Back soon

I’m a bit slower to come back into the blogging fold than I expected I’d be. Don’t worry. I’m fine, I’m not “burned out”.

I’m working 50-70 hours per week, and will be for the next 3-4 months, so I’ll be sporadic in my posting. Aiming for 3-4 posts per week.

Read Full Post »

Gotta take a break. Back on 11/9.

Work is heating up– a very good thing– and there’s a lot going on in my personal life. I’m going to put my blogging life on hiatus until Monday, November 9.

Read Full Post »

Two-day break, Oct. 21 – 22

I’m going to take a break from posting for two days. I’ll be back on the 23rd.

Read Full Post »

MRA needs to drop racism. Now.

I can’t say it enough times. The men’s rights (MRA) movement needs to divorce itself entirely from racism, and to end all associations with racists and “HBD” junk science. If MRA wants to be taken seriously as a movement, it needs to evict all associations with known racists and to amplify the liberal, gender-egalitarian, anti-racist voice of activists like this one.

Racism is disgusting, immoral, and downright evil. It’s also the most universally hated ideology (although, sadly, still an attitude many people hold) in the civilized world, so any movement that can be associated with racism is doomed to fail. We weaken our ability to be accepted by the mainstream if we accept racists under our umbrella. To include racism in one’s political strategy is to bet bitterly against social progress, and that I’m not willing to do. Racist political strategies worked– a deeply depressing fact– for the right wing into the 1980s, and were successful even in the 2000 Republican primaries, when Rove’s “black daughter” rumor sunk John McCain in South Carolina. However, they don’t work anymore, and even if they did, it’d be completely morally unacceptable to use them.

I am an MRA because I am a hard-line, no-bullshit egalitarian. If I were born in China or Saudi Arabia, where women are treated horribly, I’d be a staunch feminist instead. However, I live in a society where men are at a disadvantage, and I believe it necessary to correct these injustices. We can start by eliminating divorce theft and increasing the penalties associated with casual sex. Given the damage they do to the dating and marital environment, it is a crime not to jail and rehabilitate alphas for example.

Moderate and proper MRA is not about restoring some 1950s paradise that never actually existed, keeping women “barefoot and pregnant”, or limiting womens’ roles in society. It’s about restoring a culture that honors love and the family, and one that encourages men and women to be the best they can be. I want to see women succeeding in engineering and science, and I believe we should remove any social obstacles that make it harder for them do so. I want to see the formation of loving couples and families. I want to see women receiving equal pay for equal work. (However, I think women who sleep with alphas, and also those alphas, should have news of their exploits piped into their workplaces. Grass-roots action, friends.)

I’m also quite liberal, for the record. I fully support full rights (including marriage and adoption) for gay people, and my economic positions would be left-of-center everywhere except Scandinavia. My liberalism and MRA come from the same source: my deep desire to see social justice.

On a final note, I believe racism is responsible, to some degree, for the mess we’re in. Female indulgence is an outgrowth of the time-honored practice of putting white women on a pedestal. For example, the current epidemic of female misbehavior began in an era when men would put up with that shit in order to have a white wife. Those who evict racism entirely from their souls open up a much larger pool of women to date, and improve their odds of finding quality women drastically. Interracial and international dating advance the MRA cause and promote personal happiness, a double-win. The most powerful thing a male MRA or MRA sympathizer can do to combat female misbehavior is not to date, fuck, or marry misbehaving women– statistically speaking, a large proportion of those who take such an attitude will marry foreign women and women of color.

Read Full Post »

No essay today.

Very busy today, so no essay. Social life’s humming, work is picking up, a great Haskell book came in the mail. (Why am I learning Haskell? For the hell of it.)

I’ll plug a post that I really liked, at Ferdinand’s blog: This is a great summary of the historical and present relationship between the MRA and the “Game” community.

Read Full Post »

Today’s post is over at The Spearhead

I will link to it when it is published.

Read Full Post »

2 of my favorite dating videos

I didn’t intend, from the outset, for this to be primarily a dating blog, but the so-called “Roissy-sphere” attracts me. Why? On the front lines of cultural decline, I’m terrfied, quite frankly. There’s no other way to put it. I’m 26 in less than two weeks, and I’m starting to recognize the significant probability of being a lifelong single up to age 96. Given the background of a dying culture, there are just very few decent women left, and thousands are being taken off the market or chewed up (rendered irreparably damaged by casual sex and combat dating) every day. It’s an insane, brutal, and degrading race against a ruthless, earthquake-inducing damage clock.

