This weekend’s discussion post was inspired by commenter Johnnycomelateley
Rape hysteria also has a deeper motive, equalitarianism (high taxes and social distribution) has changed the economic ecology and altered the incentives for female bonding patterns.
Several economists and anthropologists contend that society is transitioning from monogamy to serial monogamy (serial polygyny).
For serial polygyny to be facilitated women require absolutely unfettered, unrestricted, unconditional, uncommitted, unrestrained, unmoralizing, independent and completely free and unqualified safe access to sexual free choice. Unbounded by contracts, agreements, social norms, moral restraints, religious injunctions, social ties, aesthetic norms, maternal obligations, infanticide (abortion), selling progeny (adoption) and economic restrictions.
Anything that is deemed as restrictive is seen as limiting this choice, male spaces, employment obstacles, undesirable attention, unsafe neighbourhoods, male aesthetic standards, religion and of course rape.
What we are seeing is ‘choice hysteria’, anytime someone somewhere restricts female sexual choice it is met with unbounded fury. Even centuries long legal precedents and wrongful imprisonment must acquiesce to facilitate free choice.
Here are some quotes showing we are transitioning to serial polygyny.
Murdock’s (1967) Ethnographic Atlas categorized just 16% of 862 cultures as exclusively monogamous, with polygamy being found at some level in the rest.
A 2011 study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that just 23% of women and 14.7% of men aged 25-44 had one (or zero) opposite-sex lifetime partners.
Frank Marlowe, Biological Anthropology – Cambridge
When males provide all the income but some have much more than others, richer males achieve polygyny, while ecologically imposed monogamy prevails in case of moderate inequality. When males provide an intermediate level of investment with little variation, females are not excessively dependent on males and serial monogamy may arise.David de la Croix, Professor of Economics
In a society with few rich males and virtually no rich females, polygyny is supported by rich males, who can naturally monopolize a larger number of partners, and poor females, who prefer to be the n-th wife of a rich male rather than marrying a poor male monogamously.Eventually, however, the number of rich males increases enough, and poor females prefer to marry monogamously.
Serial monogamy follows from a further enrichment of the society, through a rise in either the share of rich males, or the the proportion of rich females.
Monique Mulder, Anthropology
A key finding here is that while men do not benefit from multiple marriages, women do. Although the data are very variable (large standard errors), women appear to gain more from multiple mating than do men.
I’ve written more than a few posts about equalism here, but one thing that needs to be made clear is that a true state of egalitarian equalism among the sexes is neither tenable nor sustainable in any realistic measure. There is always a dominant / submissive dynamic in all human relations (not just intersexual ones), even in same sex pairings. While that dom-sub relation may be flexible in various circumstantial instances, the meta-relationship dynamic tends to place the more dominant personality at the top of an intersexual relation.
For the better part of human history this dominance has been expected from a Man, and I daresay as a species we evolved into that dominant role both physically and psychologically. But for the past 60+ years, since the advent of ubiquitous, unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control, the social and physical constraints of women’s innate Hypergamy, that had been kept in check by Men’s default dominance, has been unfettered.
When I wrote Owed Sex I went into detail about how women’s perception of their hypergamous choices have been contained by men:
The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.
To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.
The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.
When I wrote that post it was before the Yes Means Yes law had been enacted as well as before the “rape crisis” hysteria we find ourselves in as the result of the machinations of a feminist writer who actively hunts for pulp fiction rape stories to embellish. All now proven a complete and calculated fabrication.
However the base motivation is still the same, and I agree with Johnnycomelately, the social press for equalism is a suitable mask for socialized Hypergamy.
The Feminine Imperative isn’t interested in anything like an idealized state of egalitarian equalism between the sexes; it is only interested in unilateral, uncontested, and socially assured optimization of women’s Hypergamy.
Equalism is an anathema to Hypergamy.
So long as women are subject to innate hypergamous influences there can never be a socialized state of egalitarian equalism between men and women. By its very nature the Feminine Imperative will always seek an unequal state – maximal restriction of male sexuality and maximal unrestriction of optimized feminine Hypergamy. The persistence of pressing the idea that equalism between the sexes is a realizable goal state is necessary to achieve those maximized / optimized conditions.
