Saturday, November 10, 2012

Alpha Mail: restoring the balance

KT demonstrates that Game is not the sole province of bitter, middle-aged men of lower socio-sexual rank lamenting their past failures with women:
I have been thinking about some of your past posts at Alpha Game (the head scratchers, as I call them), and trying to reconcile them with some of the ideas that are floating around our culture presently.  Unfortunately as a female I can only understand Game's true nature from afar, but I have drawn some (hopefully accurate) conclusions about male/female interactions based on Game's definition.  I'm trying to add to my vocabulary! 

If Game acknowledges a hierarchy of men, then perhaps its corollary acknowledges a similar hierarchy for men and women?  The Bible is pretty clear (and the argument could be made for non-Christians also, but with different facts) about men being the dominant gender.  God simply made Adam before Eve.  Therefore men have the privileges and responsibilities of being the first born.  God further reinforced man's authority by creating the woman from man's own flesh.  Because God made the woman from Adam's body, she cannot possibly be superior to him because she is of the same substance as him.  Her existence is dependent upon his.  Incidentally, this premise is fundamentally different from those of the Gaia claque who loudly boast about their ability to give men life...but I digress....

If this is true, that there is a natural ranking among men and women, then Feminism is a pernicious evil lie.  If Feminism's purpose is to "reassert" woman's place in society as equal to, or in many cases, superior to men, women are taught to pursue what never was.  A gender utopia it would seem.  I think you have commented on this.  I believe it was you also who has stressed the point that women have never been "equal to" or "superior to" men in the past?  So what is it exactly that Feminism wants to restore?  A status that women never had?  Ever...?  In addition, I don't even really know how to define "equal to" or "superior to" without degrading either gender.  Language such as "superior" makes mortal enemies out of what God intended to be natural allies.  Adam & Eve being of one substance, one flesh, should have a natural affinity for one another and should co-exist peacefully and productively.  Feminism not only encourages, but commands women to lash out against the one God created to love and protect her.

To normal minds all of this is obvious.  Unfortunately dogma and popular culture interfere with what God considers normal....  But really what is perhaps saddest about this whole conundrum is woman's complicity in her own demise.  Fake (and sometimes legitimate) authority figures lie to her, and believing the lie she changes her behavior in ways that sabotage her life.  Her false views of men as oppressors and villains and rapists cause her to attack those whom she should embrace.  Men respond to these attacks and ironically become the diminutive partner in the relationship.  Maybe.  Yeah, I fear it is so, at least in some cases.  The other option is for men to respond to the negative stimuli and simply not play Game at all.  Why should he burn while women rage?  I guess that is why you started the Alpha Game blog.  If men would reassert their natural place in the gender hierarchy this nonsense would cease to exist.  And balance would be restored.
I found this email to be intriguing, less because it more or less concurs with some of the ideas I've presented in the past than as an example of the way in which a female mind processes information.  There is no hard and cold syllogistic analysis of the whole, but rather a sort of nibbling around the edges and trying the various concepts on for size to see how they feel.  This tends to indicate that it is repetitive rhetoric, rather than reason, that is the key to persuading women to change their minds.

The salient observation KT reaches concerns woman's complicity in her own demise.  That is the tragedy of feminism.  In attempting to construct an equality that is not only materially nonexistent, but not even possible in the abstract, feminists have managed to degrade both the sexes as well as threaten the existence of Western civilization by striking repeatedly at a number of its basic foundations, including, Christianity, male honor and responsibility, female fertility, and the sacrement of marriage.

44 comments:

Yohami said...

"If men would reassert their natural place in the gender hierarchy this nonsense would cease to exist."

That's all it takes.

rycamor said...

There is no hard and cold syllogistic analysis of the whole, but rather a sort of nibbling around the edges and trying the various concepts on for size to see how they feel.

Yes, that pretty well describes it. Example: my wife, when we first married. Died-in-the-wool Republican Christian, graduate of Liberty University ("Newt Gingrich spoke at my graduation!"). Whenever discussion touched on my libertarian views, her reaction was often outrage at first. "How could you be for drug legalization? One of the nurses I work with was beat up by her husband on crack! People are too stupid to be allowed to make those choices." & etc... The responses were all rhetorical and anecdotal (I.E. personal) rather than logic-based.

