where success may be someday gate-guarded from me by a female. I'd like to know how to apply "game" to at least have part of the upperhand and perhaps have less chance of my life being ruined by a zealous, bored woman.

Any links would be appreciated! I understand some of the basics of Game, I believe, but applying it to nonsexual purposes and in what amounts is what I'd like to read up on.

Thank you.

Reasons for Optimism.

2010-04-26T03:20:00.000-06:00

Hello! It's been a while, but I think I can get back into the swing of things, I've been mostly reading articles and comments and even commenting on things.

Recently, Dr. Lionel Tiger (wow, two large cats in one name, no offense) debated with a DC area blogger named Amanda Hess on CBC radio about the need for Male Studies (not Men's studies, a feminist facade that's just another Women's studies course that's all about trashing Men), of which Dr. Tiger is a frontrunner in starting the Male Studies disciplines at... I believe Wagner College. That's where the symposium was held anyway.

One can learn more at:

http://www.malestudies.org/program.htm

As for the debate with Ms. Hess, it went rather well, as Welmer described in The Spearhead.

You can listen for yourself how it went (I think it's a pop-up when you click the link). Some have described him as being too soft, but I think the mere fact that he could stand his ground and she wasn't willing to start ad hominem'ing him over the air relentlessly just shows how much class he has. All I could really nit-pick about this was how he seemed a bit nervous (you could feel the unneeded adrenaline expressed in his voice), but that passes with time. I also tend to agree with one of the commenters on The Spearhead, Freepress, about how he could've torn her down by revealing that she is NOT for equality or for any such help for Men (warning, uncensored curse words follow):

Freepress wrote:

Also he didn’t do any research on Amanda so he didn’t even realize his enemy was a 2-faced cowardly bitch who regularly writes snide, sarcastic columns attacking men. If he had any sense, he would have immediately exposed her 2-faced position.

If you hadn’t read her column, you’d think she sounded reasonable. But after reading her column and hearing her on the podcast, you quickly realize she’s nothing more than a 2-faced cunt being diplomatic for the sake of the airtime. I would have immediately started reading off her own quotes to her and embarrassed the fuck out of that moron. Instead of explain himself to her, he should have been demanding she explain her hypocritical views to him. That would be more telling of a reason why male studies is such a necessity today.

The solution to a problem doesn’t become apparent until the root problem is EXPOSED. He completely failed to do that and he had the perfect opportunity with a hypocritical cunt like Amanda.

I didn't censor the curse words because, even though it's far from my style, the whole thing seems emasculated by censoring like changing it to c* or such. And just removing the words removes context. Let me know what you think in the comments.

This was just a snippet from his quote, the rest is more or less accusations that the MRA leaders are being too soft and passive, but its great he thinks that way. If he gets into the public view as Lionel Tiger and others have worked hard to do so, he can share his side, perhaps making all the "passives" seem more reasonable by comparison (not to call Freepress unreasonable, just how it'll be received).

In any case, this Man, Dr. Lionel Tiger, wasn't shouted down by either the host of the talk show... radio show... whichever it was, and he stood mostly firm on his points. My position differs from his more or less, but if he wins, I wins, We wins.

Why wasn't Dr. Tiger ad hominem'd and shouted down? I like Tim's explanation in the comments of The Spearhead:

Tim wrote:

I wasn’t sure what to make of Lionel Tiger’s thorough drubbing of Amanda Hess, when he lashed out at her for distorting his message. If he had remained silent he still would have been considered intelligent and well-intentioned, and the message would have gone out that Male Studies is a worthy and noble endeavor, regardless.

Which brings me to this thought: is it time for men now to stop looking down at their shoes and automatically apologizing to women when we debate them? Is it time now to be assertive, and even aggressive when it comes time to contesting our position regarding feminism?

I submit that it is, gentlemen, as long as it is calibrated correctly. Now is the time to throw out weight around -in the realm of ideas. Obviously I do not mean physically. However, when it comes to ideas, it is more prescient than ever to put the foot down, and even to lay the occasional verbal smackdown, if needed. We need not do this to ordinary women, who are merely going about their daily lives. But to self-described feminists? Hell yes. I don’t know about you guys, but I am smelling blood. Feminists are aware they are sitting atop a mountain of privileges and special protections.

Amanda Hess could have lashed out at Lionel Tiger just as he did to her…but she didn’t.

She didn’t because she knows that the so-called oppression of women is no longer axiomatic, and men are on to their game.
It’s time to lean on feminists, and lean hard.

Apply pressure. Lean. Argue. Apply pressure again.

Repeat.

Continue again.

Onto minor observations in television, if I see more of this, I'll post them. In new articles.

First off, I don't think this is "the end of misandry" (I like to pronounce it mizzandry, just kinda rolls off the tongue and sounds like misery, which it causes) "and we should all dance in the streets because our days of work are over".

Nope, not even close. Some companies and commercials may be willing to tone it down a bit, but that's not NO SIGN of a near end to misandry. In fact, what will end misandry will be the Misandry Bubble popping. I suppose we can think of what we're seeing as the first rats out of the burning barn, eh?

First, how swiffer has portrayed mops and brooms in the past has been, unquestionably to resemble Men being kicked out of relationships by Women.

No idea how to embed videos just yet, so until I know, go ahead and open in a new tab or whatever's most convenient for you.

swiffer 1

swiffer 2

swiffer 3

Really kind of annoying so far, but nothing to get all bent out of shape about right? WRONG. In a way it's revealing of how even a TOOL, an object that works until it doesn't, can't be appreciated by Women, especially since they're personified. Now, it's a bit hard for me to equate this to being objectifying of Men, because these are objects. Objects personified. Personified Objects are not the same as Objectified Persons... get it? It still shows that if you replaced each cleaning utencil with a Man it could be its own show on "lifetime" or "oxygen".

These next ones are a bit more realistic of the worse of what Men can go through:

swiffer 4 pickup

Wow, how entitled said bartender is. I mean, sure the feather duster isn't asking HER out, necessarily, but still, to expect that much (and even with that little feminist catch-phrase, "have it all"), that's just absurd and very princess of her/Women... and yet it's true. They DO expect all that, and probably won't get it, and if Men snap out of their daze and refuse to marry (ala Marriage Strike) then they won't get ANYthing out of Men. Also, she doesn't exactly say that Women's expectations are a bad thing with her "you're just don't get it, do ya?" and how she said "WE" when leading off this list of demands.

swiffer 5 court

Wow, "Can you point to the defendant?"... Did he seriously just ask that? Go on, go watch again, make sure he said EXACTLY that sentence, I'll be right here when you get back...

Did you hear that? HOW does that make sense? The defendant in a court is ALWAYS the defendant, that doesn't mean said person did anything, just that said defendant is accused. In a real court case, it could work out that she was describing someone else (though this whole thing is bogus for reasons I'll go into in just a bit) and then when ASKED to point to the defendant, a completely separate person from who she could've been describing, she'll point to the defendant! There's no link! This is just retarded!