Being alone for a few months or years doesn’t scare me. I’ve endured much worse. Being forced to be alone for five or more decades, because of something I didn’t create and can’t control, is frightening. In the off chance that I do manage to find a woman worth marrying, what of my children? If they’re going to be born into a society anything like the U.S. of the 2000s, I don’t want to have kids. What could be more cruel than setting people up, people who do not exist yet, for inhumane suffering at the hands of an imploding culture? Frankly, I can think of so many reasons not to have children that I’m surprised so many people do: the ludicrously expensive “educational” rat race beginning in preschool and culminating in the trend-ridden and increasingly ridiculous college admissions process, a society that still rewards bullshitting rainmakers better than those with talent and competence, and the utter buttfail that is the modern dating process.

I enjoy Roissy for his insightful analysis of what is wrong with women and dating in the U.S., and on these topics he’s often spot on, but he offers no solutions. Game is no solution; it’s an adaptation to a battered and hopeless world. The pick-up artist is a cultural cockroach, a creature that thrives in damaged environments. Game doesn’t improve men or women, so much as it’s a way of exploiting their debased state for personal benefit.

There’s hope. I’m not ready to call the nadir yet, but it may have already passed. Explanation of why I consider this possible will be given in future posts. We seem to have entered the stark, unforgiving– but eerily beautiful from a distance– World of Ruin out of which heroes rise.

For your Saturday morning viewing pleasure, I offer two light-hearted dating-related videos that I’ve enjoyed.

1. Close But No Cigar. Weird Al is brilliant. But don’t just listen to this video; watch it as well. The animation was done by John Kricfalusi, the genius behind the Ren and Stimpy series. About a man who ruthlessly rejects women over minor faults, it’s a reversal of modern dating, whereby quality men are turned away over extremely mild events of social awkwardness (i.e. a lack of “game”).

2. How a PUA Handles Being Dumped. This is epic. There are few things more beautiful in this world than the impeccably-orchestrated dismantling of an evil woman.

Read Full Post »

The week ahead (9/21 – 9/25)

As I’ve said before, I tend to write my posts over the weekend and release them during the week. Here’s my release schedule, subject to change, for the coming week. The lack of thematic variety was unintentional, but post hoc, I’m going to call it Dating Week.

Monday 21: Lust story, part 1: An allegory illustrating the average-case life trajectory of a modern Sex and the City gal. Our protagonist is Sarah, a 28-year-old Manhattanite who “has it all”. She’s sown some “wild oats”, but she’s ready to settle down with Mr. Wright, a 32-year-old venture capitalist. Will she find love, or rejection? Tune in Monday morning, and meet this delightful fictional character, one about whom I probably won’t succeed at making you give a damn.

Tuesday 22: Lust story, part 2: Return for the second half of this very special story essay rant for its dramatic conclusion. Surprise ending, I promise!

Wednesday 23: Opposite-sex friendship can work. Here’s how : Genuine friendship between single, heterosexual opposite-sex adults is rare. Why? The answer’s not “sexual tension”. Platonic friendships are common in teenagers, who are just as horny as adults. Nor are same-sex platonic friendships uncommon among gays. I address the causes opposing opposite-sex platonic pairings, and discuss solutions.

Thursday 24: You can’t win at combat dating. Win by ending it. Advice for American woman on how to “clean up” in dating by cleaning up dating. No gimmicks are involved. It’s a straightforward approach. Return his calls? Admit that you like him? Demand respect from him? Yes, it can be that simple.

<strike>Friday 25</strike>: Online dating can work. Here’s how. Current Internet dating sites suck. Hard. We aren’t using the available technology nearly as effectively as we should. Much of online dating merely replicates (at scale, its sole advantage) the failed dating practices we already have. I’ll discuss a model for a dating site that, given a sufficient user base, just might “move the needle” on our society’s currently inefficient dating process.

Read Full Post »

Reader poll: I’m considering imposing a word-count limit

I write. A lot. In general, when I’m blogging, I write my posts over the weekend and release them during the work week. This enables me to target others’ prime Internet-using hours while remaining (mostly) outside of the blog circuit during my working hours. It also means that I have a lot of time during which to write my posts, and that they can get very long.

I’m finishing a post (probably out Tuesday) that’s approaching 1700 words. I know: that’s a long post. I’m tempted to make it a two- or three-parter and, more generally, impose a word limit on my own posts. I can be verbose, but I don’t want to enter “TL;DR” territory.

What maximum length should I impose on my posts? 500 words? 1000? 17? I tend to think it the upper limit depends on the quality of the writer, and I consider my writing to be quite good, but blog posts are supposed to be short. I can certainly write 3000 words of coherent English prose in an hour, but most people have no interest in reading that much. Especially not during the work day, when they’re not supposed to be reading me at all.

Advise me: What should be my upper limit for word count?

This post is 231 words long. Word counts of some recent posts are:

Teabaggers : 967

White men go another way : 1183

Gratitude : 117

Race/IQ = cultural : 1438

Straight from the trash : 191

Black and white : 1545

Read Full Post »

I don’t think teabaggers are racist, just bovine.