For men, the end result of that optimized state is really a form of normative, accepted, socialized cuckoldry. However, the efforts to achieve this state are in social evidence all around us now.
Milo Yiannopoulos has an excellent two-part article, Sexodus, on Breitbart London outlining the cultural impact socialized Hypergamy is having on men today and how they are “checking out of society”.
In part two Milo explains:
Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.
Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.
Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.
Some might call these statistical trends “female privilege.” Yet everywhere and at all times, say men’s rights advocates, the “lived experiences” and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that women haven’t just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect. What inequalities remain are the result of women’s choices, say respectable feminist academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, not structural biases.
And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege. The bizarre but inevitable conclusion of all this is that women are fueling their own unhappiness by driving men to consider them as sex objects and nothing more, because the thought of engaging in a relationship with a woman is horrifying, or too exhausting to contemplate.
I don’t see men as ‘checking out’ of society so much as I see them being forced to develop personal and cultural contingencies to adapt to a feminine-primary social order that’s based on socialized Hypergamy. The obvious comparisons to Japan’s culture of “herbivorous” men is nothing new to the manosphere, but what is new is the increasing awareness of the consequences of socialized Hypergamy.
The MGTOW movement (such as it is) is a good example of this adaptation, but even men going their own way are still directly and indirectly subject to the social pressures created by feminine social primacy and socialized Hypergamy. Irrespective of how insulated a man may think he is with regard to interacting with women, he’s still subject to the correlative impact of the societal changes that mandate maximally restricting his sexuality while legislating women’s right to optimal Hypergamy into law.
Imagined “rape crisis” hysteria, affirmative consent laws, politicians attempting to redefine rape as men ‘misrepresenting’ themselves in order to have sex with a woman, and defining domestic abuse as “restricting of finances“, higher divorce rates, marriage rates at an all time low, are all evidence of a feminine-primary socialization of Hypergamy that hides behind an egalitarian ruse.
The more men refuse to cooperate with socialized Hypergamy, the more the Feminine Imperative will legislate their compliance with it. But at some point it will reach a state of critical mass. The UVA gang rape hoax, the fem-centric maliciousness of Sabrina Rubin-Erdely and the blind, ego-invested adherence to an unassailable feminine correct narrative of its ‘believers’ was a good primer for this critical mass.
Most of what I’ve delved into here has been manosphere staple for more than 13 years now, but the mainstream exposure from the likes of Milo and even the national dialogue generated from the UVA gang rape hoax (as deliberately distractive as it is), is evidence that the previously hidden social machinations of feminine social primacy are becoming unignorable.
As Open Hypergamy and the Sandbergian embrace of women’s sexual pluralism becomes more normative, so too will Red Pill awareness become more mainstream. Men aren’t dropping out of feminine-primary society, they’re adapting contingencies for it, learning workarounds, comparing notes, and a growing Red Pill awareness is at the heart of that adaptation, even for men who’ve never heard of it.
December 16th, 2014 at 11:27 pm
“As far as I can tell the MGTOW political plan is:
1. We withdraw from close contact.
2. A miracle happens
3. We win”
MGTOW political plan? Win? No. IMO MGTOW is not about victory, it is about damage control and self preservation. MGTOW will not empower men to have any success with women or in life, but it will stop them from being fucked over. That is the “win”.
Most MGTOW don’t call themselves that and haven’t taken the red pill. They just know they have been fucked over, and over, and they want it to stop. There is no political battle to fight because most of these men are classic betas so they are invisible to most women. MGTOW and Game are coping strategies that may work based on the type of man you are.
For men as a group, RP awareness is what matters most. Every beta bucks guy that decides not to marry that slut and soft cuckhold himself, is a victory. Every former white knight that decides to let that drunk chick fight her own battles, is a victory. And so on…
December 17th, 2014 at 1:15 am
M. Simon – “Or maybe conditions are not right. Maybe we need more Red Pill. In the mean time the lefties/females are relentless with the object of beating our asses. If they can. And because we have no united front they usually can.”
Too early for an overt movement. The ‘sphere is sewing the seeds of dissent, what may sprout is too early to tell.
Politics is dicey because there is so much baggage associated with it. Even a sane discussion is difficult. I admit to having no interest in whatever the left has to say when it comes to policy. I have no faith in the right. Whatever evolves politically from the ‘sphere will have too appeal to enough men of all types to prevent them opposing or dropping out.