Second, what's "he" on trial for? If this is a mockery of... cheating (perhaps?) then it probably wouldn't end up in any serious court, just divorce court, which wouldn't matter anyway because of "no fault divorce". Or is not picking up every last crumb now a capital crime? You probably can't even SUE the makers of said broom for not doing that. And the tagline after that? "Put your broom away for life"... wow, if they are supposed to resemble Men (again, it's hard to make the case that they are objectifying a personified object, but I'll let you make the call on that), they really don't care about the lives of Men at all, life sentences are no laughing matter, especially in issues of False Rape Accusations. Putting someone away for life is a very serious matter and should only be done when a crime is both heinous and provable enough that the law CANNOT do any harm to an innocent. Blackstone said it would be better for ten guilty Men to go free than for the government to falsely punish one Innocent one, and I agree, Justice has to be more discreet and work overtime to get any "perps" and it should be 100% certain, not just a "she said/he said and was ignored" issue, nor a "please point at the defendant... GASP!!!" issue.

swiffer 6 counselor

Going to be honest, when I started writing this, I thought it would be more positive, but it's starting to look worse. I hate this one too (counselor one above), and the only one I could find that didn't demonize an object taking the place of a Man in our everyday society was this FANMADE video (still kind of annoying, but dang is it the only one with a Man dumping a presumptively "female" mop.

swiffer 7 fanmade

EDIT: Oh wait, I found another, but it looks like it is on the boundary between "airable on TV" and "Fanmade", especially the last 7 or so seconds which really makes it look fanmade, but the whole thing looks well done... I guess.

swiffer 8 fanmade?

This ninth one is the one I've been looking for for quite a while, but the above 8 were what I clicked on in the "related" list before I finally found this one, I thought I'd only have like... 3 of these older ones, but look at it now.

swiffer 9

This one seems a bit more positive to me, for one, "he's" not actively getting "dumped", but it's more or less an assumed event of the past. Plus, there's music!... and "he's" DANCING!! Still annoying, but the rediculousness of it all makes it more lighthearted than the others.

Well, anyway, after a few years of THAT they finally changed it up a little. The mop/broom/whatever still gets "dumped" and trashed, but hey, he finds SOMEONE ELSE, rather than doing life in prison, or constantly hanging around her place forlornly.

swiffer 10 who's that lady (yeah, ignore the misspelling of the video's actual title, I'm sure the uploader [not likely the swiffer company] misspelled it)

It's still annoying, and still involves dumping, but it's definitely a more positive note for the broom, wouldn't you say? Again, this isn't the end of misandry, in fact I found more than I bargained for just writing this, but it DOES show, that on a theoretical level, maybe someone is listening to a growing concern not to treat Men like tools (okay... the broom is still a "tool"...), or rather, perhaps in some ways misandry is at least getting toned down.

I realize these are meant to be "jokes", I can laugh at myself, but when it's a full scale Men = Homer Simpson from the information mediums all day and all night, it starts to "educate" people incorrectly. Constant bombardment goes only so far from being "satirical" to being presumably "documentary", because a joke is funny when it's half true, but when its the same joke everywhere, we get the impression that it's ALL true, even if it was a joke about 0.02% (read: a fiftieth of a percent, or 1/5000) of Men, eventually it'll be presumed that most or even ALL Men are like that and deserve that... great.

How was this optimistic? Well, the last swiffer commercial was far more stomachable than the previous 9, you make the decision on what this means, let me know! If I find "more" (more is in quotes because someone may argue effectively that this wasn't a good result at all, thus any further findings would be the REAL first and this would be a "fake" first) I'll post them!

The False Rape Society is also an occassionally basin of optimism when false rape accusers get sentenced and the accused innocense realized.

Amateur Strategist: Apparently 62% Woman written.

2010-03-20T19:37:00.000-06:00

http://genderanalyzer.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2FamateurStrategist.blogspot.com

I wonder what sort of criteria this "artificial intelligence" is going on. I think it might be like TV is currently where everything is feminized and when the topic of "when do we appeal to males?" comes up, they go over the top with every extreme stereotype under the sun and end up with something like "The Man Show" (not knocking it), when they just needed something to do with actual intelligence and not focused on relationships.

Since PMAFT started his blog a bit before I did, I kinda consider him to be more like what I'd like to write like, and that is more often, and with a lot of content. So I tested his too...

http://genderanalyzer.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.antifeministtech.info%2F
PMAFT is 51% woman written...

Alright, fair enough to base my word choice to be womaning, but you can't expect anyone to mistake PMAFT for a Woman, even in word choice. Let's test this thing with something it CAN'T get wrong.

Roissy:

http://genderanalyzer.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Froissy.wordpress.com
67% female...

Epic Fail, gentlemen, unless Women tend to write about banging Women on a balcony, while sitting in a chair, and various other things.

More on this later.

http://genderanalyzer.com/

"Mala Fide" is Latin for "Vajazzle"

2010-03-06T18:20:00.000-07:00

That's correct, one would think that "Mala Fide" as in In Mala Fide would be Latin for "In Bad Faith," but it's actually Latin for "Vajazzle."

Vajazzling can be stated as a case of "Bad Faith", but the two shouldn't be misconstrued, because "Mala Fide" is INDEED of meaning in "Vajazzle".

Vajazzle, Vajazzling, Vajazzled, anyway you put it, Mala Fide means.

A Case Against Gene Preservation: Forum Post

2010-02-03T17:12:00.000-07:00

By "forum post" I mean that this is really more or less something I'd appreciate read, and then posting why you think it is wrong, right or in between.

Where to begin... I've been thinking of this topic since Christmas or a little before, and have hit brick walls occasionally with where the logic ends or where it goes from there and IF we really want things to turn out that way. Welmer's recent post on The Spearhead inspired me to write this piece and get it discussed. I know there are great writers in the MRM/MGTOW, but I can't write something of this magnitude alone, it needs to be discussed and dissected from every perspective of the old, the young, the in between, the pro-natal, and the lifelong bachelors. So after reading my case, feel free to say what's on your mind. If I could get this posted on The Spearhead, that'd be great, but writings on The Spearhead a bit more thought out than this one, if a talented writer would like to take this after its processed and run with it, feel free. I don't "own" ideas or writing, at least I don't think I do.

This post is mostly intended for a male audience, because... well parts of it are only experienced by mostly Men, and Women trying to vicariously write may not understand the entire picture of what Men go through, especially since Men and Women have completely different expectations, desires toward and outlooks on rearing offspring. Feel free to post if you're Woman, but understand if you're disagreed with or supported but for reasons you didn't expect.

Anyway, my topic today is about gene preservation; bringing future generations into the world.

Now, personally, I think it is GREAT to have your own offspring, it's up to the individual if he/she wants kids, but I've always kinda imagined what it would be like, and not imagining nightmares.

"But AmStrat, this is the case AGAINST gene preservation!"

Correct, and I don't want to drive yet another difference between Men in the MRM/MGTOW/FRM (F stands for Fathers), but this needs to be dealt with, at least in a philosophical sense.

We are all familiar with the Catalog of Shaming Language, if not, click and you will be. What I see on forums occasionally is yet another series of words that seems to only really serve a purpose in argument only in shutting down opposition... that's shaming language to me. It usually goes along the lines of "The future belongs to those who create children, so your philosophies and achievements will die with you." or something to that effect.