I realized early on that logical arguments were pointless--at least if they were made directly to her. Instead I started making small rhetorical points now and then, as events unfolded in the world or our lives, and thus the mental nibbling commenced. Also, she was able to witness me in discussions with others where I handled my arguments extremely well even with a room of conservative Christians. Within a few years, she became almost as extreme a libertarian as I am. Ditto with the economic warnings. At first she thought I was crazy. Then, as my predictions turned out to match events, she began to pay attention. Now I catch her on the phone with friends "You should buy gold and silver, and start gardening. Buy seeds now! Don't wait for things to get really bad."

Cryan Ryan said...

"...feminists have managed to degrade both the sexes as well as threaten the existence of Western civilization by striking repeatedly at a number of its basic foundations, including, Christianity, male honor and responsibility, female fertility, and the sacrement of marriage."

In the journals of Lewis & Clark, they tell of spending the winter on the west coast, and how the Indian women would bring the young daughters to the fort, to trade their services for anything of value.

If mothers will pimp out their own little girls, it's not hard to believe they will continue to vote for whomever promises them a free phone or an EBT card.

Fathers will usually protect their daughters. Mothers... not so much.

SarahsDaughter said...

"There is no hard and cold syllogistic analysis of the whole, but rather a sort of nibbling around the edges..."

Of course. As in "The Allegory of the Cave," the light is very bright, our eyes need time to adjust.

VD said...

If mothers will pimp out their own little girls, it's not hard to believe they will continue to vote for whomever promises them a free phone or an EBT card.

And why shouldn't they? After all, we were reliably assured by one woman who didn't see why men should care about past sexual histories that vaginas don't wear out, they are just rinse and re-use.

Once a woman understands that, she naturally grasps that her daughter's is too, so she may as well benefit from it.

Bob Wallace said...

"How could you be for drug legalization? One of the nurses I work with was beat up by her husband on crack! People are too stupid to be allowed to make those choices." & etc... The responses were all rhetorical and anecdotal (I.E. personal) rather than logic-based."

I had a nurse say to me she was against drug legalization because of what she had seen in the ER. I told her that her observations were anecdotal and rhetorical...she didn't know what I meant. Then I said the were emotional and not logical, and that her personal experiences were not representative of the whole of society. She told me I was still wrong.

Cail Corishev said...

This is a great example of what I was talking about in another thread: the sort of "coffee clatch" method that women use to discuss things and come to a consensus, tossing ideas around in what looks random and illogical to an observer, yet with everyone ending up on the same page. Except here it's being done solo. Good catch.

rycamor said...

Yup Bob,

Exactly how not to try to convince a woman of anything. Or a liberal.

rycamor said...

Nurses tend to have an extra dose of this female idea-processing. I assume it is because their work so constantly presents them with extremes, and nudges up the female protection and empathy modes accordingly. When the nurse works in labor & delivery, forget about it. I had a lot of fun interacting with my wife's colleagues, especially because this was Miami and most of them were either Latin or Jamaican. Outrageous flirtation...

Bob Wallace said...

"the sort of "coffee clatch" method that women use to discuss things and come to a consensus, tossing ideas around in what looks random and illogical to an observer, yet with everyone ending up on the same page"

I own my own business and will NEVER work for women again because their idea of working (when they are in management) is to sit around and hold meetings while the men do all the work. This is the result of Affirmative Action ("white men need not apply") and damn that evil program.

Anonymous said...

Now Bob, that's just sexist. Next you'll be saying that women end up in government jobs pushing paper and many have useless degrees and that those in the private sector work in HR, admin, etc and don't do anything productive.

For shame!

- Apollyon

alphamission said...

The problem with men asserting their place is that the entire system is against it. The government, media, church and more are against men taking their rightful place in the divine heirarchy of authority. To fight for such a thing in the open is to become a martyr, yet in some way we must fight, or all is lost.

Höllenhund said...

Re: alphamission

Another possibility is that some will fight and become martyrs, and all will be lost anyway.

Yohami said...

The system is built by men, and men are in power, and will always be.

Martyrdom is not how you change things. Change things by being in power and setting the rules for the ones under your domain.

Spacebunny said...

Another possibility is that some will fight and become martyrs, and all will be lost anyway.

What do you mean by "all will be lost anyway"? The current, for lack of a better term, system, it unsustainable. Will get uglier before it gets better or changes? I would assume so.

Bob Wallace said...