I do fear what a charismatic leader could do by direct appeal to the disenfranchised betas. Betas are excellent followers, especially when they have something to believe in. Now too many still believe in the first set of books. If the Redpill shatters that world view what it offers to replace it is more ambiguous, and much less hopeful.
How do you market, to the average man, accepting his place in the lesser 80% without the risk of generating Project Mayhem?
December 17th, 2014 at 3:39 am
Badpainter
December 17th, 2014 at 1:15 am
I admit to having no interest in whatever the left has to say when it comes to policy. I have no faith in the right.
Yeah. I study politics. Fairly deep. And I’m totally with you.
And you are probably correct about too early.
But there are movements somewhat independent of left and right. Anti-Prohibition for one. We are fighting what I currently call “The War On Some Men aka The War On Some Drugs”. It is about 75% left and 25% right. (see how I have co-opted Men, Race, and Justice with that one? Not to mention evoking the War On Women. Short. Easy to remember. And I piggy back on other cultural memes. )
How do you market, to the average man, accepting his place in the lesser 80% without the risk of generating Project Mayhem?
Offer them a set of rules, if enacted, that will return things to the way they used to be. The rules need to be seen as both objective and just. So we can be RJWs – Real Justice Warriors.
Divorce is ALWAYS somebodies fault.
No more hide the daddy. (DNA testing)
There is a start.
You will note: Vektor
December 16th, 2014 at 11:27 pm
Who thinks that letting Alphas get all the ‘tang is a victory. That not having children is a victory.
And I assume because he is here that he has at least the start of Red Pill. So even Red Pill may not be enough to get Betas organized. It may be that Red Pill Alphas have to do the organizing and fighting and work for Beta support. Makes it much more difficult but not IMO impossible. Well you know the Alpha motto – “Never Tell Me The Odds”.
We are starting to see Red Pill women – that is a very hopeful sign.
Early days yet. Things may have to evolve some more.
December 17th, 2014 at 3:56 am
Let me add that Red Pill women is not a new phenomenon. I met one in ’62. She was my first GF. But it was rare back then. So rare that I dare not even put a number on the odds. And she was spinning plates. She liked training virgins. So I was odd for a man of that time. I accepted the other plates. As long as she liked me I didn’t care who else she liked. She was also 4 years older than I was.
She found a man studying for the ministry and married him. Making her a born again virgin or something. And I was there the day she met him. Later she, he, and I saw Lenny Bruce together at the Gate of Horn in Chicago. I did take her to bed that night. Just me and her. But it was the beginning of the end. Well I was new to Red Pill and my Game was not yet very good. But I did have a start. Thank you Joan.
December 17th, 2014 at 6:53 am
Trying to think here. It may be White Knighting to go your own way, e.g. by protecting females from yourself, by giving other guys more of a chance, etc.
December 17th, 2014 at 8:51 am
@ M. Simon – What these guys who ‘don’t do politics’ fail to get is that they have ceded that entire field to the left by doing so. And they have been fucking busy for the past 100 years but in the manosphere, “politics is bullshit and both sides are the same” passes for a political POV. Lol.
Conservatives don’t have a political ideology in the way that the left does, and I think that’s a huge problem for them. Most self-styled conservatives don’t even know that they don’t have an ideology though, which is quite funny to watch some of the try and wrangle with. They call themselves “constitutional conservatives” or as I heard a caller ID himself on Mark Levin the other night, “a Christian constitutionalist”. I mean, what the fuck is that?
Most of them don’t know that, for example. “conservatives” opposed the very notion of liberty that informed our founding. They wanted to preserve an aristocratic system in which the elite ran things – conservatives of the day like Burke were the philosophical opponents of Jefferson and Paine. Yet conservatives now wrap themselves in the principles of liberty that their ideological heroes opposed.
When you analyze conservatives in the public sphere, you find they mostly fall into 2 categories. The first are fundo Christians who believe in so much that isn’t true about the world that they simply are impossible to work with politically. And they have formed an insular reality in the media and online and in their communities where they isolate themselves from the truth. Not only do they question evolution as though there are real questions, they also believe truly ahistorical stuff like the U.S. constitution is based on the Bible – a lie peddled by the odious lowlife, David Barton. Such people cannot be reasoned with.