First off, there are plenty of Men who used to strive for the "white picket fence" fantasy of a wife, children, job and being a pillar of the community (to borrow a phrase from The Fifth Horseman), but the vitriolic Man-hatred, changes in law and general trend of any Man getting married and having kids going through hell in family court, losing all or most of what they own, and never seeing their kids again have proven to these Men that perhaps it's better not trying, the statistics and risk weighting certainly say so. What good is passing on genes if 1. you'll never see them, 2. they'll grow up in a misandric household or have THEIR ideals of marriage broken just by watching what just happened and 3. they may never pass on THEIR genes, which is actually one of the main points of you passing on yours.

I want to say that to call those who don't pass on their genes "genetic losers" or "losers" is kinda irrelevant. What did they (perhaps we) lose? I don't want to sound Keynesian, but in the as n approaches infinity, the likelihood of your genes passing on (since it is not ensured) approaches zero. Calling someone a "loser" just because "their" genes won't directly show up in the next generation is like judging someone solely based on how fast they can eat, it doesn't actually matter and here's why.

I was inspired to write this topic in the first place by Biblical Manhood (I think that's the post that did it, not sure.) because he makes a point whether you're atheist or Christian; Your genes are very very VERY similar to your neighbor. Heck, biology textbooks place the genetic difference between any two people on Earth as .1%. This means that you are, at worst, 99.9% the same genetics as anyone else, and even more if that person is the same race as you, or comes from the same ancestral country. Passing on general things like your skin color, your polydactly, or your interest in engineering WON'T be in short supply from others, so why does it have to be you? (Note: It didn't mention if the people could be of different genders, seeing as how different the Y and X chromosome are, even if Men have one)

But I'm getting ahead of myself, I want to emphasize that quite a few in the MGTOW and Marriage Strike wouldn't feel this way if the laws and attitudes were different, we have nothing against kids, but to throw oneself into a meat grinder in hopes of offspring emerging is a fool's game.

"Finding a good church" and settling down with "the right Woman" isn't absolute. Women change, and though some look at them as horrific past mistakes there were regulations to keep her from breaking the marriage contract selfishly in the past. As long as there are divorce courts and the no fault divorce laws (and many others) on the books, it doesn't matter how devout you are, or how traditional you thought your wife was when you married her, you're a potential target. Change the system, then we'll see.

I want to make a point that genetic legacy SHOULDN'T be that important to a man, it's okay to want, but disadvantageous to need. If you absolutely HAVE to "get your genes passed on" you can be screwed any which way to make the deal happen. But if you only WANT offspring, you can take or leave any trashy deal, and that's precisely what many Men are doing. To me, genetic legacy is really maintenance. Some say that passing on genes is one's truest or only purpose... why is that? You live to pass on life to others? Who's purpose will be to pass genes on to more? When does something get done that isn't just about continuation? That's why I believe that gene preservation is a maintenance function, and not the "purpose of why we're here", it's something that, for a species to continue, needs to be done, but not by every individual. The ones who don't pass on a genetic legacy will pursue other callings. If we all just bred and bred and bred, what else would get done? Precisely. If a truck is traveling from Washington to Canada but needs to refuel every so often, is it's "grand purpose" to refuel, to use that fuel, and refuel again? No, it's to deliver whatever needs to be delivered, but refueling is an essential function to this. THUS, I conclude (at your discretion) that populating is an important function, but not "the grand scheme", and that those who opt not to for whatever reason are not necessarily "losers" of any sort. Feel free to call them "genetic losers", but that is a shortcoming in one field, by the same logic you are a "chemical engineering loser", a "furniture designing loser", a "satellite trajections specialization loser" and various other kinds of loser, anything you don't "do". Loser then loses any sharp point edge it had and you might as well have not even brought it up.

Still not convinced? I'm not surprised, everyone has a different idea on "how things should be" or how things are ranked. Let me tell you why I am against gene preservation as an individual NEED. It places all the power in the hands of Women. Are you saying that Women inherently know which genes are superior? To what purpose? Is every Woman getting impregnated by biker thug making the best choice? Okay, maybe (for evolutionists) in evolutionary psychology she is because (well, the short of it) is that in pre-civilization times, he would best defend her and her children, at least in theory. But are said genes the best genes for NOW? Is living a lifestyle that drains the rest of civilization good for present day? Probably not.

Now for my first brickwall: Some SMBCs (single mothers by choice, NOT Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal) and SMBC advocates (surprise surprise, usually other Women) argue that single Men should be up for marrying SMBCs even with no chance of creating a legacy of his own due to whatever limitations. They argue that such a proposition is a "ready made family". I've just argued that genetic preservation shouldn't matter to a Man, but if a Man WANTS this but doesn't NEED it, he should be able to walk away. I don't want my argument to bolster SMBCs because Women just don't get the difference between Men and Women in this regard, they get the long end of the stick. Yes, they get pregnant, then have to give birth, but to know 100% for sure that the offspring that emerges is YOURS makes it worth it and then some... with interest! Men don't have this guarantee, even if/when paternity tests become mandatory and the Man leaves the cheating and cuckolding harridan, it just means a failed trial, a broken heart, and a betrayed sense of self. This is why I don't think Women can really understand the viewpoint of the Man in this context. Gen tics don't matter to Women because they CAN'T matter to Women! You're asking the Ocean what it's like to be dry, it'll never know! Women will never understand the pains of cuckoldry.

This post is subject to edit when I think of what else I thought while thinking of this post, BUT feel free to begin posting!

Thank you.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T17:40:00.000-07:00

I'd say it was more decent than I expected, though I definetly see a lot less lights up this year, it would figure that people have a lot less to cheer about this year. Well, without the bad times, we wouldn't recognize/appreciate the good times.

I believe that even if you are in the trenches fighting the good fight, or simply in this when you have the time for it, you should maintain a disposition to enjoy yourself when you can, let the stress and distress leave you for a day, it'll feel so much better in the future.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

-AmStrat

A Downright Decent Post by Zed.

2009-12-09T21:57:00.001-07:00

That's right, Zed, I'm capitalizing your name, even if you don't.

For a bit of background, Zed is one of the most-first writers on MRAesque musings I've ever read. Having a site on geocities for a while, which I can no longer find, I believe he went into semi-retirement from posting for a while. Well, he writes magnificent posts on The Spearhead now.

To put it in context, this is in the comments section of a piece title "Think Twice, Young Man," about how young Men should be warned about the dangers of marriage (divorce, etc.) like they are warned about the most obvious and painful possibilities of all things (perhaps being killed if you enlist in the Military for example). A troll showed up and attempted to strike a few nerves, large amounts of posts were used to refute her arguments and insult. THEN a poster comes in playing the triangulation card, after admitting to skipping the first 40 or so posts, at which Zed comes in and explains something everyone should hear. Clicking the link I just made out of the word "Triangulation" will explain what it is and why it's illogical, thank you PMAFT.

zed December 9, 2009 at 11:18 am
You know, I stopped reading the comments at about entry 40, because I just couldn’t process the anger, bitterness, and self-righteousness.