"Now Bob, that's just sexist. Next you'll be saying that women end up in government jobs pushing paper and many have useless degrees and that those in the private sector work in HR, admin, etc and don't do anything productive."

It's worse than that. I graduated from a university that is the largest producers of teachers in a very populous state. 99% of the education majors I met were women and they were all stupid. Not stupid because they were women, but because they were education majors. Still, they did things they should not have done, and they think it was because they were women

I only knew one male education major, and some of the things he told me the women did verged on unbelievable. I concluded years ago women should not teach boys in school.

Höllenhund said...

alphamission basically said that that Western Christian patriarchy will never be restored unless some men make sacrifices. What I said is that its permanent demise won't be averted just because some men decide to try avert it. Yes, such sacrifices may turn out to be pointless because there's no way to prevent the inevitable.

Spacebunny said...

Gotcha - Thanks for the clarification.

Höllenhund said...

Re: Yohami

SOME men are in power. When they solidify their power and have no interest in dismantling feminism, you can kiss your dreams about restoring the natural balance goodbye.

mmaier2112 said...

Women get mad when I point out that studies show boys and girls learn differently and that as a matter of simple efficiency, sex-segregated classrooms should be the norm.

And yet they never have ANY response to Thomas Sowell's point that if anyone truly believes in "equality" then they should support immediately ending segregation in the Olympics... and in prisons.

mmaier2112 said...

I would like to see us come up with a systematic, rhetoric-based method of converting sympathetic women to an Alpha / Christian thinking.

Ideas?

taterearl said...

A mini representation of this...I take dance lessons and like to go to dance parties. When I dance with ladies, more often than not they'll tell me I lead well. Their eyes light up and they have fun reacting to whatever move or twist I decide to do in the dance. I'll be honest, that means more to me than even if a woman told me she loved me.

Sadly though...I think dance is one of the few places left in this society where it is required that a man lead and a woman follow for it to work well.

Yohami said...

Höllenhund, it has happened before, and will happen again. Some men will oppose to all of this bullshit and will take charge.

Im on my way and I doubt Im the only one.

All it takes is the confluence of red pill + money + opportunity for any other man to go down that path.

Example. Fund guys like VD + Rollo to go mainstream media and the repercussions will be noticeable.

Even from the power/capital point of view, men as a whole are unhappy: there's money to be made on this revolution.

taterearl said...

"Another possibility is that some will fight and become martyrs, and all will be lost anyway."

Christianity was started by some that fought and became martyrs (and still happens to this day)....and it's been around for 2000 years.

Most causes worth fighting for need some blood spilling to get going.

alphamission said...

I am not promoting martyrdom, for it is a last resort, and those who exercise it are not in control of the results if said martyrdom even has an impact. And Yohami, civilization was built by men, but women are clearly more in control then men are right now. Clearly. Men need to regain power in society, a power we've slowly been giving away ever since the medival era (troubador behavior reaks of beta), maybe earlier. We need to take power back, but the methodology must be covert, otherwise we're left with the gamble of martyrdom

Yohami said...

alphamission, I agree in the context, I prefer direct over covert game though

Anonymous said...

"That is the tragedy of feminism. In attempting to construct an equality that is not only materially nonexistent, but not even possible in the abstract, feminists have managed to degrade both the sexes as well as threaten the existence of Western civilization by striking repeatedly at a number of its basic foundations, including, Christianity, male honor and responsibility, female fertility, and the sacrement of marriage."

Tragedy? It is actually monumentally impressive when you think about it, to accomplish all that in only 40 years. Even nuclear weapons are not that effective.

rycamor said...

Yohami said...

The system is built by men, and men are in power, and will always be.


Yes, the real key to understanding our current malaise is that for a short time in the world the average man had it pretty good, all things considered. That is now coming to a close, and feminism has been the one of the primary agents of this change.

All this talk of the "rise of women" is purely rhetorical B.S. which can be translated as "women are useful chess pieces" in the current fleecing of society by the elite.

Martyrdom is not how you change things. Change things by being in power and setting the rules for the ones under your domain.


True, although Martyrdom can indeed change things if it there are those in power on the side of the martyrs, and if there are more survivors than martyrs. It takes an upswelling of frustration among a large enough piece of the population, combined with support by a small but very accomplished segment of the elite to effect real change in a society.

Hmm...

Martel said...

Despite the best efforts of The Combine, individual alphas can and do thrive in today's society. Pass the shit-test of feminism and you're set, fail it and suffer.