The other category of conservative is what I call the “reflexive cultural conservative”. They believe that without a paternalistic government, society will become chaotic and destroy itself. Hence their ability just nod when I point out, for example, that half our criminal justice resources in the U.S. are spent on drug law enforcement. Sex, substances, the family and other behaviors – the conservatives are ready to just chuck the idea of self-ownership and individual sovereignty out the window when it comes to these issues. These types also see the U.S. as a global hegemon, and want us involved in many, many areas of the world militarily (our SpecForces are deployed in 73 countries right now – do you even know that?). They love to see us as a fortress of reason and sanity – but most of them don’t even know our actual history. I often take conservatives through the post WWII relationship between Iran and the U.S. when they portray Iran as hellbent for no reason on the destruction of the U.S. And forget trying to have a fact based, historically accurate conversation with them about the Palestinians and Israel – you can’t.
That isn’t an ideology, it’s a claque of incompatible, incoherent ideas and beliefs and superstitions. I am conservative in my own way though, in that I understand the value of tradition and history and what’s been passed down from the generations. Culture and tradition are how we transmit what’s been learned and what works from generation to generation. But to blindly respect it is silly.
You may be correct that there is a genetic component to this – but at this point i remain unconvinced, fyi. I think that what’s really going on is that human beings aren’t anywhere as reasonable as we think. If you spend some time in the cognitive sciences, you’ll find that what we are capable of – at best -is motivated reasoning. What we think is “true” is often nothing of the sort.
Political philosophy from the left and the right are trying to offer “answers” and the fact is that the ideas of the left are much more intellectually robust and coherent. Read Marx if you haven’t, folks. His ideas about capital or alienation or the nature of class struggle are elegant in their own ways. It provides a level of certainty about the world and how it “should” be that is incredibly compelling if you don’t look at it too critically. Conservatives have no similar ideology.
Sadly, they are both wrong. In fact, philosophy itself often offers answers about the world that are no better than religion’s. One way to look at where we are at is that we have replaced religion with political philosophy in the public square as an identity and fight about it just like we did religion. Again, I’ll fall back on Edward O. Wilson. In The Social Construction of Earth, he starts by claiming that philosophy will have to be eclipsed by science when talking about human nature and society itself as philosophy simply is inadequate to the task. This kind of blew my mind because he’s so right. If you are tempted to argue, just ask yourself this. What axioms does the left offer about human nature that are always and everywhere true? Answer: None. The only social scientists to try and address this question were and are the Austrian economists, von Bomboverik in particular. His axiom was “humans act” and he reasoned from there, yielding a spectacularly practical set of economic ideaa as a result.
I know, this is all boring to you guys. As for you, M. Simon, I’m not at all interested in political activism to change a thing. I was deeply involved in politics at one point of my life and I found it disgusting. The people who are attracted to politics are scummy and power hungry and righteous and really, just terrible to spend time with. I found the entire thing unproductive and filled with frustration. Put another way, we are already a statist, collectivist society with an authoritarian, totalitarian govt. That’s what most Americans and people in the West want. They don’t want to be free – it’s too scary for them. In this, I actually see the hand of the FI writ large. Betaized men want Daddy govt too as you can’t expect them to run their lives, can you? The light of liberty is flickering out in the West, as it has in every democracy ever born. I’m just along for the ride. If you don’t believe me – just look at what the Republicans are doing in congress, and wake up.
December 17th, 2014 at 9:43 am
Glenn
December 17th, 2014 at 8:51 am
Tour de force.
One point I would make is that political Islam (and it is like the left in that everything is political) is a dead end. If you know the history of WW2 in Arabia you know that they sided with the Austrian Corporal. Their idea of a caliphate is of a piece with Deutschland über alles. So on that score, despite the valid grievances of the Palestinians, I think the conservatives have it right. But they get almost everything else wrong.
The light of liberty is flickering out in the West, as it has in every democracy ever born. I’m just along for the ride. If you don’t believe me – just look at what the Republicans are doing in congress, and wake up.
I have very few illusions about politics. But it has its uses. If it didn’t the left wouldn’t be using it. Like you I favor less coercion. But it is not a popular stance. Left, Right, or Beta.