Then you missed most of the point.

We’ve been living through a remarkable social transition, which has left a debris field of broken families and damaged institutions miles wide in its wake. “Marriage” as a social institution has probably been damaged beyond repair and in 20 more years there will probably be little left which people who came of age before the 1990s would recognize.

I think the “provider” role for men is another casualty. The last vestiges of it are being desperately pursued by the family court system, but no police state which is not also a theocracy has ever been able to maintain the degree of social control which would be necessary to keep men trapped in that old provider role while at the same time allowing women to do whatever they want.

The most likely scenario for the immediate future will probably be usage and counter-usage as both sexes continue to try to get what they want out of the other while at the same time giving the minimum possible in return. It’s something of a relationship “arms race” which neither side can really win. Strategies for “Smart Hookups” will probably see-saw back and forth with each sex having a few months advantage from an innovation until the other sex comes up with a counter-measure.

Through it all I think you can expect to see relations between the sexes continue to degrade as both sides react to being used by members of the other with loss of trust and willingness to give another the chance to use them again. There will be a lot of “collateral damage” as members of both sexes who are not taking part in the cycle of usage and manipulation nonetheless find their pool of potential mates more and more polluted by the exploitation by other members of their own sex.

Regardless of what anyone reading this thread does, people are going to end up drawing their own conclusions from their own life experiences. Those who see working and relatively happy marriages around them will likely continue to believe in marriage and try it themselves. Those who see little besides carnage are unlikely to be convinced that they have much chance of their experience being different.

Through it all, you are going to hear more and more from men like the ones you refused to read here. The entire gender dialogue has been very one-sided for the past few decades as women’s subjective experiences suddenly got elevated to the most significant thing in the world, and men’s subjective experiences were denied, refuted, or simply dismissed as being due to “bitterness and anger.”

I realize that it is quite threatening to most women that their hegemony over the gender dialogue is about to end, but part of the reason for that is because they have worn out all their tools which have worked so well to silence men for so many years. As you have seen here, a large and growing number of men no longer care in the least what women think of them, and see women like Lady Raine and Amanda Knox as the prototypes for contemporary womanhood.

Survival amongst enemies requires a certain set of skills and attitudes which men are adopting. The choice of whether to adopt them or not is based on the individual man’s belief about which will insulate him best from loss. If he regards women as probable net losses, he will regard them as something he needs to protect himself from. If he regards a realtionship with a woman as a probable net gain form himself, he will likely take the risk while doing whatever he can to minimize that risk.

Where the eventual balance point will be reached as far as percentage of men who view women as a net loss versus net gain is anyone’s guess.

But, whatever that percentage is, unless the ratio is similar among women, and for every man who is just totally burned out on women there is a Lady Raine to offset him in the population, it is likely that a substantial number of people who might like to have mates will not end up finding one.

I boldened part because I can't take anyone seriously who skips anything that still has a grain of reasoning in it. feminist hate-speech, sure, because it tells you nothing and doesn't provide evidence. When these things known as "feminists" DO post something attempting to reason, it's usually easy enough to spot out of the fat and gristle of curses and shaming language anyway.

Zed often has a few grizzly predictions of the future, but this one speaks to me. It reminds us that no matter how powerful we are or become, we can't avoid this fate entirely. To put it in imagery; We are climbing a steep incline, and Zed has shown us where the boulders will fall. We cannot stop these boulders, they are already set in motion, it is too late we are "water balloons and they are tons of rock, but we can dodge them as best we can, or MGTOW and find another Mountain entirely. The point is, people are right now, at this very minute, living their lives in the squalor prequelling this, and their attitude will be nigh unchangeable after being wronged as such.

Equality Redux, by Novaseeker

2009-12-05T17:29:00.000-07:00

Novaseeker may not be one of my original inspirations, but he's definetly an asset to hang on to once discovered. His realism and sensibility are hard to match, and the fact that he can put MRA in a religious perspective is a plus (Most of what I see is from Atheists or those who just avoid a religious context, that is, how to fight for Men's rights when you come from a white-knighting, collaborationist church). One of his few weaknesses is that he can be too pessimistic of the future. This piece itself speaks to me, there's no new content for myself, but it connects dots and puts things into words I had trouble with. Without further intro, I present Novaseeker's "Equality Redux"

This is a post I made on my blog several months ago, which I am resurrecting because it may be of interest to readers here.

Equality.

We often hear from feminists and their supporters that this is the goal of the feminist movement: true, full equality between males and females, and full freedom for all, in all walks of life. While I do not doubt that some of the Marxist radicals of the 60s and 70s honestly believed that feminism was aimed at bringing about equality for all, clearly feminism-in-fact — that is feminism as it has developed over the past few decades — has neither brought about, nor been terribly focused on, equality.

Oh? How can you say that? Haven’t women made great “gains” over the past few decades? Surely this brings about more equality?

It’s true that women have made gains in educational access and the workforce. But even these gains are quite revealing, in terms of new inequalities that feminism has instituted:

Women outnumbering men in college admissions and graduations, based on girls outperforming boys in elementary and secondary schools
Women having parity or majorities in all academic disciplines other than the STEM subjects, a disparity which is now the focus of measures to adjust it, while areas of female advantage and, in fact, domination, are ignored
Women virtually always obtaining custody of children in divorces, even in cases where their husbands have been the primary care-giver
Numerous fields being completely female-dominated (nursing, psychology, social work, primary and secondary education, numerous academic disciplines), with feminism not expressing any interest in adjusting such inequalities
And that leaves aside the substantial inequalities around reproduction that effectively give women totalitarian power over the means of reproduction, sidelining men as having only the decision as to whether to contribute sperm — so far, yet that right may itself be eradicated at some future point, in the interests of women and society, under some predictions.

What happened here? Why did feminism not succeed in its utopian goal of achieving “equality” between men and women?

The issue was that academic and radical activist feminism had to, at some point, come to terms with the concerns of women as a whole — and women as a whole had largely different interests from the academic and radical activist feminists. While the radicals and the academics sometimes talked about getting rid of female privilege (saying things such as “a pedestal is a small space”), this was never taken seriously by women as a whole, because the wider world of women had no interest whatsoever in shedding female privileges. Why would they? As Chinweizu points out in “Anatomy of Female Power”, these privileges and ideas were the ones that helped women control men behind the mask of patriarchal power and privilege. So, in fact, women as a group took a “cafeteria” approach to what feminism offered — taking what they wanted, and resisting what they did not want.

In effect, this meant that women accepted the gains women made in the areas of educational access, workforce presence and earning capacity, sexual freedom, reproductive power and so on — while resisting, tooth and nail, the abolition of any of the traditional female privileges (courtship and dating privilege, sexual power, military draft exemption, day to day deference, general conceptions of women being more moral, upstanding, empathetic, kind and so on, privileges around children). So, in effect, what happened was that the feminist leaders learned that women, as a whole, were interested in advances for women (as were the feminist radicals), but were not interested at all in giving up their traditional privileges. And so, in order to remain politically relevant for women, feminism largely confined itself, beginning in the 80s, to advancing the interests of women, rather than even attempting to achieve actual equality between men and women.