Not unlike in a relationship, She may want you to fail the shit-test, but you're rewarded if you pass.

Eventually, when enough men (and women) discover this, the Grand Shit-Test of feminism will have to manifest even more coercively; The Combine won't give up so easily.

Mild forms of sacrifice already exist. What are Roissy and Rollo's real names?

But that's not enough, for they're already doing a lot of "harm". Therefore, somebody will have to shut them up.

I foresee the day when Vox and the like may have to choose between spreading this stuff and facing genuine, permanent repercussions. When that they comes, those who speak out anyway will indeed be taking up the Cross in its most literal sense.

Yohami said...

Nah. I dont understand why the manosphere uses anonymity. I call bullshit.

Martel said...

Some obviously use it because it would mess up their game (Roosh, Roissy), and the early PUA's don't (we all can easily find out who Style and Mystery really are).

But for some, there are genuine tangible, reasons for anonymity. Rollo has mentioned that there would be genuine repercussions in his career for saying what he thinks.

Although my job has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this, if my genuine views on this stuff were known, my very presence in the office could easily be construed as a "hostile work environment".

It doesn't make logical sense, but it doesn't have to. Sexual harassment law isn't based on action, it's based on the feelings of the "victim". If it were known that I'm spouting "mysogyny" on the internet, I would loose my job. I could maybe sue to get it back, but it would be a serious pain.

Anonymity may be a matter of simply avoiding headaches for now, but if we loose the "war on women", do you seriously think that feminists wouldn't use every tool at their disposal to shut all of us up?

Martel said...

As a quick follow-up, I act as a liaison between two very large, well-known companies. If I become well-known, there will be boycotts threatened against each of them. I will therefore have to depend on the courage of my employers to keep my job.

Feminists have no such worries.

rycamor said...

Martel, the men o' the manosphere need to stop settling for jobs and become their own agents in the world. For the most part, jobs that require you to kowtow to some HR harridan are going to become dead ends within the decade, if not earlier.

Sure, you will be able to make money in them, but increasingly the jobs of this type will become government or bureaucratic jobs that no self-respecting man should want, and the productive people are getting hounded out of all the middle-class corporate jobs, little by little. I've seen it happen again and again.

Start your own business! There are a million things you can do. In fact you can start a small business that pays the bills WHILE you work on plans for a better business. Paint houses, fix things, provide consultation, teach lessons, learn light construction, start a landscaping business, start a tree nursery, design websites, start manufacturing that cool gadget you dreamed up in your basement... whatever, just get the f*ck out of the stupid nonproductive jobs of the western world. That big corporation with the 10-floor glass building is a DINOSAUR. abandon the host before it falls on you.

Sure you might fail, but so? Risk is one of the necessary elements of manhood. Fail. Fail again. Pick yourself up and keep going. Refine plans, or abandon and start new ones. Ideas are out there in abundance.

When you do this--when you do this with all the courage and determination you can muster, and then you reach deep inside yourself for a little more, then you will feel the beating of your heart swelling in your chest each morning. There will be adrenaline, excitement, risk. Even in what might seem mundane businesses, there is a certain thrill when it is yours, and you have the power to effect change through your decisions. Then, you will be able to assert yourself and your ideals in a way that you simply can't within the confines of Cubicle Land.

Martel said...

Rycamore, very true, and I'm working on it.

Nevertheless, one should not be required to own one's own business for the priviledge of speaking Truth too loudly.

Especially when the liars get special legal protection.

physphilmusic said...

This is a great example of what I was talking about in another thread: the sort of "coffee clatch" method that women use to discuss things and come to a consensus, tossing ideas around in what looks random and illogical to an observer, yet with everyone ending up on the same page.

This is a perfect description of what goes on in most groups discussions at a typical liberal college. And also, many Bible study groups. People come up with a hodgepodge of different, possibly contradictory ideas, but to avoid conflict, everybody says a lot of mushy things so that there's some kind of vague consensus. I have never considered whether this is specifically caused by the presence of women in the group, though. I'm curious to experience philosophical debate in an all-male setting again. There probably will be more direct attacks, impersonal logical takedowns, rhetorical crushing and outright humiliation. Which explains why Western analytic philosophy is still mostly a male-dominated profession.

Bob Wallace said...

"Start your own business!"