==
In fact I am looking at what Republicans are doing in Congress.
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/12/the-republicans-are-attempting-suicide/
And by suicide I refer to their insistence on fighting the Culture War – which they are losing badly.
December 17th, 2014 at 10:19 am
jf12 – “Trying to think here. It may be White Knighting to go your own way, e.g. by protecting females from yourself, by giving other guys more of a chance, etc.”
That assumes the men in question really had chance to begin with, and were desireable at the time they quit. It also assumes the quitters had a chance connected to a prize worth winning and reasonable odds of actually winning. Reality suggests in the carnival game nature of the SMP the prizes are rarely ever worth the cost of playing.
December 17th, 2014 at 10:25 am
@ M. Simon – I never imagined I’d enjoy your commentary as much as I am, this is really great stuff. Very enlightening. A few disagreements though:
1. While I love the allusion “the Austrian corporal” as a way to reference Hitler, I think the conflation of Islamism with Nazism couldn’t be more wrong. You specifically cite some Arabs siding with Hitler and the Germans in WWII but this again is one of those tropes I hear from conservatives who don’t understand the history. Until the Zionists invaded Palestine beginning in 1880, there had been little tension between the Arabs and Jews living in Palestine for hundreds of years under the Ottoman Empire, in fact the 25,000 Jews who lived there (Jews had been about 3-5% of Palestine for 2000 years) were vehemently opposed to the Zionist campaign of invasion, colonization and ethnic cleansing of Arab Muslims. But the Zionists prevailed and now control 78% of Palestine and have turned the rest into gulags and ghettos.
By the time of WWII, the Jews and Arabs had been at each other’s throats in Palestine for decades and it was very clear that a Jewish state was going to be forced on the Arabs by the west, with the Brits front and center. The Brits armed the Zionists and supported them in a million ways (how did Israel spring into existence in ’47 with a 40,000 man strong army?). Anyone who expected the Arabs to side with the Brits has no idea what was going on in the region.
And yes, Islam is an religious supremacist ideology that fuses politics with religion. But at the end of the day, they are attacking us because we won’t stop meddling in their affairs. And if you don’t get that, you simply don’t know the history. Period. I won’t debate it here as I’m already testing the patience of many a man who wants to get back to figuring out why his wife or GF is such a cunt…
2. The “drug war” – It’s just sad at this point. I’m a personal fan of marijuana and certain strains are the only non-addictive substance that actually can tamp down my anxiety when it gets quite bad. But unlike benzos, I can put the weed down with ease for as long as I like without any bad effects. Fyi, at the worst of my PTSD I was on benzos, and in 6 weeks I was taking 8 klonopin at a time – and realized I was in trouble. I looked online to do more research and found a community of millions of people addicted to benzos who suffered from anxiety. I put them in the garbage and bought a bag of weed (hadn’t smoked in more than a dozen years at that point).
The worst part is that we already had the experiment. I love that you call it “prohibition” to make that point – but conservatives can’t hear it. You see, this is where their utter lack of deontologicalism makes them idiots. they also have conflated drug use, particularly pot use, with being a leftie. Lol, I know many a capitalist pothead on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley. In fact, when I worked on Wall St. in the early 80s, I worked in the building ajacent to the New York Stock Exchange on Broad st. and every day I would see market makers out back smoking a quick joint on a break. One of the top semi conductor analysts in the world for a while was a 24/7, wake and bake pothead. I know CEO of a health care company who is the same. But hey, we gots to get rid of those filthy, lowlife, no count druggies. Oh yeah, it’s been studied – people who smoke weed or no more likely to end up on social services than anyone else. It’s also not a “gateway drug”.
In fact, what’s known in the field of addiction that never makes it into the minds of these right wing know-nothings is that addiction is brought on by mental illness or emotional/developmental issues. Many are victims of trauma, like me, who self-medicate. I had to stop drinking essentially because there wasn’t enough scotch in the world to drown out my Dad screaming at me in my head.
Places like Portugal have found the right mix. The made all drugs legal and simply focus the resources on treatment for the actual addicts. Fyi, teen drug use is down dramatically in Portugal – tell that to a conservative and see if that makes any difference to them. Or things like only 15% of people who use crack or heroine ever become addicts. Same with pot and alcohol, gosh – could it be that perhaps, just perhaps something else is going on besides being a leftist libertine?