Because of that, we see the women’s groups thoroughly disinterested in the advantages women have over men outlined above. Where women are ahead, feminism defends the status quo, while where women are behind, feminism demands changes to ensure parity or better for women. The end result is that women will have parity in some fields, and domination in others … while men will have at best parity, and in many areas relegation to minority status. This is not only the case on the university level. It’s also happening in the workforce and the society in general. Women choose the fields they wish to focus on, and then they tend to dominate them. Men are increasingly relegated to the kinds of work women do not want to do — work that is either physically demanding, dirty and dangerous, or involves less life flexibility or longer working hours. And as between what was, prior to second wave feminism, the male sphere and the female sphere — women have consolidated their stranglehold over the female sphere while aggressively colonizing the male sphere … again leaving men with no space of their own, while reserving for women a huge space where their power is absolute.

In effect, one can say that when feminists speak of “equality” what they mean is equality in what was previously the male space. The female space was, by contrast, shored up by laws supported by feminism — laws covering the areas of marriage, divorce, child custody, child support, sexual harassment, and even domestic violence and rape, have all been altered in ways that decisively shift the power balance in any area relating to relationships, sex, marriage and children to women in a very substantial way. Equality was not the goal for the female space, but only for the male one. The female space, and female hegemony over it, was reinforced and substantially buttressed by feminist legislation, whereas the previously male space has been aggressively colonized, and it remains a key goal of feminists today to take over the highest echelons of power in the previously male space — again leaving men with nothing, no place where their power even comes close to the kind of total power women have over the female space.

Women may object, saying that they would be happy to cede a good amount of control over the female space to men in the name of equality, but this rings false. Even leaving aside the more controversial areas of rape and domestic violence law, family law indicates that this is simply not the case. There have been numerous cases noted by observers where a breadwinner mother and a stay at home father have divorced, yet the mother still insisted on mother custody, and succeeded in obtaining it in court. Even in cases where men are actually providing the main child care effort, courts, backed by feminist-inspired laws, award custody to mothers — ensuring that the power of women over children and divorce is absolute in nature.

This is hardly equality.

In fact, it’s female supremacy over all places where men and women interact relationally, combined with female colonization of the previously male space. It isn’t equality in any reasonable construction of the word, but an absolute power gain for women, at the expense of men, who are to be left with no space of their own, and a relegation to second class status in the female space as well.

In closing, I’ll note that it’s quite telling how this overall trend manifests itself in contemporary culture. Some of my readers may recall that feminists spent a lot of time and energy in the 80s and 90s eliminating male-only spaces, claiming the exclusion of women was discriminatory. Well, things in our species have a way of coming full circle. The recent trend of women’s only hotel floors — the creation of the type of sex-specific spaces that feminists so recently dismantled, when men were the “permitted” sex — almost perfectly demonstrates how feminism, and women more generally, are totally uninterested (in fairness, at least one feminist objected to these arrangements, but most women do not) in equality or exclusions, when men are the ones who are excluded or disadvantaged. Rather to the contrary, the movement today is simply about empowering women full stop, and if men suffer as a result of that, men be damned.

Posted at The Spearhead

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/05/equality-redux/

Happy Thanksgiving!

2009-11-26T06:28:00.000-07:00

To everyone who celebrates it, and even those who don't (in which case, I hope you at least have an above average day).

To tell the truth, I've never really like the blog-reading aspect of holidays. Why? Because like this post, most posters are out doing their thing, which is fine, but it is really boring when everyone does it on the same day. No new news, no new discussions, more or less all the new posts merely wish "Happy/Merry ".

I suppose I am selfish, I love reading everyone else's pieces... at least those that are in the least bit coherent (this cuts out almost all pro-feminism posts), but I don't in particularly enjoy writing down things.

Part of it is because if most of what I want to write is what I just read, because it's brilliant, or it makes sense, or maybe it can help someone in some way.

The other part is because I'm driven mad by repetition. How is this repetiton? Well, I already KNOW what I'm going to write, so when I'm writing it, and necessarily RE-writing it, that's a lot of repetition. Even twice is quite a bit for me. If I hear a story or funny joke, I can repeat it once, but if someone's walking into the room just as it ends, I'm NOT the one telling them that same story or joke. Just my personality I guess, that doesn't mean it is insurmountable though.

I'm finding this to be good writing exercise though, not to say I'm a bad writer, but I'm needing less and less revision as I continue, which can only be good. From here on, I think I'll aim at posting every Saturday.

Which reminds me, the reason I started this blog, even though I've been reading MRA/MGTOW blogs for a long time now, is because of a blog named "What Men are saying about Women"
The author was at the time concerned with little exposure or growth in similar blogs. He understood he had many readers, but none of them would then spread the message. He ran a rally for some of his readers to start blogs of their own, and only one or two answered. I can't find this post, because Christian J. is the opposite of me. I do a post every 30 days, he does 30 posts a day (or did for a while, anyway, and I'm going to boost my number). In case you are wondering, or your name is Christian J. I started one because of that post, but didn't reply. I don't know why I didn't.

The hierarchy of MRA "action" for me goes like this.

Doing absolutely nothing -> Only reading the ideas -> Reposting the ideas (AKA, whining to those who actually act) -> organizing actions -> carrying out said actions.

I've seen some transcendence in the past year. I believe Counter-feminist went from just being an influential blogger to actually organizing to save his fellow man, ala Kevin Driscoll

I've also seen some bloggers go "ghost". I don't know if they still read or if they are just doing "nothing" related. Some still post on other blogs, but a lot less than when they ran their own blogs. I look forward to when I begin working into actual actions, words can be powerful and encourage action, but I can't really feel I've been the change I seek in this world (citing Ghandi on that one) unless I actually do something. When will that be? Good question. All actions need strategies, and all strategies deserve plans. I'm planning now so I'm not actually HARMING my own cause.

Well, as said earlier, Happy Thanksgiving, I understand there will be others who will rather read in their off time than be missing all day. Don't get me wrong, I have plans, but not for every minute tomorrow (today).

On the Importance of Firebrands

2009-09-30T21:41:00.000-06:00

I believe I actually wrote this several weeks ago in Markymark's Thoughts, in response to some of Christopher in Oregon's comments, alongside some comments that he may be scaring away valuable allies from our side. Well, any good strategist can see the benefits of all his members/contributors/allies, and I think that we should at least acknowledge the good. I would've posted this earlier, but certain circumstances prevented it from happening.

--------

I think it's time I commented on Chris.

"The mere presence of heroes can break the chains of destiny" -forgot who said it.

I don't disagree with Chris, I also have my differences in opinion with him, however, if he is who I have observed him to be, he won't care either way.

As you will note, Chris writes and comments a bit more "polarized", some would call it radical, but his accessions appear to come from his own heart/mind, if they WERE based on pure anger, there would be few crannies where his alleged anger's persuasion wouldn't influence. As such, I have seen a couple to a few areas in which he is unparticipated to the extremity of "hatred of women" or any other controlling viewpoint.

However, don't let that fool you, he is a firebrand, some of his words can burn. Some of the more "moderate" in our ranks would see him as overdoing it.