I own my own business. To get it off the ground I lived at my shop for three months and slept on a couch I had there. My clothes were in the back room, and I showered at my girlfriend's apartment.

Yet since I was no longer a wage-slave, I actually enjoyed what I did. It was a great relief to not have to work for someone else, and I will never go back to working for someone else.

As for college, my degree is worthless.

rycamor said...

Nevertheless, one should not be required to own one's own business for the priviledge of speaking Truth too loudly.

Yes, but we know that already. I'm talking about solutions. In one sense the risk of running your own business in today's government is similar to risking martyrdom. There are plenty of men in jail today simply for the crime of presenting one type of freedom or another to the public, such as Bernard von NotHaus, convicted of "economic terrorism". But, when enough men quit supporting the status quo corporate game, and start doing something directly productive (and often, running under the radar), sooner or later it will have a real impact.

Martel said...

rycamor: Correct again regarding the status quo.

My initial thesis was a defense of those in the 'sphere who choose to remain anonymous. Describing how things are (it's often prudent to discuss this stuff "under the radar") in no way contradicts any assertion as to how things should be, nor what we should do about it.

I agree that doing what you advocate "will have a real impact," and that's exactly why I'm doing what I'm doing. I'm simply being prudent by being anonymous until I can get away with a more open form of advocacy.

Yohami said...

Yes. I've had my own business for a while, and discovering Game only made me better at it. Never been annonymous or hid my genuine points of view, and though it was a slow process I never had any kind of bad repercussion. Sometimes a client has confessed that they read my blog and shit. Girls in human resources of other companies are intrigued.

So I think the fear of getting crushed by violating this norm is bullshit - as long as is done well. Game / Hypergamy trump everything. I can get away with all of it. So can you.

Höllenhund said...

Yohami, there's no documented case of men like Rollo or VD, those who attack societal taboos and pretty lies, receiving mainstream exposure. Good luck trying to replace your overlords. As our pal Brendan wrote:

"It’s just going to become like Brazil. The wealthier classes will control the government and police. The poor will be permitted to do almost whatever they want in their own areas, American favelas if you will. But if they go into the wealthier areas, the gloves come off and eggs will get cracked. Self-policed gated communities and compounds will become the norm. Don’t underestimate the ability of an entrenched elite class to consolidate and hold onto power even if the rest of the country is being ground under foot. It doesn’t always result in revolution. The trick is to give the masses enough bread and circuses, and be willing to take the gloves off when they step out of line."

traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/we-cant-all-just-get-along/#comment-4899

rycamor said...

It is interesting that the coming cultural clash will be along two axes: individual vs. bureaucracy and traditional masculinity vs. feminism. The two congrue.

That's the moment of clarity in pondering modern society: women in the Western world (and increasingly other industrial societies) are vested in creating for themselves an undemanding beta provider for life (government), thus freeing themselves to pursue hypergamy with (what they think are) no consequences. Little do they know...

Anonymous said...

"Because God made the woman from Adam's body, she cannot possibly be superior to him"

Einstein's mother must have been one hell of a theoretical physicist!

(can't let those logical fallacies go by with a free pass)

MaMu1977 said...

@BobWallace

Women should *never* teach anything to men or boys, barring those rare situations in which the woman's work experience dwarfs the experience of the men or boys in question.)

A grandmother or elderly aunt who's able to see through the BS of a new fiance/wife, good. A never married/non-mother who's spent 10+ years at a job, who sees new trainees or students seeing something wrong and steps in, good. An old nurse who's spent decades in a specific field, who mentions to residents/interns/doctors about off-label uses for certain drugs, good. Our current circumstances, in which women with non-related degrees for a job are expected to be seen as ultimate authorities is wrong. Our current situation, in which low-energy woman teachers are supposed to instinctively "know" how to handle groups of high-energy students, is wrong. In my military career, I learned more about my job from male 5-year enlisted than female officers (from the OR to the staging yard to the actual battlefield.)

And as long as the most effective teaching tool is a trainer who understands the consequences of his actions, men (even young ones) will always be better teachers than women (who have been receiving the "pussy pass" for centuries. And given the fact that women's timeline for "youthful indiscretions" has been lengthened from her early teens to early twenties to (now) late thirties, I'm wary at even the idea of having fertile women holding any level authority over men.

kadir karabaş said...

XXX vids porn teenpornwatchx movie. Free porn movie pornfuckyx videos. High porn videos pornhubhd porn.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.