Okay, I’m done on this thread guys. I’m sure some of you are happy for it. See you next post.
December 17th, 2014 at 10:58 am
Shameless self-promotion: new post “Bonding sex”
December 17th, 2014 at 12:08 pm
Glenn
December 17th, 2014 at 10:25 am
Islam’s depredations in India to me paints a different picture. Islam spread by the sword. They haven’t given up those roots. The Sunni-Shia wars are another case in point. But people have been arguing that for quite some time. We will not resolve it nor our differences. I just though I’d note them. One other data point. The King of Saudi Arabia in 1923 welcomed the Jews going to Palestine because they were an economic benefit.
December 17th, 2014 at 12:37 pm
@ M. Simon – Careful, you are dangerously close to sounding like one of those conservative dingbats. Of course Islam was an imperial, violent, warring , slaughtering band of madmen. So was Genghis Khan. Have you read up on the 30 Years War in Europe? Do I really have to show you how awfully humans and their empires and armies empires have behaved? In fact, an actually sober look at history doesn’t really see the German Nazis as the outlier everyone wants to make them out to be.
Just compare the violence of Islam to say that of the Mongols or go all the way back to when Chin united the 7 clans to create China. He slaughtered people with reckless abandon. There is plenty of slaughter and genocide to go around, my friend. Or you could look at the endless wars of conquest in Europe and how many were slaughtered, long before the word Nazi was ever uttered.
That doesn’t let Islam off the hook for it being unreformed and revanchist today. I’m not a defender of Islam. But you tried to conflate it with Nazism in your last comment and frankly, that’s just hyperbolic bullshit that isn’t defensible. I mostly hear this from Jews who want to justify the Zionists invasion, colonization and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. If you are one of those, let’s just stop here and agree to not discuss this topic. Just go back to Jatobinsky and his ideas – you’ll see that he talked openly about the reality of Zionism and it’s depradations. He may have been the last honest Zionist on the planet. But in the end, I don’t argue with Zionists, fyi, I deride them. And this is no space to do that. You could also read Blumenthal’s latest on life in Israel today – Goliath. It’s a devastating read for any Zionist, that’s why they banned him from the country…And oh yeah, if you don’t know who Jatobinsky was, perhaps you might reconsider running your yap on this topic.
And I’m really out now. Bye.
December 17th, 2014 at 1:30 pm
Going your own way cannot be white-knighting, because a lot of MGTOW dudes, not all, have clear aversion to women. I guess mostly their value isn’t really high and to preserve themselves from rejection they chose to not play at all.
That being said, part of MGTOW sounds pretty alpha to me. They only care for themselves and do what they want. The only thing they don’t engage in is dealing with women however. And I wouldn’t classify them as being omega or necessarily beta. I’v read elsewhere that women are being weaponized through feminism and this sums the situation up pretty good.
See alphas are not immune to the negative consequences, just look at Bill Cosby. I personally know one of those guys, although he has never heard of that term before and has been born way before that term has been invented. He doesn’t look like a bitter loser to me, so I’d be careful to devalue all MGTOWs across the board.
December 17th, 2014 at 2:25 pm
Scientific thinking about politics versus yammering about political philosophy. Great article on geopolitics by Nassim Taleb and Gary Treverton on “fragility” and political systems. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142494/nassim-nicholas-taleb-and-gregory-f-treverton%E2%80%A8/the-calm-before-the-storm
I’m sorry, I can’t help myself. I keep trying to stop but I can’t, lol…
December 17th, 2014 at 11:44 pm
That doesn’t let Islam off the hook for it being unreformed and revanchist today. I’m not a defender of Islam. But you tried to conflate it with Nazism in your last comment and frankly, that’s just hyperbolic bullshit that isn’t defensible.
Well a large faction of Islam aligned with the Nazis in WW2. The Mufti of Jerusalem who mentored Arafat who instigated the Palestinian revolt was one. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Hamas is descended from the Muslim Brotherhood and Arafat. Read their charter some time.
The Muft raised two divisions for Hitler. You can find pictures of him with Adolph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
Have a look at footnote 138. It links to a piece called “The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda”.