Any movement needs its firebrands though, and I believe Chris to be one of the stronger. One of his qualities is the fact that he hasn't "burned himself out", thus he is not consumed with all-controlling hatred. The reason (I view) that feminists can go on for years hating men is because they have constant repetition from others, and even hypnotic effects from "classrooms" to change who they even are. That and I suppose most Women are predisposed to holding onto every grudge, whereas Men tend to let go easier.

What if Chris isn't in "the movement", you say? We are all in the movement, even those not reading this, never been to MarkyMark's Blog, or even heard of anti-feminism. Your futures intersect into the sphere of the ongoing and upcoming battles ahead, even the MGTOWs and Ghosts who've taken the greatest of care removing themselves from the system. They've done their part, and continue to do A part in this world against feminism whether they see, notice, or want to or not. If you don't have a plan, assuredly you will be in someone else's plan.

Chris' part is fairly natural to him, he educates and influences. The more moderate who would never dream of saying such things subtly get a bit more shifted across our side of the line. It's very subtle because even if they are opposed to such descriptions, they now are more familiar with them, they are no longer alien, and maybe, just maybe, they are a little more acceptable.

Another aspect would be that a lot of people, even on our side, don't like being on the "extreme". Even if your view is currently "moderate", imagine if you lived in an alternate world where most things are the same, but the most extreme our side would get is what qualifies for "moderate" here. They would feel that "maybe I could be wrong, I AM being as far from the opposite side as possible, maybe I should give in MORE", not so much for their opponent, but for themselves, uncompromising behavior broods feelings of self-viewing tyranny in some. They would never feel on the side of Justice. Some who don't like being on the edge, to be the most extreme of a group, no matter what they personally believe, can point the ACTUAL extreme to others and feel relieved. Relieved to themselves that being on the "inside" makes them more benign, more understanding, and yet they keep their position. Our side doesn't backtrack a step.

I have considered the possibility of firebrands scaring away newer recruits, and I have a lot to say on that, perhaps in the future.

I can sing many people's praises, and that would not mean I admire them most, nor should any care for my admiration, I am a mere Amateur and a contest of internet popularity only ends poorly, I will say one more thing of Chris, however.

He is like a Master Monk, a Martial Artist. They have very powerful blows that they pull right out of any stance. Yes, many new Martial Artists who come with strength already can put up nearly that kind of power, but they haven't learned how to without exhausting themselves. The Master understands the need to simultaneously relax and yet be alert, even in the middle of a fight. It is unwise to completely tense up and stay that way until the end, you lose all your energy and you did nothing with it. I see Chris' ability to constantly vigil, and effortlessly respond, yet keep his own distance as a clear indicator of a fortified individual and personality.

I think we all have a part in this, even on the local level, but sometimes; even the little things can spread to affect the global atmosphere.

As I said, I don't agree with Christopher from Oregon on everything, and we even differ on KEY ISSUES, in some spheres, he may even be my opponent. But that is what makes us individuals, our differences, and to roll with the energy from your allies (even if they are only allies in just a few spheres) is a Grand Strategy for Success.

---------

I believe that even if we were all opposed to Chris (and I'm not), he wouldn't go away, nor stop what he's doing. Chris isn't the only one either, we have some real power in some of our more extreme members who are defending our positions and changing minds in ways and places we haven't seen. I'd like to personally thank all who bring our side together, and vanguish our foes. Whether we like it or not, they're there, and they do what they do, if you knew you were on the right side, you wouldn't change your position just because of a fellow member's more aggressive stance, would you?

Last day of August

2009-08-31T22:43:00.000-06:00

August has come and gone, and with it some of my more time-restricting activities, I'll have more time to write now, but most of it will be spent reading, absorbing, and planning.

So much has happened I didn't get to comment on, nor does it feel all the proper to when so much has been explored already. It'd be "beating a dead horse".

So be on the lookout for my September posts on new things, and the most basic things we can't ignore!

-Amateur Strategist.

Feminism Vs. Men's Rights

2009-07-17T16:05:00.000-06:00

It was my pleasure to catch this at Counter-Feminist a few days ago (I think), Anyway, it just goes to show how experienced our veteran thinkers are. The Logic is so simple, yet indesputable, I hope to come up with thesis(es) half as good as this in the future.

I believe it's important for all of us to realize first and foremost our purpose, and our reason for being. Afterall, to use an analogy, the best way to bring down a tree is not to cut the branches from the top down, but to strike it's core, it's trunk. I think our core-reasoning is that trunk, and the more we realize how necessary our actions are, the more powerful and strengthened the rest of our efforts will become.

Whether MRA, FRA, or MGTOW, or even PUA we can all see that our rights are important to us, and we'll need to act, to argue, to vote, to FIGHT to keep our rights.

EDIT: This video is originally made by Factory, of "Hunting for Archtypes" fame, which was then watched (repeatedly) by Counter-Feminist and then transposed into text on Counter-Feminist's Blog. I'm just spreading the word, as the basics are always the most important.

Learn something everyday

2009-07-07T17:54:00.001-06:00

Hello, friends, today I was reading Markymark's comments (that is, comments from others in MM's posts), when a post by Novaseeker struck me.

Novaseeker said...
Groups like the Amish and the Hasidim work precisely because they are small, isolated groups who do not seek to change the broader culture (because they can't), but rather simply isolate themselves from it to the greatest degree possible.

I'm not saying that doesn't work for the people who are in those groups, but it needs to be remembered that (1) these groups have very old traditions (which is much of what gives them their power within their groups), and are not trying to break new ground in the current setting and (2) while this may work for a limited number of men/women, it will not change the culture as a whole at all.

So, to be honest, while that may be a solution for some men and women, it is simply that -- a personal solution. It is, in effect, a way of devising a coping mechanism for avoiding the current system, rather than trying to find a way to fix the system -- precisely because it seeks to live in isolation from the system. In that respect, it is like any of the other strategies that men are adopting to adapt to the current system, which these guys all basically dislike for varying reasons: (1) PUAs who work the system for personal gain, (2) ghosts who avoid the system and go their own way, (3) MGTOWs who may have relations with women but try to do so in a way that is independent of the system and (4) your own proposed isolated community idea, which also seeks to live outside of the system.

All of these are legitimate responses, but none of them is an adequate criticism of MRA/FRA. MRA/FRA is actually trying to engage and change the system, whereas the rest of these are coping strategies for dealing with a system which is admittedly bad for men (and women).
07 July, 2009 10:35

It reminds me precisely about one's main goal; is it to actually CHANGE the way things are? Or do you believe such doing is folly and suicidal, and you want to avoid the fallout? More comment on my personal view on this later.

Brilliant post by Black Sea

2009-07-03T06:09:00.000-06:00

As a quick intro, I was reading at Whiskey place (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3893665144141962944&postID=4615454965905533997) and a dispute began about JUST HOW MANY Sex partners does the average young Woman have these days? Well, Black Sea breaks it down and gives some good points: (Mostly I want to reference this later, and hate losing posts to obscurity)

Black Sea said...
I'm not nearly as statistically inclined as many of the commenters here, so my observations will have to be more hypothetical or anecdotally driven, but this topic does interest me.