This is a shocking depiction of what we, the rational and intelligent, are up against. Teabaggers, a drag against the force of American social progress, represent a populist movement against one of the foremost prerequisites for a nation to qualify as First World: universal healthcare. They oppose “Obamacare” because of the well-spoken Harvard graduate proposing it, hate “lib’ruls” out of a misguided belief that egalitarian economic and social policies conflict with sexual morality, and they consistently vote against their own interests. They’ve accused Obama of being a racist, a terrorist, a Muslim, a czarist, and a communist. They don’t listen to reason. They don’t even understand their own positions, as the video above illustrates clearly. They take as divinely-revealed truth a tome that most of them have never read, of which nearly all of them possess only a translated version, and of which virtually all lack sufficient comprehension of its cultural context to interpret properly. (Question to ponder: after death, you’re either going to be thrown into eternal torture or divine rapture, based on a set of rules regarding faith and behavior. The “final exam”, death, will inevitably come, and could happen at any time– even tomorrow. Its stakes are infinitely high. Materials for study: a widely-available medium-sized book that would require a mere couple hundred hours to read properly. If you sincerely believe all of this; given the stakes, how can you not have read the book, cover-to-cover, several times?)

This is because they don’t respond to reason, but to passion. This is the fundamental difference between evangelical conservatives and urban, educated liberals. Passion, not a reasoned argument, is king: a man who enters a religious ecstasy, writhing on the floor and speaking in tongues, is a rock star to them. This is why a screaming, bitter, fat and drug-addicted demagogue like Rush Limbaugh is able to bring these people to hold passionately a set of positions, contrary to their own interests, that they don’t understand. This is why it’s easy to get them up in arms over “czars”. Throw some shit against the wall, and maybe it will stick. Throw shit against the wall hard, so hard it hits the wall loudly, and an army of bovine discontents will come to your assistance and make sure it sticks.

All this said, I don’t think the bovines are especially racist. Are many of them extremely bigoted? Sure; anyone would who believe in a God who would subject someone to eternal torture for disbelieving in Him, despite providing no objective proof of his existence, and considers such a God omnibenevolent, is a bigot. (Indeed, they’d probably argue for my damnation. I am a theist who practices Buddhist meditation and believes, as the early Christians did, in reincarnation. I also believe that Jesus was at least a bodhisattva but I am agnostic about his specific theological role.) They don’t like people who challenge their ideas or seem to threaten their way of life. And they are scared. However, I don’t think that the younger teabaggers, for the most part, are racist. David Brooks reported on the friendly interaction between many of the “tea party” protesters and the Black Family Reunion Celebration. Most of these people aren’t indignant that a black man is president; they’re angry that a black man who isn’t like them is president. When this man is highly intelligent, has a beautiful family, and seems to have impeccable personal and family values, they can’t attack him over an extramarital blowjob as they did Clinton; they have to make shit up.

Why do the teabaggers detest Obama, if they’re not racist? As they see it: He’s an elitist. He’s an illegitimate child, raised by his mother. He’s a Muslim. His wife (by Republican standards) wears the pants in his marriage. As fits nicely with the conservatives’ zero-sum worldview, his universal health care plan will require “death panels”. Most, if not all, of these points are objectively false. However, the teabaggers have been told these things with enough passion that they believe them to be true. A deliberate campaign has been waged to mislead the bovines into voting against their own interests, with passionate demagogues spouting blather that has nothing to do with reality. Fox News, genteel in comparison to Limbaugh or Beck, plays the “good cop” role by framing objective and settled matters as “debates”, further muddying the water: Was Obama born within the United States? Is global warming real, and if so, is it caused by humans? Does Michelle Obama hate white people? Evolution: solid science, or atheist propaganda?

Teabaggers are confused, frightened, religiously intolerant, benighted, xenophoic and small-minded. Some of them, indeed, are racist and have overtly racial motivations in opposing Obama. I just don’t think that most of them do. With over 85 percent of under-50 adults approving of interracial marriage, and that number close to 100% among 18- to 29-year olds, racism appears to be on its way out. I think many of these people have black friends (Christian blacks only, however) and plenty of non-racial (if illogical and often wrong) reasons for their opposition to Obama. While racism is certainly the traditional reason for poor whites to mobilize against their own interests, and a contributing factor to the success of the Southern strategy; I think it has been replaced, since the 1990s, by politico-religious fervor.

In the South Park episode, “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson“, Stan Marsh’s father Randy humiliates himself on national television, using a racial slur in the course of incorrectly solving a Wheel of Fortune puzzle. Stan, South Park‘s comedic straight man, hopes to clear the matter by saying “my dad isn’t a racist, he’s just stupid”. I would argue the same is true of teabaggers. Well, it’s mostly true. Specifically, most teabaggers aren’t racist; all of them are stupid.

Read Full Post »