I doubt if I will change your mind but a look at the history of German involvement in Arabia pre and during WW2 might prove interesting.
==
And what was the uniting principle besides the fight against the British?
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Boxthorn tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)
”
This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[56]
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism
December 17th, 2014 at 11:48 pm
I’m going to split my recent comment into two pieces because of links:
That doesn’t let Islam off the hook for it being unreformed and revanchist today. I’m not a defender of Islam. But you tried to conflate it with Nazism in your last comment and frankly, that’s just hyperbolic bullshit that isn’t defensible.
Well a large faction of Islam aligned with the Nazis in WW2. The Mufti of Jerusalem who mentored Arafat who instigated the Palestinian revolt was one. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Hamas is descended from the Muslim Brotherhood and Arafat. Read their charter some time.
The Mufti raised two divisions for Hitler. You can find pictures of him with Adolph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
Have a look at footnote 138. It links to a piece called “The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda”.
I doubt if I will change your mind but a look at the history of German involvement in Arabia pre and during WW2 might prove interesting.
==
December 17th, 2014 at 11:49 pm
And what was the uniting principle besides the fight against the British?
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Boxthorn tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)
”
This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[56]
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism
December 18th, 2014 at 12:28 am
Glenn,
I understand your antipathy to what the Jews have done in Israel. But the fault – if there can be one – is the Arabs desire to drive the Jews out of the area. Not a very libertarian gesture. And the problem for the Arabs is that they keep losing the wars. And as usual with wars territory is “stolen”. A very Alpha principle. Egypt made peace and got the Sinai back. IIRC they declined Gaza. But it may be that it wasn’t on offer. I’d have to look it up. In any case Egypt is currently at war (defacto) with Gaza.
The Jews – originally very left – are way more adept at politics than the Arabs. And the recent beheadings is not a good public relations gimmick. Originally the left sided with the Jews. And now they side with the Arabs. Given all the jihadi attacks around the world – stupid politics. Very unusual for the left. But quite in keeping with Cultural Marxism. Arabs/Islam and especially Palestinians have been designated as oppressed. The Druze have come to terms with the situation and are even members of the Israeli Army.
I subscribe to the David Duke newsletter. Just to keep up. And I can’t quite decide where he fits on the left/right spectrum.
It is all very complicated but in such situations I am following the old rules. Until the people involved decide to bury their differences. And the old rule “If you can hold the territory it is yours.”
December 18th, 2014 at 6:48 am
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11146
Here’s how you can find all of the missing secrets about the Muslim Brotherhood — and you can do this, too. I said, “Bob, go to your computer and type in two words into the search part. Type the word “Banna,” B-a-n-n-a. He said, “Yeah.” Type in “Nazi.” Bob typed the two words in, and out came 30 to 40 articles from around the world. He read them and called me back and said, “Oh my gosh, what have we done?”
[snip]
The Muslim Brotherhood began to expand in scope and influence during World War II. They even had a Palestinian section headed by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, one of the great bigots of all time. Here, too, was a man — The grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the Muslim Brotherhood representative for Palestine. These were undoubtedly Arab Nazis. The Grand Mufti, for example, went to Germany during the war and helped recruit an international SS division of Arab Nazis. They based it in Croatia and called it the “Handjar” Muslim Division, but it was to become the core of Hitler’s new army of Arab fascists that would conquer the Arab peninsula from then on to Africa — grand dreams.
At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service. Then a horrible thing happened.
Instead of prosecuting the Nazis — the Muslim Brotherhood — the British government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years they were trained on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab Armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda By: John Loftus
December 18th, 2014 at 6:54 am
And the kicker? “Mein Kampf” (in Arabic) is still a best seller in the ME.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:40 am
Gamergate is about the SJW infiltration of games media, because gamers realized that sites such as Kotaku and Polygon are glorified press release centers with a progressive spin on other media pieces. The reaction to that is GamerGate.
February 6th, 2015 at 3:09 pm
[…] separate-guys-for-separate-purposes is the end game for Socialized Hypergamy – left to the unilateral control of women, Hypergamy doesn’t recognize men who embody a […]
March 17th, 2015 at 2:03 am
on this website, a bunch of lonely males that never been touched by a woman before.