From what I can gather, for middle class, suburban reared, university educated women with some career orientation and -- more importantly -- the income to support a single's lifestyle, "normal" expectations would involve becoming sexually active in high school, having an active sexual/romantic life through most of ones 20s, then getting serious about settling down around the age of 28. Bear in mind, that doesn't mean getting married at 28, but rather, making the psychological transition toward getting married, so that one might actual snag a suitable fiance before the dreaded three-oh. And this is for the more realistic ones, who realize that their market value will diminish rapidly in their 30s.

Let's assume that such a woman first has sex at age 15, that she remains monogamous in every long-term relationship that she considers serious, and that in her own mind, she's leading the normal life of an educated young woman in your typical metropolitan area.

Let's further imagine that she is not particularly promiscuous, and between the ages of 15 and 28 she has four "serious", long-term relationships, which average a duration of 1.5 years each. Thus, within those serious relationship phases, she has four sex partners, over a total of six years. The end of each of these relationships constitutes something of a psychological trauma for her, since she was seriously bonded to each of these boys or men, even if she is ultimately the one who initiated the break up.

Let's then consider her seven "off-years" during which she may be dating guys for a couple of months here, a couple of weeks there, and a few one night stands in between. At other times, and for considerable periods, she is more or less celibate. Let's say that during the off years, she averages only three sex partners per year. Hardly "sluttish" by today's standards. Indeed, almost virginal as compared to "Sex and the City."

Neverthless, such a woman will, by the age of 28, have accumulated a total of 25 sex partners, and will have undergone at least four difficult, emotionally traumatic break-ups (she may have become pretty attached to several of the two or three month boyfriends as well). Furthermore, there could well be a pregnancy (aborted) and an STD thrown into the mix.

So now she's 28. After all of this, she's going to form a durable, powerful bond with a normal man, not an actor or professional athlete, or multi-millionaire, or whatever? And that bond is going to sustain her and her spouse through 40 to 50 years of marriage?

Almost all of her experience, from childhood really, has taught her that relationships are fragile and temporary, that men, or at least exciting, attractive men, are not to be trusted, and that when lovers quarrel, or grow bored, or meet someone newer and more interesting, the relationship ends. This has been her life since she was a teenager.

We rarely consider the extent to which the "rules of the game" are laid down for us between the ages of 12 and 25, when we really come into self-awareness, and ultimately, into adulthood. One of the first things I observed when I began dating in high school was that girls from divorced homes were somehow different, both quicker to go to bed and, ultimately, angrier toward men.

Such a woman as I've imagined above (even if not a child of divorce) is going to have to overcome and awful lot of engrained expectations to make a durable marriage with anyone, and the resultant divorces and prolonged, or lifelong, unmarried status of many can hardly be surprising.

Eventually, even romantics grow wary of hot stoves.
June 28, 2009 10:40 AM

Truly good stuff, if I may comment, it seems to put things in perspective for even the "best case scenario" when it comes to most American Women (really, it might as well be "all" with those odds). With the spread of STDs and the whole psychological support (or in this case enfeeblement) for long term relationships, well... How is this going to work?

Personal Improvement Log #1

2009-06-29T03:41:00.001-06:00

This blog will also be about some personal improvement, which is mostly in the mental aspect.

This isn't to be taken as "gospel" for a healthy growth in ability, but charting what I (an Amateur in this field as well) have found to work for me, and possibly others I know who've tried it.

Our first schema: Short-term memory.

I had thought I'd start my logs with my worst vice, procrastination, but that is a LONG road to walk. One step at a time now.

I've had problems remembering things in the short-term; people's names, important numbers (parking, serial, anything I don't get to choose for a password or location), a lot of things, unless I really made an effort to repeat it at least 3 times aloud. It rarely happens to me anymore, and here is why I think that is.

I believe your mind/brain (from here on mind) is like your muscles: Parts of it are meant for certain tasks, and though you may for instance, exercise your legs/feet, it won't help your arms or trunk. Well, I think the Mind is just like that, parts are for planning, memory, logic, art, math, writing, you name it. You may be familiar with right brain/left brain writings, but I think this isn't part of that, necessarily.

A couple of years ago, I borrowed my friend's Nintendo DS, because he wanted me to try this brain training game. I got bored with all the easy math and right brain/left brain stuff in it, but then hit a game similar to this:

http://flashfabrica.com/f_learning/brain/brain.html

Same sound effects, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this were a computer trial of the game itself, but since it's in Japanese, I'll never know.

The rules are you see the numbers, and then click them in the order low to high (the game on Brain Age 1 on Nintendo DS is called "Low to High" by the way).

With each successful sweep, it'll add another number. Remember, it's not just where the 1, 2, 3 and 4 are, it could have 1, 9, 6, 4 and 3 on there and you'd have to click the right order: 1, 3, 4, 6, 9.

At first, I played it and could only get 3 numbers (on the DS, I saw this in an e-mail, and it reminded me of how much it helped), but I became slightly possessed about it, I hated losing, yes, but I could feel that something was... shall I say... waking up in my skull. I never considered myself stupid (or smart for that matter), but it's entirely possible I let an important part of my Mind slip into atrophy like this, only to be reawoken by this after several years of bad short term memory.

I started to remember people's names, and after I had trained on this every day for 3 months (I missed a couple days, but eh), I could remember people's phone numbers WITHOUT pen/paper, and without reciting it into a song/poem and reciting it 3+ times... I'd say that's progress, but I remember (haha) that I started to retain things much better.

The way I THINK it works is that this game makes you more perceptive when you decide to be. Remember, you only get 2 seconds to look at all the numbers, that's how long it takes to say someone's name. I think whatever part of your mind "opens up" to new information is exercised in this part, and the retaining part is in how well you can remember the sequence.

This was two years ago and my memory's been better since... so if you think it can help you (remember, it's not 2 straight hours of this right now and then never again, it's maybe a few minutes everyday), you may as well give the link I put up a try, it's in Japanese, but I liked hitting each bubble on the Nintendo DS better.

I'm not advocating going out and buying a video game system just for this, which is why I decided to spend a few minutes finding the "free" version, which I think gets the job done just the same. I make no guarantees, but it sure helped me, I have many of these logs to write, so this isn't a one-time thing, I hope.

One last note, the number that appears after you're "done" (when you've done 9 waves or so, I think) with each session is how old your brain is, the closer to 20 the better apparently. Just letting you know in case you think your score is getting worse with time. Also, don't let the score get you down, if anything it can show maybe that you're tired, but keep at it and you will improve!
Let me know what you think!

On Shaming Language:

2009-06-29T03:19:00.000-06:00

Hiya! It is time to discuss one of our enemy's most used and more powerful (but not most powerful) weapons, Shaming Language.

Shaming Language is any kind of insult meant to shut you up, first and foremost. It isn't to add to the discussion, it's not to explore new angles of the problem, it is to cause you shame and to cause you to give up.

Shaming Language is a very poor way to choose to "win" an argument, but it has been shown to be effective to those not expecting it, especially if they don't have a few minutes to ponder what's really going on. Remember, it doesn't add anything to the discussion, it's an assault on your character that if not prepared for, you could end up believing.

Shaming Language is really more like several types of such interjections, and it comes in all forms, both slightly flattering to you, and very very hostile, new forms are probably trying to be made everyday, but ever since it's first usage, we've been on the upperhand, countering it at every move. Our motives are just, and our movement is good, never forget what you're fighting for.

I've read many influential posts, but this is one of the most powerful I've ever read about actually taking them down, or at least one of their advantages. The link is from dumpyourwifenow.com, but it could've been from somewhere else first, I don't know, however, if the writer is who I think he is, it's meant for all to see regardless.

http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/

It's a long read, and I considered just pasting it here, but I figure things will be more manageable this way. If it disappears one day, I have a back up to make sure it survives.

Now that you've read (most or more) of it, it is time to comment:

I like how it's very specific about the direction of both incoming attack, and why it doesn't matter, how it isn't true, and the perfectly logical response to such language. It lists every tactic I've seen used in such a way, though I'd like to see them developing something against the "kindness" technique they are using; the one where (basically) they "agree" with your position, and say that we should "work together".

Make no mistake, these people are not on your side, my side, or anyone who supports the rights of Men, it's merely a way to try to get you to support their side while they give yours lip service, of course after they "allegiantly" debunk most of your serious issues and claim to support the smaller ones.

Remember, Shaming Language is something said to put YOU on the defensive, giving them the initiative. I remember reading a post that put that very eloquently, I shall try to find it for next time.

I know I can put that into better words eventually, with examples, but for now the post is going up.

About the Amateur Strategist

2009-06-10T03:22:00.000-06:00

Such a self-doubting name, isn't it? Not necessarily so. You see, the word "Amateur", though used often in derogatory fashion, actually means "for the love of doing it" roughly. A strategist is one who thinks far ahead, and treats every action as a chain into the future, arranging those chains in such a way as to effect eachother or not, to achieve objectives that are impossible to pull of with "touching up at every seam".

I'm not necessarily saying I'm a true strategist, but one who subscribes to the disciplene of always putting logic and future-thought to the highest priority whenever an action is considered, or even just to see where something is going.

Why MRA/MGTOW? Because I believe the pendulum has gone out of shift way too far and things are in desperate need to change before totalitarianism or collapse ensue. I believe that feminism (the followers, not the leaders) thought they were getting equality, but now have kept their original rights and surpluses while removing the any responsibilities, while picking up new freedoms and positives without the counteracting negative tradeoff. What this does is put all the responsibilities on Men, and all the freedoms with Women, Men have no rights, and Women have no responsibilites, both are cause for much MUCH trouble.

When you give someone, the average person, the choice of improving their own life at the cost of someone elses, chances are they will do it. This isn't necessarily you in particular, or the incredibly pious people we know, but the average person. And if even only half choose to do so, we end up with disbalance, with haves and have-nots, not by choice, but forced onto people for no reason and order no longer rules.

I believe that feminism, and parts of traditionalism, allowed Women to ignore the original responsibilities while encroaching freely into the workplace without having to prove worth (affirmative action), so basically, Men are left with no power, and their original area, the workplace, is not disadvantaged to them point for point with Women. (I.E. a Man and Woman of equal stature, the Woman will have a better time negotiating a better position, Men only rise above this because they work even harder)

I believe the laws are so against your average Man now, that it's wisest to not be in a relationship with a Woman, due to government now somehow "owning" your relationship and making sure your soon to be ex-wife gets "her fair share", which is way more than half via alimony and child support. I believe the laws are now against Men seeing their own children or disciplining them in proper fashion and are now actually afraid of Men, thus they have to be controlled at every leypoint, and there's enough muscle in the government from old-way chivalrous judges who can't understand that things are different now, to the enforcers; police just following orders.

I will not marry, but I'm not sure if it's mostly that Women are like hand-grenades , in that the payoff is several Miles short of break-even with the most likely demise of my freedom, finance, and contentment, or if I believe I was not one to marry, perhaps a biological/Divine design that some Men would be free to produce and support society, as well as guide it. (At least until recently, more Males have been born than Females)

I've been asked why my picture is of a "Go" Board. Go is a game of strategy, so is Chess you say? I agree, I like Chess as well, but it always felt more like tactics than strategy, as you always are more keen on crushing your opponent than controlling the board, maybe I played Chess wrong, but Go makes me feel like I'm naturally planning ahead, 3 or so steps in advance (I'm not great) for every move I'd consider. Both games are great and easy to learn, but very VERY hard to master, perhaps I'll talk more of Go in later posts, but my priority is MRA.

Thanks for greeting me, all of you, it is nice to be in good company.

Beginnings

2009-06-08T03:35:00.000-06:00

I guess in such a complicated world we live in, living by very simple basics, one must find what path to follow. This includes such processes as finding your beliefs and seeing how they will collude with our changing universe.

A few starter questions:

What's in "it" for you? What's in it for anyone?

Do you believe Women were oppressed for millennia?

Do you believe the scales will change? When? 10 years? 50 years?

Where should you be if it happens?

Where should you be until it happens?

Should you stoop to the level of the enemy? (important)

Do you believe you can make a difference?

There are probably many many questions one should ask and answer before setting off on your final plan, which will modify during execution, but once you find your way, you'll more easily react to situations when they occur.

This is, perhaps my first real blog post, so I'll start with some of what I believe in.

I believe government is like fire; a very important tool if used in moderation, but it quickly becomes fierce and uncontrollable at a point, I fear we are nearing or have touched that point.

I was neutral until about 10 months ago, I suppose I'll discuss the events that led up to my polarization in later posts, since it's a long story.

I suppose I shouldn't delve into everything that makes me myself in one post, but rather sparsed accross many posts in the future.

Thank you, Marky Mark!

2009-06-05T22:54:00.000-06:00

As you may or may not know if you read Marky Mark's thoughts on various issues, he gave my blog a head's up, which gives me more fortitude to begin writing.

http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/06/yet-another-mens-blog.html#links

Marky Mark is one of my main inspirations, next to Mirror of the Soul, Rob Fedders and the others listed on the side there.

I suppose I should start writing at where I agree with them and my beliefs as well as how I view the world.

Starting up slow, but sure

2009-05-07T16:12:00.000-06:00

I realize it's been about a month since my first post, so I'm posting once more to get used to the consistency.

Just read some groutesque news from False Rape Society and Counter-Feminist about potential new rulings to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense in all cases of sex, which will then be presumed to be rape...

I'm kind of disgusted, so I'll need to comment a bit more on it later.

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2009/05/false-rape-is-red-hot-and-getting.html#links
http://tinyurl.com/chub6j

Hiya!

2009-04-11T20:27:00.000-06:00

I finally worked up the determination to get this created, as I have somewhat of a procrastination problem, but once I start, I'm pretty thorough in getting it done.

I wanted to wait until I had the perfect first post, but I now think that doesn't matter, I suppose I'll just tell you a little about myself:

This will be mostly an MRA/MGTOW blog (Men's Rights/Men Going Their Own Way) from my perspective. Hopefully I can start getting good material in and linking to my favorite bloggers sooner or later.

Nice to meet you!